Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 08-12 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER August 12, 1993 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - July 29, 1993 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC. 93010 Request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store/car wash at 6550 West River Road. 6. Other Business • 7. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No: 93010 Applicant: Holiday Stationstores, Inc. Location: 6550 West River Road Avenue Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 3,600 s.f. gas station/convenience store and a 1,320 s.f. attached car wash at the southeast quadrant of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The property in question is 51,353 s.f. (1.18 acres) in area, is addressed 6550 West River Road and currently contains the Atkins Mechanical building. The property is zoned C-2 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue; on the east by vacant C-1 zoned land which abuts along it's east side with Willow Lane; on the south by the Brookdale Motel; and on the west by the West River Road frontage road with Highway 252 lying further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C-2 zoning district while a retail grocery or convenience store is a permitted use in this zoning district. This site has been the subject of a number of proposed developments over the past few years. Two proposals were similar to the current application and involved the use of the site as a gas station/convenience store/car wash. One of those proposals was submitted by Fina Oil and Chemical Company (Planning Commission Application No. 89012) in 1989. After a moratorium, a traffic analysis and a land use study, the City Council had directed the preparation • of a resolution that would grant approval of a site plan and special use permit for the project, however, Fina Oil and Chemical Company decided not to exercise it's option on the property and proceed with it's development proposal. The other proposal involved PDQ Food Stores, Inc. (Planning Commission Application No. 91018) which was denied by the City Council on November 18, 1991 through City Council Resolution No. 91-267. This denial was because PDQ was not willing to revise it's site plans to be in conformance with applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance for the district for which they were located. Specifically, one of the accesses to the site was more than 30' in width and the two accesses were closer than 50' to each other. The lighting in the canopy was not consistent with the zoning ordinance requirement that lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades to concentrate illumination on the property and not create light glare. The plans were also incomplete and inconsistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the inclusion of a 6" illuminated lexon band on the canopy was inconsistent with the sign ordinance provisions regarding canopy signs and attention attracting devices. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of City Council Resolution No. 91-267 and copies of the approved site plan for Fina and the rejected site plan for PDQ. ACCESS/PARKING The site plan proposed by Holidaystation Stores, Inc. proposes two 30' wide accesses serving the site from the West River Road frontage road which are approximately 90' apart from each other. The northerly of the two accesses leads toward the front (north side) of the building and to the pump island area which is covered by a 52' x 95' canopy that is approximately 19' high. i Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • The southerly access leads to a parking area along the south property line and a trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the site. A third access to the site is located off 66th Avenue and is actually constructed on the neighboring property to the east. This access is also 30' wide and is to line up directly with the median opening on 66th Avenue. This driveway will become a joint access, and the only access, to serve the parcel to the east when it is developed for a service/office use in the future. A joint access agreement, if not already executed between the two properties, will be needed to assure that this access arrangement will be continued in the future. Access to the proposed 22' x 60' car wash which is attached to the south side of the building is gained in a clockwise manner around the convenience store. A 15' one-way car wash drive is located to the east of the store and also serves as stacking space for the drive-thru car wash. It appears that there is enough space for 6 cars to be waiting in the drive-up line. Parking provided on the site comes to 27 designated spaces including one handicap space. Fourteen parking spaces are located along the south side of a 24' wide drive lane. These spaces are set back 10' from the south property line. Five spaces are located along the west side of the building and eight spaces are located along the north side (or front) of the building. Twenty parking spaces are required to meet the retail parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area. The additional seven parking spaces should handle any parking demands for the car wash. (Note: The 27 total parking spaces would be adequate even if the car wash • were devoted to a retail use). The plans also indicate 12 additional parking spaces at the pump islands. Parking, driving, stacking and circulation around the site appear to be adequate. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES B612 curb and gutter is to be provided around all driving and parking areas. Drainage is generally away from the building and will be collected in catch basins located south of the building, along the frontage road greenstrip by the two entrances to the site, at the northwesterly and northeasterly portions of the site as well as two locations on either side of the 66th Avenue shared access. The Commission's attention is directed to the City Engineer's August 5, 1993 memo regarding his review of the Holiday plans. Of particular interest are his comments about access to the site which was of significant concern during our review of the PDQ proposal. PDQ's failure to address the access issues, particularly their insistence on having an access closer to 66th than what is currently existing and the need for wider and closer together accesses than allowed by ordinance, were a major reason for the denial of that particular plan. Also of interest are the City Engineer's comments relative to the visual impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The applicants propose a 6' high masonry wall to match the building exterior along the south 175' of their east property line to block out primarily headlight glare from automobiles into the residential area east of Willow Lane. The applicant has provided site line drawings to show how headlight glare will be screened. Amur Maple and Norway Maple trees are proposed to be 8-12-93 2 Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • placed along the north and east greenstrips of the proposed office site to assist in screening this activity, however, this might not screen out all of this activity. The City Engineer notes a possible solution to this by moving the connection to Willow Lane and 66th approximately 125' north and aligning it with the recently reconstructed westbound lane of 66th Avenue North. This would create some opportunities for the development of a significant berm with plantings or fencing to provide better screening for the northerly two homes on Willow Lane. The City Engineer will be present Thursday evening to review this possibility in more detail. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used evaluate such plans. The site is a little over one acre and requires a minimum of 80 landscape points. The applicant's proposal provides 219 points primarily with perimeter trees and plantings. Norway Maple (2), Imperial Honey Locust (2), are shade trees proposed in the north greenstrip along 66th Avenue. Five Seagreen Juniper and four Gray Gleam Juniper are proposed for the same area. A mixture of eleven Gold Flame Spirea and eight Sargent Juniper are together in a planting bed at the northwest corner of the site. Two Sugar Maple and a Honey Locust are shade trees found along the frontage road greenstrip between 66th Avenue and the northerly access. These shade trees are separated by a hedge of 50 Dwarf Honeysuckle. The greenstrip area between the two accesses along the frontage road contains two Flaming Crab and two planting beds of seven Sargent Juniper. At the southwest corner of the site are three Black Hills Spruce. Four Marshall's Ash line the south greenstrip and four more Black Hills Spruce • are located at the southeast corner of site by the trash enclosure. Two Sugar Maple are proposed, one each on an island area at the southwest and northeast corners of the building. Sod will be provided around the entire site as well as portions of the building. An underground irrigation system will be provided to facilitate site maintenance. A 6' high masonry wall, to match the building exterior, is proposed along the south approximate 175' of the east property line to provide some screening of the site for the residential neighbors to the east. It is not possible to totally screen the site from the neighbor's view. Further development of an office on the vacant property to the east will help provide a buffer or transitional area between the Holiday site and the residents. However, no assurance can be given as to when such a development will occur. The applicant is attempting to, as much as possible, screen the headlights from cars on the site. They provide 12 shade trees (seven Amur Maple and five Norway Maple) along the north and part of the east corner of the Atkins property in an attempt to reduce viability. A much better screening proposal is the one mentioned by the City Engineer involving relocating access to Willow Lane