Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 08-16 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 16, 1990 kii-c- N 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - July 26, 1990 4. Chairperson's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Brenda Noyed 90021 Request for special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 .58th Avenue North. 6. Alan Chazin 90023 Request for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn Apartments at 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing 102 dwelling units on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide .7 acre of land for an office development. 7. City of Brooklyn Center 90022 Request for rezoning approval to rezone from I-1 to C1A six parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. 8. Other Business 9. Discussion Items 10. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90021 Applicant: Brenda Noyed Location: 4013 58th Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit/Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a family hair care salon in the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 58th Avenue North on the north, and on the east, south, and west by single- family homes. The home lies on the south side of 58th Avenue in the block between Halifax and June Avenues North. Home beauty and barber shops are allowed in the R1 zone by special use permit. The applicant, Ms. Brenda Noyed, has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the proposed home occupation. In it, she states that the salon would be located in the basement, in an area about 11' x 151 . Clients would enter and exit the home around the west side of the house and through the back door. The salon would operate on an appointment-only basis and the hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 8: 00 p.m. , Tuesday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. , Friday and Saturday. She points out that the driveway has space for four cars and she plans to install a turnaround if the special use permit is approved. She adds that she feels she can control traffic and parking through appropriate scheduling practices. Ms. Noyed states that she intends to follow strict safety standards, installing smoke detectors, a fire extinguisher, and first aid kit in the salon. Additional lighting for safe passage will also be provided. She notes she plans to install a 2.5 sq. ft. sign identifying the business and a small directional sign on the garage. Ms. Noyed states she has a cosmetologist manager/operator license from the state and adds that she plans to apply for a salon license upon approval of the special use permit. The primary concern we see with this application is parking. It would appear to be a fairly standard home beauty shop and should generate a normal amount of traffic. On-street parking is rarely allowed in conjunction with a home occupation and, in this case, is simply not an option, given the nature of 58th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare. The applicant presently possesses a two-car wide driveway and plans to add a turnaround. These are important requirements as well as careful scheduling and taking customers on an appointment-only basis. If these elements are all provided, we feel the beauty shop can operate normally and safely. Altogether, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 8-16-90 1 Application No. 90021 continued 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On-street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. , Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment-only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, � vim-•-���c • �iLJI Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8-16-90 2 Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. I would like to open a family hair care salon in my home . I would offer my clients the following services : haircuts , permanent waves , colors , highlights , styles and hair care consultations . The salon would be located in my basement . The area would measure approximately 11 ' x 15 ' . A small bathroom would be adjacent to the salon . Clients will enter and exit my home around the west side of the house and through the back door . This is a separate entrance than my family and guests usually use . The salon would be open on an ' appointment only ' basis ; Tuesday through Thursday from 9 : 00 a . m. - 8 : 00 p .m. and Friday and Saturday from 9 : 00 a .m . - 4 : 00 p . m . The present driveway has ample room for four cars to park . I am planning to install a turn-around space upon permit approval . Also , I can easily limit the volume of client traffic by keeping a strict schedule and allowing ample time for clients to come and go between appointments . I am planning to uphold strict safety standards . I plan to install smoke detectors , a fire extinguisher , and first aid kit in the salon . Additional lighting , indoor and out , will be installed to assure safe passage . I plan to install a 2 1/2 square foot sign with the salon name at the edge of the lawn . I would also put a small sign beside the garage door to direct clients to the back door . I currently have a cosmetologist manager/operator license . My license number is 39940990 . This license enables me to manage a salon . I plan to apply for a state salon license upon approval of the special use permit . I have complied with all of the state ' s requirements and have talked with the state inspector . Approval of the state license application will take approximately 60 days after filing . Nvy •. �� j// /111/ on�I����i r4 WAFO .� Z_ ♦ ♦j _ nil _.. 1111 ,; �� �►1111/ � . .,.- .- �� .a. �� �_ as :u mm m _ ��► 11111 __ ■�_ _ - #� i11Pr111111 ORION IN mill I ��! - '• �� 1111/1 �.