Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 12-06 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DECEMBER 6, 1990 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - October 18, 1990 4. 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. 5. Edina Realty/Blumentals Architecture, Inc. 90026 Request to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. This request has been expanded to include the vacant parcel to the east. The matter was considered by the Planning Commission at its October 18, 1990 meeting, was tabled and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. That group has met and issued its recommendations to the Commission. 6. Twin View Development, Inc. 90028 Request to rezone from I-1 to PUD/R1 and Open Space the vacant Soo Line property north of the Murphy Warehouse and west of France Avenue North. The PUD submitted also includes site and building plans for a single-family residential development. 7. Twin View Development, Inc. 90029 Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the 17.8 acre Soo Line property into 29 single-family lots and two open space outlots. This plat is a companion to the PUD application above and should be acted on concurrently with that application. 8. Other Business 9. Discussion Items 10. Adjournment 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90026 Applicant: Edina Realty c/o Blumentals Architecture, Inc. Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning This application is a request to rezone from R5 to Cl the parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Commission considered the application at its October 18, 1990 meeting and extended the rezoning consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a bank use to occupy a small portion of the Edina Realty office building situated on the parcel. Financial institutions are a permitted use in the Cl district, but are not one of the service/office uses allowed by special use permit in the R5 zoning district. Staff have recommended and the Commission concurred that the vacant parcel immediately east of the Edina Realty site be rezoned concurrently to Cl. It is felt that leaving a residential zoning on this property is inappropriate inasmuchas it could allow a multi-family development which would gain access through a commercial parcel. The Commission opened the public hearing on Application No. 90026 at its October 18 meeting and tabled the matter, referring it to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The advisory group in the persons of Louis Terzich and Barbara Sorenson met to consider the proposal on Thursday November 15, 1990 at Willow Lane School. Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes and the applicant's representative Mr. Janis Blumentals were also present as were two residents from the neighborhood north of the property in question. The Director of Planning and Inspection and the Planner were also present. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's review. The neighborhood advisory group endorsed the concept of the rezoning, but expressed concern that the required additional parking be provided and that parking areas be properly screened and, where appropriate, fenced. The Commission may recall that 9 additional parking stalls are required by the bank use. Mr. Blumentals showed those present a site plan showing additional parking to be provided on a vacant area presently part of the property containing the off-site parking lot for the Brooklyn United Methodist Church. The new parking area would be separated from the main parking lot to prevent cut-through traffic. However, we have since been informed by Mr. Blumentals that Edina Realty and the church have been unable to come to terms on the sale of this land. They are instead pursuing an off-site accessory parking arrangement where the office building would legally encumber 20 stalls on the church's off-site lot. There would be no connection between the two properties except a pedestrian walkway that 12-6-90 1 Application No. 90026 continued presently exists. Again, no link is advised that would allow for cut-through traffic. The church's recent expansion approval required that a substantial gate be placed across the Brooklyn Boulevard access to the off-site lot. The gate must be closed except on Sunday. The people who would use this lot during the week would most likely be office building employees who would enter the lot off Noble Avenue North. The above scenario is, at present, only speculation since no agreement has yet been concluded with the church. We are reluctant to recommend favorable action on the rezoning while the parking issue remains unsolved. The neighborhood group felt that parking was a present concern and were led to believe the problems would be solved. At the same time, we do not recommend denial of the rezoning since it generally seems to meet the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208. We would recommend exploring the parking issue with the applicant. Favorable action could be taken with the understanding that the rezoning would not take effect until additional parking was provided in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A draft resolution of approval is attached for the Commission's consideration. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, ,r..,a.Q C. L J Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 12-6-90 2 i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-3 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY WHEREAS, Application No. 90026 submitted by Edina Realty proposes rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service/Office) the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October 18, 1990 when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission expanded the area under consideration to include the vacant parcel to the east of the Edina Realty site and tabled the matter, referring it to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider the matter on November 15, 1990 at Willow Lane School and recommended approval of the rezoning proposal, including the vacant parcel east of the Edina Realty site, and with the understanding that all required parking would be provided and properly screened; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of the matter on December 6, 1990, received a staff report and further testimony during a continued public hearing in which it was evident that the parking issue was not yet resolved; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning request in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and in light of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 90026, submitted by Edina Realty, be conditionally approved in consideration of the following: 1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service/office land use on the land in question as noted on the Land Use Revisions Map (Table 14 and Figure 15 of the Plan) . 2. The proposed C1 zoning of the Edina Realty property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to the east is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. 3. All permitted uses in the C1 zone may be contemplated for development or redevelopment of the subject property. 4. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C1 zoning district. 5. The property in question is unsuited for multiple family development which is presently allowed by the R5 zoning. 6. In light of the above, it is believed that the proposal is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission that it is recommended that the rezoning to C1 of the land in question not take legal effect until either of the following have been accomplished: a) Edina Realty shall purchase adjacent unused land, replat it into its site and receive approval by the City of an expanded parking area containing at least 9 additional stalls with the execution of a performance agreement for the completion of approved site improvements and a supporting financial guarantee. b) Edina Realty shall receive City approval of a special use permit for off-site accessory parking and legally encumber to its use a minimum of 20 parking stalls on another site in accordance with the provisions of Section 35-701 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Louis Terzich 561-8639 James Carlson 561-1065 Greg McGeary 560-3019 Barbara Sorenson 561-4524 Jolene Heath 561-8938 Planning Commissioners Lowell Ainas 560-7805 Mark Holmes 560-3036 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection/ Gv. DATE: November 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 90026 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on October 18, 1990 and has referred this rezoning request to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by Janis Blumentals on behalf of Edina Realty located at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard who request that their property be rezoned from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service/Office) . The property in question is located on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between the Boulevard Plaza office condominium development and the off-site parking lot for the Brooklyn United Methodist Church. There are also some single- family homes north of this site and St. Alphonsus Church lies further east. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank tenant in the Edina Realty office building. The existing office building, which is a permitted use in the C1 zoning district, was approved with a special use permit in the R5 zone in 1985. The R5 zoning district allows most service/office uses by special use permit. However, financial institutions, which are considered to be one of the more intense Cl uses, are not allowed at all in the R5 zoning district. If the property is rezoned to C1, both the existing service/office use and the proposed bank would be permitted uses. Lot area and buffer requirements are met for a C1 designation. However, the bank use will require the addition of nine parking stalls. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service/office use for this parcel and the vacant parcel to the east on the Land Use Revisions Map (see area #41 on Figure 15 and Table 14, attached) . When this property (the old City Hall site) was sold in the early 1980 's, the City held public meetings with people from the neighborhood and it was the sentiment of those present that an office use on the property was preferable to a multi-family use. Since an office use Memo Page 2 November 5, 1990 was allowable by special use permit, no rezoning was pursued at that time. The old City Hall site included the existing Edina Realty site and the vacant parcel to the east which was subdivided off in 1985 and also approved for an office use. It is staff's recommendation that this vacant parcel be zoned the same as the Edina Realty parcel. The owner of the vacant parcel has orally consented to rezoning the vacant parcel to Cl in a meeting with staff. Edina Realty has approached the Brooklyn United Methodist Church about acquiring land from their off-site parking lot for additional parking. If land is purchased and attached to the Edina Realty site, the property would have to be replatted and the new lot would have to be rezoned. The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a written statement (attached) addressing the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the major consideration when reviewing the proposed rezoning. The following information is enclosed for review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90026 and minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 90026. 2. Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 3. A map of the area showing the location of the property to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. 4. A copy of Section 35-314 and 35-320 regarding uses allowed in the R5 and Cl zoning districts. 5. Figure 15 and Table 14 from the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan which contains recommended land use revisions (see area #41) . 6. Correspondence from Janis Blumentals addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 1990 and will be held in the Media Center room at Willow Lane School at 71st and Perry Avenues North. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Memo Page 3 November 5, 1990 The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and/or recommendation by December 1, 1990. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself. If for any reason you cannot attend the meeting, please contact us as soon as possible at 569-3300. It is important that we have enough members present to conduct business and there will likely be people from the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation. Section 35-313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one-half or two stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. c. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the ur ose of leasing p p g or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35-410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre) , maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. /""aection 35-314. R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. 31�-314 I c. R4 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R4 zoning district. d. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35-410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses I a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre) , maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Certain service-office uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 district land uses with respect to activity levels. �I _ I 35-314 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. and which are described in Section 35-320, Subsections 1 (b) (c) (d) and (j) through (t) . Such service-office uses shall be subject to the C1 district requirements of Sections 35-400 and 35-411, and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed use represents. c. Chapels, churches, synagogues and temples, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. Section 35-315. R6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of four or five stories in height. b. Low rise multiple family dwellings of one and one-half through three stories in height, provided such low rise dwellings are part of a planned integral development with (a) above. Further provided such low rise dwellings: I 1. Shall contain no more than 65% of the total dwelling units in the planned development. 2. Shall conform to the density requirements of the zoning district which their respective heights prescribe. I c. Retail food shops, drycleaning pickup stations, beauty parlors, barber shops, and valet shops within multiple family dwellings containing 30 or more dwelling units. Such shops shall be accessible to the public through a lobby with no advertising or display to be visible from outside the building, and shall be restricted to the ground floor or subfloors. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. i I -- 5-316 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35-410 of these ordinances. Special 35-320. Cl SERVICE/OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses i The following service/office uses are permitted in the C1 district, provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not exceed three stories, or in the event that a basement is proposed, three stories plus basement: I a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre) , maternity care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided, however, that such institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulations of the licensing authority, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office. c. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices. I d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory facilities) , accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban planning agency offices. e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art galleries. f. Beauty and barber services. g. Funeral and crematory services. h. Photographic services. i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe repair. I j . Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall not be a permitted use. k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services office, adjustment and collection service offices. 1. Duplicating, mailing and stenographic service offices. M. Employment agency offices. I n. Business and management consultant offices. o. Detective and protective agency offices. II I� i 35-320 p. Contractor's offices. q. Governmental offices. r. Business association, professional membership organizations, labor unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices. s. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 3. The compounding, dispensing or sale (at retail) of drugs, prescription items, patent or proprietary medicines, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. 4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar accessory retail shops within multistory office buildings over 40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no associated signery visible from the exterior of the building; there is no carry-out or delivery of food from the lot; and the total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building. t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as determined by the City Council. u. Financial institutions including, but not limited to, full-service banks and savings and loan associations. V. Drop-in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted annually to the City. W. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage or display of products on the use site. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35-411 of these ordinances. i 35-320 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off-site parking not located on the same ro ert with P P Y the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35-701. b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut R1, R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 2. Complementary "to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted Cl district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to children served by the day care use. and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section 35-411 are adhered to. C. Instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing L_ and the like and studios for like activity. Section 35-321. C1A SERVICE/OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation) a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35-320 shall be permitted in a building or establishment in the C1A district. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35-411 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off-site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35-701. b. All of the special uses set forth in Section 35-320 shall be allowed by special use permit in the C1A district. F9"1 tN �•i.• u�`/S� i �5.:-. 7 Y , �r� t� � �. 0-1 t� !'."�� zGiV"� t W..�-_• f. ! Aii.';�/ ,�-(.+� TT�- u� �.�4' / 1�,• /`,,^..�^•C yi�r'•�. 1 yam-*- / _ ,F ,k 6 . s �% r• � f ji ��rAeL�r �'t.....-_- a:+/�• � � �I�'j�=_1t.:'i tl • I ��. .7 ;."'a, �'c'�'% - �a'° r ',�E=31c tC:.:ILt.'• r I•�I � t:.I�•s �-I! az rn di Ti LAKE it I _ yi 3 t4 f 4 i it !I ,. I! 11` I! �� ,� h ) !) _ F�F �„!�1° lac •'.....�... - 1 L irlM ,,11 y �..- ..... ^' rt ;a 1 Land Use lJ Plan Revisions I�„� CRTe wo ¢oo neo iNeo ems�. Do o 0 0 Vn cc-aw ,Comprehensive Plan - - �-°-°-R � i TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions 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 18. Light Industrial 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 _� / �� ■■111 ��� ■■■ ■�■ �� ��ir v ' ■ v �© ir�a i �� ° v ��• � . X13 �.. �� MM im ' m mm �������► -� ,\/� ■■� ■ ��,; v ■min lung � - �■r� �� -fit/ s_ �� �� � •i � � Elm NO. Mq loans a Rim ��1■ 1�■■■ �■■���n�� ,stalls �■�■■■� �� ■■�■■■■■�■■■■■■■�1��� �, . 111111111 11111111 ■. is 1111111 m all man IN MM MM mom � ... : . � � . .I �I �� �'� .. • .. Ills m■'■ i' mm m mm m �_ - �.-isms m Blumentals0 6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612)561-5757 September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF REZONING APPLICATION FOR EDINA REALTY BUILDING, 7100 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER A) IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R-5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service/office use. B) IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either R-5, C-1 or C-2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard many of the R-5 lots have been developed as C-1 by special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property is planned and designed for an office building. C) CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of the existing office building will work, since this land is already developed as an office building and its required parking. D) HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA 'SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R-5 have used special use permits for C-1 use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial , even though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial character of the avenue. E) IN THE CASE OF CITY-INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? Not applicable. September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION Page 2 of 2 F) WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS? The subject property is in compliance with zoning regulations presently in force for C-1 districts, and through rezoning would allow uses, such as financial institutions, in this building. G) IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? The present R-5 zoning without the special use permit for this piece of land would not have been useful for the original dove I opment, since the size of this lot Is not suf f i c i ent to provide multi-family housing and the necessary green areas and amenities, etc. The use of office buildings as buffers between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single family residential has proven superior to multi-family housing developments, due to the limited hours of business, and generally "clean" nature of offices. 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? 1 . This rezoning will expand the C-1 zone only to the extent that this land w i I I become part of the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in compliance with the regulations set forth for C-1 zone. 3. It Is In the best Interest to the community to have the actual zoning reflect what exists on the property, and eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a special use permit. 1 ) DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN I ND IV I DUAL PARCEL? It Is In the interest of the City to clarify the actual zoning of this property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is on the site. i MINUTES OF THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP NOVEMBER 15, 1990 WILLOW LANE SCHOOL CALL TO ORDER The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider rezoning Application No. 90026 and was called to order by Chairman Louis Terzich at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group members Louis Terzich and Barbara Sorenson. Also present were Planning Commissioner Mark Holmes, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Planner Gary Shallcross and a representative of the applicant Janis Blumentals. Two residents from the neighborhood were also present, Mr. Mike Wenzler and Mr. Dan McFarren. INTRODUCTION The Director of Planning and Inspection introduced the item of business for the neighborhood advisory group, (a rezoning from R5 to C1 of the property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard) explaining the rezoning procedure and also explaining that the referral to the advisory group was for review and comment and was sought as a way of getting some grass roots response to a rezoning proposal. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the materials in the packet sent to advisory group members and explained each item of information. He explained the uses that are allowed in the R5 zoning district and the C1 zoning district and noted that office uses are allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone and are a permitted use in the Cl zone. He reviewed a history of the parcel in question. He noted that it had originally been used for a school and then for a City Hall; then the building was occupied by the Community Emergency Assistance Program until it was destroyed by fire in 1977. He explained that there had been a meeting with neighbors before the property, which was then owned by the City, was sold and that the neighbors preferred a service/office use of the property rather than multiple family use. An office development, he pointed out, was approved by special use permit in 1985. He explained that the plan approved was for two office buildings and that there is a potential for a second office building to be built on the vacant site to the east of the developed parcel. He pointed out that if an office building is not built on that property, an apartment could be built under its present R5 zoning. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the reason for the rezoning is to allow for a small bank to be a tenant in the Edina Realty building. He noted that financial institutions are allowed in the Cl zone, but not in the R5 zone. He added that additional parking would be needed to satisfy the ordinance for the financial institution. He stated that the applicant may attach some land from the church parking lot north of the site or acquire some land for an off-site accessory parking lot. is 11-15-90 1 DISCUSSION Mr. Mike Wenzler asked if part of the existing office building would be converted to a bank. Mr. Louis Terzich explained the proposal briefly. He stated that a small bank office would be installed in the existing office building and that there would be no drive-up. Mr. Wenzler stated that his main concern was traffic. Mr. Dan McFarren added that there is not enough parking now and he foresaw more problems in the future if a bank use were allowed within the building. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that the City's parking formula for office uses is an average which does not satisfy every possible situation. He stated there may be occasional overflow parking from the Edina Realty site onto the church parking lot to the north. He added that a medical use would require additional parking beyond what would be required for at the bank. He stated that the bank use itself may not generate traffic to really need 11 more parking spaces, but that those additional parking spaces may alleviate an existing parking problem. Mr. Wenzler asked whether the parcel to the east could be used to provide the additional parking. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative, but stated that such an arrangement would affect the office building plan for that parcel. He briefly explained the layout for that site and the use intended. Mr. Louis Terzich asked what the feeling of the church was regarding selling part of their land for additional parking. Mr. Janis Blumentals, representing the applicant Edina Realty, stated that it was just a question of money. Mrs. Sorenson asked whether the bank facility would be a full service bank. Mr. Blumentals answered that checking and savings accounts could be handled at the bank, but that there would be no drive-up service. In response to another question from Mrs. Sorenson, Mr. Blumentals explained that Metropolitan Federal Bank is a huge bank with many branches. He pointed out that Metropolitan Federal owns Edina Realty and it is trying to provide one-stop shopping with real estate purchases and financing of those purchases accomplished in one location. Mr. Terzich stated that he was under the impression that no mortgage banking would be done there. Mr. Blumentals responded in the negative and stated that it could always be done at that location. Mrs. Sorenson asked if there was any opposition expressed regarding the rezoning. Mr. Warren stated that no one had appeared at the Planning Commission meeting but the applicant. He stated that he did not detect any major opposition to the rezoning proposal. Mr. Wenzler stated that it was strange that it had to be rezoned at all. Mr. McFarren stated that he was concerned regarding the vacant parcel, that when it is developed, people may park in the dead end street near his house and walk across his property. Mr. Terzich suggested that perhaps a fence should be installed in this 11-15-90 2 i area to prevent such cut-through traffic. Mr. McFarren stated that that might be a good idea when the other office building is built. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of an apartment building being built on the vacant parcel under the existing R5 zoning. It was generally agreed by all present that this would not be a good option. Mr. Warren added that group homes are possible in both the R5 and C1 districts, but that the Cl zoning would rule out a typical multiple family residence. There followed a brief discussion of fencing and buffer requirements for the proposed parking area north of the existing office on the property owned by the church. Mr. Warren explained that City ordinance requires a 6' high screening device where parking lots are adjacent to residentially zoned property. Mr. Warren then explained the procedure that is generally followed with rezoning applications. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends service/office use on the property in question and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan and seems to meet the City's guidelines for evaluating rezoning. He stated that the staff does support the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Sorenson stated that it looked like a good proposal to her. Mr. Terzich stated that he wanted the parking problem taken care of and that the new parking area should be screened from the nearby residential properties. Mr. Warren reviewed with those present the options for meeting the parking requirements either on the church property or on the vacant parcel to the east. Mr. Terzich asked whether there would be a sign for the bank. Mr. Shallcross explained the larger freestanding signs are now allowed for office buildings and that the present sign could be expanded. Mr. Warren added that the wall sign for the building could only identify the building, and not the tenants. Mrs. Sorenson inquired as to the possibility of sharing parking with the church. Mr. Warren responded that this could be done in a practical sense, but that the City would not approve an arrangement where traffic could move from one property to the other since this would allow for cut-through traffic. He stated that the problems with barriers to prevent this cut-through traffic are just a reality of the property. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty) Motion by Barbara Sorenson seconded by Louis Terzich to recommend approval of Application No. 90026 with the recommendation that the parking problem be alleviated and that all parking be screened and fenced off properly in accordance with City ordinance. The motion passed. 