Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 12-11 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86042 Applicant: Lombard Properties Location: Northwest corner of Freeway Blvd. and Shingle Creek Pkwy. Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a permanent project identification sign for the Shingle Creek Business Center on the parcel of land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The business center included RCM Plaza and Parkway Place office/industrial buildings, the Shingle Creek Eleven speculative industrial building, the Ramada Inn, a vacant landlocked tract north of Ramada Inn, and a vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard planned for office development. The entire area is zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and is bounded on the north by MTC bus garage and Spec. 9 industrial building, on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by Freeway Boulevard and on the west by the Shingle Creek greenstrip. The proposed freestanding identification sign would advertise the entire complex of buildings developed by Lombard Properties. As such, it would pertain to developments not on the site where the sign would be located. Therefore, the proposed sign would, to some extent, be an off-site sign or billboard. Such signs are prohibited under Section 34-130, subsection 11 of the Sign Ordinance. Applicant's Case Sign variance applications are subject to the three standards set forth in Section 34-180 of the Sign Ordinance (attached). Mr. Steve Mosborg of Lombard Properties has submitted an introductory letter (attached) explaining the general sign program for the Shingle Creek Business Center and a letter addressing the standards for a variance for the project identification sign (also attached) . The letter addressing the variance basically describes the elements that make up the Shingle Creek Business Center and argues that the development will lack identity and coherence without symbol (the project identification sign) to serve as a focal point identifying the entire area. The letter concludes by stating that the sign will provide a dramatic identification of the business center which will, in turn, be a credit to the community. Staff Analysis With respect to hardship, it must be recognized that there is no way of identifying a multi-parcel development without referring to aspects of the development located on other parcels than the sign itself. If the business center is, indeed, a unified complex of business developments on multiple parcels of land, bound together by ownership and agreements for cross-access and parking, then a common identification sign is perhaps quite appropriate. Such a sign cannot exist without containing a de facto off-site message. As to whether the conditions upon which the variance request is based are unique, some comparison to other multi-use or multi-parcel developments is in order. Brookdale is the largest such complex in the city. It contains multiple buildings, attached and detached, and multiple parcels. A variance was granted under Application No. 66059 to allow the two freestanding signs which identify the entire complex. (No variance would be required, however, under the current Sign Ordinance) . The Northbrook Shopping Center also exists on multiple parcels with multiple buildings and has a common freestanding identification sign for the 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86042 continued complex. Palmer Lake Plaza office/industrial complex is actually three attached buildings on separate land parcels, but with a common identification sign. In all of these cases, parcelization is less important in establishing identity than is unified ownership, common access and cross-parking agreements. Common ownership, shared access and parking are certainly elements of the Shingle Creek Business Center, though the association of the buildings is much looser than a complex of buildings physically attached. The situation in this case is fairly unique. It is certainly unique in the I-1 district where virtually every other building has its own access onto a public street. The final standard has to do with the impact of the variance on the public welfare and on property in the neighborhood. The impact of the proposed signery is, it would seem, related to the extent to which it replaces other freestanding signery rather than adding to it. The proposed "sign"actually consists of three signs increasing in size from approximately 44.65 sq. ft. for the smallest sign, 82.5 sq. ft. for the middle sign, and 127.5 sq. ft. for the largest sign, for a total of 254.65 sq. ft. of total sign face. The three sign faces are set behind one another so that the impact are of the two smaller signs is included within that of the largest sign. Therefore, the largest plan of obstructed vision is the 127.5 sq. ft. of the largest sign. The proposed sign would be located on the office site at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. No other freestanding identification sign would serve that site. The Ramada Inn presently has a freestanding identification sign. The Shingle Creek Eleeven building has a freestanding sign for Metro Systems, an office furniture dealer. Both these signs are considerably smaller and lower than permitted by ordinance. Parkway Place and RCM Plaza have no freestanding identification signs. Under the Sign Ordinance, each of the buildings in this complex would be entitled to have at least one freestanding sign, 250 sq. ft. in area. The corner lot on which the proposed sign would be located could be allowed two such signs, since it has at least 400' of frontage along two major thoroughfares. Based upon these considerations, the proposed