Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-006 Inf Sheet Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North Application Filed on 3-15-07 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5-14-07 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2007-006 Applicant: Manley Commercial, Inc. Location: Northwest of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North Request: Rezoning/ Development Plan Approval - PUD/C-2 The applicant, Manley Commercial, Inc., is requesting rezoning from C-2 (Commerce), R-3 (Multiple Family Residence – Townhouse) and R-1 (One Family Residence) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of three contiguous parcels of land and adjoining surplus or excess right of way located northwest of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a three building, 25, 500 sq. ft. commercial retail/service center. The properties under consideration total 3.76 acres in area and lay north of and between a Holiday Station Store (420 66th Avenue North), a dental office (512 66th Avenue North) and 67th Avenue North. The applicant has proposed to replat these properties into three lots slightly exceeding the proposed building footprints of the buildings and a common area under Planning Commission Application No. 2007-005. The property is bounded on the north by 67th Avenue with R-1 zoned property on the opposite side of the street; on the east by T.H. 252; on the south by the Holiday Station and dental office zoned C-2; and on the west by R-3 zoned property containing the Riverwood townhomes. Manley Commercial, Inc. has indicated that they have options on the property in question and are seeking the excess right of way from the city. Their plan, following consolidation of the property and approval of the PUD rezoning, is to develop the previously mentioned three building, 25,500 sq. ft. commercial retail/service center. Potential tenants would be various retail and convenience uses such as coffee, banking, drycleaning and hair salons. Allowable uses in the C-2 underlying zoning district would include a number of other commercial retail and service office uses. Certain special uses, normally allowed in a C-2 zone will not be allowed in this development because of its abutment with the R-3 and R-1 properties surrounding the development. Such excluded uses would include gasoline service stations, automotive repair, car washes, drive-in eating establishments, convenience food restaurants, establishments offering live entertainment, recreation and amusement places, bowling alleys, theaters, sports arenas, skating rinks, gymnasiums, and sauna establishments and massage establishments. In addition, the PUD authorizing the Regal Theater and neighboring uses also prohibited pawn shops and check cashing operations that are not part of a bank or retail establishment. It is recommended that these uses also be prohibited through this development as well. The applicant has requested no modifications from the requirements of the C-2 zoning district. 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 C-2) 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 issues. 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 is not seeking modifications to the C-2 district requirements. The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the city’s zoning ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (copy 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 applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to 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 rezoning 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 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, it should be a positive factor in providing a positive effect on the community. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial uses and mixed uses in this area. This site is on the fringe of what was called the Gateway Area around Hwy 252 and 66th Avenue. The Regal Theater development and neighboring commercial uses were part of a Planned Unit Development approved in 1998 and was considered a focal point of this Gateway Area. Other possible uses for this area were mixed use or multi use developments that could combine office service uses and neighborhood scale retail businesses. The uses proposed by Manley in their introductory narrative certainly are consistent with what is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. As the applicant notes, the property contains three separate zoning classifications, R-1, R-3 and C-2. They also note that given the size and configuration of the individual parcels, three separate zoning districts make the ability to develop these properties very difficult. They believe a combination of the parcels into a Planned Unit Development designation rather than using the standard zoning, gives the city more input on allowed uses within the development as well as insuring that the plan is compatible with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. We would agree with this conclusion also. 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 on a portion of the property (the area to the south). They note that this zoning will be consistent with the zoning to the south and would provide a buffer from the R-3 area to the west and Hwy 252. They note that the R-1 area to the north is buffered by 67th Avenue and add that access to the proposed site would be only from one location to the south through an existing driveway access serving the Holiday Station and dental office. This access arrangement would eliminate any commercial traffic from the residential district to the north. The applicant’s plan will provide appropriate setbacks and buffer areas from the residential property to the west. Where such property abuts with a C-2 type development a 35 ft. buffer strip with landscaping and a screening device of at least 8 ft. in height is required. The applicant will be providing opaque screening along 67th Avenue to screen its development from the residential property to the north. The zoning ordinance only requires screening of the parking lot area from residential abutting across a public street. What is proposed is more than normally what is required. It seems that, as will be reviewed during the site plan process, the proposal can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The proposed C-2 underlying zone would allow commercial and retail uses authorized in the zoning district. There are some exceptions as have been previously noted that are special uses not allowed to abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning districts including abutment at a street line. These uses have been outlined previously. In addition, it is recommended that uses such as a pawn shop, second hand goods dealer, and check cashing operation, also be excluded. No other modifications are proposed to the plan. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that there have been previous modifications to the zoning of other properties in close proximity to the site that they are interested in. They note that parcels on the south side of 66th Avenue North were rezoned to PUD/C-2 during their approval process. They also note, more recently, property to the east on the opposite side of T.H. 252 was rezoned from a commercial designation to PUD/R-3. The most significant zoning classification change in the immediate area affected the properties mentioned by the applicant. The PUD process is a way for the city to deal with development and redevelopment issues rather than through the standard zoning process. In effect, this process is a type of contract zoning based on a plan and a development agreement and only those uses and the plan proposed along with the PUD zoning can be effectuated. Utilizing the PUD process is a consistent way of dealing with the expanded development proposal as in this case. It is believed it is an appropriate way of dealing with these development issues. 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? We believe that, the proposal will bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development without any deviations or modifications from the standard ordinance requirements. The property line abutment will have sufficient buffer, setback and screening as called for in the ordinance. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? As noted previously, there are three different zoning classifications within the area proposed by the developer for development. The C-2 zone basically would be expanded into the areas currently zoned R-3 and R-1. It has been anticipated for a number of years that a unified development of this area would be in the best interest of the city. Speculation has run as to what would be the best land use. It has, for the most part, been established that a commercial use of this land, if compatible with surrounding land uses, would be the best utilization provided vehicle access from 67th is not gained to the site and proper buffer and screening were provided. It seems appropriate to move ahead with the development proposal at hand. 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? It appears that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should be a development that can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. As far as developable land in Brooklyn Center, there is none to speak of. All progress and development in the future will basically be as expansion and redevelopment such as proposed by this applicant. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? We believe the proposal does have merit beyond just the particular interest of the developer. We believe that it will be a development that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal should provide a quality development that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interest of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing a three building commercial retail/service center of approximately 25,500 sq. ft. The largest of the buildings would be located at the northwesterly corner of the property and would be 12,000 sq. ft. To the south of this building would be another building of 7,500 sq. ft. and to the east somewhat close to the T.H. 252 right of way would be a third building of 6,000 sq. ft. in area. This building would be utilized primarily by a bank and have drive up lanes along the south side of the building. As was pointed out under Planning Commission Application No. 2007-005, the applicants are planning to establish property lines just beyond the foot prints of the building in order to have the ability, if they desire, to have separate ownership and an equal ownership in a common area which would include the parking lots, buffer areas and required green strips. It should be noted that the 12,000 sq. ft. building encroaches on the required 35 ft. building setback from the 67th Avenue North right of way. The plan shows a setback of approximately 27 ft. This should be modified so that the minimum setback is met. All other setbacks on the property meet minimum requirements including a 35 ft. buffer area along the west side of the site where the property abuts with the Riverwood Townhomes. Minimum 15 ft. green strips from street right of way are provided and in the case of the green strips along the 67th Avenue North right of way, they are exceeded. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site is from 66th Avenue North through a shared drive way serving the Holiday Station and the dental office. This arrangement came about when Holiday acquired the property, relocated the dental office and built a new Holiday Station in 1997 – 1998. At that time Holiday created three lots and granted access to the third lot from 66th Avenue. As mentioned in the report for the current preliminary plat (Application No. 2007-005), no vehicle access from 67th Avenue North is recommended for this newly combined site and the applicant has designed the site accordingly. It will be necessary to review access agreements to assure they are appropriate for the newly arranged property. One hundred forty four parking spaces are provided for the three building complex. The total building square footage is 25,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area. At 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. gfa the parking requirement for this complex is 140 parking spaces. The plan shows a drive up area with five lanes and a canopy extending out over four of the lanes for a bank building which is located at the southeast corner of the site. Circulation through the drive up area is in a counter clockwise manner around the south and east sides of the bank building. Another drive up area is proposed along the south side of the northerly, 12,000 sq. ft. building. A concrete delineator channels the drive lane to a pick up window in a clockwise direction. Up to 15 percent of the area of the buildings (3,825 sq. ft.) can be used for restaurant uses without providing parking based on restaurant seats and employees. As was mentioned previously, convenience food restaurants and restaurants offering live entertainment are not allowed to abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property either at a property line or a street line. A convenience food restaurant is defined as “an establishment with over 40 dining seats or in a separate building, whose principal business is the sale of foods, frozen desserts, or beverages to the customer in a ready to eat state for consumption either within the premises or for carry out with consumption either on or off the premises, and whose design and principal method of operation includes both of the following characteristics: Foods, frozen desserts or beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper, plastic or other disposable containers. The customer is not served at his/her able by an employee but receives it at a counter, window or similar facility for carrying to another location on or off the premises for consumption. A 35 ft. buffer and setback area is provided along the west property line where the site abuts with R-3 zoned property. A minimum 15 ft. green strip is required where the site abuts public right of way (67th Avenue North and T. H. 252). The plan calls for such green strips and in most cases exceed this minimum. As mentioned, the north building does not meet the 35 ft. building setback from 67th Avenue North. The plan shows the northeast corner of this building to be setback approximately 27 ft. The plans should be modified to meet the setback requirement. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. His written comments will be attached for the Commission’s review. Sanitary sewer and water main are located within a 60 ft. wide drainage and utility easement running north/south through the approximate center of the site and within the 60 ft. wide 5th Street North right of way located at the north end of the site. The applicant has requested that the street right of way be vacated to be replaced by an appropriate easement protecting the utilities in this area. They are also requesting the easement to be reduced to 40 ft. in width. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is not inclined to reduce the size of the easement. If not reduced, the proposed north building would encroach on the easement. The City Engineer is suggesting that the utilities be relocated to the east, thus allowing the 60 ft. easement to be shifted also to the east accordingly. Absent such a change, the applicant would have to further modify the plans to eliminate the building encroachment. Utility connections between the mains and the buildings would be at the north end of the north building, the north end of the south building and at the south end of the bank building. The applicant proposes to provide two underground water storage areas rather than the typical ponding area required. Storm water would be conveyed to these facilities before being discharged into the storm sewer system. The north underground storm water storage facility will be located under the parking lot north of the bank building while the south underground storm water storage facility will be located under the parking lot east of the south building on the site. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is reviewing the plan and the Commission’s attention is directed to his comments. B-612 curb and gutter is to be provided around all driving and parking areas in accordance with city ordinances. 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 3.76 acre site requires a total of 266 landscape points. They plan to provide 728 landscape points in total on the site. The total allowable points, however, based on the point system is 399 points, which is still well in excess of the minimum points required. One of the reasons for the large number of landscape points is that the applicant is providing a large amount of landscaping to supplement screening on the site and to meet the screening requirements. They propose to provide 500 points in shade trees such as Autumn Blaze Maple, Common Hackberry, Quaking Aspen, Northern Pin Oak, and Redmond Linden. A total of 24 Black Hills Spruce are to be provided primarily on the west and north sides of the site. Ten ornamental trees, Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry, are interspersed in these areas. Finally, 69 points in shrubs including Muskingum Dogwood, Grey Owl Juniper, Grow Low Fragrant Sumac, Flowering Choice Spirea and Fritschiana Spirea are to be provided in island areas throughout the site. The Commission’s attention is directed to the landscaping to be provided along the west property line where an existing 6 ft. high opaque wood fence has already been constructed and appears to meander on both sides of the property line. This appears to be a fence belonging to the Riverwood Townhome Association. A 35 ft. buffer area is required in this area and may not be used for parking, loading, or storage and must be landscaped. It is to also contain an 8 ft. high screened fence. The applicant’s plan is to provide the landscape screening in this area as a substitute for 8 ft. high screened wall given the fact that there is already an existing fence along the property line. They believe this will supplement the existing screening and will be sufficient to meet the intent of the city ordinance. Screening is also required where a parking lot of more than 6 vehicles is located on the opposite side of the street from R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property as is the case along the north side of this site. The applicants plan is to provide a 6 ft. high wooden opaque fence from the northwest corner of the site easterly to the T. H. 252 right of way. The party living at 420 67th Avenue North has requested that an opening be left in the fence so that pedestrian access to the site from the neighborhood to the north can be accomplished. This seems reasonable and the applicant is being requested to provide such a break. An overlapping break in the fence is recommended and would allow access without affecting the screening to the north. A walkway to the north building would seem appropriate as well. The Planning Commission should make a determination as to the adequacy of the screening plan. It should be noted that composite type fences have been provided in other Planned Unit Developments. Underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. The plans note this requirement. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations and floor plans for the proposed buildings. The building exteriors will be comparable on each of the three buildings on the site. Decorative block, brick and simulated stone are to be provided. Fabric awnings will be located over store fronts on the two primarily retail/service buildings. The bank building will also be decorative block, brick and simulated stone with a canopy extending out over the drive up lanes. An EIFS band will be provided around the buildings as well. As mentioned previously, a drive up window on the south end of the north building is proposed for that tenant space. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating proposed foot candles that are consistent with Section 35-712 of the city ordinances. No lighting is proposed along the west side of the north and south building areas which abut with the Riverwood Townhomes. Two single headed light standards will be located on the south and east side of the bank drive up facility. Four double headed light standards of 25 ft. in height will be located to the north of the bank building in the island areas in the parking lot. Another 25 ft. high double headed light standard will be located by the entrance to the site, also in an island area. A four headed light standard of 25 ft. in height will be located also in an island area between the three buildings. City ordinance require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the photometric plan indicates that the proposed lighting plan is within this standard. Our main concern is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and that it be consistent with the standards noted above. A trash enclosure is to be provided between the north and south buildings on the site. It will be a brick and rock face concrete masonry unit to match the existing building. Solid metal gates will be provided to accomplish total screening of the trash enclosure area. PROCEDURE Rezoning applications in the past that have been considered by the Planning Commission were typically referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. State statutes require the city to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the city. This application was filed on March 15, 2007. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council, in this case no later than May 14, 2007. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The City Council recently discussed the status of Neighborhood Advisory Groups and decided that their continuation was not necessary and to some extent there had been a lack of interest in the groups. Neighborhood Advisory Group members have been advised that their services as a member of the group are no longer required and they have been encourages to participate in the city advisory process through other advisory groups. The applicant in this case has been encouraged to contact neighboring property owners and advise them of their intended request. The applicant notified those parties who have been notified of the City’s public hearing and invited them to an informational meeting which was held on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at the Hennepin County Library/Service Center. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. The Planning Commission must decide and recommend as to whether or not it believes this application is sufficient. There are a number of points that will need to be addressed, such as the adequacy of the screening along the west side as well as other recommended changes. The draft resolution is presented to the Commission for consideration. 4-12-07 Page 1 4-12-07 Page 10