Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 10-09 MEMORANDUM TO: The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Louis Sullivan, Chairman 560 -0135 Everett Lindh 560 -0835 Mrs. David Brandvold 560 -8263 Ben Davidson 561 -5767 June Scofield 560 -0740 Dolores Hastings 561 -3956 George Lucht (liaison) 535 -6270 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectior✓ ,/ - SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 79055 (Rezoning) DATE: October 9, 1979 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing held on September 13, 1979 and has referred this matter to your Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and comment. The application was submitted by Mr. Edwin Kauffmann of Village Builders, who seeks a rezoning from Cl (Service/ Office) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) of an approximate one acre tract located at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. The property in question is bounded on the west by Logan Avenue and the Northbrook Shopping Center, on the north by 58th Avenue North and an R5 zoned apartment complex, on the east by single family homes that face onto Knox Avenue North, and on the south by a 75 foot wide private utility easement. The applicant has submitted a letter outlining how he feels the proposal meets the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. He notes that the proposed rezoning will provide additional housing units in the City of Brooklyn Center and in particular in the Brooklyn Center School District; that the proposal is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classification; that it is not good commercial property because it does, not have exposure or abut on a major thoroughfare; and that the property would be better utilized as residential. A copy of that letter is attached for your review. The applicant has also submitted a site plan under Planning Commission Appli- cation No. 79056 and is proposing to replat the area at a later date to provide for four two -unit buildings with individual lots to be sold to individual property owners under a Homeowner's Association Agreement. This site and building plan review will only be undertaken by the City should a favorable recommendation be made regarding the rezoning. The following information is enclosed for your review. 1. A copy of the September 13, 1979 Planning Commission minutes relating to Application No. 79055. 2. The Planning Commission information sheet for Application No. 79055. 3. A letter from Edwin Kauffmann, President of Village Builders, Inc. relating to the rezoning request. 4. A copy of Section 35 -208 of the City Zoning Ordinance regarding the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 5. A map of the area. Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Page 2 October 9, 1979 The meeting has been scheduled for Monday evening, October 15, 1979 and will be held at the Earle Brown Elementary School Activity Room located at 5900 Humboldt Avenue North. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission would appreciate your comments and /or your recommendations in writing within the next 10 days to two weeks. Thank you for your cooperation. i i THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1979 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chair- man Hal Pierce at 7:39 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 30, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the August 30 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: .none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 79055 and 79056 (Edwin Kauffmann /Villa e Builders) following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Application Nos. 79055 and 79056, rezoning to R3 and site and building plan approval for a townhouse complex on existing Cl property at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out that the land in question is slightly less than an acre in size and is bounded by the Northbrook Shopping Center on the west side of Logan Avenue, by an apartment complex on the north side of 58th Avenue North,by single family homes on the east and by a 75 foot wide NSP private utility easement on the south. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposes to replat the area to provide for four two unit buildings with individival lots of 34' x 96' for each of the eight units. The remainder of the land would be used for common area. The Secretary stated that the total land area of the site is 39,643 square feet and that at a density of eight units per acre, the parcel can accommodate 7.34 R3 type units. He noted, however, that the applicant proposes to utilize tuck - under garages which, under Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance, could entitle the builder to a credit of 500 square feet per garage space. With the tuck -under garages, therefore, the density allowable in excess of eight units. j I The Secretary then reviewed a letter submitted by the applicant outlining how he feels the proposal meets the Rezoning Evaluation and Review Guidelines. In it the applicant argues that the rezoning request meets all of the relevant j evaluation guidelines in the following ways: i 1. The proposed rezoning will provide additional housing units in the City of Brooklyn Center and the Earle Brown School District at a cost lower than traditional single family homes because of the density and construction costs savings. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications and provides for an excellent transition zoning buffering the existing RI zoned properties to the east from the C2 zoned Northbrook Shopping Center to the west. 3. All permitted uses in the R3 zoning district can be con - templated for the development of the subject property. 4. The property can bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for. the proposed zoning district. 9 -13 -79 _1_ 5. The parcel is unsuited for the present commercial zoning since it does not abut or have exposure to a major thoroughfare. For this reason it seems more suitable for residential development than commercial. 