HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC81057 - 8/13/81 - 6610 Colfax AveP_ NNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST
File Purge Date:
FILE INFORMATION
Project Number: B/GL' 7
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Zoning:
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:
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 Ranoe Location
Agendas: Planning Commission Office
Minutes: Planning Commission
Minutes: City Council
Document Type
Resolutions: Planning Commission
Resolutions: City Council
Ordinances: City Council
City Vault
B/, B/ uv flac�acur�
City Vault
Number
Location
City Vault
City Vault
City Vault
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, � C'4
PLANNING COMMiSS1011 APPLICATION
17,�6 i!!�-
Application No._
81057
Please Print Clearly or Type
Street Location of Property 6610 Colfax Ave. No.
Legal Description of Property Westerly 1/2 of Lot 42 except the west 30 feet thereof,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 310, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Owner Stephen William Fi nar Carlton J. Jorgenson
6025 Abbott Avenue No. 4038 Dupont Avenue No. Fignar -
Address Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Minneapolis, MN 55412 Phone No.Jorgenson 529-6429
Applicant Joann Jorgenson
Address 4038 Dupont Avenue No., Minneapolis, MN 55412
Type of Request: Rezoning
X Variance
Special Use Permit
Phone No. 529-6429 (H)
Subdivision Approval 560-3210 (W)
Site & Bldg. Plan Approval
Other:
Description of Request: Variance request from Section 15-106g2aa of the Platting Ordinance
for a 3.7 foot and 14.9 foot variance from the required 75 foot minimum lot frontage for two
lots and from Section 15-106g2ee, a 1,500 square foot, variance from the required 9,500 square
foot lot area for one lot. �'xj�,Fl: �.; f"7Ec . -
3z) —i�Uc". L= �•. , pia- ��iE?�.3 .
The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of
Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state-
ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses
reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application.
Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of
the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred
prior to withdrawal.
Fee $ 50.00
Receipt No. 56389
Date: July 31, 1981
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Dates of P.C. Consideration:
coo►,
Approved Denied this day of,�= _
following conditions:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Dates of Council Consideration:
Approved Denied this day of
amendment:
7L--
plicant's Signature
, subject to the
rman
19 , with the following
Lie
P/I Form No. 18 (over please)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
r Application No. 81056, 81057
Applicant: JoAnn M. Jorgenson on behalf of Stephen William Fignar and
Carlton J. Jorgenson
Location: 6610 Colfax Avenue North
Request: Subdivision and Variance from Section 35-400
The applicant requests subdivision approval to divide the property at 6610 Colfax
Avenue North into two substandard lots. The existing lot is 131.4' wide by 133.24'
deep for a total of 17,500 sq. ft. of area. The proposed lots would be 71.3' wide
(9,500 sq. ft. in area) and 60.1' wide (8,000 sq. ft. in area). The larger of the
two proposed lots has an existing two -storey house and detached garage and is
proposed to be described as Lot 2, Block 1, B. and C. Addition. The smaller of the
two lots lies to the north, is vacant and is proposed to be described as Lot 1, Block 1,
B. and C. Addition. Both of the proposed lots are substandard as to width (the
ordinance requirement is a minimum of 75' for an interior Rl lot as per Section
35-400) and the proposed Lot 1 is also substandard as to area (the requirement is
9,500 sq. ft., also Section 35-400). Along with the request for plat approval,
the applicant requests a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which
establishes the minimum lot dimensions for subdivisions. (See Section 35-400,
Table of Minimum District Requirements attached). The property in question is zoned
.Rl and is surrounded by single-family homes.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a
Variance. The applicant makes the following points:
1) The Auditor's Subdivision which created the existing lot provided
larger lot areas than required under current ordinance.
2) The existing home is situated on the lot so that a separate lot
can feasibly be created.
3) The 17,500 sq. ft. lot is too much for one owner to maintain
adequately. Two lots would be better maintained.
4) There are less than 100 single-family lots available in Brooklyn
Center. The new lot would add needed housing.
5) The parcel is fairly unique in that there are few lots within the
City with a similar situation. Other lots of similar size are -
occupied by older homes that, in some cases, are poorly maintained.
A variance as is being requested might provide the incentive for
rehabilitating the existing homes.
6) Neighboring property owners indicate they are not opposed to the
split and look forward to rehabilitation of the existing house.
One point in the letter that perhaps needs some clarification is the size of the
lots lying on the west side of Colfax Avenue where homes were built approximately
10 to 13 years ago. These lots have a minimum frontage of 76' in width, not the
approximate 66' in width that the letter seems to imply.
The Zoning Ordinance authorizes variances from the literal provisions of the
ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under
`- consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration
by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met:
8-13-81 -1-
Application Nos. 81056, 81057
OR
7
M,
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo-
graphical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished
from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations
were to be carried out.
b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based
are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought,
and are not common, generally, to other property within the same
zoning classification.
c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this
ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or
formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighbor-
hood in which the parcel of land is located.
