Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-04 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83037 Applicant: Cramer Company Location: I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan This application involves the land at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Blvd. and was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14, 1983. The action at that time was to table the application and continue the public hearing. As the Commis- sion probably recalls, this application is for an office park on land that is zoned R5 (office uses are allowed by special use permit in the R5 zone) . The complex would contain 20 one-storey office units at approximately 1 ,000 sq. ft. each. The Commission is also probably aware that the granting of a special use permit for this proposed use would run counter to the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for this area of the Boulevard (the current Plan recommends mid-density residential , or townhouse, use for this location) . Staff have, therefore, prepared a draft Com- prehensive Plan amendment to allow office or mid-density residential development on an interchangeable basis under the Plan. A public hearing to consider such an amendment has been called for the August 4, 1983 meeting. Action on the Plan amend- ment is recommended prior to action on the special use permit application. During the last 3 weeks, the applicant has held one informational meeting with residents of the neighborhood (see summary of meeting attached) . The applicant has informed us that, aside from the access question, the residents raised concerns that the development be .fenced off where fences do not already exist, that berming not block existing drainage patterns, and that parking lot lighting not produce glare into the neighborhood. The applicant has expressed willingness to address these concerns. Concerns regarding access and traffic have been expressed by neighboring residents along Brooklyn Boulevard. Essentially, they argue that the traffic resulting from the proposed use would have a detrimental effect on their property. Certainly the proposed use will add to traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, but the total amount gener- ated will be an insignificant fraction of the total traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. It should also be noted that, under the R5 zoning, the 4.48 acre site could support up to 72 apartment units which would likely generate considerably more traffic and have a greater visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Owner-occupied residential , such as townhouse, is made difficult by the freeway abutment, though this could be mitigated by extension of the noise wall . In short, it is felt that normally permitted uses in this zoning district would generate comparable or greater traffic than the proposed use. We have asked for comments from MnDOT regarding access to this site. The following are the comments received as of August 1, 1983: 1. Access to site should be limited to right turn in and out. 2. TH 15.2should be widened to include a right turn lane for turns into property: access should be 32' radii . 3. The median should be extended 100' ± southerly. 4. Proposed mounding should be placed so as not to interfere with sight lines. 5. Storm sewer in TH 152 has some capacity available, but a review of the plans is necessary. Staff have also received comment from the owner of the lot immediately south of the office complex. He contends that the value of his property (which he presently ' rents out) will be adversely affected by the proposed development, particularly the location of the access to the development. This concern and the concerns regarding 8-4-83 -1- Application No. 83037 continued traffic congestion do raise issues relating to Standards (b) and (d) from the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached) . Staff certainly recognize that the proposed access is- not ideal . A better situation would be obtained if the two lots to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard were acquired and the access shifted to the south. However, even though the proposed development is a special use and subject to the standards contained in Section 35-220, there are reasons for accepting the access as proposed. One is that the property has a legal right to access on Brooklyn Boulevard. Secondly, the traffic impact of the proposed use is no greater and perhaps less than the traffic which would be generated by permitted uses not subject to the standards. Third, there is a private covenant on the three lots south of the site in question which prohibits commercial use of those properties. A developer using those properties for a commercial access would, therefore, be open to a lawsuit imposing the sanctions of the private covenant. Fourth, the proposed median exten- sion in Brooklyn Boulevard should mitigate the traffic problems caused by the access to the new development. Finally, to require that other properties be acquired to improve the position of the access would tend to prejudice negotiations for the property in favor of existing owners. While we would prefer an access further to the south, we do not believe the proposed access is unacceptable. Regarding Standard (b), we do not believe the proposed access will have a noticeable effect on property values if it is located 15' north of the common property line with the parcel to the south and if it is a right-in/right-out access. The proposed use represents an insignificant increase in the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. The location of the access 15' north of the residential property to the south is all that is required by ordinance and all that should be sought in lieu of the location of the freeway exit ramp. The applicant has indicated the desire to have the office complex a condominium. Platting or compliance with the State Condominium Act is required to accomplish this. In general and in light of the available alternatives, we feel that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met in this case. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be ground for revocation. 2. Opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines abutting neigh- boring residences where none presently exist. Where fences do exist, a dense row of shrubbery shall be planted and maintained. 3. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended 100' to prevent turns into and out of the proposed complex. Said median extension shall be the responsibility of the applicant under permit from the MN/DOT. The median extension shall be approved by MNIDOT prior to the issuance of building permits and construction of the median shall be in conjunction with construction of the office complex. 4. Medical occupancy of the office complex shall be limited by the parking available on the site or shown on a proof-of-parking plan to be sub- mitted by the applicant. 8-4-83 -2- Application No. 83037 continued 5. The applicant acknowledges that no access to this site from Indiana/66th Avenue North (to the west of the site) shall be granted now or in the future. 6. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 7. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 8. 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 to assure completion of approved site improve- ments including median construction on Brooklyn Boulevard. 9. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appro.priately screened from view. 10. The buildings are 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. 11. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 12. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 13. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8-4-83 -3- 1 1 At page'93: TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended -Land Use 1a. 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 . Service/Office 12. Mid-Density Residential 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid-Density Residential/Office 18. Light Industtrail 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21 . Service/Off ice/iiid-Density Residential 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Off ice/iiid-Density Residential_ 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/'lid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/iiid-Density 7,esidentiai 27. Service/Office/;lid-Density esidentiai 28. Service/Officellid-Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30. Mid-Density Residential/Office 31 . Service/Office 32. Mid-Density Residential/Office 330, Mid-Density Residential/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential- 38. Single-Family Residential 39. Service/Office 40. Commercial -Retail 41 . Service/Office/iiid-Density Residential 42. Mid-Density Residential 98 DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Section 35-312. R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 3. SRecial Uses (b) Planned residential developments comprising a variety of dwelling modes as a special use permitted in the R3 district subject to the following conditions: (1) The minimum land area shall be [15] 5 acres; (c) Office uses not more than 2 storeys in height and which are described in Section 35-320, Subsection 1 (c) through 1 (d) and 1 (j) through 1 (s) . Such office uses shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Section 35-411. � I� 1 �I 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83041 Applicant: Zantigo Mexican Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 34-140, Subsection 3.A. (3) to allow for a roof sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign at the proposed Zantigo Restaurant (presently Happy Dragon) at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded by the Green Mill restaurant on the north, by a private service road on the east, by Farrell ' s on the south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. The Sign Ordinance states that "each establishment or enter- prise eligible for a freestanding sign may instead elect to have a roof sign for identification (in lieu of a freestanding identification sign) , provided that the sign does not extend more than six (6) feet above the roof line or more than the respective height as prescribed in Table 34A, whichever is lesser, and further provided that the sign does not exceed the respective area as prescribed in Table 34 A. " The proposed sign does not extend more than 6 feet above the roof line nor is it too large in area, but it is not in lieu of a freestanding sign. It is in addition to a freestanding sign. Therefore, a variance is being sought essentially to aT1 ow an extra sign, although the same sign would be permitted if it were located below the roof line. The applicant has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which he addresses the Standards for a Sign Variance (also attached) . The applicant explains that the chimney wall sign (which lies above the roof line - see elevation attached) and the building design are standard features of Zantigo restaurants. He states that eliminating this sign would create a particular hardship to their building design. The applicant also argues that the location of the standard Zantigo chimney wall sign is unique to the Zantigo building. He points out that other restaurants in the area do not achieve a similar image or design and, therefore, do -not need a sign located above the roof line. Finally,. the applicant states there will be no detrimental effect resulting from the sign. Staff are opposed to the granting of the requested variance because allowing both a freestanding and a roof sign for the same property would seriously_ undermine the Sign Ordinance. Regarding hardship, it appears to us that a smaller chimney sign could be placed below the roof line or that the chimney could be moved somewhat