and providing a combination of berms and landscaping or a possible screen fence in the area created. BUILDING/CAR WASH/CANOPY The proposed convenience store building is 45' x 80' (3,600 s.f.) and the attached car wash is 22' x 60' (1,320 s.f.). The building elevations do not indicate an exterior treatment, however, my understanding is that both will be a brick treatment. The height of the building is 15' 1/2" to 8-12-93 3 Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • and contains an approximate 5' high Alucoband white fascia panel with red and blue striping around the top of all four sides of the building. The canopy covers a 52' x 95' area and is 19' 4" to the top. The face of the canopy is to be Alucoband of Mirage panels with red and blue vinyl strips. The faces of the canopy may not be illuminated nor may they contain identification signs. LIGHTING/TRASH The proposed plan calls for square guardian style area lights at ten locations around the site (both sides of each access drives, at the northwest corner of the site, along the east side of the building to light the drive-up lane for the car wash, in the area of the trash enclosure and on the south side of the building to light the parking lot area). These are 400 watt super metal halide lights. The height of the lights is not indicated on the plans. Lighting in the canopy should be either recessed or shielded to direct light downward under the canopy. Our main concern is that the lights not create glare off of the site. The trash container is located at the southeast corner of the site and is to be screened by a 10' x 15' enclosure of the same material as the building exterior. The gates should be an opaque material such as wood for proper screening. SPECIAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C-2 zoning district. As such, they are subject to the standards contained in Section 35-220, Subdivision 2 of the zoning ordinance (attached). Standard (a) of that section is fairly general regarding promoting the general public welfare. Gas stations can pose potential hazards to public health and safety. However, as long as the station complies with all state and local regulations, these hazards should be minimized. The second standard regarding impact on other developed property in the neighborhood has been a concern of local residents as can be attested in the two previously mentioned applications. In this regard, the screening treatment along the east side of the proposed site is important. The applicants have provided what can be considered quality screening consisting of a masonry wall. They also propose plantings at the northeast corner of the adjacent site to provide screening to the residential neighborhood. Standard (c) regarding normal and orderly development of surrounding property relates in this case, primarily to the vacant C-1 parcel to the east, not necessarily to the already existing residential property further to the east. We have been provided with a plan in previous submittals indicating that the vacant property can be developed with a potential office development that can make use of shared access. Development of the gas station/convenience store/car wash should not have a negative effect on the development of the vacant C-1 zoned property in the future. With respect to standard (d) regarding the design of ingress, egress and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets, we believe the plan being submitted by Holiday does meet this standard. There is stacking space on the site to accommodate the drive-thru car wash. The location and angle of the pump island areas to the south of the convenience store lends itself to 8-12-93 4 Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • a flow of traffic into the site from the frontage road exiting the site at 66th Avenue. At the time the Fina Oil and Chemical Company proposal was reviewed during 1989 and 1990, we received a traffic analysis from Short, Elliot and Hendrickson (SEH), City traffic consultants, indicating that the development of this site as a gasoline station/convenience storetcar wash would not overtax the existing roadways. A companion land use study indicated that the best use of this property was a general commerce land use, including such a use as that being proposed under this application. SEH also recommended a different configuration of roadways to access Willow Lane and provide a buffer and landscaped area. We were unable to work out the details of that proposal which involved utilizing much of the vacant C-1 zoned property for right of way purposes. The proposed realignment and access to Willow Lane as explained by the City Engineer seems to be a benefit as far as screening the residential neighborhood east of Willow Lane from these commercial areas. Although the proposal may not be anymore popular with area residents as the two previous proposals, it nevertheless appears to be consistent with the standards for special use permits contained in the zoning ordinance. A public hearing is scheduled for the special use permit and notices have been sent. RECOMMENDATION Altogether we believe the plans and special use permit are in order. Approval is, therefore, • recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8-12-93 5 Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan indicating the height of lighting and the plan shall be consistent with Section 35-712 of the City ordinances. 