Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 03-29 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 29, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of�Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioner Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 15, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the March 15, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 90003 AND 90004 (E AND H Properties) and APPLICATION NO. 89012 (Fina Oil and Chemical Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business: a request by E and H Properties to rezone from R5 to C2 and Cl the land at the southwest quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Willow Lane; a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the four parcels of land south of 66th Avenue North and east of Highway 252 owned by E and H Properties into two parcels, one adjacent to the Highway 252 frontage road and one adjacent to Willow Lane; and a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station/convenience store/car wash at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 90003, 90004 and 89012 attached) . During his review of the rezoning application, the Secretary noted that the applicant's architect has submitted a concept plan for an office development on the easterly parcel. He also reviewed with the Commission the recommended alternative from the Short-Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study. The Secretary stated that the City is trying to obtain control of the frontage road right-of-way adjacent to Highway 252, but that staff are not sure how long it will take for that process to be completed. Regarding the site plan application, the Secretary recommended adding a delineator north of the row of parking immediately west of the car wash exit lane. He 3-29-90 -1- also recommended adding more landscaping in the area where the driveway turns into the proposed C1 site in order to block headlights from shining into the residential area to the east. The Secretary also stated that staff had received comments from the City Engineer regarding drainage and utilities and that those comments would be passed on to the applicant. The Secretary reviewed a number of transparencies of site plans, building elevations, a retrofit plan, screening elevations, etc. during his review of the three applications. The Secretary finally recommended an additional condition regarding a cross access easement between the proposed service station site and the vacant parcel to the east. Commissioner Sander pointed out that there were a number of things on the plans that do not meet City requirements. She asked whether the applicant didn't have time to correct the plans. The Planner reviewed the process of plan submittal with Commissioner Sander. He noted that there had been a meeting with the applicant about a week and a half previous and that revised plans had been prepared by Friday of the previous week. He explained that a report had been written and distributed to the Commission and that there was not time between the time the report was written and the meeting to revise plans again. The Secretary added that, if the applicant does not agree to revise the plans in accordance with the recommended conditions, the Commission certainly does not have to approve the plans. Commissioner Sander then brought up some questions regarding the car wash. She noted that there is a car wash in Brooklyn Park that is not allowed to operate between 10: 00 p.m. and & 7:00 a.m. She noted that the noise really comes when the doors are opened during the drying process. The Secretary answered that there are State standards for noise levels adjacent to residential areas. He added that the Sanitarian is presently checking on a noise complaint regarding another car wash in the community and that corrective action may have to be taken. Commissioner Sander recommended restricting the hours. Commissioner Sander also noted that the driving lane between the two rows of parking at the north end of the site appears to be inadequate. The Planner acknowledged that this was insufficient at present, but that, if the northerly stall were replaced with a traffic delineator that was flared properly, there should be a 24 ' driving lane as a result. Commissioner Sander also asked what the time element would be for vacating the frontage road by MN/DOT. The Secretary answered that the City has no firm commitment from MN/DOT to complete the turn back of the right-of-way. He noted that the City does maintain the road and has made the request formally to the State to turn back the right-of-way. Commissioner Sander asked, if the frontage road were vacated, could the station be shifted more to the north and west, perhaps allowing for more pumps, etc. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that another concern with the vacation of the frontage road was the 3-29-90 -2- access to the Brookdale Motel. He stated that the City has not approached the owner of the Brookdale Motel because it does not have any land yet to negotiate over. He stated, however, that the owner of the motel had been to public meetings about the land use study of this area and had indicated an interest in the vacation of the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes tried to visualize how the service station would function. He expressed some concern regarding the likelihood of u turns in 66th and Willow Lane and the likelihood of traffic moving onto residential streets. He stated that he preferred the scenario contained in the Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Land Use Study with the roadway and landscape buffer. The Secretary acknowledged that, with the plan proposed by the applicant, there may be some traffic that will mistakenly go up West River Road rather than exiting out onto Highway 252. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the grade at the exit drive slopes to the east. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Howard Atkins, the owner of the property in question, stated that it had been a year since he first submitted plans for the rezoning and development of the service station. He stated that he and Fina and the City had listened to the concerns of the neighborhood during that time. He stated that he felt that the plans addressed those concerns and that delay would not serve any purpose at this point. Chairperson Malecki asked whether Fina agreed to revise the plans in accordance with Condition No. 15 of the staff report. Mr. Pat Wilcox, an attorney for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that he recognized that there had been neighborhood opposition to the proposed service station. He pointed out that the process has basically run its course, that the City Council accepted the recommendations of the Land Use Study, ended the moratorium, and chose not to downzone Mr. Atkins property. Mr. Wilcox stated that the site of the proposed Fina station was in a difficult situation with a highway on the west and residences to the east. With regard to the special use standards, Mr. Wilcox stated that gas and other products sold by Fina are demanded by the public and that there is a benefit to the general public who come to the service station. He also pointed out that an aerial photograph of._ this area in 1965 showed that there were four gas stations at this intersection at that time. He stated that some development will go on to the parcel, that it will not remain vacant forever. He stated that the plan proposed is a viable compromise between the interests of Fina and those of the neighborhood. Regarding the Short-Elliott- Hendrickson Land Use Study, Mr. Wilcox stated that he was pessimistic about the timing of the turnback of 3-29-90 -3- the frontage road right-of-way. He cited an example of a similar turnback in another city which he represents that has taken over two years. He added that, when MN/DOT does dispose of the land, it may not simply give the land to the City, but may charge a high price for it. If it does, he went on, the City will have no money to turn around and buy land for the roadway and the buffer. He added that the Brookdale Motel may not even go along with the vacation of the right-of-way in front of its property. He concluded, therefore, that there was no way of knowing when, or if, the City would get control of the land and the money to finance the roadway and buffer. Mr. Wilcox went on to point out that the City Council did not extend the moratorium on development in this area and thereby indicated an acceptance of some development going forward. He stated that it was not fair to ask Fina to wait further to exercise its option on the land. Regarding the issue of screening, Mr. Wilcox stated that Fina would work with staff to provide an adequate screening treatment along the east side of the property. Regarding traffic, Mr. Wilcox stated that the SEH study has not concluded that the proposed development will cause major problems in the public streets. He added that any development will generate some traffic on the public streets. Mr. Wilcox concluded by thanking the Planning Commission and the neighbors for their patience in pursuing the process of the Land Use Study and review of the applications. He asked for action on the proposal at this evening's meeting. Mr. Sam McGee, an architect for Fina, then addressed the Commission. He stated that there were a few items still unresolved between the staff and Fina regarding the development plans. He stated that generally, Fina has no problem-with the conditions of approval. He added, however, that there would be a problem with subparts d and a and possibly f of Condition No. 15. Regarding subpart d, Mr. McGee stated that he felt that a wood fence would be an adequate screen and easier to maintain than masonry. He expressed a willingness to add additional plantings on the east side of the fence. Regarding subpart a (a requirement for an 8 ' wide sidewalk on the north and west sides of the building) , Mr. McGee stated that he was willing to commit to a 6 ' wide sidewalk, but that it was necessary to maintain driving lanes for the gas pumps on the remainder of the land between the sidewalk and the greenstrip. He stated that Fina does not market many goods from ` the sidewalk in front of the building and that a 6 ' wide sidewalk would be more than adequate to provide room for pedestrians. Regarding subpart f (requiring a change in the lighting plan for less light intensity) , Mr. McGee stated that there were errors in the lighting plan and that he felt that the limit of 10 foot candles at the property line could be met by relocating the lights rather than by reducing the wattages of the fixtures. 3-29-90 -4- Commissioner Sander asked whether the car wash would come with a dryer. Mr. McGee responded in the affirmative, noting that there are two types of dryers. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if Fina was willing to limit the hours of operation of the car wash. Mr. McGee answered that, if Fina was able to comply with the noise limits, then it should be able to operate its car wash 24 hours a day. Commissioner Sander stated that the noise from the car wash results when the doors open and shut. She stated that she felt a condition should be added to restrict the hours of operation. Mr. McGee answered that he could not commit for Fina an agreement with such a condition. Commissioner Sander stated that she felt that putting the gas station into this location without the roadway and berm would make the properties on the east side of Willow Lane worth less. Mr. McGee answered that he felt the landscape treatment along the east side of the property would mitigate the effects of the service station on those residences. Commissioner Sander stated that the screening would not really help. Mr. McGee disagreed and stated that the fence and proposed landscaping would mitigate both the visual and noise affects of the proposed service station. Commissioner Sander acknowledged that the corner would be developed in some way, but stated that there was a need for the berm and landscaping proposed in the Short-Elliott-Hendrickson Land Use Study. Mr. McGee pointed out the proposed C1 zoning of the parcel to the east which could result ultimately in a buffer development. Commissioner Sander stated that the office development would not help the houses on the river. She stated that the roadway and buffer would be the best treatment. Mr. McGee pointed out that the design of the service station does not foreclose that possibility. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. McGee about the requirement for a masonry trash enclosure. Mr. McGee stated that he had no problem with that. Chairperson Malecki pointed out the fact that the proposed sign exceeds that which is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Mr. McGee answered that Fina would modify its standard sign to live within the Sign Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90003 90004 and 89012) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the rezoning, the plat and the special use permit for the service station. She asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the proposals. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, stated that it was his understanding that zoning is not to be changed unless there was an error made in the original zoning or unless conditions change. He stated that he felt neither was the case. He told the Commission that he hoped the matter would go to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Mr. Dahlen pointed out the concern of people that walk to the bus stop and the danger that the traffic from the service station would pose to pedestrians in the area. He also expressed concern about ice buildup from the car wash. He - 3-29-90 -5- stated that shutting the car wash down after the ice buildup has already occurred will not solve anything. He added that there are already traffic problems in this area and that the proposed service station will add more traffic. He also stated that the neighbors in the area are not opposed to development of the property. He pointed out that the neighbors did not object to the office development proposed by Mr. Atkins a few years ago. He concluded by saying that he felt that the service station was inappropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, stated that he did not like an attorney from Fina telling the neighbors that lived in the area and paid taxes what will happen in the future. He noted the existing traffic problems and stated that the Short-Elliott- Hendrickson study had said that the level of service on 66th Avenue North would go to the worst category if the station were built. He asked how people would get out of the station with the traffic problems that there are on 66th. He stated that there are problems with trucks now turning around in people's driveways on Willow Lane and that it will only get worse with the gas station. He noted that water restrictions affect people watering their lawns and wondered whether the car wash would have to shut down during watering bans. He stated that the proposal has changed since it was originally proposed a year ago and he did not feel the neighborhood was getting straight information from the developers. He concluded by stating that the neighbors in the area are living with previous bad developments and he added that the neighbors do not feel that there should be more bad developments in this area. Mrs. Karen Schleppenbach, of 6600 Willow Lane, asked what benefit there would be to another gas station when the Superamerica already exists across the road. Regarding the proposed 6 ' high fence, she stated that it would not help. She pointed out that the gas station is at a higher elevation, like the Superamerica station, which is very visible across West River Road. She stated that the lights from Superamerica already shine at the residences along Willow Lane and that the proposed service station would add more light. She concluded by stating that her main concern was over the children in the area living with the danger of increased traffic in the streets. Mr. Pat Murphy, of 6524 Willow Lane, briefly discussed the timing of the light at 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it changes every minute and 45 seconds and that in that time three cars will come to the light. He stated that with the service station there would be more cars which will back up to Willow Lane. He stated that the 6 ' high fence would not be adequate. He pointed out that there are fences along the freeway that are 15 ' high with ivy growing on them. He stated that such a fence might be acceptable in this case. He also asked whether there was space for the proposed bike path on the office property. He stated that he did not think any consideration had been given to this. 3-29-90 -6- Chairperson Malecki asked the Secretary about the location of the bike path. The Secretary showed a transparency of the new design of the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He also showed a transparency of the proposed plat. He stated that his understanding