Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC86040 - 11/13/86 - 6860 Shingle Creek Parkwayt Ve N..� PLANNING COMNIISSION FILE CHECKLIST FILE INFORMATION File Purge Date: `z 94 Planning Commission Application No. 84,C) yo PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: S- I 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 TyQe Date Range Location Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BRd0 KLYN`CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 86040 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway Legal Description of Property Tract I. Outlot D_ Twin Cities Tnterrhange Parer Owner PLP Associates Address 8300 Grand Avenue South Applicant Hoyt Development Address 8300 Grand Avenue South Type of Request: Rezoning Variance X Special Use Permit Phone No. 884-4338 Phone No. 884-4338 Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval X Other: Site Plan Modification Description of Request: To install an additional approach into parking lot to be located on 69th Avenue North. In addition, a landscaped island is being constructed in the lot to screen overhead_ doors. The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $ 300.00 Receipt No. 72592 Date: \ (D —_3z�--g L PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: /,1 �s'Q 'ia 0.c. Approved Denied this day of following conditions: Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied this amendment: CITY COUNCIL ACTION day of 19 , subject to the Chairman 19 , with the following P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Clerk Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86040 Applicant: Hoyt Development Location: 6850, 60, 70, Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site plan and special use permit approval to modify the westerly parking lot at Palmer Lake Plaza and to provide an access from that lot onto 69th Avenue North. No building expansion is proposed. The land in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the east by Shingle Creek, on the south by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the west by vacant I-1 zoned land, and on the north by 69th Avenue North. Palmer Lake Plaza is an office -warehouse development with one wing containing two stories of office and the other two wings containing primarily industrial space (ware -house, light manufacturing, etc.). Because of the office use of one of the three attached buildings, the site is classified as a special use in the I-1 district. The two proposed actions involve very different zoning and land use concerns. The parking lot modifications concern parking requirements and landscaping. The proposed access onto 69th, however, involves much larger transportation and land use issues. The staff report will deal with the application in two separate parts and we recommend that action on the application also be divided into two separate motions. Part A: Parking Lot The proposed site plan calls for the installation of a large landscape island in the main parking lot to the west of the building. The island would be located in the first row of stalls west of the building, displacing 29 parking spaces. The island would provide screening of the service area on the west side of the building. The plan shows 23 trees in the island, but no size or specie for the plantings has been indicated. The island would be approximately 20' wide and be bermed to a height of 3 feet. An existing landscape island in the west parking lot will be removed. The island was installed by the applicant last year with no acknowledgement from the City. That island runs more or less east -west and was intended to cover a low area in the parking lot. However, the lot has not been regraded and water still drains to this area in the middle of the lot, surrounding the landscape island. Catch basins exist to the north and south of this low area in the middle of the lot. The applicant intends to redirect drainage toward the catch basins by raising the level of the pavement in the middle of the lot. The proposed site plan shows 336 existing parking stalls on the entire site. After installation of the new landscape island, 307 stalls will remain. The site plan also documents 191 additional stalls as proof -of -parking (stalls which can properly fit on the site, but have not been put in place) . The total potential parking of 498 spaces will support about 92,000 sq. ft. of office and 45,000 sq. ft. of industrial space in the overall complex. At present, 62,572 sq. ft. has been improved for office occupancy. It, therefore, appears that the proof -of -parking plan is sufficient for the foreseeable future. Staff recommend that the applicant be required to enter into a restrictive covenant requiring the installation of proof - of -parking stalls upon a determination ;by the City that such stalls are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. 