12. The special use permit is granted to the applicant for a gas station/convenience store/car wash as contained in the plans submitted. Any expansion or alteration of the use shall require an amendment to this special use permit. 13. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. • 8-12-93 6 • Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adontion: RESOLUTION NO. 91-267 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY POO FOOD STORES, INC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. seeking site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a gas station/convenience store/car wash at the southwest quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, Section 35-220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a special use permit may be granted by the City Council. after demonstration by evidence that all of the five standards for special use permits listed in said section of the ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, this application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Planning Commission believed it was necessary to revise the plans submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. as a means of meeting the standards for special use permits; and WHEREAS, the applicant, during the public hearing, indicated it was not willing to revise the site and building plans in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed the City staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for special use permits were not met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a duly called meeting held on September 26,1991 adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-5 recommending the denial of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center first considered said application at a duly called City Council meeting on October 7, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all of the materials submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by . the applicants and their representatives, as well as information and • testimony presented by other interested parties; and • RESOLUTION NO. 91-267 WHEREAS, the City received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewing the PDQ plan as it relates to T. H. 252 indicating traffic congestion concerns and the need to keep the first entrance from the frontage road set back from 66th Avenue North as far as possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991, determined the applicant's plans that were then being considered could not meet the standards for special use permits without various revisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 7, 1991 directed the staff to prepare a resolution denying this application on the grounds that the standards for special use permits were not met in this situation for their consideration at the next City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, a resolution denying Planning Commission Application No. 91018 was prepared and presented to the City Council for consideration on October 21, 1991; and WHEREAS, the applicant on October 21, 1991 submitted a letter and a sketch of a revised plan indicating some willingness to revise their plan although it still did not meet, all of the site plan concerns previously expressed to the applicants; and WHEREAS, at the October 21, 1991 City Council meeting Mr. Shelton, President of PDQ, indicated that they wished the. Council to table consideration of the denial of this application for another two weeks so that a revised plan could be pursued; and WHEREAS, the City Council did table further consideration of this application for two weeks and directed the staff to notify neighboring property owners of the Council's reconsideration to be held on November 4, 1991; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1991 the City Council considered • revised sketch plan submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. along with • report from the staff regarding this plan's compliance with the - zoning ordinance provisions and the standards for special use permits; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the plans before them were not consistent with all of the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, also not consistent with the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35-220, Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. • � RESOLUTION NO. 91-267 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to deny Planning Commission Application No. 91013 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. on the grounds that the plans