Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 01-18 PCP 14 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 18, 1990 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 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. Edina Realty/Blumentals Architecture, Inc. 90026 The applicant requests rezoning from R5 to Cl of a 1. 1 acre parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard which is presently the site of the Edina Realty building. 6. Johnson Controls, Inc. 90027 The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 6,666 sq. ft. addition to the existing 10, 000 sq. ft. Johnson Controls building located at 1801 67th Avenue North. 7. Other Business 8. Discussion Items 9. Adjournment I .. i i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90026 Applicant: Edina Realty/Blumentals Architecture, Inc. Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The applicant requests rezoning from R5 to C1 of a 1.1 acre parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is presently developed as the site of the Edina Realty office building. It is bounded on the north by the Brooklyn United Methodist Church parking lot and two single-family homes, on the east by a vacant R5 zoned parcel that was to be the site of another smaller office building, on the south by the Boulevard Plaza office condominium development, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. The basic purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank facility to locate in the existing Edina Realty office building. Financial institutions are a permitted use in the C1 zoning district, but are not one of the service/office uses allowed by special use permit in the existing R5 zoning district. All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (copy attached) . The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he addresses the guidelines point by point. A recitation of the guidelines and the applicant's arguments along with staff comments follows. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service/office use. " Staff: The Comprehensive Plan does specifically recommend service/office use on this site and the vacant site to the east (see area #41 on the Land Use Revisions Map, attached) . The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Plan recommendation. Perhaps the more immediate question is whether there is a benefit to allowing some service/office uses, such as banks, which are allowed in the C1 zone, but not the R5 zone. The C1 zoning would allow for slightly more intense uses, but would also preclude multi-family uses which are not consistent with the Plan for this area. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? 10-18-90 1 Application No. 90026 continued Applicant: "The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either R5, Cl or C2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard many of the R5 lots have been developed as Cl by special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property is planned and designed for an office building. " Staff: We would agree that the proposed C1 zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications and with the nature of Brooklyn Boulevard as a major thoroughfare. C) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of the existing office building will work, since this land is already developed as an office building and its required parking. " Staff: One of the issues that needs to be addressed with a bank occupancy within the existing office building is parking. Financial institutions are required to have parking based on the retail parking formula. The proposed bank facility would occupy approximately 400 sq. ft. of space on the first floor. The general office formula requires only two spaces for this area. However, the retail formula requires 11 spaces for the first 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Therefore, the retail formula requirement for this space is 11 spaces. The irony of the situation is that, if the bank use were larger, the total parking requirement for the building would actually be less. There may be a need to address this irony somehow in the ordinance. At present, however, there is a need to provide nine (9) additional parking stalls. It is our understanding that there have been discussions with the Brooklyn United Methodist Church to either acquire or encumber land on their off-site parking lot to provide additional parking. As a result, the applicant will either have to obtain a special use permit for off-site accessory parking or may have to expand the area to be rezoned to include whatever land is acquired. The buffer requirements for a parking lot for an office building are the same as for a church parking lot. We do not believe the need to provide more parking for the bank use presents additional issues which argue against the rezoning of the office building site. They can feasibly be addressed through a proper site plan which may be forthcoming. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? 10-18-90 2 i Application No. 90026 continued Applicant: "Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R5 have used special use permits for C1 use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial, even though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial character of the avenue. " Staff: One zoning change that has taken place since this property was zoned R5, is that the land to the south, which contains the Boulevard Plaza office condominiums was rezoned from R5 to R3. A special use permit was granted for the office use in the R3 zone. Zoning this property to R3 would be somewhat consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but would preclude a bank occupancy. The proposed Cl zoning is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this parcel since it calls specifically for service/office uses. The applicant is correct in observing that there have been office developments in this area and that, because of the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, service/office use of the property is logical. e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable. " Staff: Not applicable. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: "The subject property is in compliance with zoning regulations presently in force for Cl districts, and through rezoning would allow uses such as financial institutions, in this building. " Staff: The applicant has addressed use compliance with Cl regulations, but not other C1 requirements, such as parking. The site meets lot width and area requirements for a Cl parcel adjacent to a major thoroughfare. The greenstrip, setback and parking requirements are met for a general office use. However, as has been pointed out above, the site does not have adequate parking if a bank occupancy is proposed. The applicant must address the parking issue by acquiring or encumbering land beyond the existing site. However, even if no additional parking can be obtained, we do not feel the rezoning should, therefore, be denied. The 10-15-90 3 Application No. 90026 continued proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use is consistent with the proposed zoning. A bank use may not become feasible for parking reasons. Nevertheless, most service/office uses can be comprehended. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "The present R5 zoning without the special use permit for this piece of land would not have been useful for the original development, since the size of this lot is not sufficient to provide multi-family housing and the necessary green areas and amenities, etc. The use of the office buildings as buffers between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single-family residential has proven superior to multi-family housing developments, due to the limited hours of business, and generally clean nature of offices. " Staff: We would not agree that the original parcel (about 72,500 sq. ft. ) was too small for multi-family development, but certainly a project of that size would have limited amenities. The R5 zoning probably made sense 20 years ago when traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard was less than today and when there was a strong demand for apartments. Today, it is felt that the community has a surplus of apartments and the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard probably lends itself more to commercial than residential development. Service/office uses have been viewed for some time as a good transitional use along Brooklyn Boulevard to buffer retail nodes from each other and the Brooklyn Boulevard from single-family development. 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? Applicant: 111. This rezoning will expand the C1 zone only to the extent that this land will become part of the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in compliance with the regulations set forth for the Cl zone. 3. It is in the best interest of the community to have the actual zoning reflect what exists on the property and eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a special use permit. " 10-18-90 4 Application No. 90026 continued Staff: The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is little vacant land in either the R5 or Cl zones; however, this parcel is not vacant anyway. We would recommend that the area to be rezoned be expanded to the vacant parcel to the east. That parcel was created about five years ago and was planned to be the site of another, smaller office building. We do not feel that it would be appropriate to leave that parcel zoned R5 and possibly allow any apartment building which would have to gain access through the existing office building site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The plat that divided the original parcel was approved with the understanding that the easterly parcel would be developed as an office. An approved plan for an office building on that parcel does exist. We believe it would be in the best interests of the community to rezone both parcels to Cl and preclude any multi-family development in this location. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant: "It is in the interest of the City to clarify the actual zoning of this property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is on the site. " Staff: We agree in this case and would add that it is in the City's interest to have both zoning and use consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Procedure The City's practice with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to open a public hearing, take comments and then table the application and refer it to the relevant neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. We would recommend following that procedure in this case also. Submitted by, Gary Shal`lcross, Planner roved by, 4AJ Ronald A. a Director of Planning and Inspection 10-18-90 5 I I I 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 • i Blumentals0 6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612)561-5757 September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF REZONING APPLICATION FOR EDINA REALTY BUILDING, 7100 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER A) IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R-5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service/office use. B) IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either R-5, C-1 or C-2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard many of the R-5 lots have been developed as C-1 by special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property is planned and designed for an office building. C) CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of the existing office building will work, since this land is already developed as an office building and its required parking. D) HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R-5 have used special use permits for C-1 use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial , even though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial character of the avenue. E) IN THE CASE OF CITY- INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? Not applicable. f September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION Page 2 of 2 F) WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS? The subject property is in compliance with zoning regulations presently in force for C-1 districts, and through rezoning would allow uses, such as financial institutions, in this building. G) IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? The present R-5 zoning without the special use permit for this piece of land would not have been useful for the original development, since the size of this lot Is not suf f i c i ent to provide multi-family housing and the necessary green areas and amenities, etc. The use of office buildings as buffers between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single family residential has proven superior to multi-family housing developments, due to the limited hours of business, and general I y "clean" nature of offices. 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? 1 . This rezoning will expand the C-1 zone only to the extent that th Is I and w i I I become part of the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in compliance with the regulations set forth for C-1 zone. 3. It Is in the best interest to the community to have the actual zoning reflect what exists on the property, and eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a special use permit. 1 ) DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN I ND IV I DUAL PARCEL? It is In the interest of the City to clarify the actua I zon i ng of th i s property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is on the site. �. Rom 15 17 39\ Rln PslYEll.,I��IL�•r �I* �7 -"7 J, .7' , Y ~� �- y� �' 1 y• ..