Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 04-10 MEMORANDUM TO: Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Louis Sullivan 560 -0135 Everett Lindh 560 -0835 Jody Brandvold 560 -8263 Ben Davidson 561 -5767 June Scofield 560 -0740 Dolores Hastings 561 -3956 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection DATE: April 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89009 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on March 16, 1989 and has referred this rezoning request to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by Milton Carlson and Harriett Berg, owners of 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North, who request that their properties be rezoned from R2 (One or Two Family Dwellings) to R4 (Multiple Family) . The lots in question are located at the northeast corner of 53rd Avenue North and Camden Avenue North and are bounded on all sides by single - family homes. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the two existing four -plex buildings conforming uses so that garage expansions can be built. Right now, the four - plexes are nonconforming uses (they have been since 1968) and are not permitted to expand. No additional apartment units are proposed, nor could they be built under the density limitations of the R4 zoning district (3,600 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit). The Comprehensive Plan makes reference to these and other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood on page 90.2 (attached) in which it recommends permitting one and one -half storey apartment buildings in the older portion of the neighborhood at the intersections of collector or arterial streets (53rd Avenue North is classified as a neighborhood collector street). There is nothing in the public record explaining why the small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were not zoned R4 in 1968 so that they would be conforming uses. It appears that they are acknowledged as acceptable uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission, in its action referring the rezoning request to the neighborhood advisory group, expanded the properties under consideration to include the other nonconforming apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. These include the following addresses: ADDRESS Units Lot Area Year Built 1107 57th 4 13,500 s.f. 1963 1201 57th 4 12,873 s.f. 1961 5500 Bryant 4 14,250 s.f. 1961 5452 Fremont 3 10 s.£. 1929/47 5843 Fremont 7 19,800 s.f. 1960 5301 Dupont 6 15,363 s.£. 1960 1425 55th 4 10,710 s.f. 1960 5547 Lyndale 4 15,240 s.f. 1960 • 5601 Lyndale 4 15,450 s.f. 1962 610 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 620 53rd 4 12,500 s.f. 1959 Memo Page 2 April 10, 1989 Most of these apartment buildings were built in the early 1960's when multi- family buildings were allowed by special use permit in the R1 zone. They are all located on streets which serve somewhat as collectors within the neighborhood (perpendicular streets must stop at 53rd, 55th, 57th and 59th Avenues North) . The Planning Commission has expanded the rezoning request to include these other buildings because they all present basically the same set of issues ( see the staff report on Application No. 89009 attached). The applicant's representative, Mr. Jerry Miller, has submitted a written statement (attached) in which he asserts that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the major considerations when reviewing the proposed rezoning. The following information is enclosed for review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89009 and minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 89009. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 3. A map of the area showing the location of all properties to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. There are also site plans of the properties at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. 4. A copy of Sections 35 -311 and 35 -313 regarding uses allowed in the R2 and R4 zoning districts. 5. Page 90.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood. 6. Correspondence from the applicants and from Jerry Miller addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 1989 and will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation within thirty days. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself. If for any reason you cannot attend the meeting please contact us as soon as possible at 561 -5440. It is important that we have enough members present to conduct business and there will be people from the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89009 Applicant: Milton Carlson, Harriet Berg Location: 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicants request a rezoning from R2 to R4 of the two four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The properties are bounded on the south by 53rd Avenue North, on the west by Camden Avenue North, and on the north and east by single - family homes. Background The two existing four - plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North are nonconforming uses in the R2 zoning district. They were built in 1959 when the land on which they were built was zoned R -B (Residence- Business) . The R -B zone permitted multiple family dwellings. In 1968, the City rezoned many areas within the City in accordance with the recommendations of the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. The southerly portion of the Southeast Neighborhood was rezoned to R2 (One or Two Family Dwellings) , including the land on which these two four - plexes are built. The four- plexes thus became nonconforming uses, subject to the restrictions of Section 35 - 111 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . One of those restrictions is that nonconforming uses may not expand. One of the applicants, Ms. Harriet Berg, has recently purchased 620 53rd Avenue North and wishes to live in it with her sisters. One improvement they wish to make is the addition of a fourth garage stall (there is presently a three stall garage serving the property) . However, because the four -plex is nonconforming, no expansions are permitted. The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to