11-13-86 -1- Application No. 86040 continued In general, the proposed modifications to the parking lot are consistent with zoning requirements. Approval of Part Ais recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Drainage improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the proposed landscape island and along the west side of the existing parking lot. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits for the next new tenant space. 4. The applicant shall enter into a restrictive covenant to provide up to 191 additional stalls on the site upon a determination by the City that such stalls are necessary for the proper function of the site. Said covenant to be filed as a deed restriction at the County. 5. The site plan shall be modified to indicate the following additional information: a) a landscape schedule providing information on specie, size, and quantity of proposed plantings. Plantings located on the plan shall indicate planting type. b) No access onto 69th Avenue North, subject to dispositon of Part B. Part B: Access onto 69th Avenue North The applicant has submitted no written arguments concerning the proposed access onto 69th Avenue North as of Wednesday morning. Staff recommend denial of the proposed access on the basis of transportation planning concerns and land use planning concerns. These concerns are enumerated below. In brief, the traffic problems on Shingle Creek Parkway are short-term and will be remedied by the proposed improvements to the City's Transportation System. Conversely, the consequences of providing an access onto 69th, are long term in their implications for the character of 69th Avenue North as a neighborhood collector and in their land use impact of the industrial park on the residential neighborhood north of 69th. 1. Transportation Approval of an access onto 69th Avenue North would set a precedent which could seriously change the nature of that street over time. It should be kept in mind that 69th, east of Shingle Creek Parkway, is no longer classified as a major thoroughfare and is no longer a County Road. It is a two-lane collector street which serves the residential neighborhood to the north. Access onto 69th from industrial sites south of the street would likely have the following detrimental results: 11-13-86 -2- Application No. 86040 continued a) Encourage truck traffic on a two-lane residential collector street. b) Increase the average daily trips (ADT) of all vehicles using 69th. ADT on this stretch of 69th is approximately 7,000 vehicles per day. This is the threshold beyond which widening to four lanes becomes increasingly necessary. c) Potentially widening 69th to four lanes to accommodate increased traffic. This is an extremely expensive proposition which would include acquisition of additional right-of-way from Shingle Creek Parkway to new T.H. 252 probably including the acquisition of some existing structures in the area between Humboldt Avenue and Dupont Avenue. And, of course, the City's reconstruction of the street from a two-lane roadway to a four -lane roadway would be very extensive. d) Access from the industrial area onto 69th would invite a signficant amount of cut -through traffic by motorists wishing to avoid the bottleneck at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway during the evening rush hours, and from motorists traveling between the residential neighborhood to the north and the commercial and industrial area to the south. The existing traffic problem at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway is well known to City staff and the City Council. However, plans are being prepared and land has been acquired to realign Shingle Creek Parkway so that it forms a continuous link with 69th Avenue North west of the current intersection. Sixty-ninth (69th) Avenue North will intersect this new through street at right angles, forming a "T" intersection. (See memo from Sy Knapp of November 10, 1986 attached) When this realignment is completed, the existing bottleneck should disappear. Cars which would use the proposed access onto 69th and heading west will soon be at a disadvantage to cars using Shingle Creek Parkway. The access to 69th Avenue as proposed by the applicant would invite cut -through traffic in the short run and become essentially obselete in the long run. On these grounds it is our opinion that standard (d) of Section 35-220-2 (attached) and standard 4 of Section 35-330 3f (also attached) relating to special uses in the I-1 zone would be violated. 2. Land Use Although the proposed access onto 69th is not directly across the street from a residential area (it is across from Palmer Lake Park), the traffic that could be generated on this portion of 69th by this access and others that might follow would, we believe, have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood north of 69th. The result of such accesses onto 69th would be to destroy the present compatibility between the Industrial Park south of 69th and the residential neighborhood north of 69th. The resulting incompatibility would violate standards (a) and (b) of Section 35-220 and standards 1 and 2 of Section 35-330.3f which require that special uses not be a nuisance and that they relate well with existing adjacent land uses. The present relationship between the Industrial Park and adjacent residential areas is, on the whole, a good and stable one. An access for Palmer Lake Plaza onto 69th would begin to unravel that stability and could lead to a bad relationship as well as very costly roadway improvements. 11-13-86 -3- Application No. 86040 continued 3. Historical Considerations In addition to planning reasons to deny access onto 69th from the Industrial Park, there is a considerable amount of history behind this policy. Some instances where the policy has been active in the past include: a) The Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan (1966) in its policy recommendations for the Northeast Neighborhood stated at point #8 that "the function of these streets" (Humboldt, Lyndale and 69th) "is to move traffic, not to serve adjacent land uses." b) The minutes of the Planning Commission's deliberation of the site and building plan application for the Spec.4 Industrial Building 072075, minutes attached) show that denying access to 69th from the Industrial Park was a conscious policy with the first industrial building proposed adjacent to 69th. The conditions of approval for that building and for Spec. 5 and Spec. 6 all explicitly deny any access onto 69th. c) The City garage was for some years the only property in the Industrial Park to have an access onto 69th since Shingle Creek Parkway was not constructed until 1981. Following the completion of Shingle Creek Parkway, the access to 69th Avenue was retained to serve emergency vehicles. However, the City closed that access in 1983 because: 1) the City desired to conform to the precedent of prohibiting access to 69th Avenue; and 2) because of the problems with cut -through traffic - ie. - cut through traffic created problems within the site and at both driveways to 69th and to Shingle Creek Parkway. d) A traffic study by Bather Ringrose Wolsfeld (BRW) on the Earle Brown Farm projected anticipated traffic generations from development of the Earle Brown Farm Commercial and Industrial Park. The study projected over 65,000 daily trips to be generated by development is this area, but made no distribution of that traffic to 69th Avenue North. This was obviously because there would be no access onto 69th from the Industrial Park. e) Former Mayor Phil Cohen, who was on the City Council during the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan and was mayor when most of the industrial development adjacent to 69th took place, has warned staff that allowing access onto 69th would break faith with the residents north of 69th. f) Industrial properties south of 69th have never been assessed for improvements to the roadway. If access were allowed, these properties would be required to pay assessments for past improvements as well as any improvements that might be required in the future. g) City Council Resolution Nos. 74-169 and 77-67 both stipulate that signery on the industrial buildings may not be visible from 69th Avenue North partly on the grounds that none of these buildings has access onto 69th Avenue North. 11-13-86 -4- Application No. 86040 continued Conclusion Based on the transportation, land use, and historical considerations outlined above, staff recommended that Part B of this application be denied. While this particular access might not be the total ruination of the neighborhood, its impact would certainly be negative. More importantly, the precedent of establishing an access for an industrial site onto 69th Avenue North would tend to unravel the buffer that exists now between the resiential and the industrial districts and which maintains a stable relationship between those land uses. In regard to concerns for 69th Avenue North itself, denial of the proposed access will reinforce the policy that is operative in the Short -Elliott -Hendrickson Traffic Study for 1985: namely, that site development approvals and special use permit approvals must be considered in light of the impact on the larger transportation network. Staff will attempt to draft a resolution of denial of Part B of this application by Thursday's meeting for the Commission's review. 11-13-86 -5- _ - -- - - = = = _- f - - _ __-�__--_�-�___-___—_________ _ _ _ -_ ___________ __ --------------------_--------- --_=__- - --- -- __ _______ __ � ___ __ - - -- ' - = _______ __�= __�=_ ___-_ _ - -- == __ - _======= ==�===--==-==�-�--�-- =-___ _�_____= �=__=- EAST --=__==__=- __ ------------------ _-------------------------- PALMEF =-= ===- ===- - li- LAKE PARK = = _ =-_- - _ -_ - _- _ -----=- - ----------- >C• �--� ___------------ _ _ --_-------- =---= �---- =--- - ------- __-- _ =�====- --_______ _ ---- _ +.