was that the bike path would go along the west side of Willow Lane within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Greg Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, asked a question regarding the concept plan for the office. He wondered how the elevations of the office relate to the gas station. Mr. Hal Pierce, an architect for Mr. Atkins, showed a transparency of the elevation differential between the service station site and the office site and the residence to the east. He stated that there is approximately a 10 ' drop from the gas station to the residences on the east side of Willow Lane. He stated that the office building could be as high as 35 ' and would provide some screening of the service station development. Mr. Sam McGee of Fina stated that the service station building would screen the canopy and that the lights in the canopy are recessed. He stated that the residents along Willow Lane will not see illumination from the canopy. Mrs. Schleppenbach asked the applicants whether they would like to see a service station built next to their houses. Mr. Jim Neuberger, of 6546 Willow Lane, stated that the residents do not favor the proposed service station. He stated that the residents have something to lose from the proposed development. He reminded the Commission that they represented the citizens of Brooklyn Center which included the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors would see lights and traffic, and hear noise from the car wash. He stated that, for the good of the public, the gas station should be denied. He stated that the gas station would not be a benefit to anyone who lives in the area. He noted the changes in the intersection of 66th Avenue. North and West River Road. He wondered whether these changes were just being made to help the gas station. He stated that the applicants should be allowed to build a normal gas station, but not a super gas station such as proposed. Mr. Sam McGee commented regarding the realignment of the zoning line. He pointed out that Fina submitted a plan last year which placed the proposed service station within the existing C2 boundary. He stated that such a plan required that the canopy be north of the service station which would be more visible to the residents. He stated that the proposed rezoning is the lesser of two evils which allows for mitigation of the effects of the service station. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether anyone had thought about the idea of placing a service station so close to a scenic waterway. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of a spill of gasoline flowing into the Mississippi River. Mr. Neuberger pointed out that the applicants would be unable to build the same station in the C2 zone as it exists. 3-29-90 -7- Commissioner Sander asked Mr. McGee if he could hear the animosity from the neighbors and whether Fina would ever consider buying the land to the east and giving it to the City in order to create the buffer recommended in the Land Use Study. Mr. McGee answered that such a requirement would kill the deal between Fina and Mr. Atkins. He stated that Mr. Atkins would not give the land away and pointed out that Mr. Atkins is a taxpayer just like the residents. The Secretary showed a transparency of the old plan that would put the service station within the existing C2 zoning district. It showed the canopy north of the building. Mr. Rick Jewitt asked whether the City has traffic numbers on the proposed service station. He asked what would happen to the teardrop intersection of 66th and West River Road. He predicted that the intersection would be backed up with traffic coming out of the service station. The Secretary answered that one of the points of the Land Use Study was that, regardless of what development takes place on the Atkins property, it won't destroy the functioning of the intersection of 66th and Highway 252. He stated that it was, true that the proposed development would cause occasional problems, but that it would not cause the total breakdown of the intersection. Mr. Jewitt expressed concern regarding kids waiting for the bus at the intersection. The Secretary acknowledged that there would be more traffic as a result of a service station development, but added that the information the City has is that the service station development will not cause a breakdown in the functioning of the intersection. The consultant had told the City that it could not deny the development proposal on the basis of traffic. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Mann. The motion passed. Commissioner Mann stated that, after reviewing the Short-Elliott- Hendrickson study, she felt that the area should be downzoned to C1. Commissioner Holmes noted that he had grown up in south Minneapolis near an area with four corner gas stations. He stated that he had worked with those gas stations as a resident and believed that Fina would also work with the neighbors in the area to resolve problems. He added that Fina would be the first gas station for cars traveling north on Highway 252. He stated that he expected the station to be very busy if it is built. He expressed concern regarding water from the car wash in the winter. He added that he felt that the traffic for the service station had been underestimated. He also stated that he felt that the people in the area, while they may oppose it now, would use the station. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding traffic movements. He saw no problem with ingress into the site, but that 3-29-90 -8- egress from the site could be a big problem. He stated that the buffering plan and the Land Use Study was a good direction to go, but stated that he could not see the teardrop median as the answer to the traffic movement problem. He stated that he had no problem with the proposed rezoning, but did have problems with the proposed plans. He concluded by stating that he felt there could be a hazard problem in the area. Commissioner Ainas agreed that the egress from the site leaves much to be desired, but that this would be true with almost any development of this site. Regarding screening, Commissioner Ainas stated that the purpose of screening is not to screen the building in its entirety, but to eliminate the view of the automobile traffic. He noted that the morning rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Superamerica station and that the evening rush hour traffic would be more likely to use the Fina station. He noted that there had been some objection to providing a masonry wall. He stated that the issue was immaterial to him and that staff could work it out with the applicant. He acknowledged that a service station is never a good neighbor, that it is the type of land use that no one wants in their backyard. In conclusion, he stated that there were not enough negative items regarding the proposal to deny it. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether he had problems with the Standards for Special Use Permit. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the noise ordinance would control noise problems and added that water restrictions affect car washes as well as lawn watering. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt it was time to move the matter on. He stated that the Commission has to weigh the right of the property owner and the rights of the neighbors. He stated that he felt that he had thought the proposal was a reasonable compromise until the last neighbor spoke about overbuilding the site. He stated that if the rezoning results in overbuilding, he is against the rezoning. Commissioner Mann stated that she could not agree with the proposed plan. Chairperson Malecki stated that her feeling was that the proposal was too much for the area, that it was overbuilding the site. She stated that she did not feel that the neighbors were unreasonable. MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-1 AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NOS. 90003 90004 AND 89012 Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-1 recommending approval of Application No. 90003 (rezoning) and also, to recommend approval of Application No. 90004 (preliminary plat) and Application No. 89012 (site and building plan and special use permit) , subject to the conditions contained 3-29-90 -9- in the staff report with items 15 d and a of Application No. 89012 to be resolved in discussions between the applicant and staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernards for purposes of discussion. Voting in favor: Commissioner Ainas. Voting against: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Mann and Holmes. The motion failed. There followed a discussion as to the possibility of reconsidering the rezoning application. The Secretary explained that a motion in favor of the rezoning would have to be made by a member of the prevailing side (one of those Commissioners who had voted against the previous motion) . MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-1 (APPLICATION NO. 90003 BY E AND H PROPERTIES) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-1 regarding recommended disposition of Application No. 90003. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. The Planner and the Secretary then pointed out that the rezoning approval would need approval of the plat in order to have a straightforward legal description of the proposed zoning districts. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90004 (E AND H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the - City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioners Sander and Mann. The motion passed. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there was any desire to ` reconsider Application No. 89012. Hearing none, she declared that the original action denying Application No. 89012 stands. The Secretary asked whether there was any language to explain the reasons for denial. Commissioner Sander stated that the Land Use Study had recommended a roadway and buffer to be located east of the service station. She stated that the lack of such a roadway and buffer was the reason she was opposed to the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt the proposal overbuilt the site. 3-29-90 -10- APPLICATION NO. 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval for a package of signs to be used at the Earle Brown Heritage Center at 6105 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90005 attached) . Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City would be setting any precedent that we would be unable to live with in the future. The Secretary stated that the historic site is unique. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90005) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 90005 (Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 90005, in light of the following findings: 1. The Earle Brown Farm site is a unique historic resource for the community and merits special consideration in lieu of the City Council 's action on Application No. 81041 (condition #5) . 2. The proposed signery conveys necessary visual communication and is not excessive or distasteful as it relates to the historic character of the Earle Brown Farm site. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ` ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards, seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Chairperson 3-29-90 -11- 1 1