Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 02-14 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85001 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 105 , 000 sq. ft. Target store and 34, 160 sq. ft. attached retail center on the parcel of land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The land in question is zoned C2 and the proposed retail use is a permitted use in that zoning district. This application was reviewed by the Commission at its January 17 , 1985 meeting and tabled with direction to the applicant to revise the proposed plan in accordance with the recommendations of the staff report submitted at that meeting. Most of those recommendations have been acted on favorably and still more revisions are being considered. The most significant revision to the overall proposal has probably been the elimination of the auto center on the northeast side of the building. (This results in the withdrawal of Special Use Permit Application No . 85002 . ) The garden center which is to remain on the northeast side will be surrounded by an 8 ' high masonry wall to provide effective screening. In addition, the building exterior of the Target store is to be brick, compatible with the brick exterior of the retail center. Rounded corners will provide some vertical relief on the Target building similar to the retail center . The retail center has been shrunk in size by 4,800 sq. ft. at the south end to allow better truck movements to and from John Martin Drive . Another significant change in the plan is regarding the access arrangements . A right-turn-in access and right-turn-out access on Shingle Creek Parkway are proposed. No median cut will be granted. A deceleration lane adjacent to northbound Shingle Creek Parkway will be installed requiring, a relocation of the public sidewalk onto the Target property within an as-yet-to-be-obtained easement. Parking stalls adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway will be left in the green- strip , counted as proof-of-parking. (Staff recommend this based on a traffic analysis by Dean Wenger of Barton-Aschmann Associates for this project which projects a total parking demand on the site of 772 spaces while 880 are possible. ) Concrete medians in two parking rows are also provided to reduce cut-through traffic . The accesses on John Martin Drive and Summit Drive now have extended throats with no intersecting driving lanes or parking for approxi- mately 100 ' in from the property line . Medians have also been extended. A third access on Summit Drive is also proposed to serve the Garden Center . Staff recommend this access rather than a con- nection between the Garden Center and the main Summit Drive access which could cause difficulties in the proper function of the main access . The latest plan submitted provides 880 parking stalls which meets the retail parking requirement for 139 , 160 sq . ft. of retail space and a restaurant of up to 120 seats . (This number of seats works out to 35 .4 sq . ft. per seat with a 4 , 250 sq. ft . restaurant which is more realistic than the earlier estimates . Again, however , no approval of a specific restaurant is implied by this action. ) 2-14-85 _1_ Application No. 85001 continued Some reduction in the number of parking stalls is probably necessary to accommodate truck movements south of the building to exit the site onto John Martin Drive . This stall reduction will presumably impact the restaurant seating. Regarding the traffic analysis for the site , Dean Wenger has provided further information as requested by the City. Mr. Wenger has in- corporated alternate assumptions about the direction of approach of the customer traffic coming to the Target site . Based on either assumption, however , Mr. Wenger concludes that the level of service at all relevant intersections will be "A" . Staff and the City' s traffic consultant (Glen Van Wormer of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson) are more of the opinion that the level of service will be "B" and perhaps "C" during certain peak periods at certain intersections . This , however , is still an acceptable level of service . It appears , therefore , that traffic impact should not be a reason for denying or altering the project. Regarding the landscaping plan, the new plan uses smaller tree stamps and some increased landscaping will be provided adjacent to the garden center. Staff have also asked for a reduction in the number of Ash trees (with a concomitant increase in other shade trees) , more berming along Shingle Creek Parkway, more landscaping in front of the restaurant pad and landscape islands in the parking lot. All but the landscape islands have been agreed to. The grading plan has been modified to provide higher berms in the large green areas and normal berms approaching a 3 : 1 slope in most greenstrip areas . The catch basin in front of the John Martin Drive entrance has been relocated. The plan notes curb and gutter around all parking and driving areas . The applicant wishes to be excused from the requirement to provide curb and gutter around parking lot islands . However , this is a long standing policy that should not be altered without further review apart from consideration of this application. Staff have also drawn attention to the high finished floor elevation of Target and have warned the applicant that this may lead to grade problems from the main Summit Drive access to the store entrance . The applicant has assured us that this matter will be considered to try to minimize these grade problems . In general , the plans for the proposed Target development do 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 rnd berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer , 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 submi_tt:�d _prior to the issuance of permits to assure compl.!tion of approved site improvements . 2-14-85 -2- Application No . 85001 continued 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 accord- ance 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 , including parking lot islands . 