Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 02-13 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86004 Applicant: Paul Worwa Location: 6801 Fremont Place North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by staff that not more than five (5) children may be allowed in a day care operation conducted in a townhouse in the R3 zoning district. The specific property in question is 6801 Fremont Place North, a townhouse in the Hi Crest Square Estates development. That development is zoned R3 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by single-family homes on the east, by the Hi Crest Apartments on the south, and by Humboldt Square Shopping Center on the west. Section 35-312 of the Zoning Ordinance allows permitted home occupations in the R3 zone. Section 35-405 further limits such home occupations to include day care of "five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R2 through R7) . " On the basis of these ordinance sections, the Worwas have been denied a day care license for more than 2 nonresident children since they have 3 children of their own. The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) in which Mr. Worwa sets forth his arguments against the City' s ordinance limitations. He differentiates townhouses and double bungalows from apartments and points out that his existing townhouse is larger and is adjacent to more open space than his previous detached home in which he could be allowed to provide day care for 10 children. Mr. Worwa also points out that apartment units are separated by a single one hour fire-rated wall , whereas townhouse units are separated by two such walls. Mr. Worwa goes on to discuss the demand for day care in the townhouse development and the difficulties of getting licensed. He concludes by recommending that the ordinance be changed to allow seven or eight children in family day care in the R2 or R3 districts, but not R,-)re than five non-residents. Staff would point out that state law has changed since our current ordinance was adopted and that 12 children may now be served by a day care operation in a single- family zone. It may be that, from a land use perspective, the City should not count resident children toward the five to be allowed since they do not represent addi- tional traffic to or from the premises. We have contacted a number of other cities and there is a wide range among these communities (Minneapolis suburbs) as to how they treat family day care in a townhouse unit. Some prohibit the activity entirely; others treat a townhouse the same as a single-family residence and allow up to 12 children, which is mandated as a permitted single-family use of property under M innesota Statute 462.357. Some communities have not had to deal with the question at all . Brooklyn Park requires the issuance of a special use permit for the care of more than 2 children in a family dare care operation located in a townhouse. Staff believe that state law does allow municipalities to limit the number of children in a family day care operation in multi-family residential districts to less than 12 or even to prohibit such operations altogether. It is, therefore, purely a policy question as to how many children should be allowed in a family day care operation in the R3 zoning district. One of the chief arguments made by the appellant has to do with the need for a distinction between a townhouse or double bungalow and an apartment unit. Mr. Worwa makes the case that townhouses and double bungalows have- superior sound separation and better access to green space than a typical apartment unit. We acknowledge these differences and agree that a further refinement of the ordinance, to distinguish between the R2 and R3 districts on one hand and the R4-R7 districts on the other, would not be illogical . We do not recommend any change in the R4-R7 districts. 2-13-86 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86005 Applicant: Stephen L. Cook Location: 5312 Russell Avenue. North Request: Variance. The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a duplex on a lot that is deficient in area. The property in question is zoned R2 and is bounded on the north by a duplex, on the east and south by single-family homes , and on the west by Russell Avenue North. Two-family dwellings are permitted uses in the R2 zoning district. Specifically, the applicant wishes to build on two parcels of land that are combined for tax purposes and are for sale jointly. One lot is 60.5' wide by 133.45 ' deep. The other half-lot to the south is 30.25' wide by the same depth. The total area of the combined lots is 12,110 sq. ft. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two- family dwellings in the R2 zoning district have a land area of 6,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, or 12,400 sq. ft. for the total structure. The deficiency in this case is, therefore, 290 sq. ft. (approximately 2.34%) . A lot area variance is subject to the standards set forth in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance (see both attached) . In general , these standards require that: the circumstances of the property be unique; that the applicant will suffer a hardship if the ordinance is strictly followed because he/she will be denied the reasonable use of their property; that the circumstance was not caused by the applicant or the -property owner past or present; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the sur- rounding neighborhood. The applicant, Mr. Stephen Cook, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the variance standards . Mr. Cook points out that the 60' lot is buildable by itself for a single-family dwelling and that, if the variance is denied, he would have no reason to buy the additional 30' wide lot. He states that, to the best of his knowledge, the situation in question is unique and not common in the R2 district. Mr. Cook goes on to say that the situation has not been caused intentionally by anyone by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land and also that granting the variance would not be detrimental to. . . the neiohbor- . hood. The letter does not really reason how the standards are met, but, for the most part, simply asserts that they are met. While the applicant's arguments are understated, we agree with the conclusion. Given the alternatives (two single-family homes with a 30' no-man's land left tax delinquent in between) , it would seem unreasonable in this case to deny the variance request. The situation is fairly unique. There are other vacant multiple- lot combinations in the city, but, in most of those cases, both lots are buildable in their own right (eg. two 40' wide lots which, under Section 35-500 are usually buildable) . The situation has no.t been created by the property owner. The existino R2 zoning and the lot area requirement for a duplex have come about after the proper- ty was subdivided. Finally, there is no real negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. There are four additional duplexes further north on Russell Avenue North and an additional 12 duplexes within a two block radius of the property. It should be noted that the current owner of the property in question (who is also the former owner of 5300 Russell Avenue North, the house to the south) has submitted a letter also requesting that the variance be granted (see attached) . 2-13-86 -1- Application No. 86005 continued The general policy on lot variances over the last 10 years or so has been to allow a variance if two of the three lot requirements (area, width and depth) are met. The width requirement for a two-family interior lot is 75 ' . The minimum depth is 110' . Both these requirements are met in this case. It would, therefore, seem .consistent with past policy to approve the variance request. Section 35-540 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that multiple parcels devoted to a single use must be combined into ,a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. Accordingly, staff would recommend that the application be approved subject to the following condition: 1 . The property in question shall be combined into a single parcel . through platting or registered land survey, said plat or R.L.S. to be filed at the County prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2-13-86 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86006 Applicant: Wes Reavely Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Arthur Treacher' s restaurant building at 6100 Brooklyn Boule- vard to a four-bay, automobile repair garage. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Burger King on the north, by an 18 unit apartment complex on the east and south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. An automobile repair garage is classified as a special use in the C2 district and is not permitted to abut R1 , R2, or R3 zoned property including abutment at a street line. No such abutment exists in this case. The proposed use is, therefore, comprehended under the C2 zoning of the property. The applicant is the owner of Wes ' Amoco to the south who will operate both sites. The parking requirement for the repair garage is 3 stalls for each bay, plus 1 stall per employee, plus at least 2 stalls for service vehicles. This works out, in this case, to 19 spaces. There are 32 spaces currently on the site. Relocation of two parking lot islands to allow adequate space for turning movements into the service bays will reduce the available parking to 27 spaces. The site plan proposes to restore existing landscaping. Plantings which could not be restored would either be replaced or a new planting plan would be proposed. No grading changes are proposed. The exterior of the building would only be altered along the west end by framing over most of the existing windows with wood siding. No expansions are proposed. The interior ceiling is low and probably will not allow for service of any vehicles larger than automobiles. The special use permit aspect of this application raisers the issue of the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Com- prehensive Plan recommends service/office (Cl ) uses along both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard between 58th Avenue North and 62nd Avenue North. Although the repair garage is comp r.ehendedunder the C2 zoning of the property, the C2 zoning itself is inconsistent with the City' s Comprehensive Plan. Either a permitted or special C2 use would, therefore, be inconsistent with the Plan (unless it was a Cl use allowed in the C2 zone) . Although the zoning of the property is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it should be pointed out that, legally, the zoning of a property controls use directly and the Plan recommendation only indirectly. Denial of the special use permit on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Plan would probably not, therefore, be upheld in court. What should happen to fully effectuate the Plan is a rezoning of the property to Cl . If this were accomplished, the repair garage, the existing restaurant or other purely C2 uses would all be nonconforming uses of the property. We do not believe the application can be denied under existing conditions. However, the applicant should be informed of the fact that the proposed repair garage is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the possibility exists that a future rezoning action consistent with the Plan could make the proposed use of the premises nonconforming. 2-13-86 -1- Application No. 86006 continued The policy of effectuating the Plan along Brooklyn Boulevard has, to date, been basically reactive. No rezonings of property have been initiated apart from- a proposed development plan. In one case, a proposed office-condominium development at the southwest quadrant of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard spurred an eventual Compre- hensive Plan amendment to allow office or mid-density residential uses interchange- ably along Brooklyn Boulevard in those locations where either use was recommended. We would recommend strongly against a Plan amendment in this case that would make C2 uses, permitted or special , acceptable between 58th Avenue North and 62nd Avenue North. Such an amendment would seriously undermine the basic philosophy of the Com- prehensive Plan for Brooklyn Boulevard which calls for the more intense C2 uses to be concentrated at three "nodes": at Brookdale, at 63rd Avenue North and between the freeway and 70th Avenue North. The remaining areas of the Boulevard are slated for low and mid-density residential or service/office uses. This approach is geared to preventing long strips of commercial development which bring traffic problems and the visual pollution of large parking lots and excessive signery. The proposed use is not really a step backward from this policy since the previous use was also a C2 special use with even more traffic; but it does put fulfillment of the Plan that much farther off. Regarding the Standards for Special Permits contained in Section 35-220 (attached) , staff do not see any deficiency with respect to standards (a) , (d) and (e) . Standard (b) respecting impact on property values is also probably met since the proposed use is unlikely to detract from the adjacent apartment complex any more than the con- venience food restaurant did. As to standard (c) regarding the impact on the normal and orderly development of surrounding property, it should be noted that all sur- rounding property is actually developed. (The finger of land that exists along the south side of the site actually belongs to the apartment complex to the east and is required for density purposes) . As the preceding discussion of the Comprehensive Plan makes clear, the proposal does not facilitate the redevelopment of this area in fashion conforming with the Plan. One bright note is that two sites will now be under one ownership which may reduce complications of assembly land for a redevelop- ment proposal . On balance, staff must conclude that the special use permit standards are generally met. Approval of this application should be 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. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes 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 sub- mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 2-13-86 -2- Application No. 86006 continued 6. New Parking delineators shall be surrounded by 8612 curb and gutter in accordance with City Ordinance. 7. Site landscaping, including the underground irrigation system, shall be restored to the original Arthur Treacher' s site landscape plan prior to release of the performance guarantee or a new landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the completion date in the performance agreement. 2-13-86 -3- 1 i