The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992 01-16 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 16, 1992 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 1991 Planning Commission 3 . Approval of Minutes - December 5, 1991 4 . Adjourn 1991 Planning Commission 5 . Administer Oath of Office: (Commissioners Holmes, Johnson and Sander) 6. Call to Order: 1992 Planning Commission 7 . Roll Call 1992 Planning Commission 8 . Election of 1992 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem 9 . Chairperson' s Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of th'e 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. 10. Phillips 66 Company 92001 Request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1, 831 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store/car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. 11. Phillips 66 Company 92002 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. 12 . Phillips 66 Company 92003 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 ' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 ' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. 13 . Other Business 14 . Discussion Items 15. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1, 831 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store/car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by 69th Avenue North, on the west by the Northwest Residence group home, and on the northwest by a C1 zoned single-family residence. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. They are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property, either at a property line or at a street line. The present service station site abuts an R1 zoned single- family residential property along the northwest 30 ' of the site. This abutment renders the existing service station a nonconforming use. A companion application, No. 92002 , is a preliminary plat which proposes to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the existing service station site to the site of the C1 zoned residence to the north. This transfer will eliminate the R1 abutment and allow for the service station redevelopment. Access/Parking The proposed site plan calls for three accesses to the site (one being strictly an exit drive from the car wash) , two off Brooklyn Boulevard and one off 69th Avenue North. All accesses have been proposed at 30 ' in width. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has advised that the car wash exit drive be no wider than 241 . It is to be signed "exit only. " All access and utility work related to this development will require permits from Hennepin County since both Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North are County roads. The plan provides for nine (9) regular parking stalls, including five (5) parallel stalls, and at least two stalls at the pumps. The ordinance requires 11 stalls for the first 2 , 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Three stalls are to be located at the southeast corner of the site; two parallel stalls along 69th Avenue North; one handicapped stall in front of the store; and three parallel stalls off a bypass lane north of the car wash. It is possible to count at least two stalls at the pump islands. The parallel stalls are proposed at only 20 ' in length instead of the required 241 . The applicant has indicated they will revise the plans to provide longer stalls. 1-16-92 1 Application No. 92001 continued In addition, the plan shows stacking for at least five cars for the car wash. Six is recommended and is perhaps barely possible without blocking the access off 69th. Car wash traffic will move in a clockwise direction, stacking on the west side of the site and moving through the car wash on the north side of the site. The plan calls for four pump islands beneath a canopy to the south of the main building. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous shrubs, three Black Hills Spruce trees, five Red Splendor Crab trees and two Pagoda Dogwoods. No shade trees are proposed. The plantings are to be located in perimeter greenstrips which are to be sodded and irrigated. The total point value of all plantings is 73 landscape points. The point system requires only 53 points. Given the need for visibility to and through the site, the heavy reliance on shrubs is probably acceptable. The Pagoda Dogwoods are not really considered a shade tree, though their proposed size is large (2 . 5" diameter) . The locations of the Dogwoods would be logical for shade trees, but the Dogwoods are acceptable, we believe. The original plan calls for a 6 ' high ivy-covered chain link fence along the west and north property lines. Staff have indicated this is unacceptable and the applicant has agreed to provide an opaque fence in these locations to serve as a screening device. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The submitted grading plan is unacceptable in that it drains most water (precipitation) off the site rather than containing it on site and conveying by storm sewer to the City' s storm sewer system located beneath 69th Avenue North. The applicant has agreed to revise the plans which should be available for the Commission's agenda packets. No utilities have been shown yet, but this too should be provided_in time for the Commission ' s review. The plans show a large catch basin inside the car wash and a trench drain on the exit from the wash, but does not show where these drains lead. The utility plan will provide this information. The plan submitted does not show B612 curb and gutter around the building. We have conveyed to the applicant that curb and gutter is the community standard and they have indicated that it will be provided if required. Curb and gutter is indicated around the perimeter of the lot. Building The building consists of a car wash, sales room, office and a storage room, as well as restrooms accessible from the exterior. The building itself is a prefabricated metal building with stone facing. There is to be a metal fascia band with a red stripe around the top of the building. The canopy over the pump islands 1-16-92 2 Application No. 92001 continued is to have a similar treatment. Staff have informed Phillips 66 that the canopy faces may not be backlit inasmuchas this would constitute separate freestanding signs. No information has been submitted on the freestanding sign, which is not part of this application. The canopy and building are to have a consistent exterior treatment all the way around. The plan proposes a 5 ' sidewalk around the sales building. Phillips has indicated that it is not their policy to store items outside. Therefore, a 5 ' wide sidewalk should be adequate for pedestrian traffic. We would recommend a condition with this application, prohibiting any outside storage or display of products or other materials on the sidewalk around the sales building. Lighting/Trash Site lighting is provided by seven pole mounted lights, 16 ' high, at various locations around the site. The photometric plan shows illumination to 5 foot candles crossing the property lines in various locations onto residential property. The luminaires are proposed at 400 watt metal halides. We have requested reducing those wattages to 250 watts to reduce light spillage off the site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this request. He has also informed us, however, that Phillips ' lights are generally tilted up to direct light onto the site. We have expressed concern that the lights will then emit unwanted glare off the premises. We recommend that the light fixtures be required to focus downward. Even though this may not focus light intensity onto the site, it should reduce glare. Lights under the canopy will be flush with their mountings rather than crowned, thus reducing glare. The trash enclosure is to be 8 ' x 12 ' x 6 ' high of a masonry block. It was proposed at the northeast corner of the lot, but will be relocated to the area west of the building to make more room for the parallel stalls along the north side of the property. Special Use Standards The proposed gas station/convenience store/car wash is a special use under Section 35-322 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. As such, it must meet the five standards listed in Section 35-220 . 2 of the ordinance (attached) . The proposed service station should enhance the general public welfare and should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We do not believe the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the service station will not impede the normal and orderly 1-16-92 3 Application No. 92001 development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The service station development is consistent with the recommendations of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan that this block be redeveloped with commercial retail type uses. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Particularly the car wash stacking and the general circulation pattern implicit in the site layout is probably the best that can be achieved on this limited site. Finally, the service station will have to conform to the applicable regulations of the C2 zoning district. This cannot be accomplished unless the setback variance sought under Planning Commission Application No. 92003 is granted. Therefore, approval of this application is dependent upon a favorable action on Application No. 92003 . Recommendation Approval of this application is contingent on approval of the accompanying plat and variance applications . We recommend that the Commission consider all these applications together. If either of the other applications does not meet with your approval, then some and perhaps substantial alteration of the plans would be necessary or the applicant may seek a hearing before the Council on these plans. If the Commission feels that the applicant ' s submittal is acceptable and is, indeed, the best design that can be achieved on this site for this use, then it may recommend approval . Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2 . Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3 . A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4 . Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 1-16-92 4 Application No. 92001 continued 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7 . Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8 . B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9 . The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The special use permit is issued to Phillips 66 for the construction and operation of a gas station/convenience store/car wash. No other uses are comprehended. Any expansion or changes to the use will require an amendment to this special use permit. 12 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 13 . The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14 . No outside storage or display of merchandise or other materials shall be permitted on the sidewalk around the sales buildings. It shall be kept clear as a pedestrian walkway. 15 . The faces of the canopy shall not be backlit in any way. Lighting under the canopy shall be completely recessed or shielded. Pole lights shall focus directly downward. 16. Plan approval acknowledges parking spaces at the pump islands for at least two vehicles. 1-16-92 5 • Application No. 92001 continued 17 . The plans shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: a) A grading and utility plan containing all precipitation on site and conveying it by storm sewer to City storm sewer in 69th Avenue North. b) The northerly access onto Brooklyn Boulevard shall be narrowed to 241 . C) Parallel stalls shall be lengthened to 241 . d) The wattage of the light fixtures on poles around the site shall be reduced to 250 watts and the fixtures shall focus light directly downward, not outward. e) An opaque fence or wall shall be indicated along the west and north sides of the site. f) Northwest and Southwest building elevations shall be provided. 18 . All utility and access work comprehended by the development must be performed under Hennepin County permit. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1-16-92 6 i Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. HEPINI CTY PUBLIC WORKS TEL Plo .612-930-2513 Jan 7 .92 10 ,41 No .010 P .02 I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ` 320 Washington Avenue South HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 l Li PHONE: (612) 930-2500 i FAX: (612) 930.2513 j TDD: (612) 930-2696 January 7, 1992 Mark Maloney, P.E. City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brnnklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Phillips Site, Northwest Quadrant Brnnklyn Blvd. at 69th Ave. (CSAM 130 at CSAM 152) Mark: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-noted site reconstruction plans. we have several comments/recommendations regarding both traffic and utility activities. we are pleased to see the two driveways nearest the intersection being closed. This design will serve the roads And the site very well . Also, the locations and designs of the two service island driveways are acceptable and should function adequately. However, we are concerned about the northerly ancess .to Brooklyn uoulevard (CSAH 132). This driveway must be designated as an "Exit Only", with appropriate on-cite :ignage, and narrowed to 26 feet wide. This actinn will preclude northbound left turns into the site and relieve on-site congestion along the north side of the car wash and for southbound right turns into the site. Secondly, we believe that some site runoff retention should be provided, other than the car-wash drains. This feature may be planned but is not apparent on the plans. Finally, please be sure the necessary Cuuraly permits (entrance and utilities) are in process from the applicant before final build permits/use permits are issued. Also, since this is ultimately a plat situation, it must be sent to the Hennepin County Transportation Planning Section for review and comment. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity emoloyef HEAIN CTY PUBLIC WOPKS TEL N1o .612-930-2S13 Jan 7 ,92 10 .,41 Mo .010 P ,03 I I Mark Moloney . .lantiary 7, 1992 Page Two Thank you again for the timely action, and please feel free to call me at 980-2548 if further questions or 01SCUSSlons arise. j Respectfully, `L David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator OKZ:mvr CC: Gary SMallcross, City of Brooklyn Center Hennepin County Transportation Planning HIIIIa :� ■1 L,,,: 1■�III 111 ,. MIN MM mom a MM MM MM MM NO C� eee� M mm MMM a � � .. �.