Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC86029 - 7/31/86 - 5810 Xerxes Ave�-n 1%..01 PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date- i!z194, FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. 84,02V PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: Z 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 0 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 Tyne 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 -7,3i18G1 City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 86029 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 5810 XERXES AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN CENTER Legal Description of Property TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1261, FILES OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Owner CONROY & OTTO, A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP Address 2945 GARFIELD AVENUE SOUTH/MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Phone No. 827-3637 Applicant DAVID OTTO Address 2945 GARFIELD AVENUE SOUTH/MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Phone No. 827-3637 Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval X Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO CHANGE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM 117 TO THE PROPOSED 95, NECESSITATED BY THE PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND REORIENTATION OF BUILDING ENTRIES. 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. i Fee $50.00Applicant's Signature Receipt No. 71.598 _ _ _ Date: Dates of P.C. Consideration: Approved Denied following conditions: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION this .3 ( day of 11 CITY COUNCIL ACTION 190 , subject to the airman Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied this day of t� 19 g _�, with the following owi n amendment: / Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Planning Commission Information Sheet Applicant: David Otto Location: 5810 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-704, Subdivision 2c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the required number of parking stalls for retail use of the entire building at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by Northway Drive on the north, by First Minnesota Savings Bank on the east, and by the health spa building and TCF on the south. Issue Clarification and Background The building in question has a gross floor area of 14,743 sq. ft. Under the parking formula set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for retail establishment, the entire building would be required to have ll+ (8 x 13.743) = 121 spaces. The applicant, who owns the building, proposes 14,353 sq. ft. of retail space and 390 sq. ft. of warehouse space for a total requirement of 119 spaces. The site presently has 92 spaces and there are five additional proof -of -parking spaces inside the building which would be lost to the proposed interior remodeling. The extent of the variance is, therefore, 27 spaces. The existing building is in conformance because the floor space within the building is divided into 11,700 sq. ft. of retail space requiring 96.6 or 97 spaces, and 3,043 sq. ft. of garage parking area within the building which has been used for limited storage space. No additional parking spaces were required for the garage/storage area. The internal parking spaces were accepted by the City in 1975 when the City lifted a deed restriction on the use of the building for an S and H Greenstamp Redemption Center and replaced it with a restriction that approximately 3,000 sq. ft. within the building be reserved for proof -of -parking and storage use. The proof -of -parking provision has never been exercised for customer parking since 1975. In fact, for 10 years, the Health Spa had an agreement with this property to use over 20 parking stalls on the lot at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North. Variance Standards The proposed variance is subject to the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The applicant, Mr. David Otto, has submitted a letter addressing those standards (also attached). Mr. Otto states that the proposed remodeling would make better use of existing parking by adding an entrance to the north side of the building toward the east lot. Two of the tenants presently face Xerxes Avenue North and have no parking directly in front of their space. Mr. Otto argues that the business in the building are assets to the community and that a real hardship is worked on them when improvement of the tenant layout is limited by an overly restrictive parking requirement. Regarding standard (b) pertaining to uniqueness of the circumstances, Mr. Otto simply asserts that the existing site circulation and shape are unique and not common generally to other property in the same zoning classification. Mr. Otto states that the hardship is the result of the ordinance parking requirement and has not been created by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Finally, Mr. Otto states that the granting of the variance will have no detrimental effect on surrounding property, but will, in fact, serve to enhance the vitality of this commercial node. 7-31-86 -1- Application No. 86029 continued Analysis The applicant pictures the hardship as an imbalance between parking and building entrances caused by the existing restriction on space within the building which reduces flexibility in arranging tenant spaces. (The restricted area is at the southeast corner of the building and does somewhat limit the possibilities for entrance on the east side of the building where much of the site's parking is located). While this is a valid point, it seems clear that the existing tenant spaces could be provided more convenient access without doing away with the restricted area in