The past precedent for approving substandard lots has evolved over the years to
support a stricter reading of the ordinance requirements. Prior to 1968, a number
of variances were granted under a "70% rule" which allowed for variances from
ordinance requirements for lot width and area as long as 70% of the requirement
could be met. This rule gravely undercut the City's lot standards and was elimi-
nated during the 1960's in response to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
During the late 1960's and early 1970's, the City was often confronted with
variance requests to build on substandard size lots of prior legal record. This
lead in 1976 to an ordinance amendment which declared all lots of legal record
prior to January 1, 1976 buildable if they are at least 40' in width and 5,000
square feet in area, and if all setback requirements can be met. Since 1976, few
requests for variancesfrom subdivision requirements have been filed with the
Planning Commission. However, outlots (by definition unbuildable) larger than
40' in width and 5,000 sq. ft. in area have been denied building permits because
they were not legal buildable lots prior to 1976. This interpretation was upheld
by the court in the case of Yesnes vs. City of Brooklyn Center (Application No.
77022). Legal status and not relative frontage or area of a lot in question was
found to be of paramount importance. The Planning Commission should, therefore,
evaluate the proposed variance on its own merits without regard to other smaller
lots in the City.
Generally, past precedent seems to suggest that at least three things must apply
before such a variance is considered for approval:
1) The variance(s) have been minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2) There is no excess land available on adjacent lots to meet the
strict letter of the ordinance.
3) The proposed lot or lots meet at least one of the requirements
for either frontage or lot area, especially lot area.
Beyond these general conditions, the request must be reasonable and justified in
light of the Standards for a Variance. The variance requested meets only one of
the three general conditions outlined above (namely 71), but does not meet the next
two conditions. In this case, there is excess land available both to the south and
to the north which could make both lots standard as to width and area. Lot 2 of
the proposed subdivision does meet the area requirement of 9,500 sq. ft. for single
family lots, but Lot 1 is substandard by 14.9 feet in frontage and 1,500 sq. ft.
in area. A garage on the property at 6624 Colfax Avenue North is 20.6' north of
8-13-81 -2-
Application Nos. 81056, 81057
the north property line of the proposed Lot 1 which is ample space to allow for a
transfer of 15 feet of property to make the proposed Lot 1 standard as to both
width and area. A hedgerow and accessory building on the property to the south
would make acquisition of land in that direction more costly. The existing lots
to both the north and south are over 130' wide and can easily accommodate the sale
of necessary land to make both proposed parcels standard.
As to whether this request for a variance is reasonable and justified based on
the Standards for a Variance, it is staff's opinion that it falls short. The
hardship of maintaining a large lot is not a denial of the reasonable use of the
property by the ordinance. It is an inconvenience for the current owner which may
become an opportunity for a large garden for the next owner. Nor is any guarantee
established by such a subdivision that the house in question will be better main-
tained. The situation is not particularly unique as there are very few substandard
lots in the Northeast Neighborhood, yet quite a number of oversized lots•
Just within this immediate block (bounded by Colfax on the west and Bryant on the
east) there are five other lots in excess of 130 feet in width, that could under
similar circumstances,demand the same consideration.
The difficulty which the present owner faces is a result, not of the Zoning
Ordinance, but of actions taken by those previously having an interest in the parcel
of land. Finally, we would cite the potentially negative impact such a variance
could have on property values generally by watering down significantly the standards
by which most other lots in the City have been created. On this point, we would
quote the 1968 edition of Principles and Practice of Urban Planning page 467:
"One of the more common situations in which variances are sought is
where a developer divides his land into the greatest possible number
of lots barely meeting minimum requirements and then seeks permission
to create substandard lots out of the resulting remnants of land.
The plat approval agency should remember that the subdivision
regulations are intended to set forth minimum standards for develop-
ment, not maximums. The intent of the regulations is clearly that
these remnants of land should be used to increase the area of other
lots rather than to "break" the mimimum requirements. Every time
that a variance is granted allowing a substandard lot, it weakens
the legal position of the approval agency in the event the agency
is galled upon to defend its general standards." (emphasis added)
Rather than a remnant, in this case we have an oversize parcel. Nevertheless, the
extra land in this case does not justify the creation of a substandard lot and we
believe that the past actions of the City do not give the applicant a "right" to
a second lot within the limits of her property.
Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the variance application be denied on the
grounds that the Standards for a variance are not met. Consequently, the subdivision
application should also be denied on the basis that the minimum lot standards of
the Zoning Ordinance are not met.
8-13-81 -3-
r
N*.
M
July 31, 1981
City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Property located at 6610 Colfax Avenue North
Dear Council Members:
We have recently purchased the property at 6610 Colfax Avenue North, and are
rehabilitating the existing 36 year old house. The property is 131.4 feet wide
and 133.25feet deep, with a total area of approximately 17,500 square feet. It
is nearly twice the size of individual lots across the street on which homes
were built on 10 - 13 years ago.