11-15-90 3 i There followed a brief discussion of the procedure for handling the rezoning. Mr. Terzich also noted that any new area to be used for parking for the office building would also have to be included in the rezoning. ADJOURNMENT By consensus it was agreed that there was nothing more to discuss and the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:23 p.m. Chairman 11-15-90 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90028 Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc. Location: 51st and France Avenues North Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/R1 and Open Space The applicant seeks approval of rezoning and site and building plans for a PUD/R1 and open space single-family development on the Soo Line property on the west side of France Avenue North, just north of the Murphy Warehouse. The property is presently I-2 (General Industry) and is bounded by 51st Avenue North and unimproved 51st Avenue North right-of-way on the north (and by homes abutting Oak Street further north) , by France Avenue North on the east, by the Murphy Warehouse and the Soo Line tracks on the south and southwest, and by vacant Rl property on the extreme west. The applicant proposes to create 29 single-family lots abutting a new 51st Avenue North which would establish a link between the southern end of East Twin Boulevard and France Avenue North. The lots would be somewhat narrower and in some cases smaller in area than required in the R1 zone. However, the applicant also proposes to dedicate a substantial area on the west end of the property for public open space and, therefore, the overall average density is actually less than the total land area could support in the R1 zone. It should be noted that the land area to be dedicated for public open space is located within the 100 year flood plain and is, therefore, unbuildable for the most part. The details of the subdivision plan will be reviewed in the second half of this report. The first part of the report will deal with the basic land use issues presented by the proposal and will be analyzed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) and in light of the objectives of the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 35-355, also attached) . Rezoning Proposal The applicant's representative (Merila and Associates in the person of John Johnson) has submitted a written review of some of the background on the property, a brief description of the proposal, and arguments addressing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings. The background description includes the following points: "1. The existing Soo Line Railroad and spur track effectively severs the property from land to the south. 2. The existing industrial zoning brings special buffer requirements which severely limit development of the land. 12-6-90 1 3. The western portion of the site contains 6.3 acres of flood plain area below elevation 856.0. (the 100 year flood elevation) 4. The 6.3 acre flood plain is located within a 5 to 7 acre wetland regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 5. 51st Avenue between East Twin Lake Boulevard and France Avenue exists as a 30 foot wide right-of-way and has never been improved. 6. It is questionable whether 51st Avenue could be opened due to a large depression located approximately 100 to 200 feet west of France Avenue. The bottom is at elevation 850.5' (Twin Lake OHW = 853.51 ) and is 9.5 to 10 feet lower than France Avenue. 7. Development of 51st Avenue would create 10 double frontage lots which currently front on Oak Street. 8. Development of 51st street would destroy over 75 percent of the existing trees and vegetation located along the northern edge of the site. " These points are all valid and staff have no serious argument with any of them. It should be pointed out that the existing I-2 zoning • of the property is probably more by default than by design or plan. The property has been zoned industrial for many years pre-dating the City's original Comprehensive Plan. That plan, adopted in 1966 noted on page 51 that the Soo Line property has been zoned industrial since 1957. However, it cautions that: "industrial use of the tract will have a detrimental effect on adjacent residences" and cites appearance, noise, odor and truck traffic as potential problems. Although the 1966 Plan recommends industrial use of the property, it recommends uses compatible with the adjacent residential areas and recommends a buffer of 1001 . In the early 19701s, a proposal for multi-family development in this area was studied and rejected by the City Council. The current Comprehensive Plan refers to this property along with other industrially-zoned land in the area on page 74 as a major planning issue facing the City (#13) . The Plan points to this parcel and states: "Various locations of undeveloped land throughout the City should be analyzed in light of changing conditions to determine whether their current zoning classification is the most desirable one available in the City's interests. " In approximately 1983, the City Council considered and rejected a staff proposal to use Community Development Block Grant funds to study the area including this property. In the past five years, staff have met with a couple prospective developers of the property 12-6-90 2 who were interested in townhouse and/or elderly high-rise development on the property. Some potential industrial users have also inquired about the property. However, no one has been able to conclude a purchase agreement with the present owner of the property and, thus, no formal proposal has been submitted until now. The applicant addresses the guidelines for evaluating rezonings in the latter portion of his letter. A recitation of the applicant's arguments addressing the guidelines and staff response follows: a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Avulicant: "The land currently is undeveloped . Time has shown that development as an industrial site will not occur due to the numerous topographic and zoning code buffer constraints. Therefore, it is concluded that the rezoning will allow development of the site to the benefit of the neighbors. (They will not have to worry about street and vegetation removal in their backyards and uncertain industrial uses) and the City will benefit by preservation of open space and the growth in tax base. " Staff: The applicant argues that the proposal provides benefits by eliminating some potential negatives. We agree that there is some benefit in these respects and there is also a general benefit of providing new single-family housing in the community. However, it should be realized that the addition of this single-family subdivision will result in the Murphy Warehouse property abutting single-family homes. Thus, one of the unspoken costs of this development will be to shift the challenge of buffering an industrial use from single-family development further south. There is not sufficient land to provide the 100' buffer required where I- 1 or I-2 development abuts R1, R2, or R3 zoned property at a property line. As will be discussed in further detail later, the applicant proposes to provide a reduced buffer strip zoned 0-2 which would alleviate the Murphy Warehouse property of the requirement to provide the normal 100' landscaped buffer. The Commission must weigh whether this is an acceptable solution, whether the proposal meets basic zoning objectives while at the same time allowing for a practical and appropriate utilization of the vacant Soo Line property. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? ARRlicant: "The proposed lots will be very similar in size to the existing lots to the north and east. The average lot will be 10,500 square feet with the smallest lot being 8,050 square feet and the largest lot being 26,350 square feet. The PUD zone classification will allow a subdivision design which will allow preservation of significant amounts of vegetation and development 12-6-90 3 of desired buffer and screening adjacent to the industrial use. (See the grading plan for buffer detail. ) " Staff: The proposed single-family development is consistent with the existing single-family development to the north and east. It is also certainly compatible with the open space use proposed for the land to the west. The applicant notes that the "PUD zone classification will allow . . . the desired buffer and screening adjacent to the industrial use. " It will not and cannot provide for the 100' landscaped buffer normally required by the Zoning Ordinance. Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance (governing PUD districts) states in subdivision 2: "b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUD's shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. . . . ° In subdivision 3c of Section 35-355, the ordinance states: "c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35- 700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. " It should be pointed out that Section 35-413 of the Zoning Ordinance already requires a screening treatment of an 8 ' high opaque fence of wall. In this case, the developer proposes a combination of berm and fence equaling 81 . As we read the PUD ordinance, one of the Commission's responsibilities in evaluating the PUD proposal and its compatibility with surrounding land uses is to comment on the adequacy of the proposed buffer and screening treatment. At the writing of this report, it is staff's impression that the buffer has been minimized to achieve other goals, including preserving trees on the north side of the development and winding the road in a manner that minimizes disturbance of existing grades. These are also worthwhile goals. The Commission should express its collective judgment as to how these goals relate to the need for a buffer and screening treatment adjacent to the industrial property to the south. 12-6-90 4 c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "The PUD/Rl zone is requested to insure that only single-family houses are built but allow flexibility in subdivision design. " Staff: obviously, the single-family homes will be possible in the R1 section of the PUD. In the open space sections, only limited use will be possible. The private open space north of the Murphy Warehouse will not be adequate to support an open space use such as a golf course. Its chief function will be to serve as a buffer between residentially zoned land and industrial use. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant: "Not to our knowledge." Staff: Since the industrial zoning of this property is not at all recent, some of the single-family development to the north and east may have occurred since the original industrial zoning, though the residential development is also fairly mature. More recently, the Joslyn pole yards across the Soo Line tracks to the south has discontinued operation and a program has begun to remedy soil and ground water contamination. The City has given some consideration to using the Joslyn property for park and open space uses. The open space to be dedicated as part of the proposed development would fit in well with these plans. e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable. " Staff: This guideline is not applicable, but we would point out at this juncture that we have, for some time, considered a low-density residential use of this property to be more appropriate. We do not believe an industrial use, which would likely bring truck traffic up France Avenue North and would be hampered by buffers and the possible construction of 51st Avenue North in its present location, would be appropriate in this location. The present proposal, combining moderate-sized single-family lots and the dedication of considerable open space is, overall, as good a prospect as we have seen for this property. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: "Yes. " 12-6-90 5 • Staff: Only if the proposed PUD or some variant is accepted by the City. The PUD proposal involves narrower and smaller than normal lots and a reduced buffer between R1 and I-2 uses. It should be noted that, under Section 35-413 of the Zoning Ordinance, the burden of providing the 100' buffer falls on the industrial use. In this case, Murphy Warehouse has always abutted vacant I-2 zoned land and no buffer was required. The buffer only becomes a requirement after the change of zones. The applicant proposes to get around the buffer requirement by inserting an open space district between the residential and industrial zones which could not be used for either industrial or residential purposes. Staff have considered the possibility of creating a public walkway in this area and have rejected the idea in favor of placing a walkway within the public street right-of-way. This is probably a more appropriate location for pedestrian traffic than in an area between residents' back yards and an industrial site with a spur track immediately adjacent to the walkway. We have concluded that the open space buffer, if it is accepted, should be privately owned and maintained. The issues are over size, screening, and to whom the buffer should most appropriately belong. (We will be prepared to discuss this further at Thursday's meeting. ) g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "Since the site has not developed as an industrial use, one can only conclude that the market has deemed it unsuited for that use. Analysis of the site further concludes that the flood plain, wetland, street right-of-way and industrial setback requirements would leave only 5 1/2 acres or about 30 percent of the site for industrial development. " Staff: The property's size is probably large enough for industrial use, though, as the applicant points out, land utilization would be low. The topography of the land and the location of this parcel make it less than desirable, from a community standpoint, for this parcel to be developed industrially. We would again recall the concerns raised in the 1966 Plan regarding noise, odor, visual appearance, and truck traffic as undesirable and potential impacts on the surrounding residential area. 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? Applicant: "Brooklyn Center currently lacks any land for development of single-family homes. This parcel lends itself, due to its location, to residential development. Residential development is less intense and more sensitive to the existing site 12-6-90 6 environment. The proposal does meet the best interests of the City for the reasons stated above. " Staff: This is not the only possible area for single-family development in the City. (There is also an area bounded by 68th Avenue North on the south, by Aldrich Court on the west, by 69th Avenue North on the north, and by Highway 252 on the east which could accommodate 20-25 lots if appropriately subdivided. ) It may be that the Comprehensive Plan has not called for the Soo Line property to be zoned for single-family residential, but it has certainly raised questions about the appropriateness of the industrial zoning of the property. Commercial use is not appropriate in this location either. Residential development is the most appropriate use for the property even if it is in some conflict with the warehouse use to the south. We regard the residential neighborhood to the north and east to be more permanent than the industrial uses in this area, most of which have outlived their usefulness and are in need of redevelopment. Multiple-family has been proposed for this area in the past and been rejected. We would not recommend multiple-family development now. A townhouse development might serve as something of a transitional use and could perhaps allow for a greater buffer treatment. However, a 100 ' wide buffer would still be required and the City has witnessed a great deal of townhouse development over the past 15 years and very little single-family development. It, therefore, seems appropriate to consider single-family development along with a considerable dedication of open space as perhaps the best option for this parcel. There is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts in the City. It, therefore, seems to be no relative harm to move this parcel from the inventory of (undesirable) industrial sites to the meager inventory of land available for single-family development. As to the best interests of the community, the Commission should consider not only the benefit of new single-family homes, but also the addition of public open space and the impact this proposed use will have on the long-term prospects for the Murphy Warehouse. For many years, the parcel in question has served unintentionally as a buffer between the warehouses and the single-family neighborhood to the north. That buffer will now be greatly compressed and a certain amount of "momentum" will have been established to ultimately bring about uses compatible with the residential neighborhood. If the PUD/R1-Open Space proposal is approved, the owner of the Murphy property must realize that any redevelopment of that property will be evaluated in light of its compatibility with these uses, not as an isolated industrial site. In other words, approval of this proposal will have implications for neighboring properties which probably cannot be confined to this parcel alone. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 12-6-90 7 t Aoolicant: "Several elements of the proposal will directly benefit the interests of others. 1. Preservation of significant tree areas along the north edge will benefit existing homeowners to the north. 2. The existing homeowners will not need to worry about an unknown industrial use developing in their back yard. 3. The PUD zoning will allow development of a transition buffer and screening device adjacent to the existing industrial land use and remove the burden of the buffer zone from the industrial landowner. 4. Use of a private open space zone will further benefit the adjacent industrial owner. 5. Preservation of the flood plain and wetland as open space will further benefit all residents in the area and the City. " Staff: We agree with points 1, 2 and 5. Points 3 and 4 regarding the benefits of the private open space zone to the industrial landowner beg the question of whether this "solution" is equitable to the future single-family homeowners who will have to devote and maintain a substantial portion of their property as an open space zone and which will excuse the industrial neighbor from any buffering responsibilities. The applicant proposes to zone the south 40' of the residential lots along the south side of the new 51st Avenue North to open space. Since no buffer is required from open space, the industrial use could remain as a conforming use in its present location. The burden of providing and maintaining the open space buffer falls on the developers and future occupants of the Soo Line property. Approval of the PUD would be an acceptance of a 40' buffer residentially-owned, rather than a 100' buffer industrially owned. The industrial use would continue to be conforming. An alternative might be to bring the residential zoning down to the industrial property and leave it as a nonconforming use. In such a case, if the building were destroyed by more than 50%, it could only be rebuilt on the south side of the site with the installation of a 100' wide landscaped buffer. This would reduce the economic potential of the site. The landowner would likely either make a legal claim of taking of property without compensation or would seek a variance from the buffer requirement. Of course, if the building were destroyed, the owner would also certainly assess whether the best use of the property was still industrial and the City would have to consider whether industrial was still the best land use from a public perspective. It could be that an alternate use, more compatible with the residential neighborhood would be pursued. That, however, is a decision for another time. 12-6-90 8 S One of the main land use issues that must be addressed with this application is whether a private, residentially owned open space buffer is an acceptable arrangement where single-family land use abuts industrial land use. The PUD ordinance gives the City the flexibility to accept such an arrangement without granting a variance. The question the Commission should ask itself is whether this is a real solution or whether it may be avoiding the issue of a longer-term land use conflict. We support the proposed single- family development and the dedication of lowland for public open space. However, we are not sure the private open space buffer is the wisest long-term solution to the buffering issue. SITE AND BUILDING PLANS Although Section 35-230 of the Zoning Ordinance does not require site and building plan approval for developments in the R1 and R2 Zoning districts, Section 35-355 (the PUD Ordinance) does require site and building plan approval. A set of plans has, therefore, been submitted and a review of these plans follows: Location/Use The applicant proposes a subdivision of 29 single-family homes to have access off 51st Avenue North running between France Avenue