Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 08-12 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 AUGUST 12, 1993 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Holmes at 7:36 p.m. Chair Pro Tem Mark Holmes, Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Debra Hilstrom and Tim Willson. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Kathy Stratton. Chairperson Sander, Commissioners Reem and Mickelson had indicated they would be unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 29, 1993 There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the July 29, 1993, Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Holmes, Commissioners Hilstrom, Johnson, and Willson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chair Pro Tem Holmes explained the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC. Chair Pro Tem Holmes introduced the first item of business, a request from Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store/car wash at 6550 West River Road. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 93010, attached) using numerous overhead slides. He also provided a detailed explanation of sight lines from the residential properties on Willow Lane to show plans that have been made for screening of headlights and other activities at the site. He also pointed out this site is not considered one that abuts residential property. 8-12-93 1 While reviewing the Landscaping/Screening section of his report, the Secretary explained trees proposed for screening were a type that lose their leaves in winter, and perhaps a better choice of trees would be coniferous trees that provide screening year-round. The Secretary reviewed the contents of a letter from Phillip and Margaret Dahlen of 6518 Willow Lane. The Dahlens could not be present but expressed, via their letter, their opposition to the Holiday Stationstore. The Secretary read portions of their letter which indicated their concerns about noise, air, light and ground pollution, traffic, ground water from the car wash draining to the Mississippi River, and additional traffic. The Dahlens asked for a reply and/or copy of the minutes of this meeting. The Secretary assured the Commission the City would provide the Dahlens with such information. The Secretary also mentioned his discussion earlier that day with Chairperson Sanders who expressed her concerns about outside storage on the walkways in front of the station. The Secretary explained at least 4 feet should be required for a sidewalk to function as a walkway. The Ordinance limits displays to within 4 feet of a building. If the applicants propose to have displays they should consider widening the walkway. The City Engineer reviewed the contents of his memorandum dated August 5, 1993, regarding his review of the Holiday Stationstore site plan. This report included the possible construction of a "node" adjacent to the site and to Willow Lane. He also used several overhead transparencies to illustrate. In response to Commissioner Hilstrom's question as to how construction of a "node" would be paid for, the City Engineer explained payment could come from either the City's available discretionary funds, from possible State aid to build the sidewalk and trails, or from special assessments. Chair Pro Tern Holmes asked the City Engineer why the brick wall could not be extended any further. The City Engineer explained it could not be extended because of the grade needed by the driveway for access to the adjacent vacant site. Commissioner Willson suggested the applicant take on the cost of the "node", to which the City Engineer responded this could not be required since the construction would take place off the property that would be purchased for the station. He added, however, that a special assessment could occur after construction. Commissioner Willson pointed out another sight line that had not been addressed which he called a "D" sight line involving the northeast corner. He added the homes in the sight line diagram shown were one-story, while most of the homes on Willow Lane are actually two- story. He further expressed concern there is no guarantee the applicant can control this sight line because of the adjacent vacant lot. He further questioned if some condition could be placed on any future applicant for development of the adjacent lot to provide screening to the homes on Willow Lane. The Secretary responded it probably could be a condition of acceptance of a future site plan. 8-12-93 2 Commissioner Hilstrom expressed concern about who would maintain the trees that were not actually on the Holiday site. Commissioner Willson inquired about the height and strength of lights. The Secretary explained the applicant has attempted to solve the problem by having lights inside the canopy directed downward. He added the light spill should be much less than that of the neighboring SA station. The Secretary expressed he did not think the City was in a position to deny the site plan over headlight sweep, which is a hard problem to correct. In response to a question about water drainage by Commissioner Holmes, the City Engineer explained barring any hazardous material spills, there is no requirement specific for gas stations. He added the car wash has special construction features to prevent any drainage into the nearby river. Commissioner Hilstrom expressed concern about fog near the car wash exit. The Secretary explained the City does not require anything specific of the applicant in regard to that issue. Commissioner Willson asked if signs could be placed to discourage cars from going into the residential area.The Secretary explained it was definitely a possibility, and the City Engineer added signs would have to be on the actual property site. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern about the marketability of the adjacent C-1 vacant site because of joint access. The Secretary explained the owner of the property had previously provided the City with a site plan showing how an office building could be situated on the vacant C-1 property and make use of a shared access. Commissioner Willson asked who currently owns the property. The Secretary provided him with the owner's name: Howard Atkins. Chair Pro Tern Holmes declared a 10 minute recess at 9:11 p.m. Upon reconvening at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Jerry Jenson of Holiday Companies, Inc., introduced himself and three others from his company. He explained his presence was to answer any questions. He complimented the Staff on the thoroughly prepared report, and mentioned how Holiday and Brooklyn Center City staff have worked extensively to try to address the concerns of the neighborhood which had been expressed in the past. He pointed out extra landscaping points that were not required and even some off-site landscaping were included in their site plan. He explained Holiday has "dotted every i and crossed every t" to comply with the wishes of the City. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO. 93010) Chair Pro Tern Holmes opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline 8-12-93 3 station/convenience store/car wash at 6550 West River Road at 9:25 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission, and several City residents appeared with comments as follow: Mr. Richard Cameron of 6620 Willow Lane was first to voice his opposition to the plan and asserted it would be a "24-hour nuisance." He also expressed his dislike of the late-night activities at SuperAmerica with people sitting and just waiting in cars. He thought the Holiday station would add more of this activity. He stated he was opposed to the reconfiguration of the roadway which would bring all traffic by his property. Mr. Bill Elsholtz of 6546 Willow Lane expressed he thought SA should just expand across the road if the area needed another gas station and reiterated his concern about a certain "bad element" in the evening hours. He was also concerned no screening is provided when cars turn around to go into the car wash. He stated his opposition to the plan. Mr. Phil Carruthers, State Representative for Brooklyn Center, spoke of the neighborhood being strongly opposed to this development and how the neighborhood should be protected so it is as liveable as possible. He stated while being sensitive to the desire of Mr. Atkins to sell the property, this proposal is not pro-neighborhood and interferes with the desire of the community. He continued he thought the City should see this as an opportunity to develop the whole area into a residential area, and urged the Commission to see this as an opportunity to fight for Brooklyn Center. Mr. Howard Atkins, owner of the property in question, urged the Commission to accept the applicant's proposal since the developer has the right to develop as they see fit. He continued Holiday has cooperated in addressing any issues of concern. Mr. Fred Schilling of 6858 Willow Lane agreed with Representative Carruthers that Holiday would be bad for the community and expressed additional concern about increased crime in the area. He was opposed to the plan. Mr. Charles Stutz of 7001 Willow Lane expressed his opposition to the Holiday station and read a letter from Lawrence and Jackie Lindquist of 7008 and 6940 Willow Lane which stated their opinions a Holiday station would further crime and weaken the community. Mr. Rod Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane said he appreciated the opportunity to address the Commission and commented in his opinion Holiday had not addressed important issues to the community. He also indicated the people of Brooklyn Center are not the ones who would use the station so they do not want it. He said perhaps when the ordinances were adopted, 24 hours businesses were not part of culture. He complimented Commissioner Willson for his insight and urged the Commission not to"red stamp" staffs recommendation. Mr. Klaus Pierach of 6930 Willow Lane stated any development should be an improvement to the community and a Holiday would not be an improvement. He believed such a development would only lead to disintegration in the residential neighborhood. 8-12-93 4 Mr. Greg Schuster of 7023 Willow Lane agreed with all points of others before him in opposition to the station and added the area did not need another gas station as several others in the area are not even operating at their desired capacity. He also considered his neighborhood to be very beautiful and said it is worth preserving. He said he thought this development would lead to a slow decline in property values and to people leaving. Mr. Bill Hannay of 6432 Willow Lane agreed with those opposed to Holiday and added his concern about the length of time cars currently wait in the stoplight on Highway 252. He asserted Holiday would add to this problem. - Ms. Lori Duncan of 6900 Dallas Road agreed traffic would be a problem and said maybe the stoplight should be regulated to stay green longer. She explained for those who live in the area there are only two accesses to Highway 252 and more traffic would make it harder for the residents. Ms. Vicki Snyder of 6408 Willow Lane stated construction of the "node" would be the third time in six years the area has been re-engineered. She expressed concern about decreasing of home values and thought maybe the solution is to re-zone