Variance Request-Baton Corp.Planning Commission Report
VARIANCE REQUEST - BATON CORPORATION
Block 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT NO: VN87-5 MAY 19, 1987
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on variances
for setbacks and building coverage for residential
Planned Unit. Development.
BACKGROUND:
Name of Applicant: Baton Corporation
Address of Property: Block 7
Present Zoning: R -5
Nature of Request: 20 foot front yard
variance, 5 foot side yard setback variance,
19 foot rear yard setback variance, 26 foot
variance for distance between buildings and a
2% or 15 % variance for building coverage.
Reason for Request: Construction of 48
townhomes or 32 townhomes and 26 condos.
The applicant is requesting five variances in
conjunction with the construction of either 48
townhomes or 32 townhomes and 26 condos. The applicant
has also applied for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct these units.
The five variances requested are:
--- 20' variance of required 30' front yard setback
5' variance of required 15' side yard setback
19' variance of required 25' rear yard setback
26' variance of required 36' distance between
buildings
2% variance of maximum building coverage of 30%
for Alternate 'A' (townhomes)
15% variance of maximum building coverage of 30%
for Alternate 'B' (townhomes /condos)
The front yard is along First Street South, the rear
yard abutts Suburban Chevrolet and 11th and 12th
Avenues are the side lot lines.
No.
•
VN87 -5
Page 2
The applicant has tried to vary the depth of the
townhomes to achieve an overall feeling of open space
and richness of pattern. The units could be placed in
a straight line to achieve the separation requirements
of the ordinance but with a straight configuration
there would be a "row house" type look. This
development could meet all the ordinance requirements,
but the results would be somewhat unappealing. The
units would be pushed further into the site, there
would be less parking and open space in the interior.
The applicant is orienting the front of the development
towards 11th Avenue as request by the RFP, but by
ordinance, the front yard is First Street South. There
is a greater setback along 11th Avenue than First
Street south.
The great amount of frontage the site has makes it more
difficult to design a development because of the
exposure to the streets. The applicant has provided
that all parking will be within the interior of the
site to provide a outward appearance.
The HRA Board has stated that they would like to see
the project provide parking over and above ordinance
requirements. By strictly meeting the required 1.2
ratio, the building could be pulled more into the
center of the site and would probably meet setback
requirements. Finally, by eliminating a couple of
units, the applicant could meet building coverage
requirements. However, this would reduce the amount of
tax increment returned to the Authority to pay the
public costs.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve all the requested variances
2. Deny all requested variances
3. Partially approve the variances and deny
others
4. Continue for further information
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Alternative #1. The
following are suggested Findings of Fact and
_ Conditions
should the Commission recommend ap roval: �(
�1C tsuns i 6 GA ow a bn
1. That a unique circumstance exist due to the
amount of fro tage on the block.
PLA01fC
VN87 -5
Page 3
2. The HRA in their request for proposal stated
that they wanted, from an architectural
standpoint, 11th Avenue should be treated as
the front yard even though this is not the
front yard by ordinance DpcA ` m
3. Architect design` constraints, requested
by the 4 siliaits, make variances from the
ordinance required.
Conditions:
1. That the Conditional Use Permit is granted.
2_ `S hem
N/41-46D7-1 m eyt 00 d ODvt i n &adz 7
Respectfully submitted,
1411 :11.111 ► / LISA
Nancy . Anderson
Commu.ity Development
Analyst
:Mt- 1 rcuaq O T va vvumcaSt U3 L)
/t ad ve- rsci1 cA4 e.
G/1-
GI d d i --- ra c h i q h t i o
`7., Orel (does re-Rec the resalbv
lc`t.S
The variances being requested to implement the proposed
project are integral to the design character (urban
townhomes] and high density that the economics and the site
demands.
The hardship resulting from strict adherence to the
ordinance would be two -fold:
1. ONOMIC
.the price paid for the site would necessarily
decrease with a lower unit count
.if the site price remains the same, the price of
the units would rise and, therefore, put the
project potentially on a slower development
track
.the tax base return to the City would be
adversely affected with a lower unit count
DESIGN
.by significantly reducing the density, the
vitality of the project design would be
diminished
.if more conventional spacings and setbacks were
to be incorporated, the overall architectural
statement would lose some of its unique appeal
within the buyer marketplace for 'edge of
downtown' townhomes.
It is our feeling that the varied depth
combination with the highly articulated
these units, creates an overall feeling
richness of pattern entirely consistent
direction of the RFP, (2) the character
and (3) the intent of the ordinance.
of the setbacks, in
architecture of
of open space and
with the (1)
of the neighborhood