Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 01-31 MEMORI' NDUM TO: The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Mary Simmons 560 -0431 Louis Sullivan 560 -0135 Everett Lindh 560 -0835 Mrs. David Brandvold 560 -8263 Ben Davidson 561 -5767 June Scofield 560 -0740 Dolores Hastings 561 -3956 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectioff DATE: January 31, 1983 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 83003 (Rezoning) The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on January 27, 1983 and has referred this matter to your Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application is submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center which requests rezoning from R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) to R6 (Multiple - Family Residence of four or five stories in height) of 7.15 acres of land from a total of 13.27 acres located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I -94 and Highway 100. The 7.15 acres are proposed to be divided into two lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the proposed Brookwood Addition plat which is part of Planning Com- mission Application No. 83005) on which 138 units of elderly housing are proposed in two buildings. The remaining 6.12 acres on the proposed Lot 3 would remain under its current R3 zoning and be developed as a 32 unit townhouse project. Additional right-of-way totcling 1.31 acres would be dedicated with the proposed plat for right -of -way purposes along North Lilac Drive. The property in question is bounded on the west by Highway 100, on the north by Interstate 94 and on the southeast by Lilac Drive. The City is seeking the rezoning in order to accomTodate the two elderly housing buildings mentioned above. A letter has been submitted by Mr. Brad Hoffman, Ad- ministrative Assistant to the City Manager, explaining the proposed rezoning and how it is consistent with the housing Alement of the City's Comprehensive Plan by providing affordable housing for the elderly. It is felt that the design of the entire project is such that there will be significant public benefits if the project is completed. It should also be noted that the overall housing density proposed with this project is not much greater than if the land were developed under its existing R3 zoning. Also traffic generation from elderly housing units is about half of that for typical multiple housing units, so the impact from a traffic standpoint will actually be less than if the land were fully developed under its existing zoning classification. The Neighborhood Advisory Group should be advised that this rezoning would require an amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan as that Plan relates to Policy Statements for the Southeast Neighborhood and also, the land use designation map which comprehends mid- density (R3) zoning for this entire area. Again, it is felt that the overall effects of this project give merit to a favorable consideration for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning requested. Memorandum to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Page 2 January 31, 1983 Attached with the information being supplied to you is a copy of Section 35 -208 of the City Zoning Ordinance which is the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. It should be a major consideration when reviewing the proposed. application. The Plan- ning Commission has directed the staff to prepare the necessary Comprehensive Plan amerxlnents so that a public hearing can be held on March 3, 1983 to consider such an amendment. The following information is also enclosed for your review: 1. A copy of the January 27, 1983 Planning Commission minutes relating to Application No. 83003. 2. The Planning C m Lission Information Sheet for Application No. 83003 (rezoning); the Information Sheet for Application No. 83005 (pre- liminary plat); and the Information sheet for Application No. 83004 ( site and building plan) . 3. A letter from the applicant requesting the rezoning. 4. A map of the area showing the location of the property in question and the existing zoning districts in the area. 5. A preliminary plat indicating how the property is to be subdivided that being the preliminary plat for the proposed Brookwood Addition containing three lots, Lots 1, 2 and 3; Lots 1 and 2 are the location of the proposed R6 zoning. 6. A site plan indicating the proposed layout for Building A (a 73 unit elderly condominium building), Building B (a 65 unit elderly apartment building) and a 32 unit townhouse complex on the remaining land. 7. A copy of Section 35 -208 of the City ordinances regarding the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 1983 and will be held at the Earle Brown Elementary School, 5900 Humboldt Avenue North in the Activity Room. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission has scheduled reconsideration of all of the above applications in addition to a Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing on March 3, 1983 and the Plan- ning Commission has respectfully requested that the minutes of the Southeast Neigh- borhood Advisory Group be submitted to the City offices in writing by February 28, 1983. Thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. rd9 APPLICATION NO. 83003 (City of Brooklyn Center ), •APPLICATION NO. 83005 (Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority) and APPLICATION NO. 83004 (Blumentals Architecture) s The Secretary then introduced the next three items of business together: a rezoning request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from R3 to R6 two parcels of land proposed in the preliminary plat for the Brookwood Addition at the southeast corner of I -94 and Highway 100; a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide I into three parcels and dedication of right -of -way for North Lilac Drive the same land; and a request for site and building plan approval for a three part development, including a 65 unit elderly rental building, a 73 unit elderly condominium building, and a 32 unit con - dominium townhouse project on the same land as the previous two appli- cations. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the three staff reports consecutively (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 83003, 83005 and 83004 attached). The Secretary stated that a similar project would require that land be rezoned somewhere in the City to R6. The Secretary also explained, during his review of the preliminary plat, the condominium form of ownership for Lots 2 and 3 in the Brookwood Addition. He explained that most owner - occupied townhouse developments have a separate lot and block for each townhouse unit. He stated that in this case, people would own the inner space of units, but would not own the outside walls themselves. These outer structures and land area would all be owned by the condominium association. He stated that the association documents would be similar to those for a townhouse association. In reviewing the site plan, the Secretary added that the landscape plan has been revised to provide sufficient six inch diameter trees for each aspect of the development. He also explained that the building setbacks for the two larger buildings are equal to twice the height of the building in order to meet the Zoning Ordi- nance and to protect the single family neighborhood as much as possible. He also briefly pointed out that the parking lots would be screened by berming and plantings shown on the grading and land- scape plans. Chairman Lucht asked whether the Commission had any questions of the Secretary. Hearing none, he called on the applicant to speak. Dr. Duane Orn, President of Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP), briefly reviewed some of the initial history of the project. He explained that a presentation by Rothchild Finance Corporation had been made to the Chamber of Commerce and to CEAP regarding an elderly housing concept in 1980. He explained that both the Chamber and CEAP felt that the project was too large for them to pursue alone. Each organization, however, passed a resolution to pursue the idea. He explained that a committee was formed to explore possi- bilities for an elderly housing project. He reviewed the list of committee members and concluded by stating that Mr. Phil Cohen, former Mayor of Brooklyn Center, had been named the Chairman of the Steering Committee to select a consultant to work with on a possible 1 -27 -83 -3- HUD 11 202" elderly housing project. He then introduced Phil Cohen to explain the development of the project concept. Mr. Phil Cohen then addressed the Planning Commission and reviewed in further detail the history of the project. He explained that the initial idea for the project was for a subsidized housing project for elderly residents. He stated that under the federal program, Brooklyn Center would not be able to screen applicants in favor of Brooklyn Center residents. Mr. Cohen explained that the concept of the project was to move elderly residents of Brooklyn Center into the housing project and allow them to sell their homes to younger families. Mr. Cohen explained that the concept of the project evolved from a subsidized rental project to one which would involve condominium ownership of at least some of the units. He stated that informational meetings were held with the neighborhood and that Brutger Corporation was selected as the project developer in the summer of 1981. Mr. Cohen explained that a market study was done to see what the demand was for rental and condominium units in the area and to see what types of things prople desired in the pro- ject (such as garden plots, etc.). The market study was submitted to the City Council if March of 1982 and the process of land acquisition was begun. Mr. Cohen then explained that the City Council made application for $8,000,000 in low interest mortgage money from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and received the money. Mr. Cohen noted that there would be a good economic stimulus from the project both from the new building and from renovation of existing housing as new people move in. Mr. Cohen teen explained that further informational meet- ings had been held with the people in the neighborhood and that the design of the project had been developed with the comments of people in the neighborhood in mind. He then reviewed some of the articles in the local press about the project. He stated that he felt people had been sounded out for their receptivity to the project and for their possible demand for units that would be built. He stated that he felt this was a good example of the public and private sector working together to meet people's needs. Mr. Cohen also pointed out that the development is unique from the standpoint of the amount of control that the City has over the design and execution of the project. He concluded by noting that the traffic impact as a result of the proposed elderly development would be less than if the land were developed under its existing zoning. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Jim Demaree of 6114 Girard Avenue North, stated that he felt the concept was good and that good planning had gone into the project. He stated that he felt the project would be good for the neighborhood and good for the City. Chairman Lucht then asked if anyone else wished to comment on the project. The Secretary reminded those present that there would be a neighborhood meeting on February 9, 1983 at the Earle Brown Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Manson asked whether there would be a restriction on who could move into the project. Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative • Assistant to the City Manager, explained that restricting people on the basis of origin was not legal. He explained, however, that the project would provide certain financial incentives to local residents, which would not be available to non - Brooklyn Center residents. He explained that there would be 2.5 million dollars in 1 -27 -83 -4- mortgage money available to elderly residents moving into the project to finance the sale of their homes if those homes are in Brooklyn Center. IIe added that he has a list of some.200 names who are interested in the project. Chairman Lucht again asked whether anyone present wished to comment . on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to table the three applications and continue the public hearing on the plat and the rezoning until the March 3, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83003 (City of Broo Center) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 83003, continue the public hearing, and refer the application to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment and to direct staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83005 (Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to table Application No. 83005 and continue the public hearing until March 3, 1983. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83004 (Blumentals Architecture) Motion by Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 83004 until the March 3, 1983 Planning Commis- sion meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Following the tabling of all three applications, the Secretary told those present that the plans for development would be available for interested persons to look at after the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Chairman • 1 -27 -83 -5- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83003 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southeast corner of I -94 and Highway 100 Request: Rezoning The applicant requests rezoning from R3 to R6 of two parcels of land totaling 7.15 acres in area at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I -94 and Highway 100. The two parcels in question are Lots l and 2, Block 1 of the proposed Brookwood Addition plat (see Application No. 83005). The land is currently zoned R3 and is bounded by Highway 100 on the west, by Lilac Drive on the southeast and by a 6.12 acre parcel (Lot 3, Block 1, Brookwood Addition) of R3 zoned land on the northeast. The rezoning is requested in order to allow the construction of 138 units of elderly housing in two buildings over three storeys in height on the two parcels (see Application No. 83004). Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager, has submitted a letter requesting the rezoning (copy attached). Mr. Hoffman explains that the proposal is consistent with the Housing Plan element of the City's Comprehensive Plan by providing affordable housing for the elderly. Mr. Hoffman points out that the housing in the southeast neighborhood is among the oldest in the City and would be more suitable for and better maintained by younger families. Mean- while, older residents can find suitable housing within the same neighborhood. A market analysis done by the City in January 1982 verified the need for elderly housing called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hoffman points out that the gross land area (including Lilac Drive right -of -way) could support roughly 150 townhouse units. Although the proposed development is 170 units (138 elderly), he points out that the amount of traffic generated by elderly housing is approxi- mately half that generated by townhouses on a per unit basis. Therefore, less is traffic will actually result from more units. Mr. Hoffman also notes that traffic from the development will be diverted in three directions with minimal impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Hoffman also points out that there is no R6 zoned land available in the City and that such land is necessary to build the kind of project proposed. Mr. Hoffman argues that the project meets a public need for elderly housing and, at the same time, is compatible with the neighborhood and the physical surround- ings. He adds that the land involved is so clouded with title problems that development of the property would be nearly impossible without the assistance of the City. As the Commission may know, the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority intends to declare a tax increment district to include the rezoned area and will use the increment basically to make both new and exist- ing housing more affordable. Not surprisingly, the planning staff concur with the rezoning request and the arguments made to support it. We feel that the design of the entire project is such that there will be significant public benefits. Although the Comprehensive Plan recommends mid - density residential development in this area, the Plan also recommends the supply of more elderly housing and does not specify where it should be built. It is logical that some amendment of the Plan is necessary to accommodate affordable housing for the elderly somewhere in Brooklyn Center. It should also be stressed that the overall housing density is not that much greater than if the land were developed under its existing zoning. Consequently, even though there are more units, because of the 138 elderly units, the resulting • traffic, noise, etc. will actually be less than if the land were fully developed under its existing zoning classifcation. 