Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 01-26 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89001 Applicant: Gorco Construction Location: 5658 Logan Avenue North Request: Variance This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting with direction to staff to prepare an ordinance amendment redefining "major thoroughfares." We have prepared an amendment which would define major thoroughfares as all four lane highways, roads, and streets in the City. A listing of such thoroughfares include the following: -Interstate 94 -Highway 100 -Highway 252 -County Road 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) -County Road 10 (also Bass Lake Road -Shingle Creek Parkway -Freeway Boulevard (from Xerxes Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North) -John Martin Drive -Summit Drive -Xerxes Avenue North from Highway 100 to just south of 59th Avenue and from I94 to Shingle Creek Parkway. -Humboldt Avenue North from 194 to 69th Avenue North. -Earle Brown Drive from John Martin Drive to Summit Drive. -57th Avenue North from Logan AVenue North to Highway 100. The major thoroughfares newly defined as such under the ordinance amendment are: John Martin Drive, Summit Drive, and Earle Brown Drive from John Martin Drive to Summit Drive. The existing major thoroughfares which would be deleted under the new definition are: -France Avenue North from Highway 100 to 50th Avenue North -County Road 57 from Logan to Humboldt and Humboldt from 57th to 53rd. -69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to the west City limits. -Humboldt Avenue North from 69th to 70th Avenue North. Most of the nonconforming structures along existing major thoroughfares are along County Road 57, Bass Lake Road (west of Brooklyn Boulevard) , 69th west of Shingle Creek Parkway (including County Road 130) , and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road would continue to be major thoroughfares under the proposed ordinance amendment. There are also plans in the works for widening 69th Avenue North, possibly to four lanes, but it is expected that a number of nonconforming houses would be removed if that project goes forward. The addition of Summit Drive to the list of major thoroughfares would make Brookview Plaza shopping center nonconforming as to setback (It is set back 35' from Summit). No other nonconformities would result. While the proposed ordinance amendment does not eliminate all nonconformities, it does eliminate far more than it creates. We believe relating setback to street width is an appropriate way of protecting public health and safety. 1-26-89 -1- Application No. 89001 continued Maps are attached showing existing and proposed major thoroughfares and specifically those thoroughfares added and deleted by the proposed ordinance amendment. We continue to recommend denial of the requested variance on the following grounds: a) Setting the garage back 50' from 57th Avenue North presents difficulties which fall into the category of inconveniences, not a hardship as discussed in the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances. b) The circumstances upon which the variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land in question, but are common to other residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. c) Granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare by undermining the required setback for structures adjacent to major thoroughfares. 1-26-89 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89003 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Generally between 194 and Freeway Boulevard from Shingle Creek to Days Inn and between 194 and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. Request: Rezoning The City requests that the land bordering on the freeway (north and south) south of Freeway Boulevard and north of Summit Drive be rezoned from I1 (Industrial Park) to C2 (General Commerce). The land in question is partially vacant and partially developed. It includes the Holiday Inn, La Casita Restaurant, Econolodge (formerly Thrifty Scot), Budgetel, and Earle Brown Bowl north of the freeway. South of the freeway it includes Brookdale Corporate Centers I, II and III, the Earle Brown Farm, and the Earle Brown Office Tower. Many adjacent vacant parcels are also included. Please refer to the attached area map for a designation of the properties included in this rezoning proposal. Background The principal impetus to the proposed rezoning is a desire on the part of the City to make the I-1 zone more truly an industrial park zone primarily for office, warehouse, light manufacturing, some service uses, and wholesale trade. Proposed along with the rezoning is an ordinance amendment that would eliminate from the I-1 zone certain special uses allowed in the C2 zoning district, including transient lodging, convenience food restaurants, bowling alleys, movie theatres, gymnasiums, eating establishments offering live entertainment, etc. Many permitted uses in the C2 zoning district, including retail sales and eating establishments not offering live entertainment would continue to be allowed by special use permit. The Commission may wish to recommend eliminating these uses as well. To do so would make Schmitt Music nonconforming (though perhaps their sales could be compreheded as accessory to a wholesale or warehouse function). Nevertheless, we would not favor the development of a strip shopping center at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. To prevent that would require eliminating most retail sales from the I-1 zoning district or rezoning that area to perhaps C1A, allowing only