Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC81036 - 7/11/81 - 5130 Ewing AvePLANNING COMIVIISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: --- FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission '��i�g�� 7 City Vault Minutes: City Council '71318/ City Vault Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council g/_ 13 £�jo18l City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION Application No. 81036 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 5130 Ewing Avenue North Legal Description of Property Lot 18, N2 17 - Blk. 3 Linden Shore Twin Lake — Owner James R. and Jacqueline J. Bateman Address 5130 Ewing Avenue North Applicant Jacqueline Bateman Phone No. 536-0324 Address Same Phone No. Same Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval X Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Allow a 24'x26' garage to be built on the property. Fee $15.00 Receipt No. 55881 App cant s Signature PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ate Dates of P.C. Consideration: Approved Denied this day of 19 L, subject to the follow- ing cond-tionsTp„�%�-�G� l.� Chairman -- �`-/-L,-- - --=--------------------------------- CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied �_ this day of D�i±l_ 19 g �, with the following amendment: er P/1 Form No. 18 (over please) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Prior to submission of an application for plan review and approval, prospective applicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning staff to discuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance and policy provisions, Three (3) copies of the following documents and information shall be submitted, at least 14 F s prior to the date of the regular Commission meeting, concurrent with filing theapplication equired documents must be consistent with ordinance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): 1. A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. 2.* An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating: a) parking layouts including access provisions; b) designations and locations of accessory buildings; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location; e) curbing, 3.* A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded; location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. 4.* Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. 5.* Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions. 6. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, and said drawings/plans shall be so certified. NOTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, a Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting financial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by the City, are required. Acceptable financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and performance bond. Copies of the Zoning Ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative Office. Questions should be directed to the Department of Planning and Inspection. P/I Form No. 19 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81036 Applicant: Jacqueline Bateman Location: 5130 Ewing Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance to construct a 24' x 26' garage on the property at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. The property is zoned RI and is surrounded by other single family homes. The dwelling on the property is also 24' x 26' (624 sq.-ft.) and the Zoning Ordinance does not permit accessory structures in the R1 zone to be more than 75% of the area of the principal dwelling. It also limits dwelling under 880 sq. ft. to only one such accessory structure (see Section 35-310 attached). There- fore, the maximum size garage for this property permitted under the ordinance is 468 sq. ft. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she argues that the Standards for a Variance (see Section 35-240:2 also attached) are met in the following manner: a) A hardship would result from meeting the ordinance requirements since a 10' addition would have to be made to the dwelling. Such an addition, at today's costs, is beyond the means of the applicant. b) The dwelling is unique in that it is one of the few small homes left in the area. c) The existing condition (a 624 sq. ft. house) was not created by the applicant, but is a product of an earlier time when houses were smaller and any garage at all was a luxury. d) The granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Rather, it would benefit the community if the house remains only as large as necessary, since a larger house would consume more energy. The garage, meanwhile, would upgrade the property. The applicant has also submitted a rather lengthy list of signatures of surround- ing property owners agreeing that they have no objection to a three -car garage being built at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. Background Information Since 1968, when the current ordinance was adopted, there have been two similar variance requests: one in 1968 which was denied and one in 1972 which was approved. In 1968, the owner of the property at 6525 Beard Avenue North sought a variance to place a 576 sq. ft. addition onto 352 sq. ft. existing garage for a total of 928 sq. ft. The dwelling was 960 sq. ft. and the maximum permitted under the ordinance was 720 sq. ft. That variance was denied on the grounds that applicant had not shown that the Standards for a Variance were met. 6-11-81 -1- Application No. 81036 continued In 1972, the owner of the property at 5559 Lyndale Avenue North received a variance to add 484 sq. ft. onto an existing 484 sq. ft. garage for a total of 968 sq. ft. The dwelling in that case was 1097 sq. ft. and the maximum permitted garage 823 sq. ft. The City Council approved the variance noting the uniqueness of the property in size and location (adjacent to the proposed freeway); and that the variance would not be detrimental since there are no other single family residences in the vicinity of the property and the