Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC73019 - 3/1/73 & 6/7/73 & 4/4/74 - 68th Ave & Lee AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: Gy FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: 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 Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning CommissionCity Vault LA Iaa-'-Ili Minutes: City Council S(a.6 -OA City Vault 10 ( 3 ("14 Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault 1 CITY OF BROOKLyt3 CENTER Planning CcmTniss 4 on Application Application No. 73019 Street Location of Property 68th Avenue North and Lee Avenue North Legal Description of Property Lot 4, Block 2, Northtown Plaza Second Addition Owner Nolan Bros., Inc. Address 650 Builders Exchange - Zpls. Telephone No. 338-7859 Applicant E-Z Mini -Storage Address 650 Builders Exch. Mpls. Telephone No. Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Special Use Permit Description and Reason for Request.._ Subdivision Approval x Site & Bldg. Plans Other To permit new construction of office and commercial space for individual storage, etc. Fee $ 10.00 Receipt No. 7460 rkWL/ r Applicant 1 / Date PLANNING COI•24ISS ION ,RECON MENDATION Dates of P. C. Consideration: 1 Approved Denied this -4ty day of subject to the following conditions: _ 0Fw - Cha ir1Tl .n — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- CIT'Y COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denie with the following amenr:ment: this Oay o19_�f` Clerk I PLA17NIlOG MOI + SSZOIN INFORMATION SMEE` Application No. Applicant: Request- ; 73019 B -Z "Mini Storage 68th and twee Avenues iiorth Use, Site and Building Plan Approval Analysis and baelt9round ok the request are outlined in a separate mernoxandtnn. the appli-Cation, t>ras considered march 1, 1973 and June 7. 1973 and tabled, in lieu of xecoir=ended denial, to permit develoXent o:i! plans consistent Vlitsl ord-Impnce requirements. The central question, u1ni ch must ba resolved before Waite and building plari s can be zoviewed for recnmmendeatioa i,: is the proposed use, sins ilaz in nature- to the other per-- mitted C--2 uses, to be doomed a permitted O-2 use itself? We will be prepared to disct?as he site and building plans in detail, and to offer a becoratendation, once the above zoning Inatter has been reafllved. M 69 To AveNue 4601 ( n! . S. P. C,2 w Ur V } tL tL a W f� o p �1- s-9Li Akw 4S11' 4314SO i 4333 (SERVo,+v�rgYj�P�; \ MEMORANDUM: U]�dated Analysis and Comment Relative to Planning Commission Application No. 73019, Submitted by Mr. Charles Nolan for E-Z Mini Storage. TO: Brooklyn Center Planning Commission FROM: Blair Tremere, Secretary DATE: March, 1974 The subject application is tentatively scheduled for review and poss*ible disposition at the April 4th meeting subsequent to its conceptual re- view on March 1, 1973 and first formal hearing on June 7, 1973 at which time it was tabled. I. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing the construction of several approximately 500 feet long buildings on the parcel of land at 68th and Lee Avenue North, westerly of Iten Chevrolet and easterly of the N.S.P. Service facility. The buildings would run north and south with the parcel which abuts Interstate 94. Under the applicant's E-Z Mini Storage concept the `- buildings would be divided into a number of garage -like bays or compart- ments ranging in a variety of sizes. Entrance to the compartments would be through overhead doors. In addition, the applicant is proposing a small office space at each end of each of the buildings which would also be rented. The concept is to provide the general public with, as the advertising brochure puts it, "an ideal way and convenient place to provide storage for both your business and personal requirements". It provides self- service, small scale, general storage or warehousing. The applicant contends that the facility is commercial in nature (vs. industrial) for zoning purposes, and that while it may not be specifically .recognized under the C-2 provisions of the ordinance, it could be cate- gorized under Section 35-322 (j) : "Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned (C-2) uses as determined by the City Council". The applicant's response as to why the facility was not proposed on a site in either the Industrial Park or the General Industrial Zone is that the land costs in those zones compared to the cost of the subject parcel were "prchibitive". The zoning of the particular site is an important issue which must be �, resolved with respect to the disposition of this application. Other Planning Commission Page 2 `.- concerns include the site planning and improvements as well as the nature of the proposed use. II. CONCERNS A. Zoning: The following factors, among others, should be weighed with respect to the zoning. to The C-2 prr_,�visions of the ordinance do not specifically compre- hend this type of facility as a permitted use in the C-2 zone with the exception of offices. The proposed facility is not specifically recognized as a "special use" in the C-2 zone, either. It should be noted, however, that such a facility .is not specifically comprehended in the I-1 or I-2 districts either and thus, if it is to be considered in any zone, C-2, I-1, or I-2, it would be as "other similar uses (to those permitted in the zone) as determined by the City Council". 