westward to allow the same sign below the roof line. The building is not really unique, nor is the parcel of land on which it is located. Many buildings have distinctive treatments along the roof line which, by themselves, attract attention to the building. Such treatments do not justify extra signery above the roof line. Finally, we would argue that it is detrimental to allow both a freestanding sign and a roof sign to a single, small establishment (establishments with 400' of frontage on two major thoroughfares are entitled to an extra freestanding or roof sign). Such a variance would open a floodgate of demands for additional signery not now permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Action on this application should serve as a signal to other potential. applicants that additional ..signs beyond what is com- prehended by the ordinance, will not be permitted. Denial is, therefore, recommended. 8-4-83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83039 Applicant: Zantigo Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Happy Dragon restaurant at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard to a Zantigo restaurant (classified as a convenience food restaurant) with a drive-up window. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Green Mill restaurant, on the east by the private access road serving establishments between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by Farrell 's and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Convenience food restaurants are special uses in the C2 zoning district which cannot abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property at either a property line or a street line. The land across Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned R1. However, abutment across a major thoroughfare with a right-of-way as extensive as in this case (e.g. over 100' ) and a frontage road has not been deemed to constitute abutment for the purposes of this section of the ordinance. Also, the land west of the frontage road is proposed for C1 uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Seating for the restaurant is to remain at 62 seats . There will be six (6) employees on the maximum shift. Thus, the parking requirement is 34 stalls. This amount has been provided, including wo handicapped stalls. Access to the site is via two openings off the private access road. Although none of the stalls are angle stalls , an entrance sign at the north access and an exit-only sign at the south access create a counter-clockwise, one-way traffic flow. Two of the stalls have limited accessi- bility because of the movements of cars leaving the drive-up window. These should be designated for employee parking. The proposed drive-up window' is to be located on the east side of the restaurant. A 10' wide driving lane is provided along the south and east sides of the building. There is stacking space for about five cars. A 3' wide concrete island is proposed south of the drive-up lane with an opening to allow cars to get out of the line and exit, if desired. Staff recommend that the proposed opening be closed and the 3' wide median be carried continuously around the driving lane. It should also be surrounded with 8612 curb and gutter in accordance with Section 35-710 of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape plan call for a number of new plantings around the building and in three landscaped island on the east side of the site. Thirty-three (33) Goldfinger Potentilla are indicateJ along the west and south sides of the building. Along the east side of the buildi g, 15 Broadmoor Junipers, 5 Goldfinger Potentillas and 10 Columnar Buckthorn are shown. Plantings in the landscaped islands include: Broad- moor Junipers, Purple L of Plums , Varigated Dogwoods, Japanese Redleaf Barberry and Proebeli Spirea. No real changes are proposed in the drainage or utility plans. Curb delineation will be changed somewha at the southwest and southeast corners of the site to better shape the new parking layout which includes four parallel stalls along the south side of the site. Zantigo does plan to change the exterior of the building from brick and exposed aggregate to stucco. The shingled mansard roof will be changed to a mansard with clay tile. Decorative wood posts will be placed on the east and west walls to add to the Mexican style being sought. The existing floor plan will not change drastically. All access to the building will be from the west side, while the existing east entrance will be converted to the drive-up window. The restrooms will be 'rearranged and a counter area roughly in the center of the building will be installed. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject 8-4-83 -1- Application No. 83039 continued to at least the following conditions : 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances; and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive-up lane bounded by a 3' wide median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. 8-4-83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83040 Applicant: Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. Location: Southeast corner of Lakebreeze and Azelia Avenues Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from the restrictions of Section 35-322 Subsection 3(d) which lists athletic clubs as a special use in the C2 zoning district, but which prohibits such uses from abutting an R1 , R2, or R3 zoning district, including abutment at a street line. The appellant wishes to establish a racquet and swim club on three parcels of land located immediately west and south of the Denny's restaurant at Highway 100 and France Avenue North. The three parcels are bounded by Denny's on the east, by Highway 100 right-of-way on the south, by a single- family home and Azelia Avenue on the west, and by Lakebreeze Avenue on the north. Single-family homes (zoned R2)are located on the west side of Azelia Avenue so