Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 09-26 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85026 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two parcels the recently created lot at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive. The property in question is legally described as Lot 1 , Block 1 , Shingle Creek Center Addition and was platted earlier this year as part of the Target/Ryan development. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the lot for the Target store, on the east by LaBelle' s, on the south by John Martin Drive, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposed legal description is simply Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Shingle Creek Center 2nd Addition. Lot 1 covers roughly the southerly 66,500 sq. ft. of the plat and is to contain "Building B" of the Ryan retail development. Lot 2 covers roughly the northerly 125,700 sq. ft. of the plat and will contain "Building A" of the Ryan development. Both lots will be served by an access off John Martin Drive. Lot 2 will , therefore, require a cross access easement from Lot 1 . Actually cross access and cross parking agreements will be necessary over this subdivision and the Target lot. A 10' wide utility easement is indicated along the John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway rights-of-way. Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be 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. Agreements for cross access and parking between both lots in this subdivision and the Target lot shall be filed with the plat at the County. 9-26-85 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85027 Applicant: Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. Location: SW corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to con- struct a church on the 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is zoned R5 and is bounded by I-94 on the north, by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, and by single family homes on the south and west. Churches are not presently allowed in the R5 zoning district. However, an ordinance amendment is under consideration by the City Council to allow churches by special use permit in the R5 zone. Any action on this application would, therefore, be contingent upon action on that ordinance. The proposed plan calls for a seating capacity of 800. Parking required for the facil- ity is at a ratio of 1 stall per 3 seats, for a total of 267 spaces. The applicant has submitted three site layouts, one for immediate development and two potential layouts. The immediate proposal shows 271 parking stalls, a few of which staff would recommend not be put in. A second plan shows a potential of 293 within the existing property, at grade. Finally, a conceptual plan has also been submitted for a 1 ,500 seat church (Phase I plus a 700 seat expansion) including the two lots south of the church site on Brooklyn Boulevard and a parking ramp and a total of 494 parking spaces. Access in all plans is from Brooklyn Boulevard only. The proposed plans call for a deceleration lane in southbound Brooklyn Boulevard and extension of the median some 70' to make the access to the site right-in/right-out only. Staff have conveyed to the project architect some alternate designs for the de- celeration lane. We also recommend that the median be extended approximately 200' rather than 70' so that access north of France Avenue North will be blocked, but a future access across Brooklyn Boulevard from France Avenue North would have a left turn option. This would, of course, necessitate acquisition of the two lots immedi- ately south of the site, or at least the southerly of the two lots. The landscape plan submitted has basically documented existing vegetation in the area around the site and calls for additional Spirea shrubs and berms to provide screening where none presently exists. Four maples are also proposed immediately west of the building. Staff have recommended that additional plantings be provided and that a 6' high wood fence be installed along all greenstrip areas adjacent to residences and con- necting up with the existing freeway fence. This fence would have both a security and a screening function. The grading, drainage and utility plan calls for all parking lot drainage to flow toward a single catch basin in the southwesterly portion of the site. This catch basin is to be connected by a 15" storm sewer line to an existing storm sewer line that runs along the west side of the lot at 4100 65th Avenue North. Our preliminary reaction to this plan is that it is too simplistic. Further analysis will be required to determine what is an acceptable drainage system for this site. Sanitary sewer will be connected to an existing main in Brooklyn Boulevard. The water connection will go to a 16" line within the I-94 right-of-way, north of the site. The plan is deficient in parking delineators and does not yet indicate 8612 curb and gutter (straight 6" curb only is indicated) . Staff have transmitted these deficiencies to the project architect (Mr. Dennis Batty) . 