\�. � __ ��. malloon�� NINE _ NORTHPORT SCHOOL Room fir MEN �1�� ,•�••♦n♦� •♦I m Nil 6`��.. 11111111/1111u� �! t _ 1I1. FA M � 1 Lt H7 -n m 03 3> Q � LT) V' �,_F.irc lac i c ` � 1 4! 1 t ' jL LA Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90023 Applicant: Alan Chazin Location: 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a greater density of apartment units to land area than permitted by ordinance at the North Lyn Apartments, 6511 and 6521 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by the Berean Evangelical Free Church, on the east by Humboldt Avenue North (Brooklyn Center High School is across the street) , by Duke's Standard service station on the southeast, by Freeway Boulevard on the south (Days Inn is across the street) , and by the Spec. I Industrial Building and Hoffman Engineering on the west. The variance application arises because the applicant, Mr. Alan Chazin, wishes to subdivide off an arm of land adjacent to Freeway Boulevard from the apartment site and develop it as an office site. The resulting land area left for the North Lyn apartments would not meet the land area requirements for the R5 zone (the site is already built to its maximum density and there is virtually no excess for other development) . Hence, the request for a variance from the land area requirements contained in Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant's legal representative, Mr. David Sellergren of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd. , has submitted a lengthy letter (attached) in which he describes the site, outlines the proposal and addresses the issues of a density variance, a special use permit for an office building in the R5 zone, and a proposal for a shared parking arrangement with the apartment complex. Although the special use permit and the shared parking questions will have to be addressed in due course, the first item of consideration must be the density variance since, without it, there can be no office development at all. We will, therefore, address first and foremost the variance request and the arguments made by the applicant's legal representative in respect thereof. The proposal is basically to take .7 acre of a 6.3 acre site and develope it for an 11,700 sq. ft. office development, leaving 5.6 acres for the 102 apartment units, or approximately 18.2 units per acre (the R5 maximum is 16 units/acre) . Variance Request "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is ` i i III j Application No. 90023 continued located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. " Applicant: "The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts existing land uses located within three different zoning districts. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial uses. It is apparent that the Project Property is not "functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the twenty years since the apartment complex was constructed, despite the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high- quality commercial and residential development has occurred rapidly. " Staff: These arguments seem more attuned to a request to rezone a vacant parcel of land. It should be pointed out that "the Project Property" is not at this time a separate parcel which has remained vacant while adjacent parcels have been developed. It is an underutilized part of the North Lyn Apartments site which was developed over 20 years ago. It is questionable whether even an economic hardship exists since the 6. 3 acres of land supporting the North Lyn Apartments is the same amount of land as would be required in other parts of the City. There is a question, however, of whether the underutilization of an otherwise valuable area of land constitutes a practical hardship. Is it reasonable or prudent for the City to insist on this arm of land belonging to the apartment property when it has had no practical value as such and would provide aesthetic and tax benefits if developed in an appropriate manner? The original site plan for the apartments showed no intended use of the .7 acre area in question. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern created an open space between commercial and light industrial land 8-16-90 2 Application No. 90023 continued uses that is not put to any practical of efficient use. We are aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City. " Staff: The applicant argues that the surrounding land use pattern makes this arm of land unique. This may be true and again raises the issue of what is the most appropriate use of this land. Standard (a) refers to "particular physical surroundings, shape. . . " This is not the only instance of a multiple-family parcel wrapped around a commercial site, leaving a narrow, possibly unusable appendage. The Humboldt Courts Apartments has such an appendage which reaches up to 69th Avenue North. There is also an 18 unit complex with two arms of land which wrap around Wes's Amoco and reach out to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Evergreen Apartments formerly had some wider appendages reaching out to West River Road. These were eliminated when Highway 252 was widened and relocated. In retrospect, these appendages, while they help to meet literal land area requirements, serve little, if any, functional purpose. They should be avoided whenever possible in the future. While there are other instances of unusable appendages, this "shape" is still somewhat rare. It may be that this and the other instances mentioned should be considered for variance action because of their relative uniqueness and the surrounding development pattern which may suggest a more practical use of the land. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is brought about by the strict application of the ordinance requirements. " Staff: The hardship of an underutilized area of land certainly had its origin in the platting of the property in the 19601s. The .7 acre arm of land was created at that time by the owner with the concurrence of the City. In hindsight, it appears that some better division of the land could have been made with fewer apartment units and more commercial use. The question is whether it is more beneficial to the public welfare to make the landowner live with this mistake or whether the public interest would be better served by having the property developed. From a narrow legal perspective, the former seems to be the proper course. From an economic perspective, the latter may be more prudent. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8-16-90 3 I Application No. 90023 continued Applicant: "The granting of the variance to permit the development of the Project Property with an office building would not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts. First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate $40,000-$50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an office structure of this size would create employment opportunities for approximately 50 to 60 new employees. Third, the use would not generate potential adverse off-site impacts such as noise, dust, odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient use of the land. " The applicant adds in a separate section that a variance can be contemplated here because open space is available across Humboldt Avenue North at the High School. Staff: We agree with many of the points raised by the applicant regarding this last standard. However, it should be clear that the City will not relax its standards simply to get additional tax revenue. That should be a secondary consideration if given any weight at all. The crux of the issue seems to be whether granting the variance will result in overcrowding on the North Lyn Apartments site. The open space across Humboldt is of some value, but is intended for use primarily by high school students and is not, strictly speaking, a park for the apartment dwellers. The .7 acre area in question is not equipped with recreational facilities and the original approved plans for the complex show no planned use of the area. We are not aware of any regular use of the area by tenants. Again, in hindsight, it probably would have been better if this area were developed commercially from the beginning and if fewer apartments had been built on a smaller parcel. The major threat to the public welfare presented by this variance is the prospect that ordinance standards which have been applied uniformly across the City would be compromised in this case and perhaps weakened in the future. We see little practical detriment to the public in this case. The detriment is mostly theoretical. It should be pointed out that while ordinances should have some valid theoretical basis, much, if not all, of their value lies in making better practical results. The variance process is, therefore, established to allow for some adjustments from the ordinance requirements in large part to achieve better practical results. We would agree that, in this case, the practical benefits outweigh the costs and some adjustment may be considered to help bring this about. Shared Parking The applicant has also proposed that the new office development share parking and access with the existing apartment complex. The 8-16-90 4 Application No. 90023 continued proposal is for an 11,700 sq. ft. , two-storey office building on the .7 acre parcel with 35 on-site parking spaces. The total parking requirement for the building would be at least 59 parking stalls. The applicant proposes to allow the office building to have shared use of up to 77 parking stalls on the North Lyn Apartments property and to have an access drive between the two sites. The applicant's representative states that "the proposed shared parking meets the parking demands of the two facilities which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and apartments. " Mr. Sellergren notes that the City's joint parking provisions in Section 35-720 and the definition of joint parking in Section 35-900 state that joint parking is "for the convenience of the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking reauirements for the off-site use. " (The applicant does propose to meet two different parking requirements with the same stalls in this case. ) Mr. Sellergren goes on to point out that the City's Comprehensive Plan contains a land use policy (#25) which recommends that "new commercial development or redevelopment complements or improves existing adjacent development through the use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and access (emphasis added) , landscape, and appropriately scaled signage. " Mr. Sellergren then suggests that a variance could be granted from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions of the ordinance. Our response to the shared parking proposal is that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow shared parking and access between commercial and residential uses at this time, unless it was part of a Planned Unit Development, and we feel the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan applies more to adjacent commercial uses, not a commingling of _ commercial and residential activities. We have tried to achieve shared access in the development of the Target and Brookview Plaza sites. We generally leave joint parking arrangements that are for convenience, and are not related to development rights, to the private sector. Section 35-314 subsection le. of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to permitted accessory uses in the R5 district allows for: "Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. (emphasis added) Such accessory uses to include, but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off-street parking and off-street loading. 