Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 11-13 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85004 Applicant: Duane and Cathy Rausch Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit Amendment The applicant requests an amendment to the special use permit for a home beauty shop granted under Application No. 85004 on March 11, 1985. The property in question is a single-family residence in the Rl zone, bounded by Xerxes Avenue North on the east, by 63rd Avenue North on the south, and by single-family homes on the west and north. Approval of the original special use permit acknowledged the employment on the premises of one non-resident on a part-time basis. That acknowledgement, however, was subject to Condition No. 11 of the City Council approval which called for review of the special use permit and elimination of the non-resident employee after 18 months. The applicant, Mrs. Cathy Rausch, has submitted a letter (attached) in which she requests that condition #11 of the original approval be amended to allow 30 months additional time to have a non-resident employee. She explains that, since the original approval, she has become pregnant and the non-resident employee has quit. Her goal was to complete 2700 hours of work under the supervision of a licensed shop manager so that she could qualify for a shop manager's license of her own. That is still her goal, but with the demands of caring for her new child, she can only work part-time for the first year. Mrs. Rausch, therefore, requests two and a half years additional time to fulfill the requirement of 2700 hours as a hair stylist/beautician in order to receive her shop manager's license. Once the shop license is obtained, a non-resident employee will not be necessary. Staff see no reason to deny the requested extension of time. The concern of the City Council in applying condition #11 was over traffic. On-street parking was prohibited. All access to the shop would be from the driveway off Xerxes Avenue North (see site plan). The reason for phasing out the non-resident employee is that a two-person shop will generate more traffic than a one-person shop. Limiting the operation eventually to a single person limits the long-run traffic impact of 2700 hours of beauty services should be roughly the same over 2.5 years as over 1.5 years, but spread out more. So long as parking is off-street on improved space at 3000 63rd Avenue North, the impact of the proposed home occupation should be limited, even when there are two people working in the shop. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the rquested amendment by revising condition #11 to read as follows: 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of one non- resident employee until July 1, 1989 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. At that time, the application shall be brought back to the City Council for review of the number of hours authorized in condition A. 11 -13-86 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86041 Applicant: Ron Kladt Location: 6040 Earle Brown Drive Request: Special Use The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a suntan studio and exercise classes in the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Earle Brown Office Tower, on the east by Highway 100, on the south by vacant C2 zoned land, and on the west by Earle Brown Drive. Suntan studios and athletic clubs are special uses in the C2 zoning district. The suntan studio, known as Riviera Tanning Studio, is located on the first floor of the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. A building permit for tenant improvements for the suntan studio was issued in April, 1985 absent the approval of a special use permit. The applicant now wishes to use approximately 550 sq. ft. of that tenant space in a large L-shaped room for having aerobic dancing classes. Staff have advised and the applicant has agreed that the exercise classes and the suntan studio can be combined in a single special use permit application. The applicant has submitted no written material addressing the Standards for Special Use Permits from Section 35-220 (attached) . The application form contains a reference to "aerobic exercises." It also states that the hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday. As special uses, the tanning studio and the exercise classes are subject to the standards for special uses contained in Section 35-220 (attached). Staff see no conflict with these standards posed by the existing tanning studio in the office building. The only question pertaining to the conducting of exercise classes that occurs to us is whether on-site parking at 6040 Earle Brown Drive is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for office space within the building and what staff interpret as an athletic club or recreation center type of use. The entire building has a gross floor area of 55,466 sq. ft. There are 308 parking spaces on the site. An athletic club requires 20 parking spaces for the first 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof (Section 35-704 attached) . Since the exercise- classes will occupy less than 1,000 sq. ft. within the building, the parking requirement for that use is 20 spaces. But, because office space requires less parking per 1,000 sq ft. than the 20 required for the first 1,000 sq. ft. for the recreational use, the full 1,000 sq. ft. may be deducted from the gross floor area of the building. The parking requirement for the building is, therefore, as follows: 54,466 sq. ft./( .0005 x 54,466) + 190 for office + 20 spaces for recreational use 251 spaces for office use + 20 spaces for recreational use. On the basis of the City's ordinance formulas, therefore, the 308 existing stalls exceed the 271 spaces required for the combined uses in the building. (The reason for the excess is that the Nino's restaurant originally occupied space on the first floor and required more parking for that space than office use would) . 11-13-86 -1- Application No. 86041 continued With respect to the Standards for a Special Use Permit, staff see no conflict posed by the aerobic exercise classes. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the special use permit for both aspects of the operation, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The operation shall be inspected on an annual basis by the City Sanitarian. Any compliance orders issued by the Sanitarian shall be promptly complied with. 