Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-017 Inf Sh 1501 Freeway Boulevard Application Filed on 8-14-03 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 10-13-03 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2003-017 Applicant: 1501 Freeway, LLC Location: 1501 Freeway Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval - PUD/C-2 The applicant, Daniel S. Schleck, an attorney representing 1501 Freeway, LLC, is seeking rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process to convert the existing 227 unit Best Western Hotel located at 1501 Freeway Boulevard into an 80 to 110 unit upscale senior condominium development. The property in question is zoned C-2 and is located at the southwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue North. It is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard with I-1, R-5 and C-2 zoned property containing an industrial building, a portion of The Pines apartment complex and a gasoline service station/convenience store/car wash on the opposite side of the street; on the east by Humboldt Avenue and the Humboldt Avenue overpass with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; on the south by C-2 zoned property containing the Cracker Barrel Restaurant; and on the west by the east leg of James Circle with C-2 zoned property containing the Comfort Inn and an Asian Food Market on the opposite side of the street. The applicant’s plan is to convert what they have described as “an economically challenged hotel facility” and replace it with an upscale, revitalized senior market rate housing alternative. They also offer to provide residents of Brooklyn Center access to the community spaces within the hotel for use as a senior center or for other activities without any cost to the city. The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above proposed conversion even though the multi-residential use of the property is not an acknowledged use in the underlying C-2 zone. The PUD designation, which allows flexibility in land development and redevelopment, can authorize regulations governing uses and structures to be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the City Council at the time of the rezoning. Allowing conversion of the hotel to a market rate senior condominium multi-residential use of the property while retaining the C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is appropriate because it allows the zoning designation to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which acknowledges a general commerce zoning designation for this area. Generally, the C-2 district requirements will be applied to the conversion proposal for the market rate senior condominium. Any other multi-residential use of the property is not considered acceptable and if the market rate senior condominium use is abandoned, only a use consistent with C-2 zoning will be allowed. Other factors that need to be determined are the allowable density for the proposal and possibly some modifications to site plan requirements. As the Planning 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 district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C-2) 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 development and redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned, in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to the district requirements to allow a multi-family residential use, for a market rate senior condominium and possibly some other site modifications depending upon the final agreed upon conversion plan. Their proposal for offsetting these modifications is to provide a use of the property that is perceived to be needed in the community. They believe the changes and modifications to the site will be an asset to the community and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses 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 being consistent with 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. The applicant has submitted a written narrative (attached) describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 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 their proposal. Is there a clear public need or benefit? The applicant contends that their proposal will meet a public need and provide a significant public benefit associated with the conversion of what they describe “an economically challenged hotel facility” and replace it with an upscale revitalized senior market rate housing alternative in the City of Brooklyn Center. They also note that they propose to make the community spaces within the complex available for public utilization. The applicant also indicates that their development would be a compatible and complimentary use within the constraints of the Planned Unit Development in the C-2 zone. They indicate further their belief that there is a need for this type of market rate senior housing. The conversion allows the economically challenged hotel facility to be put to a viable use. The public benefit of this development can be considered the utilization of this property in a manner consistent with the development criteria of the city. It is not anticipated that this development will be a detriment to the community but, on the other hand, be a positive factor for the community. It does seem to make good use of a building that is being under utilized and can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant contends that the development is consistent with the surrounding area as it is located directly adjacent to both a single family neighborhood on one side and very close to a multi-family development on the other. They indicate that this development would provide excellent transitional land use between the commercial and residential parts of the city. We would concur with the comments that are made with respect to this guideline. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that the proposal can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. The residential use of the facility does mix with the multi-residential to the north and the single family residential areas separated from the site by Humboldt Avenue. The Brooklyn Center Junior/Senior High School is on the opposite corner from this site. The proposed multi-residential use of the property for a single condominium is compatible with this use also. The real question is the long range use of the property as anything other than a senior condominium. The applicant has indicated throughout his proposal that he believes this to be a viable use of the property. Staff would comment that we do not see a general multiple residential use of the property as a benefit to the community. It is for this reason that we have recommended that the underlying zoning district remain C-2 and if the market rate senior condominium multi-family use of the property ceases, that the reuse of the property be as General Commerce. This is consistent with the long range Comprehensive Plan for this area. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant makes no direct comment with respect to this guideline. The staff comments are as indicated in Point B above. The long-range uses under the C-2 underlying zoning district can be contemplated for development if there is a change in the proposed land use. As indicated previously, only a market rate senior condominium use of the property is considered acceptable. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant comments that there have not been significant changes in the land use of the property since it was originally zoned and notes that given the senior nature of the development, utilization of the property for housing as a contemplated use would be allowed if completed pursuant to a PUD. He also notes that the contemplated development will bear completely the requirements of city ordinances with no request for a variance. The applicant’s comments are correct. There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area. The C-2 underlying zoning designation with this proposed PUD is believed to be an appropriate zoning designation for the land in question. The departure to allow a multi-residential use is seen as a reasonable request with accompanying public benefits. To some extent the transient lodging use of the motel could be considered consistent with multi-residential use of the property, therefore, the proposed use is not a total departure from the use already taking place on the site. In the case of City initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because it is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicants have commented that they believe the contemplated redevelopment will bear completely the requirements of city ordinances with no request for variances. We believe the subject property under this proposal can bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development possibly with some minor needed deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. As we will review further under the development plan aspect of this proposal, there are such things as the location of a bank of garages along James Circle, which should be set back further than what is contemplated. For the most part, with some additional modifications to the plans, it can be determined that the property will meet the restrictions required. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Although the applicant doesn’t state this directly, they have indicated that the continued use of the property as a motel is marginal at best. There are a number of hotel rooms in this immediate area as well as along the 94/694 corridor. Significant modification to this site would have to be undertaken to make this facility more competitive. The owner of the property has indicated that a number of hotel in the area welcome the conversion to a senior condominium as being proposed. This lessens the number of units within this category of hotel in the area. We would point out that we want to see viable uses of property within the city. To see sights abandoned, under utilized or boarded up is not in the overall interest of the city. It is difficult to say that the site is unsuitable for general commercial uses but the proposal does seem to be a viable way of keeping the site usable. The applicant has indicated that there is a need for the market rate senior rate condominium they are proposing and their proposal does seem to be a viable way to reuse the buildings in question. It, therefore, seems to be an appropriate redevelopment of this site. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicant argues that the redevelopment in this case is warranted by the use contemplated in the last Comprehensive Plan update, the lack of developable land in this area and the needs of seniors in the community. Given this property’s size and configuration, the change asked for is necessary to meet these important community needs. The creation of this PUD zoning district in this area provides for the necessary flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for this site. The proposed redevelopment, in our opinion, does have positive factors and does not appear to be in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan if the C-2 underlying zoning district is retained and future uses other than the senior condominium would be consistent with the plan. The overall proposal seems to be in the best interest of the community. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant indicates that the proposed development demonstrates an amenity and a benefit beyond the mere development itself. He claims the plan will create a destination within Brooklyn Center for all residents to be proud of and contribute to the housing needs of seniors in this area. The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property owner and should lead to an upgrading on the site and the physical characteristics in this area as well. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the applicant’s plan is to convert the existing Best Western Hotel into an upscale, revitalized senior market rate condominium. This will include adding new fixtures in the bathrooms, new kitchens within the units, new amenities in the rooms including floor and wall coverings, revamped heating and air conditioning and changes to the common elements to accommodate the new use of the property. He indicates in his proposal that depending on the demand for larger units, the intention would be to convert the 227 motel units into approximately 80 to 110 new residential units. The plan is for a new building exterior and various floor plans have been shown allowing up to two and three bedroom units, again depending on the demand. The facility has an indoor swimming pool, exercise rooms, potential meeting rooms as well as kitchen and restaurant/bar facilities. These apparently will be amenities that can be offered or converted into other amenities for the residents. ACCESS/PARKING/DENSITY Access to the site will be slightly modified by closing the most easterly access closest to the intersection of Freeway Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue. Continuation of the B-612 curb and gutter will be required in this area. The only access to the site will be the westerly access leading into the facility. Required parking for a multi-residential use is two spaces per dwelling unit and, depending