8-16-90 5 Application No. 90023 continued Since the proposed commercial arkin is p g an accessory use which is not permitted in the R5 district, we believe any variance to allow such parking would be a use variance which is not permitted by either City ordinance or state law. It should also be pointed out that the City's joint parking provisions do not allow the same parking stall to be counted toward two or more separate parking requirements. The only way to acknowledge this sort of arrangement might be through approval of a Planned Unit Development. Our preliminary judgment is that the proposed development and the North Lyn Apartments are not arranged and designed as a PUD. We are also not sure that this arrangement meets the requirements for a PUD outlined in Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance. We would conclude that a variance on joint parking is not at all appropriate and a PUD is questionable. Without shared parking, the .7 acre site can support a 9,300 sq. ft. office building (see plan attached) . We feel this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property. Conclusion/Recommendation In conclusion, we feel that there is some merit to the land area variance request, that the standards may be met in that case. However, we believe that a variance to allow shared parking between commercial and residential uses would be very inappropriate, though this concept could be comprehended under a PUD. The Commission may wish to give direction on this latter question as well as on the variance application. Submitted b , Gary Sha lcross Planner roved by, / C- Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8-16-90 6 i • • • JAMES P.LARKIN JHN A.COTTER• ROBERT L.HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. BEOATRICE A.ROTHWEILER JACK F.DALY D.KENNETH LINDGREN PAUL B.KILDOWTT ALAN L.KILDOW W ENDELL R,ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN GERALD H.FRIEDELL MICHAEL B.LE BARON ALLAN E.MULLIGAN FRANCIS E.GIBERSON ROBERTJ.HENNESSEY AMY DARR GRADY JAMES C.ERICKSON ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON- EDWARD J.DRISCOLL JEFFREY C.ANDERSON GENE N.FULLER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET DANIEL L.BOWLES DAVID C.SELLERGREN TODD M.VLATKOVICH RICHARD J.KEENAN BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY J.MCMANUS JOHN D.FULLMER GREGORY E.KORSTAD ROBERT E.BOYLE TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 LISA A.GRAY FRANK I.HARVEY CHARLES S.MOD ELL FAX(6121 896-3333 FAX(6121336-9760 GARY A H.WIEKE CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN THOMAS N.WEAVER JOHN R.BEATTIE SHANNON K.MCCAMSRIDGE LINDA H.FISHER DENISE M.NORTON CLEVE THOMAS AN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE MICHAEL BNBRAMAN STEVEN O..LEVIN EVIN GAY LEN L.KNACK MICHAEL C.JACKMAN 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 JULIE A.WRASE JOHN E.01 HL JON S.SWIERZEWSKI COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 SHARON L.BREN NA RRI3THAL THOMAS J.FLVNN JAMES P.QUINN CANAGA LITZAU TELEPHONE 1612)786-7117 TIMOTHY J.KEANE TODD I.FREEMAN WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH. R STEPHEN B.30 LOMON FAX(612)786-6711 THEODORE A.MON ALE• P ETER K.BECK Jr ROME H.KANNKE JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN SH ERR ILL R.OMAN DANIEL W.VOSS GERALD L.BECK MARK A.RURIK JOHN B.LUNDOUIST JOHN R.HILL DA LE NOLAN* JAMES K.MARTIN THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. Reply to Bloomington STEVEN P.KATKOV MICHAEL T.MCKIM THOMAS L SEYMOUR CHARLES R.WEAVER HERMAN L.TALLE VINCENT G.ELLA ANDREW J.MITCHELL OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS RICHARD A.NORDBYE DAVID J.PEAT August 1, 1990 -ALSO ADM ITTED IN WISCONSIN Planning Commission c/o Gary Shallcross, City Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 • Re: Proposed Office Building North Lyn Apartments Site Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Planning Commission Members: We represent North Lyn Apartments, which is owned by Norm and Alan Chazin (the "Applicants") . On behalf of the Applicants, we request that the following concept plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration of this variance request discussion at the August 1990 meeting. Included in this request is a concept plan for a subdivision of the North Lyn Apartments site and the construction of an office building on a portion of the site. Description of Site The development site is a . 70 acre parcel located on Freeway Boulevard (65th Avenue) , approximately 200 feet west of Humboldt Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (the "City") which is currently vacant and covered with grass (the "Project Property") . The Project Property is surrounded by several existing uses and is depicted on the attached Site Plan. Immediately to the north is the 102-unit North Lyn apartment complex occupying approximately 5.6 acres of land which, with the Project Property, totals approximately 6. 3 acres which is currently zoned R-5 (the "North Lyn Site") . Across Humboldt Avenue to the east of the apartment complex is the Brooklyn Center High School, and immediately west of the project property is a Standard Service LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGI3EN, LTD. Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Pave 2 Station located in a C-2 Commerce Zoning District. Across Freeway Boulevard to the south is a Day's Inn Motel which is located in a C-2 Commerce Zoning District, and immediately to the east is an office- warehouse building occupied mainly by Ault Incorporated which is located in an I-1 Industrial Zoning District. The North Lyn Site was platted as Lot 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park in 1967 . Homedale Builders received site and building plan approval by the City Council on May 13, 1968, for construction of a 102-unit apartment complex on the North Lyn Site. The development met the minimum land requirements of 2,700 square feet per dwelling unit imposed by the Ordinance, and the apartment complex currently represents the maximum allowable density for the available acreage, including the Project Property for the purposes of such calculation. Proposal Applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park, into two parcels, one of approximately 5 . 6 acres containing the North Lyn Apartments, and the second a .70 acre parcel which is the Project Property. Applicant proposes to construct on the Project Property an 11,704 square foot two story office building, depending upon the resolution of parking issues with respect to the development as discussed below. The preferred development is the 11,704 square foot office building. The building permits economic return from the property which justifies the development. On-site parking for 35 spaces is available for the proposed building, with an additional 77 spaces available through a proposed shared parking arrangement with North Lyn Apartments, 23 of which would be required to meet zoning requirements. Implementation of Applicant's proposal results in the effective utilization of property which has remained dormant despite active development in the surrounding area for more than twenty years. As noted in the discussion that follows, the proposed development exacts no costs from a public policy perspective. Issues The proposed project raises the following issues under the City's zoning ordinances (the "Zoning Ordinance") : 1. Since the Project Property is located in an R-5 District, a special use permit will be necessary for the proposed office development. 2 . When the 6 . 3 acre parcel is subdivided as contemplated, the 102- unit North Lyn Apartments becomes a nonconforming use because the remaining 5 . 6 acres lack the minimum land requirements prescribed under the Zoning Ordinance for the apartment complex. LAI;:KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGBEN, LTD. Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 3 3 . Construction of the 11,700 square foot office building requires a shared parking arrangement with the adjacent North Lyn Apartments to meet the parking requirements imposed by the Zoning Ordinance because there will be insufficient parking on-site. The present parking ordinance does not recognize the validity of shared parking arrangements for meeting zoning requirements. Special Use Permit The proposed office building meets the standards for issuance of a special use permit set forth at Section 35-220, as long as the other development constraints addressed in this proposal are resolved satisfactorily. The Project Property lies in a convergence of three distinct zoning districts and the proposed office use is optimal from a compatibility standpoint and maximizes the effective economic use of the Project Property. Variance Request The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City . Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts existing land uses located within three different zoning districts . Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial uses . It is apparent that the Project Property is not "functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the twenty years LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 4 since the apartment complex was constructed, despite the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high- quality commercial and residential development has occurred rapidly. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification, As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern created an open space between commercial and light industrial land uses that is not put to any practical or efficient use. We are aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. The hardship is brought about by the strict application of the ordinance requirements . d. The grate of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located The granting of the variance to permit the development of the Project Property with an office building would not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts . First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate $40,000 - $50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an office structure of this size would create employment opportunities for approximately 50 to 60 new employees . Third, the use would not generate potential adverse off-site impacts such as noise, dust, odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient use of the land. LAIAKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. • Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 5 Minimum Land Requirement The 5 . 