Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 06-13 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85015 Applicant: S and G Associates Location: 1701 69th Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is located. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the east by Irving Avenue North right-of-way (which has not been put in; further east are the Humboldt Court Apartments and the Q Petroleum service station) , on the south by the Spec. 7 industrial building and Hiawatha Rubber, on the west by Medtronic and the Spec. 6 industrial building, and on the north by 69th Avenue North. The proposed plat would divide off most of the excess land on the east side of the Earle Brown Farm Apartments property to create a parcel for a separate, new development. No development plans have yet been submitted. The proposed plat is to be called the Tanami Addition. The lot areas are as follows: Lot 1 : 8.24 acres Lot 2: 1 .53 acres Total : 9.77 acres Lot 1 , as proposed, has more area than required for the 120 existing apartment units on the property. At 2,700 sq. ft. per unit, the area requirement for the existing apartment complex is 7.44 acres. The proposed common property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 is along the curb line of the east edge of the existing parking lot. This is not desirable since a 5' greenstrip is normally sought along internal property lines in multiple-family, commercial , and industrial zoning districts. As mentioned earlier, a half-street of Irving Avenue North right-of-way, which has never been built, exists to the east of the plat. Although the applicant does not own the underlying rights to the land, S and G Associates have petitioned for vacation of the right-of-way since there is no need for the street and the continued existence of right-of-way would acquire greater building and parking setbacks, The first reading of an ordinance vacating this portion of Irving Avenue North right-of-way has been held by the City Council at its June 10, 1985 meeting. The proposed plat indicates an existing 10' wide sidewalk easement along the west side of Lot 1 . It also indicates a 66' wide utility easement immediately east of the existing apartment building. The City Engineer has recommended that 5' wide drainage and utility easements be provided along interior property lines and 10' wide easements along 69th Avenue North right-of-way. The City Engineer has also recommended that 3' to 7' of additional right-of-way along 69th Avenue North be dedicated in order to achieve a 50' wide half-street for the southerly portion of 69th Avenue North. The total right-of-way for the south half of 69th Avenue North presently expands from 43' to 47` going from east to west. The City Engineer has also requested documentation of a storm sewer easement within the proposed Lot 2 where a 21 " storm sewer exists to serve the Spec. 7 site to the south. The City Engineer has also noted that the property is subject to additional water assessment and that a utility hookup agreement should, therefore, be required. The proposed plat meets general ordinance requirements and can be approved, subject to at least the following conditions: 6-13-85 -1- Application No. 85015 continued 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 plat shall be modified in the following manner, prior to final plat approval : a) Additional right=of-way shall be dedicated along 69th Avenue North to provide for a 50' wide half-street. b) Drainage and utility easements shall be indicated as 5' along interior property lines and 10'along 69th Avenue North. c) The common property line shall be moved eastward to provide a 5' greenstrip adjacent to the curb line of the existing parking lot. 4. Final plat approval is subject to adoption of an ordinance by the City Council vacating the Irving Avenue North half-street east of the subdivision. 5. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior to final plat approval . 6. The plat shall receive final approval and filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2. 6-13-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85016 Applicant: Village Properties Location: 7200-7224 Camden Avenue North (Evergreen Park Apartments Request: Variance The applicant requests two variances from the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a lesser set- back on a temporary basis from the new Highway 252 westerly right-of-way line, and to allow more units on the remaining property than normally permitted (a density vari- ance) . The property in question is the Evergreen Park Apartments. It is zoned R4 and is bounded on the north by the Church of the Nazarene and a City well house; on the east by Highway 252 and by two single-family homes that are being condemned and removed by MN/DOT; on the south by vacant City-owned property; and on the west by Camden Avenue North. The variance is occasioned by MN/DOT acquiring a square of land at the southeast corner of the property, approximately 205' x 205' . The taking will include the easterly most apartment building on the property, 7212 Camden Avenue North which is presently attached along a fire wall with 7206 Camden Avenue North. Since the taking would leave the 7206 building only 11 ' from the new highway 252 right-of-waY line, the City has informed the owners that no permit would be issued to rebuild the fire wall at such a substandard setback (see letter dated September 14, 1984 attached) . The highway department has accordingly agreed to acquire the 7206 building also. However, Village Properties has the right to buy back both buildings and relocate them. The disposition of the 7206 and the 7212 buildings is the cause of this application. The applicant, Mr. Ken Solie, has submitted a letter (attached) explaining what Village Properties wishes to do with the condemned buildings and why. He explains that any compensation from the State for the existing buildings would, under the terms of the contract for deed, have to be applied toward the remaining principle. This would make their investment less attractive financially. Village Properties, there- fore, wishes to relocate and preserve the existing buildings as much as possible. They wish to relocate the 7212 buildling to the northeast portion of the property, set back only one foot from the adjacent residential property which is being ac- quired by MN/DOT. The westerly part of this land is expected to be sold back to private owners after the new highway is constructed and the resulting setback would be 52' (the required setback from major thoroughfares is 501 . The setback variance would, therefore, be temporary in nature. Mr. Solie states that he and co-owner Jerry Cowan are seeking to obtain the underlying rights to buy back the excess right- of-way in the future so that the 50' setback can be achieved. Meanwhile, the 7206 building would be shortened by removing the four units on the east and resulting in a setback of more than the minimum of 50' . The other aspect of the variance request relates to allowable density. Mr. Solie explains in his letter that the land available for the Evergreen Park Apartment complex, after the highway acquisition and the repurchase of excess right-of-way, would be 267,898 sq. ft. At 3,600 sq. ft. per unit, this amount of land would support 74.4 or 74 units. There are 80 units in the complex now. After the demolition of 4 units at the east end of the 7206 building and relocation of the 7212 building, there would be 76 units, two more than allowed by ordinance. Mr. Solie concludes his letter by arguing that the variance request is justified because of the following factors: "l. Evergreen Apartments were purchased in 1978 as a long term investment without knowledge of the pending highway construction. 