HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 02-16 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 89005
Applicant: Border States Foods
Location: Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (new east leg)
Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit
Location/Use
The applicant requests site and building and special use permit approval to
construct a Hardees restaurant at the as-yet-to-be-constructed intersection of
Freeway Boulevard and James Circle (east leg). The property in question is
presently zoned I-1 (however, it is covered in a City-initiated rezoning to C2 under
Application No. 89003) and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east
by the new, easterly leg of James Circle, on the south by vacant land (also included
in the rezoning to C2), and on the west by the Earle Brown Bowl. Convenience food
restaurants are presently allowed by special use permit in the I-1 zone and are also
allowed by special use permit in the C2 zoning district.
Access/Parking
The plan calls for a single access to the site via a 30' wide driveway off James
Circle at the southeast corner of the site. The plan calls for a drive-up window on
the west side of the building and an order speaker somewhat northwest of the
building. Stacking for the drive-up lane is expected to fill the driving lanes
north and east of the building. Parking east of the building will be 900, but spaces
along the north, west, and south sides of the lot will be angled, promoting a
counter-clockwise flow, paralleling the drive-up circulation. A 2' wide concrete
median separates the drive-up from the parking lot driving lane.
The proposed restaurant is to have 118 seats and 20 employees. At one space per two
seats plus one space per two employees, the parking requirement is 69 spaces.
Precisely 69 spaces are provided on the plan. The proposal, therefore, complies
with parking requirements.
Landscaping
The landscape plan calls for minimal landscaping other than numerous shrubs
adjacent to the building. The plan calls for four American Linden (2 112"
diameter), 60' apart along the new leg of James Circle (in the easterly greenstrip of
this site). Other than that, the plan calls for two Radiant Crabs, one at the
northwest corner and one at the southwest corner of the site. All of the remaining
plantings are shrubs located around the foundation of the building and around a
proposed freestanding identification sign at the northeast corner of the site, and
around an entrance sign north of the access drive. No berming was shown on the plan
submitted. We have informed the contractor of the need for parking lot screening
along the north and east sides of the site adjacent to public streets. A revised
plan should show berming in these areas. We would also recommend that the
Commission discuss landscaping with the applicant. Although the number of
plantings meets the requirements of the landscape point system used to evaluate
landscape plans, the general level of plantings is minimal and provides little
visual relief on the site. We would recommend the addition of more trees - perhaps
coniferous trees - along the Freeway Boulevard greenstrip. Sod has been indicated
in all perimeter green areas and underground irrigation has also been noted, as
required.
Drainage and Utilities
The grading plan calls for runoff to drain basically from west to east. Two catch
2-16-89 -1-
Application No. 89005 continued
basins are proposed, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner of
the parking lot. The catch basins will be connected by 12" storm sewer lines to a
catch basin in James Circle. An 18" line in James Circle will convey runoff
southward to a holding pond south of the bend in James Circle. The holding pond will
drain out into a 21" line flowing north to the 60" storm sewer in Freeway Boulevard.
Drainage calculations for a 5-year and 100-year storm have been submitted to the
City Engineer for review.
The plan calls for a hydrant to be placed just inside the north property line. The
Fire Chief has recommended that the hydrant be placed either in the green area north
of the building or near the common property line with the vacant parcel to the south
so as to serve both sites. There is an 8" line coming off the main in Freeway
Boulevard which could serve both a hydrant and a service to the building rather than
having separate lines for each. Sanitary sewer service will extend from the east
side of the building to a new sanitary main in James Circle (east leg).
Building
The applicant proposes a 4,285 sq. ft. light brick building with a mansard treatment
carried continuously around the building. Signs are indicated on the wall and on
the mansard. As long as the mansard is carried entirely around the building, the
mansard signs can be considered wall signs (as opposed to roof signs). Windows
around the seating area (roughly the north one third of the building) are proposed to
be 1" insulated and bronze tinted glass.