We are requesting to split the parcel into two lots consisting of a 60.1 foot
wide and 8,000 square foot area lot, and a 71.3 foot wide lot with a 9,500
square foot area. The existing house would be on the 9,500 square foot lot. In
order to do this we are requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for
3.7 feet on one lot and 14.9 feet on the other lot in frontage width, and an
area variance of 1,500 square feet on the smaller lot.
The variance is being requested for the following reasons:
1. The existing house is situated on a large parcel of land which was
subdivided by an old Auditor's Subdivision in 1942. The old subdivision
provided lot sizes much larger than the current ordinance requirements
and individual needs.
2. The existing home sets on a portion of the lot that provides for the
physical capability of dividing the lot into two smaller lots. A
new house can be built on the second lot with all of the setback
requirements met for both lots.
3. The existing area of 17,500 square feet is an excessive amount of area
to be maintained by future property owners of the existing old house.
Therefore, the creation of a second parcel will conceivably provide
better maintenance of the exterior area of the existing property.
4. According to the City staff of Brooklyn Center, there are only less
than 100 R-1 single family home sites remaining within the corporate
limits. The subdivision of this lot provides additional housing
within the City in the R-1 single family type of setting and
atmosphere.
5. There are only a few lots within the City of Brooklyn Center which
have a similar situation as this parcel of land. In most cases the
parcels are occupied by older homes and in some cases would provide
the incentive for rehabilitation of the existing homes.
' ((DD (D ((DD (D
(D (D (D
m (D (D (D
0 o 0 0 n
W
W
W
W
w
'j,
cn
Cn
cn
cn
1
1
I
1
1
V
O
cn
.A
w
H
O
►]
O
((DD
(CD
((DD
((DD
C+
(n
(D
U'
(D
(D
C/)
(D
(D
U)
n
(D
cn
ID
(D
a
w
a
r•
a
r-
a
w
a
r-
a
w
K
0
r+(D
CO
C/3
cn
Cl)
CO
•G
^C
�C
"G
•C
'C
w
W
w
w
w
O
(D
m
(D
(D
(D
cn
Cn
cn
cn
cn
•-'
► -
t—
�—
O
O
O
O
O
O
C+
\O
`.-S
rt
O
r+
K
O
K
O
K
O
rt
O
rfi
O
r(r
O
m.
(DIK
N
W
cn
o)
cn
0o
V
O
cO
A.
W
V
O
N
N
V
O
Cn
cn
¢,
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C+ r.
v v
�
�
G
>✓
�
�
G
C
C
G
C
r-
r
r•
r•
r-
r-
r•
r•
r-
r•
w
rt
rt
ct
rt
rt
r+
rt
rt
rt
Ci•
h
O cn i O CD— M
�O O CD cji CI O O O 1 O Cn Cn O O 1Jt O Q,
(D rt
i0 cn w W W cn Cn W W CO W w W w w GO ►tj
A O cn cn cn O O cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn cn Ul KO
r+
N
• v
W
N
�P
•A. �A
�A
�A
�A
�A
�A I �. I
N
I N
,b
K
Cn
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O 1 O 1
Cn
1 cn
(D
�
(L
v
v
v
v
FN
r-n
CA
�Ni
v v
O Cn
v v
C+
�
0
•
r+
f-+ ►
N
N
► r
r
I ► + r� r-+
►�
0."
CO
�
O
O
O O
O
O
cn
O
( O O O
O
O O
v
v
v
v
v
0
v
O
r-n
v
Cn N N N cn cn N N N N N N N N N () Cn
.n O Crl cn cn O O Cn Cn Cn cn cn cn (n cn cn O
.A .A
v v U (D �
• ''( N
r• cn I(A
In :;- In
p a jY.
0
cn
O I
rC+ ZJ C�
�o.
C.). '"' o
O
C�
O G7
M
O
C �7j
K
(D H
rLi vi
s✓ H
H
ig H
C po
C M
0 rcri
W M
K
F-3
Iy Cn
'c3
ty
Pi (D
(D
rt
O (D
� O
(D rh
rvj
Q..
r+
CD
d r+
r�r (D
K ^
r rr`!+
0
� O
C' CJ
r• K
::' O
(n
C
n n
C (D
N
(D e`3r
(D
K
0) D
9 W6
7 fics+ L4.T
60
KJA, .. 8 NZ9 , 04
10,30
-T30 r 14
05 4
3I, 54 r I' 36 r Q r -'3
13
130
U1 12
t 4 r-
13,3 1? 3
10 z Ins 42 ->,.,I
1 0.31
-:,31f-�- "n 133.30
19
6
01 w.3- 133.34s
jD-Z�-
A
CA-"O
"i
/33-12 ,
Ack3i N85'022 W e=
i.
OD
fn
8
8 .
7
8 01.47 lft�c
" Z, �o
13-11 1�430 13001 3,0 13:
40
It.we.
"": L i2
326.83 N 8 9- 6 -E 67 AV_,N,
,j,3, 33 L , 163.4 i 103.19 3114 50 1 6;6'13'4Z-
3; 6 31.8 8 -
R,
-32
35
.'P,
25 ' I
v
AVE.
e5
Mean be-;,romelholf-Dsed