Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 08-15 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85018 Applicant: R. L. Brookdale Motors, Inc. (Brookdale Pontiac) Location: 6837 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a useo car sales building on the site of the old A and W and Squiggy' s restaurants at 6837 Brooklyn Boulevard. The site in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by Brookdale Pontiac on the south, by the Post Office on the west, and by Brooklyn Center (Mobil ) on the north. The sale of motor vehicles is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The used car busi- ness will be owned and operated by Brookdale Pontiac which, in accordance with the Chapter 23 (Licensing Ordinance) , possesses a new car franchise and a repair garage. The proposed site plan eliminates one existing access onto Brooklyn Boulevard on the north side of the property. The remaining southerly access will serve both the used car building and the existing Honda building to the south. The City Engineer has recommended some minor modifications to the radius on the north side - of this remaining access. The parking requirement for the entire Brookdale Pontiac complex is based on 6,735 sq. ft. of retail space (57 spaces) , 2,333 sq. ft. of office space (12 spaces) and a service garage with 24 enclosed bays, 25 dayshift employees, and 2 service vehicles (99 spaces) for a combined requirement of 168 spaces. These spaces are marked on the site plan as customer and employee parking separate from i.nventory parking. No handicapped stalls have been shown. The landscape plan calls for three new 3 diameter Ash trees in the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard at approximate 50' intervals, consistent with the treat- ment at the existing Brookdale Pontiac site to the south. The plan also calls for 52 Zabel Honeysuckle, planted 5' on center along the north edge of the property, adjacent to Brooklyn Center Service. A large planting island is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Eleven shrubs of unspecified size or specie are indicated in this area. Finally, the plan also shows 15 unspecified shrubs in planting beds around the foundation of the new building. Staff would recommend that the landscaping around the building be better defined with perhaps a greater quantity of smaller shrubs, rather than the 3' diameter shrubs shown on the plan. Underground irrigation has been noted for the east and north greenstrips, but not the isolated island. New curbing is to be provided along the north and east sides of the parking lot. No curbing or interior greenstrip is proposed along the west property line adjacent to the Post Office property. B612 curb and gutter is noted around the building pad. Three concrete parking delineators are shown along the southerly portion of the used car property, but serve to define parking rows that extend down into the ex- isting Pontiac dealership site. An existing island along the north side of the Pontiac/Honda dealership will be removed. A raised concrete display pad is also proposed for the area immediately east of the new building. The proposed used car sales building is to be octagon in shape, consistent with the theme of the other Brookdale Pontiac sales buildings to the south. It is to be built over the foundation of the existing restaurant building. The exterior treatment is to be a combination of break-off block, single scored block, and 1 " insulated glass. A skylite is proposed for the center of the roof. The ground floor of the building is to be less than 2,000 sq. ft. No fire sprinkling has been noted on the plans. 8-15-85 -I- Application No. 85018 continued No information has been submitted regarding the special use permit standards. How- ever, considering the nature of the surrounding land uses, there seems to be no reason to deny approval for another auto-related use. Staff' s only concern is that the proposed used car sales office be perpetually connected with the new car dealer- ship located on a separate parcel immediately to the south. Used car sales are only allowed in conjunction with a new car dealership under the City' s Licensing Ordi- nance. The proposed site plan certainly ties the two parcels together in terms of access and parking. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all relevant codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. - 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. 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. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. The landscape plan shall be amended to provide planting specifi- cations for the southwesterly planting island and the plantings around the foundation of the building, prior to issuance of permits. 11 . The plan shall be amended to indicate B612 curb and gutter along the west property line and around the southwesterly landscaped island, prior to issuance of permits. 12. The site and building plans shall be signed by the architect prior the issuance of permits. 13. The plat proposed under Application No. 85019 shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. The applicant shall enter into an agreement for the payment of utility hookup charges prior to the issuance of permits. 