Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 07-14 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83032 Applicant: Shawn Taylor Location: 5435 Bryant Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at 5435 Bryant Avenue North. The existing parcel of land is zoned R2 and is bounded on-the north, west, and south by several 'single-family homes and on the east by Bryant Avenue North. Across: Bryant Avenue North is a duplex and two single-family dwellings. The dimensions of the existing parcel are 150.65' deep by 252' wide fora total area of 37,-964 sq. ft. A two storey single- family home is located in the approximate center of the existing parcel. The existing legal description is a metes and bounds description. The easterly 150.65 feet of Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bellvue Acres. The proposed legal descrip- tion is: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Sander Erickson Addition. Lots 1 and 3 are 83' x 150.65' for a total area of 12,504 sq. ft. This exceeds slightly the minimum lot area requirement 'of 12,400 sq. ft. for. a two-family dwelling in the R2 zone. Lot 2 is 86' x 150.65' for a total area of 12,956 sq. ft. Although this lot is presently occupied by a single-family dwelling, it is also large enough for a two-family dwelling. There is presently a 15' x 301' brick shed on the northerly most lot, Lot 1. There are no setback deficiencies if this structure is used as an accessory structure. However, it should be clearly pointed out to the applicant .and any prospective buyers that use of this structure as a dwelling is prohibited. There is also a horseshoe-shaped driveway in front of the existing house which extends a few feet into the proposed Lot 1 and about 25' into proposed Lot 3. These driveway segments should be removed and a new driveway configuration should be installed prior to final plat approval. Separate water and sewer services have' already been installed for the newly created Lafs 1 and 3. Sewer assessments have been paid. However, water assessments have not yet been paid. The. applicant will, therefore, have to enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to assure payment of these assessments. Altogether, the preliminary plat is in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall remove driveway segments which encroach into the proposed Lots 1 and 3 and install a new driveway on Lot 2 prior to final plat approval. 4. The existing 15' x 30' brick shed on the proposed_ Lot 1 may continue as an accessory structure. However, this building may ` not be used as a dwelling by either the current. or future owners. 5. The applicant shall enter-into a subdivision agreement with the City prior to final plat approval for payment of deferred assess- ments for water service. 7-14-83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83033 Applicant: Hilltop Builders Location: 5839 Major Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 12 unit apart- ment building on the vacant parcel of land north of Bass Lake Road and surrounded on the east, north, and west by Twin Lake North Apartments,. The property is zoned R5 and two and one-half to three storey apartment buildings are permitted in that zone at a density of up to 16 units per acre. The parcel in question is 29,311 sq.ft. in areawhich allows 10.85 or 11 units at a density 'of one unit per 2,700 sq. ft. of land area. The reason for the discrepancy is that planning staff were initially given a figure of over 31,000 sq. ft. as the area of the property which would support 12 units. However, a boundary survey by Suburban Engineering shows a different configuration of County Road 10 right-of-way and the resulting lot area is 29,311 sq. ft. The applicant has, therefore, been told that the number of units within the building must be reduced to 11. The site plan provides for one access-to the property off County Road 10. Parking is arranged so that there are six garage stalls and six outdoor parking stalls are provided on both the east and west ends of the building. In addition, there is one handicapped stall. This meets the parking requirement of two spaces per unit. The access to the property is toward the easterly edge of the lot, about 38' from.the east property line. A 20' wide driving lane runs in front of the building to connect the parking on the west side of the building with the access on the east side of the property. Staff feel this is an adequate width given the function of the driveway and the constraints of the property. Driving lanes adjacent to parking areas are 24' wide as required by ordinance. The landscape plan provides four Maple trees (2 Z" diameter) on the west side of the property and two Maples on the east side of the property along with two existing trees. The plan also calls for two Norway Pine (21" diameter) at the southwest corner of the site and one on the easterly side of the site. The plan provides no 6" diameter trees although 2 are required. Twelve (12) Anthony Waterer Spirea are scheduled in the southwest and southeast corners of'the site and twelve (12) Redtwig Dogwoods are scheduled for the northeast and northwest corners of the site. Sargent Juniper and Zabel Honeysuckle are to be planted in the front greenstrip. Three Amur Maple, three Peking Cottoneaster and four Spirea are shown in the area in front of the building; and, in the area behind the building, four Snow Berry, four Isanti Dog- woods and four Alpine Currents are shown. There will be two dumpsters, one at the northeast and one at the northwest corner of the site, screened by a 6' high wood fence. There is presently a wood fence around the east, north and west sides of the_ property which will remain. Although there is no screening requirement from the adjacent R5 development, the fence will serve- to block out headlights. The drainage plan calls for a catch basin on the east and west sides of the site to take drainage from each of the two parking areas. B612 curb and gutter is to be provided throughout. The building elevations call for face brick exterior slide-by windows and a mansard roof. The garages will have similar treatment.. Each unit will have a small 4' x 8' patio witla sliding glass doors. Four units are planned on each of three floors. All are two-bedroom units. The garages will be attached to the main building by a 3' 8" wide corridor. A 6' wide corridor splits the building east to west. Tenants will be able to reach their apartments from their garages without going outside. The proposed building is intended to blend in well with the larger Twin Lake North complex and appears to be designed with the same high quality. 