Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 08-26 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER August 26, 1993 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - August 12, 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. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1993 due to a tie vote on a recommendation. • 6. BROOKDALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH 93011 Request to rezone the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the property immediately to the south at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard to PUD/C2 and to approve a planned unit development proposal for an expansion of the car dealership. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment a a 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 its 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 application was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on August 12, 1993. Following the closing of the public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission considered a motion recommending denial of this application on the grounds that points A, B • and C in the special use permit standards contained in the zoning ordinance were not met. The vote on this motion was 2 in favor and 2 opposed, resulting in a tie. The Planning Commission then went on to unanimously vote to table further consideration of this application until the Planning Commission meeting to be held on August 26, 1993 at which time it was expected that Commission members unable to attend the August 12, 1993 meeting would be present. Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a copy of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93010 as well as all of the attachments which were considered as part of the report made to the Planning Commission on August 12. Also attached is a letter to the Planning Commission which was received on August 16, 1993 from Claus A. Pierach, MD relative to this application. It is recommended that the Planning Commission again consider this application and make a recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission wishes to recommend in favor of the application, I would suggest that an additional condition or conditions be added indicating the responsibility of the applicant to plant and maintain the trees that are proposed for screening but would be located on the Atkins property to the east. Also, I'd suggest that the species of these trees be changed to acknowledge a coniferous tree, such as an evergreen or spruce which will not lose its foliage during the winter. x r • • • II i III � r • 13 August 1993 INS S' City of Brooklyn Center AUG 1993 Planning Commission ` r - Chairman - r 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway ►, BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 RE Application 93010 Dear Mr. Chairman, It was good for us living in Brooklyn Center to hear last night's frank discussions about the above application. Your commission and your staff did a superb job in looking at this application from all angles and it is quite reassuring for us to sense that our concerns are in good hands with you. You sensed that there was no support whatsoever from within the neighborhood. All of us present seemed to be adamantly opposed to this • project and some of us were quite outspoken about our very negative feelings. I would like to underscore what Rep. Carruthers said: that the governing board of our city and that includes your commission and your staff are here to serve us and nobody else. You are not here to help any single citizen who might not reap great profits unless he can sell his property, but you have to keep the wellbeing of the majority of your constituents in mind. The many reasons for rejection of this application as worded by you and by Commissioner Wilson seemed very sound: even after all the revisions that application does not merit approval since there is no benefit whatsoever for our neighborhood. There are only two parties that would profit from an approval of this plan: the current owner of the property and the developer. I urge you to see to it that this application will not be approved. Respectfully yours, 0 Claus A.Pierach, MD 6930 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center MN 55430 • CC Rep. P. Carruthers I r r i • '� �, �� • 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 seeldng 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 r Planning Commission Application No. 93010 • CThe 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, 1991memo 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 f 8-12-93 2 • l l 7 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" 8-12-93 3 r a Planning Commission Application No. 93010 Cand 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 • E` 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 consisteht 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 parldng 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. i ail 8-12-93 6 • C` Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 WHEtBAS, 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 L 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 a revised sketch plan submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. along with a 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-_7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to deny Planning Commission Application No. 91018 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 301 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 301 or less in width, and no two driveways on any single parcel of land in a business or industrial district shall be less than 501 apart. 2. The plans showing dropped 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 61, 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. 