� O. �- �j►:� i 11011 MM _ MIN s?�� i �� " r� - NO �� IIIIIIri MM G 1 K- ME MM OR MM MM MIMI! MM MMMM - `► i � M i ON MM i = \ ■ �■ MINI Un Mason C ■W■■■■■ ■■■■ . ■ 111 X11111111 r - ■ - smut= ■■ 1111 11- 1 ■1 .. ■�■ ■■�■■■ ■■■■ "' 11 111 11 1111111 ■ / - m■■■ Evil 1� = �i 11111 1 1■�1 / �� _ MMMM MW mum am us MORIN in 10101 INS m SO IONIC � ■■ � 1■ 1 111■� ■1 � � � ■■ � � �... �r• � .. U. .� ►e� 111 �� _ MIN mini / • yeeee : : : 1 iii 11 1111 �. 111 1�� L Sl ^^ •f. I CY' o+ � Yb�+• 4r 9 I ■ `i c,�'a,� I D�• CC e a � •'�c•'>. y�� ♦4 /tier, ,��\ ,jq aQ ZI rc t Q . a• � iggi �� + ll +7 �♦L a �v:• 41. 11 i aF n� � :` I� • +� '1-��et -yam 7C.ptF ge mp N 5 I n ♦ la,�� t♦* rF I 4 Ifs fir! V• M Y 40 ( I I Li ie°r..a 1 �• •, y CL 1.1 1111111 � eni� 4 -YYYf I 1 1 1� l ry �'- S3 �/ fr11 1 t. 4a t[ h F E I Nli f 1 I •a; I gP i rs IVI = L _u � ..e �, r �y�• 3 i A f.... .. ns... ..e•♦. ,',..N asses...... U� �t JIO.SL l9 .Lf'•tt .i L.ss�ejj{[r[fin L C�[ Z R t � � iMw�,M�lw.•.Y�{,,+L• ��yngOV.i.eiA , e•f 411 1•� .. 01 LP ULJ t •• + 1 � � D � t � •.oua e"w.".e•.+s � I ��• �, « lM AIF.O Z , \+ �' � < _w•Iwn aaraw s near awc t51 Q :F u. y. Q1 • -i �' aS• E rn r• �S" S lly F{F ' I{ 4 y 1 yyy b J q y J •t�q J yy J a yyy S JJ + •tip aJ �O� J` s • a i t. 3 — - ' � >: � •- _ �yyui r� � _ ��Cep� � � .- h ix 1L al I "s • 1 I 6 C � - i n I 1 I a R br ' r Za i4 's i _ w - 6 � � l _ 1 1 • 0 �� - I f p 1 1 I• ^ • ,Qy � w O �i L--- __ - � 4 O I 6 1 8 � � r 1 �{ = N � 1S � • I a ; e y Sr = Neese N E,Q a 7 � � a � p�I ► I I C �^ Li '�d _ .t 1 f O •j G' ca re 1 -a �3 a i F (F1 2q cc Ob _ a 0 Ian a' r ' D N D - - OV LO r m DX � I e p N < D r D 7 � a v 1 a 0 w6 ! 1r s m df CD LA �F Age R • • L(�{ry L�7F A��j i y t'- . P E ;�a 73 vfft L• HF I L €�N: lie t O lipcn - cn m D1 O 1 --- s ' p i , a , ` �� M1O•a.YU.4 nr.r j r-I I� T t - Fs s , e � x t R o � Cti • k \ n-�4 •�-'�>. mss' ••• �t' �`� \ \ ^ � a -Alt It �\ th jr I 1•p1pp �— ��'�--p�-'JT• 1' y i a- •�e` � Eh }�� 9 e e Ss� ¢ L /i4•*� _— —,Tyke. o4�e\� ��'k. 1 ht II tc`�a L�p e I �--�---------- :u e 'V=�� t • /H/'/� S , . /� o •�s� a •„ I �1 r----_`w. n..c f j € cam' //i O V II II �+•+ I I v+� t 0 •1 / j I� P I I \ ;•� 11 rl I I 1 armor.�I I •�/�O (I � p" I j�_ �ti r.II 11 ° �i. I 1 1 •?'.v. 1 I �r / \I a lY° II ��. g•f� �� ff:f . I.I,I III wl Ill, n I F , � I I �R�e• +or � / + � � I� .'t � .�-- yJj Z / • ' I' 4'fig,+,a 1I � I biz �� `� $ � I I • I�`I � �` I, �tF I li� It r JO O � 1. 1 m )y1, j is It 2 C�� r 7 Z 'y A' � i.• I ur w of t�`4,// • p /�0 r�< > t � { � n V � �. _ �;� Ui�� ,y..•I(._w..v ` /..I!'C?'-.._.1�jaif' '/' Ir �I % V D c i 110.SZ•IG N r.Z['011 w 7` � / P f=�la A � � �� y. llt fQ � o-.r v�a:eer�\w..c ` }J �•�e e� � ��4�N�\ 4 Ole •a eM-� I � 3 lit LP i s � — + Ql ti • i•_pa �°ti eb*�� S / �i't yTiE •�`r t €`w aaco b � lw Ia 0%� " cv aa, •�`T T`� A/ \ Z f��,., �c,�•. s cr.� s \\ t �,♦ i a IPA ole i a.tTnel / 1 11 ^ _1 i______--- d "1111 M� (, + / a4 /�•° • I �� nII „ � I I I I ./n•. I j1 1 I L � � II ;; C O• II f- '}`Ap � '.��. U } / � �---- r— � I i��---'�a�� /'Foy I I ��`, ° (•- /�II1 �I��': I I c I q �E :� I . I I .� c l l •,,. ( - lit.pr �F 141 • I 1�1 LLL I la � � I I PPP , [� I \ � � 6 I I '1• w I P f t � : � n o ► {9SI �y IF ,L .w°,.w=a N ri fF t � , _ � �e nln• ✓- 1V cMK.LUwpw �' f 1°y��,,y/ II ` l D Q ; - - O flifE•L.l N•.•.• .a•w....• !—.° � h a+.F N w q 1 dt I F 0—Fl- G-po • I ' b 2 �E .� Aw rf �w';'tea::�wLE ` cw,"��:.��.- ;;td fy"}{ OD � � i �� :�� fE. cao.+��►wo.fwr�.w.. � �n�!sl--[`' • e�g p5 1 L T :, —"?—F`-P : C.. .0 }Y ptaY !ai i • . it i = i • ; jI I � tp u`� a t ip is ...{ ii l� � ° � ��t� t ` }r :� • ` t � � a I ..�--5�.._:` � �� • ��t 7abt� !s� app �s � � � , (� � � °1 j11� 9 � f i � ° t T • 1. 7..s lyy`''k .:\ � 6 t ,i�� ! �f1 ��i� ri t � i 7 � l �t i i � i t {J, ;�� . t� �� f�•} 1pp� a55 � �� i � 'i � i ! �� f t r ( 1 t � t r � I I � tr 2}a •y i 4 �� ri r Q° i !! ':� ' � r r � a •i • ` I / ° ID 0. ro °sy Q --I----�-- --1i $ z -I � i ►II 1 _ .II . . I . Y I I• I �r I ° d fj:� i �,I tjl, , :.( 'I [file � a ri ' ~ w :144 $i 3 4 4194 8. a F:aa da aa,aa WA Go y y I y, I � ; e tea• 1 l)1 V h�•.;..g� it r-� iA � � � Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92002 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests 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. The properties in question are zoned C2 (service station) and C1 (residence) and are bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the northeast, by 69th Avenue North on the south, by the Northwest Residence group home and a single-family home on the west and by a C1 zoned, single-family residence on the northwest. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the service station site to the C1 residence site in order to eliminate the abutment of the service station site with the R1, single-family residence site to the west. The abutment renders the service station a nonconforming use and would prevent any rebuilding of a service station on the site as is proposed under Application No. 92001. The proposed plat is simply a two lot subdivision to be known as Cady Addition. Lot 1 is the mostly C1 lot with a single-family home. Its area is to be 9 , 648 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for a C1 lot adjacent to a major thoroughfare is one acre. However, because no C1 development is proposed, and because the land being added to this parcel is zoned C2 , not C1, we do not feel this lot requirement should be imposed with this subdivision. Lot 2 is the service station site and is to be 28 , 785 sq. ft. , or . 66 acre. If there is an issue with this application, it may be whether the triangle to be conveyed from the service station parcel to the C1 lot to the north is of an appropriate size or not. Staff have recommended that the triangle be as large as possible. However, to make the triangle much larger than proposed would affect the site layout in such a way that the bypass land and/or parking would be reduced. Eliminating the car wash would allow for a larger triangle, but with the car wash, the triangle is about as big as it can be. It should be pointed out that the site plan calls for a 5 ' buffer on the service station property. Assuming that the transferred triangle remains undeveloped, it adds an average of about 15 ' more to the buffer area. Aside from the fact that service stations are not allowed to abut R1 property, the minimum buffer for a general C2 use adjacent to R1 property is 351 . The triangle technically eliminates the requirement for this buffer, but we feel some attention should be paid to buffer requirements when the size of the triangle is considered. 1-16-92 1 Application No. 92002 continued Another matter that should be noted is the dedication of land for 69th Avenue North right-of-way. The site plans show a dedication of 18 ' of right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County. However, the plat submitted to date does not show this dedication. We have raised this issue with Phillips 66 and they have indicated a willingness to dedicate the requested right-of-way. We await a revised preliminary plat as of the writing of this report. Recommendation This redevelopment project cannot be approved without some transfer of land along the lines proposed by the applicant. If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the development, approval of the plat also is recommended and should be subject to at least 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. 3 . The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right-of-way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18 ' in width. Submitted by, � n Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1-16-92 2 fit 00 It .el 5t A y S r 40 ,Ij 00 oT .2, A�oo ... ....... Z.: T tz Z., T 09 .13 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/convenience store/car wash approximately 28 ' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 ' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is a county road. The property in question is located at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and is the subject of Application Nos. 92001 and 92002 . The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35-240 of the ordinance are met. The applicant, in the person of Jon Baccus, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the standards for a variance are met. The applicant ' s arguments and staff response pertaining to each standard are contained below: (a-) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50 ' building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29, 000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18 ' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3 , 500 square feet with an approximate value of $60, 000. "Phillips initially proposed its standard layout, but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment and compete with 1-16-92 1 comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to the variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. "Phillips request is not based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18 ' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of the property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible. " Staff: The applicant appears to reason that the need for setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd. results from the required dedication of land for 69th Avenue North. It also results from attempts to meet staff concerns with the site layout. Those concerns had to do primarily with stacking for the car wash, parking and circulation. They also related to variances for greenstrips, etc. The applicant is correct in stating that the proposed layout meets the most staff concerns regarding the layout while still providing a full gas station/convenience