submitted do not demonstrate that the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35-220, Subdivision 2 of the City Ordinances have been met. Specifically, the City Council finds that standard (e) regarding conformance to applicable regulations of the district in which a use is located is not met on the basis of the following: 1. The northerly driveway accessing the site exceeds 30' in width and has a separation of less than 50 ' from the southerly access to the site. This is at variance with Section 35-414, Subdivision 4 of the City Ordinances which states that the maximum right angle width of any driveway shall be 30' at the property line, and that no driveway shall be located within 50' of another driveway at the property line on the same use site and also Section 35-703 which states that access to off-street areas shall be restricted to driveways 30' or less in width, and no two driveways on any single parcel of land in a business or industrial district shall be less than 50' apart. • 2. The plans showing dropped ropped lighting in the canopy for the service station are not consistent and are at variance with Section 35-414, Subdivision 7 and Section 35-712 of the City Ordinances which states that all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices, and that no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. 3. The plans submitted thus far for screening, lighting, land elevations, drainage and landscaping are not complete and consistent with the requirements for site and building plan approval contained in Section 35-230, Subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning ordinance. 4. The 6" illuminated lexon band proposed on the canopy is inconsistent and at variance with provisions in the City's Sign Ordinance regarding canopy signs and attention attracting devices. or RESOLUTION NO. 91-267 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that any future revisions or modifications to the proposed plans shall be subject to the resubmission ' of a new Planning Commission Application consistent with the provisions of Sections 35 -220 and 35-230 of the City Ordinances regarding Special use Permits and Plan Approval. November 18, 1991 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Dave Rosene , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, , whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 i '•1 I N • 1 1 1 1 I 1 ► �V 1 � 1 � 1 r� O 1 II V J 1 1 ' O A y N n • ; - . W _->r In Z O 4 1 m ah so / 1 1 Y N M W Q O 90aw SYX31 'SrllYO m O1 W or S O AVMSS3MdX3 IVVIN30 NIHON 0959 3 o N O N N J O r ANVdW0.0 IV01WAHo aNV "110 VNId o > n s° n 1 W 0 -C o T. Y \ j�7 Z .. J W LU W W Y C.1• ��W O < ; � O CL m N O. q �� �A !t g ,, ,.. W V D: V Y jai t!� a:•y V y d a> N ss yy1LLOW LANE 7 - r r i I • i . =-� - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - i I � r e Ii I � i i = a I r f i Lu >);e I ' - •� -ice � o— (�� �— --- i V i so s ZSZ AVMHJIH 31VIS GYOU U3A1U 1S3M MEMORANDUM • DATE: August 5, 1993 TO: Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development File - Holiday Companies (Willow Lane & 66th Ave. No.) FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer RE: Site Plan for Holiday Companies I have reviewed the recently submitted plans for the above proposed improvement, drawings dated July 29, 1993, and offer the following comments and/or recommendations: 1) Because of the potential impact on the intersection of 66th Ave. No. with State Trunk Highway 252, I had previously forwarded a copy of the site plan for this proposed development to MnDOT for their review and comment. A copy of their response is attached for your reference. Their concerns with any development at this location can be summarized as a) a determination for the need for any entrance or access permits from State right-of-way, and b) a review of the existing and proposed drainage patterns adjacent to the highway. In both cases MnDOT, has found the plan proposed by Holiday Companies acceptable with regard to their concerns. • 2) At a previous meeting, we (City Staff and developer) discussed the importance to the City of a proposed driveway/access configuration which allowed for well defined internal circulation patterns while not creating any obvious conflicts along the existing public right-of-ways (66th Ave. or Frontage Road). The plan which I have reviewed has incorporated staff's requests for a) an entrance/exit drive to 66th Ave. which is located as far as possible from the intersection with TH 252 and configured so that it will also serve as future access to the undeveloped commercial parcel adjacent to Willow Lane, and b) entrance/exit drives to the Frontage Road which are located at least as far south of 66th Ave. No. as the existing drive. The plan from Holiday Companies recognizes these access issues and indicates modifications to the internal circulation patterns to accommodate these requests by the City. 3) A very important issue that has been discussed regards visual impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood, and