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 Daze 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. i N • w _i � t l i ` 1 fi- o 1 .1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 Or qw iN •� n ' 1 �l jtll!MptltlYJ Z , O _-1 co Z p f€ 1 H K ' —' in i ° ` p 1 � r� ' I N r 1 .. OOS9t BVX3t'Sv1lvO o e iA O AVM$93VdX3 WHIM30 NIHON OSLO � I, wW�wp JINbdW00 1vomH0 aNd 110 VNIA S ;, 4 4 g° ao ... + ; J p, * ' 9 W *>;- a Z ° LU : tU W O -2 r �� y t i d LU a y !t ;o o t■ i1S:ll� it ..s. v 0 a m cc '�-; :� s � .s,fl WILLOW LANE / F I I� J 1 ( I t •RYw MY �RJ\:+iJLLa ! �1 I I e •, i� uj Z Y 1 I t LU x$ v I 1 . ee _ _ a -� •,p � isa+ i E •F. S o ZSZ dkVMHJIH 31VIS GYOU d3AIU 1S3M • • I 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 staffs 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 f 1 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 �,�Ntopq 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 ransportahon (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Holiday Companies site plan. We find the proposal acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • As the frontage road was turned hack 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, 4po C�L47,­s Cyrus Knutson Transportation Planner An Equal Opportunity Employer �& b t� "m 66TO Al • rT. „ R �R dfY _d 1 ,Roma PIKE n(/ 1 I 1 n i Q+ f mm srao 1 I I 1 1 ar OW. ----21•R 1 I � y 1 1 I • II • II ' 1 II it I I . 1 1 1 1. I �'-o�'-o-�_,�c_�_-°• ——-7 �,ro, l 1 � 1 1 � ti 1U R 16 _•; `j _ _ J 1 11 1 at srxv canon 11 1 CA40Pr rooms(6) � 1 ey arcama. 3z 3D R VARY SW- 1 I 1 • �R 31f d'O � 33f 4 1 1 11 78-31' I I I 1 I 1 1 1 Y I 1 �► �� to I 1 I I i I I I tA rncro� f—STACMG art g W'd I I � • • 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 applitable 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. U ! • • • Ak cs k1l It -1,01 r--j t poll HIM ----- ------- ----- -- ---- ----- Oil I Ir IL ` , y' 1 IF 40 0 1 1 I% 1 It - ---------- Crow fo J � • • 11 I •'1 ;, l � � -9 {� i Q k9i. I ,`,. _ �• .... ', 11 ..-+- Loll� own _.� `-------- „-�-•1 r i ° av 1 1 a � L �. , � i �1! •1:� ® � it I•� / ����`_.•--_J R� y I _ �t '1 i oroar aortvoari i1 h �J i 3° i . 1 C v a E . 0 w v �g 0 1 — I 1,LLOV I 1 m 1 � I ----- -------- ale INV F- -11 Sf j I \ s �� _OYOaI a9Y,tN0!/,�► r1 MEMO Lj CL v �I {. I 1 �� to Tb L I I sj I I, i w E d i �' 9k >; �3 �� � &lie 2 -poll N TOP 1,1114951111;°.I 1i * � 3u�!!1lE�i�!?i� O d , � z � O ` F Q • J d II W < 9 II I:It'Ill q III _,I r 4'h I I I 3 I I�IIi�k I I I I II Ii ' I I III II � l'I III �' I I'I I i II i�II till i i � II l �I, I I II lill'I�!i��j I l o II II i ih' I � II vi 0 I �psC b I� 1 I�� ,1•'I � �i I W I Illi. I_ II I I I IA � ) I ! II II.IIIiIIIIIiI IIj I ! rl �G,�I II !I v a }J I II L :. In I_ 0 s r F � < kz� i 1 u s. ' Will F' G; i Bid io q a , E sE f I a �J 1 � i Er! f I i 1 E � a v 0 r �. • • • II II � e II II � I Ij II � I g Al I I •Jy I ��-- I I I e. I I ' I I I ' I j j I I IEIl c v CL E to - o v O r � > cli Po IMMMDED C) SUPRA �• I in ao0od a� o E two� I 0.1 °o � zO I� l N 1 Y N Y WELCOME TO "t HOLIDAY o OPEN 24 HOURS II z a� z r hOLDAY UNTIMAIM 48.4 7 PRICE 3GN 386 S.F. REALER BOARD 21.8 5F TOTAL 1088 5F E 3 • E PROPOSED PYLON SIGN P40 5CAL s Via°) o a r • • 0 v' 0■m C� Z I Q_ � v£ � o0 E� cn E 0 Q U a�R Z lu�Y °s °I v 117 Q \ O W N W ZQ Y Q CV 7 0 Q En zz O � Q 0 7 Z Z I lz zE a m b IL I-- CS LC) Al o zQI FE b m v zz M M o J N Q' e Z <2 ul) R _ ZZ � Q p • O f CL N CO I o o � N \ CV �I . PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93011 Applicant: Bill Bartram on behalf of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth Location: 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/C2 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval for a commerce planned unit development proposal on two parcels of land,one containing the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership addressed as 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the other the property immediately to the south that currently has a.single family home located on it and is addressed as 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard. The purpose of the proposed action is to combine the two parcels of land, demolish the existing single family home and expand the Brookdale Chrysler dealership. The expansion would consist of a two story building addition attached to the south side of the current Chrysler Plymouth building to provide for customer repair write-up space, car preparation or oil change stalls, customer lounge, restrooms, general office space and records and parts storage. REZONING A planned unit development proposal involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district which then provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the planned unit development. In this specific case the applicant is seeking C2 (commerce) as the underlying zoning designation. The rules and regulations governing that district would, therefore, apply to the development proposal. Under the planned unit development procedure, regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions imposed by the City Council to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan submitted. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. The Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). As mentioned the PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's zoning ordinance. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The current zoning of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property (6121 Brooklyn Boulevard) is C2 (commerce) while the property to the south at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is currently zoned Cl (service/office). Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C2 zoning district but are not comprehended as acknowledged uses in the Cl zoning district thus the need for rezoning in order to accomplish the proposed expansion by Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth. The applicant, Mr. Bill Bartram, the owner of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard has submitted a letter(attached)regarding the proposal in which he outlines the proposed expansion and addresses the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. A review of those guidelines, the applicant's arguments and the staff response follows: • t PLANNING CONSUSSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? • AM icant: Mr. Bartram notes that their customers are entitled to quality facilities to serve them. He cites the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study prepared for the City by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban(DSU)which acknowledges a need to consolidate small parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard. He notes that their plan is to close an existing driveway on the dealership site with access to the addition to be gained from a driveway on the consolidated site resulting in a reduction Of curb cuts on Brooklyn Boulevard. He believes this will be a benefit to the public. He also notes that they will incorporate any streetscape recommendations that will come out of the current Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenity Study and that the improvement and expansion of a local employer, additional jobs in the community and substantial investment in upgrading the Boulevard are all further public benefits. : All of the points mentioned by the applicant can be considered public benefits. Redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard has been acknowledged as important in a number of studies conducted by the City. The important element is that the redevelopment meet City needs and is consistent with the redevelopment policies. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Ap 1p icant: "The zoning would be the same as the largest parcel adjacent to the subject property. If the owner of 6101 wished to change the zoning on that parcel also the entire block facing the Boulevard would be consistent. The compatibility of the C2 and the Rl parcel to the west is a question. However, an effective screening would be placed to minimize the impact on the Rl parcel. It should be noted that the Rl parcel abuts C2 property currently." &ff. C2 and RI zoned property are allowed under the City's zoning ordinance to abut each other, however, certain buffer and set backs requirements are imposed on the commercially zoned property. The sale of motor vehicles is a special use in the C2 zone and automobile repair and service is also a special use in this zone but this aspect of the business is not allowed to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property at a property line. The DSU Brooklyn Boulevard Study recommends that this aspect of the zoning ordinance be modified so Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth would have the opportunity to expand. A PUD proposal would allow such a development to be comprehended by the City. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? A lican : No comment. tff: All of the permitted uses and proposed uses could be comprehended for development in the proposed zoning district if this PUD proposal is accepted. i 8-26-93 2 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant : No comment Staff: There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes made in this area since the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property was zoned C2 in the early sixties. The property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard was zoned Cl in 1968. The studies by DSU of the Brooklyn Boulevard area and the Maxfield commercial and industrial study in 1991 indicate considerations should be given to expanding the C2 zone in this area. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? A n1Q icant: No comment Staff: Not applicable f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? SApplicant: No comment Staff: The subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the PUD/C2 proposal based on findings made by the City Council and a development agreement between the City and the developer which will address any and all issues raised and acknowledge an approved site plan as part of that development agreement. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Apl2licant: "The subject property is zoned Cl. Current requirements for developing a Cl parcel require a minimum lot size of one acre. The subject property is approximately .7 acres and is not developable unless it is combined with an adjacent parcel. The study recommends focusing on three acres,or larger parcels for economic development (page 50). The combination of these parcels will result in a five acre parcel." Staff: The City's Zoning Ordinance does indeed require one acre sites for serviceloffice land uses, and this site, by itself cannot be developed under its current zoning. It must be combined with other property for development purposes. The Maxfield commercial and industrial study conducted in 1991 does make note of the soft market for service/office developments over the next few years, and the likelihood of this type of development being undertaken in the immediate future is very remote. • 8-26-93 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. Lack of developable land in a purposed zoning districts; 3. The best interests of the community? AXWicant: "The requested rezoning would result in an expansion of the C2 zoning district which I believe is warranted by the (a) lack of developable land in the zoning district and (b) the best interest of the community. I believe the communities interest is served by development on the Boulevard, and improved "streetscape" along both parcels on the Boulevard and providing for expansion of the existing business and local employer. The study lists as one of the recommended goals (page 13) to "provide for the expansion needs of individual businesses", the community benefits when our local businesses are successful and growing. f. The applicants comments are correct regarding the DSU Study. The study does encourage the expansion of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth and to provide for the expansion needs of individual businesses. However, it should be noted that the existing comprehensive plan under the land use revisions map recommends the Brookdale Chrysler•Plymouth property, and the C1 property to the south be used for either service/office or mid density residential uses. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study with the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood policy plan for the west central neighborhood also notes this area to be suitable for service/office uses. The DSU Study and the Maxfield Commercial and Industrial Study which acknowledges the viability of the Brooklyn Boulevard car dealerships, recommends that the expansion be allowed. A comprehensive plan amendment would have to be accomplished in order for the proposal to go forward. Such an amendment is in line with the recommendations of these two recent plans and is a good planning basis for such an amendment. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applican t: "I believe the rezoning will serve the community interest as well as those of our business as discussed above". S. taff: The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property owner if it can be concluded that this will lead to additional jobs in the community, a substantial upgrading in the site and the upgrading of the physical character of Brooklyn Boulevard as well. SITE AND-BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposed plan calls for an approximate 9,800 s. f. addition to the south side of the existing Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth building. It is a two story addition with about 4,900 s. f. per floor. The ground floor level will include access from the existing showroom to a customer lounge, vending, restroom and cashier area. A service write-up area would be served by two overhead doors leading into the area from the east side, exiting via two overhead doors on the west side of the building. A third overhead door on both east and west sides of the building would access lube- bays or a car preparation area. The second floor of the proposed expansion would include an upper lobby, office space and parts and file storage. • 8-26-93 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 ACCESS/PARKING Access to the entire expanded site would be limited to two accesses along Brooklyn Boulevard as well as three existing accesses off 62nd Avenue North. The northerly access on Brooklyn Boulevard would remain in the same location as it currently exists. The existing south access would be closed and a new one opened further to the south to serve the proposed addition. Forty- four new parking spaces would be provided along the south property line, the south side of the building addition and along the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip. The building addition would require 38 additional parking spaces based on 1,320 s. f. of additional retail type space on the lower level (5.5 spaces per thousand equals seven spaces), two service bays (three per bay equals six), and 4,916 s. f. of second story office and storage (one per 200 s. f. of gross floor area equals 25). It should be noted, if the entire lower level were considered retail and the entire upper level office space, 52 parking spaces would be required. The combined site is over five acres and numerous parking spaces exist on the site. An evaluation of parking should be done to assure enough available parking for employees, customers, and vehicles being serviced with adequate access to these parking spaces. The remainder of parking spaces on the site can be used for display or storage of inventory (new and used cars). Adequately sized driveways service the proposed new parking spaces (24-26' wide). They propose a new driveway, only 20 feet wide, around the southwest corner of the existing building leading to the service area. This encroaches into a required 35' buffer set-back area. They propose to offset this encroachment with additional landscaping and a six foot high masonry wall. We would recommend an eight foot high masonry wall, consistent with DSU's recommendations and the existing ordinance if this intrusion is allowed as part of the PUD plan. DRAINAGE/GRADING/UTILITIES This aspect of the proposal is being reviewed by the City Engineer and further analysis will be forthcoming. It is my understanding that this proposal will be required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Compliance with their recommendations would be required. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan indicating a variety of plantings including shade trees, decorative trees, coniferous trees, shrubs and flowers. Most of the landscaping is proposed in the area to the west of the proposed addition and along an area to the southwest of the existing building where a new six foot high masonry wall is anticipated. They are also proposing a combination berm with 15 Colorado Blue Spruce trees and a keystone wall that will be between three to five feet in height along the west property line for screening purposes. This is in lieu of the required 8' wall and a 35' greenstrip. No landscaping is indicated along the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip, however, they have indicated they will comply with the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenity Study currently being conducted. The Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip scales only 10'. A 15' greenstrip is required in this zoning district. It should be noted that it appears that a 10' greenstrip has been provided and is existing along Brooklyn Boulevard on the remainder of the site as well • as along 62nd Avenue North. A 10' greenstrip will have to be acknowledged as part of the PUD process. 