Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992 10-29 PCP
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 29, 1992 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - September 17, 1992 4. Chairperson's Explanation ` The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the r 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. 5. 50 's Grill 92014 Request for site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 12 ' x 40 ' addition to the south side of the 50 's Grill restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. 6. Phillips 66 Company 92001 Request for site and building plan approval to construct a gas station/convenience store/car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. This application was tabled by the City Council at its February 10, 1992 meeting with the consent of the applicant and direction to pursue a study of Brooklyn Blvd. which should guide consideration of this proposal. I The applicant has submitted revised plans which, under City Ordinance, must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 7. Phillips 66 Company 92003 Request for a variance from section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than a 15 ' greenstrip along 69th Ave. N. and along Brooklyn Blvd. at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. This application is a companion to application 92001. Originally, it was a setback variance; now, it is a greenstrip variance. 8. Other Business 9 . Discussion Items 10. Adjournment �2 �R 1 I 's 4 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92014 Applicant: 50 's Grill Location: 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 12 ' x 40 ' addition to the south side of the 50 's Grill restaurant at 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. The purpose of the addition is to add to the kitchen area to expand the carry-out portion of the restaurant's business. The site is located in the C2 zoning district and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Blvd. , on the north by Taco Bell, on the east by a private access road, and on the south by Kentucky Fried Chicken. The 50 's Grill is a sit down, family restaurant and is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Access/Parking No access changes are proposed. The restaurant expansion will not involve any increase in seats or employees. Therefore, no additional parking is either required or proposed. Landscaping The landscape plan proposes three new shade trees in the greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Blvd. and two White Cedars in the green area south of the parking lot in front of the building. The site is approximately one acre. The point requirement for this site is, therefore, approximately 80 points. The point value of existing plantings is 53 .5 points. Additional plantings add 42 points for a total of 95.5 points. Landscape requirements are, therefore, met. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The plans show no changes in this area. There will be additional roof drainage from the addition that will drain into a reduced setback area covered with gravel. A drainage swale will be installed in this narrow 3 ' wide area. No other changes are proposed. Building Improvements As mentioned at the outset of the report, the proposed building addition is to expand the kitchen area. It is to be approximately 12 ' x 401 , leaving a 3 ' setback. The proposed 3 ' setback conforms with the provisions of a recent ordinance amendment that allows a 3 ' side yard setback for commercial and industrial buildings on one side as long as there is at least a 10 ' setback on the other side and as long as other setbacks are met. That is the case in this instance. The exterior treatment of the addition will match the existing building. There will be no doors or windows along the south side of the addition, but there will be a door on the west • October 29, 1992 1 v , side facing Brooklyn Boulevard. Lighting/Trash The only change proposed in this area is the relocation of a wall light on the south wall and the addition of a wall light on the west wall over the new door. Recommendation Altogether, the plans are sufficiently in order and approval is recommended, 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 all approved site improvements. 4. The building addition 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. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. I Submitted by, (:�; 611-�l Jf Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, G - Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29 1992 2 y ti I 31d1S rn Al • i a�` 0 01y3031 123q «�� Nrl x J `Y -T)m 1 9N �• �Q Alt 811191 \n� ai „�.