9 . The replat of the property shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits . 10 . The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval . 11 . Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval . 12 . All outside storage in the garden center area shall be effectively screened from view by an opaque masonry wall . Excepted from this condition are the tops of tree seedlings . However , no packaged merchandise shall be visible from outside the garden center. 2-14-85 -3- 1 1 ' Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No . 85003 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drive Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine six lots and resubdivide into two lots the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives . The land in question is zoned C2 and is the site of the proposed Target store and retail center (see Application No. 85001 ) . The proposed legal description of the property is simply Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 1 , Brooklyn Center Village Addition. Staff have requested an alternate name to avoid confusion with the City. Lot 1 is the location of the retail center . Lot 2 is the location of Target. The total area of the plat is 13 ,432 acres . No lot areas have been provided, but Lot 2 is by far the larger lot . Existing grades are provided on the preliminary plat survey. A 10 ' wide utility easement is provided along John Martin Drive and along Shingle Creek Parkway. We are seeking sidewalk easements along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to accommodate sidewalks in areas where turn lanes are proposed. In general , the plat appears to be in order and approval is recom- mended subject to at least the following conditions : 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer . 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3 . The plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works . 4 . The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Cents prior to preliminary plat approval . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain improvements to public facilities within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to: a: potential installation of traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west) . b . installation of deceleration lanes servin- accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Sumnit Drive . C . relocation or public sidewalks as necessary. 2--14-85 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No . 85004 Applicant: Cathy Rausch Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit/Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a home beauty shop in the residence at 3000 63rd Avenue North ( the northwest corner of 63rd and Xerxes Avenue North) . The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by 63rd Avenue North, and on the west and north by single-family residences . Home beauty shops are considered special home occupations and are, thus , subject to the Standards for Special use permits con- tained in Section 35-220 (attached) . The applicant has submitted a letter and site sketch (attached) explaining the proposed home occupation. She states that the hours of operation would be 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Wednesday and Thursday; 9 : 00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. , Tuesday and Friday; and 9 : 00 a.m. to 2 : 00 p.m. Saturday for approximately 40 hours per week. The home beauty shop would be on the main floor of the home in the existing family room on the west end of the house . This room measures 28 ' x 11 ' (a total of 308 sq. ft. ) . It is basically a converted one-car garage . Customers will enter and exit via the rear (north) entrance . She states that parking is to be provided on the lot and that a sidewalk is to be installed leading from the parking area (by the new garage off Xerxes Avenue North) to a deck off the family room. Access to parking is to be off Xerxes Avenue North. Mrs . Rausch also states that there would be one part-time (20 hrs . per week) non-resident employee working with her . A sign within the limits (2 . 5 sq. ft. ) of the Sign Ordinance would be placed at the corner of 63rd and Xerxes Avenues North. In response to the applicant ' s letter and sketch, staff have retrieved the latest site drawing of the property from a 1980 building permit for a deck. That site drawing shows the existing two-car garage to be set back 25 ' from Xerxes Avenue North rather than the presumed 35' . The existing driveway is 16 ' wide. From this site drawing, it would appear there will be less room for parking than depicted on the appli- cant ' s sketch. If a 15 ' "greenstrip" is required inside the property line , the existing 25 ' setback would allow only one parking stall to the north of the garage . If the applicant ' s cars are parked inside the garage , there would be room for two cars unobstructed on the driveway. It may be best to simply widen the existing driveway to 26 ' (with a narrower throat at the curbline if possible) and have three cars abreast since a car pulled onto a perpendicular parking space (parallel to the street) would be blocked by cars parking on the driveway. It appears , therefore , that the property cannot accom- modate more than three . cars unobstructed with certain irniprovements . Staff would recommend that four parking spaces be assumed necessary for a two-operator shop. Parking is allowed on both 63rd Avenue North and on Xerxes Avenue North, but it would be preferable for such parking to be on 63rd Avenue North. Also , customers coming from the south may tend to park on 63rd rather than make a U-turn around the Xerxes median at O ' Henry Road. On-street parking associated with a home occupation nay only be authorized in consideration of the Standards for Special Use PernitS and of the following: 2-14-85 -1-- r Application No . 85004 continued a. The amount of the applicant ' s street frontage b . The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street C . Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. (from Section 35-406 . 