Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 01-12 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Company, Inc. Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance to allow construction of a garage 20' from the 57th Avenue North right-of-way instead of 50' as required of all structures on lots abutting major thoroughfares. Fifty-seventh Avenue North is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is also County Road 57 and all county roads are defined as major thoroughfares in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 57th Avenue North, on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by Logan Avenue North. Gorco is submitting the application on behalf of the owner, Mrs. Lois Anderson. All variances from the Zoning Ordinance must meet the Standards for a Variance set forth in Section 35-240 (attached). Briefly stated the four standards are: (a) a particular hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience would result if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; (b) the circumstances are unique to the parcel of land and are not common generally to other property in the zoning district; (c) the alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and has not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel; and (d) the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public - welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Mr. James Coplin of Gorco Construction has submitted a letter (attached) arguing in favor of the proposed variance. Mr. Coplin first explains that Mrs. Anderson's detached garage was destroyed in a car accident and was demolished under the City's directive. The garage slab is about 12' back from the north property line. Mr. Coplin acknowledges that 12' is too close, but adds that a 50' setback for the garage would create hardships for Mrs. Anderson. One hardship identified is the lengthening of the driveway. It will cost more and will require more effort to clear in the wintertime. (Mrs. Anderson is elderly and lives alone). Also, it will reduce the enjoyment of her rear yard. Mr. Coplin also notes that setting the new garage back 50' would place it considerably back from the neighboring garage to the east. That garage is approximately 20' from the right- of-way line of 57th Avenue North. Placing the garage back 20' would put the buildings in line and would allow for off-street parking in front of the proposed garage. Staff do not regard the difficulties cited by Mr. Coplin to be "hardships" as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. They are certainly inconveniences, but the size, shape, topography and location of Mrs. Anderson's lot do not prevent her from having a sizable garage on her property. The driveway, while long for a corner lot, is not particularly long when composed with other driveways for detached garages which are generally set back further than the dwelling on interior lots. Regarding the other Standards for a Variance: the circumstances of this lot are not at all unique. There are many corner lots abutting major thoroughfares in the City that are 75' in width and have nonconforming structures located on them. The goal of the Zoning Ordinance is to gradually eliminate nonconforming structures by applying the current ordinance requirements when nonconforming structures are destroyed. Regarding standard (c) , we would acknowledge that inconvenience of 1-12-89 -1- Application No. 89001 continued placing a new garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North is a result of the new (relative to the old garage and the lot) requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for a 50' setback and has not been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel. As to the public welfare and potential injury to other property, the proposed garage would probably not diminish property values, but would undercut the major thoroughfare setback. Indeed, if this variance request is granted, there will be almost no way of denying similar variance requests in numerous cases= around the City, effectively repealing the major thoroughfare ordinance. If the Commission is disposed to grant some relief to Mrs. Anderson (and to the dozens of other nonconforming structures adjacent to County Road 57) , it could recommend a change in the Zoning Ordinance definition of a major thoroughfare by deleting County Road 57 and possibly other roads from the definition which have numerous nonconforming structures adjacent to them. The majority of nonconforming structures exist adjacent to 69th Avenue North west of Shingle Creek Parkway, on County Road 57 (which follows 57th from Highway 100 to Humboldt and then south on Humboldt to 53rd) and along Bass Lake Road west of Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 10). One possible amendment would be to define major thoroughfares as all four- lane streets and roads in the City. This would keep the major thoroughfare designations for the busiest streets and roads (and would add Summit Drive, John Martin Drive, and a small section of Earle Brown Drive) , but would eliminate dozens of nonconformities along 69th Avenue North and along 57th Avenue North and Humboldt Avenue North. Many structures along Bass Lake Road, west of Brooklyn Boulevard would remain nonconforming as Bass Lake Road is a four-lane road. We recommend that the Planning Commission seriously consider such an amendment. Such an amendment would affect many nonconforming single-family homes and would relate building setback with right-of-way width. A traffic count map is attached for the Commission's review, but we do not recommend that traffic count be the sole determinant of what is defined as a major thoroughfare since these counts are subject to change. If 57th east of Logan were no longer classified as a major thoroughfare, the minimum side corner setback for Mrs. Anderson's home would be only 15' . In any event, we do recommend denial of the proposed variance on the grounds that the Standards for Variances are not met and noting the following facts: (a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. (b) The circumstances upon which the variance request is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. (c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1-12-89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The City requests that the vacant parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the adjacent single-family homes to the south be rezoned from R5 (multiple family) to Cl (service/office). The properties in question are all presently zoned R5 and are bounded by 194 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by three four-plexes on the south end, and by single-family homes on the south and west (see area map attached). Background In the past five years, there have been two development proposals for the large (4.5 acre) vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard. In 1983, Larry Cramer proposed an office condominium development of about 20 units, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. each. Although allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone, it was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Plan recommended mid-density residential development (townhouses) along the boulevard from approximately 63rd Avenue North up to the freeway. The City responded to the proposal by adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to