7-14-83 -1- Application No. 83033 continued Altogether the *plans appear to be in order and approval is .recommended, subject to at least the following conditiong: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming,:plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee fln and amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be' submitted prior the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide for two 6" diameter trees in aceofdance with Section 35-410 of the Zoning Ordinance prior• to consideration by' the. City Council. 7-14-83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83034 Applicant: Hilltop Builders Location: 5839 Major Avenue North Request: Variance. . The applicant requests a variance from .Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a front setback of less than the 60' required off Bass Lake Road (a major thoroughfare with R1 development opposite) and less than 40' from the rear property line. The property in question is located north of Bass Lake'. Road and is bounded on the east, north and west by Twin Lake North _Apartments. The proposed setback off Bass Lake Road is listed as 411. However, bQcause of new survey information, this distance is probably only 341. Moreover, the greenstrip adjacent to County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) is only 8' rather than the required 15'. The rear yard setback is 10' rather than the 40' required by ordinance. The applicant has submitted a brief letter in which he essentially restates the Standards for a Variance (attached) . He notes that the shape of parcel does not permit any normal arrangement of apartments. He asserts that the shape is. unique to this parcel of land only. He also states that the hardship results from the ordi- nance and was not created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel. Finally, the applicant claims that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to.other land or improvements in the neighborhood. While they are not elaborate, -we-agree with the arguments of-the applicant. The parcel in question is only 110' deep -at its narrowest point and 124' deep at the widest point. The 60' front setback and 40' rear setback would leave only 10' of buildable area. This would be a difficult situation for a single-family home; (which would have 20' of buildable area) for an apartment building, it is basically impossible. It might be possible to build a row of 20' deep townhouses on the property (town- houses are a permitted use in the R5 zone), but we do not feel that the right to build apartments should be foreclosed. Moreover, such a townhouse development would probably present other aesthetic and zoning problems. Therefore, in light of the uses permitted on this parcel, we feel some sort of variance is necessary. We have recommended that the rear yard setback be reduced to 10' since the rear property line abuts another apartment complex and is very comparable to a side interior_ property line. The front setback of 34' is the maximum that can be provided on this shallow property. The proposed building is 30' in height. Thus, the proposed setback is slightly more than the height of the building. (In R5 develop- ments abutting R1 or R2 developments, the setback should be twice the height of the building. There is R1 property across County Road 10. Thus, the setback should be 60'. The width of the County Road 10 right-of-way is 80'; and tends to offset the shallow setback'of the building) . The greenstrip variance is also necessary inasmuchas the County will only grant one access to the site and some internal means is needed to get to the westerly parking area. To do so, it becomes impossible to meet the 15' greenstrip requirement. It is debatable whether .this parcel is totally unique. There are other shallow lots in the City and an R5 development on a corner lot might well face similar problems. Nevertheless, we concur that the property does have a fairly unique shape and, given its zoning, requires a variance to be buildable. 7-14-83 -1- Application No. 83034 continued As to how the hardship was created, the site in question was formerly occupied by a remnant farm house from a farm that once included the Twin Lake North area. This building remained for a short time after°the apartments were built and then was demolished. The present configuration of property lines was established by the previous owner of the farm and by the County when it condemned land for County Road 10 right-of-way. It is also likely that this remnant parcel was left with the expectation of building a small commercial rather than residential develop- ment at this location. It cannot be conclusively stated that the current hardship was not created by someone who once had an interest in the parcel, but certainly the present owner has no control over this hardship.. Finally, we would agree that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to surrounding proeprty. In light of the configuration of the property, we feel setback and greenstrip variances are required for the development of the property. The precise arrangement of set- back and greenstrip variances are in accordance with what staff feel are the prior- ities of the ordinance within this particular- site. Approval is, therefore, recom- mended on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance appears to be met. 7-14-83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83035 Applicant: Paul Desvernine/lten Leasing Location: 4301 68th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Servomation Building at 430168th Avenue North and conduct auto and truck rental and leasing therein. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 68th Avenue North on the north; by Iten Chevrolet on the east and south, and by another commercial building on the west. Auto and truck rental and leasing are proposed as a special use 'in the C2 zoning district. A recent ordinance to allow this is scheduled for 2nd reading by the City Council at its next regular meeting (July 25, 1983) .. As to site improvements, the applicant proposes to close two of three accesses onto 68th Avenue North, preserving one access west of the building and sharing one access immediately west of Brooklyn Boulevard with Iten Chevrolet. The applicant also proposes to curb the parking area west of the building adjacent to the front and west side greenstrips. Six "boulevard." trees are proposed: two Marshall Ash, two Royal Red Maple, and two Black Walnut or Skyline Locust. Underground irrigation is noted on the plan as required by ordinance. Although much of the 15,000 sq.- ft. building will be utilized for storage, we.have requested the applicant to provide a parking plan to satisfy total retail use of the building (123 spaces) . The plan submitted thus 'far shows 130 stalls, eight (8) of which are suspect. It is clear, however, that more stalls could be added if the minimum stall size were used. Also, use of some of the stalls is contingent on a joint access agreement being concluded with Iten Chevrolet. A copy of such an agreement, filed at the County, and including provisions to allow drainage across common property lines should be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of permits. The primary structure alterations proposed include applying a plaster insulation to the walls and roof of the building and covering the exterior with a stucco finish. The existing fence between the old Servomation (Iten Leasing) building and the Iten Chevrolet building will be removed and replaced' with a new 10' high solid wall with panels having a texture to match the proposed exterior of the building. Both will be painted to match the existing Iten building. The building is presently equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which needs some alterations prior to occupancy of the building. The applicant has submitted no letter addressing the Standards for a Special U$e Permit (attached) . We do feel, however, that the standards are met in this case. The proposed use is certainly compatible with surrounding businesses. No diminution in property values should result. The parking shown on the site, provided a cross access agreement is filed, is adequate to meet the requirements of this- or any retail use of the property. Also, the closing of two unnecessary accesses onto 68th Avenue North should help reduce any traffic problems associ- ated with the site. 7-14-83 -1- Application No. 83035 continued Based on the foregoing, approval is recommended subject- to at least the following conditions: 1. • The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the -Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub- mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter• 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7-14-83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83036 Applicant: Iten Leasing Location: 4301 68t.h Avenue North Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 34-140, Subsection 3.A. (3) to allow a roof sign more than 6' above the roof-line and more than 26' above the first floor level at the- old Servomation building 'located at 4301 68th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 68th Avenue North on the north, by Iten Chevrolet on the east and south, and by a commercial building on the west.. Roof signs. are permitted in lieu of permitted freestanding signs provided the height and area of a freestanding sign is not exceeded. The Sign Ordinance allows roof signs to project not more than 6' above the roof-line of a building, provided this height is no greater than that allowed for a free- standing sign (in this case, 261) . The applicant wishes to retain the existing sign board which extends to approxi- mately 36' above the first floor and 22' above the roof-line. The allowable size of a freestanding sign for a building of 15,000 sq. ft-. is 190 sq. ft. in area. Signs, as permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance, are listed as accessory uses in the Zoning Ordinance and must conform to-these standards as well. The existing sign board is a nonconforming use which has not been used for a sign board for over 2 years. Under the Zoning Ordinance, nonconforming uses which cease for over two years may not be resumed, but must conform with the requirements of the City ordinances. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the existing sign structure is an integral part of the building and is needed to over- come the building's poor physical location. He states that relettering the existing sign structure is the most economical way to achieve exposure. He also states that granting the variance will improve business in Brooklyn Center and that their plan will promote the value of surrounding property and benefit the public welfare. He concludes by saying that, without the proposed sign, it is questionable whether the entire remodeling project can be economically justified. The Sign Ordinance stipulates that a variance from its provisions may be granted after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: 1. A particular hardship .to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 7-14-83 _1_ Application No. 83036 continued The applicant alleges that a hardship will result if the letter of the regulations is enforced in that the project. may become nonviable. We have heard this refrain before: "if only I could have a bigger and higher sign, my business would prosper ' and the whole community would benefit. " Unfortunately, the economic benefits may well be spent elsewhere while the aesthetic impact is definitely felt within the community. We must remember that the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to allow "necessary visual communication," not profit maximizing communication or