North on the east and East Twin Lake Boulevard on the west. Also a part of this subdivision would be dedication of approximately 8 acres of land on the west side of the Soo Line property for public open space. The applicants also propose a private open space strip approximately 40' in width along the south sides of the residential lots. There is to be a berm and fence within this private open space area. The northerly portion will, for all practical purposes, be back yard area for the residential lots. The southerly portion (south of the fence) will abut the Murphy Warehouse property and is proposed to be landscaped with prairie grass. Access/Parking All lots within the single-family subdivision will gain access off the new 51st Avenue North. We should clarify that the new 51st Avenue North is not to be in the location of the present, unimproved 51st Avenue North right-of-way which runs along the south side of lots which gain access primarily off Oak Street to the north. If this development proposal is approved, and the new location for 51st Avenue North is dedicated for right-of-way, the City will vacate the old 51st Avenue North right-of-way and leave it as a utility easement. The building plans for the homes in this subdivision call for two-car attached garages and double driveways. One important aspect of the PUD proposal is that there will be varying setbacks on either side of the street. On the north side of 51st, where no sidewalk or trail is proposed and tree preservation is a key concern, the minimum front yard setback would be 251 . Along with a 10' boulevard, this should allow for two cars to be parked in tandem in the driveway. On the south side of 51st, 12-6-90 9 where a trail is a definite possibility, the minimum setback will be the standard 351 . This will allow two cars to be parked in tandem without blocking the trail. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for at least one shade tree per lot, utilizing American Linden and Green Ash to a great extent. Additional shade trees have been added at the corners of street intersections (the sight triangle applies to vegetation between 2 1/2 ' and 10' above the centerline grade of the street) . Along the south side of the development, a berm and fence with a combined height of 8 ' is proposed within the private open space area that is intended to buffer the industrial use to the south from the residences. Along the north side of the fence, the plan proposes small clusters of Amur Maple and Welch Juniper trees. More vegetative screening in this area would be desirable. The plan also calls for preserving as many existing trees as possible, especially along the north side of the development, adjacent to the old 51st Avenue North right-of-way. There is also a significant stand of trees in the open space area west of the Murphy Warehouse and south of the spur track which are to be retained. Two other smaller areas are shown as areas for tree preservation. The landscape point system does not apply to single-family development and it is difficult to assess the total point value of all plantings including existing plantings. We recommend that additional plantings be provided in a package to prospective homeowners. We also recommend that the development agreement between the developer and the City require sod in all yards abutting a public street. Finally, we would recommend some additional shade trees along the south side of the development to provide more effective screening of the warehouses to the south. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The subdivision plan calls for a curving street that bends north, then south as it travels west of France Avenue North, finally curving north to intersect with East Twin Lake Boulevard. The high point of the street and of the subdivision generally is at the point where the street reaches its northernmost point, where the lots are shallowest on the north and deepest on the south. East of this point, runoff will flow toward France Avenue North and eventually enter the storm sewer there. West of the high point runoff will drain to two catch basins on either side of the street where 51st meets East Twin Lake Boulevard. From there it will drain by storm sewer to an outflow approximately 150' west of the street. The runoff will ultimately drain into the open space (flood plain and wetland) area to the west of the development. The sanitary sewer is proposed as an 8" diameter PVC pipe at a .4% grade. The sanitary sewer flow also breaks east and west, but at a point in the street further west than the storm drainage break. 12-6-90 10 West of the break, the sanitary sewer will connect ultimately to an existing manhole in East Twin Lake Boulevard. The easterly section will connect to a new manhole in France Avenue. A 6" diameter water main will be placed between a 10" main in France Avenue and an 8" existing main which extends southward from East Twin Lake Boulevard past the west end of the Murphy Warehouse property and under the Soo Line tracks and through the Joslyn property to the south. The grading plan calls for installation of a 2 ' to 6' berm along the south side of the development in the proposed private open space zone. It would crest in the center of the development. Some grading modifications are also proposed for the three easterly lots on the north side of the street. A depressed area in the backs of these lots will be somewhat abbreviated to allow for the building pads. The project engineer has computed the proposed drainage capacity of this depression and has told us it will actually exceed the present storage capacity. Therefore, there should be no adverse effect on nearby garages belong to properties to the north. Those drainage calculations will be submitted to the City Engineer for review. Finally, some grading modifications are also proposed for the four lots on the west end of the development to place building foundations at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation of 8561 . It will be necessary, if these lots are actually developed, to provide compensating storage volume in the flood plain. Some of that compensating flood storage area would probably be provided in the public open space area. It should be noted at this point that staff recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council consider public acquisition of perhaps . two or three of these lots to best preserve the natural landscape in the public open space area. It should also be noted that the grading plan for this development will have to be reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits. The applicant intends to use surmountable curb with 18" of gutter. The Director of Public Works has accepted this to allow flexibility of driveway locations. Curbing along France Avenue may be deferred in lieu of a deposit of a cash escrow to cover the eventual improvement when curb and gutter are installed north of 50th. Buildings At this point, the developer has submitted at least 11 sets of house plans. All of the plans are for split entry homes with attached double garages. The house plans vary in dwelling ground coverage from approximately 962 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. Some homes have an optional fourth level. Some of the homes will have full basements and some close to lowland will be walkouts. The lowest floor elevation of any dwelling will be 857.0' or higher in accordance with the City's flood plain ordinance. All of the plans have 6" wide lap board siding on the front elevation. Casement 12-6-90 11 windows are generally used. Most of the designs have bay windows on either the front or rear elevations. Most plans also call for face brick on the bottom 4 ' to 5' of the front elevation. Procedure The PUD/R1 and Open Space proposal is a rezoning with a specific development plan. As such, it must go through the normal process of a rezoning. This means that the rezoning proposal and the site and building plans must be referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. In this case, it will be the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Staff will schedule a meeting of that group probably for sometime after the holidays. Property owners within 350' of the site will be notified of the meeting and invited to attend. Comments may be made not only on the proposed land use, but also on the proposed site and building plans. We would expect to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and action in late January or early February. The Commission is encouraged to make comments on the proposal now so that if necessary, revised plans can be prepared during this process. We recommend that the Commission open the public hearing at this meeting and table the matter, referring it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. We should also point out that the present Comprehensive Plan Land Use Revisions Map is silent on this property and that the PUD ordinance requires that PUD's be located in areas designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will, therefore, be necessary to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment designating an area including this property for redevelopment and an amendment to the Land Use Revisions Map designating a recommended land use for this property. The Commission may wish to give direction on the scope and content of such a Comprehensive Plan amendment at Thursday's meeting. Submitted by,'�7 Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 12-6-90 12 Section 35-208. REZONING 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? i Section 35-355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD-MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3 Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights-of-way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 35-355 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c- A PUD may be located only in an area designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. 35-355 e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. 35-355 b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35-230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. 