Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 05-10 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84011 Applicant: Nankin Express 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 re- model and add a drive-up window to the existing restaurant at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Green Mill Restaurant, on the east by a private road serving businesses between Brooklyn Boule- vard and Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by Farrell 's, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is presently occupied by the Happy Dragon restaurant and was the subject of Application No. 83039 by Zantigo Mexican Restaurants for a very similar remodeling and drive-up proposal . Nankin Express is defined as a convenience food restaurant under the City's Zoning Ordinance and as such requires special use permit approval . The proposed plan calls for 60 dining seats and 34 parking stalls. The parking formula for restaurants is one stall per two seats plus one stall per two employees. Staff have not received an emoloyee count as requested, but presume it will be under eight. The plan also calls for a drive-up lane along the south side of the building and turning in front of the east. side of the building where -the drive-up window is located. The drive-up lane is. bounded by a 3' wide concrete median, consistent with other drive-uplanes in the vicinity. Proposed landscaping consists of one new 2" diameter tree of unspecified type (consistent with existing species) at the northwest corner of the site, five unidenti- fied shrubs around the base of the freestanding sign at the southwest corner of the site, and sodding in greenstrip areas adjacent to the east property line. City Ordinance (Section 35-711 ) requires that off-street parking lots for over 6 cars across a street from residentially zoned property shall be screened in a manner ap- proved by the City Council . Staff recommend that such screening be accomplished with no less than honeysuckle shrubs planted 3.' on center in the greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn .Boulevard. Site drainage presently flows across the east property line onto the private access road serving this development and from there overland to public storm sewer in 56th Avenue North. Since all the businesses in this block of Brooklyn Boulevard drain in this same manner, no change in the drainage pattern is recommended. It should also be noted that the concrete median surrounding the drive-up lane will have a small opening as it turns around the building to allow water to drain into the private access road. Staff recommend that the median be widened on the east side to better delineate the parking stalls to the east of the building. Few changes are proposed for the exterior of the building. Wood corner trim to be painted red will be added to the corners of the mansards over the west, south, and east sides of the building. Also, windows along the west, south, and east walls, that were covered with aggregate panels by the present owner, will be uncovered. Staff recommend two additional changes. There is a low flat-roofed area above the kitchen on the north side of the building with no mansard around it. Roof=top mechanical equipment is clearly visible and we recommend that it be screened, con- sistent with City policy. Also, there are colored flourescent lights under the trim along the west and south sides of the building and colored spot lights on the mansard. Staff regard this lighting as being, in effect, signery which has never been approved. Our feeling is that it should be removed because it is not 5-10-84 -1- Application No. 84011 continued consistent with other restaurants (namely Arthur Treachers and McDonalds) which proposed such building treatments and were denied by the City Council . Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is 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 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. Curbing shall be provided around all parking and driving areas in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer. 7. Colored flourescent and spotlights along the mansard of the building shall be removed prior to the issuance of permits. 5- 10-84 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84009 Applicant: Lombard Properties Location: 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval for an office-industrial build- ing on a site to be addressed 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the east, by the Spec. 11 industrial building on the north and by vacant industrially zoned land on the west and south (this vacant land is presently planned for a central parking lot on the west and restaurant sites on the south) . The building is to be known as the Spec. 14 industrial building. The parcel of land on which it is to be built is legally de- scribed by a recent subdivision as Tract G of an as-yet-unnumbered Registered Land Survey which is approximately 4.4 acres in area. The proposed landscape plan calls for 11 Red Splendor Crab trees and 11 Spring Snow Crab trees in the front greenstrip along Shingle Creek Parkway and in large land- scaped islands bordering driveways to the north and south of the building. Some of the Crabs along Shingle Creek Parkway will be changed to larger shade trees. There are also numerous plantings proposed around the building. These include: Broadmoor Juniper (46) , Wilton Carpet Junipers (72) , Prince of Wales Junipers (24) , Red Bar- berry (32) , and Gold Drop Potentilla (20) . There are also three (3) Black Hills Spruce to the west of the building which will serve as partial screening of the loading dock area. Underground irrigation is indicated in all sodded areas. Rock mulch is scheduled in planting areas adjacent to the building and in a .narrow-parking delineator on the south side of the site. The grading plan calls for water to drain mostly toward the outer edges of the site except for the loading dock area on the westerly portion of the site. Drainage from the east side of the site will be conveyed via storm sewer to City storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. Drainage from the west side of the site will be conveyed via private storm sewer westerly to Shingle Creek. The proposed building is a u-shaped, low-rise (12' high ceiling rather than 20' to 26' ) office-industrial building. The exterior will be face brick on all sides of the building, except in the loading dock area, which will be scored concrete block in a color to match the brick. The loading docks are to be located inside the "U", hidden from view from the street and most neighboring establishments. The plans note that the building will be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet N.F.P.A. standards and that rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened. Security lighting is indicated on all sides of the building about every 50' to 75' . No other site lighting is indicated. The main issue to review with the proposed application is parking. The proposed building is 75,250.8 sq. ft. in gross floor area. The applicant proposes a mix of 20% office and 80% warehouse use. This results in a parking requirement of 15,050.1 sq. ft. office : 200 = 76 spaces, plus 60,200.7 sq. ft. warehouse ; 800 = 76 spaces for a total of 152 required spaces. The site plan provides for 145 spaces on site and 20 additional spaces off-site on the central parking lot to the west for a total of 165 spaces. This total would allow a potential office occupancy of about 25%. Staff believe, however, that low-rise industrial buildings are much different than the typical high-bay office-warehouse building. It is our recommendation that the parking requirement be based on 5090 office occupancy and 50% warehouse. This recom- mendation is based on the following factors: 5-10-84 -1- Application No. 84009 continued a) Other communities in Hennepin County that have had construction of low-rise industrial buildings say that office occupancy is in the range of 50%-75% of gross floor area. b) Tenants who are heavily into warehousing are more likely to seek out high-bay buildings which offer more cubic area per square foot leased. c) Low-rise buildings, on the other hand, tend to attract office tenants and tech manufacturing firms which often produce goods that are small in size, but use a fair amount of labor per sq. ft. of building space, thus requiring more parking. Storage is a minor factor in building utilization. As a result of these factors, we believe that a special use permit should be required for this type of building in the I-1 zone and that a parking requirement based on 50% office, 50% warehouse is the minimum acceptable, especially since the 1 space/800 sq. ft. warehouse formula is probably inadequate for space that is predominantly de- voted to manufacturing rather than storage. The parking requirement based on a 50/50 split is 37,625 : 208.8 = 180 plus 37,625 : 800 = 47 for a total of 227 spaces, 62 more than proposed by the applicant. The lack of parking stalls on the basis of staff's calculations leads to consideration of a number of options: 1 ) Accept the proposal as submitted and require no special use permit. 2) Deny the plan as proposed. 3) Table the plan and ask the applicant to shrink the building and submit an application for a special use .permit. 4) Table the plan and ask the applicant to provide an expanded proof-of- parking plan including at least 70 more spaces from the central parking lot and submit an application for a special use permit. Staff certainly do not recommend Option No. 1 and believe Option No. 2 can be avoided if the applicant is willing to pursue either Option .No. 3 or No. 4. The applicant has indicated to staff that he does not wish to shrink the building, but rather to expand parking available to this use. To do so under the present circumstances would require that the approval of the as-yet-unbuilt Spec. 10 be rescinded and that a substantial share of the parking presently allocated to Spec. 10 be reallocated to Spec. 14. This, however, would leave Spec. 10 with insufficient parking, even under the old assumption for Spec. 10 of a high-bay building with 20% office and 80% ware- house space. The situation is complicated by the fact that the applicant has in- dicated to staff an intention of making Spec. 10 and Spec. 12 low-rise buildings as well . Finally, the applicant is in an awkward position because subdivision and ownership of the land in this area was, to a great extent predicated on the assumption that a certain amount of building space was possible given a certain amount of land. These assumptions just won't fit if the low-rise buildings bear out the occupancy trend in other local communities. The applicant has suggested that perhaps a parking ramp could be built if parking demand reaches staff's expectations. A potential parking ramp was accepted by the City for proof-of-parking purposes in the case of the Northwest Racquet and Swim Club last year. Perhaps such an arrangement could be accepted in this area also provided appropriate legal and financial guarantees were obtained. We would recommend in addition, however, that the approval of Spec. 10 be rescinded and that no approval of Spec. 12 be considered until the central parking lot is in place and functioning. Because of these questions and concerns, staff recommend that the application be tabled and that the applicant be requested to submit application for a special use permit and new plans which comprehend sufficient parking based on a 50/50 ratio of nffirn t_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84010 Applicant: Lombard Properties Location: Tract C, R.L.S. 1564 Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval for 20 off-site accessory parking spaces on the central parking lot to the west of the proposed Spec. 14 site. The proposed off-site accessory parking spaces are to be located on Tract C, R.L.S. No. 1564, the northerly and larger of two tracts that make up the central parking lot. The proposed off-site parking meets all the criteria for off-site parking set forth in Section 35-701 (3) (attached) . As noted in the information sheet for Application No. 84009, the development plan proposes 145 parking spaces on-site in addition to the 20 spaces off-site for a total of 165 spaces. Also as mentioned in the staff report for No. 84009, we do not believe a total of 165 spaces will prove to be adequate. It is recommended that this application, along with No. 84009, be tabled until the parking issue is resolved. 5-10-84