how adequate screening could be accomplished. The plan submitted contains sight line drawings from various angles, which attempt to show what would be visible from the residences along the east side of Willow Lane. The applicant has proposed a 6' high masonry wall along the south 175 feet of their east property line. It appears that this proposed wall would be effective in blocking direct headlight glare from the site which would have been directed toward the houses at 6536 and 6546 Willow Lane. Given the on-site circulation pattern, the property at 6552 Willow Lane would appear to be adequately screened by the proposed landscape materials. These landscaping materials shown on the east side of the adjacent commercial property will provide a minimal amount of screening for the properties at 6600 and 6620 Willow Lane, but will not offer much protection from the sweep of direct headlight glare due to the existing and proposed on-site • movement of vehicles. Given the vertical grades which must be accommodated by the driveway to 66th Ave., and the need to locate it as far as possible from a potential conflict with TH 252, the driveway configuration appears to be the best possible fit; I don't think the • applicant can substantially improve the sight lines for the properties at 6600 or 6620 within the confines of his (or the adjacent commercial) property. Accordingly, staff has developed a conceptual plan which would create an opportunity for substantial screening for the above affected properties. I have attached a sketch of this concept for your reference. This concept consists of moving the connection of Willow Lane to 66th Ave. north approximately 125 feet, and aligning it with the recently reconstructed westbound lane of 66th Ave. The purpose for this realignment would be for the creation of a "node" on City-owned property which could be used for screening. The dimensions of this node are such that, with normal boulevards, it could easily accommodate a 6 foot high berm with additional plantings or fencing. The resulting configuration would create an opportunity for effective screening for the properties at 6600 and 6620 Willow Lane. Staff has not had the chance to discuss the above concept with the applicant, nor the adjacent residents. The amount and distribution of costs for any such improvements on City-owned property have yet to be developed, however, I would expect the costs for street, utility and landscaping improvements to be in the range of $20,000 - $40,000. As a coincidence, one of the "candidate projects" for the proposed 1994 Street Improvement Program is this segment of Willow Lane. The street has been identified by Public Works staff as needing pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction and drainage improvements, as well as providing the connection of the trailway system between West River Road and the I-694 bridge. It would now seem appropriate to discuss this chance to substantially reduce conflicts between the • residences along Willow Lane and the commercially zoned properties under consideration in the context of a street reconstruction project. 4) The on-site storm drainage needs have been addressed by the proposed plan, however, I would recommend that a) one or possibly both of the proposed catch basins located at the entrance to 66th Ave. be constructed as "sump" structures, so that there exists a place for sand, grit and other sediments to be collected (and subsequently removed) prior to their discharge into the River, and b) the applicant may wish to examine the feasibility of providing heating elements in the trench drains which are proposed at either end of the car wash. With regard to the sump structures, it will be required that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City for the provision of maintenance and sediment removal from these catch basins. Because the majority of the sediment collected would be directly attributed to the activities of the proposed Holiday station/store, we would require that, at least once a year Holiday remove the sediment from these structures and dispose of it properly. In the event that Holiday does not perform the required maintenance, the agreement shall enable the City to perform the maintenance and charge the developer for all time and materials, plus reasonable mark-up. This Storm Sewer Agreement could in fact be in the form of an amendment to the Utility Maintenance and Easement Agreement that will be entered into for the provision of maintenance of the other on-site utilities such as sewer and water services. Regarding the trench drains, on other recent applications for approval of car washes we have • noted that the proximity of the trench drains to the public right-of-way required that they be designed so as not to create an ice hazard in the winter. In the case of this application, the proposed trench drains are located sufficiently far from the public right-of-way (Frontage • Road); we don't need to require heating elements. However, the applicant may wish to look into it for his own maintenance or operational reasons. 