Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-30 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89002 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southwest quadrant of 194 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning Application No. 89002, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, proposes to rezone from R5 to C1 the lots located at 6451 to 6533 Brooklyn Boulevard, including a 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is bounded on the north by 194, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by some four plexes and single-family homes, and on the west by single-family homes. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 1989 meeting, at which a public hearing was opened. The application was tabled by the Commission and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met on February 21, 1989 at City Hall to consider the matter. (Minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's review.) The neighborhood advisory group unanimously recommended the C1 zoning as proposed. One property owner, Mr. Dave Paulat of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, was mildly opposed to the rezoning since it would prohibit any further expansion of his home. We feel this area is simply not a good location for single-family homes and any further additions to these properties would be counterproductive. Other property owners generally favored the rezoning. Neighbors were generally concerned regarding access to the large vacant parcel and screening of that parcel from the single-family homes around it. We explained that the City is still opposed to any access from Indiana Avenue North to the west. We also noted the requirements for a 15' buffer and a minimum 4' high fence. The neighbors expressed a desire for higher fences. Representatives of Public Storage also made a presentation at the neighborhood meeting. They desire to build a mini-storage development on the 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. (see appeal Application No. 89011 in this agenda packet.) As we stated at the neighborhood advisory group meeting, mini-storage is not acknowledged as either a permitted or special use in the C1 zoning district. The purpose of the City-initiated rezoning to C1 is in no way intended to accommodate the mini-storage use. Public Storage wishes the City to amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow mini-storage as a special use in the C1 zone and has set forth its arguments and draft ordinance language under appeal Application No. 89011. Staff are opposed to allowing warehousing and storage in the C1 zone. The neighborhood advisory group did not comment on the question of mini-storage. The public hearing on Application No. 89002 has been continued to this Thursday's meeting. Notices of the hearing, scheduled for 8:00 p.m. , have been sent. A resolution recommending approval of the rezoning application has been drafted and is attached for the Commission's review. Adoption of the resolution is recommended. 3-30-89 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89011 Applicant: Public Storage - Location: Southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Appeal This application is classified as an appeal. However, it is actually a request for an ordinance amendment to allow self-storage as a special use in the C1 zoning district. The appellant wishes to develop the vacant, 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard with mini-warehouses. Staff have conveyed to the appellant that warehousing and storage are acknowledged uses only in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts and are not acknowledged in the C1 district. The property in question is included in a City-initiated rezoning proposal for this area to C1 from R5 (see Application No. 89002) . The purpose of the rezoning is to eliminate multi-family residential development as an option for the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and to allow service/office development, but it is not to allow for self-storage development which we feel is more appropriately located in the I-1 and I-2 zones as presently provided for. The appellant's representative, Mr. Tim Malloy with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, has submitted written arguments (attached) which address the guidelines for evaluating rezonings from Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (also attached) . He has also submitted draft ordinance language (attached) for Sections 35-320, Subsection 3 (special uses in the C1 zone) and Section 35-411 (special requirements in C1 and C1A districts) . The appellant's arguments are summarized below: A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The appellant argues that mini-storage provides a valuable service to the general public. The facilities are used by a variety of groups. Elderly residents who move to smaller accommodations, renters who have limited storage space in apartment buildings, small businesses and offices seeking temporary storage of surplus stock or old files - all these users have a need for storage space. Mr. Malloy notes that industrial districts tend to be more secluded and less frequently patrolled making safety an issue for elderly and single females who frequently use mini-storage facilities. Allowing mini-storage in the C1 zone by special use permit would make it more accessible to the people who use it. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Mr. Malloy notes that C1 zoning has been cited by the City as a buffer use. He states mini-storage could be required to provide generous landscaping making them "ideal as a buffer use between major thoroughfares or more intense uses and residential or other sensitive uses." Mr. Malloy points out that mini- storage is compatible with other C1 uses because it is a low traffic generator and, therefore, does not contribute to traffic congestion in a commercial district. Mini-storage also can provide convenient storage to surrounding office uses. 3-30-89 -1- Application No. 89011 continued C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Mr. Malloy notes the specific use proposed and offers an alternative question: "could the development of this use be contemplated on any given vacant parcel within the C1 District? In answer, Mr. Malloy points out that the draft language proposes the use as a special use which would "give the City substantial control of how the facilities are constructed and operated." Secondly, location would be limited to properties in the C1 district which are located with primary vehicular access off a major thoroughfare or arterial street. The sites would thus be limited and there would be no traffic generated on residential streets. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Not applicable. E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Self-storage is not proposed by the City. The rezoning should be based on sound planning principles. The applicant believes that the benefits outlined in item A demonstrate a broad public purpose for allowing mini-storage as a special use in the C1 district. F. Will the subject property fully bear the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district.? Mr. Malloy states that this question is not directly applicable, but raises important issues that might be better addressed separately as follows: 111) Do the development characteristics of mini-storage facilities generally comply with the development restrictions set forth in the Zoning Code for the C1 District, as well as the general requirements of the Code? Yes. 2) Are the development restrictions outlined in the Code adequate enough to ensure that the development of mini-storage facilities within the C1 District will be compatible with surrounding land uses and that they will meet the health, safety and welfare standards of the City of Brooklyn Center?" Mr. Malloy answers this last question by making two points: a) classification of mini-storage as a special use will allow the City to address inadequacies in the existing requirements through conditions of approval; and b) the ordinance proposed would place restrictions on lot size, building coverage, security, screening, aesthetics, etc. and thus mini-storage can be adequately controlled. 3-30-89 -2- Application No. 89011 continued G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location? "Not Applicable." 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 proposed rezoning does not expand the area of a district." I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? "See Item A." We will not review the proposed ordinance language point by point in this report. It is attached for the Commission's consideration. The ordinance language calls for mini-storage to be allowed as a special use in the C1 zone provided the facility is located with the primary vehicular access off a "thoroughfare or minor arterial street." A minimum lot size of 2 acres and a maximum lot coverage of 40% (by buildings) is proposed. Hours of operation would be determined by the City Council. Dead storage only would be permitted; no transfer stations would be allowed. No garage sales would be permitted. Security provisions would include a minimum 6' high barrier around the perimeter of the site, a gate for vehicular access, and a resident manager. Parking requirements would be one space per 35 storage units, equally distributed throughout the site. The draft ordinance proposes driveway and parking stall widths below the City's current standards, but adds that drive widths and turning radii must be adequate for emergency vehicles. Landscape requirements would be applied "to minimize the environmental impacts of self-service storage facilities such as: visual blight, parking or recreational vehicle storage, lighting, noise, and dust, on adjacent properties or public streets." A"view obstructing barrier not less than 6 feet in height and providing a minimum year-round opaqueness of 60 percent" would be required. Further specifications of landscape treatment and screening devices are added. The draft ordinance also calls for fairly vague aesthetic controls. Exterior materials would have to be "attractive" and "durable", and "harmonious with surrounding developments." Restrictions governing noise, waste handling and storage, vibration and odor, glare and heat would be the same as applied in the I-1 and I-2 districts under Section 35-413, Subsections 3 through 8. Staff Response Staff are opposed to the draft ordinance language as it applies to the Cl zoning district. We feel that the proposal would simply introduce an industrial use (warehousing and storage) into the service/office zoning district. The building to land ratio, the parking requirement, the use itself, and the restrictions applied to environmental impacts such as noise, odor, and vibration - all are similar toor precisely the same as for industrial uses. Conveniently, the buffer provisions are 3-30-89 -3- Application No. 89011 continued not. While the draft ordinance language spends a lot of verbage on landscaping and screening requirements, the bottom line is that they are not much different than for a standard C1 use. A C1 use that abuts Rl zoned land at a property line must provide a 15' buffer and a 41 high fence. An industrial use that abuts R1 zoned land at a property line must provide a 100' buffer and an 8' high fence. We believe that our landscape point system and the requirement fors underground irrigation, for the most part, adequately addresses the landscape issue. The appellant will no doubt show the Commission renderings of similar projects around the country with stucco walls and hip roofs. The aesthetic criteria proposed, however, are fairly vague and will not insure quality. We believe the most effective way to insure quality development in the C1 zone is to restrict it to service/office uses which invest far more per square foot of building than any mini- warehouse, however designed and landscaped. As Mr. Orgas stated at the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting, mini-storage is an interim land use until market forces dictate a more intense use of the land. It does not tend to be a permanent use, justifying substantial investment. We do not argue that there is no need for mini-storage facilities, but we simply do not believe they are appropriate for the C1 or even the C2 district. They are an industrial use and belong in the industrial district. Security can be adequately addressed in the I-1 and I-2 zones. A proposal in those zoning districts involving a resident manager would certainly have merit and some of the proposed ordinance provisions could be considered for the industrial districts, including allowing a resident manager. The Commission should be aware that there was a proposal for mini-warehouses in 1973 for the property now occupied by the Osseo-Brooklyn Bus Company Company at 68th and Lee Avenues North. That proposal was considered at some length over a period of approximately one year and was denied by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The resolution of denial adopted by the City Council (attached) , cited three basic reasons for the denial: 111) The proposed use is neither a recognized permitted or special use in the C2 District per Section 35-322 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) The proposed use is not deemed similar in nature to other recognized C2 District uses per Section 35-322 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) The proposed use is deemed similar to and more compatible with recognized uses in the I-1 (Industrial Park) and I-2 (General Industry) Districts." While simply put, these findings state the basic facts of the case in 1973 and, we believe, today as well: namely, that mini-storage is an industrial use and should only be comprehended in the industrial zoning districts. Finally, we have noted the appellant's point that the proposed mini-storage use is a low traffic generator (they have estimated that their facility would generate only about 60 trips per day) . While the site in question certainly has access problems and people may find it difficult to enter and exit the site, we do not feel that this is a good case for allowing mini-storage in the C1 zone. Industrial uses do tend to involve less traffic than commercial uses. This is why traffic counts on Shingle f Cre-k Parkway north of Freeway Boulevard are much lower than counts south of Freeway Boulevard. Commercial uses generate more traffic. That is why they are located in commercial districts and why commercial streets tend to be congested. Traffic 3-30-89 -4- generation may be a reason for limiting development options, for rezoning, and/or for designing ingress, egress and parking so as to avoid traffic congestion in the -- public streets. We do not believe low traffic generation is an appropriate basis for opening up the C1 zone to industrial uses. And, we do not believe that the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard should be zoned industrial, given its residential abutment. We do not find a broad public purpose for allowing this industrial use in a C1 zoning district. There is vacant, undeveloped land in the I-1 and I-2 zones that can appropriately be put to use for such development in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owners and those proposing the development. Based on the above considerations, we recommend denial of the appeal and the associated proposed ordinance language for the C1 zoning district. The appellant has submitted site and building plans with the appeal application. A reduction of the site plan is attached and the drawings will be presented to the Commission at Thursday night's meeting. However, we have not performed a detailed analysis of the plans (nor did we request them) because the basic use question identified in the appeal must be answered first. No site and building plan application is before the Commission for review. 3-30-89 -5- � ; 1 1