35-355 e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building. permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. \ X141'— 155' NOV 1990 R' RECEIVED uo BQ7ROK CENTER, NNNN. �;? PROJECT NARRATIVE ,r TWIN VIEW MEADOWS BROOKLYN CENTERr MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 14t 1990 BACKGROUND Twin View Development, Inc. , is proposing the development of an 17.8 +/- acre parcel located west of France Avenue between 50th Avenue North, 51st Avenue North and the Soo Line Railroad. The property is owned by Tri State Land Company, a division of Soo Line Railroad, and is being purchased by Twin View Development, Inc. The site is currently zoned I-2 and has sat vacant for many years. A brief review of the site conditions concludes that development of any use would be difficult due to several factors as follows: 1. The existing Soo Line Railroad and spur track effectively servers the property from land to the south. 2. The existing industrial zoning brings special buffer requirements which severely limit development of the land. 3 . The western portion of the site contains 6.3 acres of flood plain area below elevation 856.0. 4. The 6.3 acre flood plan is located within a 5 to 7 acre wetland regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 5. 51st Avenue between East Twin Lake Boulevard and France Avenue exists as a 30 foot wide right-of-way and has never been improved. 6. It is questionable whether 51st Avenue could be opened due to a large depression located approximately 100 to 200 feet west of France Avenue. The bottom is at elevation 850.5 (Twin Lake OHW = 853.5) and is 9.5 to 10 feet lower than France Avenue. 7. Development. of 51st Avenue would create 10 double frontage lots which currently front on Oak Street. 8. Development of 51st Street would destroy over 75 percent of the existing trees and vegetation located along the northern edge of the site. Proposal The applicant proposes to develop the easterly 9.8 acres into 30 residential lots. The balance of the site is to be left as open space. The applicant believes that rezoning the site to PUD/R-1 will provide all the tools necessary to develop the property to its highest and best use. The PUD zoning tool will allow preservation of most of the existing vegetation along the north and west portions of the site and will also allow sufficient buffer and transition space adjacent to the existing industrial use. The applicant is also willing to zone portions of the site as open space to further preserve the existing wetland, vegetation and buffer areas. Details of the design are shown on the attached exhibits and site plans. Rezoning Guidelines The following discussion addresses the merits of the rezoning as set out in Section 35-208 for the City Code. 4a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The land currently is undeveloped. Time has shown that development as an industrial site will not occur due to the numerous topographic and zoning code buffer constraints. Therefore, it is concluded that the rezoning will allow development of the site to the benefit of the neighbors. (they will not have to worry about street and vegetation removal in their backyards and uncertain industrial uses) and the city will benefit by preservation of open space and the growth in tax base. 4b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The proposed lots will be very similar in size to the existing lots to the north and east. The average lot will be 10,500 square feet with the smallest lot being 8750 square feet and the largest lot being 26,350 square feet. The PUD zone classification will allow a subdivision design which will allow preservation of significant amounts of vegetation and development of the desired buffer and screening adjacent to the industrial use. (See the grading plan for buffer detail. ) 4c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The PUD R-1 zone is requested to insure that only single family houses are built but allow flexibility in subdivision design. 4d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classifica- tion changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? ftNot to our knowledge. I 4e. In the Case of city-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Not applicable. 4f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Yes. 4g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Since the site has not developed as an industrial sue, one can only conclude that the market has deemed it unsuited for that use. Analysis of the site further concludes that the flood plain, wetland, street right-of-way and industrial setback requirements would leave only 5-1/2 acres or about 30 percent of the site for industrial development. 4h. 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 in the community? Brooklyn Center currently lacks any land for development of single family homes. This parcel lends itself, due to its location, to residential development. Residential develop- ment is less intense and more sensitive to the existing site environment. The proposal does meet the best interests of the city for the reasons stated above. 4i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Several elements of the proposal will directly benefit the interests of others. (1) Preservation of significant tree areas along the north edge will benefit existing home owners to the north. (2) The existing home owners will not need to worry about an unknown industrial use developing in their backyard. (3) The PUD zoning will allow development of a transition buffer and screening device adjacent to the existing industrial land use and remove the burden of the buffer zone from the industrial land owner. (4) Use of a private open space zone will further benefit the adjacent industrial owner. (5) Preservation of the flood plain and wetland as open space will further benefit all residents in the area and the city. • t • 4 \\t1 iilt i 0,L% , �- q-� /� _ �• +fin. ...\ - Y lA1LL mvu. a p,. 5f t}iil: .; 1}� i�� ;. � � � N. la•� , f ,� _ ':r,' �laic � _�� ' �+rr}. +i. •�� it �Et � . — -.;ir+.X;. ) � � rsry0 ,,,�t �:� it r i• ( ,,;.,t I ; l®�" !# l��ti i[: iir i� ri fir- ;; _�� -..��. � -,.. �.�I J( h��,y•� ,gym _ E:'• . ; � a � , a • It a � a «•.� •"• TWIN VIEW MEADOWS ., -�—= x GRADING. DRAINAGE 3 r&as-5ocu►T�5 �`�"w-W ? ��: • EROSION CONTROL PLAN - ENG NEEPWG yMVW.KAW" auo..a ce..na •+ou /A• �ti�2C�LJCOCIrof m CD - J � — l 1.1 WW LAKL YLYO. 11 \qjb .O Y - ��I ---__ _ � ''•1111 V-911111 Ili�.•li a •°� �: _ - ___a.�ANCE AVE. r. ..• .-_-.f.c - - r• e$rr7 32 s $ W A Lw TWIN VIEW MEADOWS wEwp PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN .wEEREG S URrwG RA'"."Ww 6 r E A. '.CE.If". o � i / s• i TWIN lANE3 BLVD. I I� _ �N 44 r A. = APs OZ z Z I r Z E R A 0, I ; -- y Z I ❑� D� w+ o Z o I Z,"I �10 c I I ^ ❑ , a I N � - :2 16, El xg op -� e Z = TWIN VIEW MEADOWS IV'�.O w:Iw Ne.oareuxwNl ►�'MERILA ��- a LANDSCAPE PLAN c _ &AS IATFS ^" A 'Eo-l)S BRO •lVN CFNIEN NN!]UI^"_ �,"�— fix- F.PCO&EW14 SUR14MG'FLANNNG C:r) W V p O O °¢ CD CD i p Ln CD Z Z j n j ' V I I I ,MINI IIiIjI Iryl .I. I I I o _ I I I Nall �I M1� I I ° � '�� � ll ' I i I ,Id�b�Il1 I� • cz Nlo ® to r r1711uViI _ cC°o I ''1'° Y, J GT rr=' ° IIIIfI O 3� CD 10 2C • p CA CD a / i t^nrc�<��+c�T<ac�c�v�omAZw��o�o� o aoaoc�r D7 c y y 7 y O.fir CSD N A X CD N d y N N -� c> > >=°•� 1.n�mota � o °—' NQ� c� c �-_� °:�c�cn�i Q / (D w fo y O O w n N CD y O O "''O N CD G C" Cp CD-O CD ] C" co j .G d 7C?CS"..' y 7c-� dx2�C (D � CIO) CCO C < CD � O O n 7 ^' C� Cyi CD .0.. O O Cgz OL N CD "CD 5.C7 O O �O 3 �— d.w-. 'O y Ft : /co g ono = c� �o CD `,�° o a n > > `,° oz yo c� o ?: y a c y CD (D N CD O Q 1w I L' C3 L7 y CD N CD n ,n cn m U) CID y < 0 OL po CD A / O / coo co �, % 7 i CS .A v ? _ ch C.n _ CD 10 10 D • j J+ \ - I3�hy '+• 1 A0 ,10 ® •� ��` C) Cn JOE. j rn n ��k CZ) 4K I -fill IL V;rt �� T s� � ��S � s4 = II ti - - i •�'A � ___�)� ____ : 3- - II I I 3 ice.�. .•�.. A PC 4 5 ri __ 3 F h r -- �' w '• m CA IN j CC:7< cnvT5c7 c7�<Dgc7 G�070T•PZfn<ca��?7-ice S7o-I'11���WWnr j m D / 'O X•C n � d L11 C O CT N CS�O O C�.C A� p.C •�^D, m m c�•�m o m � CD 3.w co co cr � m v ti j fO y 0 0 n 0 y w n n d CD CD N om•' p C p 0 N cD n n CD CD'O•O O 0 CD O 7C 7 fD N O O O N O m C., ?= n N N d - O n O n P1 CD d O d o N• N O;CD O N CD .••,O N 7 N N 7 �.�•--w d N 9 O L O n .N A O d N O 7C to d pp N -0 cD [D O d Cp O p O ��p�p N =O O 7r��• CW,N r CpO O d O•d7O O N CD y C7 (7 N $ d O CY w5 W C=D N N � d-� 7' O p _. O CD n d r.CD = j CD Win•. p n CD = CAD O C d d G / Og C N C ^ p »� N 3 7 _�• • ...COD C) CD O N N O CD su =r CL CD cc f " j N < CD N N G C CA? R N d y S CD j y I rn °7o CD % z. j CCD Ln Ln Ln Ip� j I Ij 'III llllllllill'IIII"dell,k m I Ipl I II�NpI��'I Ir c I I III I�4l'I��li^I''Ily' C) / � I 3 I I IN I hhiYY'�FhIII'' v OWN i o r ol�l�y� , ��I����rq��a a ICI I U' Oct m ':'o FFP lilt �" * I l �pIII�V'IIIIII m co • ;; �_ I; Q j j C/7vT C7 C7� G nOC1 G7G m a z tn<wwOT��z 9� ?ro�j ao OOnr A j r•C7< �+O c o t9 c �p y p�j O 6 c N uj �p O e� 7c n1 c� ? » -y N w u, n� .Q. T � c0 d 7 0 1 `G C A A � ��`< � X-"'o n °i c n c Q °'a fo c x- m pc -c »m D m m �_ Fi. m o d m cu o,so m y �. an d // > > _ m gnm o m n o �nw, ° ^' o�c_ `i m,n�' f0av Co �n 8�to O sG c'f ^o a uci d d n d d Sr j A co O a fD fl n O cD fp co cl O Q o N O = G�.co G y j "g m 'r ti �' o� c as �' ' O > > c / N N.O-. co cD d m G T N N y �. j to O cD j x j j • • s Do / =r s r C CD A Ln a CID CD C13 C) IM -- w IC cn _ - CD CD 'a-a f CD a. _< ___ ___ _ i' '.I.�IIIIiIi P._ O r' __ °r91 t a � I�i I�Ilhll�Ilflil II'II' "C- /. Z GI * : ill I' n p 'r' O 411�,`:p ," /mom �po / A % rg? TyT *P C•)K< � DOC)G7OS Taff lN<wwgyg j g / d O C O (D C �y N O O C d d O� JC pl \ O � m ?-p`=G_.may.. H O N n �.F O C y cr O -CO C O C A C)°C ° (D�j A C� »'f� C A A`Z D / CD. X m moo. 3. n c n n m o c> f m o �c co c M�• fD m d -a a o o vi 5 O m 9 »n od o o fp f m n m m ni �' fi n m �n o p c •° c� n -o a ti / O ? n O SU CD 3.O n 0 O N O t0 Cf 7' O n N N N = n O'n Y j Q °-° a n o x n 3 n c °-- x y `�° n H rn.o " f y m m y d m Z / o f n c, n d o, o�a o n 4+ o $ �c � d Q � 'a a �c° o c �o Qm cfc co A CID 3 o n y y m c �_' n o _? d y o m f f n 3 o n '° m m CID w > > c a o n o o T S m co o y d y y < d d j ,c ° F � � j ^ Wti N O O y / r CD z CCD � I i CJI o A j s .I I o � T - _ �.IIIIII IIII I III II II'� II O I 1I�I u�� Iul lI III'Iii�� z j o ,j I I4 E5� il�, III,I III I j Ij III IIII t :/ �° / s r o G ^ FREE■ i�I� I: ! I t I �� 'FREES ken III �t IIi�,III'II,(IIII!It IIIIIt -- I 11 I l I j l,lll{Illi 11 It m _ C r"--� N •I � � � —_- �__-J � _ I � I'„'�I, II ;I illgll!I I � a _ y'Illj ,I�I I Ij�Il�jillllli ill h 0A;, T A o E� -r �I cd m • �o 0 n t CA YK j % j j m ip TO to 7 D �a < � Xan � g ° co _FC rn p�m N ° o_ s o c�° d m.a n p n'o a m O %/ N (D fD d a - C O 6 n N 0 3 N 0. O W v O ? $ n w °' ?a a a x° � c o m a o o. cr m g co o a d n m j m f c a ° � fo�pp > > ci a cx ? 