Laserfiche WebLink
5 March 1980 <br />PIANN ING REPORT <br />CASE NUMBER: 1247-80 <br />APPLICANT: Roseville Properties <br />LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Snelling Avenue <br />and County Road C -2 <br />ACTION REQUESTED + Approval of Variance to Allow Efficiency <br />Units, Density Requirements, and Parking <br />Requirements <br />Rezoning from B -1 and B -3 to R -3A <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS <br />l . The property in question is zoned B-1 . except the southerly 2 feet which <br />-. is zoned E -3. The later property was at one time a <br />y part of the service <br />station property to the south. At the time the apartments were constructed, <br />apartment units were a special use in the B-1 District and that was why the <br />land is zoned B--1. Thus, the apartments are currently a "legal non. <br />conforming use" in the B -1 District. we have therefore recommended that <br />as a part of this action that the land be rezoned to its appropriate R-3A <br />District. <br />2. You will note from the company's site plan that th ere are two apartment <br />unit structures on the site. The applicant proposes to add two efficiency <br />units in each building plus a one bedroom unit in one of the buildings. <br />The attached letter, from the applicant delineates the land and parking <br />requirements. You will note that the land platted i s less than that <br />currently required in the R -3A District. That is because the land <br />requirements were charged after the apartments were constructed. when the <br />initial ordinance was writtenr the land requirements for a two bedroom <br />apartment and single family units were less. <br />3. The variance requested would equal the 5,858 square feet needed for the <br />existing units plus 7,500 square feet (add 1,900 square feet per unit) <br />required for the proposed units. Thus, the variance requested would equal <br />13,358 square feet. Inasmuch as no additions are to be made to the <br />buildings, it would appear that this variance to land area requirement is <br />not a significant factor. <br />4* With respect to the parking, the applicant proposes to add an additional <br />nine stalls. As you will note from the figures in the attached letter, <br />this would produce a total of 80 parking stalls, or a ratio of 1.7 stalls <br />per unit. This is the same ratio that exists with the 71 parking spaces <br />for the existing unit today. It should be noted that the parking <br />requirement for apartments at the time these were built was 1.5 parking <br />stalls per unit. To our knowledge there have been no parking needs beyond <br />that furnished on this site as of this time. y <br />Even though this apartment <br />