7) Staff do not feel there would be traffic congestion in the public streets if no parking were allowed on Xerxes Avenue North. The lot in question is 94.48 ' wide ,providing plenty of room for two or even three cars to park on 63rd Avenue North in front of the applicant ' s property. No infringement should be made on the frontage of other residences . As to the residential character of this neighborhood , it should be noted that there are no nearby commercial establishments. Nevertheless , the lot in question is located at the intersection of two collector streets . Therefore , a higher-than-average level of traffic already exists . The Commission should p•r•ob.a,bly weigh, during its public hearing process , the perceived impact of the proposed two- operator beauty shop on this neighborhood. It is staff ' s judgment that, if clients are properly educated as to parking options , this home occupation could function adequately at this location. However , the area devoted to the use and the fact that a part--time non-resident employee will be engaged does make the proposed beauty shop more intense than the average home occupation. We do not , in any way, foresee the conversion of this intersection to a commercial mini- district. Strict conditions should, therefore , be applied to any approval of the home occupation special use permit. As far as the special use standards not related to traffic and park- ing, staff do not feel that noise , odor , light, glare, etc . from the home beauty shop will diminish property values or impede the use of neighboring property. As proposed, the home beauty shop does live within the letter of the Zoning Ordinance. It is always a matter of collective judgment whether a home occupation is secondary and in- cidental to the residential use of the premises . The area of the house dedicated to the home occupation and the hours of operation make the beauty shop a secondary, but perhaps not an incidental use of the property. Nevertheless , there has been at least one case of a home beauty shop with a non-resident employee approved in the past. If the Planning Commission is disposed to recommend approval of the application, the following conditions are recommended: 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable . 3 . A current copy of the applicant ' s state operator ' s license shall be kept on file with the City. 2-14-85 -2- Application No. 85004 continued 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m.,. Wednesday and Thursday; 9 :00 a.m. to 8 : 00 p.m. , Tuesday and Friday; and 9 : 00 a.m. to 2 : 00 p.m. , Saturday. 5 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one , part- time , non-resident employee working in the beauty shop. 6 . Special use Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 7 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on-street parking of not more than two customer vehicles on 63rd Avenue North only. 8 . The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be widened to 26 ' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of approximately 22 ' . No removal of curb or improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior to approval by the City Engineer . 9 . Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use for the home beauty shop of an existing 11 ' x 28 ' family room. No greater area within the home for the home occupation is comprehended by this approval. 10 . The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit . 11 . A 10 lb . fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty shop area. 2-14-85 -3- 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84008 Applicant: Outreach Group Homes, Inc. Location: 507 69th Avenue North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by planning staff that group care of more than six wards or clients is neither a permitted nor a special use in the R1 Zoning District. The application arises from a desire by the Outreach Group Home at 507 69th Avenue North to increase the number of mentally retarded adults at the facility from 6 to 7. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North (Columbus Village Apts. on the north side of 69th) , on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by a large, vacant Rl-zoned lot. The existing group home is classified as a permitted use in the R1 zone because one of the definitions of a family in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance is: "Group or foster care of not more than six wards or clients by an authorized person or persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, to- gether with his or their domestic servants or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate public agency. " The existing group home is, therefore, comprehended as a permitted single-family use of the property. Appellant' s Position The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he sets forth information about the group home and arguments against the staff position. It is noted that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees began construction of the home in early 1974. By November, 1974, the home was occupied. The interior layout of the house is similar to a single-family dwelling with four bedrooms, a family room, den, dining room, and kitchen available to four men and two women who live there (two rooms have two persons and two rooms have one person) . There are no signs in the front yard. The lot on which the home is situated is fairly deep (almost 400' ) . No addition to the home is proposed. The appellant explains that the City was contacted regarding approval of a seventh client at 507 69th Avenue North in December of 1983. The Planning Director responded to the inquiry in a letter dated December 20, 1983 (attached) stating that the "request to increase the number of wards or clients from six to seven exceeds the parameters allowed by our ordinance. It is also felt that this type of request is not contemplated as a special use. " The appellant goes on to make three basic arguments in favor of the appeal : 1. Section 35-220 defines special uses as those uses "which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. " The appellant argues that the above definition comprehends uses that exceed the normal limita- tions for a given district if the use is required for the public welfare in that district. The appellant, of course, believes thisuse is so required. 2. Other cities in the metro area, including Minneapolis, have granted special use permits for the purpose of expanding populations of group home facilities beyond the normal limitations of City Zoning Ordinances. 3. Brooklyn Center has previously granted a special use permit to another group home organization for a similar purpose (Residential Alternatives ; Application No. 78005) . This should serve as precedent. 2-14-_C5 -1- Application No. 84008 continued (The letter also requests simultaneous consideration of a special use.permit appli- cation. However, this would not be in order until the City Council has acted on { the appeal and a public hearing can be duly called) . Application No. 78005 Before articulating the staff position on the appeal , it is important to review the City's action in Application No. 78005 submitted by Residential Alternatives. The Planning Commission and City Council minutes pertaining to that application are attached for the Commission's review. In that case, the City approved a special use permit for a group home involving eight clients, in addition to a resident family, at 5449 Lyndale Avenue North. That property is located in the R2 Zoning District which allows one-or two-family dwellings. The group home in that case was a single-family dwelling with occupancy over and above the normal maximum of 6 c ice. (The maximum clientele for a permitted two-family dwelling would be 12. Hence,a clientele of 8 in the R2 zone does not seem unreasonable on its face. We now believe, however, that the grounds for granting the special use permit in the case of Application No. 78005 were insufficient) . The basis on which the group home with 8 clients was approved %-,as that it was a noncommercial use required for the public welfare in an R2 district" which met the Standards for a Special Use Permit set forth in Section 35-220 of the Zoning Ordinance. This is the same basis on which Outreach Group Homes seeks to make application for a special use permit. Staff Reasoning We are not certain that a group care facility with over six clients is required for the public welfare in the R1 district. State law mandates that a Sta'teaicensed group care home "serving six or fewer mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons shall be considered a permitted single-family residential use of property for purposes of zoning. " (MS462.358, Subdivision 7 ) . Another subdivision of that section also states that: "a State-licensed residential facility serving from seven through sixteen mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons _shall be considered a permitted multiple-family residential use of property for purposes of zoning. " (emphasis added . This section certainly does not prohibit the City from allowing a residential facility with over 6 clients from being a special use in the R1 zone. However, it does define such a facility as a multiple-family use. It is the staff' s position that, as a multiple-family use, a group home with over six clients is not allowed in the R1 zone; and that, to allow it, would, in effect, constitute a use variance which is illegal . The appellant has argued that the very purpose of special use permits is to allow uses in a given zoning district which do not fall within the normal limitations of that district, but which can meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit. He states that the fact that a public hearing is held and neighboring residents are informed is sufficient to insure that total occupancy would never actually become detrimental to the residential neighborhood. We have some problems with these arguments. First, a use which is defined as a multiple-family use ought normally to be located in a multiple-family zoning district. Secondly, if there is no guideline as to maximum occupancy in an R1 district, uses which are clearly not consistent with the R1 zoning classification could be allowed in the R1 dis- trict; ie. what becomes the upper limit on client occupancy in an R1 district? � 4-55 -2- Application No. 84008 continued The only guideline presently provided in the Zoning Ordinance and in State law .. for the Rl zone is 6 wards or clients. We do not feel at liberty to go beyond that limit at present. Finally, to allow whatever occupancy the surrounding neighborhood will tolerate would, in the end, actually endanger the rights of such facilities to locate in residential neighborhoods. No one reading the record of Application No. 78005 can conclude that the neighbors, in that case, willingly accepted the presence of six mentally retarded residents , much less eight. Staff agree that a group care facility with over six wards or clients could meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit in the Rl zone. But, we do not believe that the parameters of the present Zoning Ordinance provide sufficient basis for such an application. Staff are concerned that consideration of a special use permit for more than six wards or clients simply on the basis of general standards with no upper limit on occupancy may be a serious erosion of the City's zoning authority. If the Commission feels that more than six wards or clients in a group care facility can be comprehended in the Rl zone by special use permit, we recommend that it direct staff to develop a draft ordinance setting occupancy limits for such special uses rather than build on the open-ended precedent of Application No. 78005. Though we acknowledge that the appeal can be affirmed on the basis of the precedent set by Application No. 78005, we recommend denial of the appeal on the grounds that occupancy by more than six wards or clients in a group care facility in the Rl zone has in- sufficient basis in City ordinance or State law. Further advice from the City Attorney regarding such an action may also be in order. t 2-14-85 -3- 1 1