8-26-93 5 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 BUILDING The building elevations indicate the exterior of the addition to be a rock-faced block with stucco fascia to match the existing building exterior. I assume this would be carried around the rest of the building. Only the east and south elevations are shown with the plans. The west elevation should also be provided. LIGHTING/TRASH New lights are proposed along the south greenstrlp at two locations. These lights would have two heads. Two lights are proposed for south of the new southerly access and two more lights to match existing lights are proposed north of the new access. These are 1000 watt metal halide lights. No height of these lights has been provided. Two wall mounted 400 watt lights are to be located at the southwest corner of the existing building. A trash enclosure is not yet indicated on the plan. The plans are not totally complete but are certainly Aufficient to begin the PUD process. Further discussion and consideration of the entire site is in order. If this proposal is to be accomplished the applicant will also need to replat the property to combine the two parcels into one. PROCEDURE This PUD/C2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing the rezoning proposal and the site and building plan should be referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. In this case it should be referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of that neighborhood advisory group within the next 30 days for that purpose. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350' of the property) and anyone else who desires to be notified would be informed of the date, time, etc. of the meeting. Members of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group have been invited to attend the Planning Commission meeting for background information. The Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing and then table the application and refer it to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Commission may wish to comment on the plans, discuss the fate of the existing property in the area if the proposal goes forward and to give direction regarding establishing a public hearing on a possible Comprehensive Plan amendment. • 8-26-93 6 IMM AP ,�' �• 111/■ . 11 ♦ . rill r .. � lolll� IS 1/r rrrr ■ ♦ � � ■!r � ♦ III/ rrrr �' �;• . ■! �' �lrr® rrrr .. rmllrrr /rrrrr rrrr ���� r���1� ■ loll N �■ � � . . . .. 1■� �1 rrrr 11 � ,• .... r���� � �►�rr rrr . , Bill - : e ; NI/ �` ♦ �� ! .�� �,� �I rrrr rr�� mill �///�11� .. �,. . - �■■■. rr 11 �1�� rrr N II 111 !! ■ � ;..-;�kxr_ . +, I M.. M. MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM 9010 mum W ,.M W-515.0&ma MANN LM MM I MM �j'► 111 1 M v. I d m Q n �o � OLD> '4. L • TTTTTTTTTT�TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT , � R �p❑ F� �/� V !My 0 q v 7 � ZIP I I it A r p r c V 4 ILE� i yS= NEW FACILITY q2 6121 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ° BROOKLYN CENTER,MINNESOTA I • 1 a z I A r a z per.CF_� I nn 9 Ly 1� 0 � A L :m > p9 M F 1 a e a s z z p 9 2 > i f rPeer ; a r D_®( X M t a m z t. o °v w M pr. m :e 0 o <7 rp LPRO L'f/ DAL D 1 2 - gRa Z • c , �o v � m / r O O r j 2 � a i i > pp 1 - z i i a O m � gel 1-111 r CHRYSLIER PL i - 7 --T °e O 1z or I p iZ a g n • m � s Y F m 0 0 � g i n s I m m v i II �I • � a 4 � 9 NEW-FACILITY f� ill 6121 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD co§sus Z BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA i BROOKDALE []CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH JEEP•EAGLE 6121 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD • BROOKLYN CENTER,MN 65429 • (612)535-6200 July 27, 1993 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning & Inspections City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: Rezone Request - 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard Dear Mr. Warren: Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, which is owned by William J. and Irene S. Bartram, has operated a car dealership at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard for the last 15 years. Over the years our business has grown and we are now very crowded in our current building. In 1990 William and Irene Bartram purchased the property on the south side of the dealership, 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard. We would like to consolidate the 6107 property with the dealership property and build an addition onto the dealership • building. We need additional space to accommodate our customers and to meet the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Our current facility was built in the 1960s when customer service standards were far lower than they are today. We are currently writing customer repair orders in the congested mechanical repair area. Our customer waiting lounge is much too small. Our restrooms do not meet A.D.A. requirements. Our office space, record storage and parts storage space is very cramped. In addition to these space constraints our building was constructed with four steps between the show floor and the waiting lounge and restrooms. Anyone confined to a wheelchair must be taken outside and brought through the service department . to use the restrooms. The interior of .our building can not accommodate ramps to meet A.D.A. requirements. We need additional space. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION We are proposing a two story addition to the south side of our building. Each floor would be approximately 4,900 square feet. The facility would provide two lanes of customer repair order write up space, two car preparation or oil change stalls, an adequately sized customer lounge, A.D.A. restrooms, a coffee and vending area, an A.D.A. ramped hall connecting the show floor • level with the service level, general office space, a records storage room, a meeting room and parts storage. wrwowu.o w.t.©rom.CHRYSLER ZONING • The 6107 property is now zoned C-1. We are requesting that the property be rezoned to C-2 so we may apply for a special use permit to use the property as part of an automobile dealership. COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES The City has rezoning review guidelines. In addition the City had the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (the "study") completed in March 1993. I believe that the requested rezoning meets the review guidelines for rezoning and complies with the recommendations from the study as follows. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Our customers are members of the public and they are entitled to quality facilities to serve them. Further the study sites the need to consolidate small parcels along the boulevard to allow further development to occur. The public will be benefited by a reduction in the number of curb cuts on the boulevard and by new landscaping along the boulevard on both parcels. We would like to be the first application of the "streetscape" recommended in the study. Further public benefits are the improvement and expansion of a local employer (annual payroll over $2,000,000) , additional jobs in the community, and a substantial investment in upgrading the boulevard. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The zoning would be the same as the largest parcel adjacent to the subject property. If the owner of 6101 wished to change the zoning on that parcel also the entire block facing the boulevard would be consistent. The compatibility of the C-2 and the R-1 parcel to the west is a question. However, an effective screening would be placed to minimize the impact on the R-1 parcel. It should be noted that the R-1 parcel abuts C-2 property currently. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The subject property is zoned C-1. Current. requirements for developing a C-1 parcel require a minimum lot size of one acre, the subject property is approximately 0.7 acres and is not developable unless it is combined with an adjacent parcel. The study recommends focusing on 3 acres or larger parcels for economic development (page 50) . The combination of these parcels will result in a 5 acre parcel. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? The requested rezoning would result in an expansion of the C-2 zoning district which I believe is warranted by the (a) lack of developable land in the zoning . district and (b) the best interests of the community. I believe the community's interest is served by development on the boulevard, an improved "streetscape" along both parcels on the boulevard and providing for the expansion of an existing business and local employer. The study lists as one of the recommended goals (page 13) to "provide for the expansion needs of individual businesses. . .", the community benefits when our local businesses are successful and growing. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? I believe the rezoning will serve the community interests as well as those of our business as discussed above. THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY We are very happy to see the City studying the boulevard. We agree that the boulevard is a very important resource for the City and a reflection of the quality of life in Brooklyn Center. We endorse the recommendations of the study, particularly the continuous streetscape treatment and placing utility lines underground. We want to apply the streetscape treatment to our boulevard frontage as part of this project. The boulevard needs redevelopment, the concepts discussed in the study will allow redevelopment to occur and to make the boulevard a source of pride in the City. • We recognize that the study has not been adopted by the City at this time. However, we are requesting this rezoning now because of our critical need to add space as quickly as possible. We would appreciate approval of this request at the earliest possible time. Sincerely, William J. Ba am President Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose.. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this .Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy.. It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and agairrst these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by , the City. 4. Guidelines. a Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, -is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? • • Section 35-355, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2 Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the . Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD-MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights-of-way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: • 35-355 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained'in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless • the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementari.ty of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. r I 35-355 • e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. Subdivision 5 Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. 35-355 b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public .hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the. City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the eJAmeuts of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions ob the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The Ci:y Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may deteripine to be necessary to better' accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d- Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 3$-230 of this ordinance. In addition ,to the information specifically required by Section 35-230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of duelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. 35-355 • e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by _ Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. . 02.eaict,Y,J (�NT��C. ��'"►Pe�/{�'wsiva �c.wN TABLE 14 • Land Use Plan Revisions � Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid-Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid-Density Residential 2. Single-Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid-Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid-Density Residential 7a. Single-Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple-Family Residential 9. Commercial/Retail 10. Commercial/Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High-Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid-Density Residential/High Density Residential . 