Lighting/Trash
The plan calls for a trash enclosure on a concrete pad at the southwest corner of the
parking lot. Proposed lighting raises some concerns. The site plan calls for four
30' high poles, two on the east side of the site and two on the west. Each pole is to
have three 400 watt high pressure sodium luminaires, tilted at least 250 to shine
out on the building. We are not as concerned with those lights that shine directly
on the building as much as with the four fixtures that will shine off in a northerly
direction, projecting some glare toward Freeway Boulevard. While the level of
lighting, measured in foot-candles, is within the 10 foot candle limit established
in Section 35-712 of the Zoning Ordinance, we believe the projection of light off the
premises is inconsistent with that section which requires illumination to be
concentrated on the property. Tt also provides that "no glare shall emanate from or
be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises". The southerly as
well as the northerly lamp on each pole will shine onto the property to the south.
This may not be unwelcome in a commercial district, but it is contrary to the
direction of the ordinance. We would recommend a condition calling for
modification of these light fixtures to comply with Section 35-712, ie. no tilt of
the northerly or southerly lamps.
Special Use Standards
The proposed convenience food restaurant is presently an acknowledged special use
in the I-1 zoning district. (As the Commission is aware, the City has initiated a
rezoning of this and neighboring properties to C2, in which convenience food
restaurants are also acknowledged as a special use. Accompanying the rezoning is
an ordinance amendment which would, among other things, eliminate convenience food
restaurants from the I-1 zone). All special uses are subject to the standards set
forth in Section 35-220, Subsection 2 (attached). The applicant has submitted a
brief statement (attached) asserting that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are
met by the proposed Hardees restaurant.
2-16-89 -2-
Application No. 89005 continued
We agree that the proposed restaurant will not endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort. We also anticipate no negative impact on property values within
the neighborhood. The establishment of the proposed restaurant should not impede
the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. In fact, the seller of
the site (Richardson and Sons) expects that the installation of the roadway and the
construction of the restaurant will stimulate further development of the remaining
vacant land south of Freeway Boulevard. Finally, ingress, egress and parking have
been so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The
location of the single access drive relative to the drive-up window will insure that
stacking for the drive-up business is accommodated on site and will not spill out
onto James Circle or Freeway Boulevard.
Recommendation
In general, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to
at least the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and
operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive-up
window. No other uses are comprehended.
2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
i
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
I
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits.
6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be
connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
2-16-89 -3-
Application No. 89005 continued
We agree that the proposed restaurant will not endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort. We also anticipate no negative impact on property values within
the neighborhood. The establishment of the proposed restaurant should not impede
the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. In fact, the seller of
the site (Richardson and Sons) expects that the installation of the roadway and the
construction of the restaurant will stimulate further development of the remaining
vacant land south of Freeway Boulevard. Finally, ingress, egress and parking have
been so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The
location of the single access drive relative to the drive-up window will insure that
stacking for the drive-up business is accommodated on site and will not spill out
onto James Circle or Freeway Boulevard.
Recommendation
In general, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to
at least the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued for the construction and
operation of a convenience food restaurant with a drive-up
window. No other uses are comprehended.
2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
5. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits.
6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be
connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
2-16-89 -3-
Application No. 89005 continued
11. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the
performance guarantee.
12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for
Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage
Systems.
13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of Section 35-
712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans
shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits, to
eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light
poles on the site.
14. One on-site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved
by the Fire Chief.
15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by
the City Council,to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent
to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot
screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior
to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as
requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping
with community standards.
16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the
plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No.
88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed
with Hennepin County.
2-16-89 -4-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 89006
Applicant: E and H Properties
Location: 6550 West River Road
Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests approval to rezone from R5 to C2 a small sliver of land at the
southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The land is located to the
east of the present C2 zoning district, adjacent to the Atkins Mechanical site. It
is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5 zoned land on the east, by
an 18 unit apartment building on the south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins
Mechanical on the west. The zoning line presently angles southeastward at the
southeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site. The proposed rezoning would draw
the zoning line directly from the northeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site to
the southeast corner of the vacant C2 land south of Atkins Mechanical (see area map,
attached).
