Memo CUP Request RL Johnson 06-30
.
MEMORANDUM
!
DATE: June 30, 1988
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM~ steven c. Mielke, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: R.L. Johnson, Conditional Use Permit Request.
The attached staff report contains information on the R.L.
Johnson request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an
18,800 square foot strip center on the southeast corner of
County Road 3 and 11th Avenue South.
This strip center is proposed to be constructed on land
owned by the City as well as the developers land. Staff has
allowed the developer to propose the Conditional Use Permit
without an agreement in place in order to allow discussion
on the proposal. The attached report outlines the pro's and
con's of this proposal from several perspectives they
include:
- Traffic impacts of the proposal
- Impact of the proposal on the downtown area.
- Comments by the CeDe
- General Zoning Ordinance Requirements/Specifications.
The City owns a strip of land about 80 feet wide on the
north side of the site which is proposed. to be used for
parking and access to the developers land. Since the City
does not have an existing agreement to sell the City1s land,
the City has a strong ability to influence the development
on this corner.
In essence the City could insist on, for example, specific
land use types or building design standards which meet the
Councils wishes, before the Council approves the sale of the
City's property. Staff has estimated that an 8000 square
foot development is all that could be placed on the site
without the City property. This obviously limits the sites
development potential.
The lesser development potential may be enough to convince
the developer to wait until an arrangement can be made with
.the City or the developer may proceed with a smaller
development.
The Council should discuss whether or not this is the type
of development which the Council wishes to encourage on that
site by way of the sale of the land. Several issues could
be discussed which may assist in that discussion:
--.....
!Jl ~
-
4 .
1- - Does this proposal conform with the original land use
concept proposed by the developer?
R.L. Johnson has never committed to the speci~ic use which
would be placed on this site. Although concept drawing by
the previous developer showed the auto mall on this site,
R.L. Johnson has usually discussed some type of restaurant
on the si1:e.
- Doss this proposal fit the character of the proposed
development on the southeast quadrant of 11th and County
Road 3?
R.L. Johnson is attempting to place a large sinqle tenant on
the 13 acre parcel south of the railroad tracks. Although
to-date they have not been successful in obtaining that
tenant, they are proceeding in that vein. Until the actual
13 acre site is developed it is not possible to fully answer
this question. The Community Development Staff is of the
opinion that R.L. Johnson would not construct something
which would deter form the larger goal of development the 13
acre site. The structural design is also a design which
should :fit:. in well with a future structure on the 13 acre
site?
. - What is the highest and best use of this site?
The definition of highest and best use generally can be
interpreted to m.ean the land use which will offer the
highest or best return on the investment on the property
development investment. Since the property is zoned B-3, it
can be developed int~ retail, auto service. office, service
or other related used. With the current market conditions,
it can be argued that this is the highest and best use for
that parcel. In that light this is a good land use to
endorse.
However if one were to reject or counter that assumption
with an argument that it is not good for the City's CBD
redevelopment activities then another use could be pursued.
But that alternate use may not ~ave a market potential as
strong as this one.
- Does the proposed use conform to
1) the surroundings,
2) proposed development and
3) realistic potential to succeed?
.
---..
~ .
. The proposed use would interface with the Auto Mall, an
apartment building, and Youngstedt's Amoco. There does not
seem to be a dominant UB'9 in the area, although the two
cODmlercial uses are automotive oriented. The proposed use
would not be inconsistent from the automotive orientation of
the area.
The proposed development of a large, sin9le user,
office/warehouse tenant on the 13 acre site would be
enhanced by the restaurant and the associated retail sites
on this parce 1. The Laventhol & Horwarth study indicated
that the small size of the retail area is not foreseen as a
detriment to the development potentials in the CBD area.
:It is also felt that the proposed use has a very realistic
potential to succeed. The market analysis supports this
type of development within the market area.
- What are the City's options regarding development of this
site?
The City has the following options to consider on developing
this site:
. 1) Disapprove the development proposal. By accepting
this alternative, the developer would have to consider
whether to:
a) develop the land they own.
b) respond to the reasons used for denying the
proposal and try to a ccollllllodate the city's
desires.
c) wait with development to see what the future
brings and then negotiate with the City.
Depending on the developers reaction, the City could:
a) Leave the 80 foot strip undeveloped (as is),
b) negotiate a different use with the developer,
c) wait to develop until a future date and then
consider a use with the developers land,
d) purch.ase the developers land and recruit a
purchaser of the property.
What is the impact of denying approval?
By denying approval of this proposal, the City is stating
that is not comfortable with the proposal. As was mentioned
previously, The developer may proceed to develop a smaller
project which is in conformance with the codes. However, it
could lead to discussions with the developer on how to
. better develop the land to the desire of the City.
_c.
. ;
'.,
.. . . '.-.~
e The above issues are meant to stimulate discussion on the
merits of th.is proposal with some of these issues decided, a
good look a.t the specifi.s of th.e CUP can then be
considered.
--
'.
-- --- ,--