2. The Commission last year concluded that such a project could only be deemed appropriate in this particular zone and location, if the plans indicated the project was compatible with C-2 type uses in general and with area commercial uses specifically. In addition, the staff and Commission indicated to the applicant that substantial consideration would be given to the potential commercial use of this site and the proposed buildings, should the E-Z Mini Storage cease. The applicant has, during the past year, developed a conceptual plan which comprehends a possible commercial "mall type" arrangement, requiring the removal. of portions of the buildings. He has also located the buildings on the site in such a manner that adequate space would be available for appropriate walkways, curbing, parking and driveways for uses other than the E-Z Mini Storage. 3. Other uses in the C-2 zoned land in the area include: Iten Chevrolet, which abuts the subject property to the east, and Brockdale Pontiac, both of which include outside storage (auto- mobile dealerships being recognized as special uses in this zone); the proposed .regional postal facility which includes loading dock and distribution facilities; two additional automobile dealerships to the east, across Brooklyn Boulevard; and, the recently approved American Bakeries Distribution Center and Retail Outlet, located on 69th Avenue North, easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard. 4. While there would appear to be some basis for considering the proposed E-Z Mini Storage project as being compatible with area type C-2 uses, the crucial factor with respect to zoning is the Planning Commission Page 3 nature of the proposed use,, This is discussed in further detail below. While certain similarities or compatibilities may be found with other C-2 uses in the area, it can also be shown that there are definite similarities between the E-Z Mini Storage con- cep- and the type of uses more commonly found in the 1-1 district. 5o A telephone survey was recently made of planning and/or building officials in some other communities in the Twin Cities area where the app.lica,�.t has constructed or is constructing the same type of prcj ect . ! ~! all instances the E-Z Mini Storage facilities are 1c^�c°ated in areas which are designated with the zoning category "I" which generally includes types of uses which, if located in Procklyn Center, wc-ald be permitted or special uses in the i-1 or 1-2 district 1n some communities "''Tll districts also include a variety cf commercial type uses as in Burnsville, for example, where the E-Z Mini Storage facility is located in the same zone as Levitz ,arniture, Kkcx Lumber, and a variety of truck terminals. A parallel could be drawn with the recently adopted special use commerciall uses permitted .in Brooklyn Center's 1-1 district When -this matter cif :zoning in other communities was noted to the �-' applicant he responded that in seeking development sites, he was not so concerned with the zoning as he was with the exposure, size, and accessibility of sites. If this is to be taken literally, one would have to conclude that the established zoning in the various communities matched the nature of the E-Z Mini Storage °ase with any extracrd_` nary degree of coincidence! m Po Site Planning and 1mprr7,C7ementso This factor was of prime concern bey_ au,se c f the desigr, c f the proposed structures and the location of they site. to During the part s'ea: th,e applicant has developed a site layout which includes a mast-:r plan for intended development consisting of two phase:,,, a set of site and building plans for Phase one and a pote,wtial master plan showing a possible use of the str,iictures ar:,d t„ site for other more typical commercial uses. N merou.s mee tii gs have been held between the applicant and the taff .relatiN,,e •fir^ ordinance setback, parking, and other site im= prc„ erne; requirements and policies o PaR,e one w:uld consist of three long buildings running north and the length of the site leaving a large greenstrip on -TJM1 west side which could contain another such building compre- �-e! reed a,; phi. ,,� Two. The proposed plans indicate area between '_.I­e building and property lines and between the buildings Planning Commission Page 4 Themselves to comprehend minimum setback, driving, and parking areas which would be required for a typical C-2 development using this type of structure. 3. It should be noted, however, that the applicant's contention is that the amount of parking calculated on the gross floor area of the buildings, would not be needed for the E-Z Mini Storage use, and thus, implicit in the applicant's proposal is a request for a deferral of a portion of the parking. in fact, the Master Plan showing both phases comprehends that some of the required parking, based upon the general commercial 1 to 200 ratio, would actually be inside of the buildings, i.e., use could con- ceivably be made of a certain number of garage stalls throughout the project for parking, if all of the calculated parking were needed for the E-Z Mini Storage --something which, in our opinion, would be unlikely. However, the conceptual Master Plan for other types of com- mercial uses calls for the demolition of portions of the ulti- mate four buildings in order to provide outside off-street park- ing for the mall concept consisting of many small shops -and offices. `' 4. One of our concerns has been the single purpose nature of the structures. The construction consists of steel and concrete block, thus