that the site in question does abut R2 zoned land both at a property line and at a street line. The appellant has submitted two letters, one from Alan Kimpell of H. W. Fridlund Architects-Planners and one from Arlyn Grussing, Director of Planning for the City of Bloomington. Mr. Kimpell 's letter states a number of arguments as to why an athletic club should be allowed to abut Rl , R2 or R3 zoned property. The letter from Mr. Grussing describes a similar use in Bloomington, which does abut single- family uses, and it also gives information about the City's action regarding the facility. This report primarily reviews the letter from Mr. Kimpell . In his letter Mr. Kimpell acknowledges the conflict which the proposed use has with the Zoning Ordinance and makes the following arguments as to why an athletic club should be allowed in the proposed location: 1 . The principal building is set back 372' from the residential district. The land coverage of the building is less than 12% of the 7+ acre site. 2. The land between the building and the residences will be used for tennis courts and parking. The tennis courts will not be illuminated during the summer. During the winter, two air structures will enclose the tennis courts. 3. Unlike many permitted uses, there are no peak periods of traffic for this type of use. 4. Truck traffic for the athletic club would be less than for a restaurant or supermarket which are permitted. 5. There is little noise generated by this use other than an occasional human voice or starting of a car - better than a service station (staff note: a service station would not be permitted to abut Rl , R2 or R3 zoned land either) . 6. Athletic clubs do not produce. or release offensive odors into the air; nor do they harbor or contribute to the rodent population as other permitted uses (restaurants, food stores) often do. 8-4-83 -1- Application No. 83040 continued 1. The large amount of open area on the proposed plan (attached) will be heavily landscaped giving a park-like appearance, unlike that of a construction contractor's office and storage yard (staff note: outside storage. in the C2 zone must be screened from residential property). Mr. Kimpell concludes his letter by saying that the Racquet and Swim Club on 98th Street in Bloomington relates closely to the proposed club in Brooklyn Center. He notes that meetings with the City and the neighborhood developed a site and landscaping plan agreeable to all . It should be clearly understood that this is not an application for site and building plan approval or a special use permit. Staff did not accept such an application because of the conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Granting a special use permit for an athletic club at the location in question would constitute a zoning violation. Moreover, any variance to allow the abutment with R1 , R2, or R3 zoned property would constitute a use variance which is expressly prohibited by the Zoninq Ordinance and also by State law. The only real solution to the appel- lant's dilemma is a change in the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance to take athletic clubs out of the category of C2 special uses which cannot abut Rl , R2, or R3 zoned property and put that use into a category of uses which may sd abut. The purpose of Mr. Kimpell 's letter is really to argue the merits of this particular case for such an ordinance change. The Planning Commission, however, should consider any change to the Zoning Ordinance not merely on the basis of a particular site plan, but on the basis of whether athletic clubs generally are a type of use which may abut Rl , R2, or R3 zoned property without violating the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (See Section 35-100 attached). The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance may be summarized as seeking to provide for an efficient pattern of land use while at the same time protecting property values. Abutment restrictions between various uses are primarily intended to protect property values by keeping certain uses separated. Zoning is also aided by a Com- prehensive Plan and Zoning Map which arrange zoning districts so that low intensity uses are buffered from high intensity uses by uses of intermediate intensity. Regarding the intensity of the athletic club use, we would agree with the appel- lant's assertions that an athletic club would tend to have less impact on Rl , R2, or R3 zoned property than some uses which, under the ordinance, are allowed to abut. For instance: the sale of motor vehicles at retail (a special use) , educa- tional uses, hospitals, eating establishments, and the retail sale of food (all are permitted C2 uses). On the other hand, gymnasiums and athletic clubs are grouped with a number of other reasonably similar uses, such as health spas, recreation centers, skating rinks, bowling alleys and sports arenas (all listed in Section 35-322 3(d)). If athletic clubs are allowed to abut Rl , R2 and R3 zoned property, it would seem to follow that these other uses should also be allowed to abut. (We would note, however, thatthe City of Bloomington does distinguish between racquet clubs and "commercial recreation. " The applicant has argued to staff that the tennis courts adjacent to Azeiia Avenue are no different than a public park. That is true. However, we do not believe that the Zoning Ordinance can make distinctions between accessory or partial uses and the whole use regarding abutment restrictions (though certainly the site and special use review process may examine the best arrangement of a use on a site. The Planning Commission mustmake a judgment that athletic clubs per se (and other similar uses) may abut R1 , R2, or R3 property without diminishing property values, or whether they may not. Staff will attempt to have additional information regarding traffic generation and regulations of other communities at Thursday night's meeting . 8-4-83 -2-