project identification sign does not appear to pose a threat to the general character of the industrial park. Other Consideration Aside from the standards for a variance, staff would recommend that the Commission consider the fact that no development has been built, approved, or even formally proposed for the site on which the proposed sign would be located. The proposed sign for the Shingle Creek Business Center would be an appropriate element of a six- storey office development, which would serve as the central focus of the business center. We question, however, whether such a sign would be as appropriate on a smaller restaurant site, or even the site of an industrial building. We, therefore, recommend that no sign permit be issued for the project identification sign until a building permit has been issued for the office development on the same site. Recommendation Based on the foregoing analysis, we recommend approval of the proposed variance application, subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . No other freestanding sign within the Shingle Creek Business Center complex shall have an impact plan larger than the 127.5 sq. ft. of the largest panel of the proposed project identification sign. 12-11-86 -2- Application No. 86042 continued 2. A deed restriction limiting freestanding signs within the Shingle Creek Business Center to 127.5 sq. ft. shall be executed and filed with the title to the effected properties. 3. The permit for the proposed freestanding project identification sign shall not be issued until the building permit is issued for the planned office development on the same parcel. Any resubdivision of the land parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard or development proposal for something other than a multi-storey office development shall invalidate approval of this application. 4. The freestanding project identification sign authorized by this variance shall be in lieu of any and all other freestanding identification signs permitted by the Sign Ordinance for the property on which it shall be located. 12-11-86 _3_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86043 Applicant: Lombard Properties Location: 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect two off-site directional signs at the intersections of Shingle Creek Parkway and Parkway Circle. Parkway Circle is a private road within the Shingle Creek Business Center commercial/industrial complex being developed by Lombard Properties north of Freeway Boulevard and west of Shingle Creek Parkway. The complex includes the Ramada Inn, RCM Plaza and Parkway Place office/high tech buildings, and the Shingle Creek Eleven (Metro Systems et al) speculative industrial building. The property in questions is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is bounded by the Spec. 9 industrial building and the MTC bus garage on the north, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the east, by Freeway Boulevard on the south, and by the Shingle Creek greenstrip on the west. The signs themselves would be located at the north and south intersections of Shingle Creek Parkway and Parkway Circle. Mr. Steve Mosborg with Lombard Properties has submitted a brief introductory letter (attached) explaining Lombard's sign program for the Shingle Creek Business Center. He has also submitted a letter addressing the standards for a Sign Variance for the two off-site directional signs at the entrances to Parkway Circle. Mr. Mosborg notes that the proposed directional signs are not permitted under the Sign Ordinance because they contain references to buildings on other parcels within the development and are, thus, off-site signs. Signs located off-site are generally classified as billboards under the Sign Ordinance (see definition attached) and are prohibited. Mr. Mosborg points out that the signs would not have building names, but addresses only. He states that the proposed directional signs are essential to "the smooth and informed flow of traffic" within the business center. He further argues that the signs should also help avoid congestion and confusion in the public streets. Proposed variances are subject to the standards contained in Section 34-180 (attached) . The first standard relates to hardship. One hardship staff see in this case is the inability of some properties in the development (namely RCM Plaza and the future development tract north of the Ramada Inn) to gain any exposure onto a public street. This does create some difficulty for people in search of these properties. The second standard for a variance is that the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the property in question and are not common to other property or uses in the zoning district. The circumstances in this case are fairly unique. Most businesses in the city are located on parcels which have direct access onto a public street. A somewhat similar situation exists at the Brooklyn Crossing office park. In that case, however, the large office building at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard does have frontage and exposure onto a public street. The smaller buildings, meanwhile, are all on a single parcel of land and are to be served by a similar on-site directional sign with the addresses of each building listed on the sign. The CEAP building at 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard is also similarly situated behind the Red Lobster restaurant. However, in that case, the CEAP property does extend along the private drive (known as CEAP Way) to Brooklyn Boulevard and there is a freestanding identification sign for CEAP on Brooklyn 12-11-86 -1- I Application No. 86043 continued Boulevard. What is proposed in this case serves a similar