representing substantial and rather permanent facilities. which, notwithstanding the potential conceptual Master Plan, could be difficult to relate to more standard commercial type uses. in other words, given the long design of the buildings a more economically feasible use perhaps would be large scale storage or industrial type manufacturing activities requiring long assembly line facilities. This concern relates to the zoning question as to whether an undesirable precedent would be estab- lished, should the E-Z Mini Storage concept be unsuccessful in this area. On the other hand, the applicant's plans show that the end units of these buildings are being modeled in such a way as to provide office spaces which are intended for lease. It could thus be con- tended that the remainder of the buildings could be converted to office spaces and, since adequate parking has been provided particularly for C-1 purposes, conversion of the building would be feasible. 5. There is a major question of aesthetics. The buildings have a �. definite regimented, massive warehouse -like affect, primarily Planning Commission Page 5 becauFe of -their length and construction. Furthermore, other pr(,7�)ject,s have an exterior finish consisting of plain exposed breakoff black with an anodized aluminum and redwood board facia trim Qwith exception of the office units at each end which in- clude plate glass and additional anodized trim). The applicant has expressed strong objection to our suggestion that the break - off blocA exterior should be painted in a similar fashion to the speculatiFye industrial buildings in the B.C.I.P. In short, where is very little .in the way of design of these buildings which would suggest an imaginative or interesting approach to the architecture. it is clear that the project is being de- veloped under a "°fcrm- follows- function" philosophy. So While green areas and landscaping in front of the office build- ings have been p:r,��;:�ided, particular attention must be given to requiring substa.-tial ,landscaping on the site. This area will bec°cme a relative fecal point, particularly with the erection of the pcist office across the street. The subject site has a high visibility from the freeway as well. The applicant has in- dicated 7erba.11y his intent to provide "tasteful landscaping" and it is our recommendation that substantial improvements be required to help in c,ff-setting the massive uniform appearance ccf the structures, if they should be approved. '7. The applicant has been.: informed of the ordinance requirements for providing automatic fire extinguishing equipment in the buildings and we have seen a preliminary sprinkler layout plan for the structures. We have indicated to the applicant that the plan must be included it the site and building plans before t;h�ey will b� reF i.e.wed by the commission and Council. He has responded .µlb, at they will be. C. Nature and features of the proposed use-. This is perhaps the most, cracial. fa --or in the entire consideration, and obviously has certain parallels with the zo.ing issue. There are a number of aspects of this use, as described by the applicant, which have left doubt in cur mind as t", its desirability in this location and zone. 10 Attached t(:, memorandum is a photo -copy of the advertising b:rnc°hure which has been distributed by the applicant relative tr)> hAnther facilities in the Twin Cities. Whereas, the impression we had of the E-Z Mini Storage concept was �- c_:,f pjre storage facilities available to the general public, th( literature indicates a promotion of the facilities for p. o- duct f;a.bricat icy , assembly work, refinishing furniture, build- L.- a boat,_ creatinq an invention", which together represent Planning Commission Page 6 uses totally not permitted in this zone. The applicant has also indicated that a very likely use could be a tenant renting one of the end office spaces as well as adjacent storage spaces, thus comprising a "manufacturer's representative" facility, such as those found in the i-1 district® The applicant has indicated a tendency to disclaim general re- sponsibility for the activates of his tenants, short of things which would represent infringements upon the business or general safety® Tenants ha-ve their own locks to the units, and thus the activities within those units are not subject to regular scrut- inizatic)n. This has been the applicant's response to our state- ment that, should this project be permitted in Brooklyn Center, the applicant will be held with all responsibility for assuring that the use of the facility is restricted to those uses either permitted by ordinance or limited by conditions of approval. Specifically, we have indicated that this facility is to be used in its proposed form (i.e., with possibly deferred parking, walk- ways, etc.), as a storage facility only. in response to his questions as to how he could control that, we indicated for one thing the advertising literature, at least for this facility, would specifically describe the permitted use, namely storage, and that perspective tenants would be so informed at time of rental. However, we entertain no illusions that the interior uses would or even could be limited to storage only. 2® The issue here is that if total C-2 type parking and other im- provements are not provided, because of the nature of the E-Z Mini Storage, then few, if any, permitted C-2 uses are possible �with, exception of the indicated office