Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC90009 - 2920 Co Rd 10PLANNING COABUSSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: { FILE INFORMATION ` Planning Commission Application No. 0,12 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 Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission /jl�ci City Vault Minutes: City Council ; 7 P City Vault Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council 6-13 (4,11111-c,) City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve Z F- L U F*' H W aa- U z O O V) CC r-r © C:) Fes-- Z c.� z z J CL 41 v i CL CL Ste-. i CL CL 4- 4_ O O C O C r O 4-> CL rt3 S- u U J v 0 •F-1 v r� •I) v In _J J�) O U) v 0I O O O rl I r-• 00 M O S- o r-- Q O � Z SO.. rt3 v CL r- C CL O ¢ O C3 •r r- (n CO > 06 •r i N C3 v v e-H V � •1�` 'i= V) t) O O • r-I �b +' 44 E H v CL ro v 0) C v U v N r- U Rj K4 •r C rtY C N (C i •r N v v V) 0 O N U� N 4-3 (n d' i rCf i 4- T3 U -0 O v -C r• -[ v CL CL CL C)Q F> x I 4-) (D 4- -o O 4) C C O Sv- N v O r i •r C v «S O C U •r U i •r r• r- •r T3 v r (Or = N S •r I) CL 4J i•) •FJ -0 v CL •r N J ro 3 O •N�TJ v U I-1 C C >) �4- ��•r CL CL O 0)4- v C, O i O O >> •r v •I-) 4-) i C 0) = v C C C (A > ro •r 'O O v•rr- N v•r vr-CL N.04J I i v v •r (CS 0) "0 - U i IT to Cn O U •r r- -0 O •r CL v .a C i `Cf O (CS Cn v v C •r C 4-1 (D t O r - •r 4- 4-)r•r C.7i •ice (ti C O C 4- (IJ E W 4- 0 0 e U r •r i i >) •f-) •1-� r- a)O 4-•I (o C CL i-� 4- •r U (0 CL 4- U •r U R3 rt5 >) r- •r I) v CLr N N •r _C CL CL •r >) U i-) M Ca. "0v�,m(� O LO a 4") cn� 2 i •I-) v C •r > •r C 'C7 O C v N v v O' O •r N v i v •r r- U 4- = S.- 4-3 r Sv- O •r U >) TJ i 4- C r - "O i-) ❑ r •r (0 O C i C N •r (N (d C 4-) C -P (A •r r w 4) N N r- v •r O v v (0 r- O 3 U U .a .0 ro O' v N 3 v i i rC r• C i v O 'O (a O 'O • -3 4-) •I-1 C .0 •r .0 C C U M (A 4•-$ 4-) rC v (o (0 •r UU >)N U :R: •r (D r- 4-) •r r- C= a (nr O CL CO O CL 4-) CLr C U CL (d -,hG O co i O •-) (N C O v O C (d U v •r i v v O C i F- M E i N •I) CL O i O I� I v V) +� 4-) 'I-) U •r O N rCt.. CL Q a1 r- C Q Q Z W v O U w Z a ro CD \j H C) U Z Z Z J •� CL � C O a--1 � rCS Q` i v •r -0 v •r N C O O /� ()1 N C O C v O r d� O LO O Z U U r "O O 64 ,N CL r CL 4- O C7 U C v Ll U tY U)O • -)-) > CL 3 O r— ro m CL Q 0 4- 1 Cn I C I N 3 O e- I L17 4- I •N 4-) I C I -) 3 I O C N \\ rt5 I Q) I r• \ I 6 I � k I L1•f , I CD \~ I > O •r y �U 4..I 1 , J 4_ I H 4„ U I Z v 4- O i O 1 U � >) N 1 •• •r C .0 I O •I••) I 4-) 1 i v 1 'C7 1 •U4) `CJ C v I 0 � I �v r- 0 I •r U I C O I O U 1 � 4- 1 O > E I v S.O.. i •I-) CL v I o ¢ t(0 I i v U v N fu v Q. i v O Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90009 Applicant: Keith Sturm/Reliance Real Estate Services Location: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow retail use of the Gold's Gym commercial building at 2920 County Road 10. The proposed tenant would be a Jo Ann Fabrics store. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the south by County Road 10, on the west by TCF Savings Bank, on the north by the St. Paul Book and Stationery retail building and Northway Drive, and on the east by First Minnesota Savings Bank. Retail sales of fabric and related items is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. The variance is sought because there are only 56 parking spaces on the site. Section 35-704 of the Zoning Ordinance requires 83 parking spaces for retail use of the 9,961 sq. ft. building. Therefore, the site will be deficient in parking by 27 stalls if the retail use is allowed. The applicant, Mr. Keith Sturm, is not the owner of the building, but a real estate agent seeking to market the property. He has submitted some background information on the property and the proposed use and has also made written arguments addressing the standards for a variance contained in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (see written submittal and ordinance section, attached). A listing of the ordinance standards, a recitation of the applicant's arguments, and staff comments follow: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "A hardship is created by virtue of the fact that no expansion capability exists for the subject property to allow additional parking facilities to be constructed to match the existing building size. If the strict letter of the parking regulations were exercised, the available uses to occupy the property are severely limited, thus contributing to the perception of blight associated with long term vacant buildings. Additionally, the limited street access to the property is not well suited for higher traffic uses. This makes the property only appropriate for a low traffic, destination type of operation." Staff: The alleged hardship in this case is basically that the parcel is not large enough to provide the parking required for a permitted use within the zoning district. It is questionable whether this really constitutes a hardship. Restaurants are also 4-26-90 -1- Application No. 90009 continued permitted in the C2 zone, but a restaurant of 10,000 sq. ft. would require at least 150 to 200 parking stalls and there is no question that this site could not accommodate such a use. Alternatively, an office use of the building in question would require only 50 parking stalls, within the amount available on the site. There will be substantial costs in remodeling the building to either an office or a retail use. The fact that a retail use of the building does not "fit" within the site (at least based on the ordinance parking formula) probably does not constitute a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant seeks the variance because there is presently a market for retail uses in the area. Waiting for an