Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 01-16 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 JANUARY 16, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The 1991 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7 : 47 p.m. ROLL CALL 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioners Sander and Bernards were out of town and were excused. Chairperson Malecki called for a moment of silence in recognition of Commissioner Lowell Ainas who had passed away recently. Following the moment of silence, the Secretary pointed out that the City Council had adopted a resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Ainas ' service on the Planning Commission and that resolution would be transmitted to the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the December 5, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the 1991 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CALL TO ORDER 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1992 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki. ROLL CALL Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Planning Commission members and the Chair have not been appointed for the 1992 year and that it would be appropriate to wait on the selection of a Chairperson Pro tem until that Chairperson has been appointed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92002 and 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson ' s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1831 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store/car wash on the site of the existing 1-16-92 1 Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard; a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single- family residence to the north; and a request for variance approval from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/convenience store/car wash approximately 28 feet from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 feet required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for all three applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 attached) . The Secretary also pointed out that although the property to the north is zoned C1, the staff recommend a screening `device be provided in that location. He noted that a masonry wall was recommended in the PDQ case and that the Planning Commission may want to consider such a device here though the circumstances are somewhat different. The Secretary also noted that the City Engineer has yet to review the grading and drainage plan and that a condition relative to that plan should remain in effect. The Secretary stressed that the canopy faces cannot be backlit although the stripe on the building can be backlit provided it complies with the provisions for wall signery. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit 24 hour operations near R1 and R2 land and that this property would be affected by such an ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that to allow the abutment between the service station and the R1 property to the west would constitute a use variance and that is the reason for the transfer of a triangle of land to the property to the north in order to eliminate this abutment. Regarding the variance application, the Secretary stated that the standards for a variance must be met and he felt there was some significant question as to what the affect would be of a variance approval on similar situations on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the joint meeting with the City Council in October discussed the major thoroughfare setback question and that not a lot of desire for change seemed to come out of that meeting. He stated that approval of a variance might in effect change the ordinance. The Secretary also pointed out the possibility for allowing for a lesser setback as part of a Planned Unit Development. He stated that the site in question is not a Planned Unit Development, but, that if it were a part of a larger area, it could be considered a Planned Unit Development. He concluded by saying that the Commission has to look at this particular parcel and this particular development and must consider the effect that a variance would have on other areas of the boulevard. Commissioner Holmes asked whether 69th Avenue North was going to be widened. The Secretary responded that there are plans to do so in the future. He stated that the 18 ' dedication will accommodate future widening and it is not needed for the present intersection improvement related to the City project east of Brooklyn Boulevard. 1-16-92 2 Commissioner Holmes asked what was proposed for the neighborhood and whether homes were to be bought up. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment to C2 or general commerce of the blocks on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard back to June and Lee Avenues. He pointed out that the homes on Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming and that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment back to Lee Avenue. He noted that the City is not acquiring property at this time, but that the matter could be pursued privately. He stated that if the City were to pursue a redevelopment, it could use its condemnation powers, but that it is not involved as yet. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the homes on Lee Avenue are not nonconforming and that they can expand under their Ri zoning designations. He stated that the City has adopted a policy of withholding rezoning until a rezoning redevelopment plan is brought forth and found acceptable. Commissioner Holmes asked what is a "regulatory taking of property" . The Secretary stated that a taking occurs when a person is denied the reasonable use of their property and that it requires compensation under the Constitution. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 Company, explained to the Commission that Phillips had bought the property last May and that they understood that the climate might not have been right to pursue a development of this corner. He stated that Phillips preferred to develop the property in the spring rather than wait three to five years for developments to change on this block. Mr. Baccus explained that the plans have been prepared over the last two years with significant input from the City staff. He stated that there has been a fair amount of give and take over that time and that the plans have changed to accommodate staff concerns. He stated that they were advised that they would have to dedicate 18 feet of right-of-way along 69th Avenue North. He then showed the plan to the Planning Commission. He stated that the fencing on the north side of the property would be provided and that Phillips actually wants to do this. He also stated that curb and gutter would be provided as required. He showed the Commission pictures of the site as it presently exists and also pictures of other Phillips stations in the metro area. With respect to the variance request, Mr. Baccus stated that he felt that setbacks could be met if not for the dedication required off 69th Avenue North. He showed the Commission a plan that was submitted last summer with the car wash traffic moving in a counter clockwise direction entering off Brooklyn Boulevard and stacking in front of the car wash, exiting out toward 69th Avenue North. He stated that the dedication of additional right-of-way for 69th made this plan impossible. He concluded that Phillips could have a car wash and meet building setbacks if no dedication were required. 