uses). While the appli- cation represe_-_�-,s unique type of use, it is not representative of a permitted special use in this zone, according to current ordinance pro%,isicns. If it is to be approved as a standard C-2 type activit'-y 3`similar in nature to other C-2 type uses") there is some question as try the extent the uses can be limited or re- stricted, at; be the possible case if it were approved by special use 3. This c��ncern also relates to the zoning consideration2 even thc,,;.qh the E-Z Mini Storage concept is not specifically compre- h,�nded in the 1-1 or 1-2 zones, it might be more appropriately ln,cated there as an approved use ("similar in nature to other 'uses i:,%, those zones") because the range of activities permitted in those districts seems to be more compatible with the range of ac-l"Avit-Aes the applicant conceives as appropriate for his bus- ines F. Planning Commission Page 7 4. Another concern discussed in some detail by the Commission last June was the applicant's original proposal for an on -site resi- dent caretaker who would be housed in an apartment unit at the end of ore of the buildings. Such a residential use of a com- merial zone is not permitted and can not be tolerated in any manner. As a matter of fact, the Commission took definite consensus action "to reaffirm the ordinance and City policy pro- visicns regarding the prohibition of residential uses in non- residential districts and to acknowledge that a variance in this mat -ter was neither technically possible or desirable from a Planm,ing Policy perspective". The applicant's current plans do not indicate an apartment, per se, but one of the office -type units indicates a rc-,jghed-in bathroom and patio facility, it is the applicant's contention this area would be used for the rental management office and that there would be no residential use made of the premises. III. SUMMARY 1. The applicant was instructed almost one year ago that, before the feasibility of his project could be considered, proposed plans in conformance with C-2 ordinance development requirements must be prepared. Such plans are now available. 2. The use,, IIE-Z Mini Storage" self service storage and warehousing (plus a limited amount of office space), is not specifically com- prehended as a permitted or special use in the C-2, I-1, or 1-2 districts. Under current ordinance provisions, it has been classified as and considered under the "permitted use" category (which appears in the C-2, 1-1, 1-2 districts)-. "other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council". 3. The central Satsti,-_)n then is whether the application, as revised, and considered on its merits, represents an acceptable 11com- merciall, use, similar in nature to the other permitted C-2 uses. 4. While the site and building plans may be deemed acceptable, the crucial issue, about which there is some doubt, is the nature of the proposed use and the ramification upon the zoning require- ments and policies of the community. The rase is unique and thus is subject to special interpretation and apprcval. However, under current ordinance provisions, it is not a "special. use" subject to a special use permit. Thus, if approved as a unique, but similar permitted use, to what degree Planning Commission Page 8 can the actual, use of the facility be restricted? It is our recommendation that the only plan acceptable in this location for any commercial use other than self service storage and the proposed 5 to 8 office areas is the conceptual master plan based upon an open mall concept. 5. Approval of the storage concept must be conditioned to re- strict the use. The feasibility of this approach may be sub- ject to legal review and opinion. 6. Other alternatives would perhaps be: 1. Rezoning, which is not recommended as a matter of policy consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and undersirability of"spot zoning"; 2. Denial of the request, in terms of this site, with possible reconsideration of the use as appropriate on an I-1 or I-2 site. it is apparent that the latter would be unacceptable to the applicant; 3. Ordinance amendment to comprehend this as a "special use" subject to special use permission and restrictions. 7. If you would like to make an on site inspection of an existing E-Z Mini Storage project prior to the meeting, a map is en- closed (the closest and newest completed project is in New Prighton on 35 W at County Road E-2) . 8. We have calculated the consumer rental costs, based upon current rates and possible storage needs. These data are compared to other square footage rental rates found in commercial and in- dustrial developments. Depending upon individual priorities and needs, the annual rates are not particularly economical. Current Rates 10' x 301 = $62.00 per mo. = $744.00 per yr. = $2.48 per sq. ft. 10' x. 20' = $42.00 per mo. = $504.00 per yr. = $2.52 per sq. ft. 5° x 10' = $14.50 per mo. = $174.00 per yr. = $3.48 per sq. ft. Examples 1V x 301 = 300 sq. ft. - Usable for boat, car, camping trailers (travel type), camping trailers (tent type) , etc. Planning Commission Page 9 101 x 301 = 200 sq. ft. - Probable uses - car, boat, camping trailers, snowmobile and trailer, household furnishings, etc. 51 x 101 -. 50 sq. ft. - Probable uses - motor cycles, bicycles, snowmobiles (etc. without a trailer), household furnishings, etc. C,ompa.riso General warehousing rates for commercial and industrial approximately $.1.50 to $1.75 per sq. ft.