recommend service/office uses interchangeably with mid-density residential uses all along Brooklyn Boulevard. A special use permit was approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. The R5 zoning was left intact for the time being. The office proposal did not go forward, however, because Mr. Cramer was unable to obtain financing for the project. In 1985, Foundation Stone Ministries proposed a church for the large, vacant parcel. Churches were not a permitted or special use in the R5 zone, so they applied for a rezoning to Cl, in which "religious uses" are listed as a permitted use. The rezoning request was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, but was denied by the City Council. Instead, the City Council acted to allow churches in the R5 zone as a special use. A special use permit for the church was granted; however, for reasons which were never made clear, the church chose to locate elsewhere. It is likely that the soil problems on the site played at least some part in the church's decision to go elsewhere. There are severe soil problems on the site which will require correction for full development of the site. Another factor which may inhibit development of the rezoned district is that the single-family lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard are under a restrictive covenant which prohibits commercial use of those lots. Thus, even if the single- family lots are rezoned to Cl, development of the properties for service/office use may be blocked unless all the other property owners in the plat release these lots from the restrictive covenant. The covenant is coming up for renewal in the relatively near future. This may, therefore, be a good time to seek such a release. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? 1-12-89 -1- Application No. 89002 continued We do not believe that the lots in question are any longer appropriate for residential use. We believe there is a benefit in zoning the property to Cl, allowing for a low-intensity commercial use and precluding residential development of the property. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Cl zoning is very compatible with single-family uses and is often used as a buffer zone between single-family homes and more intense zoning districts. We believe a low-rise office development will perform such a buffering function in this case also. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning ;district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes they can. A higher zoning district such as C2 would have some limitations because some uses comprehended in the C2 zoning district cannot abut R1 zoned property. Likewise, some uses allowed in the R5 zone - namely the residential uses -are not really appropriate for these properties. We believe, therefore, that the R5 zoning is no longer really appropriate. The Cl permitted and special uses more closely fit the constraints of developing and redeveloping these lots. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? No, there have not been significant changes, except for an increase in traffic along the freeway and along Brooklyn Boulevard. The increased traffic is one key reason why a residential zoning of the property is no longer appropriate. Another change that has occurred over the past ten years is that the Comprehensive Plan has been amended to recommend service/office use as well as mid-density residential in this section of Brooklyn Boulevard. High density residential development as is comprehended by the exiting R5 zoning is not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to insure that development and j redevelopment of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. At present, the R5 zoning would allow for high-density residential development which would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A low-rise office development will be the most compatible land use in this location, given the surrounding land uses and roads. r f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development 4 restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes, but there will be difficulty in redeveloping the single-family lots for any use. It is hoped that some or all of the single-family lots will be combined with the large, vacant parcel so that an improved access can be arranged for the site. The one acre minimum lot size for Cl lots along major thoroughfares will require that there be some combination of land parcels among the single-family lots before, or in conjunction with, redevelopment. It would probably be easier for the single- , family lots to be used for access and parking. -However, there are office r 1-12-89 -2- P Application No. 89002 continued developments on Brooklyn Boulevard with similar lot depths; so it is certainly possible that the single-family lots could be converted to smaller office developments. We do not recommend home conversions in this area as a long run use of the property. The most efficient use of the land would result from clearing the existing houses and building new office buildings on parcels at least one acre in size and with consolidated access. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? 1 We feel generally that this is not a good location for residential development. The single-family lots in particular have insufficient depth to buffer residences from Brooklyn Boulevard and arrange for parking and driveways on the site. It is possible, but not really desirable. Again, most of the single-family lots are too narrow to meet the minimum R5 width of 1001 . This lack of width would require consolidation of land parcels for redevelopment. The same would be the case, of course, with office redevelopment. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? - The proposed rezoning is certainly warranted by the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends service/office development in this area of the boulevard. As to the lack of developable land in the Cl district, there is a lack of vacant land in almost all zoning districts, except perhaps the industrial districts. Finally, we believe the rezoning proposal is in the best interests of the community in that it should provide eventually for an appropriate use that is compatible with both the adjacent roadways and the adjacent single-family homes. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is a City-initiated rezoning. As we have stated above, there is definitely merit to the proposed rezoning beyond the interests of the property owners. The property owners would probably prefer a rezoning to C2 since that would allow for more intense development. Such a rezoning would, however, exceed the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Procedure The standard procedure with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and then table the application, referring it to a neighborhood advisory group (in this case the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group). The neighborhood advisory group will meet sometime within the next month or so and then convey its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Commission will then continue the public hearing and finally make its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a hearing and ultimately makes the final decision. Based on this procedure, we recommend that the application be tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. 1-12-89 -3- 1 1