Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 10-24 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85034 Applicant: Reynolds Homes, Inc. Location: Aldrich Drive, 5500 block Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-410 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than a 15' buffer strip adjacent to neighboring RI zoned property at the Madsen Floral Addition townhouse development on Aldrich Drive, between 55th and 56th Avenues North. The property in question is zoned R3 and is bounded by 55th Avenue North on the south, by 56th Avenue North on the north, and by single- family homes on the east and west. The reason for the variance request is that a number of decks attached to the outer townhouse units have been built into the required 15 ' buffer strip area. The encroachment, where it occurs, varies from 1 ' to 5 ' . The 15 ' buffer strip was indicated on the approved site plan for the development, but decks were not. A smaller optional deck was shown on the approved building plans, but separate deck permits were not taken and larger decks have been built with virtually every unit. This has resulted in the encroachment of a number of the outer townhouse units. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing standards (c) and (d) from Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Mr. Reynolds states that these standards are applicable. He states that the decks have been located where they are because the engineering firm that created the plat did not inform him that the patio decks would encroach into the buffer strip. He states that the plan would simply have been modified and the buildings moved if the buffer strip had been taken into account. Mr. Reynolds states that cutting the decks down by 3' to 5' would destroy their usefulness and throw off the aesthetics and continuity of the project. Mr. Reynolds concludes by admitting that a mistake has been made and requesting that the variance be approved. Staff would point out initially that all the standards for a variance are to be met for a variance to be granted. There must be a particular hardship and not merely an inconvenience that would result if the strict letter of the ordinance were carried out. The circumstances must be unique to the parcel of land in question and not common generally to other property in the zoning district. The hardship must be related to the requirements of the ordinance and not have been caused by anyone with an interest in the property. Finally, there must be no adverse impact on the public welfare or on other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff acknowledge that the applicant's situation is not enviable. Just when one crosses the line from inconvenience to hardship is difficult to determine. The difficulty of altering decks, especially in cases where units have already been sold is -not to be minimized. Any claim to hardship is based on the existing situation, not on the need for such a variance in the abstract since the applicant himself admits that the plans could have been altered ahead of time without any difficulty. The difficulty arises from an oversight by all parties until after construction was completed. There are precedents for a variance from buffer re- quirements, but no previous cases involved a retroactive grant of a variance. Apart from the retroactive aspect of the proposed variance, there is nothing particularly unique about this required buffer. All other multi-family develop- ments built since the adoption of the ordinance have faced the requirement for buffers from adjacent single-family zoned property. It is also clearly the case that the hardship results not from the requirements of the ordinance but from actions taken by someone with an interest in the property, namely the applicant as developer/builder. Whether the proposed variance causes any detriment to the public welfare or neighboring property probably varies from neighbor to neighbor. 10-24-85 -1- Application No. 85034 continued However, to the extent that such buffers are intended to provide some protection for single-family development, their breach must, at least in theory, cause some less of the protection commonly accorded homes in a similar situation. There is , therefore, at least a theoretical detriment. Based on the foregoing evaluation, we cannot recommend approval of the proposed variance. We would not feel it reasonable, however, to apply the ordinance strictly in the case of units which were sold prior to notification of the applicant that a buffer violation existed. In those cases, the error is shared to some extent by the City. Moreover, those now legally responsible for the encroaching structures (the new owners) have a legal right to what they paid for, which, in our view, outweighs the claims of either abutting property owners or the City to a required buffer. It is recommended that previously sold deck structures be acknowledged as nonconforming structures, subject to the provisions of Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance. They should not be expanded and, if destroyed, should only be rebuilt to conform to ordinance requirements . The City first notified the applicant of the encroachment of decks into the buffer area on July 12, 1985. The outer units which encroached and had received final inspections prior to that date are 5533, 5545 and 5549 Aldrich Drive. Unfinished units at that time with encroaching decks were 5500, 5512 and 5529 Aldrich Drive. We recommend that no variance be granted to the latter group and full compliance be obtained before certificates of occupancy are granted. 10-24-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85035 Applicant: Lutterman Homes Location: 6117 Beard Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a four unit residential building on the vacant lot south of the P.B.C. clinic lot (tentatively addressed 6117 Beard Avenue North) . The property in question is zoned R4 and is bounded by the clinic parking lot on the north, by Beard Avenue North on the east, by a three unit rental townhouse cluster on the south, and by Burger King on the west. The proposed development is a mixture of three two-storey units with separate at-grade entrances and one loft unit located above four under-building parking stalls . The height and type of structure represent somewhat of a mixed use, but both town- houses and 1 112 to 2 storey apartments are permitted uses in the R4 zoning district. A major question surrounding this application is density. The site in question is 16,653 sq. ft. in area, or .38 acres . Townhouses are allowed in the R4 zone, but at the R3 density of 5,400 sq. ft. per unit. The staff interpretation of the pro- posed development is that it amounts to three townhouse units and one apartment unit. The normal area requirement is 3 x 5400 sq. ft. + 1 x 3600 sq. ft. = 19,800 sq. ft. A density credit of 500 sq. ft. per under-building parking stall may be granted. This would amount to 4 x 500 = 2000 sq. ft. in this case. If granted, this density credit would reduce the total required land area to 17,800 sq. ft. Although the site in question is still 1 ,147 sq. ft. short of the required area, this deficiency is less than half the land area required for an additional dwelling unit. The common practice has been to round to the nearest whole unit, in this case allowing for four. If the density credit is not approved, this development will have to be redesigned for either three townhouses or four or five apartment units (4.62 are allowed at 3600 sq. ft/unit) . Staff would point out that the pro- posed number of units is within the normal maximum comprehended by the R4 zoning of the property. Access to the site is to be gained from a driveway off Beard Avenue North shared with the P.B.C. clinic. (The north portion of this site was formerly part of the P.B.C. site and was rezoned to R4 in 1981 and combined with the existing vacant R4 lot to the south by plat.) The proposed plan provides for the four garage stalls and four tandem parking spaces behind the garage stalls . Four separate stalls to the west of the building will also be retained from the existing parking lot. A condition of the rezoning approval was the construction of a traffic barrier at the northwest corner of the site at the time of the development of the residential site. This barrier is intended to discourage cut-through traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard to Beard Avenue North. Landscaping for the site consists of three Spruce trees , two in front and one to the rear (west) of the building. All are indicated at 6" or greater. There are also some 15" high shrubs (unspecified type and no quantities indicated) in rock mulch planting beds around the foundation of the building at the front and rear. A 3' wide sidewalk is also proposed along the front and around the rear of the building to provide access to the individual units . Green areas around the site have not been indicated for sodding. Staff recommend that a condition of approval be that the plans indicate sodding of all disturbed areas prior to issuance of permits . The site plan proposes very little in the way of grading changes . A small area of the existing parking lot is to be removed and made a green area. Changes in the curb line will involve the installation of straight B6 curb as a continuation of the existing curbing at the site. The existing parking area drains toward Beard Avenue North and no changes in the general contours of the parking lot are proposed. 10-24-85 -1- Application No. 85035 continued No utility connections are shown, but it is presumed that water and sanitary sewer connections will be made to existing stubs on Beard Avenue North. The policy of the City has been to require separate utility connections to a common lateral for individual townhouse units, even where they are rental units . It is expected that that policy will be applied here also. The building plans indicate an exterior of stucco, brick and wood siding. However, the applicant has indicated on a separate specification sheet that the exterior will be aluminum siding for easy maintenance. Altogether, these plans have provided minimal information for site and building plan review and the attention to aesthetics seems to be minimal . Still no variances are indicated. Because of the size of the project and the crush of the Commission's work load at this time, we do not recommend tabling. However, approval should be 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, 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 (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to 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. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 6. B6 curbing may be installed as a continuation of the existing B6 curbing on the site. 7. Plan approval acknowledges a density credit of 2000 sq. ft. for four under-building parking stalls . The development is considered to contain three townhouse units and one apartment unit. Four units are allowed because 16,653 sq. ft. of site area allows for more than 3.5 units when density credits are calculated. 8. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) Type of curbing and where new curbing will be installed. b) Utility services to the units within the development. c) Sod in all green areas disturbed by construction. d) Provision of a landscape schedule showing all plantings by size, quantity and type. 10-24-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos . 85036, 85037 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Shingle Creek, South of Highway 100 Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use/Flood Plain Special Use These applications are for site and building plan and special use permit approval for a golf course on the land west of Lyons Park along Shingle Creek, south of Highway 100 (47.8 acres including Lyons Park) . The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Lyons Park on the east, by 53rd Avenue North and a number of single-family homes on the south, and by Highway 100 on the northwest. Golf courses are a special use in the R1 zoning district. Application No. 85037 is for a special use permit to fill , excavate and regrade within the floodway. The proposed golf course is a 9-hole, par-3 course, to be owned and operated by the City of Brooklyn Center. The development plan for the golf course indicates varieties of plantings for upland and lowland areas . The lowland plantings include some wet- land grasses, Willows, Balsam, Tamarack, River Birch, Cedar, White and Black Spruce and Red Maple trees. The upland plantings include Red Maple, Russian Olive, Choke- cherry, Autumn Purple Ash, Hackberry, Linden, Black Hills Spruce and White Pine. No sizes or quantities have yet been indicated. The plan provides for a parking lot for the golf course with 119 parking stalls . City ordinance does not specify a parking formula for a golf course. However, the stalls provided would allow for eight cars per hole (72 spaces) , plus 47 spaces for the clubhouse which will contain an approximate 1200 sq. ft. eating area (perhaps 80 seats maximum) , a small office and storage areas . On the whole, the parking provided seems more than adequate. The clubhouse is to have a saxon brick exterior with a metal roof. A 24' x 24' maintenance garage is also proposed with the same treatment. Access to the golf course will be off North Lilac Drive. The anticipated traffic generation caused by the golf course is approximately 150 cars/day on summer week- days and 240 cars/day on summer weekend days . The largest share of this increase will be experienced on North Lilac Drive. Smaller increases are expected on 53rd, 54th, 55th Avenues and Ericon Drive. The total increase in the neighborhood is about 300 trips/day or about a 25% increase over existing summertime traffic. As Mr. Spurrier notes in his memo of October 18, 1985, the resulting traffic will be well within the capacity of existing streets and will not change the functional classification of any street from its present status . Special Use Standards (Section 35-220) The golf_ course is a special use in the R1 zoning district and is subject to the standards for a special use permit contained in Section 35-220 of the Zoning Ordi- nance. City Engineer Bo Spurrier has addressed these standards in his memo of October 18, 1985 (attached) . He states that the golf course benefits the public welfare by providing additional leisure activity in the community. He also points out that property in the vicinity will be enhanced by the golf course and normal development and improvement of property will not be impeded. Traffic concerns have generally been covered above. Again, the development plan provides more than adequate parking and resulting traffic should not overtax existing streets in the area. It should also be noted that the proposed recreational use of this property is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan on page 126 which recommends land acquisition for a potential 9-hole golf course. We believe the standards for a special use permit are met in this case. 10-24-85 -1 - Application Nos . 85036 and 85037 continued Flood Plain Special Use (Section 35-2185) Application No. 85037 is for special use permit approval to fill , excavate, and regrade within the floodway zone. The floodway zone is the area through which waters actually flow and is the more critical portion of the flood plain. (The flood fringe is the other portion of the flood plain and is the area inundated by a 100 year storm, but not an area of actual flood flow. ) Flood plain special uses are subject to certain factors set forth in Section 35-2184 subsection 4 (attached) . The October 18th memo from the City Engineer also addresses these points . The City is the last agency to review and approve the development plans . A permit has already been received from the Department of the Army in 1983. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has also approved the proposed project on October 10, 1985 . A key condition of approval by the Watershed Commission is that the resulting grades for the golf course allow for 90 acre feet of water storage in the event of a 100 year storm. Grading plans being prepared by Brauer and Associates are very close to meeting this goal . It is recommended that City approval of the Flood Plain Special Use Permit also require the same hydraulic capacity as required by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission . As noted in the City Engineer's memo, the proposed clubhouse is to be located in an area presently located in the floodway. An analysis of the existing and proposed grades for the site by Barr Engineering reveals that the existing floodway boundary, which follows approximately a contour line, does not reflect hydraulic realities . The floodway is constricted to an enclosed culvert through the Brookdale parking lot and beneath Highway 100. The floodway cannot expand outward faster than a rate of one foot laterally for every four feet downstream. If the floodway boundary were relocated to reflect this hydraulic reality, the proposed clubhouse would no longer be in the floodway. Adjusting the floodway boundary, however, requires an ordinance amendment referencing a revised official map. Such an amendment must also be approved by the Federal Insurance Agency. It is recommended that the Plan- ning Commission act favorably on a draft ordinance amendment effecting such a change at Thursday's meeting so that it can become effective prior to the scheduled date for construction of the clubhouse. The City Engineer has provided a considerable body of information supporting the application for special use permit and for a flood plain special use permit. The Commission is urged to review the material as time permits. Park development plans have not- generally been reviewed by the Planning Commission . Staff will attempt to provide as much detail on these plans as is available at Thursday night's meeting. Approval of Application No. 85036 for site and building plan and special use permit approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions: l .. 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. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire ex- tinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances . 10-24-85 -2- Application Nos . 85036 and 85037 continued 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas . 7. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations . 8. An ordinance amendment relocating the floodway boundary of Shingle Creek south of Highway 100 shall become effective prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed clubhouse. Approval of Application No. 85037 for a flood plain special use permit is also recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The grading plans for the proposed golf course are subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Com- mission as to adequate hydraulic capacity in the Shingle Creek flood plain south of Highway 100 and north of 53rd Avenue North. Adequate capacity shall be equal to the existing capacity of approximately 90 acre feet of water retention. 2. Informational requirements and necessary approvals shall be obtained prior to the commencement of grading within the flood plain. A public hearing for both special uses has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 10-24-85 -3- 1 1