HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-003 Inf Sheet 5421 Lyndale Ave N Application Filed on 2-22-07
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 4-23-07 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2007-003
Applicant: Brett Hildreth
Location: 5421 Lyndale Ave N
Request: Variance
The applicant, Brett Hildreth, owner of the property at 5421 Lyndale Avenue North, is seeking a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-106, Subdivision g
2 of the Subdivision Ordinance to be allowed to create a single family residential lot in the R-2 Zoning District that is less than 60 ft. in width.
The property in question is located on the west side of Lyndale Avenue North, about midway between 53rd and 55th Avenues North. It is surrounded on the north and south by single family
homes; on the west by I-94 right-of-way; and on the east by Lyndale Avenue North with the North Mississippi Regional Park and Trail on the opposite side of the street.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat under Planning Commission Application No. 2007-002 in which he proposes to subdivide 5421 Lyndale Avenue North and also combine surplus
highway right-of-way to create three new single family residential lots. The north lot (proposed Lot 1) of this preliminary plat would be 53.69 ft. in width rather than 60 ft. which
is the minimum lot width requirement called for by the above mentioned Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
There is enough lot width and area to create three single family residential interior lots meeting all of the lot requirements (width, depth and area) without consideration of the location
of existing structures. Single family interior lots in the R-2 district are to have a minimum of 60 ft. in width (at the building setback line), a minimum lot are of 7,600 sq. ft and
a minimum depth of 110 ft. The applicant’s proposal to divide the property into three lots and to retain the existing house in its current location and configuration has led to his
request for the variance.
Lot width variances are subject to the standards set forth in Section 35-240, Subdivision 2 (attached) as well as the standards set forth in Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance
(also attached). Both sets of standards contain language relating to uniqueness, hardship and a non-detrimental affect on nearby property as being a basis for the granting of a variance.
The Subdivision Ordinance standards particularly note the effect of special circumstances and
conditions such that the strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. There has developed a policy and precedent
over the years regarding the granting of lot variances within the city. That policy and precedent is basically that lot variances will be granted if at least two of the three lot standards
(width, depth and area) are met; that no resulting setback deficiencies are created; and that the resulting lot division seems reasonable and does not create unorthodox situations.
The applicant has submitted written comments relating to the standards for variance in the Zoning Ordinance (copy attached). Generally he notes that the hardship is related to the shape
of the proposed lot. He comments that the proposed lot will be 53.69 ft. wide by 216 ft deep with a lot area of 11,245 sq. ft. He notes the minimum land area requirement is only 7,600
sq. ft. The resulting lot exceeds the minimum lot size requirements while only slightly varying from the lot width requirement. He adds that if the strict letter of the code were enforced,
it would prevent building a residence on that lot, which would be a hardship to him, not a mere inconvenience. He notes the uniqueness of this parcel in that the lot was originally
intended for three lots as indicated by the utilities stubbed to the three lots. He adds that the hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance because the ordinance requires
a 60 ft. lot width. He notes that there is substantial city precedent for allowing variances where two of the three lot dimensions have been met. He adds that in this case the lot
greatly exceeds the lot depth and area requirements while only slightly short of the lot width requirements. He adds that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental but rather
appreciative to other land and improvements in the neighborhood by increasing tax revenue for the city. He notes his history of improving property in Brooklyn Center and that the traffic
impact will be immaterial due to the fact that the new lot will contain no more than single family residences and that new housing stock will encourage upgrades and maintenance of the
existing housing stock.
We believe the applicant’s comments have merit with respect to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance standards. Moreover, the policy and precedent related to past variances
involving lot requirements is an overriding factor as well. Given these variances, it could be concluded that to not grant a variance in this case, would indeed be depriving the owner
of the property of the reasonable use of his land. The variance will allow for the continued use of the existing home at a property setback from the new proposed lot line. The newly
created lot with a lot width of 53.69 ft. is not excessive given the exceptionally deep lot and area of 11,245 sq. ft. as opposed to a minimum lot requirement of 7,600 sq. ft. The creation
of this lot should not be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding property. Only a single family home will be allowed and its location can be placed such that all setbacks
can be met. It should also be noted, that if the lot width variance is granted, this would not be a justification for granting any other variances such as a setback reduction.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent to surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
We believe the standards for variance are met in this case as well as the policy and precedent for granting such a variance. We would recommend approval of the 53.69 ft. wide lot noting
the following considerations:
The standards for a variance contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are met.
The precedent of providing two of the three lot requirements (depth and area) is met in this case.
No setback deficiencies will result from the proposed subdivision.
The proposal is considered reasonable and creates no unorthodox arrangements.
The proposal is not considered detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties.
To not grant the variance would be considered depriving the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
3-15-07
Page 1
3-15-07
Page 2