Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-012 Inf Sh Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue North Application Filed on 7-17-03 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 9-15-03 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2003-012 Applicant: SPM Construction Co and Holiday Stationstores Location: Southeast Corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue North Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval - PUD/I-1 The applicants, SPM Construction Co. and Holiday Stationstores, are seeking rezoning from I-1 (Industrial Park) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 43,761 sq. ft. Holiday Stationstore Commissary building and to provide parking lot modifications to the existing Palmer Lake Plaza site (6850, 6860 and 6870 Shingle Creek Parkway). The property in question is zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and is located at the southeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue North and includes a vacant triangular shaped parcel of land, excess Shingle Creek Parkway right of way, which is proposed to be vacated, and the site of the Palmer Lake Plaza Industrial/Office building. These lots are being replatted under Planning Commission Application No. 2003-010 to create two new lots. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on July 28, 2003 and is subject to final plat approval by the City Council at a forthcoming Council meeting. The property, proposed to be rezoned to PUD/I-1, is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue with R-1 zoned land on the opposite side of the street containing the Palmer Lake Park area; on the east by Shingle Creek and the Shingle Creek green strip, which is zoned O-1 (Public Open Space); and on the south by Shingle Creek Parkway with C-1 (Service/Office) zoned property containing the Spiritual Life Church and R-3 (Multiple Family Residence) zoned property containing townhomes on the opposite side of the street. The applicants’ plans are to build a commissary building for Holiday Stationstores, which is a support facility for various fresh and frozen sandwiches, bakery items, produce items and where mail will be distributed to a number of stations in the Minnesota area. It will also serve as a minor training facility and have a small warehouse component. On the Palmer Lake Plaza site, the plan is to provide 62 additional parking spaces along the north side of the site to accommodate a future tenant expansion. This parking would encroach approximately 20 to 30 ft. into a 50 ft. buffer area. The applicants are seeking the PUD/I-1 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned developments. The I-1 (Industrial Park) underlying zoning designation is being sought because it acknowledges the proposed uses as permitted uses; it is a continuation of the existing zoning; and its development requirements are considered to be the most appropriate, with a few exceptions, for the land in question. The applicants are seeking modifications to the I-1 district requirements to allow only parking to encroach into a 50 ft. buffer area, which is required where industrially zoned property abuts across the street from R-1 zoned property (the Palmer Lake area). Also proposed is a modification to the City’s longstanding policy of prohibiting access to the industrial park from 69th Avenue North. These modifications are proposed to make more efficiently utilized sites and it is believed that these modifications will be offset by various planned considerations and aspects of the development plan that will mitigate these modifications. The land in questions is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for industrial park development. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case I-1) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow only parking to encroach into a 50 ft. buffer area on a portion of the Holiday site and along the north side of the Palmer Lake Plaza site; also, modifications to the City’s longstanding policy that has prohibited access to the industrial park from 69th Avenue North. Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide the same basic screening of drive lanes and parking on the Palmer Lake Plaza site by installing a retaining wall where the parking lot encroachment would occur, allowing the height of the berming to be maintained, which would allow for the same screening of the site as exists now. On the Holiday site, landscaping and/or a possible screen fence would be provided to screen the parking lot from the parkland across the street. We believe it is also significant that there are not single family homes on the opposite side of 69th Avenue North in this area. It is the screening and buffering for single family homes (such as exists further east on 69th Avenue) that necessitates this buffering requirement. It is not believed to be necessary to buffer open space from the industrial park zone as no extraordinary screening and buffering is required where I-1 zoned property abuts O-1 (Public Open Space) zoned property across the street. Less than 15 ft. green strips have been allowed in a number of cases as part of a PUD where decorative screen walls or other screening devices such as heavy landscaping have been used. The no access policy is not written into any city ordinance but has been utilized to limit truck traffic and other industrial truck traffic on 69th Avenue North, particularly in the single family residential area east of Palmer Lake. This policy was extended to developments across from Palmer Lake when Palmer Lake Plaza was built. It is believed that limiting one access to the Holiday site will not negatively affect the positive impacts of this policy on the single family neighborhood to the north nor set an undesirable or unacceptable precedent. The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as being consistent with the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review. The applicants’ representative has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute “spot zoning”, which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and their proposal. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the city and is also consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposal should balance the business needs of the community with that of surrounding properties. It is not anticipated that this proposal will be a detriment, but on the other hand, should have a positive factor in providing a positive effect on the community. The City’s Comprehensive Plan acknowledges this area to be devoted to retail business. Certainly an automobile dealership fits within that recommended land use. Automobile dealerships with service operations have existed in this area for many, many years and have not proven to be detrimental to surrounding property, particularly the abutting residential property because of the significant screening and buffering that has existed in this area. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant seeks the C-2 underlying zoning district under this PUD proposal, which is the same zoning district that currently exists. No new uses would be introduced with the proposal at hand nor would incompatible uses be considered under the Planned Unit Development. It is believed that the proposal made by The Luther Companies can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications given the fact that no changes or encroachments into the buffer, setback and screening that exists currently will be done. A 35 ft. buffer will be maintained where the Dodge dealership abuts with the R-3 zoned property and the 8 ft. high screening will also continue. When the old Ryan site is developed, additional buffer will need to be provided and 8 ft. of screening will continue in this area as well. With respect The applicants note that the purpose of the PUD is to promote flexibility in land development, insure a high quality of site design, and to preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features. They note that the residential land to the south (on the opposite side of Shingle Creek Parkway) will be protected with extensive landscaping and berming. Their proposal will allow some minor encroachments into the 50 ft. buffer space along 69th Avenue, which has park land and open space on the opposite side of the street. The landscaping and berming should be sufficient to provide appropriate buffering for this area. They note that they are seeking no access from 69th Avenue North, however, comments later in the report lead the staff to recommend an access to the Holiday site as part of this PUD proposal. The staff would concur with the comments made. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that their proposal can be considered consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications. The proposed land use is certainly consistent with the current property zoning and we believe the proposed encroachments can be mitigated by factors presented with the plan. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicants’ comments are that with the specific proposals under consideration there is no need to contemplate any other uses. Other uses that might be considered for development are allowed in the Industrial Park zone, which would be continued as the underlying zoning district under this PUD. The proposal, therefore, we believe, is consistent with this guideline. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicants’ comment is that there have not been any significant changes since this property was originally zoned for industrial park development in the late 1960’s. The applicants’ comments are correct. There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area. The I-1 underlying zoning designation with the proposed PUD is an appropriate zoning designation for the land in question. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because it is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicants note that with the exception of the parking intrusion into the buffer area adjacent to 69th Avenue North, their proposed use is consistent with the current zoning for the property. We would concur with the applicants’ comments and note that we believe the subject property will bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We believe an appropriate buffer can be developed in this area and be offset by the requirements of the plan. Good screening and buffering will be provided and the limited access to the Holiday Commissary site on 69th Avenue is better than allowing a right in right out access on Shingle Creek Parkway. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicants note that without the parking changes adjacent to 69th Avenue that are being requested, the property (Holiday site) would be unable to be utilized to its fullest extent as as office/industrial entity. They note that the 50 ft. buffer area adjacent to 69th Avenue (and to a great extent the 50 ft buffer on Shingle Creek Parkway) impact the development of the property significantly. Their requests make the site more developable. We would concur with the comments made by the applicants. By allowing the encroachment into the buffer on the north side, makes the site much more efficient for use by Holiday as a wholesale distribution site. It should be noted that development of this site has been difficult because of the size and configuration of the lot in question. Adding to the site by including surplus Shingle Creek Parkway right of way and adding additional land from the Palmer Lake Plaza site, make this site much more desirable for development. Factors such as the large buffer required along 69th Avenue and along Shingle Creek Parkway add to the difficulty of developing this site. The proposal at hand seems to be an appropriate development for this site. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicants argue that their development proposal represents improvements to the existing I-1 parcel. They note extensive landscaping, berming and traffic access arrangements will enhance the sites without negatively impacting adjacent properties. They note also the attractiveness of their new building. Again, we would concur generally with their comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a redevelopment that is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. This proposal appears to provide a good development, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the general interest of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposal again calls for a 43,761 sq. ft. Holiday Stationstores Commissary building which is a support facility where fresh and frozen sandwiches, bakery items, produce items and mail will be distributed to a number of Holiday stations in the Minnesota area. This facility will also serve as a minor training facility and have a small warehouse component. It will be located in the approximate center of an 182,541 sq. ft. (4.19 acres) triangular site that is being created under the proposed plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2003-010 which was approved by the City Council recently. The plan also calls for the construction of 62 parking spaces along the north side of the Palmer Lake Plaza building located at 6850, 6850, 6870 Shingle Creek Parkway. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the Palmer Lake Plaza site is unchanged with full access points provided along Shingle Creek Parkway at its intersections with Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. Access to the Holiday commissary building has been the subject of much discussion and review by the staff. As mentioned before and in the applicant’s written comments, the City has a long-standing policy, going back to the late 1960’s of no access to the industrial park from 69th Avenue North. This policy along with the buffering, berming and setback requirements was for the purpose of discouraging truck traffic on 69th Avenue North and to protect the single family residential neighborhood on the north side of 69th Avenue, east of Palmer Lake Park. The only exception to the access policy was the city garage, which originally only had an access to 69th Avenue North. In the 1980’s, after Shingle Creek Parkway was completed, the city closed the access to the city garage on 69th Ave but reopened it in the latter 1990’s when the access onto Shingle Creek Parkway from the city garage proved problemsome. When the Palmer Lake Plaza building was built in about 1978, the access restriction, buffering and landscaping requirements were extended to include industrial properties on the opposite side of 69th Avenue from Palmer Lake. The applicants in this case were advised of the access restriction policy and the Holiday plan originally comprehended a right in, right out only access about 180 ft. from the Shingle Creek Parkway/69th Avenue intersection with a full access to Shingle Creek Parkway for the building loading area through an access agreement with the Palmer Lake Plaza site. There is no proposed driveway connection on the plan between the parking lot on the west end of the site and the parking/loading area on the east. Given the size and configuration of the proposed building, no driveway connection on site is possible. Non-truck, vehicle traffic coming to the site from the west on Shingle Creek Parkway will be forced to make a U-turn at the Freeway Boulevard/Shingle Creek Parkway median break to gain access to the facility’s west parking lot. This is not a desirable turning movement, nor one in which we want to encourage people to make. A better access plan, particularly for traffic coming to the site from the west, would be to have the traffic make a left turn at the Shingle Creek Parkway/69th Avenue intersection and to proceed to an access point off 69th Avenue. We have suggested to the applicant that they provide such an access and we believe the policy can be deviated from under this PUD in this one specific case because it is park land rather than single family residentially used property on the opposite side of 69th Avenue; it is the best access arrangement given the development proposal; and it will not establish an adverse precedent forcing the City to consider opening other accesses on 69th Avenue in the areas adjacent to single family residential areas. Truck traffic will have to access the site from the shared access at the Shingle Creek Parkway/Freeway Boulevard intersection. Parking for the Holiday facility will be on both the east and west sides of the building. The west parking facility will be primarily for customer and employee vehicles and contains 38 parking spaces. To the rear of the facility is the loading dock with six overhead doors and space for parking seven trucks. Eight truck stalls are shown on the north side of the rear loading area. Eleven