►''�'~ ` C m s �y;JSl� m m m � r m m —1 p z I m CD p C `il - il —I — -1 z m r - - r m ZI I r? Z c i LI II • I .o vi y� �I I I - I I ,• r II ADDITION TO ngCHITE�TVq^� MO. OAT. REVISION 50ES GRILL; NTERIOR DESIOM •��+��±�« 33'" 5524 BROOKLYN BLVD. JOB;°;;�pIA�°0 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. r JOHN R.OAS►AR(ARCHITICT) NOT rOR Vf■WITHOUT NIS WRITTEN rERNISSION CERTIRCATE _.�O VE FORY't�• JACK- SCHUBERT :a y r `SCALE: 1%30! l 1 e. CENOTFS IRON FOUND Gq• 1 �O ti •' DENOTE.S IRON SET .� i TgACT G G fn y�,.t �o�j ��ti. t.K.Ei•! - �- "•*SF•It�h1t3'�^7K'���•..-�.•.�: »i.. .=:�.,. -T �wrYwr�� �I. �• 1$11 ') r 144.3OPt�s . cS�9�E0 �'••_ pE3CfiLPTWN a►�-!FIT � ' Tra t< and an undivided 82.542/'386, i �[l.�! � Reg!•4terPq Lan; survey'wo i.419. 111�rf 1 NOW n4 .ur S�Fld l4� 3►ueP1u ; State ot4 llinaol.oti, l�+ tj,sc✓ to a 3i a Yl KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE REGISTERED Sz `!IY '1p IGV..'TnA, :'�•a ',:BiF . . 1 C LAND $VRVEYUR PROJECT SHEET' D) 910- N0. N 1'Nl E� •tY RECT THA? i 1� A J� '1 Of 'oi'P.Nr'9 >," T �u��ay�Ys 617-SA2=9559 S�'R+'FY�F 1-:NPIR Y.i,t, AW-4 REY1$IONS, r �TP.TCrt-rtE 'K'hN�$ITT �'rt rX`ti r 4y yt;�4 Q' 1 1t"Nfl CRO9SROAC W MME1CJut8,hd 90T/ :✓, 1 low .. t ,�. i �� ���� • Viii Hill 171"1"ll ' , 1'� ' - -a- :rN I, ■ - I. ME,1INN 11 MMMM CC �C ■ ,/ �,� �� �� ONE 111 � �•�������►� � � s�#% Q���� .,� �j����1 _ �- -� -� ■C ■ C � �■ �r .;�' 1111 11 111�� . _ .� ®i i ♦♦♦♦♦�� s It 11 ow �' 111111 G������ '' - • — — — w - -I i =11 __ _ � 1. 1 1111111 � ��•�;�� LTJI—� �— — � �— o= — ■ i -- SIC , �r _ II�•W ■ ' ►� = IMF � •• .� iii ✓ - ,.- 1 - 1 �m . . OL n - . .III' , ,,I, .•• • .•• •• :•• t PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit Background This application was initially considered by the Planning Commission on January 16, 1992 . The original proposed plan had a substandard setback from Brooklyn Blvd. of 2716" . Staff recommended denial of an accompanying variance and, because the applicant was unwilling to alter the plan, the plan and special use permit as well. On January 30, 1992, the Commission adopted resolution 92-1 recommending denial of both the site plan and variance applications. On February 10, 1992, the City Council tabled consideration of the plan, the variance, and an accompanying plat, with the consent of the applicant, and asked for a study of Brooklyn Blvd. with high priority to be given to the development proposal for 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. In May, a consultant was selected - Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. On July 2, 1992, Timothy Griffin of DSU issued a draft memo (attached) relating to the Phillips 66 development proposal. Mr. Griffin has recommended keeping the ` existing 50 ' major thoroughfare setback and has developed a plan (also attached) which shows that a gas station/convenience store/car wash can be built on the site and meet all setback, parking, and greenstrip requirements. The applicants, however, do not like Mr. Griffin's plan because it would require a building of a different design than their prototype. They have submitted a I plan which meets setback requirements, but is very deficient in greenstrips. A review of the newly submitted plan follows. Access/Parking The proposed plan provides one access off Brooklyn Blvd. and one access off 69th. This represents an improvement over the previous plan which had two accesses off Brooklyn Blvd. Tim Griffin's plan also relies on two accesses off Brooklyn Blvd. The plan provides seven parking stalls and credit for four cars at the pumps to meet the parking requirement of eleven spaces. The plan shows four stacking spaces for the car wash west of the access on 69th and three more east of that access. The site layout calls for four pump islands in a square formation east of the building. If these pumps were reduced or rearranged it would be possible to increase the greenstrip area along Brooklyn Blvd. , but the applicant is unwilling to make such a change. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan calls for intensive use of plantings in very limited landscaped areas. The plan calls for four Marshall Ash, seven Black Hills Spruce, 15 decorative trees and numerous shrubs in very limited green areas. The total point value of all proposed plantings is 156 landscape points. This exceeds by over October 29, 1992 1 i I ti 100 points the minimum required for this site. The greenstrip along 69th is proposed to be only 51 . Along Brooklyn Blvd. , the greenstrip varies from 0 ' to over 201 . (It should be borne in mind that the 15 ' greenstrip requirement is a minimum, not an average. ) The plan prepared by Tim Griffin does provide 15 ' greenstrips. The applicant's proposed plan utilizes a 3 ' high keystone wall along the edge of the pavement to screen the parking lot from Brooklyn Blvd. No such wall is proposed along 69th. While walls can provide effective screening, they do not provide the aesthetic relief that a well landscaped greenstrip does. We believe that the alternate plan by Tim Griffin is clearly superior in terms of landscaping and aesthetics. Two other problems with the proposed landscape plan include the fact that it shows numerous shrubs in the area where the sidewalk is and must remain; also, the plan shows the fencing in with this site of the land that is to be transferred to the property to the north. While this triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site should be improved with landscaping as part of this project, we do not believe it would be appropriate to separate it from the property to which it is being attached. (The reason for the transfer of this triangle of land is that service stations may not abut R1 property. By transferring the triangle to the property to the north, the service station site is separated from the R1 lot to the northwest. This is the reason for the plat application. The plat must receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of permits for the station. It is the platting requirement that results in the requirement to dedicate 18 ' of additional right-of-way along 69th. ) Grading/Drainage/Utilities The site plan calls for four trench drains, one at the entrance to the car wash and one at the exit and one at each access drive. The trench drains at the driveways are connected by storm sewer to a catch basin at the southeast corner of the site, which is in turn connected to City storm sewer in 69th by an 18" storm sewer line. The trench drains at the car wash do not appear to be connected to storm sewer and we are at a loss as to how they would function. The applicant has indicated that they will have to be connected to storm sewer. Building The proposed building and canopy are the same as proposed earlier this year. We would note that the canopy is proposed to have an illuminated band, contrary to the City' s Sign Ordinance. The building is prefabricated metal with a stone veneer and a flat roof, the Phillips 66 prototype. Mr. Griffin of DSU has shown by his own site drawing that a building of equal size, uniquely designed to fit this unique parcel, can be constructed while meeting setback, parking, and greenstrip requirements. The Zoning Ordinance calls for "well conceived, high quality developments. " Design is to employ "imaginative architectural concepts" (section October 29, 1992 2 a 35-230) . Section 35-414 . 3 relating to service station design calls for "sincere concepts and honest construction" to be expressed in the building. We believe that the proposed building, in failing to relate to this unique site and in projecting nothing more than company prototypes, does not meet either the spirit or the letter of the City's Zoning Ordinance regulations. This building is the first redevelopment proposal to be considered in light of the new direction the City is pursuing for Brooklyn Blvd. We fear that approval of the proposed design might set a low standard for future development on the boulevard. We believe the applicant can do better and that Mr. Griffin's drawing is testimony to that fact. Lighting/Trash Light poles are proposed at 16 ' in height with two lights at each entrance and one on either side of the car wash. The trash dumpster and enclosure are to be located north of the car wash. Recommendation In light of the foregoing review, we cannot recommend approval of the proposed plans as submitted. Although the proposed access arrangement is an improvement over the previous plan, the severe diminution of the greenstrip areas and the unresponsiveness of the building to its context are a disappointment. Approval of the proposed design could, we believe, set a low standard for future redevelopment along Brooklyn Blvd. It is also questionable whether the applicant meets the standards for a variance and accordingly, we recommend that the applicants be directed to alter their plans to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. If they do not wish to do so, we would recommend that a resolution recommending denial be prepared for the Commission's consideration. If the Commission is disposed to recommend approval of the application, however, we will be prepared to offer recommended conditions of approval. Submitted by, ' l Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29, 1992 3 | a. | ■ � ■! ■: ■8$| -|.