Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 04-14 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88002 Applicant: Coldwell Banker Location: 6800 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Variance Background The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-704.2c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center to be occupied by restaurants without providing sufficient additional parking to meet the restaurant parking formula. Under Section 35-704.2c, shopping centers which provide parking spaces based on the retail parking formula may have up to 10% of the gross floor area of the shopping center devoted to restaurants without providing additional parking based on the restaurant parking formula. (Although the restaurant parking formula is based on seats, it generally works out to about one parking space per 65 sq. ft. of gross floor area, whereas the marginal rate for the retail parking formula is one space per 181 sq. ft. Therefore, the restaurant formula is more onerous than the retail formula and will require more spaces for a given restaurant space once the 10% allowance has been exceeded) . The Humboldt Square Shopping center is located at 69th and Humboldt Avenues North. The center is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east by the Hi Crest Square Estates townhouses, on the south by the High Crest Apartments, and on the west by Humboldt Avenue North. A 76 station is located at the southeast corner of 69th and Humboldt on its own parcel. The gross floor area of the Humboldt Square Shopping center is 40,250 sq. ft. The parking requirement for the center is 269 spaces. There are 278 spaces on the site for a surplus of 9 spaces. Restaurants occupy 5,250 sq. ft. of the shopping center. This exceeds by 1,225 sq. ft. the 4,025 sq. ft. comprehended under the retail parking formula and is allowed because of its surplus of 9 parking spaces. In fact, there is a current parking deficit of one parking stall given the restaurant seating on the site. The proposed restaurant expansion is for 40-45 seats. Thus, the parking deficit would grow to approximately 21 to 24 spaces. This is then the extent of the requested variance. Applicant's Arguments Mr. Gary Lidstone of Coldwell Banker has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (also attached) . NTr. Lidstone notes that there are three restaurants in Humboldt Square: . Donut Delight, open from early morning to 4:00 p.m. ; House of Hui, open for lunch and dinner; and Scoreboard Pizza, also open for lunch and dinner. He states that the restaurants do not tax the parking lot and points out that even at the busiest times of the day, the west half of the parking lot is rarely used. In regard to the variance standards, Mr. Lidstone states that the condition upon which the variance is based is unique to Humboldt Square because the current restaurants do not require maximum use of the parking lot at the same time. He states that most customers of the shopping center come for just one stop and do not stay to shop at more than one tenant as they would at a larger center or mall. Mr. Lidstone goes on to state that there is a hardship for both the tenant and the j landlord if the variance is not granted. The hardship experienced by Scoreboard Pizza is contained in a letter from Donn Erickson (attached) in which he states that large banquets for youth sports teams and for eight sponsored softball teams are extremely tight on certain nights. They have had to turn customers away which cuts into profitability. Also, after Brooklyn Center High School football games, 4-14-88 _1_ Application No. 88002 continued students do not have adequate space to enjoy themselves. Also, more storage space is needed. As for the landlord, Mr. Lidstone states simply that the landlord obviously wants to keep the center fully occupied. In conclusion, Mr. Lidstone states that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or other tenants in the center and that there is an excess of parking based on current demands. Staff Evaluation The hardships identified by the applicant basically boil down to an inability to expand the restaurant to meet its full potential and an inability, in the short run, to fill a vacant tenant space within the center. Staff do not believe either of these conditions can be grounds for a hardship. If inability to expand is viewed as a hardship, then all ordinance provisions are suspect since all ordinance provisions work to limit development. Likewise, the inability to fill a tenant space immediately should not be considered a hardship. Vacancies do occur and market forces may be such that they will exist for some time. Variances should not be granted lightly to fill a current vacancy. In addition, the circumstances in this case are not unique. Tenant vacancies occur regularly in all shopping centers. The fact that the donut shop is not open in the evening cannot be relied on to distinguish this center from other shopping centers. The donut shop could change its hours or another restaurant could take its place. Lastly, we would agree that there is a practical parking surplus and that the granting of the variance would do no harm to neighboring properties, except that it would undermine Section 35-704 and the Zoning Ordinance generally to approve a variance that does not meet all the standards outlined in Section 35-240. Recommendation There is clearly a practical surplus of parking at Humboldt Square and, for that matter, at most retail establishments within the City. We do not believe it is appropriate to grant the variance proposed by the applicant when the Standards for Variance cannot be met. However, an amendment to the ordinance to allow a greater percentage of floor area within a retail establishment to be devoted to restaurant use without applying the seating/employee parking ratio would be appropriate. Commission members may recall that the 10% figure was adopted in the early 1980's at Brookdale Square's urging noting that the dynamics of a restaurant in a shopping center are not the same as that of a freestanding restaurant. There was nothing overly scientific about the 10% and experience has shown us that it has not caused any significant problems. Perhaps the time is right to provide more flexibility by allowing a greater percentage of space in a retail center to be devoted to restaurant uses before requiring the seating/employee parking formula to be applied. This would acknowledge that people eat out more these days and that restaurants, therefore, represent a greater percentage of retail tenants. It would also implicitly acknowledge that the present retail formula is more than adequate to meet the parking demands of retail centers. The breakdown of restaurants in shopping centers is as follows: 4-14-88 -2- Application No. 88002 continued Center/Restaurant Gross Floor Area % Boulevard Center 19,862 -Little Brooklyn 2,000 10.07 Brookdale Square 88,363 -Yen Ching 5,280 5.98 Brookview Plaza 69,099 -None 0 0 Humboldt Square 40,250 -Scoreboard Pizza 1,750 4.34 -w/expansion 2,400 5.96 -House of Hui 1,750 4.34 I, -Donut Delight 1,750 4.34 1 Total 5,250 13.04 Total w/expansion 5,900 14.66 Northbrook Center 51,130 -Chuck Wagon 2,020 3.95 Shingle Creek Center -6000 building 7,916 -Pizza Hut 3,040 38.40 -Rachel's Frozen Yogurt 733 9.25 Total 3,773 47.66* -6050 building 31,570 -Lee Ann Chin 2,959 9.37 Westbrook -Mall 94,572 -None 0 0 Grand Total 402,762 Total Restaurants 21,282 5.28% *Extra space over 10% is covered by the restaurant formula Three of the seven centers are at or above the 10% limit. Two of the centers (Brookview Plaza and Westbrook Mall) have no restaurants, but also have considerable vacancy rates and may well have restaurant occupants in the future. Brookdale has not been included in the survey, but it is doubtful that Brookdale will ever surpass the present 10% allowance. An allowance of 15% would allow those centers at or above the present 10% allowance to add at least one more small restaurant. As we have indicated earlier, there is a practical surplus of parking at all of these shopping centers with the possible exception of the Shingle Creek Center (which is already over 15%) . Because the retail formula requires additional parking for the smaller retail centers, staff feel there is an adequate cushion to 4-14-88 -3- Application No. 88002 continued accommodate additional restaurant space in the strip retail centers. In the case of Humboldt Square specifically, the proposed restaurant expansion would be 40-45 seats, or 20 to 23 parking stalls. The practical parking surplus at Humboldt Square is approximately 100 spaces since the outer two rows of spaces are rarely used. On the basis of the practical parking surplus at those strip centers with less than 15% restaurant space, staff would recommend denial of the requested variance, but approval of an ordinance amendment (attached) to allow up to 15% of the gross floor area of retail centers to be devoted to restaurant space. i i a i 4-14-88 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88003 Applicant: Equitec Institutional Fund III Location: 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Appeal This application is an appeal of a determination by the Zoning Official that day care centers are not permitted in the Industrial Park (I-1) zone. The appellant wishes to place a LaPepiniere Montessori School and Lay Care Center in the office building portion of Palmer Lake Plaza, 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway. The land in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by the Shingle Creek greenstrip on the east, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the south, and by vacant I-1 zoned land on the west. The City has conveyed its determination on the proposed day care center in a letter dated March 24, 1988 (attached) . The letter simply states that day care is not listed as a permitted use in the I-1 zone, nor is it listed among those commercial uses allowed by special use permit in the I-1 zone under Section 35- 330.3f. The appellant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a letter (attached) in accordance with the provisions of Section 35-251 (also attached) . The letter does not dispute that day care centers are not comprehended in the I-1 zoning district. Rather, it agrees that the ordinance should be changed to allow day care centers in the I-1 zone based on the following: I. Day care is compatible with existing adjacent land uses such as offices, light industry and public parkway. 2. A day care center is complimentary to existing adjacent land uses and actually reduces paving and increases landscaping. 3. Day care center traffic will not be adverse to the public streets, the immediate neighborhood or the community, but will, in fact, provide a valuable service to the office and industry employees as well as nearby residents. 4. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to children served by the day care center. The entrance and the outside play area are to be located away from traffic to adjacent uses. 5. LaPepiniere Montessori School and Day Care Center is an educational use licensed as a school and a day care center. A school (an educational use) is comprehended as a special use in the I-1 zoning district. The school and day care center are compatible uses. These comments basically address the special standards applied to day care centers in the commercial zoning districts (attached) . Another set of requirements in Sections 35-411 and 35-412 apply to the play yard (see Section 35-412.7 (attached) . The appellant has submitted a site plan which shows an enclosed play yard in the yard area abutting 69th Avenue North. The play yard would cut off the driving lane along the north side of the building (play yards must be contiguous to the day care center under Section 35-412). The Fire Chief sees no problem with cutting off a portion of this driving lane. A hydrant at the northeast corner of the building would have to be relocated, however. A turnaround at the northeast corner of the site would also have to be constructed to allow movement of fire trucks as well as cars dropping off children. 4-14-88 _1_ Application No. 88003 continued Returning to the question of use, staff are not violently opposed to, nor overly excited about, the location of day care centers in the Industrial Park. However, the Planning Commission and City Council should be convinced that all standards and requirements pertaining to day care centers in commercial zones can be met in an industrial zone as well. The standards and requirements can probably be met in this case, but these are few such locations in the Industrial Park. Staff have surveyed 16 Minneapolis suburbs. The results of the survey are as follows: -Eleven (11) communities do not allow day care as a principal use in any industrial district. Of these, four cities allow day care as an accessory use in an industrial district. -Five (5) communities do allow day care centers as a principal use in an industrial district. Of these, three cities allow day care by conditional use permit. If the Commission is sympathetic to the idea of day care in the Industrial Park, we would recommend that it be allowed only special use permit as other commercial uses are allowed in the I-1 zoning district. The Commission should be aware, however, that the City Council is reviewing the present I-1 special uses with an eye to how they are affecting development options for the remaining parcels in the I-1 zone. Generally, staff are recommending against small, fragmented developments north of Freeway Boulevard which would commercialize the portions of the industrial park that have generally been developed with larger, consolidated developments. Day care centers, if freestanding, would tend to be a_smaller development in the Industrial Park and, thus, work against an effort to promote larger developments. We will have more information on the City Council's desires for the Industrial Park by Thursday night's meeting. 4-14-88 -2-