8-15-85 _2_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85019 Applicant: R. L. Brookdale Motors, Inc. (Brookdale Pontfacl Location: 6801 and 6837 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to replat the two lots at 6801 and 6837 Brooklyn Boulevard. These lots are the subject of Application No. 85018, submitted by Brookdale Pontiac. They are zoned C2 and are bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by 68th Avenue North on the south, by the Post Office property on the west, and by Brooklyn Center Service (Mobil ) on the north. The two existing lots are the site of Brookdale Pontiac/Honda and the site of the old A and W and Squiggy's restaurant. The existing Brookdale Pontiac lot is platted and described as Lot 1 , Block 1 , Northtown Plaza Second Addition. The restaurant parcel is unplatted and has a legal description as part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. The common boundary line is not to change. The new legal description will be Lots 1 (_restaurant parcel ) and 2 (Brookdale Pontiac) of Block 1 , Northtown Plaza Third Addition. The total area of the plat is 4,994 acres . Lot 1 is to be 42,765 sq. ft. , or .98 acres . Lot 2 is to be 174,776 sq. ft. , or 4.01 acres. No right-of-way dedication is made on the plat. No easements are indicated on the plat. Easements for cross access and cross parking will have to be filed with the plat to allow for what is essentially a common use of the two lots . Section 35-540 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that adjacent parcels of land under common ownership and common use be combined into parcel through platting or regis- tered land survey. This is. not being done in this instance because Lot 1 is being purchased on a contract for deed and title would be retained on a sub-parcel de- scribed by metes and bounds if the property were platted into a single lot. This result is unacceptable to both the City and the County. Therefore, two parcels are being accepted at this time. The purpose of the replatting is essentially to clean up the legal description of the property. The preliminary plat is basically in order and approval is recommended, 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 applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for the payment of utility hookup charges prior to final plat approval . 4. Easements for cross access and cross parking shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval and shall be filed with the plat at the County. 8-15-85 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85020 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Location: Northeast of LaBelle' s Request: Preliminary R.L.S. (Registered Land Survey) The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to combine into a single tract the three parcels of land immediately northeast of LaBelle' s at the intersection of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by ummit Drive, on the southeast by Earle Brown Drive, on the southwest by LaBelle' s, and on the northwest by the site of the proposed Target store. The purpose of the combination is to create a single parcel for a retail strip shopping center. The existing legal description of the property is Tracts G, H, and I of R.L.S. 1325. The new legal description will simply be Tract A of an as yet un-numbered R.L.S. The area of the proposed Tract A is 281 ,276 sq. ft. , or 6.46 acres. The proposed plat shows no easements of any kind. However, if a joint access arrangement can be worked out with Target and LaBelle' s, there may be easements for cross access applying to this property, though most of the driveway space is on Target and LaBelle' s properties. There is also the possibility that a future off- site parking arrangement for Target employees may be worked out and the necessary encumbrance placed on a portion of this property. The details of these arrangements will become clear when a site and building plan is submitted for a retail center on this property. The preliminary R.L.S. is acceptable and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 8-15-85 1 1 + Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85021 Applicant: Ronald Bashel Location: 6800 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a staff determination that a suntan studio is not permitted in the Humboldt Square shopping center because the center abuts the Hi Crest Square Estates townhouse development to the east, which is zoned R3. Sun- tan studios are allowed by special use permit in the C2 zoning district under Section 35-322.3d of the Zoning Ordinance, provided they do not abut R1 , R2 or R3 zoned property, including abutment at a street line. Staff have not accepted an application for a special use permit because of the conflict of the proposed use with the ordinance provision cited above. The appellant wishes to use his appeal application as a vehicle for protesting the current ordinance and seeking a change. Staff have advised the appellant to make the case that suntan studios are similar to other uses permitted to abut R1 , R2, and R3 zoned property and that they can meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit in a location with such an abutment. The appellant has submitted a letter which primarily addresses the Standards for Special Use Permits. ( In fact, the subject of the letter is an application for a special use permit. This is a result of some confusion on the part of the appellant as to why staff will not accept such an application, but require an appeal over the ordinance to be settled first. ) The appellant briefly describes his and his wife's employment background, explains that the tanning salon will be located in the space where they presently operate a video store called Main Street Video, and points out that tanning is a growing industry in the United States. He states that tan- ning studios are associated generally with "other grooming and health industries such as barber shops, beauty salons, manicure shops and health clubs. " He asserts that "the majority of tanning salons in the Twin Cities as well as elsewhere are located in or near residential areas. " A list of 175 tanning studios in the Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa areas by address has been submitted. Those in the metro area do appear to be located in neighborhoodsas opposed to regional shopping centers. The letter goes on to address the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached) . Mr. Bashel states that the suntan studio will enhance the public welfare and has supplied numerous pages of signatures attached to petitions favoring a suntan studio in the Humboldt Square shopping center. (We have not attached all the petitions; suffice it to say they cover 36 pages. Signatures of other tenants in Humboldt Square have also been submitted. ) Mr. Bashel states that his wife and daughter will run the studio and that only one customer per room will be allowed. Regarding impact on surrounding property values, Mr. Bashel cites the signatures of other business proprietors and residents of the neighborhood supporting the studio as proof that there would be no ill effects. The letter goes on to argue that the other Standards for Special Use Permits can all be met by the proposed use at the Humboldt Square location. Another letter from Gary Lidstone of Coldwell Banker which manages the shopping center has also been submitted (attached) . In it, Mr. Lidstone commends the Bashel ' s personally on their management of the existing Main Street Video store and states that tanning salons are often located in neighborhood shopping centers managed by Coldwell Banker. He adds that traffic generated by the tanning salon should not be greater than for other retail businesses in the center. 