Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 09-12 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 REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31_ p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Sander had called to say she was unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the August 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91015 (Darrell Lynch) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16 ' front yard setback rather than the required 35 ' at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91015, attached) . The Secretary also explained some of the background of the intersection improvement at 71st and Halifax Avenues North. He stated that most lots in the City have a 35' front yard setback with a 15' boulevard for a total setback of 50' from the street. He stated that there have been cases where a variance was granted when excess right-of-way exists. He noted the old Midwest Federal situation in the early 19801s. He stated, however, that he did not believe a variance should be granted beyond what is the standard in the neighborhood. He also added that a neighbor had called and expressed some concern regarding her view as it would be impacted by the proposed garage addition. He stated that he would recommend that the adjacent property be allowed the same setback from the street as would be allowed to the Lynchs if the variance is granted. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applicant agrees to the 19 ' addition rather than the 22 ' that was being sought. The Secretary answered that he was not sure. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a variance was really needed given the fact that it would still be 9-12-91 1 about 50 ' from the street. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, pointing out that setbacks are measured from the property line, not the street line. Chairperson Malecki asked whether a variance would be needed if the City vacated the excess right-of-way. The Secretary responded that a variance wouldn't be needed unless a lesser setback was sought. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the impact of the addition on the safety of the intersection. The Secretary stated that it should not be a problem since it would not intrude into the sight triangle at the northwest corner of the site. Chairperson Malecki asked what the hardship really is in this case. The Secretary stated that there are other options for the applicant to build a garage, but that not being able to come as close to the street as others in the neighborhood would be considered a hardship. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Darrell Lynch, of 7042 Halifax Avenue North, stated that he would like a 22 ' expansion to the garage or at least a 20' expansion since that would save expense in the construction. Commissioner Bernards asked the applicant whether the workshop was for private use or for a home occupation. Mr. Lynch stated that it would only be for hobby use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91015) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Lynch stated that he did not understand the neighbor to the south's objection to the variance. He stated that he had informed them that if they objected to the variance, he would not seek it. The Planner stated that the concern expressed by the neighbor was somewhat belated because she did not think the variance would be granted and also, that the impact on her view did not occur to her immediately. He added that the neighbor to the south is thinking of selling their home in the near future and that the garage addition might diminish the value of their property. Mr. Joe Eidenschink, of 4008 71st Avenue North, spoke in favor of the variance and gave some additional history on the background of the traffic circle that was put in a few years ago. He stated that the proposed addition would not come any closer to the street than the dwelling two houses south of the Lynchs' home. Mr. Lynch asked whether other houses on the block are 50 ' back from the street. The Secretary stated that he was not positive, but that it was very likely that they are. He again explained that the typical 50 ' setback from the street results from a 35 ' setback and a 15' boulevard. He stated that if there is a violation on the block, he would not recommend granting a variance to be consistent with that violation. Mr. Eidenschink asked how the garage wound up being 2. 1' away from the south property line. The Secretary stated that it could have been a field error made at the time the garage was built. 9-12-91 2 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked what was the standard size of a two-car garage. The Planner stated that on average they are about 22 ' x 241 . In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the applicant could have a 19 ' garage addition if the variance were granted in accordance with the staff recommendation. He further stated that he did not believe a variance that would allow the garage to be built within 50' of the street could be justified. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91015 (Darrell Lynch) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91015 in light of the following considerations and conditions: 1) Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2) The condition of excess right-of-way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50 ' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91016 (Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. ) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot, the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91016, attached) . The Secretary also pointed out that the outlot and the island in the Mississippi are located in separate municipalities. 9-12-91 3 There were no questions of the Secretary following presentation of the staff report. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Nick Eoloff, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add and requested approval of the application. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91016 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Charles Stutz, of 7001 Willow Lane, asked whether any apartments would be, or could be, built on the property. The Secretary responded that the property is located in an R1 zone which is strictly a single family zoning district. Mr. Stutz also asked, if a garage is built on the outlot, what would be the setback from Willow Lane. The Secretary stated that it would be at least 35 ' from the front property line. Mr. Stutz stated that there was a problem with transient traffic through these vacant lots to the river. He asked if a garage could be allowed on the outlot if it were attached to the island. The Secretary stated that that might be a possibility or if the outlot was attached to a neighboring lot in Brooklyn Center. He stated that an easement would then be required to cross the outlot to gain access to the island. In response to another question from Mr. Stutz, the Secretary explained the final plat process. Mr. Stutz noted the location of the 45 ' wide outlot and asked whether the access would definitely be on this lot or whether it could be shifted north or south. The Secretary stated that the outlot could not be shifted with the plat that has been submitted. He stated that a new plat would have to be submitted to accomplish that. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the matter. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a replat of this property would come back to the Planning Commission. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked about the need for the easement for the shed that encroaches on the northerly lot. The Secretary stated that the dedication of that easement could be added as a condition of the approval. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91016 (Egan Field and Nowak, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 9-12-91 4 2) The f inal plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot • 4) The applicant shall grant an easement to the neighboring property owner to the north to allow for continuation of the encroaching shed. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone at 6544 France Avenue North is a nuisance as defined by Section 19-103 of the City's ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91017, attached) . The Secretary added that no public hearing is required for the application. He added, however, that letters have been submitted by some of the neighbors of the Cardinals supporting their desire to park the tow truck. Commissioner Mann asked whether a special use home occupation would be grandfathered at the time the ordinance was adopted. The Secretary provided some of the past history of the ordinance regulating the parking of commercial vehicles. He pointed out that no special use permit had ever been granted to the Cardinals and that one is not required for operating a home office. He stated that the City has a problem with the parking of a tow truck in a residential zone. He stated that that is now classified as a nuisance. Commissioner Mann asked whether it would still be a nuisance if it were stored in a garage. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the problem related to the fact that the tow truck was a commercial vehicle. He pointed out the example of a vehicle used in a home occupation with a sign on it. The Secretary stated that, if the vehicle is less than 9,000 lbs. , less than 21 feet long, and less than 8 feet in height and is not a prohibited type of vehicle as described in Section 19-103, then it is a vehicle which ,�s allowed to be parked in a residential area. Commissioner Holmes concluded that different cities must regulate these vehicles differently. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and described what he knew of the Brooklyn Park ordinance. He stated that Brooklyn Center was formerly one of the more lenient communities with respect to these kinds of vehicles. Commissioner Holmes asked about the treatment of emergency vehicles and police cars. The Secretary stated that no exception was made for an emergency vehicle. He stated that the question before the Commission is whether this proposed activity 9-12-91 5 qualifies for a special use permit or not. He stated that he did not believe that it qualifies for a special use permit. He stated that ambulances are not parked at home, generally. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Robert Wilson, an attorney for the applicant, stated that the Cardinals have been parking their tow truck on their property for 21 years. He stated that Mr. Cardinal needs to respond to late night calls. He stated that it was not economically feasible to respond to these calls from his shop on 85th Avenue North in Brooklyn Park. He then asked the Commission for permission to submit a letter from a highway patrol officer regarding the need for emergency response to accidents on the freeways. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could accept the letter if it chose to. He stated that if Mr. Wilson wants to argue the merits of the ordinance, he should do so before the City Council. Mr. Wilson stated that there is danger at accident sites and that towing is needed on a timely basis. He stated that there would be a public safety problem if the appeal were denied. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that argument related to the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that there are other towing services which might be able to respond in a timely manner. Mr. Wilson asked the Secretary how the matter should proceed. The Secretary pointed out that the application before the Planning Commission is whether or not the parking of the tow truck is a special use. He stated that he believed the activity to be a nuisance, not a land use matter eligible for a special use permit. He stated that the City Council must ultimately decide that question. He added that if the activity is determined to be eligible for a special use permit, a special use permit application must be filed and then a determination made as to whether the Standards for Special Use Permits have been met. Mr. Wilson stated that under Section 35-220 of the Zoning Ordinance "uses required for the public welfare" are classified as special uses. He stated that the City used to allow commercial vehicles, but that now they are classified as a nuisance. He stated that there is case law which indicates that cities cannot classify aesthetic differences as a nuisance. He cited the case of a city which sought to have nonconforming signs eliminated by classifying them as nuisances. He stated that the Cardinals are looking for a compromise with the City on this issue. He concluded by saying that the City has unconstitutionally taken away his client's livelihood by the adoption and application of their nuisance ordinance. He vowed to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. He added that the neighbors do not object to the presence of the tow truck. Commissioner Bernards stated that the parking of a tow truck is not a land use and is not considered a special use. He stated that if 9-12-91 6 the ordinance needs changing, then the applicant should pursue a change in the ordinance to allow for emergency vehicles to be parked in residential zones. Commissioner Ainas stated that he sympathized with Mr. Cardinal, but that he saw no legal justification to uphold the appeal. He stated that it would be necessary to change the ordinance in order to remedy the situation. Commissioner Holmes agreed with the previous comments. Chairperson Malecki stated that no one was out to get the Cardinals. She stated that the remedy is to change the ordinance. She pointed out that there was a lot of publicity when the ordinance was adopted and that there was considerable discussion as to how it would affect people's livelihood. Mr. Wilson asked whether the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Commissioner Mann stated that the public hearings on the ordinance were long and difficult. She stated that she did not believe commercial vehicles should be allowed in a residential zone and added that she did not feel the appeal is justified. Mr. Wilson again asked if the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Chairperson Malecki stated that nuisance ordinances are not within the purview of the Planning Commission's responsibility. Mr. Wilson stated that he was not sure if this was properly a nuisance. He pointed out that commercial vehicles were formerly allowed in the Zoning Ordinance and he felt that it is a zoning matter. The Secretary stated that the regulation regarding commercial vehicles is not a land use regulation by the Zoning Ordinance, but a nuisance regulation covered by the Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that he did not believe it was a matter of whether Mr. Cardinal would stay in business. He stated that the question of the ordinance is a legislative decision to be resolved by the City Council. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it not make a recommendation on an ordinance change without reviewing the record relating to the Council's study and adoption of the existing Nuisance Ordinance. Chairperson Malecki noted that there was no formal public hearing on the proposed application, but asked whether anyone present wished to add anything to the discussion. Mr. Dennis Cardinal, the applicant, asked about Minnegasco trucks and telephone company trucks and other trucks that are violating the ordinance. He stated that the City was picking on him because he had a tow truck. He stated that other vehicles are allowed, but that his truck is not. He stated that his truck does not look any worse than these other vehicles. The Secretary responded that there is a whole list of prohibited vehicles in the ordinance, not just tow trucks. He stated that he was not aware of any vehicles being parked in violation of the ordinance, but if Mr. Cardinal knew of any vehicles violating the ordinance, he could provide a list and enforcement of the ordinance would be pursued. 9-12-91 7 _ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) Following further discussion on the appeal, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91017 on the grounds that the parking of the tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9: 17 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 91018 (PDO Food Stores, Inc. ) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by PDQ Food Stores for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store/car wash at the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91018, attached) . The Secretary added that the staff have met with and discussed the plans with the applicant and their representatives. He stated that staff do not believe that it is necessary to have nine pump islands and that it is certainly possible to eliminate one access on the frontage road. He also reviewed with the Commission a cross section of the proposed development relative to homes along Willow Lane. Commissioner Mann noted that the property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor and asked what would happen if a gasoline spill occurred on the site, drained into the storm sewer and drained directly into the Mississippi River above the Minneapolis water intake. The Secretary pointed out that all storm sewer lines drain into the Mississippi River and that normal procedures would be undertaken if there was a gasoline spill. Commissioner Mann asked whether the site was large enough to require a holding pond. The Secretary responded in the negative. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary showed the different routes into the gas station site, depending on the point of origin. Commissioner Holmes asked whether traffic was only one-way to the east of the traffic bubble in 66th Avenue North or whether it was two-way. The Secretary responded that it was two-way traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding stacking for the car wash, the Secretary reviewed the circulation pattern on the site and explained that the car wash traffic would move in a clockwise direction. He recommended that the second bay for the future car wash be eliminated for the time being. He stated that if there was a desire to add on a second bay in the future, it could be brought in at that time. Chairperson Malecki asked about the capacity of the 9-12-91 8 water line. The Secretary stated that he was not certain, but that is something that would be worked out with the City Engineer. The Secretary stated that the staff had started its to review this plan based on the Fina plan which was approved last year. He stated that that plan met certain basic concerns of the staff in its design. He stated that the plan that has been proposed departs significantly from that plan. Commissioner Mann asked whether the area in question was within the commercial and industrial study area for redevelopment. The Secretary pointed out that a land use study of this area was done two years ago while the Fina application was still active. He noted that the recommended alternative that resulted from that study could not work with the plan that has been proposed. He added that he did not think that this necessarily meant the rejection of the plan. Regarding the replat of the property, the Secretary stated that this was the responsibility of the owner who had run into some problems filing the plat at Hennepin County. He stated that these problems should be resolved in the relatively near future and that the plat should be processed fairly routinely. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jim Merila, an engineer representing PDQ, then addressed the Commission at considerable length. He introduced other representatives from PDQ and pointed out that PDQ is a locally operated, family owned business. He noted that there are about 30 stations in the Metro area. He explained that PDQ was originally a food store chain that has expanded into gasoline and car wash operations. He stated that the car wash is a minor part of the local operation, that only about 10% of the gas customers use the car wash. Mr. Merila noted that they had worked with the staff for some time to come up with a plan. He made comparison to the Fina plan, noting that the Fina plan had an attached car wash and the main building on the south side of the site. He stated that the applicants have looked at 10 different layouts, but that they keep coming back to the one that is proposed for visibility and convenience. Relative to the main building being high and towards 66th, Mr. Merila pointed out that the height of the proposed building is only 6" above that of the existing building. He stated that the elevation difference relative to 66th is too great to have an access to the joint driveway further north than proposed. Mr. Merila pointed out that the driveway location onto the frontage road is 75 ' from the property corner and that the Zoning Ordinance only requires a minimum of 40 ' from the property corner. He noted that the old Shell Oil Station had four driveways in this location. He also pointed out that Atkins Mechanical closed three of those accesses when it reoccupied the building. He stated that moving the access further to the south would result in conflicts with the parking in front of the building. He stated that the building 9-12-91 9 location proposed is needed to provide visibility and convenient access to the site. Mr. Merila stated that he had a traffic consultant look at the access arrangement to the site and that the consultant does not see a problem. He stated that this consultant is out of town and is unable to be at the meeting. He stated that the proposal with two driveways will allow cars to enter the site more quickly than if there was only a single driveway off the frontage road. He stated that he felt the cars would use the joint driveway and that directional signery could be added if necessary. Regarding the car wash circulation on the site, he stated that it was much easier from an internal traffic flow standpoint for the movement to be in a clockwise direction. He stated that the proposed use would not generate a large amount of traffic. He noted that the Short-Elliott Hendrickson Study of the proposed Fina site concluded that traffic impact would be minimal. He stated that the applicants had no problem with eliminating the future car wash. Mr. Merila went on to address the sidewalk in front of the building. He showed a floor plan of the building and stated that the owner would agree to keep storage of merchandise off of the front portion of the walk (west of the entrance doors on the north and south sides and along the west wall) . He stated that he did want his client to have the ability to store merchandise on the remainder of the sidewalk because he did not feel this area would be used as a pedestrian way. Regarding lighting, Mr. Merila stated that the applicants would have no problem in complying with the ordinance limit on light intensity at the property line. He asked for the same consideration as was given to Superamerica across Highway 252. He stated that he did not feel that glare from the lamps beneath the canopy would really be evident. Regarding the elimination of neon on the canopy, Mr. Merila referred to the Superamerica canopy across Highway 252 and stated that it is entirely lit up. He noted that a plan had been submitted with an office building location and that it was also superimposed on a cross section that had been provided. Mr. Merila noted on the cross section that the elevation of the grade at the pump islands was basically evel with the eave of the houses across Willow allow Lane. He stated that the fence along the easterly property line would screen out any headlights from these homes. Regarding a masonry wall along the east property line, Mr. Merila stated that they have difficulty with that suggestion due to the cost associated with a masonry wall. He stated that they felt a wood fence would provide viable screening. Commissioner Holmes then asked Mr. Merila what the hours of operation would be for the station. Mr. Merila responded that it would be open 24 hours. Commissioner Holmes asked if the car wash would also be open 24 hours. A representative of PDQ responded in the affirmative. 