7 acres which will be left for the North Lyn Apartments site upon completion of the subdivision will not meet the Zoning Ordinance's minimum land requirements for multi-family residential development and will be rendered a nonconforming use under Section 35- 111 . A variance could be granted from strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum land requirements. A variance from the land area requirements in this case fulfills the public interest since it provides for effective development of the land while maintaining the "open space" policy underlying the minimum land area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance because of the immediate proximity of open lands to the site. Shared Parkina Under the City's parking requirements at Section 35-704(2) (g) , one parking space is required for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for office buildings. The 11,704 square feet of gross floor area for the proposed office building allows 35 spaces on site as depicted on the Site Plan. The Ordinance requires 59 on-site parking spaces. Immediately adjacent to the parcel are 77 residential parking spaces serving the North Lyn Apartments. We propose a shared parking arrangement with North Lyn Apartments which will allow the use of up to 77 parking spaces by the office development. The proposed shared parking meets the parking demands of the two facilities which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and apartments . Office parking requirements are at their peak during business hours, Monday through Friday. Apartment parking requirements are at their peak during evenings and on weekends. Taken together, the on-site and shared parking facilities meet the City's proximity requirements for joint parking facilities at Section 35-720. The Zoning Ordinance provides, however, in the definition of joint parking at Section 35- 900, that shared parking arrangements are "for the convenience of the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking requirements for the off-site use. " The City's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Policy 25 states "[City land use policy should) ensure that new commercial development or redevelopment complements or improves existing adjacent development through the use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and access, landscape, and appropriately scaled signage. " A variance could be granted to the Applicants from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions of the Ordinance. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Planning Commission August 1, 1990 Page 6 Conclusion In order to subdivide the property and pursue the office development, it will be necessary to secure a variance from the minimum size requirements pertaining to North Lyn Apartments . If the 11,704 square foot office building is constructed, it will be necessary to secure a variance allowing shared parking with North Lyn Apartments to meet the parking requirements imposed upon the development of this site. We respectfully suggest that there is little reason for imposing restrictions on development of the Project Property which prevent its economical development when no countervailing public policy interests will be served. The Project Property will be most effectively developed with the proposed 11,704 square foot office building. This size will accrue greater tax revenue for the City, and there is no public policy served by restricting development to the on-site parking available when supplemental parking is so near and so compatible with the proposed development. Sincerely, David C. Sellergren, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Alan Chazin TJK:EKOs 35-2 40 applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. i/ 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3• Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. �orm� IF Q VS M WE`av'di. r � cx I' EXISTING APARTMI I I I � � II ' i proposed propel I _ f` I � } REHOUSE BUILDING bl a-r 9 Pr P Z* ! e)dstin o ertj 0 1� 41 I trash enclosure '41 PARKING 5 47 SPACES ROPt?SED 7 $TfJRY L TICE BtJiLfAINt3 y �Yye dam,'' y e I� 0" k '' s $Gx�^Or - 11�•¢'r Ib D y}'•O Ib 0' SO 11 , 0 � ' sign c I I I�3.31' -- new curb cut m �� y �� �1 1 Ica Elm m �� ��`�■/■ ■■ ..._ ■ min ONE NO ME ZIP IBM ONE MEN ON �� ■■tee ■ ■■M on ■����• s _ mm son MEN= 69TH 0 ►•i •i ��► i .c� 11111111111 - �� _ � �!• m mm m— �� = ii =�a �= - i ii �>• �. mm APPLICATION mm ma �y 1♦ 1 90023 i- IN — 13ROOKLYPI CENTER ` OR HiGH SCHOOL m MIM IBM rf r, L PINES d 8 p C� Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90022 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: North of Summit Drive, east of Shingle Creek Request: Rezoning This application is a City-initiated rezoning application to rezone six parcels of land north of Summit Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway from I-1 to C1A. The I-1 zone is the Industrial Park zone and the C1A zone is a service/office zoning district with no height limitation. There are four existing high-rise office buildings (6200 and 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, 6160 Summit Drive and 6120 Earle Brown Drive) on the area to be rezoned and two of the parcels are vacant. The area in question includes most of the land north and east of Summit Drive with the following exceptions: the Earle Brown Commons (R7) , the Earle Brown Farm (C2) , the 6040 Earle Brown Drive office building, the Learning Tree Day Care Center, City- County Credit Union, and Park Nicollet Medical Center (all C2) . In 1989, the City initiated and ultimately adopted a rezoning of land near the freeway from I-1 to C2. The proposal included a number of parcels between Summit Drive on the south and Freeway Boulevard on the north, plus the Holiday Inn site. When the City Council acted to approve the rezoning, they chose to eliminate from the action all the parcels south of the freeway, except the Earle Brown Farm site. It was felt that it was preferable for the vacant parcels south of the freeway to be developed with office buildings and that the zoning should limit development possibilities on those parcels to service/office uses rather than allow for other possible commercial uses allowable in the C2 zone. Since the developed land within the area in question has high-rise service/uses on it already, the proposed C1A zoning will be consistent with existing conditions as well as long-term objectives. Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines All rezonings are subject to the evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Following is a review of the proposed rezoning in light of each of the guidelines contained in Section 35-208. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The proposed C1A zoning for the parcels in question is consistent with existing development and with what has been the City's preference for development in this area even while it has been zoned I-1. The area south of the freeway between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100 has not been appropriate for industrial development for many years. The proposed ClA zoning will "lock in" (unless changed) service/office development in this area and will prevent other types of commercial or industrial development which Application No. 90022 continued would be inappropriate and out of character for this area. While the present office market is depressed, we feel the long-term best use of this area is service/office use. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The proposed ClA zoning is consistent and compatible with the commercial retail zoning district to the south and east. It is also compatible with the public and high density residential uses in the area. Finally, it is very compatible with the abutting freeways. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Yes. All service/office uses can be contemplated. In fact, concept plans for office developments on the remaining vacant parcels have been submitted in the past, though neither are being actively pursued at this time. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Yes. Since the I-1 zoning of this property in the 1960's, the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge and freeway interchange have been constructed which has made this area more accessible and more conducive to high-density development. Much of that development has already occurred. The proposed C1A zoning will simply ratify that trend. (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The purpose of this rezoning proposal is to ensure that the character of the area between Summit Drive and the freeway remains predominantly a high-rise office area. We believe this will have long-term aesthetic and tax-base benefits to the community. It will also bring with it considerable rush hour traffic. The traffic concerns have been addressed in the 1985 Short-Elliott- Hendrickson traffic study of the central business area of the city and will continue to be addressed as development proposals are evaluated. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? 8-16-90 2 T Application No. 90022 continued Yes. The two vacant parcels that remain in the proposed zoning district are fairly large parcels and are capable of supporting high-rise office developments. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The parcels that are the subject of this rezoning are no longer in a good location for industrial development. The land is too valuable and too visible to put industrial buildings with loading docks and the attendant truck traffic in this area immediately adjacent to the freeway. Property owners have not sought industrial development adjacent to the north side of the freeway and we doubt that there would be any inclination to develop the south side in that fashion either. (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 City's Comprehensive Plan originally recommended service/office use in this area and was amended in 1986 to comprehend high-rise residential and retail commerce as well. The proposed C1A zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area. There is also a minimum of vacant land in the C1A district. There is a partially developed parcel at the Brooklyn Crossing office park development at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and there are no other vacant parcels of C1A land in the city. Finally, we believe high-rise office development, while it may not occur soon, will be beneficial to the community both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of tax revenue. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believe there are public benefits to the proposed rezoning. It will, to some extent, limit the development options of property owners in this area. While these limitations may result in the available land remaining vacant for some time, we believe the long term best interests of the community and of this area warrant these limitations. Again, the existing zoning of the property is I-1 (Industrial Park) and it is unlikely that the land would be developed industrially anyway. We believe the best long-term use is high-rise office. 8-16-90 3 Application No. 90022 continued Conclusion/Recommendation Most rezonings are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission itself serves as the advisory group for the central commercial and industrial area of the community. If the Commission desires more information on this matter, the application can be tabled. However, we recommend that the application be approved. A draft resolution of approval will be available for the Commission's consideration. Submitted by Gary aS allcross Planner ved by, onald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 8-16-90 4 ' k Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated, for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (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? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? i • • • ►• �4 •.4 BROOKLVN CENTER 1 �• HIGH SCHOOL •�i ow • II L—I - �`~ � __� � iii i■ �► - 1/ mm IM r. most son nasal i.• o� �*-' • c ` i, s//1 /iii■'� �� -�,•a� :gyp s� � / ��, eel' m M" mm RSA 1 1 mm mm m� nsc 1 S• •� �� MMMM ME M m mm MM mw mm MM mm r tic �� �� �� mm mm mm Alm mm = My =I m � t `• -•:�e _ 111 �IIIII�11ii���i is� -- I .�■ ■i1 ■� + '=_`•'�■I iiiiiiliiiiiiE3 iii■ it �� �i ■� �� — i i is_ m mm mm rim iii, 1• �j �� � ' �� �m mm _ m mm Sm 9APA mm 100 M rA mm