HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 07-31 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet
Applicant: David Otto
Location: 5810 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-704, Subdivision 2c of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow less than the required number of parking stalls for retail use of
the entire building at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned
C2 and is bounded by Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by Northway Drive on the north,
by First Minnesota Savings Bank on the east, and by the health spa building and TCF on
the south.
Issue Clarification and Background
The building in question has a gross floor area of 114,7143 sq. ft. Under the parking
formula set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for retail establishment, the entire
building would be required to have 11+ (8 x 13.743) = 121 spaces. The applicant, who
owns the building, proposes 114,353 sq. ft. of retail space and 390 sq. ft. of
warehouse space for a total requirement of 119 spaces. The site presently has 92
spaces and there are five additional proof-of-parking spaces inside the building
which would be lost to the proposed interior remodeling. The extent of the variance
is, therefore, 27 spaces.
The existing building is in conformance because the floor space within the building
is divided into 11,700 sq. ft. of retail space requiring 96.6.or 97 spaces, and 3,0143
sq. ft. of garage parking area within the building which has been used for limited
storage space. No additional parking spaces were required for the garage/storage
area. The internal parking spaces were accepted by the City in 1975 when the City
lifted a deed restriction on the use of the building for an S and H Greenstamp
Redemption Center and replaced it with a restriction that approximately 3,000 sq.
ft. within the building be reserved for proof-of-parking and storage use. The
proof-of-parking provision has never been exercised for customer parking since
1975. In fact, for 10 years, the Health Spa had an agreement with this property to
use over 20 parking stalls on the lot at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North.
Variance Standards
The proposed variance is subject to the Standards for a Variance contained in
Section 35-2140 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicant, Mr. David Otto,
has submitted a letter addressing those standards (also attached) . Mr. Otto states
that the proposed remodeling would make better use of existing parking by adding an
entrance to the north'side of the building toward the east lot. Two of the tenants
presently face Xerxes Avenue North and have no parking directly in front of their
space. Mr. Otto argues that the business in the building are assets to the
community and that a real hardship is worked on them when improvement of the tenant
layout is limited by an overly restrictive parking requirement.
Regarding standard (b) pertaining to uniqueness of the circumstances, Mr. Otto
simply asserts that the existing site circulation and shape are unique and not
common generally to other property in the same zoning classification. Mr. Otto
states that the hardship is the result of the ordinance parking requirement and has
not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of
land. Finally, Mr. Otto states that the granting of the variance will have no
detrimental effect on surrounding property, but will, in fact, serve to enhance the
vitality of this commercial node.
7-31-86 -1-
Application No. 86029 continued
Analysis
The applicant pictures the hardship as an imbalance between parking and building
entrances caused by the existing restriction on space within the building which
reduces flexibility in arranging tenant spaces. (The restricted area is at the
southeast corner of the building and does somewhat limit the possibilities for
entrance on the east side of the building where much of the site's parking is
located). While this is a valid point, it seems clear that the existing tenant
spaces could be provided more convenient access without doing away with the
restricted area in the building. It seems to us that what the applicant really
wants is full or nearly full utilization of an existing building in the C2 zone for
uses which are permitted in that zone. The real hardship is that building space is
being kept out of use to meet a potential parking problem when, in actual fact, a
parking surplus has existed for years. Further, the City recognized the parking
excess in 1975 when it gave its blessing to an off-site parking agreement with the
Health Spa for use of over 20 spaces on the subject site. So, the hardship is really
underutilization of existing building space in order to live within the letter of
the ordinance, not because an actual parking shortage exists.
The applicant states that the shape and site circulation are unique. Certainly,
every commercial site can be said to be unique. The site design in this case may
qualify for being uniquely bad - ie. two tenant entrances on the west side of the
building (for visibility onto Xerxes) with no parking adjacent to those spaces.
However, it is not unique in the sense of the CEAP property or the Brookdale Six
Office buildings, with elongated accesses and soil and topographic problems. It is
a small retail center with frontage on two streets, one of which is a major
thoroughfare. The site layout is certainly poor, but this circumstance was not
really created by the City, or the ordinance parking requirement. It was created by
the original owners and developers of the property with the help of their
architects.
With respect to detrimental effects on surrounding property, we would agree that, in
this case, no detrimental effect should occur, that parking would be adequate. The
detrimental effects would be more indirect. The granting of variances unless
clearly justified generally undermines community standards from which all
presumably benefit. The Health Spa will also be more restricted in its ability to
find additional parking.
Assuming for the moment that the circumstances in this case are unique (which they do
not appear to be) and there will be no detrimental effect from granting a variance,
the real question is what is the hardship and what created it? The hardship cited by
the applicant -restricted tenant layout -was really created by the previous owner,
not the Zoning Ordinance. A hardship of underutilization, however, does seem
directly related to the ordinance parking requirement rather than to any parking
shortage which has actually been experienced.
Recommendation
As the Commission is aware, the retail parking formula in the Zoning Ordinance has
been under study for almost a year. One of the unique features of the existing
formula is that it requires much more parking for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area than for additinal floor area. Since the building in question is just
under 15,000 sq. ft. , it bears the heaviest burden under the formula. Parking
studies do not bear out the presumption in the ordinance that the initial square
footage in a center generates a larger share of the traffic. In fact, they indicate
that traffic generation per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area increases generally
with the size of the development and breadth of the tenant mix. We again recommend
7-31 -86 -2-
Application No. 86029 continued
consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make the retail parking
formula more neutral in its effect, rather than weighted so heavily at the low end.
(Further information on the proposed ordinance amendment is attached).
However, if it is felt that an ordinance change is unwarranted, we would still
recommend a variance be granted. A parking variance (Application No. 78009) was
granted in somewhat similar circustances when Pilgrim Cleaners converted a former
gas station into a dry cleaners and pick-up station. Both cases involve the re-use
of buildings originally designed for somewhat different purposes than their present
use.
7-31-86 -3-