Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-005 Inf Sh Southeast Corner of 66th Avenue North and TH 252 Application Filed on 3-05-01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5-04-01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001-005 Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: Southeast Corner of 66th Avenue North and T. H. 252 Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/R-3 The applicant, Eagle Crest Northwest, is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of 21 single family detached townhomes on a 5.25 acre site (228,856 sq. ft.) located at the southeast quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is currently zoned C-1 (Service/Office Commercial) and has been acquired by the City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) over the past eight years. It was formerly occupied by the Atkins Mechanical operation, the Brookdale Motel and an 18 unit apartment complex. Also, land that currently contains a frontage road along T. H. 252 and what had been a vacant parcel of land at the corner of 66th Avenue and Willow Lane are included in the land being considered under this PUD. The property is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue; on the east by Willow Lane with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; on the south by 65th Avenue with an R-5 zoned property containing the Riverwood Estates Apartments on the opposite site of the street; and on the west by T. H. 252 right of way. The applicant is seeking a PUD/R-3 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned 21 single family detached townhomes. The R-3 (Townhouse) underlying zoning designation is being sought because the applicant is proposing a detached townhome concept on smaller lots with reduced front yard setbacks and a somewhat greater density than what is allowed in a typical R-1 zone. The land in question is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as mid-density residential, which basically is our R-3 zone. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case R-3) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow 25 ft. front yard setbacks rather than 35 ft. setbacks; a 20 ft. side corner setback rather than a 25 ft. side corner setback and a street right of way width of 50 ft. rather than a 60 ft. right of way required by the Subdivision Ordinance. In many respects, the applicant is proposing a hybrid of the R-1 and R-3 zoning districts with this proposal. The plan is for detached single family residential buildings where our R-3 district normally contemplates single family attached dwelling units. The density sought in this development is much less than what is allowed under the R-3 zoning district and in some respects is closer in density to an R-1 development. Lot widths, which are proposed to be approximately 50 ft. in width for interior lots and at least 65 ft. in width for corner lots, are less than the 75 ft. wide and 90 ft. wide interior and corner lots required in an R-1 zone. The proposed lot areas are between 6,935 sq. ft. in area and 14, 496 sq. ft. in area. Under the R-3 zoning designation, lot widths and lot areas are a function of the townhome development plan. The plans, as being proposed by the developer, fit into this R-3 concept. Another reason why the R-3 underlying zoning designation is being sought is the applicant’s intention to have an owner’s association to take care of common maintenance concerns. Another reason for the R-3 underlying zoning designation is consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which calls for a mid-density, or R-3, zoning designation for this property. The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review as well. The applicant’s representative has submitted a written statement regarding his proposal along with comments as to how he believes their proposal addresses the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The written submission indicates that their proposed Riverwood Estates development will consist of 21 detached townhome units in a Planned Unit Development. The PUD combines the various parcels previously described into the 21 lots through a preliminary plat, which is the subject of companion Application No. 2001-006. They note that they believe the detached townhome project will provide a transition from existing single family homes located easterly of Willow Lane and the apartment buildings that are located south of 65th Avenue. They note that their proposed Planned Unit Development requires some deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. They propose 25 ft. front yard setbacks, 20 ft. side corner setbacks, 50 ft. minimum lot widths (this is an R-1 rather than an R-3 district requirement) and 50 ft. wide right of way, all of which are less than city standards. They note that the reduced setback allows for the preservation of trees which otherwise would be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the greatest degree possible. The modifications to the setback and right of width also allows for access away from Willow Lane and onto the proposed Riverwood Lane within the project. Further review of the details of the site plan will be presented later in this report. As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute “spot zoning” which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and his proposal. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant indicates that the proposed PUD combines four separate properties into a zoning district that would better compliment the neighborhood. They also add that the development of the parcels involved would provide a use for properties that have been vacant for some time. It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment could be considered a public benefit if the development is consistent with the development criteria established by the City and also the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For a number of years the City has strived to see a development that can be considered a benefit to the community and meet the interests of neighboring properties. Residential development, of a mid-density nature, has been considered to be the best use for this area. Single-family residential development, of an owner occupied nature, has been pointed out by the neighborhood to be most desirable. The location of this property and the City’s R-1 requirements has lead to the conclusion that a single family residential development under current City zoning standards would not be economically feasible. The applicant believes the plans they are putting forth with the modifications suggested provide a desirable product that is economically viable and a saleable commodity. This proposal, we have concluded, seems to meet the concerns previously expressed. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that they believe the project is compatible with both the single family and the apartment land uses that are adjacent to the subject property. They note that the addition of the detached townhomes provides a transition between these two land uses. The staff would concur with the applicant’s comments. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that the proposed detached townhomes can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. The ability to provide a somewhat more dense single family development than normally allowed in an R-1 zone, but meeting many of the criteria and a less dense development than an R-3 development makes this proposal consistent and compatible, both the single family developments and the multiple family development to the south. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant answers this question affirmatively noting that the permitted uses within the proposed zoning district would be limited to detached townhome residential units. We believe that all of the permitted uses can be contemplated for development in this proposed Planned Unit Development zoning district. As the applicant has pointed out, the plan is for detached townhome residential units. We would add that the R-3, or mid-density residential development proposal, could fit on this land and an attached townhouse complex could as well be contemplated for this area. However, we believe the detached townhome concept on smaller than normally allowed single family residential lots is a good development. This less dense proposed residential development is looked at as a better development given all factors to be considered. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that previous land uses on this property have included a motel, apartment buildings and a gas station. They also note that since the time of zoning (we assume they mean the original zoning of the property which included C-2 and R-5 uses) that the area has changed considerably. The land in question has been the subject of much discussion, review and even rezoning actions over the past eight or so years. The City has acquired parcels in this area and has rezoned the property to C-1 (Service/Office Commercial) in an attempt to keep out what was considered to be undesirable land uses in this particular area. How the subject property should be used has been a much discussed and debated topic with respect to this land. This proposal seems to best fit all of the concerns expressed. The plan has been reviewed by the Riverwood Neighborhood Association and has been positively endorsed. (See November 13, 2000, address by Jerry Blamey to City Council, attached.) The proposed PUD/R-3 rezoning appears to be a good rezoning proposal. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because is not a City initiated zoning proposal but rather a developer initiated proposal. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant notes that the PUD requires minor deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. Their proposal provides a 25 ft. setback, 50 ft. minimum lot widths, 50 ft. wide right of way, all of which are less than city standards. The reduced setbacks allow for the preservation of trees which will otherwise be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the greatest degree possible. They note in designing this project, every effort was made to protect as many of the existing trees as possible. In addition, they are proposing new plantings within the project that far exceed the ordinance requirements. They note that particular emphasis has been paid to buffering the site from the highway and to provide trees in front yards of the homes. They note that additional trees will be added to those saved along Willow Lane to aid in further buffering the existing single family homes from their development. We believe the subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with the deviations from some of the standard ordinance requirements mentioned. These modifications are offset by providing a good buffer and development in this area. With respect to the R-3 underlying zoning, only the front, side corner and 50 ft. wide right of way are different than the district requirements for this particular zoning district. These again, we believe, are offset by the positives of the development proposal. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant, in response to this policy and review guideline, notes their comments for “F” above. The staff would comment that subject property is generally unsuited for uses that are permitted in the present zoning district. The present zoning district is C-1 (Service/Office Commercial). We do not see some type of office development being proposed or developed in this area. At the time of the City’s Comprehensive Plan review, in looking at this particular area, it was determined that the most appropriate use for this land, both from an economic and land use perspective was a medium density residential use of the property. Such a designation can include townhouse developments at a density of up to eight units per acre. Since that time, the City has been trying to pursue a redevelopment of this property, which would but it back on the tax rolls in a manner consistent with its Comprehensive Plan recommendations and be a development generally acceptable to the neighboring area. The proposed Planned Unit Development would allow these objectives to be accomplished. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of development land in the proposed zoning district or; 3. The best interests of the community? The applicant notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district, but rather the creation of a new district in this area. The staff would note again that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and is warranted. We also believe the proposed development can be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is properly developed and the plan, as we shall show later, appears to be a good development proposal. The proposed PUD/R-3 zoning provides the necessary flexibility in dealing with development issues for this site. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant notes that the detached townhome project will provide a transition from both the existing single-family homes along Willow Lane and the apartment buildings south of 65th. They add that the project also provides a single use for four separate parcels. The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of only a particular developer or property owner and will lead to the development of a plan that is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal appears to provide a quality development and it is our understanding that the units will be priced in the range of $180,000 to $220,000, should fit well in the neighborhood and be a positive impact on this area. Putting this property back on the tax rolls also demonstrates merit beyond the interests of just the developer in this case. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposed plan again calls for 21 detached townhome units. The 21 lots to be created under Planning Commission Application No. 2001-006 will all face and have access to a new street to be called Riverwood Lane. This will be a public street with a 50 ft., rather than 60 ft., right of way. The lots will back up to Willow Lane, 66th Avenue North and Highway 252.. Access to the site from 252 will be gained by going east on 66th Avenue North, south on Willow Lane to its intersection with the proposed new Riverwood Lane. Parking for the new detached single family homes will be in double car garages on double wide drive ways. Off street parking for four automobiles is possible. Off street parking requirements in all residential zoning districts require the ability to park at least two vehicles on a residential lot. The plan exceeds these minimum requirements. The lots will run from a minimum area of 6,935 sq. ft. to 14, 496 sq. ft. The average lot size is 9,424 sq. ft. and the proposed density for this project is four units per acre. It should be noted that the R-3 density allows up to eight units per acre as a permitted use. The density of this project is much closer to a single family development in an R-1 zone than it is to the density allowed in the R-3 district. Given R-1 requirements, this area might support approximately 15 single family homes on standard size lots with standard right of way. Again, the actual density of this Planned Unit Development is closer to R-1 than R-3. Interior lots would be 50 ft. in width measured at the front setback line. The lots are deeper than what is typically found in an R-1 zoning district, which is about 130 ft. The depth of these lots allows for generous rear yard setbacks both along T. H. 252 and Willow Lane. The proposal calls for 5 ft. interior setbacks and 20 ft. side corner setbacks. In the R-3 zoning district, interior setbacks are a function of the development plan, so the fact that only 5 ft. interior yard setbacks are being proposed is not a conflict with the requirements of the R-3 zone. A minimum separation of 10 ft. between the units will result. Doors, windows and openings can be allowed along this side interior lot line. The 25 ft. front yard setback and the 50 ft. right of way width also allows for the deeper and more generous rear yards. The corner lots have a minimum of 65 ft. of width. A 20 ft. side corner setback, rather than a 25 ft. side corner setback is proposed because the lots are much narrower. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTIITIES The applicant has provided grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicants have noted that there are no wetlands on the property and that the site generally drains from the west and the north to the south and east. This site will be serviced by existing city storm sewer and a sediment basin will be provided on the lot located northwest of 65th Avenue North and Willow Lane. Storm water will be collected in the sediment basin before being discharged into the city storm sewer. The site is less than 15 acres in total area and, therefore, no Watershed Commission review is required. The standards for the pond will meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Public utilities include sanitary sewer and water with the main being constructed in the proposed Riverwood Lane. Riverwood Lane will also contain curb and gutter to assist in drainage requirements. It should be noted that an existing frontage road, which leads between 66th Avenue North and 65th Avenue, parallel to T. H. 252, will be removed and incorporated with this development. A process for vacating this street right of way is currently underway. The existing access to this frontage road along 66th Avenue will be removed and curb installed along 66th in its place. The existing access to 65th Avenue from the abandoned frontage road will be removed with a turn around installed at the west end of 65th Avenue. A 30 ft. wide roadway will be constructed within the 50 ft. right of way for Riverwood Lane. The 30 ft. wide pavement is the standard width for residential city streets. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for consideration with this Planned Unit Development. Normally we do not review landscape plans with respect to single family type developments, however, we do with a townhouse development. A development of this size would require 334 landscape points. The plan shown provides a total of 537 landscape points with 22 shade trees including 11 Greenspire Linden, and 11 Skyline Honeylocust. These trees will be planted in the front yards and alternated along Riverwood Lane. Twenty-nine coniferous trees, including ten Austrian Pine, nine Black Hills Spruce and ten Colorado Green Spruce are also proposed. These are to be located along and on top of an approximate six-foot high berm running parallel with T. H. 252 and wrapping around 66th Avenue North. Twenty-five decorative trees including twelve Amur Maple, seven Canada Red Cherry, and six Snowdrift Crabapple are also interspersed on the berm and along Willow Lane. Two hundred eleven shrubs, including Andorra Juniper, Scandia Juniper, Mint Julip Juniper, Taunton Yew, Abbotswood Pontenilla, Anthony Waterer Spirea, Goldflame Spirea, Dwarf European Cranberry Bush, Dwarf Winged Euonymus, and Variegated Dogwood will be used for foundation plantings around the homes. In addition, the developer proposes to retain as many existing trees as is possible and these are indicated on the plan as well. All in all, the landscape plan exceeds the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission for reviewing landscape plans by approximately 200 points. BUILDING The applicant has submitted only partial building plans. Additional plans hopefully will be before the Planning Commission by Thursday evening’s meeting. The one floor plan provided shows a two bedroom, single story home with a porch and patio to the rear. A front porch is also included with the floor plan. Four different types of exterior treatments are provided with this particular floor plan with different roof lines and options for brick and stone. The applicant has indicated that full basements are an option with these homes as well. These detached townhomes may sound like a contradiction in terms but these types of units have recently been developed in a number of surrounding communities such as Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. It is my understanding that these units will be priced in the range of $180,000 to $220,000 depending upon options and floor plans that will be made available. PROCEDURE Normally rezoning applications that are considered by the Planning Commission are referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group, in this case the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time frame from the date a properly submitted application has been filed with the city. This application was filed on March 5, 2001. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, this application needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The clock, however, begins at the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than May 4, 2001. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission’s public hearing is even held. This requirement makes it almost impossible for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission has instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the public hearing and are encouraging their comments and participation at this evening’s meeting. A staff report will be delivered to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members at the same time that it is delivered to the Planning Commission members. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to review the matter and to make comment to the Commission at the March 27th meeting. It should also be noted that the developer has met with the Riverwood Neighborhood Association, which is a formally established group of neighbors living in the area north of 694 and easts of T. H. 252. The applicant met with this neighborhood group on November 6, 2000, to discuss their proposal. Attached is a copy of a letter presented to the Brooklyn Center Council on November 13, 2000, from Mr. Jerry Blamey, a member of the Riverwood Neighborhood Association indicating support for the proposed development. Required notices of the Planning Commission’s consideration have been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site under consideration per the City’s zoning requirements. Also, notice of the public hearing has appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. A public hearing has been scheduled and proper notices have been sent and published in the City’s legal newspaper. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing, should consider a draft resolution which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The resolution is offered for the Planning Commission’s consideration. 3-29-01 Page 1