service/office uses with no height limitation. The City staff have received, over the past few years, a number of inquiries regarding the land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Among them have been inquiries into the possibility of developing the area for fast-food restaurants and/or budget motels. We believe the parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard is prime land and that its development will reflect favorably or unfavorably on the industrial park and, to some extent, on the City itself. We do not believe that development of a fast-food restaurant and/or a budget motel would be appropriate for this key parcel. However, they would be allowed by special use permit under the current ordinance. A concept plan for a high-rise office building was also submitted approximately two years ago, but has gone nowhere due to the excess of such space in the northern suburbs at this time. Nevertheless, we believe such a development would be more appropriate in that location. The ordinate amedment proposed would continue to allow office uses in the I-1 zone by special use permit. Simply eliminating certain commercial uses from the I-1 zone would result in many uses between I94 and Freeway Boulevard, and the transient lodging proposed for the Earle Brown Farm, becoming nonconforming uses. This is certainly not a desirable 1-26-89 _Z_ Application No. 89003 continued result. The alternative is to rezone most of the I-1 land south of Freeway Boulevard to C2, recognizing the commercial nature of the development in this area and allowing it to continue as conforming. We propose that the City do the latter and, thus, this application is put forward for consideration. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The following comments are offered to address the guidelines. F ` (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The effect of the rezoning and ordinance amendment is to reduce the overlap between the I-1 and C2 districts and to explicitly plan for commercial rather than industrial development on the land near the freeway. The proposed rezoning ratifies a trend which has been prevalent in the area near the freeway and limits the uses which may be developed in the industrial park. The resulting benefit is that commercial uses will be allowed to locate near the freeway, while the industrial park will be reserved for industrial and office uses. We believe there is benefit to this action because it will prevent or reduce the commercialization of the industrial park and will preserve it as a place for employment rather than a place for trade and commerce. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? South of the freeway, the zoning district abutting the existing I-1 zone is the C2 zoning district; so, of course, the new C2 zoning designation will be compatible. North of the freeway, the new C2 district will abut the I-1 zoning district. While the proposed ordinance amendment will create a greater distinction between the two zones, we certainly do not believe these zones are incompatible. (c? Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? We believe they can. The area in question abuts the freeway and has almost no residential abutment. There need be no extensive buffers which might compromise the buildability of certain parcels. Nor are there any limitations such as gas stations not abutting Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. I (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? One major physical change has been the redesign of the Highway 100/I94 interchange eliminating some movements and the opening up of the Shingle Creek Parkway/194 interchange. These roadway modifications have brought much more traffic to Shingle Creek Parkway, especially south of the freeway where it is the most direct route to Brookdale. The increased traffic at this interchange has tended to boost 1-26-89 -2- Application No. 89003 continued commercial demand for the area and has led to the construction of two motels and a restaurant north of the freeway and three major office buildings south of the freeway. As to zoning changes, there have been other rezonings of land south of the freeway from I-1 to C2. Apparently, after the adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, most of the land between County Road 10 and 194 was zoned I-1 . As the system of roadways was completed in the late 60's and early 70's, development proposals for commercial use were approved with rezoning of land to C2, ultimately to its present configuration. Prior to 1973, C2 uses were not allowed in the I-1 zone. Then, in 1973, an ordinance amendment was adopted allowing certain C2 uses by special use permit. Later, more C2 uses were allowed as designated in the present ordinance. One rationale behind the amendment was to give the City more discretion in approving commercial uses near the freeway. The I-1 zoning was, thus, retained and special use permits were granted for the commercial uses north of the freeway and the office buildings south of the freeway. The rezoning proposal and ordinance amendment before the Commission represent a change in strategy. We no longer have confidence that certain C2 uses can be denied, even though they are special uses in the I-1 district. In effect, we are saying that the trend of commercialization near the freeway should be ratified by rezoning where it has already occurred, but should be prevented - by ordinance amendment - from further infiltrating the industrial park. The Shingle Creek Parkway freeway interchange has made the land close to the freeway too valuable for traditional industrial development. Since I-1 uses are not likely to be built on the land in question, and since denial of special uses is at least difficult, we recommend the proposed rezoning and ordinance amendment as the best strategy for controlling development in the future. (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The public purpose of the rezoning is to more clearly define both in terms of real estate and ordinance regulations the location and content of the industrial park. To do that, it is necessary to place freeway-oriented commercial development in the commercial district - C2, and tighten up the allowable uses in the I-1 zone. This action will, we hope, preserve the character of the industrial park, while allowing commercial uses to locate on the most valuable land next to the freeway. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Yes. All the properties in question . are of adequate size for commercial development and face no extraordinary buffer or use limitations because of residential abutment. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? There has never been a formal proposal for an industrial use on the parcels contained 1-26-89 -3- Application No. 89003 continued in the rezoning proposal. There are existing commercial uses and office buildings which have been approved by special use permit in the I-1 zone. We would expect that even if the I-1 zoning remained, development proposals would likely be for commercial rather than industrial uses. The topography of the land in question is suitable for either use. The recent replat of the land south of Freeway Boulevard and east and south of the Earle Brown Bowl has created a number of smaller parcels most likely for development of small commercial establishments, not large speculative industrial buildings which characterize the industrial park. The 4 primary factor of unsuitability is location. Because of their proximity to the freeway and the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange, the parcels to be rezoned are more suitable for commercial development with freeway visibility. Such uses are presently allowed in the I-1 zone, but will not be in the future if the proposed ordinance amendment is adopted. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The land covered by the rezoning is contained in areas 6a and 11 of the Land Use Revisions Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan (attached). Area 6a covers most of the parcels north of the freeway. The recommendation for 6a is "light industrial." The proposed zoning and a number of existing land uses in the area are clearly not light industrial, though the zoning has been for light industrial (and by special use permit, commercial uses) . A Comprehensive Plan amendment may be warranted, creating a separate area for commercial development north of the freeway. Area 11 , south of the freeway, was the subject of a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1986 in which the recommendation for the area was changed from service/office to "Mixed Use Development (including High Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce)." The proposed C2 zoning is certainly consistent with this Plan recommendation. As to to the lack of developable land in the C2 zoning district, there is vacant C2 zoned land near 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 in the northeast neighborhood. However, with the upcoming construction of the City County Credit Union, there is no more vacant C2 land left in the vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm. As to the best interests of the community, we would argue that preserving the industrial park as a place of employment and keeping commercial uses in areas for the most part south of Freeway Boulevard is in the best interests of the community. The present zoning designation and use restrictions do not, we feel, adequately protect against the "commercialization" of the industrial park. We believe such commercialization is detrimental to the industrial park in terms of its character, aesthetics, traffic control and parcelization. Reducing the options for development in the I-1 zone is the only way of distinguishing clearly between the I-1 and C2 zoning districts and limiting commercialization to appropriate locations. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This is not an owner-initiated rezoning. The effect of the rezoning will be to make some commercial uses which are now special uses, permitted uses. At the same time, 1-26-89 -4- Application No. 89003 continued industrial uses will be prohibited. We believe the net effect for the property owners will be somewhat positive, but not really to the detriment of the community. It seems clear from past history that the development of the subject property would in all likelihood be commercial even under the I-1 zoning. The proposed rezoning recognizes this reality and zones for it openly. Procedure Normally, rezoning applications are tabled and referred to a neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. However, there is no neighborhood advisory group for the commercial and industrial park in the center of town. The Planning Commission itself serves that function. A public hearing has been scheduled for this meeting and notices have been sent. The Commission should open the public hearing and take whatever comments are offered. The Commission may certainly table the application if it wishes to and/or direct staff to prepare a resolution concerning the matter. We recommend that any favorable action on the rezoning be accompanied by action on the draft ordinance amendment also before the Commission. I 1-26-89 -5- i 1 1