-y1rJy�i-, - M ll LiFLEJ you - LAKE I ( q rN A, r'1 1177, 'I !I I• li it i ^i _ a Land Use WI "K4 r Plan ■! Revisions 1 a No mm =0 3m am %" we SEE -Am CRT (JU my@@[�Vn canw O� 0-Comprehensive Plan �. .�•�-� TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid-Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid-Density Residential 2. Single-Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid-Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid-Density Residential 7a. Single-Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple-Family Residential 9. Commercial/Retail 10. Commercial/Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High-Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid-Density Residential/High Density Residential 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space • 17. Mid-Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21. Service/Office 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 27. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 28. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 31. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 32. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 33. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential 38. Single-Family Residential 39• Service/Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service/Office 42. Mid-Density Residential 98 ter, It MOM is PPLICATION N1 90026 x� U. quo RR M muss ■� �■ �_ �� MIN . ., ■■������������������� •�, . 111111111 11111l�/11��. 'a �♦ �� MUM 1111111111111110A � MM Eggs 111"Mili milli all MIN 1111212 __ _ = ■■■ C. .0 :C �■. 1111►�� am W-411 sm IRS ME Mill NOME IN MIN 11 milli marm Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90027 Applicant: Johnson Controls, Inc. Location: 1801 67th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 6, 666 sq. ft. addition to the existing 10,000 sq. ft. Johnson Controls building at 1801 67th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded by 67th Avenue on the north, by James Avenue on the east, by the Northwestern Bell maintenance building on the south, and by the Coachman Industrial building on the west. The use of the building is a combination of office and warehouse or storage space. Most of the addition is to be devoted to office space. The Johnson Controls use is considered to be a permitted use in the I-1 zoning district. Access/Parking The site has one access off 67th Avenue North and one access off James Avenue North. The access off James Avenue is being moved about 10' south of its current location so as to make it easier for trucks to exit the site from the new loading dock on the east side of the building. The proposed building utilization is 11,872 sq. ft. of office space (59.36 parking spaces at 1 per 200 sq. ft. ) and 4,794 sq. ft. of warehouse space (5.99 spaces at 1 per 800 sq. ft. ) for a total parking requirement of 65.35 or 65 spaces. The proposed site plan provides for a total of 65 parking spaces including 2 handicapped stalls near the new south entrance. Johnson Controls utilizes a number of vans which are driven to and from work by employees. The vans are not stored on the site and, therefore, represent no additional parking demand. Landscaping The site in question is 60,450 sq. ft. or approximately 1.4 acres. The point requirement for this site under the landscape point system is 104 points. The site presently has 73.5 points worth of landscaping including six (6) Summit Green Ash trees. The landscape plan calls for 81.5 additional points by providing a variety of new plantings, including two Imperial Honey Locust trees in the green area immediately south of the building, two Sugar Maples at either end of the row of parking east of the building and a Greenspire Linden just north of the loading dock. The plan also proposes a number of various shrubs in planting beds adjacent to the south and east walls of the building addition and in a planting bed along the north side of the existing building. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The proposed grading and utility plan calls for no new utility installations except an 8" storm sewer line to convey roof drainage to an existing storm sewer line in the parking lot in front of the 10-18-90 1 Application No. 90027 continued access off James Avenue North. The new parking lot area along the south side of the site will drain eastward to the existing paved area and into an existing catch basin east of the building. No new water or sewer lines are proposed. It is recommended that a concrete pad or heavier bituminous be provided in the loading dock area. The applicant's architect has also been advised that B612 curb and gutter is required around all parking and driving areas. New curbing will, therefore, have to be B612 type. Building The proposed floor plan shows that the majority of the new addition will be devoted to an open engineering department with an unspecified number of work stations. There will also be an expansion of the storage area for "consigned material. " The building exterior materials are to match the existing exterior treatment. The background treatment is to be 12" concrete block, matching existing coursing. sections of split-faced ribbed block will be interspersed with anodized aluminum windows on the west elevation. Larger windows will be provided on the south and east elevations to allow natural light into the office area of the addition. An entryway with an air lock is proposed in the side of the addition. Lighting Trash The site presently has no exterior site lighting and none is proposed as this is basically a daytime use. The City has no minimum lighting standards. We are not aware of any security pfoblems at this location. A trash enclosure is not indicated on the plans. The architect has indicated that an enclosure will be placed near the southwest corner of the building. It should be kept in mind that required parking spaces may not be used for the location of dumpsters and that an opaque screening device is required. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 10-18-90 2 Application No. 90027 continued 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits. Submitted by, C--7 Gary Sh�llcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection -10-18-90 3 1 71 n . : r evcY � 2c -, D • I ,.y - n..+.� R - .. • . -- ' � m.¢ uy..� .( c � .� F S � : .. 7 e n � i '• X> i.�� n j'= R i f r � � - � j� � i Q Z^ PR e - ,+( • � = iii �p � ~ �5 � � :y 'r, n � � = = � • Z = � '� �_ f r sz � Vii :" rC D t � N 4 n Y e j f y s t 3 V • • • _ ♦ M y Y . R • V r t :.. 1 �- i _ e � 67"Av6. NoR7N son • . • .. vii �� s•:.-.�.•.•_•_•. MEIN .. mm CITY — MAINTE son ANNEX �ii� v ii �1�11♦U,1 .. � -� ,71"Aml M � == � MNM AP .' . . CATI N NO. �0� IM • •. _ MI IF 0 BROOKLYN CENTER may. �. �: -_ =■ = 15 ii HIGH SCHOOL ft ii i 'fit �. ? • -a�►d4- � __ _ ii ii ii z �� ii ii ii i -sir, ,�•� • . �� =i ii ii i s'�' ;� • ii ii ii i��i ii � i'.•�C � � ii ii iil1.111i! i� l . • , LAMLE •♦� ii ii ii . BROWN Vx mm mm 1� a ii ii ii i L v ii CC �) N ii = mm mm .� mm