9-26-85 -1- Application No. 85027 continued The building plan calls for a two level worship area with seating for 550 on the main floor and an additional 250 in the balcony. The chancel is at the north end of the building. A one storey area with offices, classrooms, fellowship hall , nursery, rest- rooms, etc. is located along the east and south sides of the building. The future expansion would roughly double the size of the proposed church, in roughly the same functions, to the west. The building materials and heights have not been listed. How- ever, the project architect has indicated a brick exterior for the outer one-storey portion of the building and a decorative concrete block for the two-storey worship e 3 area. The church would b 4 high. Proposed lighting for the site is all located in the perimeter greenstrip areas. Light poles are to be 24' high. No information has been provided on the fixtures, but Mr. Batty has indicated that they will shine directly downward and not oduce glare into P neighboring residential lots. No provision has been made on the plan for trash screen- ing. Inside storage may be planned. Regarding the standards for special use permits, staff see no conflict with the first standard relating to public welfare, nor with the last standard pertaining to code compliance. We also do not see the proposed church as an impediment to future develop- ment or redevelopment of neighboring land. As to impact on surrounding property values, we feel it is very important that the proposed development be properly screened and secured from neighboring residential lots so that light from the parking lot and pedestrian traffic through the residential neighborhood can be effectively curtailed. Regarding standard (d) pertaining to impact on the flow of traffic in the public streets, the parcel in question raises particular difficulties, for any development, permitted or special . The -off-peak nature of the traffic generated by the church use and the improvements within Brooklyn Boulevard (deceleration lane and median extension) would seem to present no worse an impact than what would have resulted from the office condo development of this property approved in 1983 and extended in 1984. Because of the difficulties surrounding this property and the deficiencies noted in this report, it is recommended that the Commission table the application and direct the applicant to submit revised plans addressing the concerns outlined above and any other concerns raised in the public hearing and/or by the Commission. 9-26-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85028 Applicant: Gregory L'Allier Location: 6336 Lee Avenue North Request: Home Occupation/Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a chiropractic office home occupation in the residence at 6336 Lee Avenue North. The residence is located in the Rl zone and is bounded by Lee Avenue North on the west, and by other single- family homes on the north, east and south. A chiropractic office has been considered a special home occupation in the R1 zone on the grounds of the equipment used and because of the customer traffic involved. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he describes certain aspects of his proposed home occupation. He notes that he will have no x-ray equipment (though he will have equipment for reading x-rays) . X-rays will be taken at another chiropractic office. The home occupation is not expected to handle more than 20 patients per day, with no more than 4 patients per hour. Hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. There is presently a 16' x 66' driveway on the premises . Patients would enter by the front door (3' wide) . The living room (13' x 19' ) is to be used as a reception area and a 10' 10" x 9' 10" room for consultation and treatment. (This amounts to 353 sq. ft. being used at least part time for the home occupation.) The letter also lists some equipment to be used in the home occupation. Staff would point out that a recent home occupation applicant was required to widen her driveway to over 17' as a condition of approval . It is expected that the chiropractic office proposed will generate more traffic than that of the photography studio and, therefore, a widening to at least 17' 4" to the house would seem to be in order in this case. Otherwise, the hours, floor space, activity, ingress and egress appear acceptable. Approval is, therefore, 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 applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday on an appointment only basis . 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of the living room and one room approximately 11 ' x 10' for the home occupation. No expansion to other rooms for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment is acknowledged. No non-resident employee is acknowledged by this approval . 6. The premises shall be inspected by a City Building Inspector prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Any alter- ations to the home recommended by the Building Inspector shall be completed prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9-26-85 -1- Application No. 85028 continued 7. The applicant shall widen the driveway to at least 17 ' 4" in width prior to issuance of the special use permit in order to accommodate at least two patient vehicles in the driveway at one time. 8. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9-26-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85029 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Inc. Location: 1600 block of Freeway Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to con- struct two one-storey office buildings on the area of land adjacent to I-94, south of the Earle Brown Bowl and Holiday Inn. The property in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the east by the Humboldt Avenue North bridge approach, on the south by I-94, on the west by a vacant parcel formerly planned for an Embers Restaurant, and on the north by Earle Brown Bowl , vacant I-1 land and Holiday Inn. Office buildings are allowed by special use permit in the I-1 zoning district. Access to the development will be via a long 30' wide driveway from Freeway Boulevard, immediately west of the Holiday Inn site. This access will also serve a vacant tract of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl . Parking for the two buildings is based on the ordinance formula: G.F.A. (Gross Floor Area) divided by .0005 x G.F.A. + 190 equals the number of spaces. The westerly building (Bldg. A) is proposed at 48,087 sq. ft. and requires 225 parking stalls. Building B is proposed at 45,876 sq. ft. and requires 216 stalls. The total parking requirement is, therefore, 441 stalls. The plan provides 354 stalls with an additional 87 possible under a proof-of-parking plan. It should be noted that the proof-of-parking plan meets the requirement of general office use only. NO MEDICAL OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR. The parking requirement for medical uses is 1 stall per 150 sq. ft. of gross floor area (more restrictive than provided for here) . Staff would comment that failure to provide for medical occupancy in these one storey office buildings seem very unwise. We expect that, in the future, medical or dental tenants will be very interested in these buildings, but will have to be turned away because of a refusal to design for this option. Nevertheless, there is no ordinance requirement that provision be made for medical use in a multi-tenant office building. The applicant has also stated a willingness to replan the site before building the second building if there is significant demand for medical space in the first building. The proposed landscape plan has been drawn by Arteka which is providing landscape architecture services to Lombard Properties (Blumentals Architecture is the Architect on the project) . The landscape plan provides a boulevard effect along the long entrance drive with 3" diameter shade trees on either side, spaced 50' apart. Shade trees are also proposed in virtually all landscape islands in the parking lot. The shade trees total 82 and include Hackberry, Green Mountain Sugar Maple, Norway Maple, Marshalls Ash and Skyline Locust. Staff have encouraged the applicant to vary the species of trees along the long entrance drive to avoid a complete change of scenary in the future should a disease strike a particular species of tree. Conversely, the applicant wishes to create a sense of continuity. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this with the applicant and make comment in their action. The landscape plan also provides decorative and coniferous trees in green areas bordering Building A and in larger green spaces around the Building B parking lot. Numerous foundation plantings are also proposed immediately adjacent to both buildings. Foundation plantings include 158 Seagreen Juniper, 106 Scandia Juniper, 81 Compact Japanese Yew, 83 A. W. Spirea, 105 Yellowtwig Dogwood, 128 Purpleleaf Intercreeper, and 292 Red and White Geraniums, along with lesser quantities of other plantings. 9-26-85 -1- Application No. 85029 continued The grading plan calls for the south central area of the site and at least Building B roof drainage to drain into the I-94 right-of-way. A permit from MN/DOT will be re- quired for this drainage flow. Runoff along the north side of the site will be con- veyed to City Storm sewer in Freeway Boulevard. The grading plan presently shows a very steep grade to the west of Building A on the west end of the site leading into a low area on the vacant parcel to the west. It is recommended that the applicant seek permission to fill in this low area adequately to provide a gentler slope to the west of Building A. Curb and gutter has not been noted anywhere on the plans, but the project architect has agreed that this standard item is understood. There is no provision in the plans for trash pickup or screening. Storage is presumed to be in the building at this point. The plans call for 35' high light poles, mostly in perimeter green areas on the east side of the site and three in the parking lot on the west side of the site. The building plans call for a brick exterior, dark bronze aluminum windows and tinted double-insulated glass. A pre-finished metal panel enclosure for mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof of the building. There are also skylights above landscaped areas within the building. The landscaped areas will be visible from common corridors and from adjacent tenant spaces. They will not be surrounded by corridor space. A brick wall to support planting beds will be provided in various locations outside the building. Regarding the standards for special use permits, staff see no conflict with standards pertaining to the public welfare, impact on surrounding property values, or compliance with regulations (assuming no medical tenancies) . The main concerns would be relative to the traffic generated by the proposed use and the extent to which any sewer flow from this development may crowd out future options because of sanitary sewer constric- tion on 65th Avenue North between Humboldt Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. The traffic generated by the proposed office use (264 trips @ 2.81 trips/1 ,000 s.f. G.F.A.) is significantly greater than was projected in the probable scenario of the Short- Elliott-Hendrickson traffic analysis (the projected use at that time was retail show- room generating