3 a m c _ c H �° o c ° > j T a— co n N G T CD y CD j CD % F i � o o Ul m j T - D II ,IIIs/. � t{II tli�Il� I II I II I. II, I I11 I I m ° Na i oo = �l' IIII� dlh,glll I I / - ;� I I,I,,I►I i ,III � cn llt �� o q � � i jII! I•,II ,.IIII� III , _ -• ®j w m CD F` : � Vii- o F===== co CD j jr I YhY,au�pri, OZ I � D 1 IU I I�I �,CIF P IS �3 �'lilt P I��II Sri i r3 kaq CD cn 4t � I OD' �, CD O/% O OI, '�` __ _ h .'lid i,�� .\� m r cn Pill Pill Rill //l Pill n — j T � � � rC�<?�� Cn� SC7 C��G�OC7 G�O9T ZCnWWOT��SS�Tp_ SO W�C7r / P D r tv $ m m m m°o icy c) n`=° o c o n�o N CO =r CD =W'WO n� °—' CD'a� O O Q d d n N C 7 G O N N O c o 7 C N n O N O N C=D f D N y p So a O n".' y _.. / m mo000 �.� ��o Q� N `° o0 ED n a .� n Pill/ m m d m�3 c° y c Ca= m co O ��o n f=) N F .0..2 C O N C'f C p.0..f�A N 7 O CID CD Pu cc 0 CD F (n < N CA N 1 ) C / Flo An 11 ca t0 YR CID *403 oo CD Ln Ul i CD D 3 0 Z 0 ti`s IIIIIIII�� ��IIII�III ■ -- .T Ill�llll j�l�llll��lll�11 O 3 � MEW III Ilh I�- r� IN WE r S y C1 I 0 6 oil !'1 0 3 °- - i ■i0 se■ u� fl'1 ■��� CA j j j rc�<�� tn�vTSC�c��<SOC�c�o�omazv�wmw?i��?o��?!v mooc�r- j m t0 p 3 iu GU O C ._0 O C1 / D % "• y,CD N x 3 N 9.n c °=,C x Q O l lo ".G, c S A o O O ry A c"D CD c n n'� cn o ooF,-,=r rrm3cn .5cD iosv�d� j.--oco � mmc°'i �o� moon�i a'cr cr ?c� n O .c a p Q�O=C. O CO �� n y W u non$ o 0 3 W o cn o N a� n� j nnn •n, n c, moco 3 �cw np �cn o non cpp1oO o 90 � Cc c o an> c� c CD y � yoopon O °: Qty oho ooh. Qmn ccD =°•� Z C,CD 3n3 ^^o � acDS° ?: 3 �°� nfl, °' moo n°� � °: °: v c.CD � a� n^3oac�_ = moo om� o c ° o n o o s D°.E Co �� mw �O cn n Cl) T > > °' 3 y Q y CD O O n 7 •O CD 0 0 O CD O CD O gg t0 p i7f j CD CNp ? y y O G m CD O CD j CD C N 6 % i N C j� CD m \s CD Lry 0. LTI A Go O Q Es v r C -tic PC v ,y e�. 7C 4 . m �-�r-� II `x' ill N ri !j r II r wi a c�c{t!;�7, �I e3! 9 I Jill CD DIP "--fd C/3 10/1 j cnrc>¢�TC�T<vc�c�vzmAZw��z��+v��ooaoc�r m i o -�,omoc� oc n� o� o-1. m , o / N .�-.� > > > C N y 7 � A cD 1 A�fD �•N � % c o��'�n � p' 3 •Q g d�cc �� c Cn jcD d c0 y O O F A N fD 3 cD N O O N cD,n c'1 [D cD.D•O d m� � ° c x=_� o mo ■ p O �L c0 ty n cD 7 O 43 n O p N C cD tG d C O C C c1D (?e " co cD y H O n W O y » O Q cD n n 'r cD �1 ° o m Q yo onco �w H p = a c9 0'p0y �� NCD � n c0 d C _ CD p tTTn N N y n N p C CD cD A �c H % CD x j 1 r/r t ri V/ CD Z j •' I cn O j E I 1't 1111'111 1�II I IIII, -0- m - .A C) C) 2C � h II I LIp % Z cn s s s � ! —_- j 1111111 IIIIII�II e : � � 1 - I► Ill ► ,� m CD C) ._y====3 tr 6 I II III' I 1 �• % 'O h � _ ��' ,I III O ®/ „ � - _- III 1 2C � 11111111111111111 j � it � F- ='fi V/ i j f')n�G D6 n�O7DTdZNGW� T-1-i 7D�-4 W �WWC7r- T / �'p'<x y = ° '+ N O.�.CO C N w 7 e°') ��-'`G W< CC."p N N�x� C cli n � n3.n c C c � •...rac �c co aco �m °—' o CD nona'� n 9. o n�°o o� �� �7 onN d N ti =. n° nny (�ff a fl, 2L CD R y d n"'j N N .Z- N y H p �. CD n� CD Z j ° 3 °i ° °'. CD `D �ncu 3 c� c yc°i o 00 m yTTJ� CD CD i CG N N Z C. j C CD D leij co co CD N. 7 7P j O E3 p j % Q) Cp -0 cD � CD d / C-n m O % ro / T ' ' j o �t�p� -- I i 1 I 1 z 0 - ''rOr I ®' I I I� CD CC� � I III I it C _ ' I n ED � Joa CD ;R n y % rC)<�C/»Tc C7 C7 < DpC7 L7v70m AzCA<W CDW T-1�7D 7o—i?1,C��aD W(?r A Cp v O C �.O OC CD C N O 6 C C� N N �p O 8 7C d p .N A N to C1 CJ — / m � N 7 �.O C N 7n-. `< C A n�< p CD'C7 O L' CY A�< j D "mom X m m (3. oco �cAi o w^.� °� �'c� / y O y O O O N C'f n CD N A COD N -C7 O ^n 7 C d �.n d I 'O cD 3 A N O N d 1 O N N N O N N N O � C~ y wn �� mo � �cin no =r(n -o � � ma � °' moo � f?e -� >cnw.Qgc d x� �� o nQ�� o cD cCDD H a °on--- °_: o rn � r°n c° � CD ? �c, ornn n -ern z CL m n °» O CD O f7 C n C O ... CD CD CD O O O O 2 O n ' N O O Cf O N Q G n _ ..d-. N of j `�° n CD °i d W N C10i Tf*+ Pg N O CD O CL N N n= j O co CD co O. H l 01 c Er C j N mongolism *'T WORTHPORT� SCHOOL so milli NONNI MM WMAIMMM MW I To 60 "Alm M All i �� '� ■ � =rte ,16 - 1 R Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90029 Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc. Location: France Avenue North and 51st Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide the Soo Line property at France and 51st Avenues North into 29 single- family lots and two outlots to be dedicated for public open space. The land in question is the subject of the Planned Unit Developmentrezoning Application No. 90028 and is bounded on the north by 51st Avenue North (both improved private street and unimproved right-of-way) , on the east by France Avenue North, on the south by the Murphy Warehouse property and the Soo Line tracks, and on the extreme west by the channel between Upper and Middle Twin Lakes. The rezoning application is for PUD/R1 and Open Space designations. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a modification of some of the normal subdivision and zoning standards. The name of the plat is to be Twin View Meadows. The total area of the plat is approximately 17.5 acres. Seven (7) acres would be dedicated for public open space in two outlets. Outlot A, north of the spur track leading to the Murphy Warehouse property, would be approximately 5.2 acres. Outlot B, south of the spur track and west of the Murphy property, would be approximately 1.8 acres. The 29 single-family lots would be divided into two blocks north and south of a newly proposed 51st Avenue North which would run between France Avenue North and the south end of East Twin Lake Boulevard. Thirteen (13) lots are proposed north of 51st, varying in size from 8,050 sq. ft. for Lot 6 to 12,325 sq. ft. for Lot 13 . Lot widths in Block 1 (the north side of 51st) are generally 701 , with an 85' width for Lot 1 at the corner of France and 51st and 95' for Lot 13 next to East Twin Lake Boulevard. Lot depths vary from 115' where the road curves north to 145' on each end of the block. The lots in Block 2 on the south side of 51st tend to be narrower and deeper and larger. Average width is 68 ' width with lots on the ends (Lot 1 is 85' wide at the corner and Lot 16 is 100' wide at the street line on the west end of the street) . Lot depth varies from 140' on the west end to 185' where the road curves north. Lot size ranges from 10,540 sq. ft. for Lots 12 and 13 to 16,800 sq. ft. for Lot 16. The PUD rezoning proposal would make the south 40' of Lots 1 through 14 of Block 2 a private open space (0-2) district. The land would still be included in these lots, but the zoning of the lots would be split. No buildings could be built in this area. It would have to be maintained as an open space district, buffering the residential district from the I-2 zoned warehouse property to the south. 12-6-90 1 The proposed street right-of-way for this subdivision, a new 51st Avenue North, would be 60' in width as is standard for residential streets in the City. However, the 30' wide street would not be centered in the right-of-way, but would be offset 5' to the north so that the boulevard on the north side of the street would be only 10' whereas, on the south side of the street, it would be 201 . This is to allow for the possible construction of a 10' wide pedestrian and bike trail within the right-of-way on the south side of the street. As noted in the information sheet for Application No. 90028, there would be different setbacks applied to the north and south sides of the street to allow each side to accommodate tandem parking of two cars without blocking the sidewalk. It should be noted that there is presently, to the north of this proposed subdivision, a 30' wide unimproved right-of-way for 51st Avenue North. This half-street right-of-way was dedicated with the subdivision of the lots to the north which abut Oak Street. If this right-of-way were improved, the residents along the south side of Oak Street would have street frontage both to the front and to the rear. We are not sure why this right-of-way was dedicated, but staff recommend that, if this development is approved and goes forth, that the old 51st Avenue North right between France and East Twin Lake Boulevard be vacated, leaving in place only a utility easement. We believe at this time that the land contained in the old 51st Avenue North right-of-way would revert to the original subdivision and, thus, to the landowners to the north. (This will have to be verified by the City Attorney. ) It is, therefore, not . available to the proposed development. There is an existing 33 ' wide sanitary sewer easement along the southwest side of the outlots, adjacent to the Soo Line tracks. There is also a 30' wide street and utility easement roughly along the north side of Outlot A, except for an approximate 430' length west of East Twin Lake Boulevard and a 100' long area that is excluded from the property (see plans) . There is also an 8" water line which runs from the south end of East Twin Lake Boulevard southward through the property just west of the Murphy Warehouse property. The City holds a 15' wide easement over this line, but the preliminary plat does not show it. It should be revised to show this easement. That revision should be completed by Thursday's meeting. Procedure Normally, preliminary plats must be acted on within 30 days. However, inasmuchas this plat is tied so closely with the rezoning and development plans which will not be before the Commission again until at least late January, we have asked the applicant to consent to an extension of consideration until action is taken on the PUD proposal. If we have not received this consent in writing by Thursday's meeting, we would recommend that the Commission ask the applicant for the record whether he consents to the extension. If he does not, there is little choice but to recommend denial of the 12-6-90 2 preliminary plat and forward it on to the City Council for final action to live within the ordinance-prescribed time limit. Submitted by, Gary Sh llcross Planner A proved by, a.4oj Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 12-6-90 3 44 is D D �O i'° •.�I 0mi�C�A$�A I •' mil` �i'i {+ p z � L >;.;• rid. •." ;. ft it i TI € 4R r.n aR y �` tl' i{!ii 'fl Eli•.) It f';:!!i i` ta ilf !1ltl�='�Ei S` ,F/ �f, `` L_,,.� �� �i� •• �1'1's�lljl!!t('�i'{ �li.::l�1l�i :� 4 _r E 8 p to y?p • � � FFFq'L � � - S I o��' � i ,�- .�� { 3- I E• L.KleES DLvoe uJ.-< I D ;go:$; z fill i w �.°i� ' t•{n i e_� °' U r� _• J' 's, ° tip !'_'�. r�-tr'_.. T• J S,,i` tit 4$m a: ig.k .--H g¢ i i 10Z g it Y R 7 R i `r� 6. WS TWIN:VIW — k..�___ ' MERLA w . assOCi°TE5 PRELIMINARY PLAT s-L ,i'..°.w.°.,a.0.•ew.,,. � ... A .90-/fe w..o.irw crwrrw u�r�r:sou "��- '•L.•c:.r� ErXaMEi�n+G AwVEr'nG RJVI+eK. �/ • x •