make these two four - plexes conforming uses again to allow for garage expansion. No additional dwelling units are proposed nor would they be allowed under the density requirements of Section 35 - 400. (Both lots are approximately 12,500 sq. ft. in area. A four - plex in the R4 zone requires 14,400 sq. ft. of land area. The four - plexes would thus be almost 2,000 sq. ft. deficient in area.) Although these and other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood are nonconforming, the 1966 and 1982 Comprehensive Plans do not appear to recommend phasing them out of existence as is normally the objective with nonconforming uses. Plan recommendation No. 1 for the Southeast Neighborhood (page 90.2) states: 11 1. Permit up to one and one -half story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neighborhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial streets. This pattern of development has already existed for some time. By restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single - family character will be preserved, and some of the demand for rental family living within this neighborhood is met." Fifty -third Avenue North is classified as a neighborhood collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. This plan recommendation clearly refers to small apartment buildings such as 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. 3 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89009 continued Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines All rezonings must be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicants have submitted two letters, the first (attached) arguing the merits of the rezoning primarily on the basis of the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The second letter (also attached) was submitted by Ms. Berg's realtor, Mr. Jerry Miller, and addresses the guidelines point by point. The Commission is referred to the letters for review. The first letter notes the nonconforming status of the two four - plexes since the 1968 rezoning to R2. It also highlights the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, cited above, to permit low -rise apartment buildings in the neighborhood on collector or arterial streets. The letter states that the primary concert] of the owners is the desire to build additional garage stalls at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. To do this the four - plexes must become conforming uses. Thus the request to rezone the properties to R4. The second letter addresses the guidelines for evaluating rezonings on a point by point basis. The statements contained in the letter are repeated below with staff comment. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "Yes. Ordinance control can better be enforced when property is 'conforming to its zoning.' The zoning since 1968 has been R2; R2 zoning does not allow construction of any more garages on either property; one parcel has a 4 homes unit 1 112 story with a 3 car garage; the other 4 homes units 1 112 story has only a 2 car garage. To construct garages to enclose cars for each unit would enhance the area. There would be far less parking lot type parking." Staff: One measure of the public need or benefit of the proposed rezoning is the need or demand for multi - family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood. Right now, in the Southeast Neighborhood, there are 244 apartment units, including 48 which are zoned either Rl or R2 and are thereby nonconforming. This is the second fewest number of apartment units by neighborhood in the City. If rental townhouses are included, the Southeast Neighborhood has the fewest. In 1980, owner - occupied dwelling units were 85.2% of all dwelling units in the Southeast Neighborhood (this includes single - family rentals) considerably above the 69.2% for the City as a whole. It would appear from these numbers that the 48 nonconforming apartment units in the Southeast Neighborhood are "needed" to meet the neighborhood demand for multi - family housing. At least, there doesn't seem to be a surplus. The eight units in question are among the 48 nonconforming units and contribute to meeting the need for multi - family housing in the neighborhood as cited in the Comprehensive Plan statement regarding these units. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding 0 land use classifications? 3 -16 -89 -2- Application No. 89009 continued Applicant: "Yes. The Plan recommendation passed in 1968, recognized the e unit dwellings and it stated: 'by restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved...' These properties are on the corner of one of the (arterial streets defined in that plan), specifically 53rd Avenue North." Staff: We agree. Small multi - family buildings along collector or arterial streets are not incompatible with adjacent single - family development, especially at intersections. The Comprehensive Plan designates 53rd, 57th, and Dupont as neighborhood collector streets in the Southeast Neighborhood. At the time the Plan was written, Lyndale was Highway 169 and classified as a major thoroughfare. All of the nonconforming multi - family buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood are located along the following streets: 53rd, 55th 57th, 59th and Lyndale. All of these streets are through streets and traffic along perpendicular streets must stop at these streets (ie. at 53rd, 55th, 57th, 59th and Lyndale) . Therefore, they all function somewhat as collectors even if they are not all designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that intersections with collector and arterial streets are appropriate locations for occasional multi - family buildings. These two four - plexes and others in the Southeast Neighborhood clearly meet that criterion. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be • contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "All permitted uses are existing now for the proposed zoning, except no garages for some dwelling units." Staff: Yes they can. One concern is that these lots are smaller than would be required today to support four dwelling units. The land area requirement for these buildings in 1959 was 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. This is the R5 density today. However, it would do no good to rezone these properties to R5 since one and one -half to two storey apartment buildings in that zone must still have 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. Therefore, even if the properties are rezoned, they will be deficient in lot area. Nevertheless, they would become conforming uses and garage expansion would be permitted. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant: "No. Since the blanket rezoning of the southeast area of Brooklyn Center to R2, in 1968, there has been no physical or zoning classification changes in that area." Staff: The major physical change in the Southeast Neighborhood since 1968 has been the construction of the freeway. Access to the freeway is gained at 53rd Avenue North. Some concern was expressed . at the time the Comprehensive Plan was written that this might stimulate a demand for commercial development on 53rd Avenue North. 3 -16 -89 -3- Application No. 89009 continued That has not really materialized. Traffic levels on 53rd are higher as you approach the freeway. Perhaps this would also tend to justify some multi - family development along 53rd, especially east of Humboldt Avenue North. However, we feel the traffic levels (4250 ADT at Camden in 1986) are not so high that one or two - family development is inappropriate. Therefore, the R2 zoning is still appropriate for most of this area. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is therea broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: This is not a City- initiated rezoning. However, the Planning Commission may wish to extend the purview of this rezoning application beyond these two properties to some or all of the nonconforming apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood. The purpose of such an expanded rezoning would be to confer conforming status on apartment buildings which the Comprehensive Plan explicitly recommends permitting. Almost all the nonconforming, small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were built in the early 1960's when multiple - family dwellings were allowed by special use permit in the R1 zoning district. By 1968, that provision was no longer in effect and the buildings became nonconforming. We would not recommend that multiple - family dwellings again be allowed in the R1 or even R2 districts. But, there may be merit in rezoning some or all of these nonconforming apartment buildings to R4, given their location along collector streets. Making the buildings conforming uses would allow for garage expansions which would generally upgrade these properties. We must admit, however, that were all these properties vacant today, we probably would not recommend the rezoning of scattered sites within the neighborhood. Taking each in isolation, such a rezoning would probably have the appearance of "spot zoning" which is opposed by the provisions of Section 35 - 208. The real merit of a scattered site rezoning is that such uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood. These apartment buildings meet a need for multi- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood and are located on collector streets. Those may be too loose criteria for rezoning scattered lots to R4, but such a rezoning would at least be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicant: "Yes. The existing improvements are within the proposed R4 zoning restrictions; any further improvement will bear fully the restrictions of proposed R4 zoning." Staff: The existing four -plex uses are one and one -half storey apartment buildingswhich are a permitted use in the R4 district. 3 -16 -89 -4- Application No. 89009 continued However, the four - plexes are deficient in land area. If by some cause they were destroyed, only three unit buildings could be rebuilt, unless under building parking were provided (this is unlikely in a one and one -half or two storey building). g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "Yes. The subject property's existing improvements are: One has a 1 112 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 3 car garage; the other has a 1 112 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 2 car garage. The rezoning in 1968 to R2 placed these in a nonconforming use category." - Staff: The location of the subject properties is suited to either R2 or R4 development. The location is not unsuited to R2 development. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicant: "No. There will be no expansion of a zoning district; Just allow garages to be constructed for existing dwellings." Staff: There will be a modest expansion of the R4 zoning district. Based on the Plan recommendations for the Southeast Neighborhood, it is probably warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission is probably wondering, as are we, why these scattered apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood were not zoned R4 when the City undertook a comprehensive rezoning of the City in 1968. The record, unfortunately, is silent on that question. It may have been felt that the language in the Comprehensive Plan was insufficient to confer conforming status on these properties and that rezoning them to R4 would be multiple instances of spot zoning. We don't know. However, state law dictates that when there is a discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning that the zoning prevails. Therefore, the status of these buildings is nonconforming. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant: "Yes. The proposal will place the use of the parcels in a 'conforming use' R4 category, with restrictions applicable and enforceable to that zoning. Allowing garages for each dwelling unit will enhance the neighborhood. Staff: Assuming that these apartment buildings help to meet the demand for multi- family housing in the Southeast Neighborhood, there is merit to allowing these buildings to become conforming uses and continue to meet that need. We also agree that the addition of garages will enhance the properties and, at least indirectly, the neighborhood. 