on the number of units, the required parking will be between 160 and 220 parking spaces. The plan shows seven garage buildings being constructed on the site around the perimeter. This would accommodate 78 parking spaces. One hundred sixty one surface, or non-garage, parking spaces would be left on the site utilizing the existing parking at the hotel. Some modifications and elimination of a few parking spaces would be done. The total parking would, therefore, be 239 parking spaces including surface and garage spaces. We would like to see more parking spaces eliminated as the need for this much parking is not anticipated. Also, the three banks of garages adjacent to the east leg of James Circle do not meet the required building setback from street right of way. The garage adjacent to Humboldt Avenue is also too close to the property line. Setbacks for the property are 35 ft. for buildings from the Freeway Boulevard right of way and side corner setbacks of 25 ft. from James Circle and Humboldt Avenue and a rear yard setback of 5 ft. for accessory buildings. Green strip requirements are 15 feet ft. from parking and driving lanes adjacent to street right of way and 5 ft. along rear property lines. The existing green strip along James Circle is only 5 ft. because of existing conditions when James Circle was constructed a number of years ago. The three banks of garages should be relocated to meet at least a 25 ft. building setback. A 5 ft. green strip in this area could be acceptable if, as in other cases, a decorative treatment or fence were provided. Generally the standard has been masonry piers and a wrought iron decorative fencing such as in between the piers. Such a treatment might be acceptable under the PUD with this type of treatment. As mentioned previously, it is possible to eliminate a number of parking spaces and provide additional landscape. This too is recommended. Modification of the garage along Humboldt Avenue to meet building setback requirements should also be accomplished. Density on the site must also be determined. The site is 6.78 acres in area or 295,709 sq. ft. If a density of 2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit, which is the allowable density in an R-5 zone, were allowed, 109.5 or 110 dwelling units would be allowed under that the density. It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider as acceptable a density requirement of 2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. This should accommodate the 80 to 110 anticipated units requested by the developer. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES No significant changes to grading, drainage or utilities are proposed and, therefore, no such plan has been submitted. It should be noted that the easterly access from Freeway Boulevard will be closed and a continuation of B-612 curb and gutter will be provided in this area. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is reviewing the plans and may make written comments with respect to his observations. No Watershed Management Commission review is required for this proposed conversion and alteration to the site. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. This 6.78 acre site requires a total of 538.5 landscape points not the 388.5 points indicated on the plan. Additional landscaping should be provided, perhaps in the areas where parking can be eliminated. The landscape plans acknowledges approximately 80 points in existing trees. They plan to provide a total of 308.5 points with new landscaping including one Green Mountain Sugar Maple, five Patmore Ash, nine Greenspire Linden, all shade trees. Fourteen Black Hills Spruce and three Colorado Blue Spruce are proposed. Decorative trees include four Amur Maple, five Peegee Hydrangea, six Prairiefire Crabapple, eight Spring Snow Crabapple, and 16 Ivory Silk Japanese Tree Lilac. This accounts for 308.5 additional points. This added to the 80 existing points, brings the total to 388.5 points. One hundred and fifty additional landscape points are required to be consistent with the point system. It is recommended that the landscape plan be modified to provide this additional landscaping. BUILDING The applicant has submitted pictures of the existing Best Western Hotel depicting the building materials and elevations. They have also provided a rendering with three options for the exterior and proposed floor plans for the various units. The renderings show different architectural features including balconies or decks on two of the options, a dormer type roof line, a mansurd type roof line and a mansurd type treatment without decks as another option. The exterior treatment and design should be decided upon and part of any PUD development plan approval. LIGHTING AND TRASH No lighting plan has been submitted, as the applicant proposes to make use of existing lighting and to possibly intersperse some additional site lighting as needed. No trash disposal facilities are shown on the site. Any outside trash disposal facilities should be appropriately screened from view with a material compatible with the exterior treatment decided for the building. PROCEDURE This PUD/C-2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally, rezonings have been referred to Neighborhood Advisory Groups. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the Commercial/Industrial Park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission following 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. A point of concern, however, is the completeness of the development plans for the plan approval portion of this PUD. As pointed out during the site and building plan review portion of this report, we have made mention of garages that need to be relocated, additional landscaping that should be provided to meet the landscape point system, a recommendation for eliminating blacktop parking and adding landscaped areas, a need to finalize an acceptable exterior building treatment and material matters that need to be addressed. The staff comments will be passed on to the applicant recommending modifications to the plans. The Planning Commission must determine if they believe the plans are sufficient enough to make a recommendation on the development plan portion of the PUD or if the recommendation can contain a condition requiring plan modifications before building permits are issued. Another possible way of dealing with this PUD is to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development and conceptual approval of the development plans, requiring a resubmittal of the developmental plans to the Planning Commission and City Council before permits can be issued for the PUD development. 9-11-03 Page 1