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 special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. (This condition is not intended to apply to the sale of the existing operation, but to the introduction of an entirely new operation in the same space.) 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 11-13-86 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86040 Applicant: Hoyt Development Location: 6850, 60, 70, Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site plan and special use permit approval to modify the westerly parking lot at Palmer Lake Plaza and to provide an access from that lot onto 69th Avenue North. No building expansion is proposed. The land in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the east by Shingle Creek, on the south by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the west by vacant I-1 zoned land, and on the north by 69th Avenue North. Palmer Lake Plaza is an office-warehouse development with one wing containing two stories of office and the other two wings containing primarily industrial space (ware-house, light manufacturing, etc.). Because of the office use of one of the three attached buildings, the site is classified as a special use in the I-1 district. The two proposed actions involve very different zoning and land use concerns. The parking lot modifications concern parking requirements and landscaping. The proposed access onto 69th, however, involves much larger transportation and land use issues. The staff report will deal with the application in two separate parts and we recommend that action on the application also be divided into two separate motions. Part A: Parking Lot The proposed site plan calls for the installation of a large landscape island in the main parking lot to the west of the building. The island would be located in the first row of stalls west of the building, displacing 29 parking spaces. The island would provide screening of the service area on the west side of the building. The plan shows 23 trees in the island, but no size or specie for the plantings has been indicated. The island would be approximately 20' wide and be bermed to a height of 3 feet. An existing landscape island in the west parking lot will be removed. The island was installed by the applicant last year with no acknowledgement from the City. That island runs more or less east-west and was intended to cover a low area in the parking lot. However, the lot has not been regraded and water still drains to this area in the middle of the lot, surrounding the landscape island. Catch basins exist to the north and south of this low area in the middle of the lot. The applicant intends to redirect drainage toward the catch basins by raising the level of the pavement in the middle of the lot. The proposed site plan shows 336 existing parking stalls on the entire site. After installation of the new landscape island, 307 stalls will remain. The site plan also documents 191 additional stalls as proof-of-parking (stalls which can properly fit on the site, but have not been put in place). The total potential parking of 498 spaces will support about 92,000 sq. ft. of office and 45,000 sq. ft. of industrial space in the overall complex. At present, 62,572 sq. ft. has been improved for office occupancy. It, therefore, appears that the proof-of-parking plan is sufficient for the foreseeable future. Staff recommend that the applicant be required to enter into a restrictive covenant requiring the installation of proof- of-parking stalls upon a determination ;by the City that such stalls are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. 11-13-86 _1_ Application No. 86040 continued In general, the proposed modifications to the parking lot are consistent with zoning requirements. Approval of Part Ais recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Drainage improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the proposed landscape island and along the west side of the existing parking lot. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits for the next new tenant space. 4. The applicant shall enter into a restrictive covenant to provide up to 191 additional stalls on the site upon a determination by the City that such stalls are necessary for the proper function of the site. Said covenant to be filed as a deed restriction at the County. 5. The site plan shall be modified to indicate the following additional information: a) a landscape schedule providing information on specie, size, and quantity of proposed plantings. Plantings located on the plan shall indicate planting type. b) No access onto 69th Avenue North, subject to dispositon of Part B. Part B: Access onto 69th Avenue North The applicant has submitted no written arguments concerning the proposed access onto 69th Avenue North as of Wednesday morning. Staff recommend denial of the proposed access on the basis of transportation planning concerns and land use planning concerns. These concerns are enumerated below. In brief, the traffic problems on Shingle Creek Parkway are short-term and will be remedied by the proposed improvements to the City's Transportation System. Conversely, the consequences of providing an access onto 69th, are long term in their implications for the character of 69th Avenue North as a neighborhood collector and in their land use impact of the industrial park on the residential neighborhood north of 69th. 1. Transportation Approval of an access onto 69th Avenue North would set a precedent which could seriously change the nature of that street over time. It should be kept in mind that 69th, east of Shingle Creek Parkway, is no longer classified as a major thoroughfare and is no longer a County Road. It is a two-lane collector street which serves the residential neighborhood to the north. Access onto 69th from industrial sites south of the street would likely have the following detrimental results: 11-13-86 -2- Application No. 86040 continued a) Encourage truck traffic on a two-lane residential collector street. b) Increase the average daily trips (ADT) of all vehicles using 69th. ADT on this stretch of 69th is approximately 7,000 vehicles per day. This is the threshold beyond which widening to four lanes becomes increasingly necessary. c) Potentially widening 69th to four lanes to accommodate increased traffic. This is an extremely expensive proposition which would include acquisition of additional right-of-way from Shingle Creek Parkway to new T.H. 252 probably including the acquisition of some existing structures in the area between Humboldt