3 -16 -89 -5- Application No. 89009 continued Procedure The standard procedure with rezoning applications is to open the public hearing, take comment, and then table the application and refer it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. We recommend that procedure in this case also. (A public hearing has been scheduled). One issue the Commission should address at this meeting is whether to extend the rezoning question to the other small apartment buildings in the Southeast Neighborhood, or whether to keep it restricted to the two properties that have applied. The only historcial difference between these two four — plexes and the other small apartment buildings is that these properties were actually zoned R —B which allowed apartments as a permitted use. The others were zoned R1 and were allowed by special use permit between 1959 and 1963. They are all equally nonconforming now. Extending the rezoning to include these other properties would, of course, involve notifying many more people and opens up the possibility of more public input. Nevertheless, the issues are virtually the same for these other buildings and the Commission may prefer to deal with the entire question now in fairness to these other property owners. A map showing the locations of these other nonconforming apartment buildings is attached for the Commission's review. i 3 -16 -89 -6- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 16, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Nelson noted that Commissioner Sander and Johnson were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. f APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R2 to R4 the two existing four plexes at 610 and 620 53rd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89009 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked how many units were nonconforming in the southeast neighborhood. The Secretary answered that there were 48 apartment units in approximately 10 buildings. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the other buildings had garages or not. The Planner answered that there was perhaps one building that had garages, but that most do not have garages. Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Harriet Berg, the owner of 620 53rd Avenue North, stated that she wanted to build one more garage stall behind the existing garage that faces Camden. She stated that the garage would get access off 53rd through the neighboring property. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89009) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Chairman Nelson asked the Planning Commission for their comments and whether they felt the application should be expanded to include the other nonconforming multiple- family buildings in the southeast neighborhood. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that other buildings would have the same right to apply. The Secretary stated that the application could be limited to the two four plexes that have applied, but that the other buildings in the southeast neighborhood present essentially the same issues as these two buildings and that, to be fair to these other buildings, it might be appropriate to include them in any rezoning action. Commissioner Malecki stated that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the southeast neighborhood group and open it up to all of the other buildings. 3 -16 -89 -1- Commissioner Bernards expressed some concern about the possibility of spot zoning with the scattered four plex units. The Secretary explained that spot zoning is not necessarily based on the size of the parcel to be zoned, but whether it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if a rezoning action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan must be amended as has been done in a few cases for the rezoning to be accomplished. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does refer to these units in the southeast neighborhood and that a rezoning to R4 would be consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bernards asked whether adding the other units would slow the process down. The Secretary stated that it might. He stated that the staff would set up a neighborhood meeting and send notices to all neighboring properties around the other units. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the net effect of these rezonings would be to allow garages. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that it may be difficult to build garages on some of the properties because of inadequate space. He added that garages are not required in any zoning district. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was originally concerned regarding the appearance of spot zoning of these various apartment buildings. He added, however, that he felt now that the other buildings should be included in the rezoning action. He recommended that the notice to other property owners specify that it is only to make the existing apartment units conforming and not so that more units could be built. Commissioner Mann asked whether, if something happened to the buildings, the lots would be too small to rebuild four apartment units. The Secretary explained that if the buildings were destroyed now, all that could be built would be an R2 use. He went on to explain that, if the rezoning were approved, the owners could rebuild three units on the land available. He explained that to build single - family homes on the lots would then require a down zoning. Commissioner Malecki noted the existence of a three plex at 55th and Fremont. She asked whether the parcel in that case could accommodate even three dwelling units under the R4 restrictions. The Planner stated that he was not sure of the area of that particular parcel, but would check it out. Commissioner Malecki explained that, if the lot is too small to build even three units, it might as well remain R2. The Secretary agreed with this observation. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89009 (Milton Carlson and Harriet Berg) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89009, continue the public hearing, refer the matter to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, and to expand the rezoning application to other nonconforming multiple family buildings in the southeast neighborhood, provided they have enough land area to accommodate a multiple - family building. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89010 (Beisner Ltd. /Zim Computers) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to allow retail sales of computers as a secondary use to a wholesale business in 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89010 attached). The Secretary also noted that the floor area of the showroom space within the tenant space would be 1,122 sq. ft. rather than the 1,050 sq. ft. contained in the report. 3 -16 -89 -2- Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guide Fa) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? g r . - n �■■ ■■ ■■ �''rii SCH %K BROW �■ ■■ ■■ Mw �� ■■ ■1■ , _ m BLOCrf � LELL V U E INDUSTRIAL C. E . COULTER P BUSINESS LATTING CITY LOTS LAND SURVEYOR FARM SURVEYS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING LAKESHORE REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA LICENSED BY ORDINANOE OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS JUDICIAL 3300 LYNDALE AVE, SO. MINNEAPOLIS 8. MINN. TAYLOR 4 -0370 fir; 15 f �urapnnr's �Fr2iftr�tr AJ 3 - AZc 1 - 5Q' (J 0 273 7 — — — — — — — �7.b 20.1 �'�. h '• ?7• .. J • 25 - - rut - - v o - 11 N G.ROl�05E0 N V; L 0 4- 5 t r - 99.32— ASE N 1 - I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct plat of a survey of: The West 99.32 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Bellvue Acres Hennepin County Minn. As surveyed by me this 13th day of April 1959 A.D. t Signed 7 r 1 Registration NO. 2584 5576 1 I I 1 o - 00 ; rZ Al I ` a O a M \ 1 v v 35 -310 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. I b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. C. Golf courses and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Cemeteries. e. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. f. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. g. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an Rl district, as determined by the City Council. Section 35 -311. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One and two family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 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 accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. 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 buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. � I 35 -311 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 7. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10. Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35 -800 of these ordinances. 11. Rummage sales as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. C. Golf course and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Nursing homes and rest homes provided primary vehicular access shall be gained by a collector or arterial street. e. Cemeteries. f. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. g. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. h. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R2 district as determined by the City Council. /. ' Section 35 -313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. C. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. Section 35 -314 R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. 6. Encourage the development of the general commercial area in the southeast corner of the neighborhood at the West River Road/ Interstate 94 freeway intersection. The type of commercial development should be limited to specialty establishments such as motel, restaurant, and bowling alley. In general, the commercial uses already existing in the area are quite appropriate. 7. Continue to permit the construction of up to two and one -half story apartment buildings around the.proposed commercial areas as a tran- sition to single family housing, and along the west side of Humboldt Avenue, south of 69th Avenue as a transition between the industrial park and the neighborhood proper. Townhouses would also be an appropriate type of use in these areas. It is important that the apartment buildings be designed in a related group rather than in a piecemeal unrelated fashion. 8. Encourage the Anoka - Hennepin and Brooklyn Center School Districts to work toward a revision of their common boundary or reach an agreement on some arrangement which would allow students living within a reasonable distance to attend Brooklyn Center Junior - Senior High School rather than be transported long distances to schools far from their neighborhood. Presently the Brooklyn Center School District is in a period of declining enrollment and has available facilities to accommodate additional students. Also, high fuel costs and potential oil shor- tages make realignment or some other .arrangement a more effective way of dealing with the present situation. The responsibility of resolving this situation clearly rests with the respective School Districts and the City should assist in any way possible. Southeast Neighborhood The Southeast Neighborhood is bordered on the south by the south City limits; on the east by the Mississippi River; on the north by FAI -94; and on the west by Shingle Creek. Plan Recommendations I. Permit up to one and one -half story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neigh- borhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial streets. This of development has already existed for some time. By restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved, and some of the demand for rental family living within this neighborhood is met. 2. Consider permitting duplexes in the older part of the neighborhood in cases where lot sizes are more suitable for duplex than single family housing. 90.2 3. Encourage the development of townhouses in the pocket of land in the extreme northwest part of the neighborhood. The land is now undeveloped and portions of it are to be used for freeway purposes. The remaining undeveloped land will lend itself quite well to medium density housing. High density housing should definitely not be allowed because of poor access to and from freeways - necessarily through existing single family areas. The area should be developed as a complex with its own identity within its "parent" neighborhood. 4. Permit multiple family developed, preferably townhouses, as a tran- sition between the Northbrook Shopping Center and the nearby single family housing to the east. Heights of the buildings should not exceed the heights of the existing stores and homes - generally one and one -half stories. 5. Install pedestrian walkways as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan map to complete the pedestrian walkway system. 5. Consider a neighborhood conservation /rehabilitation program to bring some of the older visually deficient parts of the neighbor- hood up to more acceptable standards. Most of the deficient homes are such that minor repairs and normal maintenance are all that would be required. 7. Designate and maintain the following streets as neighborhood collector streets: Dupont Avenue North 57th Avenue North 53rd Avenue North Southwest Neighborhood _The Southwest Neighborhood is bordered on the south by the South City limits; on the east by Shingle Creek; on the north by County Road 10; and on the west by the west City limits. Plan Recommendations 1. Maintain that part of the Southwest Neighborhood lying north of 53rd Avenue North in permanent single family residential. The frontage road along Brooklyn Boulevard should permit the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood. Commercial development along the east edge of the neighborhood should be limited to areas isolated from the neighborhood to the east such as from the current Northport Clinic site northerly to the office complex currently under development which is located northerly of the existing library. • 90.3 Supplement to application for rezoning of properties at: 610 and 620 53RD AVE NO., BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA In 1968, at the time the property was rezoned to R2, it was recognized that there were existing 4 unit, 1 -1/2 story homes in the Southeast District of Brooklyn Center. Building permits were issue for their construction; These 1 -1/2 story 4 unit homes were constructed according to the existing ordinances. The plan recommendations below provide for permitting building such as the buildings at 620 & 610 53rd Ave. No., which are 1 -1/2 story structures, as long as they are on collector or arterial streets. (53rd Avenue North has been defined in that plan as an arterial street Southeast Neiqhborhood The Southeast Neighborhood is bordered on the south by the south City limits; on the east by the M i s s i s s i p p i River; on the north by FA I -94; and, on the west by Shingle Creek. Plan Recommendations 1. Permit up to one and one -half story apartment buildings at no more than twelve units per acre within the older portion of the neigh- borhood, but only at the intersections of collector or arterial treets. T his _pattern of development has already existed for some IjHit ay restricting such development to specific corners the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved, and some 90.2- OT the demand for ren a I fami y I i ving within thi ne is met. The 4 -plex at 620 53rd Ave.No. has an existing 3car garage. The 4 -plex at 610 53rd Ave.No. has an existing 2car garage. We,the owners plan to erect garages to accommodate each unit. To provide garages for each unit would allow cars to be inside for these Minnesota winters; neighborhood character would be enhanced with less outside parking. Building a garage such as this is not allowed under the provisions of the ordinance passed in 1968; presently R2 for these properties. We therefore request rezoning to R4, to allow "conforming use" for these properties. Owner of 610 53rd Ave No.x / - I ,, � ( ate) x al Owner of 620 53rd Ave No.x 7 /�/h / � (date THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES ARE PER PROCEDURE OF REZONE 35 -208 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Ans. YES Ordinance control can better be enforced when property is "conforming" to its zoning. The zoning since 1968 has been R2; R2 zoning does not allow the construction of any more garages on either property; One parcel has a 4 homes unit 1- 1/2 story with a 3 car garage; the other 4 homes units 1 -1/2 story has only a 2 car garage. To construct garages to enclose cars for each unit would enhance the area. There would be far less "parking lot" type parking. b. Iz the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Ans. YES The plan recommendation passed in 1968, recognized these 4 unit dwellings and it stated: "..by restricting such development to specific corners, the neighborhood's single family character will be preserved,.." These properties are on the corner of one of the (arterial streets defined in that plan), specifically "53rd Ave No." . c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Ans. All the permitted uses are existing now for the proposed zoning, except no garages for some dwelling units. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Ans. NO. Since the blanket rezoning of SE area of Brooklyn Center to R2, in 1968, there has been no physical or zoning classification changes in that area. e. NOT APPLICABLE. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Ans. YES The existing improvements are within the proposed R4 zoning restrictions; any further improvements will bear fully the restrictions of proposed R4 zoning. a -- 5'3e vC. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Ans. YES The subject property's existing improvements are: One has a 1 -1/2 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 3 car garage; The other has a 1 -1/2 story 4 unit dwelling with only a 2 car garage. The rezoning in 1968 to R2 placed these in a "non- conforming" use category. h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Ans. NO. There will be no expansion of a zoning district; Just allow garages to be constructed for existing dwellings. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Ans. The proposal will place the use of these parcels in a "conforming use" R4 category, with restrictions applicable and enforceable to that zoning. Allowing garages for each dwelling unit will enhance the neighborhood