6. The proposed zoning is warranted because it provides a good transitional zone and buffering for the existing single family homes easterly of the site and because it will provide additional lower cost housing to replace some of the dwelling units lost to the City and the Earle Brown School District due to freeway construction. The Secretary explained that the preliminary recommendation of the Planning Consultant for this parcel is a down zoning to Rl. Relative to R3 development, the Planning Consultant considers that a minimum of 15 units is usually required for a development to break even and, therefore, smaller tracts in the City were not considered appropriate for R3 zoning. The Secretary noted, however, that the present Comprehensive Plan encourages 1 to 112 storey apartment buildings as a transition between the Northbrook Shopping Center and nearby single family housing to the east. He stated that staff considers the present Cl zoning to be inappropriate and that a down zoning of the property to a residential use would be more suitable for this location. Beyond this there does not seem to be any major conflict with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings. The Secret- ary recommended that the Commission, following review and discussion of the proposal and the holding of a public hearing, table the application and refer it to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and comment. The Secretary then briefly reviewed the site and building plans for the eight unit townhouses complex proposed for the site to be rezoned at 58th and Logan Avenues North. The Secretary explained that each individual unit will be 24 feet by 46 feet. Interior lots are proposed to be 34 feet by 96 feet and corner lots 29 feet by 96 feet. Individual driveways off Logan Avenue are proposed. The Secretary pointed out that the east portion of the site is designated for common area and that a four foot high opaque screening device (fence or shrub row) will be placed along the east property line. He noted that all setback and buffer requirements would be met by the proposed plan. The Secretary mentioned that there is some unclarity regarding the exact location of the east property lines since recent surveys indicate that fences for single family homes to the east are located on the Northbrook Estates property. In most.other respects, he said the development resembles a single family home subdivision. Utilities for each unit are provided from Logan Avenue. The Secretary recommended that the Commission table the and building plan application until the question of the rezoning is resolved. Chairman Pierce asked for comment from the Superintendent of Engineering. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that aside from the number of curb cuts, he had no problem with the design of the project. Chairman Pierce suggested that the number of curb cuts could perhaps be reduced to four by combining the driveways for each individual building. Commissioner Hawes questioned why a common area was needed at all, suggesting that the property lines for each individual unit extend to the rear property line of the Northbrook Estates. The Secretary answered that the Homeowners' Association is generally re- sponsible for maintenance for the common areas and individual lots as well, and that it would make little difference as far as maintenance is concerned. Commissioner Hawes stated that he did not see the need to rely on a Homeowners' Association. The Secretary pointed out that another option is to rezone the property R2, rather than R3. He noted, however, that the present plan would not meet R2 lot requirements adding that there is no front footage require - ment for R3 uses. 9 -13 -79 -2- In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes regarding density, the Secretary explained that a density of eight units is reached by using the tuck- under garage provision in Section 35 -400 of the City Ordinance. The Secretary added,'however, that the wording of the section dealing with tuck -under garages indicates that the Planning Commission may grant a density credit and is not required to grant that credit. In response to another question from Commissioner Hawes regarding direction from the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary stated that the present Comprehensive Plan does not recommend specific zoning, but encourages up to one and one -half storey residential use as a buffer between the commercial uses to the west and the single family homes to the east. Therefore, he said there does not seem to be any inconsistency between the proposed R3 zoning and the present Comprehensive Plan. He added that he did not understand why the property was ever zoned Cl since it is obviously not a good location for a commercial use. Commissioner Lucht arrived at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Hawes asked whether there was a utility easement along the east side of the property. The Superintendent of Engineering stated he was not aware of any. Chairman Pierce then called on the applicant's representative, Mr. James Merila, to speak on behalf of the proposed project. Mr. Merila explained that Village Builders has been in business for over 20 years and have built apartments and homes in Brooklyn Center. He showed slides of the area showing the surrounding properties. Mr. Merila pointed out the redwood fence and stated that it is apparently on the property line and that a mistake in measurement was apparently made in the previous survey. He stated that.units would be sold off individually as homes and not rented. As to maintenance of common areas, Mr. Merila stated that generally such areas are maintained by a single custodian, but that re- sponsibilities could be divided up evenly between the various homeowners. Commissioner Hawes asked whether homeowners maintained their own yard areas or whether the Association took care of that. Mr. Merila answered