Avenue and Dupont Avenue. And, of course, the City's reconstruction of the street from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway would be very extensive. d) Access from the industrial area onto 69th would invite a signficant amount of cut-through traffic by motorists wishing to avoid the bottleneck at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway during the evening rush hours, and from motorists traveling between the residential neighborhood to the north and the commercial and industrial area to the south. The existing traffic problem at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway is well known to City staff and the City Council. However, plans are being prepared and land has been acquired to realign Shingle Creek Parkway so that it forms a continuous link with 69th Avenue North west of the current intersection. Sixty-ninth (69th) Avenue North will intersect this new- through street at right angles, forming a "T" intersection. (See memo from Sy Knapp of November 10, 1986 attached) When this realignment is completed, the existing bottleneck should disappear. Cars which would use the proposed access onto 69th and heading west will soon be at a disadvantage to cars using Shingle Creek Parkway. The access to 69th Avenue as proposed by'the applicant would invite cut-through traffic in the short run and become essentially obselete in the long run. On these grounds it is our opinion that standard (d) of Section 35-220-2 (attached) and standard 4 of Section 35-330 3f (also attached) relating to special uses in the I-1 zone would be violated. 2. Land Use Although the proposed access onto 69th is not directly across the street from a residential area (it is across from Palmer Lake Park), the traffic that could be generated on this portion of 69th by this access and others that might follow would, we believe, have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood north of 69th. The result of such accesses onto 69th would be to destroy the present compatibility between the Industrial Park south of 69th and the residential neighborhood north of 69th. The resulting incompatibility would violate standards (a) and (b) of Section 35-220 and standards 1 and 2 of Section 35-330.3f which require that special uses not be a nuisance and that they relate well with existing adjacent land uses. The present relationship between the Industrial Park and adjacent residential areas is, on the whole, a good and stable one. An access for Palmer Lake Plaza onto 69th would begin to unravel that stability and could lead to a bad relationship as well as very costly roadway improvements. 11-13-86 -3- Application No. 86040 continued 3. Historical Considerations In addition to planning reasons to deny access onto 69th from the Industrial Park, there is a considerable amount of history behind this policy. Some instances where the policy has been active in the past include: a) The Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan (1966) in its policy recommendations for the Northeast Neighborhood stated at point #8 that "the function of these streets" (Humboldt, Lyndale and 69th) "is to move traffic, not to serve adjacent land uses." b) The minutes of the Planning Commission's deliberation of the site and building plan application for the Spec. 4 Industrial Building (#72075, minutes attached) show that denying access to 69th from the Industrial Park was a conscious policy with the first industrial building proposed adjacent to 69th. The conditions of approval for that building and for Spec. 5 and Spec. 6 all explicitly deny any access onto 69th. c) The City garage was for some years the only property in the Industrial Park to have an access onto 69th since Shingle Creek Parkway was not constructed until 1981. Following the completion of Shingle Creek Parkway, the access to 69th Avenue was retained to serve emergency vehicles. However, the City closed that access in 1983 because: 1) the City desired to conform to the precedent of prohibiting access to 69th Avenue; and 2) because of the problems with cut-through traffic - ie. - cut through traffic created problems within the site and at both driveways to 69th and to Shingle Creek Parkway. d) A traffic study by Bather Ringrose Wolsfeld (BRW) on the Earle Brown Farm projected anticipated traffic generations from development of the Earle Brown Farm Commercial and Industrial Park. The study projected over 65,000 daily trips to be generated by development is this area, but made no distribution of that traffic to 69th Avenue North. This was obviously because there would be no access onto 69th from the Industrial Park. e) Former Fayor Phil Cohen, who was on the City Council during the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and was mayor when most of the industrial development adjacent to 69th took place, has warned staff that allowing access onto 69th would break faith with the residents north of 69th. f) Industrial properties south of 69th have never been assessed for improvements to the roadway. If access were allowed, these properties would be required to pay assessments for past improvements as well as any improvements that might be required in the future. g) City Council Resolution Nos. 74-169 and 77-67 both stipulate that signery on the industrial buildings may not be visible from 69th Avenue North partly on the grounds that none of these buildings has access onto 69th Avenue North. 11-13-86 -4- Application No. 86040 continued Conclusion Based on the transportation, land use, and historical considerations outlined above, staff recommended that Part B of this application be denied. While this particular access might not be the total ruination of the neighborhood, its impact would certainly be negative. More importantly, the precedent of establishing an access for an industrial site onto 69th Avenue North would tend to unravel the buffer that exists now between the resiential and the industrial districts and which maintains a stable relationship between those land uses. In regard to concerns for 69th Avenue North itself, denial of the proposed access will reinforce the policy that is operative in the Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Traffic Study for 1985: namely, that site development approvals and special use permit approvals must be considered in light of the impact on the larger transportation network. Staff will attempt to draft a resolution of denial of Part B of this application by Thursday's meeting for the Commission's review. 11 -13-86 _5_