1 -27 -83 -1- Application No. 83003 continued It is also important to note that the number of units to be constructed on the entire Brookwood development (see Application No. 83004) will be limited through deed restriction to 170 units. The deed restriction keeps the property from being developed to its maximum potential in keeping with the City's desire to minimize the impact of the development on the adjacent neighborhood. The City's HRA is also entering into a contract with the developer, Brutger Company, re- quiring elderly occupancy for Building B and condominium form of ownership for Building A and the townhouses. Attached for the Planning Commission's review are the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezoninas from Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. Most of these guidelines have been addressed by the applicant. Guideline (g), which asks whether the current zoning classification is inappropriate for the property, has not been dealt with since over 6 acres of the Brookwood development will remain zoned (and developed) R3. The R3 zoning classification is not considered inappropriate for this location. However, it may be noted that recent rezonings of land to R3 in the northeast and southeast neighborhoods more than make up for the land area lost from the R3 classification in this rezoning. What is more,the land in question will be the only R6 zoned land in the City. As with all rezonings, it is recommended that the Commission open and continue a public hearing on the proposal, table the rezoning and associated applications, and refer the matter to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The rezoning will also require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that such an amendment, along with the rezoning, plat, and site and building plan, be given final consideration at the Commission's March 3, 1983 meeting. We recom- mend that the Commission's referral to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group specifically stipulate that the neighborhood group's action be conveyed to the City offices in writing by February 28, 1983 for prompt review by the Commission on March 3 and direct the staff to prepare the necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 1 -27 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83005 Housin and Redevelopment Applicant: Brooklyn Center g Authority p Location: Southeast quadrant of I -94 and Highway 100 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots and right -of -way the 14.58 acre triangular area of land at the southeast corner of I -94 and Highway 100. The land is presently zoned R3 and is bounded by Highway 100 on the west, by I -94 on the north and by North Lilac Drive on the southeast. The current legal description of the property is a metes and bounds description far too lengthy to quote here. The property is partially owned by the City (about 4.5 acres). The remainder is being acquired by condemnation proceedings implemented by the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The proposed legal description is Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Brookwood Addition. The 14.58 acres are apportioned to the lots and right -of -way in the following manner: Lot 1 142,070 sq. ft. = 3.26 acres Lot 2 169,470 sq. ft. = 3.89 acres Lot 3 266,455 sq. ft. = 6.12 acres Lilac Dr. 57,162 sq. ft. = 1.31 acres Total 635,157 sq. ft. =14.58 acres Lots 1 and 2 are the subject of rezoning (to R6) Application No. 83003. Lot 1 is proposed for a 65 unit. 3 plus storey elderly rental building. Lot 2 is proposed' for a 73 unit condominium building. Lot 3 will be a 32 unit townhouse project under a condominium form of ownership (separate ownership of units, but no division of land). There will also be a dedication of 30' for additional right -of -way along Lilac Drive to make that street a full street width of 60'. There presently exists a 33' right -of -way for Fremont Avenue North through part of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the proposed plat. This right -of -way will be vacated by the City prior to final plat approval. No utility easements are presently shown on the preliminary plat. The City is preparing site utility plans for the develop- ment and it is expected that a 10' wide utility easement will be needed along North Lilac Drive and also utility easements 10' on either side of property lines separating Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 2 and 3. Utility structures such as manholes will be located in these easement areas. Meanwhile, under the condominium form of ownership, the City will have a legal right to repair on -site utilities in the event they are not properly maintained by the private.associations. As has been noted,Lots 2 and 3 will be held in condominium form of ownership. The condominium will not be declared, however, until construction is completed and the physical locations of various units can be certified. During construction, the land will be owned b Brutger Company, the developer. The condominium form of ownership is stipulated in a contract which the City is entering into with the Brutger Company. Altogether, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: Is 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 1 -27 -83 -1- Application No. 83005 continued 2) The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 3) Condominium association documents for Lots 2 and 3 are subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4) The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority shall enter a contract with the developer stipulating condominium form of ownership for Lots 2 and 3 prior to final plat approval. 5) Fremont Avenue North right -of -way shall be legally vacated by the City prior to final plat approval. 6) The preliminary plat shall be modified to indicate appropriate utility easements in accordance with the City's site utility plan prior to final plat approval. 7) Building permits shall not be issued until the final plat has been filed at the County. 