extra garage space would allow the applicant to store his hobby cars inside rather than scattering them around the property (Minutes of the October 16, 1972 City Council meeting). It should also be noted that when the existing dwelling was built in 1947, the City Zoning Ordinance of the time permitted construction of garage space "for not more than three noncommercial vehicles." This provision remained unchanged until 1957 when the ordinance was amended to allow for garages not more than 600 sq. ft. or for parking of not more than four noncommercial vehicles. In 1961, the Zoning Ordinance was again amended to allow garages not more than 660 sq. ft. in area for noncommercial uses. Finally, in 1968, the present ordinance was adopted which allowed for one garage up to 75% of the ground coverage of the principal dwelling for dwellings up to 880 sq. ft. in area. The 1961 figure of 660 sq. ft. for garages is precisely 75% of 880 sq. ft. for dwellings in the 1968 ordinance. Analysis and Recommendation As to the Standards for a Variance, the applicant's contention of a hardship seems to be based on economics. Another way of seeing the problem is that the maximum size garage allowed by ordinance of 468 sq. ft. presents an inconvenience for the property owner, but not a hardship in the sense -of denying her the reasonable use of her property. It is also true that the dwelling is fairly unique in its size, but uniqueness is based on conditions pertaining to land, not structures. The parcel in question is not at all unique. Staff would agree that the difference between what the applicant desires and what the ordinance permits was not caused by the applicant, but by a change in the ordinance over time. It is also evident that the construction'of a three -car garage would have no detrimental effect on other properties in the area as witnessed by the lengthy list of signatures of surrounding property owners submitted. A detriment to the public welfare, however, would result from the obvious dilution of the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, in comparison to the two previous variance requests for oversized garages, the present request appears to be more similar to Application No. 68061 which was denied. Overall, the grounds for a variance are mixed. Because the applicant does not appear to meet all the standards, approval of the variance is not recommended in this case. Staff would acknowledge, however, a growing trend toward larger garages to meet the demands of two -income families with increasing possessions which need to be stored, but not in a heated structure. Escalating construction costs have also lead to a trend of smaller, energy -efficient houses. The current ordinance re- quirement regulating the size of accessory structures may work against these trends and perhaps should be reviewed. Also, the fact that previous ordinances allowed for garages of 600 sq. ft. to 660 sq. ft. without regard to structure size suggests that the current ordinance simply did not contemplate houses with much less that 880 sq. ft. of ground coverage. Therefore, some review of the purpose of the ordinance seems to be in order. 6-11-81 -2- Ordinance. 4. All parking will be off-street on space provided by the applicant to the maximum extent feasible. 5. The hours of operation shall be 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The.Planning Commission discussed among themselves whether to send a recommendation on to the City Council regarding whether an ordi- nance amendment should be pursued. Commissioner Simmons suggested that possibly the ordinance could allow six nonresident students as long as the parking is on private property. Chairman Hawes asked whether the limit of four students is because of parking. The Secretary stated that was his opinion. Commissioner Theis stated that the main guiding principle in evaluating home occupations is that they are secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. He stated that the proposed home occupation with 19 or 20 students per night, five nights per week, simply is more than the ordinance comprehends as a home occupation. Commissioner Simmons added, however, that she felt hours of operation could have a greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the number of students if the parking stays on private property. Chairman Hawes asked the staff to look into the possibility of an ordinance re- vision on home occupations and report to the Planning Commission. APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35-310, Subsection 1 (b) (3), to build a three -car garage 24' x 26' on a lot with a dwelling, the ground coverage of which is also 24' x 26', at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81036 attached). There was a question by Commissioner Malecki as to whether the existing garage would be removed before the new garage would be built. The Planning Assistant answered in the affirmative. Com- missioner Simmons asked whether the application was to have a three -car garage or one which was 624 sq. ft. in area. The Secre- tary answered that it would be 624 sq. ft. The main. thing, he said, is that the garage be 100% of the dwelling area rather than the 75% as presently limited by the ordinance. Commissioner Simmons stated that some of the comments in the staff report and in the applicant's letter seem contradictory. She noted that the idea presented is that smaller houses will be more energy efficient and yet the applicant seeks a larger garage to house more cars which use more gasoline. She stated that this seemed confusing. The Secretary stated that the Building Official has had many inquiries for garages larger than the Zoning Ordinance permits at present. He stated the opinion that the guiding principle of the Zoning Ordinance is to keep the residence the principal structure on any lot. He also added that provisions of the building code regarding residential 6-11-81 -4- occupancy and the size of a free floating slab both limit the size of garages to 1,000 sq. ft. The Secretary suggested that perhaps the ordinance requiring 880 sq. ft. of dwelling before more than one accessory structure can be built is inappropriate and should be modified. He further suggested possibly allowing garages up to 100% of the ground coverage of any dwelling which is not over 1,000 sq. ft., or two accessory structures, the combination of which.is not greater than the ground coverage of the dwelling. Chairman Hawes asked whether temporary accessory buildings are included in the square footage limit. The Secretary responded that temporary storage sheds under 150 sq. ft. are not. Commissioner Simmons noted that metal sheds could therefore ameliorate the sit- uation for Mrs. Bateman. The Secretary acknowledged this, but suggested that if the Commission is in favor of an ordinance amend- ment, it should table the application until an acceptable ordinance amendment can be prepared. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mrs. Jacqueline Bateman addressed the Planning'Commission. She stated that her understanding of the Zoning Ordinance was to protect property values. 'She interpreted this to mean that the City does not want to see a small house on a lot with a pole barn for an accessory structure. She explained that two people living in a small dwelling do not wish to expand their dwelling and bring on added expense just to be granted the right for a larger garage. She stated that the primary need is for more storage space for the family vehicles. She stated that she did not agree with the method proposed by the Secretary to change the ordinance. Finally, she made the argument that by housing her vehicles inside the garage, she would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons explained to Mrs. Bateman that the Secretary is actually arguing in her favor and that it is a preferable pro- cedure to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for larger garages than to grant variances. Commissioner Theis stated that his con- cern would be accessory buildings that are actually larger than the dwelling on the lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. There was no comment from other residents in the area. Chairman Hawes explained to Mrs. Bateman that with respect to her situation under the existing ordinance, a garage is allowed only 75% of the ground coverage of the dwelling. For her to have the size garage she applied for, either a variance or an ordinance amendment would have to be passed. He stated that*the Planning Commission and the staff both prefer a change in the ordinance over a variance. He suggested tabling the application to allow for an ordinance amendment to be drafted allowing for accessory structures 100% of the ground coverage of a house less than 1,000 square feet. The Secretary also stated that there are basically those two options open to the Planning Commission, the variance or the ordinance change. He acknowledged that the timing of an ordinance change would take longer than a variance. Mrs. Bateman complained to the Secretary that he seemed to be stuck on the letter of the law and not the spirit. The Secretary answered that it is not up to the staff to enforce what, in their opinion, 6-11-81 -5- �is the "spirit" of the law, but rather the ordinance the way it is written. He added that in this situation the ordinance states that the applicant is entitled to one accessory structure no more than 75% of the ground coverage of the principal building. He pointed out that it is his opinion that the standards for variances are not met particularly with respect to uniqueness of this situation. He acknowledged that the ordinance might in some respects work hardships on small houses, but that the proper way to address these problems would be through an ordinance amendment which would effect all situations in a like manner. Mrs. Bateman stated that she - thought requiring a larger house to get a larger garage is wrong. She added that a big house is a waste of energy and is, therefore, unpatriotic. She also stated that a garage is a better storage area, from an economic standpoint, than area within the dwelling. Commissioners Theis and Simmons expressed some agreement with these remarks, but added that an ordinance amendment is preferable to granting a variance. The Planning Assistant explained to the Batemans that the process of changing the ordinance is not so lengthy that the garage could not be built by this fall and that they should, therefore, not feel that there would be an unreason- able delay. Commissioner Malecki suggested that the Planning Commission simply deny the variance application and send it on to the City Council so that the applicant could gain a quick hearing of her variance request. The Secretary explained that a variance application is a traditional vehicle in bringing ordinance amendments before the Council so that the entire issue can be reviewed. Commissioner Theis agreed with this approach, noting that the City Council would only have to consider the matter once if the variance accompanied an ordinance amendment. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING OF APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Simmons to table Application No. 81036 and to direct staff to bring new ordi- nance language at its June 25, 1981 meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis and Simmons.. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81037 (Duane Enninga) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request by the resident at 5435 Emerson Avenue North for a variance from Section 35-530 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a new dwelling with an existing "alley house" remaining on the property during construction. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81037 attached). Commissioner Theis asked whether the applicant is living in the alley house at present. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked whether he would be building the house himself and whether he was a carpenter by trade. The Secretary answered in the affirmative on both questions. 6-11-81 -6- the public: hearing. The: motion p<<ssed. ACTION REC01111.,1111iING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81046 l-cnnepin County) Motion by CCozrriissioner_ Lucht seconded by Cc— .r[� i ner Malecki to -`, recommend cpproval of Application No. 81048, on the basis that the Standards for Fire Code Variances are met, subject to the following conditions: 1. The system shall be maintained and tested in accordance with N1.PA Standards. Results of the testing shall be supplied to the City of Brooklyn Center annually. 2. The Automatic Building Management System shall be continually monitored 24 hours- a day, seven days a week with notification given immediately to the Brooklyn Center Police Department (561-5720) if an emergency should arise. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) The Secretary introduced the final business item, a request for a variance from Section 35-310:1(b) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for construction of a garage equal to 100%.of the ground coverage of -the dwelling at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. The; Secretary briefly reviewed the Planning Commission's discussion of an action to table the application at its June 11, 1981 meeting. He recalled for the Commission that an ordinance change had been recommended by the staff and accepted in concept by the Planning Commission to allow accessory structures for all dwellings to be up to 1000 of the dwelling area, but not to exceed 1,000 square feet in area for any single accessory structure. He presented to the Planning Commission, draft ordinance language which would accomplish that change. He also - noted that one change of the language is that all dwellings are en- titled up to two accessory structures, the total area of which may not exceed 100% of the ground coverage of the dwelling. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting and asked for comment on the pro- posed ordinance amendment. Mrs. Jacqueline Bateman stated that the ordinance language looks fine to her. The Secretary briefly reviewed the ordinance procedure, stating that the ordinance would probably become effective toward the end of August. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Ccmmissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that the draft ordinance seems fine to him and recorurended its approval by the Planning Commission. ACTION RECO,IMENDIcgG DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Blater.,,�n) Motion, by Coi. issioner allieis seconded by Coilimissioner Malecki to rccomu.�end dtnial of Application No. 81036 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman l7cltVc'S, C01111rtissioner s Malecki, T11ei s, Luclit, Sinup..ons and Ainas . 6-25-81 -15- Voting against: ncnc. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMI2NDING A-PPROVAL OF DI:1A T Or.7 rNr\NCE A.bENDMENT FOR SECTION 35-310 : 1 (b) OF TIlT: ZONING ORDINANCE Motion by Comniissro .r Lucht seto recommend approval of the draft ordinance amcnclent to increase the allowable size of accessory structures for all d:.;,e7_lings up to 100% of the ground coverage of thc: dwelling building, not to exceed 1,000 square feet; and to allow up to two accessory structures for all dwellings, the combined aroa of which may not exceed the 100% of the area of the dwelling build�_r_g. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners i>aalecki, Theis, Lu.cht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion. passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission alternate ordinance amendments to allow for the manufacture of electric vehicles within the Industrial Park. Chairman Hawes inquired whether the pre- sent ordinance would allow for the manufacture of fibreglass bodies within the Industrial Park so long as it is a separate use from the assembly of electric vehicles which would take place at a different location. The Secretary responded that the ordinance could be in- terpreted in that way. He stated that manufacture of fibreglass bathtubs is alreadv allowed under the ordinance section permitting manufacture of "miscellaneous plas_ic products." He stated that the proposed use by Classic Electric Car Corporation was presented as limited to assembly at first, then expanded to include all manufact- uring aspects. Commissioner Lucht stated that he preferred the more restrictive language. Commissioner Ainas recalled that the concern during the original discussion of the ordinance amendment was with metal body work, as opposed to fabricating fibreglass bodies. Commissioner Theis ob- served that if the restrictive version of the amendment is adopted, then manufacture of plastic bodies is prohibited. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern about the expansion of the use into as yet unknown aspects of the manufacturing of electric vehicles. The Secretary discussed briefly the evolution of the staff's and the Commission's thinking about the proposed use from an assembly operation to a full blown manufacturing use. A discussion ensued regarding the possible language to permit the assembly of motor vehicles in the Industrial Park. Finally, Com- missioner Lucht recommended that the ordinance read "assembly of electric powered vehicles" with no other restrictions. The rest of the Commissioners generally agreed on this reco-mmendation. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDIN1\110E AM)"ENDIME ;T RELATING TO THE ASSEMBLY OF ELECTRIC POT„'EPETD VEI-iICLE_S Motion by Commissioner Lucht secondea by Co7,dduiss o r I"I5ti ec r to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to Section 35-330:1 and 35-331:1 to include the follcwing: "assembly of electric powered vehicles." Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary briefly reviewed the Howes Fertilizer case with the Planning Commission. He stated that the judge's rifling had been "16 - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar,.and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION 130. 