Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 11-08 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 1979 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: October 25, 1979 4. Chairman'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 on these matters. 5. Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders 79055 Request to rezone from Cl to R3 a .9 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. 6. Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders 79056 Request for site and building plan approval for an 8 unit townhouse complex at the corner of 58th and Logan Avenues North. 7. Lawrence Rudenick 79063 Preliminary plat approval to create three lots out of two existing lots at the corner of 69th and Oliver Avenues North. 8. Darrell A. Farr Development Corporation/Jay Joyner 79066 Appeal from a ruling by the Building Official that the Beach Apartment complex is not entitled to freestanding promotional signery to advertise its conversion to condominiums. 9. Other Business 10. Discussion Items ' a. Joint meeting with the City Council to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan. b. Relocating trees from Highway 94 right-of-way. 11 . Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79055 Applicant: Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders Location: 58th and Logan Avenues North Request: Rezoning The applicant is seeking rezoning from Cl (Service/Office) to R3 (Townhouse/ Garden Apartments) of a tract of land, slightly less than an acre in size, located at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. This appli- cation was brought before the Planning Commission at its September 13, 1979 meeting and a public hearing was held at that time. (The Commission is referred to the previous information sheet on this application for further background) The rezoning request was tabled at that meeting and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Advisory Group met on October 15 and advised the Planning Commission to favorably recommend the re- zoning. As was stated in the previous report, there does not seem to be any conflict with the rezoning evaluation guidelines, nor with the present Comprehensive Plan. The only concern that occurs to staff is the possible negative impact which the Northbrook Shopping Center will have on the new development. The City has no prerogative to require site improvements at the Shopping Center as a condition of approving this application. However, since the Shopping Center and the land to be rezoned are owned by the same party, the developer should certainly be encouraged to pursue the matter in his private negotiations for the property. Reducing the impact of the Shopping Center on this develop- ment is a valid concern of both the developer and the City. Notwithstanding the outcome of such negotiations, approval of the rezoning application is recommended for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The subject property can bear fully the development re- strictions for the proposed zoning districts. 4. The subject property is considered generally unsuited for uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district because of its location. 5. The proposed zoning will allow for development of the property in a way which will benefit both the City and the Earle Brown School District. 11-8-79 ' Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79056 Applicant: Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders Location: 58th and Logan Avenues Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for an 8 unit townhouse complex atthe corner of 58th and Logan Avenues North if the rezoning contem- plated under Application No. 79055 is given a favorable recommendation. The property is located on the east side of Logan Avenue, across from the Northbrook Shopping Center.and is bounded on the north by 58th Avenue, on the east by single-family homes facing Knox. Avenue North, and on the sough by :a 75' side private utility easement. Preliminary plans for this development were considered by the Commission at the September 13 regular meeting and tabled along with the accompany- ing rezoning application. The proposed plan contemplates four two-unit structures, with each unit having its own private lot. All units will be 24' x 46; six with entrances on the side and two with entrances out the front. Interior lots are proposed to be 34' x 96' and the two corner lots 29' x 96 ' . The applicant plans to submit a prelimi- nary plat to subdivide the property and establish a Homeowners Association so . ^� the units can be individually sold. The remainder, primarily the eastern V portion, of the .9 acre site is designated as common area. Each structure will ( � be served by two 16' wide driveways separated by an 8' wide green area. The entire 40' wide driveway area will be blacktopped from the sidewalk line to the street, it being felt that the open driveway in the boulevard will better handle the turning movements of vehicles entering and leaving and that mainten- ance of the small boulevard islands would be difficult. All setback require- ments are met. 40 The applicant wishes to take advantage of an optional density credit of 500 square feet per tuck-under garage stall as provided under Section 35-400, foot- note No. 1 (c) . Since the plan calls for two tuck-under stalls per unit, the total credit sought is 1000 square feet per unit, reducing the