Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC67048 - 9/7/67 - 6043 Ewing Ave0 PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: 3 ,76 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 670yB PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: R 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: see tc�os�L7/rs/t 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 Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission 9/7/ *7 City Vault Minutes: City Council g�6�7 City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 67048 Street Location of Property 6043 Ewing Avenue North Legal Description of Property I,Qt 13. R1og-k 4„ wangst�RrnQkjy" Terrace Addition Owner: Name Joseph Clark Address 6043 Ewing Avenues Ne_ Telephone Applicant: Same Address _ Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit x Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request _ Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an addition to an existing attached garage to be closer to the side property line than the 5 feet permitted by ordinance. Reason for Request Fee $ 5.00 Receipt No. _ 1-, Applic t August 25, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the '% day of a ,1 , 19-, the request represented by this petition was approved disa rove, subject to the following conditions. (circle one)_ Chairman COUNCIL ACTION Approved Denied this 4�day of 19 Approved with the following amendment PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No, Applicant2 Description of Request Location cif_ Property: Owner of Property: BACKGROUND 1) 67048 Mr. and Mrs. Jos Variance from Sec permit constructs to an existing at Iae closer to the I.:han ;:he five fee prdinance (1043 Ewing Avenue Block 4, Wangstad' Terrace Addition) Same as above The Clark s house presently has an a 13 feet in width (3.5 feet of which stairway to a side door) 14 feet fro. property line. They propose to add 10 feet of garage to result in a usa 19.5 feet in width, with a 16 foot w sideyard setback remaining if this a, be permitted would be slightly less the property line, POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: i) Clark ion 35-401 to n of an addition ached garage to ide property line permitted by North (Lot 13, s Brooklyn garage nupbythe outh side tional aging area r. The were to feet from The question has arisen of whether a hazardous fire situation would exist in this case if the variance was to be granted, due to the existence of a hedge and fenca along the property line next to the garage. 'The City Ordinances provide no regulation relating to minimum distan es between hedges or fences and adjacent structures so that con- ceivably, a situation could exist where i building was set back the required distance from a pr perty line, and the entire intervening area could be filled with flammable items such as hedges and fence;. With regard to buildings, however_, the City's building code does provide for the use of certain fire resistive materials in buildings closer than 3 fee from a property line Application No� 67048(Continued) POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Continued) 2) The home adjacent to the Clark property jalong the south property line is 10 feet distant, which would leave slightly less than 14 feet between the two buildings if this garage addition were permitted,, December'. M54 u -} Dtno6 Iron Monume.4s � � 1 ' b•' �' �S-� L J F1 ,.r V. ,71.'�•�. �`�� Lam/ 4 J � 8� s 3�D E. iAotd ►i�s�) r c -. ►--'---•�--' au,-�--fir-. �,. ..ca�..+..-YJ�-�F...� . . 7 �i10 7I 4sS • S F.(5AN,FiF.LD NC Enitinurs F t' Surveyors v �7�\ .A• 0 5E.carixrs Lot �!, Aad �iIS• C b y z 4. - � 33 43 ,V - N f � 1 hereby ce6fhi 1 haA surv"td and ple�ed theproperkY described on N11 plat 95 WA1406TAO-1 BRooKLYN TEaRAc -jW phis piai isle correct rtprestn�a}ion 4 said swvtY; NJ ell k-ont ere.G�rtAly 41nwn on t fj4; no nn ke,.t ...i, . 1__.1 IL -I 11 1 r . To: Brooklyn Center City Council Members September 11., 1967 Mayor Philip Cohen Gordon M. Erickso9, Howard 1-1. Heck John W. Leary Theodore L. G;ill and Gentlemen: We have made application for a. variance to the City building code, requesting that we be allowed to build within four feet of our side lot line rather than the required five feet, in order to add a 10-foot addition to our present single attached garage in order to convert it into a double garage to accommodate two cars. This variance (Application #67048) was presented to the Planning Commission on September 7th and after some: discussion was denied, along with a similar application #67046 by Walter Smith, who had requested a variance to build an attached garage within two feet of his .lot line. These applications will now be presented to the City Council next Monday evening, September l6th. While I am sure our, Planning Commission performs an important function in safeguarding tape City ordinances and building codes. I can not help but wonder at their inconsistency in the matter of approving, or denying var- iances. There are many instances where variances have been granted in