the site. Mr. LeRoy Funk of 7125 Willow Lane noted there had never been a successful gas station on the corner in question and asked if there had been a count of how many cars it would take to run a successful gas business on this site. He expressed additional concern about traffic. Mr. Schuster spoke again with the suggestion that nothing should be done for Brooklyn Center unless it is good, right, and needed, and unless it promotes strong neighborhoods. He added once the City commits to this project it severely limits any other options like park land or residential land. Mr. Tom Kouri of 6416 Willow Lane also disagreed with the Holiday plan and stressed the community needs to look to the future for a safer place for its children. He explained having a Holiday station there would make him less likely to allow his kids to ride bikes. This development does not produce benefits to the community and will be a problem instead. Ms. Duncan added the Holiday site is adjacent to a bus stop for children. Ms. Alice Kuutti expressed her fear to take walks at night as she used to and said Holiday would add to her fear. She stated her opposition to the plan. Mr. Schilling again spoke of his concern about more asphalt and drainage into the Mississippi River and mentioned a newspaper article about an area that could not handle all the development it took on. He said an environmental study should be made. 8-12-93 5 Mr. Mike Rasnak, Minneapolis Zone Manager for SuperAmerica stated because of its high visibility, the SA at Highway 252 has become a meeting place for people on the north end, both "unsavory types and normal people". He clarified the Erickson family does not own SuperAmerica. Ms. Snyder again spoke of her mother's recent move to Brooklyn Center to get away from a neighborhood she was afraid of. She added two years ago in Brooklyn Center her yard was used as a police stake-out which has caused her to fear she may have to move again. She said the community should have concern for safety for the elderly. There was some discussion about the number of notices sent out and concern by citizens that not enough people were notified. The Secretary explained the Ordinance requires people within 350 feet of the site must be notified. He added no one is barred from public hearings and all are welcome, even those beyond the 350 feet notification area. He further explained 36 addresses had been notified. Mr. Carruthers presented an idea that those who are interested in being informed about developments in the area should notify the City. He added the City is there to serve citizens and would hopefully cooperate. Commissioner Willson suggested a sheet of paper be provided for any to sign their names and addresses to receive pertinent information about the approval process for the site. A member of the audience said there would be no reason to notify people if the Commission and Council were going to deny the application to Holiday. Chair Pro Tem Holmes explained the Planning Commission only recommends action to the City Council, which then makes any decisions. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Willson to close the public hearing at 10:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Jensen, representative of Holiday Companies, Inc., expressed the opinion that all concerns of the neighborhood had been addressed. He noted the site is zoned C-2 which would allow this type of development with a special use permit. He reminded the group that by law the use they are applying for is permissible. He added Holiday has in every way abided by the rules of"play" that the City itself came up with. He then asked if there were any further questions. In answer to Commissioner Hilstrom's questions, Mr. Jensen explained the car wash would operate 24 hours a day, and a problem with fog only exists with certain types of equipment. He further explained Holiday has not yet made the decision on their equipment. He added there should be no safety problem with people walking by the car wash from parking spaces as there was plenty of room. 8-12-93 6 Chair Pro Tem Holmes asked Mr. Jensen if he knew the number of cars that would be expected per day and the estimated sales. Mr. Jensen explained this information is hard to provide, but the traffic study that had been conducted indicated no problem with accommodating the traffic for the business. The Secretary agreed. Commissioner Hilstrom asked the applicant if they would be willing to maintain the trees used for screening that are not on the property. Mr. Jensen responded they would plant trees and procure a guarantee from the nursery as to their staying alive. He added they will provide any type of trees-that would satisfy the Commission and community. In response to questions by Chair Pro Tem Holmes, the City Engineer explained run-off from rain and snow on the site and waste from the car wash are two separate issues. He further explained the car wash water is recycled and re-used and there is a trap for sediment disposal. He added the drainage construction proposed more than adequately provides for the run-off and the site is not close enough to the River to require any special arrangements. An unidentified audience member asked why the City is soliciting business that the public does not want. He also wondered why the public had to come and hear all this again when they had been through it two times before. The Secretary explained the ordinance requires consideration of the application because it is a new application with modifications to what had previously been submitted. He noted that the City had not solicited its application. It had been brought forward by a potential property