required land area from 5400 square feet to 4400 square feet. At 4400 square feet per unit, the 39,052 square foot site can accommodate up to 8.9 units. Without the density credit, the total number of units allowed would be 7.23. Since the density credit is optional , at the discretion of the City Council , the Commission should acknowledge in its recommendation that the proposed density of eight units is warranted . in light of the aesthetic benefits obtained from the tuck under garages and the additional off-street parking it will provide. The applicant has proposed to provide the required screening from the Rl use to the east with a fairly dense row of trees and shrubs. Plantings include Green Ash, Russian Olives, Norway Maples, American Aborvitae, and Pfitzer Juniper. The plan indicates two 6" diameter Green Ash along Logan Avenue as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the shrubrow along the east property line, plantings are scheduled along the sides of the units, in the greenstrip between driveways, and alternately at front or rear corners of the private lots. 11-8-79 -1-. Application No. 79056 continued The proposed drainage pattern for the site is from east to west generally. The City Engineer has expressed some concern that the higher elevations on the east side of the site may create pockets on some of the residential. properties to the east. Each unit will have a separate 1 " water line running down to the edge of the property where they will be connected to a single 12" line coming off the main. The utility plan indicates separate 4" cast iron pipe sewer lines, each connected to the lateral in the street. The City Engineer has in- dicated that the cast iron sewer lines running adjacent to the water lines must be of water main quality or be properly "benched." The uncertainty over the location of the monument at the southeast corner of the property has been resolved. An error was made in a previous survey which placed the property line 3' inside the fences serving the residents to the east. The south property line has thus been established at 132.22 feet, running along the fence line. The plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval comprehends a total of 8 dwelling units by allowing the minimum land area to be reduced by 500 square feet for each tuck-under garage as comprehended by Section 35-400 1 (c) of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval acknowledges that the landscape treatment on the east side of the property is in harmony with the resi- dential neighborhood, provides sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area and is an appropriate screening substitute in lieu of a 4 ' high opaque fence or wall . 11-8-79 -2- r EARL BROWN! ■ •• SCHOOL 1 1 i ■■ i� ■i� ■■�i iii { ■■ ►i ■■ i■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �I _ 1 >_�i` ■■ ■■ ■1 ■1 1■1 mm UNIN� �/� ■�ii�■ i■■i � ■■ •ems ■�■ � MW om M ■N.■. is .� ■■ ■■. ■i ■ � 11111111111■11�1��.► �■ r. �■ NOON • o■■ ■■ ■r=ii �i■ .. a ■ mrmm Elm M N LAM P-OM to lam I lb I I it II, 1 fa 133.32 N89 5 - 1 11-il. - O � ' ' 91 ,Y 1 r � .� Ni OF I, �O `\ GN 1 r 1�J 1 J U t v1� t �' W of r i` i h V• � rtll , QM O � M r , � to I t Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79063 Applicant: Lawrence Rudenick Location: 69th and Oliver Avenues North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant seeks preliminary plat approval to create three lots (Lots 1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 , Rudenick Maahs Addition) on the land presently described as Lots 7 and 8, Halek 's Addition, 6900 and 6906 Oliver Avenue North. The two existing lots are each roughly 75' x 250' , facing Oliver Avenue. The preliminary plat proposes to create a third lot (Lot 2, Rudenick Maahs Addition) roughly 75' x 146' , facing 69th Avenue North, a major thoroughfare as defined by Section 35- 900 of the Zoning Ordinance. All the new lots would meet area standards for single family interior and corner lots. However, the presently substandard corner lot at 6900 Oliver Avenue North would continue to be substandard as to width at 75' . As-built surveys show that no setback violations occur with the creation of the new lot, but that existing structures at 6900 Oliver Avenue North are located at slightly less than the normal side corner setback of .25' and far less than the 50' setback required from major thoroughfares. A complicating factor in the creation of the plat is the fact that Hennepin County is considering widening 69th Avenue from a 66' right-of-way to an 80' right-of-way, picking up 7' from each side. In other instances of replatting along 69th Avenue, where it has been possible, the City has asked for and received the additional 7' of right-of-way by dedication. However, in the case of 6900 Oliver, the dedication of an additional 7 ' of right-of-way would cause substantial problems by creating an even more substandard corneh lot and further setback encroachments. The owner would be left with a 68' wide corner lot and structures set back roughly 15 ' from major thoroughfare right-of-way. It is felt that the creation of such a substandard lot with extremely deficient setbacks should not be approved because the application of current setbacks would render the property unbuildable. In the case of the newly created lot to the east, however, there appears to be no substantial damage caused by the dedication of 7 additional