1-16-92 3 He, therefore, concluded that it was indeed the requirement of right-of-way dedication that caused the variance. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Baccus what the intended hours of operation for this station would be. Mr. Baccus responded that they preferred a 24 hour operation and that they are not restricted in this respect in other locations. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the trench drain whether it would serve as a debris trap. Mr. Bill Anderson of Phillips 66, explained that silt would be caught in the trench drain and that water would overflow into the sanitary sewer. He stated that the drain would be cleaned out periodically to prevent silt from entering the sanitary sewer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the project could be feasible without a car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the negative. He stated that everyone who builds a service station builds a car wash with it. He explained the process that Phillips went through and analyzed the location in terms of its demographics and prices of gas in the area, etc. He stated that the lack of a car wash would affect gasoline sales at this location. He added that Phillips probably would not build the station without a car wash. The Secretary pointed out that the reason for the review by Hennepin County has to do with the fact that the property is being re- platted. He stated that the County also wanted 18 ' to 20 ' of right-of-way off Brooklyn Boulevard, but were willing to forego this request. He stated that when Brooklyn Boulevard is widened, right-of-way will be taken from one side or the other in all likelihood. The Secretary stated that if the request for right-of- way is the cause for a variance, the matter should be up with Hennepin County. He stated that he did not feel it was appropriate for the City to grant a variance because of right-of-way taking. The Secretary stated that the property is not being denied its use. He stated that the station could be fixed up, though not expanded or rebuilt. He pointed out that the use of the property is nonconforming because of its abutment with R1 land to the northwest. The Secretary stated that the time simply may not be right to bring about a redevelopment of the property. He added he saw no problem in waiting until an appropriate development plan is submitted. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Baccus whether Phillips 66 had a standard sized lot that they used to develop this type of service station. Mr. Baccus responded that Phillips had developed the same facility on a 21, 000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern regarding the 24 hour operation with the car wash. Mr. Baccus noted that the house next door is vacant and is not zoned residential anyway. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the hours would be the same for the store and the car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 92001 , 91002 and 92003) 1-16-92 4 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on all three applications submitted by Phillips and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding any of these applications. Mr. Bob Grosshans, of 6920 Lee Avenue North, addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that he had been a resident in the area for 23 years and had seen development take place over that time. He stated that he felt the granting of a variance would be a serious precedent, especially a variance to the extent being sought. He stated that others may ask for a similar type of variance on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that Brooklyn Boulevard may be widened, thus making the shallow setback even shallower. Ms. Vicki Rau, the owner with her husband of the Holiday Express service station across 69th Avenue North, stated that she was opposed to any special use permit or variance for the proposed operation. She stated that when they had proposed their service station some years earlier they wanted more pumps, but were denied. She stated that they had given 15 ' of right-of-way without any compensation. She also stated that they had desired to put a car wash in their facility, but that staff had recommended against it. She stated that she did not see why Phillips 66 should be granted a special use permit or variance for things they had been denied. She added that she had been advised by City staff not to buy land at 63rd Avenue North which had a similar R1 abutment. She stated that she did not see how Phillips 66 could get what it is asking for when they were turned down for various items. She added that they have a store in New Hope and that there have been noise problems with the car wash near a residential neighborhood. Mrs. Rau stated that Phillips had indicated it was willing to take a risk. She stated that the first step in developing one ' s property is to check with the city. She stated that Phillips apparently had been willing to take a risk that they might be denied their use and went ahead and bought the property anyway. She stated that they created their own hardship. The Secretary stated that he did not disagree with Mrs. Rau, but also pointed out that she had the right to pursue the same sort of consideration as Phillips 66. He stated that he did not believe the staff had treated the Raus ' differently from Phillips 66. The Secretary added that he did not feel the variance should be granted on the grounds of dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Dave Nelson, a party interested in re-developing this block, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the city needs a re-development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that this is a good proposal. He stated that the Phillips plan is consistent with the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area. He stated that he would try to buy homes on the block if the Phillips deal goes through. He recommended moving buildings closer to Brooklyn Boulevard in order to provide a buffer between them and the residential uses to the west. He concluded by saying again that 1-16-92 5 the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the report from the Maxfield Research Group. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else present wish to speak regarding the applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that the variance bothered her. She pointed out that the Planned Unit Development requires the minimum of one acre and that there is not an acre in this proposal. She stated that it would be good if homes were acquired and the lot were re-developed. She also recommended looking at the setback on Brooklyn Boulevard with an eye to possibly reducing that setback. Commissioner Johnson stated that the City had looked at Brooklyn Boulevard from Highway 100 North and that it has difficult problems with the Boulevard. He stated that his own experience is that you wait and it is difficult to comply with City regulations when a new development is proposed. He stated that the City wants development to look good, but asked how long the City should wait for a complying development. He wondered whether another 20 years would pass before something concrete happened. He stated that a 28 foot setback seems pretty tight to him, that he looked across the street and he would like to start over in this area. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was time to address the whole issue of redevelopment in this area. He stated that he did not like the variance request. He stated that one difficulty with this site is that cars would come out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the existing gas station was not a heavy traffic generator and felt that the proposed station might overtax the site especially with a car wash. As to the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the property to be transferred, he stated that it seemed like a quick fix. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes if he was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Holmes responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked what was the position of the City with respect to the setback. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission could certainly recommend a change to the setback requirement if it felt that it was appropriate. He stated that he felt that the proper procedure was to look at the variance first and that, if the variance is appropriate, the Commission can recommend the plat application as well . He stated that the staff did not recommend ordinance language but he felt that an ordinance amendment might well be more appropriate than a variance. He stated that he did not believe that the variance standards were 1-16-92 6 met. He also stated that it would be important to be consistent with the treatment of the Raus ' . He admitted that staff had recommended against the car wash at the Holiday Station, but added that he did not feel that it fit in this location either. The Secretary asked the Commission whether they wanted buildings along a heavily traveled high speed roadway to be close to the street or set further back. He stated that a judgement has to be made not only for this property but for others as well. He stated that he did not believe that the direction from the joint meeting with the City Council was for an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt that there was some openness to the idea. She stated that the 28 foot setback proposed by Phillips does not seem adequate and that she did not want other buildings to be closer. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern regarding safety. He stated that cars will likely wait to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard and that the whole operation will get backed up. The Secretary stated that the backup of cars would be on the Phillips property and would not be on the public street. Therefore, it would be their problem. He stated that the county could disallow any access onto Brooklyn Boulevard but that is a tough position with this property. He stated the City was not at a point that it could deny access to this parcel. Chairperson Malecki asked how large the triangle of land was that was being transferred. The Planner indicated that it was about 400 square feet. The Secretary pointed out that the C2 buffer adjacent to R1 property should be 35 feet. He admitted that the triangle is contrived although it eliminates the abutment and the requirement for 35 foot buffer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it would be appropriate to rezone the triangle to C1 . The Secretary stated that it could be done, but that the entire area could also be rezoned to C2 . In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary indicated that the triangle would be sodded if the development is approved. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the gas station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Secretary pointed out that there is R1 property across 63rd. The Secretary stated that staff had told both the Rau ' s and Phillips that re-development of their properties would be difficult. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the use proposed was acceptable but did not feel that the variance standards were met. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that re-development of the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard site would bring in other development to that block. He stated that the plan being proposed would create a larger buffer than exists now and that it would be consistent with the City' s Comprehensive Plan. He admitted that there were some difficulties in developing an ideal plan but that the proposal was an 1-16-92 7 improvement over the existing service station. He stated that the dedication of right-of-way was for the 69th Avenue project. The Secretary stated that was not his understanding but that it was for a future widening which the County may pursue at a later date. Mr. Nelson asked why the dedication was asked if it was only for future widening. The Secretary stated that it was for that reason, which was the same reason as the Raus ' had to dedicate 3 feet from their property. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary pointed out that there are a host of uses that would fit the Comprehensive Plan and would also be consistent with R1 abutment. There followed a brief discussion as to how to handle the application. It was agreed no one favored a variance. The Secretary recommended a resolution be brought back recommending denial. Commissioner Johnson stated that denying the variance won 't solve the problem. He stated that he was not comfortable with denying something without providing a way for something to be built. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to table applications 92001, 92002 , 92003 and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for variance were not met. Commissioner Mann also expressed a desire that ordinance language be developed to propose a reduced setback. The Secretary stated that he preferred to make such a suggestion to the City Council but that the direction for such language come from the City Council itself. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: None. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of re-development in the area and the meeting schedule for April, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10 : 13 p.m. Chairperson 1-16-92 8