that the Associ- ation might require a certain standard of maintenance or would perform it itself. Chairman Pierce asked what uses would be permitted in the common area. Mr. Merila answered that generally the area is a green area, but suggested that it could be gardened depending on the decisions of the Association. Commissioner Hawes asked whether a play area could be installed. The Secretary answered that such a use would be permitted in the R3 zone if the Association desired it. Commissioner Manson asked whether the Association maintained the exterior of the buildings. Mr. Merila answered that this is generally taken care of by individual owners with certain restrictions from the Association. The Secretary stated that the Homeowners' Association could write its by -laws so that main- tenance must be performed to specified standards or the Association will perform maintenance and assess costs to affected properties. Commissioner Erickson asked whether Village Builders had constructed any similar projects. The applicant, Mr. Kauffman, stated that a similar project had been constructed in White Bear Lake with over 120 townhouse units. As to price range, Mr. Kauffmann estimated that the new units would sell for between $65,000.00 and $70,000.00. Commissioner Erickson asked whether he maintained any of the units in White Bear Lake. Mr. Kauffmann answered that his maintenance responsibilities ended when the units were sold. 9 -13 -79 -3- Commissioner Hawes asked whether any of the units would be rented. Mr. Kauffmann stated that it would not be economically feasible to rent out such units and reiterated that his intention is to build for sale only. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the rear area might be used for additional parking. The Secretary answered that the garages proposed for the townhouses are double garages and each driveway is the same length as a driveway for a single family home so that at least four cars could be parked for each unit or twice the number required. Chairman Pierce asked whether it would be possible to reduce the number of curb cuts to four. Mr. Merila answered that it might be possible, but it would create some problems in gaining access to each individual unit. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Charles Humbert, of 5801 Knox Avenue North,stated that his only concern was that the property be maintained. There being no one else who wished to comment on the proposal, Chairman Pierce called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the possible conflict of existing fences with the actual boundary line of the property on the east. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79055 (Edwin Kauffmann /Village Builders) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to table 'Appli- cation No. 79055, a'proposed rezoning from Cl to R3 of the land at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North and to refer said proposal to the South- east Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79056 (Edwin Kauffmann /Village Builders Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Appli- cation No. 79056, proposed site and building plan for eight townhouse units at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. Voting in favor: Chair- man Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Application Nos. 79057 and 79058 (Medtronic The Secretary explained that the application submitted by Construction Analysis and Management for Medtronic comprehending site and building plan approval and preliminary R.L.S. approval for a 53,000 square foot addition to its existing plant at 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway are not in order at the present time because of the need to settle an easement encroachment. The Secretary explained that the proposed addition encroaches on a utility easement by at least 8 feet and that such an encroachment must be eliminated either by moving the easement or redesigning the building. Either alternative will take additional time to settle, he said. 9 -13 -79 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79055 Applicant: Edwin Kauffmann Location: Logan Avenue south of 58th Avenue Request: Rezoning The applicant is seeking rezoning from C1 (Service /Office) to R3 (Townhouse Garden Apartments) of a tract of land, slightly less than an acre in size, located at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. The land in question comprises roughly the northeast one quarter of the 5700 block of Logan Avenue and is bounded on the west by Northbrook Shopping Center, on the north by an apartment complex, on the east by single - family homes and on the south by a 75' wide private utility easement. The applicant has submitted a site plan of the area (Application No. 79056) and is proposing to replat the area to provide for four two -unit buildings with individual lots of 34' x 96' and the remainder for common area. The land is presently described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center Addition and measures roughly 134' x 295' for a total land area of 39,643 square feet. At a density of eight units per acre, the parcel can accommodate 7.34 R3 type units. However, the applicant proposes to utilize tuck -under garages which, under Section 35 -410 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitle the builder to a credit of 500 square feet per garage space. With one or two garage spaces per unit, the density allowable is at least 8 units. The applicant has submitted a letter outlining how he feels the proposal meets the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and.Review Guidelines (attached) The preliminary recommendation of the Planning Consultant for this parcel is down zoning to R1. (The parcel was considered too small for an R3 development which generally requires a development of 15 units to break even. Apparently the applicant considers an eight unit complex sufficiently profitable). The present Comprehensive Plan, however, encourages one to one and one -half storey "apartment buildings as a transition between Northbrook Shopping Center and nearby single family housing to the east." (p. 58) Staff consider the present Cl zoning to be inappropriate and a down zoning of the property to a residential use to be more suitable to this location. There does not seem to be any major conflict with the guidelines for evaluating rezonings which are attached for the Commission's review. s with all rezoning applications, it is recommended that the Commission, following review and discussion of the proposal and the holding of a public hearing, table the application and refer it to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and comment. 