the building. It seems to us that what the applicant really wants is full or nearly full utilization of an existing building in the C2 zone for uses which are permitted in that zone. The real hardship is that building space is being kept out of use to meet a potential parking problem when, in actual fact, a parking surplus has existed for years. Further, the City recognized the parking excess in 1975 when it gave its blessing to an off -site parking agreement with the Health Spa for use of over 20 spaces on the subject site. So, the hardship is really underutilization of existing building space in order to live within the letter of the ordinance, not because an actual parking shortage exists. The applicant states that the shape and site circulation are unique. Certainly, every commercial site can be said to be unique. The site design in this case may qualify for being uniquely bad - ie. two tenant entrances on the west side of the building (for visibility onto Xerxes) with no parking adjacent to those spaces. However, it is not unique in the sense of the CEAP property or the Brookdale Six Office buildings, with elongated accesses and soil and topographic problems. It is a small retail center with frontage on two streets, one of which is a major thoroughfare. The site layout is certainly poor, but this circumstance was not really created by the City, or the ordinance parking requirement. It was created by the original owners and developers of the property with the help of their architects. With respect to detrimental effects on surrounding property, we would agree that, in this case, no detrimental effect should occur, that parking would be adequate. The detrimental effects would be more indirect. The granting of variances unless clearly justified generally undermines community standards from which all presumably benefit. The Health Spa will also be more restricted in its ability to find additional parking. Assuming for the moment that the circumstances in this case are unique (which they do not appear to be) and there will be no detrimental effect from granting a variance, the real question is what is the hardship and what created it? The hardship cited by the applicant - restricted tenant layout - was really created by the previous owner, not the Zoning Ordinance. A hardship of underutilization, however, does seem directly related to the ordinance parking requirement rather than to any parking shortage which has actually been experienced. Recommendation As the Commission is aware, the retail parking formula in the Zoning Ordinance has been under study for almost a year. One of the unique features of the existing formula is that it requires much more parking for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area than for additinal floor area. Since the building in question is just under 15,000 sq. ft., it bears the heaviest burden under the formula. Parking studies do not bear out the presumption in the ordinance that the initial square footage in a center generates a larger share of the traffic. In fact, they indicate that traffic generation per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area increases generally with the size of the development and breadth of the tenant mix. We again recommend 7-31-86 -2- • 4 Application No. 86029 continued consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to make the retail parking formula more neutral in its effect, rather than weighted so heavily at the low end. (Further information on the proposed ordinance amendment is attached). However, if it is felt that an ordinance change is unwarranted, we would still recommend a variance be granted. A parking variance (Application No. 78009) was granted in somewhat similar circustances when Pilgrim Cleaners converted a former gas station into a dry cleaners and pick-up station. Both cases involve the re -use of buildings originally designed for somewhat different purposes than their present use. 7-31-86 -3- AM nu ( ro a Minnesota general partnership Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Gary: Enclosed for your review are the following: July 17, 1986 1. An application for variance with a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). 2. We are applying for this variance for the following reasons: a. The building currently has its primary frontage on Xerxes, one building entry on Northway Drive and the bulk of its parking at the rear. Retail parking works well only if it is located in front of or directly adjacent to the spaces it serves. By re -orienting the building entries so that there are two entries on Northway Drive, two of the available parking would be better positioned, considering the building location on the parcel of land. These businesses are assets to the community and a real hardship is worked on them when their improvement is limited by an overly restrictive parking requirement. It is not the owners' intent to reconfigure the site in any way. Access and circulation are good and will improve with the relocation of the building entries closer to the actual parking area. b. The shape and existing sight circulation are unique and not common to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The hardship is simply the result of the existing ordinance requirements and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will have no negative impact on the surrounding sites. It will, on the contrary, serve to enhance an already vital commercial node. By improving accessibility from the parking lot to the retail entries, by increasing the amount of storefront, and by eliminating some of the "warehouse" character of a building better suited for retail. Sincerely, David Otto 2945 Garfield Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 827-3637 or - on tow -Imm_ I mm_ iam- alms so= AV am_ wwiwwiwm .-hz oo Iffl-I - I