owner. Commissioner Johnson commented on the need to accept applications for permitted uses. He explained to the audience that perhaps they should be taking their concerns to the City Council, who can actually make a decision on this issue. Commissioner Willson expressed his appreciation to staff for their work in reviewing this material, but said he did not think the problem of sight lines had been adequately solved. He explained in this case the applicant has applied for a special use permit which-the City is not required to grant. He read certain conditions from Standards for Special Use Permits and commented on how in his opinion the Holiday station would not fulfill the conditions required in points a, b, & c of number 2 in section 35-220 on special use permits. He further stated his opinion that because of the standards, the application should be denied and he urged the Commission to make such a recommendation to the Council. Chair Pro Tem Holmes commented on the compelling story from the community and asked if Mr. Atkins had any other offers for his property other than a gas station. The Secretary explained one proposal had been considered which used the whole area for an office building. He added economics did not allow pursuit of the project. He continued to explain a study had been done on the proposed Holiday site that prevented any development until its completion. He said conclusions from that study indicated since the site is so close to Highway 252, it naturally lended itself to a business like a gas station or convenience store, so at that time the zoning was not changed because the land seemed to 8-12-93 7 be zoned properly. He said that a traffic study also indicated there was no doubt the roadways around the site could handle the traffic it would generate. He continued if the City denies this permit it would have to be on the basis that the special use standards were not met. The final conclusion reached to this point was that the proposal does meet all necessary standards in spite of opposition from people in the area. He further explained access points were the only problem with PDQ. He noted even group homes, following studies, were determined not to have a substantially negative impact on surrounding property. Therefore, he said in order to deny the proposal from Holiday, the burden would be on the City to show that Holiday would have a substantially detrimental impact on the neighboring property. He concluded, if the Commission feels the special use standards are not met, they should go forward with that recommendation to the Council. He added the bottom line is that to preserve this area in a manner that the residents would like, the City may have to acquire the property itself. Commissioner Willson repeated he did not feel the special use permit standards were met and urged the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council to deny the proposal. The City Engineer recommended in fairness to the applicant who has adequately answered all concerns, and to the staff, the Commission not refer the matter back to staff. There was some discussion on different options open to the Commission at this point. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern the City either approve this proposal or ask the Council never to allow anything in that site. He also pointed out it was a different Council currently than the one that accepted the former proposals for a gas station/convenience store. Commissioner Hilstrom said she thought is was the best proposal they've seen and if the issue of the trees for screening could be solved, she would vote in favor of the proposal. Chair Pro Tem. Holmes asked what would happen in the event of a split vote since only four Commission members were present. The Secretary explained it could be referred to the City Council without a recommendation or be put on the agenda of the next Planning Commission meeting in two weeks. He added the Commission has 60 days to give the City Council a recommendation. He clarified in the event of a split vote, the Commission would not have decided anything. ACTION REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 93010 (HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC. There was a motion by Commissioner Willson to deny Application No. 93010 submitted by Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a gasoline station/convenience store/car wash at 6550 West River Road, on the basis that points a, b, and c in the special use standards are not being met. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson only for the purpose of obtaining a vote. 8-12-93 8 Vote: 2 aye, 2 nay. The motion did not pass. Voting aye: Commissioner Willson and Chair Pro Tem Holmes. Voting nay: Commissioners Johnson and Hilstrom. There was a motion by Commissioner Willson and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to table this item until the next Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 1993. The motion to table passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilstrom asked if in discussing Application 90310 at the next meeting they would be required to hold another public hearing. The Secretary explained it would not be required but would be the option of the Commission. He again recommended a list be circulated among the public in attendance to receive notice of the next meeting. Mr. Jensen stated he regretted very much the Commission had not referred this directly to the City Council especially since nothing would.change in two week's time. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:34 p.m. Chairperson Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 8-12-93 9 1 1