2. The property and its financing package cannot be replaced in its present condition today at any cost resulting in a significant financial hardship to the owners. 6-13-85 -1- Application No. 85016 continued 3. The property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project and accordingly, does not set a precedent for future variances in Brooklyn Center for this construction. 4. No additional construction on adjacent land can be forseen. The land to the south is reserved for public use: to the west, development is complete. The church to the north does not plan expansion at this time according to Pastor Errol Webb. The land to the east is reserved for highway right-of-way. Accordingly, after construction is complete, the site will appear exactly as it does now. " Staff are unable to makea very clear connection between the applicant' s arguments and the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35-240 (attached) . Financial problems of the kind cited by the applicant do not constitute a "hardship" in the sense of physical use of the property. They are not related to "physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions. " Mr. Solie asserts that the Evergreen Apartments property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project and accordingly, does not set a precedent for future variances. However, size of parcel or extent of condemnation is not really important. What is important is the physical constraints posed by surroundings, topography, lot lines, etc. in conjunction with ordinance requirements. Such constraints may be essentially the same no matter what the size of a parcel is. The applicant concludes by saying that the relationship of the complex to its surroundings will be exactly the same after (Highway? building?) construction . as now. This is glossing over a lot of changes outlined in the letter, but brought on by the construction of the highway. Nevertheless, this last point moves toward a valid concern, namely the physical difficulties brought on by the construction of Highway 252. This is indeed the most basic question which must be answered: does the circumstance of the highway construction create a particular hardship to the owner so that he is unable to make reasonable use of his property if the strict letter of the regulations is carried out. Our first reaction to this hardship question is that the buildings involved are being acquired by the State and the owner is, therefore, really presented with clear ground on which conforming structures can be built. On the other hand, this may be ignoring too much the potential and the intrinsic value (aside from the owner' s financial interest) of preserving the buildings as much as possible. Should considerable real property be destroyed over what may be considered technical circum- stances? On the face of it, we believe that it is appropriate to preserve the buildings if setbacks can be attained and resulting density is only incidentally and marginally in excess of ordinance requirements. The applicant' s proposal seems capable of living within these bounds. A physical hardship may be said to exist if preservation of the buildings is considered to be generally in the public interest. A density variance may be considered a use variance where different densities are allowed in different zoning districts, ie. density is a distinguishing characteristic between zoning districts. Use variances are not permitted under State law. In the present case, the proposal to allow two excess units in the complex reduce the land area per unit from 3,689 sq. ft. per unit at present to 3,525 sq. rt. per unit under the proposal . The ordinance requirement in the R4 zone is 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. In the R5 zone, the requirement is 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. Clearly, the resulting situation is much closer to the R4 requirement than the R5 requirement. The land area available under the proposal is 97.9% of the ordinance requirement, a variance of 2.1%. The Commission must make a judgment whether the density variance sought in this case is, or is not, a use variance (allowing what amounts to a higher land use classification in the R4 zone) in addition to whether the requested variance meets the standards set forth in Section 35-240. 6-13-85 -2- Application No. 85016 continued The circumstance of the highway taking is the cause of the physical hardship in this case. That is a unique circumstance, not common to other property in the R4 district. The physical hardship results from applying the ordinance requirements to the property after the taking and has not been created by the owner of the property. Finally, we agree that the physical arrangement of buildings will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as an effective 50' setback from the highway right-of-way can be achieved. Although we feel approval of the variance is possible based on the Standards for a Variance, it is recommended that any such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1 . The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship created by the highway taking and the public interest in preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial interests alone. 2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase rights to any excess right-of-way to the east of the Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of the 7212 building. 3. The applicant shall submit, prior to consideration by the City Council , a letter from the MNDOT acknowledging that there is at least 50' of excess right-of-way available with the acquisition of the residential lots immediately east of the Evergreen Park Apartments. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for the property with new building and parking locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior to the issuance of permits for re- location and reconstruction. 5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall acquire the excess right-of-way immediately to the east of the apart- ment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will acquire excess right-of-way from the MN/DOT and shall combine this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling. 6-13-85 -3- i 1