passenger vehicle parking spaces are shown on the south side and 14 “proof of parking” spaces are provided on the east for a total of 76 parking spaces on the site. This will accommodate 5,606 sq. ft. of office space and 38,155 sq. ft. of industrial/warehouse/production area. Approximately 16 parking spaces encroach 20 ft. into the 50 ft. buffer required on 69th Avenue across from parkland. This is at the extreme northwest corner of the Holiday site. The balance of the site meets the 50 ft. buffer and setback requirements. The proposed parking changes to the Palmer Lake Plaza site include 62 new parking spaces encroaching approximately 20 ft. to 30 ft. into the 50 ft. buffer area and a retaining wall would be constructed in this area so that the existing maximum height of the berm providing screening to the site would be maintained. No other encroachments would exist. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans, which are being reviewed by the City Engineer. All storm drainage on the Holiday site will be collected in catch basins and conveyed underground in a new storm sewer system to a retention pond at the northeast corner of the Holiday Commissary site. From there it will be conveyed into the city’s storm drainage system. Parking and driving areas are to be bound by B-612 curb and gutter. The plan calls for an approximate 7 ft. high berm at the southeast corner of the site providing some screening for the loading area to the rear (east) of the building. A 5 ft. to 6 ft. high berm will be provided to the west of the building along Shingle Creek Parkway to screen the westerly parking lot from the residential across Shingle Creek Parkway. The City Engineer is reviewing the draining, grading, utility and erosion control plans and his written comments will be submitted to the Planning Commission LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. This 4.19 acre site requires a total of 282 landscape points. The applicant proposes to meet the requirement by providing a variety of plantings totaling 402 landscape points. Eighteen shade trees such as Autumn Blaze Maple, Sugar Maple, Autumn Purple Ash, Green Ash, Shade Master Honey Locust and Northern Red Oak are proposed primarily around the perimeter of the site. Twenty-three coniferous trees including White Pine, Austrian Pine, Colorado Spruce and Black Hill Spruce are proposed also. Seventeen ornamental trees including Pagoda Dogwood, Spring Snow Crabapple, Prairiefire Crabapple and Canada Red Select Cherry are interspersed throughout the site. One hundred fifty-eight shrubs such as Gray Dogwood, Dwarf Korean Lilac, Mohican Viburnum, Anthony Waterer Spirea, McKay’s White Potentilla, Seagreen Juniper and Gizzley Bear Juniper are also provided. On the Palmer Lake Plaza green strip along 69th Avenue, five Blaze Maple trees, five Northern Red Oak, Five Colorado Spruce and two Canada Red Select Cherry will be planted. Also any shade trees that do not survive the construction of the retaining wall will be replaced. The landscape plan is in order based on the landscape point system and distribution of plantings on the site. With respect to screening, we have advised the applicant to provide a masonry screen wall on the north side of the loading/parking area to screen this area which is primarily truck parking from the north. We have also advised them to provide some additional plantings such as coniferous trees along the east property line in the area of the loading/parking lot to provide better screening of that area as well. With respect to the parking lot on the west side of the site where it encroaches into the 50 ft. buffer strip, we have advised the applicant to either increase berming in this area or provide a decorative fence as an offset to allowing the encroachment into this area. We expect to see revisions including providing an access to the west parking lot from the applicant. Underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations and floor plans for their proposed building. The building exterior is to be exposed aggregate precast concrete panels with burnished block and rockface block decorative treatments. A metal canopy is proposed at the main entrance, on the west elevation. Parapet walls will be used to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. LIGHTING AND TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed lighting for the site. A single 30 ft. high double head pole will be located in the center of the west parking lot with three single head light poles of 30 ft. high in the loading area. Two wall-mounted lights at 25 ft. in height are located on either side of the loading docks. The foot-candles generated by the lights are within the limits established by the Zoning Ordinance. Our concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way. The plan appears to meet these criteria. No trash disposal facilities are shown on the site and it is anticipated that they will be contained within the building. If not, an appropriate trash enclosure will need to be constructed. This screening device should be a masonry structure to match the existing building. Gates for the device should be solid opaque material and not chain link with plastic slats. PROCEDURE This PUD/I-1 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally, rezonings have been referred to Neighborhood Advisory Groups. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Sun/Post and have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing, should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The resolution is offered for the Planning Commission’s consideration. 8-14-03 Page 4