function. The only difference is that the off-site buildings in this case are on separate parcels that do not abut public right-of-way. Other cases that involve off-site directional signs are the Brookdale Ford sign on the Brookdale Square site and the Cinema I, II, III, IV entrance sign on the site of the Brookdale Six office building. Both these cases also involve developments that rely on other properties for access. The third standard for a sign variance is that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff believe that the proposed directional signery would be much more appropriate and tolerable to the neighborhood than high freestanding identification signs located on the respective sites and seeking to appeal, over the roofs of buildings, to traffic on the public streets. To accomplish the same exposure such signs might well require height and/or size variances and would, we think, detract from the visual appearance of the industrial park. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. No freestanding identification sign for an off-site property listed on the directional signs located at the intersections of Parkway Circle and Shingle Creek Parkway may be readily visible from the public streets. 2. The applicant shall install street signs denoting Parkway Circle and Shingle Creek Parkway that are consistent with the City's street signs at the two intersections in question prior to release of the financial guarantee for Parkway Place (6601 Shingle Creek Parkway) . 3. The message of the directional signs shall be clearly directional in nature and subject to the height and size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Variance approval pertains to location only. 12-11-86 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86044 Applicant: Ed Trombley Location: 905 61st Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two lots the land at the southeast corner of 61st Avenue North and Colfax Avenue North. The land in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north by 61st Avenue North, on the east and south by single family homes, and on the west by Colfax Avenue North. There is an existing residence (905 61st Avenue North) and detached garage on the northerly portion of the site. The land presently consists of a deep oversized lot off 61st Avenue North, on which the existing residence is located, and a narrow unbuildable parcel along Colfax Avenue North. The applicant proposes to resubdivide these two parcels into two single-family lots which meet all ordinance lot requirements for width, depth, and area. The following information summarizes the dimensions: Lot Type Width Req.'d Depth Req.'d Area Req.'d Lot 1 Corner 90' 90' 136.5 110' 12,285 s.f. 10,500 s.f. Lot 2 Interior 76' 75' 137'+ 110' 10,427 s.f. 9,500 s.f. A drainage and utility easement is indicated along the east line of the plat (5') where existing power lines are located. Also, a 10' wide drainage and utility easement is proposed adjacent to the rights-of-way for 61st and for Colfax. No easements have been indicated along side interior lot lines since these usually conflict with the 3' sideyard setback for accessory buildings. The existing residence meets setback requirements. However, an approximate 10' x 10' wood shed on the proposed Lot 1 encroaches into the proposed 5' wide easement along the east lot line. It is recommended that a condition of final plat approval be the relocation of the wood shed out of the proposed easement. The existing residence is located on Lot 9, Block 2, A. J. Larsen's Third Addition. The narrow strip of land along Colfax is unplatted land with an old metes and bounds legal description. The proposed legal description of the property is: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Ed Trombley's Addition. Altogether, the 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. The existing wood shed on the proposed Lot 1 shall be relocated outside of the proposed drainage and utility easement along the easterly 5' of the property prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86044 continued 4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior to final plat approval. 5. No building permit shall be issued for a structure on the proposed Lot 2 until the proposed plat has received final approval and been filed at the County. 12-11-86 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86045 Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc. (Crown Oil) Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station at the old Arthur Treacher's site, 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The existing Arthur Treacher's restaurant would be demolished. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by Bruger King, on the east by an 18 unit apartment complex facing Beard Avenue North, on the south by a 40' vacant strip of land that is part of the apartment complex and is required for density purposes, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Gasoline service stations are allowed by special use permit in the C2 zone, provided they do not abut Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property, either at a property line or a street line. No such abutment exists in this case. Access/Parking The proposed site plan calls for two accesses off Brooklyn Boulevard, approximately 60' apart. The site presently is served by a single access. Accesses in commercial and industrial districts must be a minimum of 50' apart, measured at the property line, and cannot exceed 30' in width (Section 35-703) • Both the proposed driveways meet these requirements. The City Engineer does recommend softening the north and south radii from a 15' to a 20' radius . The parking requirement for the convenience store is based on the retail parking formula of 11 spaces for the first 11000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and eight (8) Spaces for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. (Section 35-704) . The total number of stalls required is, therefore, 35. The proposed plan shows 18 regular stalls. In addition, 12 parallel stalls are indicated at the pumps. Of these, seven (7) meet the requirements for parallel parking stalls. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the building with only 27 stalls (see Application No. 86047). It appears, however, that with minor redesign at least 28 can be provided on the site. If driving lanes of less than 24' are accepted for the parallel stalls (approximately 14' was accepted for 2 stalls at the Brooklyn Center Service, 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard), the parking count could be as high as 33 spaces. In addition to a parking shortage, the City Engineer has reservations that cars can readily make the turning movements from access drive to pump island and vice versa. The proposed westerly pump island poses particular problems and should be shortened by approximately one third of its length. The easterly island should probably be shifted slightly northward. It would be preferable, in fact, for the islands to run parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard rather than to the building. The proposed arrangement requires a sharp turning movement for cars heading into the site from northbound Brooklyn Boulevard. The north-south alignment of the pumps is probably workable, but only with revisions to smooth the way for cars entering the site. It is of critical importance that traffic move unimpeded on Brooklyn Boulevard. Any site layout that creates difficulty in entering the site poses a threat to the flow of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and may constitute a failure to meet standard (d) of the standards for special use permits in Section 35-220. Landscaping/Screening The plan submitted proposes no new landscaping. It notes, however, that any existing trees damaged or destroyed during construction will be replaced. The plan 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86045 continued indicates the retention of 32 cedar trees, one inch (111) in diameter. An existing hedge along the south side of the property is also shown as retained. The point value of 32 cedar trees under the landscape point system is 192 points. If retained, these would exceed considerably the minimum number of points required. However, the almost exclusive reliance on one specie of tree is less than desirable. It is recommended that at least two shade trees be planted in the island between the access drives, back far enough as to be out of the sight triangles. Additional decorative plantings are also recommended near the northwest and southwest corners of the site; again, back far enough as to be out of key sight lines. There is a retaining wall and opaque, wood fence along the east property line which are in disrepair. The retaining wall must be repaired to provide support for the east end of the site. The screen fence is important for parking lot screening, but there are also a row of Cedar trees which should provide fairly effective screening as well. A cyclone fence is located along the south property line as well as a hedge of shrubs. Although the land to the south is an underutilized area, it is zoned R5 and parking lot screening is required adjacent to residentially zoned land. Drainage/Utilities No topographic or utility information has been submitted with the proposed plans. The site presently drains onto the street. If the site were to be reused with the building and parking lot intact, this would perhaps be a condition accepted as is. However, given the proposal to demolish the existing building and significantly alter the parking lot and access provisions, we feel it is entirely appropriate for the applicant to install catch basins at appropriate locations and a storm sewer to convey the dranage to the City storm sewer in Brooklyn Boulevard. Building/Canopy The proposed building elevations indicate a face brick exterior on the north and west elevations and concrete block on the east and south elevations. An internally lighted tri-band facia is proposed on the front side of the building, extending out 5' over the front sidewalk and an unlighted tri-band metal facia extending out 2' on the sides. The plan also calls for a 6' wide sidewalk in front of the building and a 3' wide sidewalk on the sides. The proposed exterior treatment is not in accord with the City's policy of consistent exterior treatment around the entire building. Section 35-414.3 of the Zoning Ordinance calls for "sincere concepts and honest construction" in gasoline service station buildings. The brick on the more visible sides should, therefore, be carried entirely around the building. The facia treatment, if it is multi-colored, really constitutes a sign, (similar to Showbiz Pizza) and as such exceeds the allowable area for wall signs (30% of wall area). No plans of the proposed canopy have been submitted. All that is indicated is that it will be 72' x 72' with an approximate 15' x 32' extension to the building facia overhang. Lighting/Trash The proposed plan shows five freestanding lights, all 400 watt super metal halide heritage fixtures on an 8' arm. The four serving the two access drives are proposed at 20' height. Another near the northeast corner of the site would be on a 16' pole. The light intensity at the property line abutting the R5 land to the west would be 2 foot candles in accordance with Section 35-712. Section 35-414.7 requires that the lighting