only 50 trips during the 5-6 p.m. peak hour) . However, it is less than the maximum case scenario of 480 trips between 5-6 p.m. with a fast-food con- glomeration. The sewer flow is not expected to unduly restrict development of neigh- boring vacant property. The peak hour sewer flow of the office development should be complementary to the peak hour flows for the neighboring businesses which are primarily nightime operations. Regarding the .special use standards for I-1 special uses in Section 35-330 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) , the proposed office use is probably of greater intensity in terms of traffic and use of public facilities. However, the proposed use is not of greater intensity than other neighboring commercial uses in the I-1 zone and is certainly less intense than the Ryan office buildings in the I-1 zone south of the freeway. In light of the above, 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. 9-26-85 -2- Application No. 85029 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment 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. Storm sewer outlets into I-94 right-of-way are subject to permit by MN/DOT prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The new R.L.S. for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 11 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. Approval acknowledges general office occupancy only. No medical or dental tenants are comprehended because of the number of parking and proof-of-parking spaces provided on the plan. 9-26-85 -3- 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85030 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Inc. Location: 1600 block of Freeway Boulevard Request: Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide into five tracts the three tracts of land and excess highway right-of-way south of Freeway Boulevard and north of I-94. The land in question is zoned I-1 and is the same as that described in the report on Application No. 85029. The existing legal description of the prop- erty is Tracts C, D, and E of R.L.S. No. 1482 and part of Section 35 (Township 119, Range 21 , Hennepin County) which was formerly the exit ramp from westbound I-94 to Humboldt Avenue North. That ramp was eliminated by the highway reconstruction in 1981 . The land has since been vacated by the highway department and is included with Tracts C, D, and E to make up this R.L.S. Tracts C, D and E of the new R.L.S. form the land area for the two-phase office de- velopment proposed under Application No. 85029. Tract B is to serve as a private access road to Tracts A, C, D and E. It extends some 448' south of Freeway Boulevard and provides an alternative to the old Tract D, R.L.S. 1482 which was dedicated as land for a public street (Irving Avenue North) . The City has agreed to vacate the Irving Avenue North right-of-way under certain conditions limiting sewer flow from the property and requiring the payment of utility hook-up charges. Tract A of the new R.L.S. is tentatively planned for a motel development, though plans have not been submitted. The staff' s position relative to any development on Tract A is that access should be off the private access road and not off Freeway Boulevard. The total area of the proposed R.L.S. is approximately 10.57 acres. The breakdown is as follows: Tract A (future motel ?) 99,000 sq. ft. ± Tract B (private road) 20.100 sq. ft. ± Tract C (Bldg. A/office) 689600 sq. ft. ± Tract D (common office pkg. ) 204,500 sq. ft. ± Tract E (Bldg. B/office) 68,000 sq. ft. ± Total 460,229 sq. ft. (10.57 ac. ) As noted in the area summary, Tract D is the parking area (including proof-of-parking) for the office development. Tracts C and E are basically the office pads with ad- jacent green areas. All access to development within this R.L.S. will be via Tract B and should be so stipulated by access easement agreements. A 20' wide utility easement for a 16" water main runs roughly northeast to southwest within Tract D. Of concern to the Planning Commission and Council would be the building and parking setbacks from the common boundary between Tract A and B. If Tract B were a public street, the parking setback would be 15' and the building setback 50' . In the case of the Red Lobster Addition, parking setbacks were established at 10' and building setbacks at 15' . In the present case, a 10' parking setback may be adequate, but a building setback of 25' is recommended. These setbacks will have to be established by easement over Tract A since there is no ordinance basis for requiring more than a 10' interior sideyard setback from Tract B. Filing of such an easement is recommended as a condition of final plat approval . 9-26-85 -1- Application No. 85030 continued Altogether, the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order 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. 3. An easement agreement covering Tract A and stipulating a minimum 10' parking setback and 25' building setback shall be executed and filed with the R.L.S. at the County. 4. Vacation of Irving Avenue North right-of-way over Tract D, R.L.S. 1482 shall be subject to an agreement stipulating peak sewer flow and pay- ment of utility hookup charges as drafted by the Director of Public Works. Said agreement to be executed prior to final R.L.S. approval . 