9 -13 -79 r �• r 5.. � / ' 'funiLY i Fg;.. >„p ri .. ,• .., r , L � _a. E X `r ` I I Fnla;r; lh 11„ 7201 - 36TH AVE. NO. �. Minneapolis, Minn. 55427 Phone: 535 -3361 September "12, 1979 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Rezoning Application for Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center • Addition (Proposed Northbrook Estates Development) Dear Mr. Warren: We are requesting rezoning of the 39,643 sq. ft. parcel of land lying on the southeast quadrant of Logan Avenue North and 58 Avenue North from C -1 to R -3. We are proposing to develop the land with 8 condominium single family attached dwelling units, utilizing the 500 sq. ft. reduction in required land area for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence as provided for by Section 35- 400 -1(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance. This reduction would allow developing the parcel with nine total units rather than our proposed eight units. The eight proposed units will consist of four buildings with two dwelling units in each building. We proposed to subdivide the parcel into eight individual lots and one large common area so that all of the units can be privately owned single family homes. Response to the rezoning guideline ' 9 g questions are as follows: a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Yes. The proposed rezoning will provide the availability of additional housing units in the City of Brooklyn Center and the Earle Brown School District. The dwelling units will be available at a cost lower than traditional single family homes because of the density and construction cost savings. Mr. Ron Warren Re: Proposed Northbrook Estates Page 2 b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Yes. The proposed zoning is consistent with and compatible with the surrounding land use classification because the area to the south is zoned R -4, the area to the north is zoned R -5, the area to the west is zoned C -2, and the area to the east is zoned R -1. The proposed R -3 zoning. provides for an excellent transitional zoning and buffering of the existing R -1 zoned properties east of the subject parcel from the C -2 zoned Northbrook Shopping Center property lying west of the parcel. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes. It is our opinion that all permitted uses in the proposed R -3 zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property with no detrimental effect to surrounding properties. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? No. It is our understanding that there has not been any 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? Not applicable. f) Willthe subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Yes. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, config- uration, topography or location? This parcel is one of a few parcels of commercial property in the City of Brooklyn Center which does not abut or have exposure to a major thoroughfare street. This is perhaps the major reason the subject parcel has not been previously developed and therefore seems to be more suitable for residential development than commercial. Mr. Ron Warren Re: Proposed Northbrook Estates Page 3 h) Willthe 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? Yes. It is our understanding the City's Planning Consultant is recommending this property to be reclassified as residential in the City's current comprehensive plan study. It is our opinion the property is better suited as an R -3 zoning than an R -1 zoning. The R -3 zoning allows the single family attached homes at a greater density and thereby provides transitional zoning and buffering for the existing single family homes easterly of the subject site. The proposed zoning is also warranted because it is to the best interests of the community to provide additional lower cost housing and additional dwelling units in the Earle Brown School District. This development will help replace some of the dwelling units lost to the City and Earle Brown School District due to freeway construction. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Yes. for the various above stated reasons. Sincerely, Edwin Kauffmann, resident VILLAGE BUILDERS, INC. Section 35 -208. REZ iq 3 ....775. 1. Purpose . The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitatle evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has establishe.: a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy. I•t is - the policy of the City - that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spit zoning," defined as a zoning . decision which discriminates favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plat: . or to accepted planning princirles. 3. Procedure. _ Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines 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 c:ui;ipa•ti' - 14 vL%;1 surrounding land use classifications? '.(c) Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subj ect 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 • hroad 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, configuration, topography or location? � (h) Will the rezoning result 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? 1) Does 'the proposal' demonstrate merit beyond - the interests of an owner or owners of an individual psrcel? ` �N EARL BROWN P ill mom m mom K