Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 07-14 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88008 Applicant: John E. Werner Location: 6811 and 6827 Colfax Avenue North Request: Variance (Subdivision by metes and bounds) The applicant requests a variance from the subdivision ordinance to transfer a triangular parcel of land from 6811 to 6827 Colfax Avenue North by a metes and bounds division. The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded by Colfax Avenue North on the east and by single-family homes on the south, west, and north. Both of the lots in question have single-family homes on them. They are large lots with 100.32 of frontage each. The house and attached garage at 6811 Colfax Avenue North comply with all setback requirements from existing and proposed property lines. The dwelling at 6827 is substandard as to setback from both the east (front) and north (side) lot lines. However, these setbacks are not at issue in the proposed transfer of land. A second detached garage at 6827 Colfax is presently set back approximately 3' to 5' from the existing south side lot line. It will be set back approximately 17.8' from the proposed south lot line with the transfer of land. What is happening in the proposed land transfer is that the southwest corner of 6827 (also the northwest corner of 6811) Colfax is being moved 10' south of its current location. The southeast corner of 6827 (also the northeast corner of 6811) Colfax will remain the same. This new line creates a triangle of land to be conveyed to 6827 Colfax. The existing legal description of the land in question is Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Morningside Estates 2nd Addition. The proposed division creates Parcels A and B, A being Lot 5 plus that portion of Lot 6 lying north of the line described earlier and Parcel B being that portion of Lot 6 lying south of that line. The resulting lot areas are 14,004 sq. ft. for Parcel A and 12,673 sq. ft. for Parcel B. These lot areas both exceed the minimum lot area for interior lots in the Rl zone (9,500 Sq. ft. ). Generally, subdivisions by metes and bounds have been allowed provided that: a) no new buildable lots are being created; b) the underlying land is platted property; and c) no lot or setback variances are implied. Since all these conditions are met in this case, staff recommend approval of the variance, subject to the following condition. 1) The City Council directs the City Assessor to amend the legal descriptions of 6811 and 6827 Colfax to reflect the land transfer upon filing with the County of the proposed division. 7-14-88 i I I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88007 Applicant: Robert Zappa Location: 6637 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 16, 1988 meeting and was tabled because the proposed apartment building would contain 11 three-bedroom units. Only one such unit is allowed by Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission asked for some background on the limitation in the ordinance that no more than 10% of the units in a multiple-family dwelling can have three bedrooms. What we have discovered in reviewing the record is that the City declared a moratorium on apartment construction in 1973. During the moratorium, the regulations pertaining to multiple-family dwellings were studied, particularly those relating to density. An ordinance amendment was adopted in August of 1974 which established new density requirements, including the following: a) Computed allowable density exclusive of the land area lying within setbacks abutting public streets. (This was repealed in the early 1980's because it adversely affected smaller parcels and corner lots disproportionately). b) Allowed that the minimum land area for efficiency apartments could be reduced by 250 sq. ft. , but limited such units to no more than 10% of the units in a multiple-family dwelling. c) Required that the miniumum land area be increased by 250 sq. ft. for each bedroom in excess of two in a multiple-dwelling unit and limited such units to no more than 10%of the units in any multiple dwelling. (The requirement for 250 sq. ft. of additional space per bedroom in excess of two was part of the ordinance prior to 1974). d) Allowed for a density credit of 500 sq. ft. for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence. Taken together, these provisions tend to aim at providing more open space per occupant of a multiple-family residential building. The minutes of the November 15, 1973 Planning Commission meeting indicate that the study was to look into: "recreation area; light, air and view; open green space; and parking and storage facilities," all related to the sense of density (see minutes of 11-15-73 Planning Commission meeting, attached). The Commission then generally felt there should be greater restrictions on three-bedroom developments as a means of controlling the "density and distribution of population" which are legitimate means of regulation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance Statement of Policy contained in Section 35-100 of the City Ordinances (attached). It appears that the concern was over the greater activity levels and the need for on-site recreational facilities that three-bedroom units tend to generate. Although there were further deliberations on the subject, none are extensively reported in either the Planning Commission or City Council minutes of 1973 and 1974. Some meetings of an ad hoc study group, including Housing Commission and City Council members, were held however, we have no minutes of these meetings. 7-14-88 -1- Application No. 88007 continued We have also checked with 16 other suburban communities as to their regulations pertaining to three-bedroom apartments. None of these communities has anything similar to a 10% limit on three-bedroom units, but a number (8) have a land area requirement which escalates somewhat with larger units or more bedrooms. Three-bedroom apartments are relatively rare in Brooklyn Center, certainly far under the 10% maximum envisioned by the Zoning Ordinance. But, there is also no vehicle for transferring the unused development rights of other complexes to this property. (It should also be noted that other complexes are generally built to the maximum already and have little or no excess density credit to transfer, if that were possible). In conclusion, we do not recommend at this time any change in the Zoning Ordinance. The present ordinance was arrived at after much study and discussion and even a moratorium on apartment construction. It should not be amended or repealed lightly. We, therefore, recommend that the applicant be directed to revise the site and building plans to show only one three-bedroom unit. Otherwise, we would have to recommend denial of the application as it presently stands on the basis that the plan is in conflict with density provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. i i i 7-14-88 -2-