5) The sewer and water service connections have been addressed on the plan via the notations "final location to be determined". These are fairly minor issues and through my analysis of previous applications for uses of this property, I am comfortable that we will be able to resolve the utility service problems prior to issuance building permits. As noted above, the Utility and Maintenance Agreement will need to be developed so as to provide an understanding of the applicant's responsibilities. In addition, if the sewer and water service connections are in fact to extend across the adjacent commercial parcel, easements will need to be conveyed prior to plan approval. 6) The construction of the sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer should conform to Brooklyn Center's Standard Details and Specifications, which are published and available in my office. 7) Detailed records will need to be kept during construction so that a proper asbuilt can be produced. Just a reminder - it is the applicant's responsibility to keep these detailed records of sewer and water connection locations/elevations, storm sewer locations, clean- outs, and valves, and provide the City with an asbuilt prior to release of any performance guarantee. • Please contact me if you need further clarification of any of these concerns or recommendations. attachments • Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building • 1500 West County Road B2 OF Roseville,Minnesota 55113 Reply to 582-1387 July 26, 1993 Telephone No. Mark J. Maloney City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Dear Mark Maloney: SUBJECT: Site Plan Review Holiday Companies SE Quadrant TH 252 and 66th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County CS 2748 • The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Holiday Companies anies site plan. We find the proposal acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • As the frontage road was turned back to the city no Mn/DOT entrance permits are required. • Discharge of run-off to TH 252 right of way must not increase. If you have any questions regarding this review please contact me. Sincerely, Cyrus Knutson Transportation Planner • An Equal Opportunity Employer • aq 66Tg AyE, N. C �R 21 R wrs F"(Z sa I wx ar OW. STAtO I I 1 1 I I I I I I SMPAW T ms I I II II II I I I 1 1 / LJLJLJLJ I I FI nmmAM4"01 1 arm 1 1 q o I I I I 2r, 01 a31 MEM awmr�►nc� � 1 1 q er CORK ME I 1 \1 12 30'R V�'a- � 1 1 r• I 19�C �R 3ST 1 ae'—u• III 1 1 I I 1 r I II CL srAra+sros to I 11 I I I I I I 3rACMCI Loe I Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. I I L 1 I I � I CO e@ I T �_— — — — —— �----— pC � 4 EEi — - ---- a ---—--- F I a(�i[°[fCrEief��28 -' -----------�Y_ cE 6N 4 � ii �y 11 FKBgB�pBK�K�S�E� k' 1 @�I -- I I �� rL ID all III tl __-- Mar Z;grtnro AD 4 r1 o p g II -� ® 019n:., � It ® (n r J I IL i z cQ ___--___--•, 1-.. ...`6V� III I ,"_-�•_-_,� 1, � i -. _. __® � � fill € � � LANa SZ ___ �- -'/-^ ✓ I a(t I I I ♦ / I m l. I \ I�' A a�L I ti 11 II — O to \�I crow asrcnroa • bb yb yb�b rl v a� E v >1 v � o ZHc p LLOX I n? • � CD J� gig I � 11 I ` _ 00111 i I r — , L -J ' ILI II OYOY 99BLN08d / I� 1 5 it 's I � E I 1 •,,3� a Wa W f itKs9i +W���fEl�9 i b , v e o 1 Z ¢ 5 ®8 .a �=f • g � b �� Y � AS � �R� � a 6 ff 5 11. 1 g 1! 1,�1 4 1 � gg E k MI_ I �R��9�3�4 $4 � .,�d R A�5 5�.j�p.�E�g v ^ z� W� if� s v q L�: K d z cn i a z rc F ° Q I I II IIII i� I I I ;�j�l!,;1 !IIIiI'll�l Ii ' I I III'II'uI I IIII I I I � I U VIII; Ili I I 8 1I II;I II I I 11111,1 I' II < I I I I I III l i I'j lli�"I I I I ' I I 'IIII !i1. II I I I I I I III III ' ; II '� I C I �'� � II' � I I I , I I'•I'f! I I III IIj it i I I "II I I Q I I II �II�I II cn I�I IIII I', I I li u i I - I O i I i t I O9 6 I I I I I i 1 III I I 1111'1! 1 II I II�_ II II I I I II I ,11111 I I 1 1 I I I Ili�illil'I �'II�'111 II II , II r I IF p I III I �I I I i'II '�ill III�'IIII, I I I III � I II 111, II I i I' I�, I III (III II a Im r 1iI1 I'llli I I Z i �F II'I I F Z: a> �J .WrJ F i I U'u I Q 6. l � � I I w- I'. Z� III O � a Q Q � 9 m Ug _.._:,, irtr nx w,n a ate.,�.,•6 � .. gg � �€ 11 I a 0 r s � - - i III I r I fA v+ Uzi F= O C III E 1 ° o l t-At v • o ,M-J pb 2 S Z O N ba 1,� � kf iL1 U ° 6 F I I II I I II I 1 I � II I I I 11 1 0 II I � II I � I I LYU • -P I I I I I o�C • t' I I I I I I I I I I I I I bl I I 2 < q I I I •N,o ' I I I F I i 6 � c 1 a a C4 E vg CL= E � p � O • J, 7ff -- o N I iA G1]oDoda� _EE E WNCL EADED IO�j � g .1i �I,JI SUPRA Cb l ell o� o =W� Ra 1 E N a (V a WELCOME TO -� HOLIDAY co OPEN 24 HOURS N z uj a � a� zz A�� 0 MCLIDAY M71CATION 48.4 5F M PRICE SIGN 38.6 S.F. Qf REALER BOARD 2L8 5F TOTAL 108.8 SF $g 3 e Y F PROPOSED PYLON SIGN NO SCALE ° y v o° o u�o` O Z \ �A i (D cE# 0� EP 00 L �O cS N 0 a Y J Q iv c�7 i D � < a 0 0 7 z O zc m z� 00 (75 \ Q LC) O U Q —j O z _Z Q C7 —Z U � I � 0 _ LO M 5 Q (n Q Q $ 0 .11- z h Q� O � g � a _I o a os / gd 00 -00 cli „9