8-15-85 -1- Application No. 85021 continued Staff must admit that the evidence submitted by the appellant is impressive, if not overwhelming. Four years ago when the Planning Commission and City Council agreed to allow tanning studios by special use permit in the C2 zoning district, the abut- ment restriction was placed on such businesses partly because it seemed similar to health spas and recreational uses which were subject to the same abutment restric- tion, and partly because of a (perhaps overly) cautious attitude that such estab- lishments might turn out to be similar to massage parlors and saunas which are not permitted to abut residential districts at all . As a matter of fact, the Saturday, August 10 Minneapolis Tribune carried a story of an establishment in the Twin Cities which offers both massage (by a nun) and tanning. The consensus of public opinion, however, is that tanning studios are nothing like massage parlors. Moreover, some of the recreational uses, with which tanning studios were grouped in the ordinance, have since been exempted from the abutment restrictions. And it is apparent, from the evidence presented that Brooklyn Center may be the only community in the metro area and beyond with such an abutment restriction for tanning studios. (Staff will attempt to check further with other communities by Thursday's meeting. ) The basis of this appeal is the provision of Section 35-322.3d. of the Zoning Ordi- nance which prohibits tanning studios from abutting Rl , R2 or R3 zoned property. If the Commission is convinced that such a restriction is unnecessary, it should recommend to the City Council an ordinance amendment, allowing suntan studios in the C2 zoning district without restriction as to location. The Commission may wish to examine whether the abutment restriction is -.appropriate for other uses or not as well . After action on such an ordinance amendment, the appellant could seek approval of a special use permit, assuming suntan studios would still be classified as a special use. 8-15-85 _2_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85022 Applicant: Joan Moe Location: 6906 Grimes Avenue North Request: Special Use ,Permit/Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a photography studio in the basement of the residence at 6906 Grimes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Grimes Avenue North on the west and by single family homes on the north, east and south. Photography studios are grouped with home beauty shops, small engine repair, etc, as a special home occupation in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, requires special use permit approval . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) describing her proposed operation. In it, she notes that the business consists primarily of graduation portraits and weddings. The studio would occupy approximately 250 sq. ft. in the basement. The applicant intends someday to relocate the studio to a 20' x 24' future addition that would also be used as a family room. (This amount of. space is roughly compar- able to Dr. Lescault's chiropractic business which of course does not double as a family room) . The hours of the business would be between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. , by appointment only. Parking is available on a rather long single car driveway. No non-resident is to be employed. Equipment includes lighting, backgrounds, cameras, darkroom and office equipment. The primary questions which occur to staff are regarding the addition and the single car driveway. Relocating the studio to a 20' x 24' addition in the future implies a potential use of 480 sq. ft. This would not be more than a third of the ground floor area, but is fairly significant for a home occupation. Staff generally feel , however, that the family room use of the room makes it less likely to contribute to a potential second dwelling unit or other use beside single family. Regarding the driveway, it seems likely that the one car width will lead to in- convenience and/or on-street parking when two or more customer vehicles are present. On-street parking is generally prohibited for home occupations . It would not be necessary to widen the driveway for its full 93' length, but perhaps widening it to 20' up to the house would eliminate most potential. parking conflicts . We recommend this as a condition of approval . Generally, the proposed home occupation falls within the parameters of Section 35-900 and Section 35-406 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval is, therefore, recom- mended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 P.M. by appointment only. 4. The applicant shall install a 10 lb. fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation. 5. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any recommendations made by the Building Official with respect to proper ingress and egress of the premises shall be completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 8-15-85 Application No. 85022 continued 6. The applicant shall widen the driveway on the premises to 20' from the street to the front of the house prior to the issuance of the special use permit.. 7. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 8-15-85