some other financially based criterion. Staff would assert that signery 6' above the roof-line, or a freestanding sign of 190 sq. ft. in area and 26' in height, does allow for necessary visual communication in .this case and that this standard presents no hardship to the proposed use than it does to other uses within the 'City. As to uniqueness, the situation in question is- certainly not unique. There are many businesses in Brooklyn Center which do not abut directly on a major thoroughfare; yet they conform to the City's Sign Ordinance (e.g. the other busi- nesses on 68th Avenue North) . And it is certainly conceivable that a sign within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance would be visible from the site to Brooklyn Boulevard. Finally, we believe that the current oversized sign board is a detriment to the public inasmuchas it exceeds the community standards for roof signs and imposes more excessive advertising in an area of the Boulevard that is already heavily signed. We believe that granting this variance will lead others to want the same. excessive signery; and the City will be hard pressed to deny their appeals if the variance is granted in this case. Although there are obviously costs associ- ated with altering the sign, we feel that the Sign and Zoning Ordinances should be strictly followed in this case to assure equitable treatment to all businesses in the City. Denial of the variance request is, therefore, recommended on the basis that the Standards for Sign Ordinance Variances are not met. 7-14-83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83037 Applicant: Cramer Company Location: Brooklyn Boulevard and 1-94 (southwest corner) Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an office condominium complex at the southwest quadrant of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The parcel in question. is zoned R5 and is bounded by an • I-94 exit ramp on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, and by single- family residences on the south and west. Office uses are a special use in the R5 zone. As the Planning Commission is aware, the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the Boulevard is for mid-density residential development (ie.townhouses) . In order to issue a special use permit for office use on this parcel, it is felt that an amendment to the Comprehensive, Plan must be adopted allowing office uses within areas recommended for mid-density residential (and vice versa) . Such an amendment has been -discussed by the Planning Commission and a draft amendment is attached for its consideration. A public hearing to consider this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has been scheduled for the Planning Commission's study meeting on July 28, 1983. The proposed use consists of five separate buildings with a total of 20 office units at roughly 1,000 sq. ft. of floor space per unit. The complex provides a total of 21,400 sq. ft. of office space which, at the general office formula, (one space/ 200 s.f. gross floor area) requires 107 parking spaces. A minimum of 110 have been provided on the plan and staff have asked the applicant to provide addi- tional spaces to allow for more medical uses which have a more stringent parking requirement (one space/150 s.f. gross floor area) . Access to the site would be from a single driveway on Brooklyn Boulevard. No access is proposed from Indiana Avenue North at the northwest corner of the site. The plan shows an extended median in Brooklyn Boulevard which would allow the development to have right-in/right-out access only. Such a median extension .would require a permit from the State. Although the median extension is shown on the plan, we recommend that it be included as a condition of approval. The landscape plan for the site calls for sod in all landscaped areas. Under- ground irrigation has not been noted on the landscape plan; however, it is noted in the site work specifications which have been .submitted with the plans. Section 35-411 of the Zoning Ordinance requires screening when C1 uses abut RI, R2 or R3 zoned property as is the case along the south and west sides of this develop- ment. When this screening is fulfilled by a fence, it is to be 4' high. No fencing is proposed. There is a fairly continuous row of plantings along the west property line, but not along the south property line. Staff would recommend that dense vegetation be planted where private fences already exist and that 4' high fencing be provided where no fencing exists. Proposed plantings include a wide variety of shade trees (35 total trees) , decorative trees (37), conifers (24) , shrubs (162) and flowers (230) . As to drainage, the entire site drains toward the west central area of the site into a large holding pond. This holding pond is connected by storm sewer to an existing 15" storm sewer near the southwest, corner of the property. Water service would be obtained from a 16" main running along the south side of the freeway right-of-way. Sanitary sewer service would be connected to an 8" existing service extending from Brooklyn Boulevard. 7-14-83 -1- Application No. 83037 continued The office units Themselves have 6" wide cedar lap siding exterior with cedar shingles on the roofs. To the rear of each unit would be two wood decks 4' deep by 8' wide. These decks would face the pond area while the front entrance faced the outer ring of parking. Restrooms and mechanical rooms would be located in common areas shared by two .units. The applicant has expressed a desire to sell individual units to office clients. If so, lie must either submit a preliminary plat similar to a townhouse subdivision with association documents or an office condominium must be declared in accordance with the State Condominium Act. This form of ownership probably cannot be controlled through 'the. zonixig approval process. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Following discussion of the site plan and the opening of the public hearing, we would recommend that the application be tabled until the public hearing on the Compre- hensive Plan amendment is held on July 28, 1983. 7-14-83 -2-