situations similar to ours, and I would like to refer to one which was approved by the Planning Commission in this same construction season, just four months ago. I make reference to this particular applic.at:ion only be- cause it is fairly recent and because it illustrates the: point which I should like to make. Application 967017 submitted by Rolert Anderson of 3207 63rd Ave. North requested a. variance to build an attached garag4 onto his home. After some discussion, the motion was made by Mr. Bogilcki, seconded by Engstrom, and passed unanimously to grant a variance allowing, the addition of a 20 ft. attached gara�*e eyoser to their sideyard lot linty than the request we made, and with considerable less distance Between the proposed addition and the existing structure of their neighbor than we would have. If we were allowed to build within 4 feet of our lot line, there would be 14 feet between our garage and our neighbor's property. The variance grant" to — Mr. Anderson left a distance of 8-1/2 feet between properties. This same application was submitted to the Council on Mzay 3.5, 1967, and passed unanimously,. Our neighbor has no Objection whatsoever to our proposed addition, and we have submitted a letter signed by him and his wife to this effect. We feel an attached garage provides a good "buffer" and sound barrier between our spread --out type ranch homes that we seem to have a prevalence of in Brooklyn Center. In our particular case, the add�ition to our garage will be an improvement to the appearance of our propemy_, too. because it will enable us to get our cars out of the driveway, an6 when it has been decided whether or not we can build on to our present garage, we will then install a permanent type driveway. We do not want to do this until. we know how wide our cement apron would be. --2- I was told that variances are granted only where it is shown that a hardship exists. A hardship as applied to proposed variances is probably a relative term and one that is hard to define. however, T consider it a hardship when you have to continually "jockey" two cars in and out of a single garage and driveway; when you have to scrape off the ice and snow in the winter and then wonder whether or not it will start because you have not been able to put it in the garage over night; or when you come home .from a day's work, drive the car in the garage, and can barely squeeze yourself out of the car with z bag of groceries because your garage is only barely adequate in width. Vle do not have a direct entrance from our garage to our kitchen, and must €,o around by means of the front garage door. One member of the Planning Commission even conceded that it might be considered a hardship for anyone to live through a Alinnesota winter (with or without adequate garaging; space'). Or, putting; it another way, I feel our case presents as much of a hardship as the applicant who lives on 63rd and was granted a variance last May, or as much of a hardship as innumerable other cases that have been approved. We had made plans with our builder to install a door in the *.lest side of our kitchen to give us access to our back yard, which we do not now have, at the same time that we had the addition put onto our garage. By pouring the cement slab for the connecting patio by this door at the same time the cement was poured for the garage floor and apron, we could save ourselves a considerable amount of money. Whether this would be in the classification of a hardship is questionable, but it is never- theless a fact. I have not said anything in this letter that I would not be will- ing to say at an open council meeting. however, I am sure you will want to do some advance thinking on this matter of granting variances to property owners, so that you may come up with some consensus of opinion as a body. I understand there is a gene-.nal feeling among the members of the Planning Commission that the building code regulations as to sideyard setbaccs be reviewed, in view of the increasing number of families who are finding; it both desirable and necessary to build 2-car garages. In the meantime, could there not be a little more consistency in the granting of variances of this nature? My own fee ling is that we are entitled to the same consideration as any other property owner in Brooklyn Center -- no more, but by the same token, certainly no less. Thank you. Sincerely, Mrs. Joseph D. Clark 6043 Ewing; Avenue North cc: Donald foss, City Mgr. City of Brooklyn Center August 29, 1967 Planning Commission City of Brooklyn Center 7100 Osseo Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that we, as owners of the property at 6037 Ewing Avenue North, have no objection to the sideyard setback variance being requested by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clark of 6043 Ewing Avenue North. We understand that the variance being requested will permit the construction of an addition to their attached garage, to be no closer to our north property line than three (3) feet. Respectfully submitted, i Dtniel D.Villie irgi is Willie