feet for right-of-way purposes. It is, therefore, recommended that a condition of approving the plat be a change in the survey document.showing the 7 ' dedication along 69th Avenue, from Lot 2, but not Lot 3. Although the proposed plat leaves a substandard corner lot intact, there is no need for a variance since (as with the Shimshock resubdivision) this is an existing condition which cannot be mitigated by replatting and the creation of the new lot does not make 6900 Oliver Avenue substandard as to area or any other aspect. The new plat also relocates an existing 10' utility easement along the east 100 feet of the old property line separating 6900 and 6906 Oliver Avenue North. The new plat places the easement along the west property line of Lot 2 (the new lot) for a distance of 81 .4' from the present right-of-way line. The easement is presently used by Northern States Power and power lines will be relocated. There are no City W other public utilities to be relocated. e1- Aside from the necessary amendment to show an additional 7 feet of land dedicated for right-of-way from Lot 2, the plat seems to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 11-8-79 -1- Application No. 79063 continued 1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat i't subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. - 3. The plat shall be amended to show an additional dedication from Lot 2 of 7 feet for right-of-way purposes along 69th Avenue North prior to final plat approval . 4. The 10' wide utility easement running through the middle of Lot 2 shall be formally vacated prior to final plat approval °/ 11-8-79 -2- ' • ' is :: :� -■ ■■�■■■A, ��■ ■�■� viii ■■ ■■■■■■■■� ■ NONNI mm mm IN no mm IN am ii ■■' ■■ �� ■ =� • ■ ■■ . .rte �■ _ ■ IN Min CWT MIN son pir MEMO �ICATION NO. •0. /� v� BUILDING Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79066 Applicant: Jay A. Joyner for Darrell A. Farr Development Corporation Location: 4201 - 4207 Lakeside Avenue North (The Beach Apartments) Request: Appeal The applicant is appealing the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Inspection.'s interpretation of the City Sign Ordinance, particularly Section 34-140, 2 (k) , regarding real estate signs. Sign Ordinance appeals are provided for in Section 34-170 "in order to secure the -relief where it is alledged that an administrative office of the City has committed an error in interpretation or judgment in issuing an order for making a determination. . ." The appeal, procedure is the same as that contained in Section 35-251 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a written appeal stating his position (copy attached) . He notes that Darrell A. Farr Development Corporation is in the process of converting The Beach Apartments into condominiums and is offering the units for sale. He claims that a substantial amount of work is necessary to improve the property so that they are attractive to individual purchasers. He contends that because there is a substantial amount of new work and because the units are being offered for sale for the first time, the conversion should be considered a "new residential project development" within the meaning of Section 34-140, 2, k,(2) and, therefore, entitled to the .temporary signery provided for by that section of the ordinance. The Building Official 's interpretation, which was concurred with by the Director of Planning and Inspection, is that The Beach is in the process of selling dwelling units in buildings containing two or more units as comprehended by Section 34-140, 2, k (3) and, therefore, entitled to the signery comprehended by that section of the ordinance. (copies of Section 34-140, 2, k (2) and Section 34-140, 2, k (3) are attached for the Commission's review) . The Building Official 's interpretation is based on several factors: 1 . The Conversion is not considered a new residential project development" because the work referred to by the applicant is not considered "substantial ", but rather "cosmetic,�" 4nternal modifications, most of which do not require building permits. 2. The conversion process did not require site and building plans review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council because no major site work alterations were comprehended. 3. When reviewing the preliminary plat for the conversion, the State Building Codes Division informed the City that conversions to condominiums do not constitute a change which would require bringing the subject building into compliance with current building codes that were not in effect at the time the building was originally constructed. The Building Official , therefore, did not consider the building to be "new" in terms of current Building Code requirements. 11-8-79 01 Application No. 79066 continued 4. The conversion process involves a change of occupants based on unit ownership, not the initial occupancy of the premises which Section 34-140, 2, k, (2) appears to recognize. 5. Section 34-140, 2, k, (2) also refers to the issuance of the first building permit for determining the time period for the temporary sign which also seems to imply a newly con- structed project development. 6. A broad interpretation of Section 34-140, 2, k, (2) , as the appellant proposes,could leave open the possibilities that other changes or conversions involving residential projects, or even commercial or industrial projects, such as change of ownership, cosmetic or minor alterations, a new name and marketing approach or any combination of the above might entitle that project to the same signery contained in this section of the ordinance. 7. Finally, there seems to be no conflict in treating the condominium conversion process as an example of the activity contemplated by Section 34-140, 2, k, (3) . It should also be pointed-out that The Beach is entitled to other signery such as identification signery and directional signery in accordance with the ordinance. The Beach can have a 36 square foot freestanding identification sign, plus one 10 square foot wall identification sign per building, in addition to any necessary directional signs. It is felt that the Building Official 's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance is correct and that his interpretation should be upheld. 11-8-79 -2- . , i • � A D D F N D U M T O A P P E A L The owner of the above-described property is converting the apartment units into condominium units and offering those for sale to the general public. A substantial amount of work is necessary to inprove the properties so that they are attractive to individual purchasers . . The building inspector has ruled that the conversion of these apartment units to condominium units is not a "new" residential project, within the meaning of ordinance 34-140-2K . (2) . We contend that this interpretation is incorrect . A substantial amount of new work is necessary and these units are for the first time being offered for sale to individuals . Thus , the project is new; partly as to construction which is necessary, but primarily because of its "newness" to prospective purchasers . The statement of purpose of the sign ordinance is as follows: "The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for necessary visual communication, to preserve and promote a pleasant physical invironment, to protect public and private property, and to encourage safety upon the streets and highways within the City of Brooklyn Center, by regulating the type , number, structure , size , location, height, lighting and the erection and maintenance of all outdoor signs and sign structures within said City. . " It is our position that interpreting the words "new residential project" one must look to the purpose of the ordinance where there is disagreement over interpretation. Signs are a necessary form of communication and it is the newness of the avail- ability of these units which the owner seeks to communicate . I point out that the word "project" is used and not the word "building" or the word "construction" . It is only necessary that the project be new, and not that the building be new. The ordinance recognizes the need for a temporary sign for as few as six residential units . This could involve a project as simple as the subdivision of six individual residential lots . 's We believe the building inspector' s reliance upon section 34-140-2K (3) will apply to those individual future sales of the units when each of the owners is selling their particular unit . In summary, we ask the Planning Commission to make a finding that the conversion of these units into condominium units falls within the section 34-140-2K (2) provisions . This , of course , would only be for a temporary sign , and not a permanent one . DA ;LL A. FP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 7 By y oyne Section 34-140 (continued) k. Real Estate signs as follows: (1) Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or entire buildings provided that such signs shall be less than ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet for other property and that there shall be only one such freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. (2) A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a- new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre-existing home; the signs are removed within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit in the project or when the particular project is ninety (90) per cent sold out or rented, whichever is sooner; and each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations: Project area under 10 acres - 48 square feet Project area over 10 acres - 320 square feet (3) Wall signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units, provided such signs shall be limited to five (5) square feet in area and to one (1) such sign per building. (4) Wall signs for the purpose of leasing portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas, shall be limited to five (5) square feet in area and to one (1) such sign per wall facing a major thoroughfare. Said signs shall be located no higher than the ground floor height. 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit A. Commercial (C-2) and Industrial (I1 and I2) Districts (1) Wall Signs and Projecting Signs. (a) Individual Establishments Individual detached establishments or enterprises not clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multi-tenant office or industrial building may have wall signs and projecting signs on each wall, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed 30% of the area of the wall supporting the signs. (b} Clustered Establishments I I I I�! I I �I '�, I i I % LAKESIDE PARK v - J J 51 ST aVE N. Lot ®2 I-2 4 ) W Z i � d TWINI } LAKE a LAXE EREEZE AV W , I * Y N C2 <> TWI P N ` LAKE BEACH ' ` + PARK ® 2� ROBBI SDALE ,o 9 > W } 9 I I � Z LA W t U n + t 7qc t � 1