Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-16 PCP 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: 111. 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 concern 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 R1 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 land use classifications? 3-16-89 -2- Application No. 89009 continued Applicant: "Yes. The Plan recommendation passed in 1968, recognized these IF 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 Rl 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 1/2 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 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. 3-16-89 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89010 Applicant: Beisner Ltd. (Zim Computers) Location: 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct retail sales of computers at the office/warehouse building (Parkway Place) at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the north by the Spec 11 industrial building, on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by vacant I-1 zoned land, and on the west by the central parking lot serving this and neighboring buildings. Retail sales of goods manufactured, processed, or wholesaled on the use site is a special use in the I-1 zone. Most of the business activity in the tenant space will be oriented to wholesale trade. This location will serve as the sales, service and demonstration facility for business customers. The retail sales area within the Zim Computers' tenant space is approximately 1,050 sq. ft. in area. It is presently an open office area. The retail parking requirement for the space would be 11 spaces, whereas the parking requirement for the existing office use of this space is only 5 spaces. This means that the total parking requirement for the building will increase by 6 spaces. This, in turn, will increase the required parking allocation for Parkway Place from the central parking lot from 115 spaces to 121 spaces. A condition of approval must be an amendment to the Easement Agreement and Declaration allocating parking rights in the central parking lot to Parkway Place, Shingle Creek Eleven, and the Holiday Inn. (RCM Plaza has a separate off-site proof-of-parking on the vacant Spec 12 site.) The combination of parking requirements of the three buildings slightly exceeds available parking in the cental lot. A ramp agreement in place since 1984 acts as a proof-of-parking for the central lot. As to the retail sales use itself, staff do not see a problem with it as long as it is a secondary use, not the primary activity. The Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would prohibit multi-tenant retail buildings in the I-1 zone. We interpret such language to refer to buildings in which retail sales is the principal use of the various tenants. In the case of Parkway Place, retail sales would only be a secondary use of one of the tenants. It is presently comprehended under Section 35-330, Subsection 3d. , not under the proposed language covering single-tenant retail establishments where retail sales is the principal use. Retail sales as a secondary use will remain a special use in the I-1 zone. We recommend approval , subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to Zim Computers to comprehend retail sales of computers as a secondary use within their tenant space at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. No other uses are comprehended and the special use permit is nontransferable. 2. The Easement Agreement and Declaration governing the parking allocation in the central parking lot serving Parkway Place, Shingle Creek Eleven, and the Holiday Inn shall be amended to accord Parkway Place a minimum of six (6) additional parking stalls from the central lot. Said amendment shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed at the County prior to issuance of the special use permit and prior to issuance of any related building permit. 3. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3-16-89 1 i