office use might take longer since there is a surplus of such space right now. We would not recommend, however, that the City make zoning decisions on the basis of temporary market conditions, but rather on the long term best interests of the community. The practical consideration raised by the applicant in his written submittal is that Jo Ann Fabrics projects a need for a maximum of 20 parking stalls on most business days and 40 stalls on days with special sales. This demand would be accommodated by the 56 stalls available. The City has not in the past (and we not recommend now) used private parking forecasts to approve specific uses. Uses are approved and sites are designed on the basis of ordinance parking formulas. (Proof -of -parking has been acknowledged when an applicant does not feel so many parking spaces are required for the operation of their business, but the ordinance requirement is always met through the designation on a plan of "future" stalls. That is not the case here.) The issue of whether the retail parking formula is excessive was considered four years ago. No change was adopted at that time through the Planning Commission and staff recor,'mended a change. More consideration of the ordinance itself will be given later in this report. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "The variance request is unique to this property because of the building age and its inherent functional obsolescence. However, newer properties developed under the guidelines of the ordinance that serve a variety of higher traffic retail uses would not require such a variance. Older buildings developed along specific zoning and parking criteria may currently exist in this zoning classification, and due to changing market conditions rising to their functional obsolescence, may result in similar hardships with other existing structures." 4-26-90 -2- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant basically acknowledges that other existing buildings may face the same difficulties in finding a suitable re -use as the building in question. The present situation is, therefore, not particularly unique. The applicant implies that the City should be flexible in enforcing its regulations in order to bring about re -use of existing buildings rather than so limit the possible uses that long-term vacancy and blight result. This argument is not totally invalid, but it should also be recognized that there are legitimate public concerns which must be addressed in the re -use of buildings. Parking is one of these concerns. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. The City should not accept just any use of a building to keep it occupied. In some cases, it may be appropriate to even demolish an existing building because it is simply not appropriate to the site any longer. These are judgments which the City may affect by the enforcement of its regulations, but which are, -for the most part, made by property owners. It should be clear that the City is not obliged to grant a variance to save a building from functional obsolescence. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is specifically related to the ordinance. Without such a stringent parking requirement the need for the variance would not exist. However, the hardship in effect, was created 21 years ago when the market demanded smaller health facilities. Because of the changes over time, health clubs have changed so dramatically that typical clubs are now 100,000 square feet or larger,. as seen at the (new) Highway 100 Northwest Racquet and Swim Health Club. The small clubs that at one time thrived, have now become virtually extinct. This is evidenced by the many tenants they have had within the building that could not make ends meet financially. Because of these changes within the health club industry, and not because of any previous intentions, the referenced building, along with its parking facility, has become functionally obsolete as a health club. A parking variance, along with major interim renovations will make this obsolete facility functional again. To accommodate Jo Ann Fabrics within the strict letter of the current retail parking regulations would require the demolition of more than half the facility. This would create an inconceivable hardship economically as well as reduce the tax revenue the City currently enjoys. The existing parking is more than adequate for the proposed use of other potential low traffic generating retail tenants." 4-26-90 -3- Application No. 90009 continued Staff: The applicant argues that the hardship is created by stringent ordinance requirement and by changing market conditions which make the original use of the building obsolete. The hardship was not caused by the owner. To some extent this may be true. Nevertheless, the building and parking were created by the owner, not the Zoning Ordinance. The issue appears to be how to treat an existing building and site in light of the ordinance. Should a parking variance be granted? Should a parking ordinance amendment be adopted? Or should the owner be given direction to market the building perhaps for an office use which would comply with parking requirements? Our judgment, as we reported to the Commission in 1986, is that the retail parking formula which requires more parking per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for smaller buildings, appears to be excessive, at least for those buildings. We recommended an ordinance change at that time which would have given greater flexibility for the re -use of this and other small to medium sized commercial buildings. That change was recommended by the Planning Commission and received a 3 to 2 favorable vote from the City Council. However, a 4/5 vote was required to amend the Zoning Ordinance and the amendment, therefore, failed. If a variance is granted in this case, the City will probably be, in effect, amending its ordinance indirectly. We would prefer that a change in policy be indicated directly through an ordinance amendment, not indirectly through a variance. If the City Council does not amend the ordinance (and thus far it has not), it would probably be more proper to deny the variance and direct the property owner to seek out an office user for the property. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Applicant: "The variance will not be detrimental to public welfare and should enhance the neighborhood in that this vacant building will be occupied by a long term national tenant and that existing parking will be more than adequate at the facility. Additionally the adjacent retail uses are compatible with this proposed use and will reenforce the retail vitality of the area." Staff: We agree that a retail use of this building would be compatible with surrounding existing land uses. It would be a permitted use within the C2 zone. It would also probably live within the available parking on site. The issue is whether to apply the ordinance parking standard, to change it, or vary from it. Although an ordinance amendment has failed in the past, we believe it should at least be considered again as a possible route of resolving problems for this and other buildings. 4-26-90 -4- Application No. 90009 continued We are not recommending a variance at this time. However, if the Commission is inclined to recommend a variance, we will attempt to develop language addressing the ordinance standards at the Commission's direction. We will also supply the Commission with information on an ordinance change for your review. 4-26-90 -5- 35-240 applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the / application. i� 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected personIsland is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance 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 not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. C 1'I"I.o � it } Ivor, • TV i 3i r; nA n v ? TN I "A IfAP •:urn 4 j (' I 15� 24 r ... p ,n 'Ar/y N � 1 1• , ^, t, AI'l'It I,R1'•� � I ti - � ...,$a �+..r�s. .a�lkaa �.hn � �1, .. ,. _ _, ., �.a.1Rv-s_ .aarxa, �'a�:h.•,4 ►.� v.�:�,i•+r ,.t r .�,.,1 �l"vs.Az �M =M M mmm Hit mm [traMM it ,tl == Mm MM � al r�Jlial �� ilo mm 1 fill 1 1 ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 11, 1990 at approximately 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider the petition described below. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at.least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561-5440 to make arrangements. TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance PETITIONER: Keith Sturm PROPERTY NAMED IN THE PETITION: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Legal Description: Tract B, R. L. S. 1261 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Variance request to allow fewer than ordinance required parking spaces. An ordinance amendment will also be reviewed. Respectfully, Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 7, 1990 at approximately 700 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider the petition described below. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561-5440 to make arrangements. TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance PETITIONER: Keith Sturm/Reliance Real Estate Services, Inc. PROPERTY NAMED IN THE PETITION: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Legal Description: Tract B, R. L. S. 1261 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Parking Variance request to allow fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance parking standards. Respectfully, Ronald A. Warren ` Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF BROOKLYN,CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold a public hearing on Thursday, April 26, 1990 at approximately 7:30 p.m., at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider the petition described below: Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 5693300 to make arrangements, TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance PETITIONER: Keith Sturm/Reliance Real Estate Services, Inc. PROPERTY NAMED IN THE PETITION: 2920 County Road 10 (Gold's Gym) Legal Description: Tract B, R. L. S. 1261 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Parking variance request to allow fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance parking standards. Respectfully, Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission Secretary The,following owner/occupants within 150 ft. have been notified of the proposed variance request submitted by Keith Sturm under Application No. 90009. Hennepin County Highway Dept. 320 S. Washington Avenue Hopkins, MN 55343 Twin City Federal 2950 County Road 10 Brooklyn Center, MH 55430 Health Central 2810 County Road 10 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 First Minnesota Bank 2901 Northway Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Chris Conroy Select Sales, Inc. 2945 Garfield Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55408 Unocal 5710 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brookdale Center 1108 Brookdale Brooklyn Center, MN 5.5430 Norman Chazin 5353 Wayzata Blvd. #602 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Notices Mailed By Not es Mailed By - y Notices ailed 6-7-90 By��� _ — o Keith Sturm Reliance Real Estate 821 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN Services #700 55402