design be submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council. The plan proposes to retain the existing brick trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the site. 12-11-86 -2- Application No. 86045 continued Special Use Permit Me pplicant-Ts representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing variance standards and special use standards from Section 35-220 (also attached) . Mr. Finley states that the proposed use will "enhance the general welfare in providing a one-stop convenience gas and convenience shopping which is needed in the community." He argues that the proposed use will not be injurious to other property because there is a Standard station to the south and a Burger King to the north which, however, do not provide one-stop shopping. He notes the area is basically fully developed and so development of surrounding property will not be impeded. He concludes by saying that, if the variances are approved, ingress and egress on the site will minimize any traffic congestion on the public streets. Staff must point out first of all that the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends service/office uses in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard, not retail, restaurants, gas stations or other general commerce uses. The zoning of the property, however, has been and remains C2 (General Commerce) . The proposed use is comprehended by special use permit in that zoning district. And, it is the zoning designation of a property which more directly controls use than does the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the proposed use is allowable by zoning, but will perpetuate the inconsistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As to the standards for special use permits, we see no obvious conflict with standards (a) and W . Standard (c) may be somewhat complicated if redevelopment as well as new development is taken into account. The primary concern with this application is over standard (d) . Although the proposed setback variance would allow for a second pump island which may help accommodate the flow of gasoline consumers, the layout; of the pump islands requres difficult turning movements by cars entering the site from northbound Brooklyn Boulevard. We believe that the present pump island layout will impede the flow of traffic into the site and, thereby, create congestion in Brooklyn Boulevard. This is an unacceptable public cost for the private benefit of more gas pumps. Secondly, the variance from parking requirements may lead more patrons to leave their cars at the gas pumps rather than pull into a parking space while shopping. This may lead to more jockeying around the pumps and on-site congestion which could conceivably spill over onto the public streets. Thirdly, the addition of another access drive is certainly a step backward for managing traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. The potential for conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting this and other sites in the vicinity will certainly increase relative to what would be the case without gasoline available on the site. Finally, we would point out that there are two other gas stations within two blocks of the site and five existing stations within a mile. On the other hand, the nearest convenience store is about one mile away. The orientation of the site to gasoline sales, while understandable given the applicant's central product, may not be appropriate for this location. We, therefore, feel it is inappropriate to make site design compromises for an element of the business which may well become secondary. Recommendation Staff are not prepared to recommend approval of either variance request at this time. Furthermore, the layout of the gas pumps poses a danger to traffic flow in Brooklyn Boulevard by unnecessarily complicating entrance to the site. Based on these concerns, staff recommend that this application be tabled with direction to 12-11-86 -3- Application No. 86045 continued the applicant to modify the plan to meet City ordinances and provide unimpeded movement into the site. Specifically, the following changes are recommended. 1. Provision of a grading, drainage and utility plan with utility lines shown and sizes indicated. Grades and drainage provisions should be shown. Catch basins should be provided on site to handle on-site runoff. 2. Additional plantings including at least two shade trees in the front greenstrip. 3. A building setback of 40' in accordnance with Section 35-400. 4. Parking for 35 cars or a smaller building in accordance with Section 35-704. 5. Gas pump islands situated so as to allow for an unimpeded movement into the site. 6. Building elevations indicating brick on all four sides of the building. 7. Renderings of proposed light fixtures and poles with dimensions indicated in accordance with Section 35-414. 8. A modified northerly access at least 50' south of the Burger King entrance and at least 50' north of the southerly access on the site. 9. Information on the color of the proposed metal facia and continuation of the facia band along the east side of the building. 10. Plans for the proposed canopy including lighting detail within the canopy. 12-11-86 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86046 Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc. Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a rear yard setback of 10' , rather than the required 401 . The property in question is the same as addressed in Application Nos. 86045 and 86047. Variances from the Zoning Ordinance are comprehended by Section 35-240 (attached) , provided the standards for a variance are met. Those standards are as follows: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Applicant's Case The applicant's representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a letter (attached) advocating the proposed special use permit (Application No. 86045) and variances for rear setback (No. 86046) and parking (No. 86047) . The setback variance is addressed in point #1 of Mr. Finley's letter. Mr. Finley states the variance is necessary because the proposed building which is only two-thirds (2/3) the standard size now being built, must be put as far back on the property as possible to allow smooth ingress and egress and to alleviate internal and external traffic congestion. He states that the variance is necessary if the applicant is to compete in the existing convenience one-stop market. He also states that the variance would not be needed if the parcel were not pie-shaped. He concludes by stating that this circumstance was not created by the applicant and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to any other land. Staff Analysis a) Hardship: It is not clear from Mr. Finley's letter, whether the applicant considers a 4,000 sq. ft. building or some lesser size to be a hardship. However, we definitely do not. One thing must always be borne in mind with respect to density: the amount of land on a given parcel is unchangeable; the amount of building on that land is changeable. Therefore, the size and location of a lot are always more basic than what is to be put on it. Staff would agree, however, that smooth ingress and egress are important concerns of the public as well as the property owner. The question is whether the building 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86046 continued actually has to be set back as far as proposed to allow a smooth flow of traffic and, if so, whether that objective is more important to the public than the rear yard setback. We feel these questions ultimately lead back to the question of density. The Planner has developed a couple of site layouts which put a 4,000 sq. ft. building and required parking within appropriate setbacks. However, they only have one pump island, whereas the applicant desires two islands. A plan with two islands and a trapezoid-shaped building of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. also appears to be possible. A 4,000 sq. ft. building with two pump islands simply does not appear feasible if the rear setback requirement is to be met. We do not feel that a smaller building, fewer gas pumps, or a trapezoid-shaped building are necessarily hardships created by the parcel or the City's ordinance. b) Uniqueness: A trapezoid-shaped parcel along Brooklyn Boulevard is not a unique occurance. It does present some challenges in designing a site layout, but most other buildings along Brooklyn Boulevard meet the required rear yard setback. c) Cause: What brings about this variance request is that the applicant has no use for a rear "yard", whereas the Zoning Ordinance presumes the need in all zoning districts for a minimum rear yard. It may be that accessory uses such as employee parking, trash storage, and other storage (provided it is screened) are assumed to be a part of every business operation; and, if they exist that it is appropriate for them to be conducted behind the building. The imposition of a rear yard requirement in this case tends to push the building to a position on the lot that either reduces its size or reduces the number of gas pumps. On the other hand, it creates more room for required parking which has not been provided on the proposed plan. The ordinance requirements thus reduces space for the principal use while expanding space for accessory uses. d) Impact: In this case, there is an apartment complex to the east of the site, zoned R5. There is no buffer required between a C2 use and an R5 district. Parking lot screening is required. In this case, there was a fence on top of a retaining wall screening this site from the apartment complex to the east. The fence has collapsed from lack of maintenance. On the R5 property, there are garages on the west side of the apartment site. Staff would concede that, in this particular case, the impact of the back of the building being 10' from the rear property line is probably not noticeably greater than the impact of accessory uses such as parking and storage. Precedent The applicant will no doubt point out that the service station to the south is set back less than 40' from its rear property line. This is true. That station is approximately 14.5' from the rear property line. When originally built in 1958, the station was 28' from the rear lot line. A car wash addition in 1972 required a rear yard setback variance which was granted. Staff do not find the reasons for granting that variance very inspiring. They boil down to: better to allow a rear yard setback variance than a front yard setback variance. If those were the only choices, we'd agree. But, in light of more recent variance applications, it must be pointed out that the option of denial does also exist. Rear yard setbacks of less than 40' also exist for some of the buildings on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 55th Avenue North and 56th Avenue North. These businesses have no access onto Brooklyn Boulevard and so might logically be located closer to it, but they tend to be set back close to the private street between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North by which their customers gain access. 12-11-86 -2- Application No. 86046 continued Zantigos restaurant, which was recently built, was allowed closer than 401 from its rear property line. Nevertheless, there are far more examples of conformity, including the previous use of this property. In general, staff are opposed to granting a setback variance for a flat and (to be) vacant parcel of land. Recommendation We are simply not convinced at this point that a variance is necessary. If alternative layouts which meet the setback requirement all appear to have serious drawbacks, perhaps a variance should be considered. As of yet, however, we do not feel the applicant has given this design problem his best effort. A revised plan should definitely be submitted before favorable action on this application. 12-11 -86 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86047 Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc. Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. convenience store with fewer than the required number of parking stalls (27 rather than 35) . The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Burger King on the north, by an 18 unit apartment development on the east and land belonging to that complex on the south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. The site in question is the site of the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant. Applicant's Case The applicant's representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a single letter addressing the standards for a variance and for a special use permit for the gas station aspect of the proposed use. The comments related to the parking variance point out that many of the patrons of the convenience store will, in essence, park at the gas pumps. (In, fact, seven stalls are credited at the pump islands.) Mr. Finley states that the required 35 parking stalls would, because of the configuration of the land, create internal congestion on the site. He states that customers rarely pull into regular parking spaces at such an establishment. Mr. Finley states that the shape of the parcel (pie-shaped) is unique. He concludes by stating that the variance will be an asset to the public rather than a detriment. Staff Analysis Based on the standards contained in Section 35-240 (attached), staff do not believe that a parking variance can be granted in this case. The only "hardship" in this situation appears to be that the applicant cannot put as much building on the property as he would like. The existing building is to be demolished and the site will be clear for a new development. The size and shape of the parcel can support a 3,000 sq. ft. convenience store and gas pumps under the current parking formula. This is as large a convenience store as has been built in Brooklyn Cente and, therefore, does not seem to be an unreasonable limitation. The present retail parking formula has been under study for over a year, but no change has been adopted to this point. As long as the present ordinance is in effect, it must serve as the standard for parking at existing and proposed retail developments. Based on that standard, the proposed plan is deficient because of too much building or too many gas pumps. These are not circumstances that arise from the land, but from the applicant's desired use. The circumstances in this case are not particularly unique. The pie-shaped (really a trapezoid) parcel is fairly common on Brooklyn Boulevard. While such a shape might create some minor difficulties, a deficiency of eight (8) parking stalls is not minor and is not explained by the shape of the parcel. That is, the extent of the proposed variance is not justified by the shape of the parcel. The convenience store/gas station at the southwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard is on a similar shaped parcel, but met parking requirements. With respect to standard (c) , the hardship of not being able to have an extra 1,000 sq. ft. of retail space or a second set of gas pumps derives from the applicant's objectives, not from the land itself. Finally, as to whether the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare, staff would respond on two levels. In terms of the general public 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86047 continued using the station, it may well be that 27 stalls (including 7 at the pumps) would be adequate. That number of stalls would be consistent with the alternate formula recommended to the City Council. However, on the level of property developers, the proposed variance would be quite inequitable since it would adopt a lesser parking standard for this case only. (Note: an ordinance amendment would grant development potential equally to all.) We feel such a variance would grant an unfair competitive advantage to this parcel rather than make up for some inherent disadvantage. Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we do not believe that the standards for a variance are met in this case. Accordingly, we recommend that the application be denied, citing the following reasons: 1. The inability to build a 4,000 sq. ft. convenience store with two gas pump islands is not deemed to be a hardship worked on the applicant. Reasonable use of the land is possible within the parking constraints of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The shape of the parcel (trapezoid) is not particularly unique on Brooklyn Boulevard. The difficulty presented by this shaped parcel do not warrant a variance of eight (8) parking stalls. 3• The parcel of land is to be cleared for development under the applicant's proposal. Maximum flexibility, therefore, exists to design the site to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant's difficulties result from his own objectives and not the condition of the parcel of land. 4. The granting of the variance would be unfair to other similar developments which have complied with ordinance parking requirements since it would confer a special benefit on this parcel only. i 12-11-86 -2-