store/car wash facility. We must point out, however, that the setback deficiency relative to Brooklyn Boulevard is not caused directly by the dedication of land for a widening of 69th Avenue North, but is more directly a result of providing proper stacking for the car wash facility. This raises the question, which the applicant has not explicitly addressed, as to whether a car wash facility is indeed a necessary component of this development. Apparently, Phillips 66 feels it is necessary "to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment. " To meet the 50 ' setback requirement will probably require either other variances or the elimination of the car wash. If the car wash is eliminated, the value of the land may be somewhat adversely affected. This raises a question as to whether the denial of a variance could constitute a regulatory taking of property. It should be pointed out relative to the takings question, that the land would still have substantial value and that there is no car wash presently located on the site. It is, therefore, not something which is being "taken away. " (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "To the best of Phillips ' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, 1-16-92 2 and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips ' application is based; that being there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50 ' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible. " Staff: This parcel is fairly unique in shape, but the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard which, as the applicant notes, is not really a unique condition. It is one of the reasons the City' s Comprehensive Plan recommends that redevelopment go back to the next street beyond the Boulevard so that adequate lot depth can be achieved. We have discussed redevelopment of this entire block with Mr. Dave Nelson, but he does not control any of the properties at this time. Redevelopment of this corner parcel must, therefore, be considered on its own merits and within the constraints of that parcel . It should be pointed out that it is anticipated that other C2 parcels, as well as other parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard, would like to take advantage of a lesser building setback on the same basis as Phillips 66 is proposing. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "Phillips ' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and/or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue., by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance. " Staff: We would argue that the hardship, if there is one, is only minimally related to the requirement of right-of-way dedication for 69th Avenue North, if at all. The inability to meet the setback arises from the insufficient depth of the lot and the need for car wash circulation and stacking. The ordinance probably cannot be met with a rational design as long as the car wash is a part of the redevelopment plan. Since the car wash is proposed by the applicant and is not a requirement of the ordinance or the parcel of land, the hardship may be caused at least in part by the applicant' s business plans. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 1-16-92 3 . Applicant: "Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. If the other portions of Phillips ' redevelopment request are approved, granting the variance will enable an obsolete, unattractive facility which creates a negative image to be replaced by a new, attractive, state of the art facility. " Staff: There are other buildings in this neighborhood which have substandard setbacks. These are located primarily on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard on both sides of 69th Avenue North. The proposed variance is fairly substantial, amounting to a 44% reduction from the required setback. While the new facility may improve the visual environment at this corner, it is generally hoped that redevelopment will bring properties into conformance with ordinance requirements, not move in the opposite direction. This is not to say that variances should not be considered in a redevelopment package. It is more difficult to fit into a pre- existing parcel than to arrange the environment to suit a proposed use. The proposed setback is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but most of that neighborhood is increasingly deemed to be obsolete. From a functional perspective, it is less than desirable to have cars exit a car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. We doubt that the site can be designed much differently without sacrificing stacking space and/or rational circulation and/or greenstrips and other setbacks. The proposed plan is probably about as good as can be achieved for a gas station/convenience store/car wash on this parcel. What the Commission will have to advise the Council on is whether the compromises that have been made in this design are fair or whether the car wash simply overtaxes the site, as evidenced by the substandard setback. Recommendation Ideally, the proposed development would be part of a redevelopment plan for the entire block and land would be available to meet required setbacks. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The proposal relates to a single parcel on a busy corner. This does not mean, however, that the Commission must accept a plan that overbuilds the site. The proposed plan certainly puts as much activity on this parcel as it can possibly accommodate. The Commission is urged to look carefully at the plan and to take all relevant testimony from the applicants and from other notified property owners. If, after consideration of the plans and relevant testimony, it is felt that the proposal overtaxes the site, we would recommend a tabling of the application, either for the applicant to revise plans or for staff to prepare a resolution of denial. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels that the design is appropriate and the activities contemplated can be accommodated on the site, then approval of the variance should be part of the package approving this development based upon a determination that all of the Standards for Variances are met. We 1-16-92 4 I will be prepared to help develop language related to the variance standards if that is the Commission ' s wish. Submitted by, C-L-- Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Diector of Planning and Inspection 1-16-92 5 PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY HOUSTON, TEXAS 77251-1967 BOX 1967 PROPERTY TAXES, REAL ESTATE AND CLAIMS January 3, 1992 SS #27831 Brooklyn Center, MN MN/Hennepin R001 The Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Chairperson and Board Members: Phillips Petroleum Company proposes a redevelopment project in the City of Brooklyn Center to be located at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The proposed development is a state of the art gasoline station which would consist of a sales building, canopy and car wash building. Phillips' proposed redevelopment hinges on securing a variance from the front building setback. The applicable standard requires a building setback of 50' from Brooklyn Boulevard. Phillips' proposed plans depict the building being situated 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard. Phillips Petroleum Company requests the above described variance based upon the following qualifications: 1 Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50' building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29,000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3,500 square feet with an approximate value of $60,000.00. Phillips initially proposed its standard layout but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land • which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed The Board of Adjustments and Appeals January 3, 1992 Page Two layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment, and compete with comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to this variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. Phillips' request is not one based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of its property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible. 2 To the best of Phillips' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips' application is based; that being, there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible. 3 Phillips' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and/or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue, by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance. 4 Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. If the other portions of Phillips' redevelopment request are approved, granting the variance will enable an obsolete, unattractive facility which creates a _J The Board of Adjustments and Appeals January 3, 1992 Page Three negative image to be replaced by a new, attractive, state of the art facility. City Code provides that a variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that certain qualifications are met. The described situation meets those qualifications and Phillips Petroleum Company respectfully requests approval of a variance from the 50' front building setback. Respectively submitted, Jon D. Baccus JDB:gp JDBGP08/PPCO 35-240 d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy-eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty-eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of referral to the Board. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive' to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 35-240 a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same . zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties.