Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 01-17 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 17, 1991 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2 . Roll ,Call 1990 Planning Commission 3,. Approval .of Minutes - December 6.,, 1990 4 Adjourn 1990 Planning Commission 5 Administer Oath of Office: (Commissioners 'Bernards, Ainas and Mann) 6z: Call to Order: 1991 Planning Commission 7. Roll Call 1991 Planning Commission 8 _. Election of 1991 Chairman Pro tem 9. Chairperson's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 10. Charles P. Thompson 91001 Request to rezone from R1 to R3 the 2 . 17 acre site of the Thompson residence at 4201 58th Avenue North. -11. Other Business 12. Discussion Items 13 . Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91001 Applicant: Charles P. Thompson Location: 4201 58th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant requests a rezoning from Ri (single-family) to R3 (townhouse) of a 2. 17 acre parcel of land south of 58th Avenue North that is presently the site of the Charles P. Thompson residence. The site is separated from 58th Avenue North (Bass Lake Road) by a City-owned public open space parcel. Access to the Thompson property is gained by a driveway through the open space parcel. The Thompson property is bounded on the north by the public open space parcel, on the east by single-family homes abutting June Avenue North, on the south by a large parcel which abuts Halifax Avenue North, and on the southwest by Upper Twin Lake. The applicant has submitted a development proposal including plans for eight (8) townhouse units on the subject property, though no formal site and building plan application has been submitted. The R3 zoning of the property could allow for up to 17 townhouse units on the property, but there are severe constraints in developing the site because much of it lies below the 100 year flood elevation. The development plans submitted call for redrawing the flood plain boundary so that an equivalent area above the 100 year flood elevation is left for development. We have asked for grading calculations to document that an equivalent flood storage volume will remain between the normal high water mark and the 100 year flood elevation. However, these calculations have not been submitted. The applicant wishes to address the land use issue first. He has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which he addresses in general the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (also attached) . A review of the applicant's arguments in light of those guidelines follows. The applicant's letter indicates that there is a desire on the part of friends and colleagues who are "empty nesters" (their children have left home) to be at this secluded location on the lake, "with a feeling of a single-family dwelling within the habitat of a wildlife sanctuary. " He indicates there is "apparently a need for a higher level" of townhouse for a limited market. He notes that the property is burdened by the flood plain, but that this also necessitates a lower density of units to land and leaves more area for open space. He points out that the 8 units proposed is approximately half the density allowable in the R3 district. Mr. Thompson adds that the adjacent open space district (through which his site gains access) adds to the natural seclusion of the site. 1-17-91 1 Mr. Thompson states that the proposed zoning is consistent with the townhouse zoning on the north side of 58th. He notes that both sites provide pond exposure and abut existing R1 development. Mr. Thompson states that he does not feel the proposal can be classified as "skip zoning" in light of a comparable land use across the street (58th) . "It would retain that illusion of consistency since they are fundamentally contiguous and this would fall within your (the City's) intentions in accordance to your established Comprehensive Plan. " (Staff would point out that the City's current Comprehensive Plan does not recommend any change in use of Mr. Thompson's property. See Land Use Revisions Map, attached. ) Mr. Thompson states that the proposed development is consistent with the scope of R3 zoning and that it would seem to be the highest and best use for the property. The applicant goes on to review some of the past history of the property. He notes that the City initiated the open space acquisition and zoning at the time of the upgrading of 58th. He adds that he donated some land to the open space area so that the City would have access to the lake. He states that in recent years "there has been an extreme change in the public's awareness of the environment. " In keeping with this public concern, he acknowledges that there may be a desire to acquire his property for open space use. He indicates that the land and building would be available for $550, 000. Regarding compliance with development restrictions, Mr. Thompson states there is no question that the development would have to comply. He adds that there will likely be an "Owner's Association" that would provide a higher level of rules and regulations than City ordinance. Mr. Thompson argues that the market place has made single-family use of the property obsolete and that it is time for a higher and better, "upscale" use to be pursued. He states that the project would fulfill an unmet need in this area. He concludes his letter by referring to a meeting held with residents in the neighborhood. He states that the project was fully explained and that there appeared to be general approval of what is proposed. He notes that residents were enthusiastic about the proposed channel improvements (actually to the south and east of the subject site) . He concludes by stating that the project would provide "a higher level of living for more people, but also would enhance the property of adjoining friends. " Rezoning applications are subject to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . We will address each of these guidelines briefly, point by point, with respect to Mr. Thompson's proposal. The following comments are preliminary in nature and are not a final analysis of the proposal. Neighborhood input is needed to gauge the public acceptance of the proposal. 1-17-91 2 Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Staff: Mr. Thompson speaks of an unmet need for this type of upscale housing that has access to both the recreational and environmental amenities of the lake and the shopping and entertainment opportunities of the Brookdale area. We agree that the addition of high quality housing of the type depicted in the preliminary development plans would serve to expand the housing options available in Brooklyn Center and that would be positive. However, it must be pointed out that these plans have not been formally submitted and a rezoning of the property would not guarantee construction of the housing described in the preliminary plans. There is also a question of whether an 8 unit complex would become a viable market segment on its own. Although there is initial interest by "friends and colleagues" of Mr. Thompson, will these units sell again on the open market in 10 to 15 years? Relative to this concern, we feel a larger complex might be more viable on a long-term basis. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Staff: Yes, in light of the size of the Thompson property and its frontage on the lake. The City's current Comprehensive Plan envisioned a great deal of townhouse development both as infill development and redevelopment adjacent to existing single-family development. If the applicant's property is actually worth $550, 000, then eight townhouse lots would have an average value of almost $70, 000 each. This kind of lot cost almost certainly dictates a high level of building investment which should be compatible with single-family homes on or near the lake. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Staff: Yes, though at a density far below what is permissible in the R3 district. The R3 district would allow up to 17 units on the 2. 17 acre parcel. Because of flood plain restrictions, however, only a limited portion of the property can be devoted to buildings. Thus, the low density is really a physical necessity. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Staff: Not really. County Road 10 has been upgraded, but it has been buffered by the open space area north of this site acquired by the City in the 19701s. These changes do not seem to argue either for or against the rezoning proposal. 1-17-91 3 (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Staff: Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Staff: This has yet to be determined. The applicant must submit grading and drainage calculations to verify that the site as altered will have a comparable flood storage capacity as at present. The City's flood plain ordinance requires that the ground level be at or above the 100 year flood elevation (856' above mean sea elevation) at least 15' out from any new habitable building. The plans submitted are deficient in this respect. Whether there is room on the site to redesign the grading plan and still meet flood storage capacity is the applicant's responsibility to show. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Staff: Certainly with respect to size and configuration, the present parcel does not fit the typical image of a single family lot. Topography would limit the possibilities for subdivision of the property for further single-family development as it also limits development potential for townhouses. The location is probably suitable for any lower density, residential or open space use of the property. (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? Staff: This rezoning proposal is not called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, no other use is specifically recommended for this parcel. We would infer that the present single-family use is tacitly endorsed. As we have noted in the case of other recent rezoning proposals, there is a lack of developable land in virtually all zoning districts. However, given the extent of townhouse development over the last 20 years and the declining market for this type of housing, we do not see a crying need for more R3 land. Nevertheless, if the development were built in line with the preliminary plans, it would add high quality housing to the community and would broaden the housing options available in the city. To be an asset to the community, it is important that the property not be overbuilt and that on-site and off-site amenities be developed to the fullest. 1-17-91 4 I • • t (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff: Apparently the proposal has demonstrated merit to "friends and colleagues" - potential consumers of the development. The applicant has held at least one meeting with neighborhood residents and reports a good reception. We look forward to the public hearing on this application to obtain a reading of the public acceptance of the proposal. The proposal may have merit in bringing the amenities of the lake to eight households instead of one and by improving the channel access to the lake of other lots abutting June Avenue North. These benefits, while extending beyond an individual, are still relatively private. The public benefits would be less direct, though they would include some increase in the tax base. Procedure As with most all rezonings, we would recommend that the public hearing on this application be opened and that, after initial consideration, the matter be tabled and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant the formal submittal of development plans during the rezoning process. The Commission may also wish to consider and discuss with the applicant the pursuit of a Planned Unit Development designation of this development since it is clear that some very specific representations have been made to the neighborhood as to the type of dwellings that would be built, the channel improvements, etc. Conditioning the approval of the rezoning on the acceptance of a specific development plan may, therefore, be in order. Submitted by, Gary Shall ross, Planner oved by, Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection 1-17-91 5 t ' December 6, 1990 The City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re. Rezoning Request - 4201 - 58th Avenue North Dear City Council : As per your zoning ordinance, Section 35-208, Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review guidelines , we hereby submit our narrative response in accordance to your policy guidelines. This request is to upgrade the zoning from its present R-1 to the higher density of R-3 . We have already invested time and money in keeping with our belief that this rezoning request will , in the immediate and long term, be a beneficial asset to the city of Brooklyn Center. We are pleased and surprised with the requests from friends and colleagues in their desire to be at this location. Essentially, they all comprise the "Empty Nester" syndrome. They, as we are, are enraptured with the secluded location on the lake, with a feeling of a single family dwelling within the habitat of a wildlife sanctuary. There is apparently a need for a higher level of townhome -facilities. To satisfy this small market share, with all services provided to the tenants, this development will and can only be a very ,limited size. The property is burdened to a certain degree by the flood plain_ index elevation of 856 ' MSL. This elevation limitation does, however, enhance the open space factor, reducing the number of units within the buildable or available land area, thereby, creating a much more appealing site for living. The impact 'of 8 units in this proposal is less than one-half the allowable density under R-3 . The maximum allowed by this zoning ordinance would be 16 units. (continued) r The City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6 , 1990 Page 2 The "footprint" on the land provides a relatively large landscaped open space. This provides an opportunity to create a natural beauty,park-like, setting for the adjoining neighbors. There is also a natural seclusion with the "open zoning" of the adjoining city property on 58th Avenue North. The development should provide the amenities with the seclusion of the country. The zoning request is very consistent and falls within the comparable investment across 58th to the north. The townhomes in these developments do provide pond exposure and natural beauty also. These sites also abut existing R-1 zoning, which appears as a "non-degrading" co-existence and visually very attractive. We feel that this application cannot be classified as a "skip zoning" with a comparable land use across the street. It would retain that illusion of consistency since they are fundamentally contiguous and this would fall within your intentions in accordance to your established comprehensive plan. The proposed development is consistent with the scope of R-3 zoning. With the size of the total investment related to this proposal , it would seem that this becomes the highest: and best use for the property. We have no other intentions for any other form of development. The property, as proposed, has been a R- 1 classification since its platting. The county and city of Brooklyn Center worked together at the time of the Highway #10, or 58th Street, upgrading and widening the present "open space" was filled in with surplus soil from the construction. It was during this perio that the City initiated the "open space" zoning. The legal description of the property has been rewritten in the past to clarify that the city has accesE to the lake. This was in question and I donated this land to the open space area to avoid any confusion of confrontation in the future. I believe this greatly improved the open space concept of Brooklyn Center and its preservation of a wildlife area., We are not knowledgeable of any further proposals for a city-initiated rezoning since the City created the "op n space" years ago. In recent years there has been an extreme change in the public' s awareness of the environment. (continued) The City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1990 Page 3 We do recognize the public' s concerns for the environment and its desire to enjoy and participate. Following with that concept, we are not knowledgeable of the council ' s thoughts or wishes for the possibility that the City may desire to enlarge the existing "open space" zoning. If the council were to select a position to acquire this area, and the house, and combine with the existing open area, this would also provide an excellent nature center complex. If the City chooses to take this ownership position and the ''open space" direction, the land and building would be available at $550 ,000. There is no question in our minds that the property would be obligated to comply with all development restriction and/or ordinances. Our intent at this juncture is to include an "Owner' s Association" that would provide a higher level of rules and regulations after development than perhaps what the City provides othrough their existing ordinance._ The property is really on over-invested -1 . The house, landscape, the lake, etc. , along with all its amenities, is truly a sanctuary. However, the scope of the investment and the wisdom of retaining the complex in its present form, should wisely progress to a higher and better use. It is within this realm of changing ideals that this request to rezone was created. The rezoning to a R-3 rating would be the result of need by the marketplace. The need for this type of Eacility to have an upscale, all services provided for snow removal , yard work, etc. , along with the convenience of location, is desired Dy many. It is an unfulfilled need in this area. We initiated and enjoyed a neighborhood gathering and most of the abutting property owners to the east were there to share in the development story. A full explanation was provided of the site, development, and the building design. There did appear a general approval of what we intended to do. One of the rewarding portions of1the meeting was the general , and in some cases, enthusiastic, acceptance of the channel improvements to enhance the property for everyone. We all understand the problems of governmental approvals for this portion of the site improvements. We are confined well within bounds of existing regulations and also within the scope of our own prudence. (continued) The City Council ' City of Brooklyn Center December 6 , 1990 Page 4 We feel that the project, if developed, would provide a higher level of living for more people, but also would enhance the property of the adjoining friends. Sincerely, Charles P. Thompson 4201 - 58th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 CPt:gb Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effectiv maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classif cations is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of peri dic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, Dy 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 p oposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have }here 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 propose zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community (i) Does the proposal demonstrate m rit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an indivi ual parcel? ` Fig"lb — � l•f ��.e��J��� � ''fir �,%�:%',; ,i / � _ __'�°``c ��./f/ "�� y^�._^f �"K� `�I` � - 7-.fit I ; • r • Z41, tj 31 I / E��J A it F73a-,F 7j 3 t �... �f ucc t m �3s�Ssi3�.or4� u ..�r _ -� ucc� ii r ��. 13-8 REFERENCE D UMM Land Use -*VAN u. ,U Plan Revisions .O. CRT OV o 7@@fton c Gz lj U�� �» .... ;Comprehensive Plancccc�v� R �, _' TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions --� 3 Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid-Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid-Density Residential 2. Single-Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid-Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid-Density Residential 7a. Single-Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple-Family Residential 9. Commercial/Retail 10. Commercial/Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High-Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid-Density Residential/High Density Residential 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid-Density Residential ff 18. Light Industrial l- 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21. Service/Office 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 27. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 28. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 31. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 32. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 33. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential 38. Single-Family Residential 39. Service/Office 40. " Commercial Retail 41. Service/Office 42. Mid-Density Residential 98 mm ME ME Mi2aw mm mm au not Y� Nitil i 13M1 Nis milli r;A 35 1 ''�:��v •:�� SCHOOL Jv EE �. It/■■■�:=��: ` R■M111� �,� �. ���■t■���11■111 . �ELM. � : � �� aw a • ' j' 1, ■ ■■■ =5 Y .• \, mn VAM MM arm , r Ira ANN • BASS LAKE ROAD s I 1\ \ • - __KE fST!�NE vaEE CNT�R Vi ENTRANCE SIGN LINE 155' — t 155' /4/ 60' .. l 60' EASEMENT � � 1 EXISTING_ `j 851.3 856 EXISTING 5 00, \ 854.2 5 3 \ \ +851.3 \ r SECURITY G TE PRCPOSED 856 85C. + I +854.2 \ VISITOR \ PART ING EYISTING XISTING 856 �= �"► 854.2 ° 857. PROPOSED 8' + '\ 856 S o (\ pb ` 852,51 ; \ �. \ / +85;.8 . \ x� +852.2 5 +8 5.8 \ £ NOTE- V STATE D.. sm Z PRIVA FENCE �' \\ �\ \\ 1 BELOW B \\ AREA OF \ \ +8511 `1 EQUALS P n -i ✓f \ �� +85 m- 3 +858.6 =- _ pC$�C.• � s�zo as n i\\ � II' i \ sm \ +f3 .4 5�zo 4 +822., +85�4 ICI + 54.8 I m +�857..5 \ \ +855.5 J� /� TWIN LAKE \\ sm 1 �.z.6r,1 sm / I —PRCPO$ED CH + 5 .1 S � _— — — i +951.3 LEGEND ij \\ \ +8 EXISTING GRADE N \ / B ?8513 (� 4505'oft �'' / i 3 ✓ PROPOSED GRADE ��� � %`• � . 3. so ` + 51.4 SPOT ELE`JATICr1C _ ��52 ' SCALE +852,2 P 1s�, 13�A0' :y N 88 00' E PROPOSED CHAPINFL BASS LAKE ROAD New ml 1 C KEYSTONE WALL I El W/ENTRANCE S[QN ,�f 1 � .V-,G:7TY (X F�Y1t7L'L.YU LEFREQ 1 i 155' 2 1 1 \ - �.XIST1iJh II 1 ' "tad nelDO SR'+XE" 1 F-lr.T 194 11 ' ?�YGbY_LYN C.1:1IT8� ✓ 60' 3PdE�" EMEt4 1 K I!'-7, Ml+�Ce I �tls7Nf( 11 � 1 I-L" MA�1 E 1 EXISTING 851.3 9 856 EXISTING 8 54 2 5 651 6.ZZ� 3 PROPOSED IEC G T 856 1 +854,2 850. \\ VI VOR.Ie \ M.N. PAR INGA� �u \ 1l �\ EXISTING \_ � MNG 856 °. ,% \ �` .r �. 14-C�boVACo ?yLIE 5,7gir-= 34.2 + 7• OPOSED \ + 56 \ ,% • Gu28\ 852.51t.` \\ \\\ \ % 8-612 1X�ac�NM +850.6 Z \ \ \ 1 \ 857.8 'teow-,v \ NmNN +95 \ \ \ \ - *+852.1• \ c \ \ +856.13 %* .� 54 \ ©2 �'� E CYELIP \ 18"1. -�J!�S\\ \ NOTE, IVAC kNCt% J N \ \ W1 w \\ STATE D.N.R. NO JUF ISDICTION -+P 1 BELOW 853.0' ELEV ITION s sewer \\ \\ \\ ` AREA OF EXISTING 156.0' ELEV \ \ S % % \ \ +85 EQUALS PROPOSED t REA OF 85E , ,% a k�1W +85 .4 + •� ♦ 0 858,6 ; ; + 4 GATC.µ *K.W \\ \ 857,6 / % ;+Q J/l1 Nld�e� +855. u , I � ® ,•�b M.H. � I \ ♦ � PROPOSED CHANNEL / 851.1 /! \\ 85 7 ' +851.3 o +es /l 1 51/ 14" U X52 +• 51.4 �� SITE PLAN SCALE, 1'=30'-0' 135.00' E v/ —T3 88E00' E . �c——————— '--' t15P SIC. Tu�tlsMrrslo►1 Ll�s