9-12-91 10 i PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91018) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Richard Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, pointed out that space between Highway 252 and Willow Lane is tight and that the houses are going to be close to whatever is built there. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station is further away since it is on the other side of Highway 252 . He stated that he was not sure that the proposal meets the qualification for impact on the neighborhood as listed in point b of Section 35-220.2 (Special Use Standards) . He stated that he did not want to see another convenience store this close to his house. He added that he was afraid of the traffic at night because of police problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, noted that the site was formerly occupied by a Shell Station, that Fina tried to get approval and gave up on their proposal because of conditions. He pointed out that traffic moving northbound on Highway 252 is moving to the left (west) and that it is hard to turn right (east) onto 66th. He also pointed out that there are police problems at the Superamerica Station and that a night time operation in the proposed location would attract the same element that is bothering Superamerica. Mr. Rod Snyder, of 6408 Willow Lane, reviewed the special use standards with the Planning Commission. He stated that there was a thin buffer between the proposed station and the residential area along Willow Lane. He stated that Atkins Mechanical was a good neighbor. He asked whether PDQ would be the same, or if different, in what way. He noted that the proposed use would be a 24 hour operation that would be lit up like a Christmas tree. He stated that, if the convenience store provided something that the neighborhood didn't have, that it would meet standard (a) of the special use standards. He observed, however, that the neighborhood already has the Superamerica Station. He stated that he did not feel that standard (b) is met at all because of the impact on the neighborhood. Regarding standard (c) , he stated that he wanted to upgrade his property, but that he wouldn't be able to get his money back from the improvements. He stated that the existence of the PDQ Station would inhibit people further in improving their property. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6550 Willow Lane, related to the Commission a recent police chase through his property and the problems that exist at the Superamerica Station. Regarding the staff recommendation for a stone fence, Mr. Jewitt stated that there was a wood fence by the trail and that it was torn down and thrown in the river. He stated that a wood fence in this location would suffer a similar fate. He asked the applicants whether they would have a security guard on duty. He asked how many cars would be generated by the proposed service station. He stated that travel 9-12-91 11 on Highway 252 is difficult and that people would probably move through the neighborhood to get back onto Highway 252. Mr. Jewitt noted that there are a number of kids who wait at the bus stop at 66th and West River Road. He also pointed out that the traffic light at 66th and Highway 252 does not let enough cars go through. He pointed out that a lot of money was expended to modify the intersection, but that it did no good. Mr. Jewitt asked whether the car wash would affect water pressure in the area. He also stated that the Superamerica lights are bright right now and stated that similar lights closer to his house would adversely affect him. Mr. Chris Jacobson, of PDQ, noted that there is a perceived safety and security issue in the neighborhood. He pointed out that police often hang out at PDQ Food Stores. He, stated that lighting on the site would be buffered by the landscaping. He also noted that there would be video cameras in the store to discourage shoplifting. Mr. Jacobson stated that the doors to the car wash would be closed when it was in operation. He added that PDQ could close down the car wash between midnight and 6: 00 a.m. if there is a noise problem. Mr. Jacobson recommended moving the driveways onto the frontage road 15' to 20' further north in order to allow cars to move more directly into the path of the pump islands. He stated that he had a problem with the traffic movement into the site and asked that the accesses be moved further to the north. He stated that a masonry wall would be expensive. He stated that PDQ would build a wall if someone else would pay for it. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be any impact on water pressure as a result of the car wash. An unidentified representative of PDQ stated that there would be no impact. Mr. Jewitt again asked how many cars per day would be generated by the station. Mr. Jacobson answered that they had projected about 920 cars per day. Mr. Jerry Archer, also of PDQ, stated that the afternoon rush hour would be the peak time as opposed to the morning rush hour. He stated that he did not think the station would create that much of an impact on 66th Avenue North. Mr. Archer also stated that cars could exit out the front of the site onto the frontage road and turn right on 66th and go around the traffic bubble. He discussed traffic movements at some length with Mr. Jewitt. Mr. Jacobson stated that PDQ would build at their own expense an acceleration lane onto Highway 252 from 66th Avenue North if that were necessary. It was pointed out that there is already an acceleration lane and that it is used by buses. Mr. Archer pointed out that the zoning of the site was the same as for Superamerica. He stated that he felt PDQ should be allowed. Mr. Pat Murphy, of 6524 Willow Lane, stated that cars would not easily use the joint driveway with the property to the east, but would circle the block. He also stated that there would be cars backed up onto 66th unable to get onto Highway 252. 9-12-91 12 Chairperson Malecki then briefly discussed the process with the Secretary. The Secretary stated that if the same design is submitted by PDQ, staff would recommend denial on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met. He stated, however, that if the design were more similar to the Fina plan, the City would probably have to approve the use. Commissioner Holmes stated that he had problems with egress movements from the site. He also stated that Superamerica does have glare at night. He expressed concern regarding the 24 hour car wash and concern with the problems in the entire neighborhood. He added, however, that he was sympathetic to the option of having a detached car wash. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was in favor of a redesign of the plan and asked why the City Council had reversed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Fina plan. The Secretary stated that they could review the record on that. Commissioner Mann stated that she did not feel the special use standards were met and that the options for the applicant were either to work with the staff on a redesign or to be denied. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was not enamored with the idea of a service station at that site. He stated that he felt it is a mistake to pursue it and that he did not like the Fina proposal either. He stated that he sympathized with the neighbors. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station has buffers, but that this site does not. He also noted that the neighborhood demographics have changed. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Bernards if he would favor the development if it were redesigned. Commissioner Bernards responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki acknowledged that the zoning of the property allows for a gas station, but that the service station is a special use and that the applicants seem to be bucking what the staff recommends. She stated that this proposal is different from Superamerica because it is closer to the R1 zone. She stated that she did generally favor an ordinance amendment to allow a detached car wash. The Secretary stated that if the Commission were disposed to deny the application, the staff would recommend tabling the matter so that a resolution can be prepared with specific findings. If the applicant is willing to redesign, he said, they should work with the points listed in the staff report. He also noted that the ordinance amendment on the car wash would apply to other locations as well. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding car washes. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no problem with that proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING A DETACHED CAR WASH Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow a 9-12-91 13 detached car wash building with exterior treatment and quality of construction matching that of the primary building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a possible conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining. Commissioner Mann stated that she could possibly support the proposal if it were redesigned. She stated that she felt the social problem was being worked on and that it would eventually go away. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with Commissioner Bernards. He stated that it was a problem area and that a change was being proposed that would adversely affect that area. He stated that he would recommend tabling the application with direction to redesign. The Secretary, in referring to the points listed in the staff report, stated that if there is congestion resulting from the operation, it should be contained on site and not on the public street. Chairperson Malecki stated that she favored one access onto the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes suggested that the conditions that applied to Fina be considered in the redesign of this proposal. Mr. Jim Merila, representing PDQ, stated that PDQ would like the application to go on to the City Council with a denial if necessary. The Secretary stated that he would recommend that the denial be by resolution and that the matter be tabled so that such a resolution can be prepared. He asked Mr. Merila if PDQ was stating that it is unwilling to redesign the plans. Mr. Jacobson, with PDQ, stated that the points outlined in the staff report are ridiculous and too costly. He stated that they would make their case to the City Council. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91018 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Bernards to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial regarding Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met, particularly standards a and b and also, in light of the fact that the applicant has stated their unwillingness to revise the plans. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a potential conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining from the vote. 9-12-91 14 ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of the upcoming study meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Chairperson 9-12-91 15