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space . 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid-Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21. Service/Office 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 27. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 28. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 31. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 32. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 33. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35• Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential 38. Single-Family Residential 39• Service/Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service/Office 42. Mid-Density Residential • 98 •��`', , �� 111��E,q/�'�/,-i.�' o, ,,�� ��� ... .. '. Iffiffill-IM. .ate �:t:t;;n:cnr,;:rr°I� lt��maf��.�����,rr��P � •�_ V��,� ,I � �11r; �� � 071 1 M _- __, � _ - ----- HIM City of = rooklyn Center OD14L'�11I �,`i-E12. L.AM PP_6c H45 tJ.S I UE �IAI It is recommended that 63rd Avenue not be extended across Shingle • Creek to intersect with the City Hall Community Center area. If �- such an extension were made, the street would be used as an arterial "through traffic" street rather than a residential collec- tor street as it is' now. The neighborhood must be safeguarded against further segmenting. 7. Provide pedestrian overpasses across Shingle Creek. 8. Encourage the planting of trees along street boulevards and street cul-de-sacs, rear lot lines where pedestrianways might be provided, and along the freeway as a buffer device. 9. Encourage• the development of active recreational uses in the Central Park area. West Central Neighborhood The West Central Neighborhood is bordered on the south by County Road 10; , on the east by Brooklyn Boulvard; on the north by Interstate 94; and on the west by the west City limits. Plan Recommendations 1 . Preserve and protect the interior of the neighborhood for low den- . sity residential use. ' 2. Designate and maintain the following streets as collector streets - � - 9 g to collect and distribute traffic within the neighborhood; - 63rd Avenue North June Avenue North, south of 63rd Avenue North 3. Consider vacating Halifax Drive at Brooklyn Boulevard so that_ the main "entrances" from Brooklyn Boulevard are the proposed collector streets discussed above. This proposed vacation will also protect Halifax Avenue from use by through (shortcut) traffic off Brooklyn. Boulevard. A similar treatment of Admiral Lane should also be con- sidered and undertaken if found desirable. 1✓ 4. .Permit the development of commercial uses only in the vicinity of Bridgeman's Restaurant south of 63rd Avenue. The land parcel directly south of Bridgeman's would be suitable for commercial service/office establishments. 5. Establish the areas along Brooklyn Boulevard (as shown on the recommended conceptual alternative for Brooklyn Boulevard) which are now vacant or subject to future change to a "higher" land use, as planned development districts. These areas would be permitted to be developed or redeveloped only if the owner or developer does so as a "package" as opposed to individual lots and only if an appropriate use is proposed - possibly mid-density residential use, 4n � m 1 • 'R ` RAC Ic L't w3 -40Y - Oifice buildings are recommended for development along Brooklyn Boulevard in three locations: ( 1 ) immediately west of the Brookdale Shopping Center from the Northport Clinic to just north of the Brooklyn Center library, (2) the eastern side of the corridor between 58th and 62nd Avenues and (3) the western side of the corridor between 58th and 62nd Avenues. The recommen- dation for the former area is designed to complement retail uses in the Brookdale Shopping Center complex. The second area's recommendation is in response to established service/office developments in that location. Were It not for this devel-opmentai precedent, a medium density residential land use would probably have been suggested for the 58th to 62nd Avenue area in order to complement the low-to-medium density residential development across Brooklyn Boulevard and more clearly demarcate the commercial land uses located both to the north and to the south of that location within the corridor. The service/office recommendation for the.-Western side of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor between 58th and 62nd Avenues .acknowledges the -*M* pressures for commercial development which will be placed on this location by such land uses across Brooklyn Boulevard. It is further recommended that several well defined residential locations 'be preserved and intensified along the corridor. Figure 25, "Recommended Conceptual Alternative," indicates these residential locations. The nature of their future uses should follow these guidelines': • The most southerly of these residential areas should retain its existing low-density character. The residential area immediately south of Interstate 94 and that • ` area north of 70th Avenue should receive infill development and redevelopment with medium-density housing. Commercial uses other than those .already in existence should not be allowed to stray into these residential enclaves and detract from the character which is being sought. As in the preceding alternatives, a major office complex is recommended for the -northeast corner of the 58th Avenue intersection and no alteration is necessitated in the foreseeable future for the Brookdale Shopping Center area. It is assumed that the automobile dealers will desire to retain their present cluster just north of Interstate 94. Finally, industrial land uses should be sustained at the southernmost tip of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. �r IA7