Background
The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to square out the C2 district at the
southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 and thereby simplify
development of the C2 land for a gas station/convenience store/car wash. The
squared out district will also make access to 66th easier and allow for left turns
out of the site onto 66th. A replat of the property is also required to put all of
the C2 land into a single parcel and to complete the transfer of land from the R5 to
the C2 zoning district.
Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines
All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section
?5-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Mr. Howard Atkins of E and H Properties
has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he briefly addresses the guidelines.
Mr. Atkins' arguments and staff comments follow below:
a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? l
Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and R5 is irregular. Straightening
out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and will
align access with new median opening."
Staff: Placing the access to the gas station in such a location as to put it
beyond (eastward of) the median in 66th Avenue North is appropriate. An
efficient site layout is also generally a public benefit, but this case
certainly has private benefits as well by allowing more retail space and more
maneuverability for cars on the site. To the extent that an "efficient"
layout increases traffic, noise, glare from headlights, etc. the more concern
there is that there might be some detriment to neighboring properties.
b) Is the proposed rezoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding
land use classifications?
Atkins: "The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely compatible
with surrounding land use."
2-16-89 -1-
Application No. 89006 continued
i
Staff: The straightening of the zoning line is not so much the issue as is the
ultimate use of the property. Service stations and car washes are not
k permitted to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. The proposed development will
not abut R1, R2, or R3 land, but the land which will serve as a buffer is vacant
and does little to separate the service station from the single-family
residential neighborhood on the east side of Willow Lane. We anticipate some
neighborhood opposition to the development. If an office development were
proposed concurrently on the R5 land to the east of the site, (which should
perhaps be zoned to Cl) this might go some distance in providing an effective
buffer to the service station.
c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in the C2
zone."
Staff: Service stations are comprehended in the C2 zone by special use permit
and are subject to the standards for special uses contained in Section 35-220
of the Zoning Ordinance.
d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in
the area since the subject property was zoned?
Atkins: "There have been no physical or zoning classification changes since
the subject property was zoned."
Staff: There has certainly been an upgrading of Highway 252 in this area which
has no doubt raised the value of real estate at the intersection of 66th and
Highway 252. Another physical change, which surely contributes to the
service station proposed, is the elimination of two gas stations at this
intersection as a result of the reconstruction of Highway 252 and the frontage
road entrance to West River Road. Superamerica, at the southwest corner of
the intersection, has been doing well and has plans to expand its site in the
near future. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not require developers to prove
with a market analysis that a business will be successful, nor can the City
protect existing businesses from competition by discriminatory zoning
actions. Nevertheless, we certainly hope that this intersection will not be
home to four gas stations as it was at one point in the 1970's. Such an outcome
would probably result in the failure of one or more stations and lead
ultimately to redevelopment as in the case of the existing Atkins Mechanical
office on the subject site.
,I
e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public
purpose evident?
Atkins: "Not applicable."
Staff: Not applicable.
2-16-89 -2-
Application No. 89006 continued
f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development
restrictions for the C2 zoning district."
Staff: The plans we have seen thus far comply with ordinance requirements.
No variances are sought and none are recommended.
g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the
present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography
or location?
Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present
zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will align the C2
property with the proposed access road and new median opening on 66th Avenue
North."
Staff: Perhaps one consideration should be whether the land remaining in the
parcel to the east will be sufficient for construction of a development that
will screen and buffer the gas station from the residential neighborhood to the
east. We have seen no plans for that parcel as yet, but we believe it is at
least feasible to design such a development, though it will likely be tight,
given the lack of width of the parcel. The Commission may wish to ask the
applicant to submit at least a concept plan for the remaining R5 parcel. Our
understanding at this time is that the applicant intends to develop it
ultimately for office use. Again, consideration of a rezoning from R5 to C1
may well be in order, as a service/office use appears to be a more desirable
buffer than multiple residential use of the property.
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?
Atkins: "The rezoning will not result in the expansion of the zoning
district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning
line."
Staff: It seems obvious that the rezoning action would result in a slight
expansion of the C2 zoning district. This is not in conflict with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan Revisions map at figure 15 of the
Comprehensive Plan includes all of the vacant land surrounding the Atkins
Mechanical site (including the R5 land) in area #3. Table 14 (attached with
figure 15) lists the recommended use of this land as "commercial retail." A ;
rezoning of all the land zoned R5 at the southwest corner of 66th and Willow
Lane to C2 could, therefore, be comprehended. We would not recommend such a
rezoning today. One reason for the Plan recommendation may have been to
eliminate the R5 zoning and thereby potential apartment development. The
Northeast Neighborhood of the City (in which this land is situated) has the
2-16-89 -3-
Application No. 89006 continued
highest concentration of multiple family dwellings in the City; yet the
Comprehensive Plan recommends that the northeast neighborhood be
predominantly single-family residential. We presume that the Plan
recommendation was intended more to preclude apartment development than to
place commercial retail development across the street from single-family
homes. We would recommend that the R5 land be rezoned to C1 to allow for office
development. This would be in keeping with the Plan and would provide some
buffer between the C2 and R1 zoning districts.
i) Does the proposal demonstate merit beyond the interests of an owner or
owners of an individual parcel?
Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better
traffic flow by allowing direct access to new median opening."
Staff: We agree that an access to the C2 property should be to the east of the
median in 66th Avenue North to allow for left turns directly onto westbound
66th without making U-turns or turning around in people's driveways on Willow
Lane. Also, the R5 zone does not allow as an accessory use "any business or
industrial accessory use." We have considered access drives serving
commercial uses to be an example of such an accessory use disallowed under
Section 35-314 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . We, therefore, would
recommend avoiding some sort of cross-access arrangement where the service
station traffic would cross over a residentially zoned parcel to exit onto 66th
Avenue North. Of course, if this property (the R5 property) were zoned Cl,
such a conflict would not arise. (The Commission may wish to expand this
application to include a rezoning of the R5 land to Cl, thus insuring that an
office development will ultimately be built between the C2 district and Willow
Lane). At any rate, we would agree that there is merit to at least some
expansion of the C2 district boundary.
Procedure
As the Commission is aware, the normal procedure with rezoning applications is to
open the public hearing, take comments from the neighborhood and then table the
matter, referring it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group (in this case,
it would be the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group) for review and comment. In
this case, due to the slight area of land involved, the Commission may wish to waive
the review of the neighborhood group although this is not recommended. In any case,
tabling of the application is in order as no development plans or preliminary plat
have yet been submitted to flesh out the rezoning proposal.
As we have discussed briefly in our analysis of the proposal, the Commission may wish
to consider jointly a rezoning of the remaining R5 land to Cl. We believe the
neighborhood would prefer to see an office development as a buffer to the service
station rather than an apartment building. The applicant's future plans presently
lean in this direction and it would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation for the area. If a companion rezoning to C1 were pursued, a referral
to the neighborhood group might be more appropriate.
2-16-89 -4-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No, 89007
Applicant: Maranatha Place
Location: 5401/5415 69th Avenue North
Request: Sign Variance
The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to have an off-premise
freestanding sign for the Maranatha Place apartment building at 5415 69th Avenue
North. The sign would be located on a retaining wall on the nursing home property to
the east. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th
Avenue North, on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by the
Maranatha Place Apartments. Beyond Maranatha Place is a three-story apartment
complex across the city boundary in Brooklyn Park. Off-premise identification or
advertising signs are considered billboards and are prohibited under Section 34-
130.11 of the Sign Ordinance. Also, apartment complexes are only allowed to have
freestanding signs if they are cluster developments with three or more buildings and
36 or more units (Section 34-140.3C.3) .
Sign variances are subject to three standards contained in 340-180 (attached). The
standards are similar to those in the Zoning Ordinance. A particular hardship must
be shown if the strict letter of the ordinance is carried out. The conditions upon
which the variance is based must be unique to the parcel of land and not be common
generally in the zoning district. Finally, the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in
the neighborhood.
The applicant (Mr. David Viland, administrator of the Maranatha Care Center) has
submitted a letter addressing the Standards for a Variance, a rendering of the
proposed sign and a site plan (all attached) . The sign itself is proposed to be
located on a brick retaining wall in the northwestern portion of the Maranatha Care
Center site. There would be three sections of the retaining wall, two convex
relative to 69th and a middle section convave. The signs would be located on the
convex sections, Maranatha Care Center on the easterly section and Maranatha Place
on the westerly section. The sign would be located between the entrance serving the
care center and the entrance to the apartment building.
Regarding hardship, Mr. Viland states that the length of their business name makes
it difficult to stay within the size limitation yet making the sign readable from a
distance. Also, the only location for a sign allowed by ordinance would be the
north wall of the apartment building which is very utilitarian in appearance and
function. Staff would agree that a 10 sq. ft. sign is not really sufficient for this
building, considering its bulk and the number of units in it. (It may be that the
Commission will want to evaluate the existing ordinance for possible change.
Nevertheless, we feel the variance can proceed apart from an ordinance change).
There is also some advantage, not only to the applicant, but to the City as well, in
consolidating the identification signery of this complex in a single location. The
fact that the sign would be located across a property line seems immaterial as long
as both properties are under common ownership.
Regarding uniqueness, Mr. Viland states that the conditions are unique because of
the way the two buildings are situated in relationship to each other, the
restrictions on the access driveway location, and the continuum of services which
the two business componants together provide. Mr. Viland explains this continuum
2-16-89 -1-
Application No. 89007 continued
of services ranging from completely independent living to a setting where complete
care is provided. He states that the proposed signery effectively portrays to the
community the continuum of services offered. He concludes by noting that, though
the nursing home and apartment building are technically on separate parcels, their
ownership, management and service are singular.
Staff would certainly agree that the continuum of services available at the subject
properties is unique. The arrangement of the two buildings, attached along a
common zoning as well as property line is very unique. The building attachment
serves to indicate that the two entities form a common unit. Unified signery is,
therefore, appropriate.
Regarding potential detriment to the public welfare and injury to other property,
Mr. Viland points out that a single sign monument will eliminate the need for a
separate sign on the Maranatha Place property. He also notes that there are plans
for landscaping around the retaining wall and that the signery will be very subtle
and aesthetic.
Staff agree that the proposed signery is low key and should not pose any detriment to
public welfare or injury to property in the neighborhood.
Recommendation
We believe there is definite merit to this variance request. Approval is
recommended, noting the following findings:
1 . Unified signery for the care center/apartment complex is
appropriate and even desirable. Applying the ordinance
literally would prevent such unified signery and would work a
hardship on the applicant.
2. The continuum of services offered in the complex and the
attachment of the buildings across zoning as well as property
lines are unique conditions which are not common generally in
either the R6 or R1 zoning districts.
3. The proposed signery is aesthetically attractive and will have no
greater impact than two separate sign monuments. There should,
therefore, be no detrimental effect on the public welfare, nor
injury to other property in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed retaining wall serves a function in addition to
providing a wall on which to place signery. Sign area,
therefore, need not be computed as the total face of the retaining
wall, but only that area covered by the proposed signery.
5. Variance approval acknowledges one 28 sq. ft. freestanding sign
as proposed on the Maranatha Care Center property. No other
identification signery for Maranatha Place is acknowledged by
f this variance approval.
E
6. The existing identification sign for the care center shall be
removed prior to issuance of the sign permits for the proposed
signs.
2-16-89 -2-