9-26-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85031 Applicant: Federal Lumber Location: 4810 North Lilac Drive Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by staff that office uses are not allowed as either a permitted or special use in the I-2 zoning district. The appel- lant does not actually dispute staff' s reading of the Zoning Ordinance (see Section 35-331 attached) , but wishes to develop a portion of the Federal Lumber property for an office building and is using the appeal application as a vehicle for initiating a discussion of uses permitted in the I-2 zone. The property in question is, of course, zoned I-2 and is bounded by Highway 100 on the west, by the Soo Line tracks on the north, by Ansari Abrasives on the east, and by four industrial buildings, including Cook Paint, on the south. The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) which makes a number of points as to why office and office/warehouse development of the type found in the Industrial Park is more appropriate in the Highway 100 corridor than heavy industrial use. The letter states that an office building is more appropriate for highway frontage than a lumber yard and will be more attractive. Mr. Segal promotes office development as an improvement to the area and part of a trend of improvements evident in the Highway 100/France Avenue North neighborhood. Mr. Segal also points out that an office development along Highway 100 would be appropriate for the narrow configura- tion of the site and that the public facilities serving the site are adequate for an office development. The letter notes that I-1 zoning is appropriate for freeway frontage and argues that sites with Highway 100 exposure are perhaps more appropriate for I-1 zoning than for I-2. The appellant has had a market study done by Corner- stone Properties which indicates a market demand for office in this area (see also a letter to Stuart Segal attached) . The letter adds that an office building would generate more tax revenue for the City. The appellant' s objective is to build an office building on the west end of the Federal Lumber property, facing Highway 100. Office uses (unless part of an in- dustrial use) are not permitted in that zoning district ( I-2) . The City has various options: 1 ) the City can do nothing, deny the appeal and leave the district at Highway 100 and the Soo Line tracks a purely industrial area; 2) the City can amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow office uses as either a permitted or special use in I-2 zoning district; 3) the City can eliminate the I-2 district and zone all land in the present I-2 district to I-1 (thus making certain operations noncon- forming; 4) the City can consider a rezoning to I-1 of certain properties within the existing I-2 district which have exposure to Highway 100 (note: this would make Federal Lumber nonconforming as it has outside storage which is not permitted in the I-1 zone) ; 5) the City can even consider a non-industrial zoning for this entire area near the Soo Line if it is felt the long-run character of this neighbor- hood is moving away from industrial use altogether. These actions are not all mutually exclusive. Some can be pursued in the short run while others may be de- ferred until later time for further consideration. Staff agree that office development in this area is an improvement, an upgrading of the area. The question is whether it is an upgrading that can be sustained over the long term, whether a) development pressures support the need for office de- velopment and b) whether office uses can coexist side by side with heavy industrial uses over the short and/or long run. We would agree that the recent upgrading of Cass Screw, Federal Lumber, and Dale Tile and the construction of the new tennis club lend a certain momentum to improve the quality of development in this area. We would also agree that office development is more appropriate than industrial uses with outside storage in locations that have high visibility, such as along Highway 100. 9-26-85 _1_ Application No. 85031 continued We are, however, somewhat concerned over the question of compatibility. Office buildings next to storage yards may not be maintained well because tenants may not stay long in an unattractive environment. Perhaps the tradeoff between freeway visibility and a less attractive back yard should be left to the market place. On the other hand, preserving property values is a major aim of zoning and achieving compatibility through regulation is an essential tool in preserving those property values. If the Planning Commission is disposed to allowing office development at the Federal Lumber site, the immediate choice would seem to be between expanding the options of the I-2 zone or rezoning the land adjacent to Highway 100 to I-1. One possibility would be to make both offices and outside storage special uses in the I-2 zone, perhaps requiring screening of all outside storage and a buffer strip unless immedi- ately adjacent to another storage yard. This kind of ordinance change could have the long-run effect of upgrading the aesthetic character of the I-2 zone without making any existing uses nonconforming as to use. But, perhaps it is more appropri- ate to rezone at least some parcels to I-1 and set the stage for phasing out outside storage in a light industrial "sleeve" along the Highway 100 corridor. Needless to say, there are many options to consider and the ultimate judgment may be that the present arrangement is, in fact, the most rational . We do not recommend any particular option at this time. Rather, we recommend that the application be tabled and the Commission perhaps indicate which options seem most deserving of further study. 9-26-85 -2-