�-__- -- _- -_-_ - --- ---- -__ •-- - - - tG __ __ _ _ ------- �— --- --- --- — — - t—----------- -__-- ----_------ -------- ---- r=1====== --- -_� __--- _— —�-- --1—=_ __�—__�_---- -_�—__�—____-----� ____—------------------ _—_ =_= _— =___ =�_= _— ___ —� c= —� — __--_______�_—__-_ — -- =_-_=== __ == =t = __ _ __-_____ ____ _ ___ __ 4/ -=__�-- i - - — ____-- -- __ ---- -= y= _ —r =_-__ _-_�___-___________ __ APPLIC _ 14G�_ --_ _=-_ - ___ J �C CITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING 3 � w � 6CTHw CD LANE 67TH F co), CREEK OPEN SPACE i •� 69 4 TOS?. P,QUC 94 7. 0 TH AVE N. X MEN w Z X b ,fir WT A IA NOY' SKI X, ` r .., t� r s.+Yr #tip t� �.. � r .w, .�•. � .:aRr\ '�' .<t.fi �• rv., i ' may' �> '��b��.N #y �. 1ir! a< � � t ♦ S � .,�. .. -�� •'� .tom+ti'�!a _,� � i. �'.- '('� `�,� -� -:i� ,..r .: .w; � ♦i;%Y . Asir" '. _'�. �f, �� ,y.` •yr� { r � I ` i L.. �.. �+�'>' •:,� ' '� � ' � mot. �r, a � .,,1(. MIA •.Ai, s a i'r .,1,. �' r'r tf.:l t k.4 � � .Lr ,Y.. ,t . !y�.am[[♦ I `i � ,�Qrfr€I'� tom', _ ;� n � =,1` . ,�, t • •, ��t ,:�� � '� . �,� " .' t, »M � yak -� t._.. x.�t'k ✓ «h -"s {ymay� '!RA TO: Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: November 10, 1986 RE: Application No. 86040 Hoyt Development Site Plan for Shingle Creek Plaza II The City's Engineering staff does acknowledge the validity of the applicant's contention that traffic congestion does now occur on that part of Shingle Creek Parkway between Xerxes Avenue and 69th Avenue. However, we wish to note: (a) that congestion is limited to the p.m. peak traffic hours; (b) that this congestion is not the result of a capacity problem on Shingle Creek Parkway, rather, it is the result of limited capacity through the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway with 69th Avenue; and (c) that the City has developeXnd is in the process of implementing a plan for eliminating that problem. Proposed Improvements to City's Transportation System As related to the site plan in question, the City's plans for transportation system improvements include the following elements: 1. realignment of the 69th Avenue -Shingle Creek Parkway intersection as shown on the attached sketch; 2. upgrading 69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to (and past) Brooklyn Boulevard to carry project future traffic volumes; and 3. retaining 69th Avenue North from Shingle Creek Parkway to new T.H. 252 as a two lane collector street. This requires that traffic volumes on this segment be limited to approximately the same volume which now use this roa(],­iy, since an ADT of 7000 vehicles per day is the threshold which requires consideration of widening to a 4 lane street. The City's committment to implementation of these plan elements is demonstrated by the following: 1. The City has expended approximately $100,000 in acquiring right of way for the proposed realignment of the 69th Avenue -Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. 2. Within Resolution No. 85-144 "Resolution Approving Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program", the following elements are included: ,'164tHoyt Development, 8300 Grand Avenue South, Minneapolis Minnesota 55420 (612) 884-4338 'cO November 28, 1986 Mr. Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission Secretary City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: Site Plan Modification/Special Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Warren: Please be advised that we will require the continuance of the above item from the scheduled December 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. This continuance is necessary in that we will be out of town the entire week of December 11 and will also need additional time to assemble the requisite information. Yours truly, HOYT DEVELOPMENT PJI� jo' . Bradley A. Hoyt Partner BAH : j me November 10, 1986 Page 2 Year Location Estimated Cost 1988 69th Avenue -Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek $1,600,000 Parkway right of way acquisition 1989 69th Avenue -Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway A. Signals at Brooklyn Boulevard and $ 240,000 69th Avenue and at France Avenue and 69th Avenue B. Reconstruct roadway $1,011,000 Subtotal $2,251,000 Total MSA funds programmed for improvement of the Shingle Creek Parkway-69th Avenue corridor $2,851,000 3. The 69th Avenue-70th Avenue connection between Dupont Avenue and T.H. 252 is now under construction as a two lane roadway. In summary, it is the opinion of the City staff that existing Shingle Creek Parkway, when combined with the proposed realignment of the 69th Avenue/Shingle Creek Parkway intersection and the improvement of 69th Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard will provide more than adequate transportation service to all properties within the Industrial Park area. It is our opinion that duplication of that function and capacity by upgrading 69th Avenue is unnecessary and would be very undesirable from a land -use standpoint.