1 -27 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83004 Applicant: Blumentals Architecture Location: North Lilac Dr. between Humboldt and Dupont Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval for a three part development consisting of a 73 -unit elderly condominium build- ing, a 65 -unit elderly apartment building, and 32 townhouse units, all on the land lying east of Highway 100, south of I -94, and north- west of North Lilac Drive. The total land area is 13.27 acres and is presently zoned R3. Of the 13.27 acres, 7.33 acres are proposed for rezoning to R6 under Application No. 83003. The maximum number of units which can be built on the two R6 parcels are 65 units (84 with an under - building parking credit of 500 sq. ft. per unit) on Lot 1 and 77 units (100 with an under - building credit of 500 sq. ft. per unit) on Lot 2. The maximum number of townhouses permissible on Lot 3 (6.12 acres) is 49 units without an under - building parking density credit. The 170 units proposed is, therefore, well within the-potential of 233 units which could be built, given the same design concept and respective land areas in the R3 and R6 zones. It is substantially more units than the 107 townhouse units (131 with maximum under- building parking density credit) which would be allowed without the rezoning to R6 of over 7 acres of this site. Access to the development will be at three distinct points along North Lilac Drive. North Lilac Drive is proposed to be cul- de -saced at its intersection with Fremont Avenue North. From the north, Lilac Drive will stop at 62nd Avenue North, leaving a break in North • Lilac Drive just south of 62nd Avenue North. This break is in- tended to prevent through traffic along North Lilac Drive from Humboldt Avenue North to Dupont Avenue North and vice versa. The townhouses and the 73 unit condominium building will access north of 62nd Avenue North; the 65 unit rental building will access south of the break. Parking for Building A (the condos) will be 74 spaces either under the building or under a raised plaza area southwest of the building and 32 stalls outside the building for a total of 106 stalls. In addition, the plan provides for 40 proof -of- parking stalls south- east of the building to meet the ordinance requirement of two stalls per unit. Likewise, for the rental building (Building B), there will be 66 interior parking spaces and 27 exterior spaces for a total of 93 spaces. In addition, the pan shows 38 deferred spaces to exceed by one the total requirement of 130 for the building. Two outside handicapped stalls are provided for each building. There will be four interior handicapped stalls in Building B and two in Building A, providing one for each handicapped unit. Parking for the townhouses will include 44 garage stalls (not under - building) and 52 exterior stalls, including 16 "guest stalls ". This provides a total of 96 stalls or three stalls per unit. We feel this is just about right, although the ordinance requires only 64 stalls. The drainage plan for the development is rather complex and will not be reviewed in detail here. Of note is the fact that drainage will be managed on -site and will not drain out onto public streets. It should also be noted that there will be a number of low areas around the site to collect drainage, but none of these low areas 1 -27 -83 -1- Application No. 83004 continued will act as a holding pond. Rather, there will be catch basins within these low areas to collect the runoff and convey it through storm sewer to the state's storm sewer in the I -94 right -of -way. Utility plans for the site are being designed by the City's Engineering Department and are general in nature at this time, indicating to the Planning Commission necessary service to the project site. The landscape plan is generally designed to preserve good solar orientation for the structures. Shade trees tend to be planted south of structures to provide shade in summer and allow sun light to pass through in winter. Coniferous trees which are full year - round and act as wind - breaks are planted north of structures. There is a good variety of plantings overall, though the sizes tend to be on the small side (shade trees: diameter; conifer and decorative trees: 3' to 6' high). Shade trees include Marshall's Green Ash, Redmond Linden, Red Maple and Hackberry. Decorative trees include: Mountain Ash, Russian Olive and Radiant Crab. Conifers consist of Black Hills Spruce and Ponderosa Pine and are located adjacent to the freeway right -of -way and north of Building A. (Note: we have experienced some difficulty with these two conifers on previous projects and would recommend considering a different specie of spruce and pine.) In addition, there are smaller shrubs including VanHoute Spirea ( ), Honeysuckle ( ) and Mockorange ( ) located primarily adjacent to parking lots and pedestrian ways. Finally, there are 11 trees of unspecified variety which will remain primarily on the townhouse site. The Zoning Ordinance requires 10 six -inch diameter trees for Building B, 11 for Building A, and 5 for the townhouse project. These have not been provided. Vegetable garden plots are planned in the area north of Building B. Landscaping for the plaza area, south of Building A, has not yet been specified, but generous planting areas are shown on the ground floor plan. The building exterior of the two main buildings will be brick. The color is not yet specified. Building A (the condos) is a five storey building; Building B is three storeys above grade. Each of the units will have a triangular screen porch which protrudes out from the main wall of the building. One face of this screen porch will be walled off to allow maximum solar exposure and minimize winds from north, east, or west. Another face will be window space to allow entry of the sun's rays. The last face opens to the apartment or condo unit. Building A will have 48 two- bedroom units, 10 one - bedroom, and 15 one - bedroom - with -den units. Building B (apartments) will have 33 one - bedroom units, 6 one - bedroom - with -den, and 26 two - bedroom units. Both buildings will be equipped with an automatic fire ex- tinguishing system. A landscaped plaza, 72' x 108' in area, and raised to first floor level is proposed south of Building A. The townhouses are in clusters of four and six units. All have two bedrooms; twelve also have dens. There are two handicapped town- house units. The exteriors will be horizontal wood siding with Cedar trim. Garages will be the same exterior treatment, detached, and situated to the north of the respective townhouse units to serve as a partial wind - break. The open area will be occupied by a patio and a small green space. Staggered board Cedar privacy 1 -27 -83 -2- Application No. 83004 continued fences will extend between units and garages to separate each patio area. Altogether, the plans appear to be in order and approval.is recom- mended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Building A and Building B are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. Building permits for Buildings A and B are subject to completion of the rezoning process (description of the land in the Zoning Ordinance) and filing of the plat at Hennepin County. 9. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 40 spaces on Lot 2 (Building A) and 38 spaces on Lot 1 (Building B). These parking stalls shall be installed if the City determines that installed parking spaces are insufficient to meet demand. 1 -27 -83 -3- CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C NEMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE Li 561 -5720 January 18, 1983 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning & Inspection 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Mr. Warren: On behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center, I am submitting a request for the rezoning of a portion of vacant land located between Humboldt Avenue and Dupont Avenue and bounded by North Lilac on the south. The site is approximately 15 acres which will be subdivided into three (3) parcels to accommodate the development of elderly housing. The public need for such housing has been well documented. Our Comprehensive Plan points out the pressing current need for elderly housing in Brooklyn Center. It adds, "that the elderly segment of the population, usually existing on a fixed income, is having an increasingly difficult time coping with the rising costs of housing ". It is the intent of this development project to provide housing alternatives to the elderly. It is also the intent to encourage the owners (elderly) of single family homes to sell their under utilized three (3) and four (4) bedroom homes to young families.. In turn, the elderly will then reside in the housing units designed specifically for them. The Comprehensive Plan also acknowledges the deterioration of the City's housing stock, especially in the southeast neighborhood. The sale of housing from the elderly to younger families will in the long term help alleviate the deterioration of the City's housing stock. It is felt that the younger families will be both physically and in a long term better financially prepared to deal with the maintenance and expense associated with the ownership of a home. It is known that the City's population is growing older and that the number of under utilized homes in Brooklyn Center is also growing. The need and desire for housing for the elderly in Brooklyn Center has been demonstrated through a market analysis done by the City in January of 1982. The need for such housing has also been demonstrated throughout the entire metropolitan area. F i I I "'jle Sosscetlsucg X11 ozc city CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE -FIRE v 561 -5720 -2- The entire site is presently zoned R3, which under the current zoning of the site has the potential for the construction of approximately 150 townhouses. It is the City's request to replat the entire area into three (3) parcels and rezone two parcels to R6 with the third parcel remaining in R3. The total develop- ment contemplates the construction of 170 units of which 138 would be elderly housing only . It has been our experience with elderly housing projects that the level of traffic generated from elderly housing projects is approximately half of that generated from an equivalent townhouse project. Site and building plans for the site deal extensively with the traffic impact on the adjoining neighborhood by diverting the traffic in three (3) different directions, none of which have a significant impact on the neighborhood immediately south. It is our belief that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and helps to provide for the stability of the neighborhood. It should also be noted that the number of units proposed for the site have been limited or will be limited through deed restrictions. There have ueen no substantial, physical or rezoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was originally zoned. However, significant portions of the site were taken for the development of highways 100 and 694. It should also be noted that the proposed project will be required to be in compliance with the applicable zoning requirements. The subject property is suitable for townhouse construction. The proposed rezoning is warranted for a number of reasons. First, as noted, the Comprehensive Plan indicates a need for such housing in Brooklyn Center. In order to accommodate this development, there is a need for R6 land to accommodate the type of 'wilding as proposed. There is currently no available R6 zoned land in the City. Second, the rezoning is also in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood as much as it provides alternative housing choices for the elderly allowing them to remain in their neighborhood and it also recycles the existing housing within that neighborhood to a better use. It should also be noted that the land involved is so clouded with title problems that it could not be developed without the assistance of the City. I will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the project in greater detail. Sincerely, 1'/ 31 Brad Hoffman ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT BH:dn 74e _5amcticuc9 Vt OU eitel NOS -WADE'. Q APPLICA 83005 830035 83004, L--- 62ND 1 w I 1- i o: CD AV E i 61 `ST i ? 35 - 36 F I� 2 1 ° �2 AV E �C` 0 � 60.TN x E ABLE I J BROW N / GR ANDVIEW i SC HOOL qVE: PARK � S S9 TN C2 p/ I A T E - 3 /i 56 ,TH 1 1 i ui UJ UJ - e ' - i F - �" I - I I O � O i .. J i / , llyp p r ' a • ,, \\� � yam/ 3 ^b pNre;� � of ' O p CL 4b > Q z cr J Q � d C0 Q f ! a I f CL CL LU � ., /`a �� ��— , /�! /? / �; t •� �` � ,., P a l i. - � ]� 6 r Section 35 -208 REZ014ING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (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? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel?