Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC78043 - 8/10/78 & 9/14/78 - 4455 68th AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: `1�043 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: Ca PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Tvoe Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission g1�O -s City Vault q kIg1 `rg, Minutes: City Council City Vault Document Tvoe Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION Application No. 78043 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 4455 - 68th Avenue North Legal Description of Property Lot 4, Block 2, Northtown Plaza 2nd Addition Owner Jerry E. Harrington Address 7400 - 42nd Avenue North Applicant Same Address Type of Request: M Rezoning Variance 55427 Phone No. 533-2529 Phone No. Subdivision Approval X Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Site and Building Plan approval and special use permit for retail distribution in the C-2 zone. Fee $51L nn Receipt No. 48639 Applicant s ignature Date PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: Approved r. - Denied this IC ,d�day of 6& -r 19 _2.�, subject to the follow- ing coed`7�ons:- i '� � hairman ------------------------------------------------ CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved _ Denied this cW.6- day cf t_ 19 1�, with the following amendment: er P/I Form No. 18 (over please) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Prior to submission of an application for plan review and approval, prospective applicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning staff to discuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance and policy provisions. Three (3) copies of the following documents and information shall be submitted, at least 14 days prior to the date of the regular Commission meeting, concurrent with filing the application required documents must be consistent with ordinance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): 1. A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. 2.* An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating: a) parking layouts including access provisions; b) designations and locations of accessory buildings; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location; e) curbing. 3.* A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded; location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. 4.* Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. 5.* Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions. 6. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, and said drawings/plans shall be so certified. NOTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, a Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting financial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by the City, are required. Acceptable financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and performance bond. Copies of the Zoning Ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative Office. Questions should be directed to the Department of Planning and Inspection. P/1 Form No. 19 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78043 Applicant: Jerry Harrington Location: 4455 - 68th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for a._wholesale.di,stributi-on center consisting of three 20,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse buildings on the C2 property located at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The property is located easterly of the NSP service facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. The applicant has submitted a letter briefly outlining his proposal. The Commission was presented conceptual drawings of the applicant's proposal on June 15, 1978, and the concept was briefly reviewed. He contends the property is not well suited for standard commercial/retail type uses due to its location, accessibility and the nature of neighboring land uses. This same applicant has received site and building plan approval, under Application 77049, in October, 1977, for an approximate 44,000 sq. ft. commercial speculative building proposed for multiple tenancies on this same site. He has not been able to market this concept and desires to pursue the wholesale distribution concept proposed in this application. The Commission, when reviewing this concept, on June 15, 1978 looked at three possible approaches to the concept. One, was to rezone the land to I-1, another was to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain special uses in the C2 District, such as wholesale distribution, and the third was to accept an application for the proposed development and make a finding that the proposed use was similar in nature to other uses in the C2 District. The Commission felt the third alternative was the most viable and agreed to proceed in this manner. This application was again reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August-10, 1978 meeting, and the proposal was discussed in greater detail: A number of concerns were raised with respect to this application, including parking for the site under the proposed use, as well as future parking needs if the property wereto be converted to strictly retail uses. The applicant proposed the possibility of a restrictive covenant, similar to that used in the S and H Green Stamp involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North, that would require additional parking to be inside of one of the three buildings if parking became a problem at a future date. There was also a discussion relating to a 1973 proposal for "mini warehouses" on this same site. That application was denied on the basis that the proposal was more appropriately a use comprehended in the industrial district. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1978 to give more time to pursue the possibility of a restrictive covenant, and to prepare plans to show that adequate parking for C2 uses could be provided on the site. The City Attorney has reviewed a proposed restrictive covenant and has responded to this matter through a memorandum (attached). His recommendation would be to abandon the idea of a restrictive covenant and use an ordinance amendment which the Planning Commission -might find acceptable. I have had a follow-up conversation with the City Attorney regarding providing a Proof of Parking which would include using one of the buildings for parking if the need should arise in the future. It was pointed out that the City has previously required that inside parking be used if a situation would exist where the change in use might dictate that more parking is needed. Two incidents that come to mind involve the Mikros Engineering appli- cation and restrictive covenant of the S and H Green Stamp application. _1_ 9-14-78 Application No. 78043 Page 2 The City Attorney has indicated that the restrictive covenant could be used in conjunction with the Proof of Parking to show that parking could be provided on the site should there be a future need. He does not necessarily recommend this for the reasons noted in his memo. Another aspect of the application which needs careful review by the Planning Commission involves making a determination that the applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C2 District. The applicant feels that his proposal is similar to the American Bakeries use. The bakery use is not specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted C2 use, and it is my understanding that a determination was,made that it was also similar in nature to other C2 uses. The question is whether or not the applicant's proposal is similar to C2 permitted uses, or should this type of proposal be limited to areas such as the I-1 District where there are already a number of buildings which have office and warehouse uses. We will be prepared to review the plans in more detail and discuss the application at Thursday evening's meeting. Should approval of the application be recommended by the Planning Commission, there should be an acknowledgment that the use is similar in nature to other per- mitted C2 uses, and at least the following conditions of approval should be included: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval comprehends parking to support the proposed wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to provide parking in one of three buildings should the wholesale distribution use cease.and be converted to another C2 use requiring more parking. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened from view. -2- 9-14-78 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78043 Applicant: Jerry Harrington Location: 4455 - 68th Avenue North Request: Special Use, Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center consisting of three 20,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse buildings on the C2 property at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The property is located easterly of the NSP service facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. A letter from the applicant briefly outlining his proposal is attached with the agenda. On June 15, 1978, the Commission was presented conceptual drawings and the appli- cant's proposal was briefly reviewed. The applicant contends the property is not well suited for standard Commercial/Retail-type uses.due to its location, accessi- bility and the nature of neighboring land uses. This same applicant has received site and building plan approval, under Application No. 77049, in October, 1977 for an approximate 44,000 sq..-ft., commercial. speculative building.propo.sed for multiple tenancies -.on this. same site.... He has not been able to market this concept and desires to pursue -.the whol.esal.e distribution..concept proposed in.thi.s application. The Commission, when reviewing the concept, on June 15, 1978, looked at three approaches to the concept: 1. Rezone the land to I-1 (which the Commission had earlier determined was the least desirable since it was characteristic of "spot zoning"); 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for certain special uses in the C2 district such as wholesale distribution subject to certain conditions; - 3. Accept an application for proposed development and request that a finding be made that the proposed use was similar in use to other uses in the C2 district. The Commission felt the third alternative was the most viable and agreed to proceed in this manner. The applicant contends that the proposed use is similar in nature to the American Bakeries use on 69th Avenue North. We have reviewed the applicant's plans and have met with him regarding this use and other C2-uses for the property. We have concerns regarding the "similarity" of this use with the American Bakeries use in that, the bakery has a mixture of retail, office and wholesale distribution uses on its site. There is no assurance that the applicant intends to have retail uses in all three buildings proposed. Another concern has to do with parking on the site. Because the property is zoned C2, a Proof of Parking Plan indicating that commercial parking could be met would be required. Based on the plans reviewed, we recommended to the applicant that he eliminate one of the three buildings to provide additional parking spaces. Application No. 78043 Page 2 Following our meeting, Mr. Harrington was to contact us with regard to his intentions with respect to his proposal. Because the application was accepted some time ago, the matter has been placed on the agenda. Recommendation It is recommended that the Commission discuss the concept and proposal with Mr. Harrington in more detail. We do not feel the plans are in order, and a tabling action might well be in order.