81036 The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 15 through 16 of the June 25, 1981 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81036. He reviewed the applicant's letter in which she requested a variance to allow the construction of a garage equal to 100% of the ground coverage of the dwelling at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. He explained at the June 11, 1981 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission concluded that the standards for variance were not met but they did discuss the ordinance governing accessory structures and at that meeting the Planning Commission tabled the application and instructed the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment. He explained the ordinance language proposed this evening would allow an accessory structure no greater than 1,000 square feet and no more than two on anyone lot. He added that it would be required that the accessory buildings or building do not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling structure. He explained the Planning Commission at its June 25, 1981 meeting recommended denial of the application following a public hearing on the grounds that the standards for variance are not met, but that it also approved the ordinance amendment regarding accessory structures. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Applicatic No. 81036. No one appeared to speak at the public hearing and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Application No. 81036. Voting in favor: Mayor. Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka'and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to deny Application No. 81036 on the grounds that the standards for variance are not met. Voting in favor: Mayor'Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to offer for first reading an.ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City ordinances regarding accessory structures in the R-1 and R-2 zones. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 81038 The Director o.c Planning & Inspectiion presented and reviewed for Council members pages 1 through 4 of the June 25, 1981 Planning Cor;rm.i.ssion meeting minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for �,,nplication No. Iie proceeded to review the site plan and ..rev.i.ewed the proposes] access Us into the site. He also rev.i..ewed the parking plan indicated :in the sit(�> plan and also the landscaping plan proposed. 7-13--81 CITY OF BROOKLY14 CENTER ORDINANCE N0. 81-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35-310:1(b) (3) of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: (3) [One accessory building or carport (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) where the dwelling building ground coverage area does not exceed 880 square feet; in the event the ground coverage area of the dwelling building exceeds 880 square feet, two accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) will be permitted provided that no one accessory building or carport shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1000 square feet, whichever is lesser; and provided that the total area of both accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) shall not exceed 100% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building, or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser.] (3) Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa) The ground coverage of any single shall be no greater than 1000 squ bb) No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc) The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildinas shall not exceed the around coverage of the Section 2. Section 35-311:1(b)(3) of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: (3) [One accessory building (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) where the dwelling building ground coverage does not exceed 880 square feet. In the event the ground coverage area of the dwelling building exceeds 880 square feet, two accessory buildings (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) will be permitted, provided that no one accessory building shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1000 square feet, whichever is lesser; and provided that the total area of both accessory buildings (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) shall not exceed 100% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser.] ORDINANCE NO. 81-13 (3) Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the aa) The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1000 square feet. bb) No more than two accessory structures shall be perrstted on any one residential premises. cc) The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this loth day of August 19 81 / Q Mayor =ST Cler Date of Publication July 23, 1981 Effective Date August 22, 1981 (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Cedisficat,� For .DAMES R. GATEMAN LOT 18 AND THE NORTH V2 OF Lor 17, BLocrs 3, LINDEN SHORES oN TWIN LAKE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES07A - -' p 135.00 + ' toi4fAET4vEwA _. CIY. phi 67.! M CFw� Link Fent6. f0► `t v �,� oJ�; ' w In Q EXISTING '1°�� %2 ah Q GARAGE(j 24. OD -w NCho�n Link Fan�t t O 4o.1 -- - s7.5 ~ N I O. ♦ L o1 30 _J I W hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above and of the location of all buNdirgs thereon, and all vhM* encroachments, if any, from or on said land, that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and tut I am a duly Registered land Surveyor under the laws of the State Of Minnesota. As surveyed by me this 8 O TM day of ha4 , 1fk 81 Land Jurvoyinp Land P% ninp Em*wwwrft Ergirt w tp 0ondominiurrts scale 101300 Owrolw SW WAftw # bund • 1 30 0 `4 W J W p.o. box j. Osseo, minrwsota S&W 0 (612) 425-2181 casittv amm a, .._ pr, t)a.n 12 - 81 ��18 �s N . M . ,,,a a CjVt9f5ifled r.�. t aloe Na Me l a 54 - 7 —1133— ftv, ,14 R= a APPLICATION NO.� --_ 81036 R .� ✓� TH AXE N. 4 TH + ,VE - � � M t ` EEZE��AF-1