|■ |22 <■|| / 9■■�§w!� �| z� | } ]iN | ,, | o | § h ] | ■ } . . . § §) \ | ■ � ; d � & ■ ■ , 7 | | ■ � ! ! � . £ � � , . . . . - . � . . # ' , � # � | | q §� � ��( . -- - ] \ ■ � ! � � 3 , \ � • �| ■ . — [ � \ $ "` | � | �, ! ■ ■ bi ■ ! • m w�\ �k CY)> �w L)U °w - ��/q ��� 0|. , - © �\$| | 00| | � / CLd � ul . Vol§ } k! ' ® • � z . . . . / . 2 7" — . \ � , } © | k ; ;| . } , - z ' � _: . ! | | . } ° M IN l X V of Qf OD to 0 Vi �_. _ sir }} W s e y CL lit ■ i`. C _ 7 4 4 4 h7 � sb I I q N J \ o r — -- — 1 $ I _ \ i g � pp A0 N �t'T' eV 21 Al'lNj 0 zj cu Ow CE P. 0 Z 0 w z > Avil- CD LL gad m la Ila W u CL 01 H12 p- I Hj zCl (D CL a LL Co it o. W1 Ir 4 LL FY --------------- LL 66 Lr. 4 0, : '64 (Ij s1 ja I ----- ----------- 5m • I • • JAW, 6 if g S a w @1ic� i 8C tiga fk Ir 99• C k k 9�yyyy: 9 U 1 9�i 3 � �• ��."4 jgg���� � 'o o- � ��� � w�� F�€6� m jd - •,tl O Millie I s" "� 9 i flr w • ! D• �� ya. e v a a ° :adc, !a ,ate!•is aa _.�i ;�� sa M: a - O lu Yd i O � k � � kp • g Y RO Ra O d Z a ■ t i i i x i a i E ' s a iaaaaa a od f" f. !��`uu"222 - -- ------- : ---- - 6 - -- - - -- --; „ 4 Art = _- 8 dQ ;a• p ,..:«.a: 44444444 / - ,,te�aa :• PK MI 0101610 000 g gg 000101 1 101 • MUM ItY LEI rq o � � 115 _ � •_-- �� Q z. LL zr i ttq Y$. 9xv oil w a to ID (0 (D j ;• 0 MI9A ,0 9 Ila Us --JILI ------------ cF-, uj u U) z 0. < M 0 H w x 19 wi a " p 0 iiiiii tttEtt tt8 I as z ` { I =xzaza:::z 1 0 3 10 E t y o CL 9 { a II g 1E i IMP z A� :1 App;:g�. I v �s L5 i I L n M M i n � ` / 1 N ,3 a ro v M 6. QUAIL C:R. 7. CUAIL I j --- Wo DSINE I I I IUD wE --- _ _ sri `� -.'� A8OLA. - , +'COB;VE v. — •..._ !�..,. ���_. _ I •' ---���' W' 72?l�jj _ r� _i`�•—.0 W;1�=_TtaD V 'T� q;T T"- 3. ;•_'. �.,,�`'•:'!-1yi-� �/,, � z AVE. U.I+ : 7; AVE. 7 Is c.�. Q( A 4. AVE. N. `, .I Sam 92001:y, 92002, 92.1 GG—i _. _ ! ! 7-0TH AVE N R5 , ; w _r----f--c--�4=• I >` 70TH1 :VE. N. jr L__ 691st. AVE. V. >: S. POST ��., � I I/ j i _8TH. AVE. N. - _ 68TH- E. N. GRil IWE - • may .. I._. i , :. `I j w i AVE. -� +'; --'• `k>: Y 1 I I I HDWE to L 'I 1 165Tk A--:.N• .1,. _ - '/�•f r h I I \ ,�- 60�i H AVE: 14 WINGIESTER LA. o � {'.�• .� . <: WINOIE ff LA. - � • �i' ( . r7i ,[ r - I 65TH.'AVE. N. X s _ - - •�- _ 65TH AVE' - N I{ L yl;-J_.°..Ir, 4 64TH AJE. w; Uu�IN PAP �r � z CI , -- !L x ELEAHOAi_ L --- %k lY V_ L'A- - - •sue Z, ' _�;- - -�1 ; _ �I =_ -- --- - _; , �:-- � I� ply - 1u �A r-ILEMY M N. r , - - - lA L— r r Yl , yee r�E I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001, AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILIPS 66 COMPANY WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002, and 92003 were submitted by Phillips 66 Company seeking site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat, and variance approval for a gas station/ convenience store/ car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. ; and WHEREAS, Section 35-240, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the four standards for a Variance listed in said section of the Ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Commission at its January 16, 1992 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the site and building plans cannot be approved without a concurrent approval of a setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd. ; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated no willingness to alter its plans to meet setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the proposal in light of the staff report, testimony received, and the standards for a variance contained in Section 35-240. 2 of the City ' s Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend that Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35-240. 2 have been met. Specifically, the Commission finds that the standards are not met on the basis of the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet required setbacks. A gas station/convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Ave. N. and Highway 252 . RESOLUTION NO. 92-1 3 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Blvd. is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Blvd. are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to the limitations of the site or to acquire more land to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Blvd. 3 . The hardship experienced by the applicant is self- imposed by the applicant ' s requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4 . Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Blvd. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Blvd. is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variances. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission that based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a variance contained in section 35-240. 2 of / the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Without approval of a variance, f` the development plans and special use permit also cannot be approved. January 30, 1992 Date Chairperson Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Ella Sander, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 41D 4 IN(ORPORAIH CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612.339.3300 MEMORANDUM DATE: 2 July 1992 TO: Ron Warren, City of Brooklyn Center FROM: Timothy J. Griffin, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. RE: Proposed Phillips 66 Gas Station/Convenience Store/Car Wash The purpose of this memorandum is to present our analysis, findings and recommendations regarding the impact of the subject project on Brooklyn Boulevard in light of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, which DSU has been commissioned to prepare for the City of Brooklyn Center. This memorandum is organized in the following manner. a)The study background including its purpose, the development proposal and the preliminary Boulevard study goals and principles that will be used as evaluation criteria; b) a comparative analysis of the subject project with other similar developments which addresses land use, circulation, site considerations, zoning and design and appearance issues; and c) our recommendations regarding the application. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is to prepare a plan for the economic preservation and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. To that end DSU has been commissioned to prepare a plan which integrates economic development requirements and regional and local transportation needs with urban design principles that will create a sense of place that is Brooklyn Boulevard. If the study is to be successful, it will have to do away with rubber stamp development prototypes and relentless traffic regulations, while retaining their economic and planning integrity. Then, through the creative application of urban design principles and civic priorities, a distinctive environment for Brooklyn Boulevard will be created that meets the respective and not necessarily incompatible objectives of an aesthetic landscape, successful commerce and the efficient movement of multi-modal traffic. "The car and commerce are both vital to the well being of the economy, but it is the junk they trail with them that we have to tackle." H.R.H The Prince of Wales "A Vision of Britain" Into this scenario a dose of reality has immediately been inserted. Phillips 66 has requested a zoning ordinance variance to be allowed to construct and operate a gas station, convenience store and car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The location is a 29,000 square foot site on the triangular northwest comer of Brooklyn Boulevard at the intersection of 69th Avenue. The proposed i 70th Avenue --- -""" 5 r_, �• _'� 6� � , #ter I °e h 69th Avenue Proposed Phillips 66 Gas Station/Convenience Store/Car Wash THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY CONSULTING RLANNIRS„e LANDSCARI ARCHITECTS N FIRST AVENUE NORTH SIIITE LIo Ron Warren 2 July 1992 2 development represents Phillips 66's standard development prototype although it has been modified to deal with the parcel's difficult triangular geometry. With the mutual consent of all parties, this variance request(#'s 92001, 92002 and 92003) has been tabled pending the initiation of this planning and urban design study at which time additional evaluation criteria could be established and applied. While still somewhat premature in the planning process, it is not unreasonable to assume that the guiding goals and principles will speak to the following: 1) appropriate land use and zoning; 2) safe and efficient movement and accommodation of automobile, truck, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic; 3) building and site design and appearance; and 4) the necessary zoning regulations, appearance codes and incentive programs to implement the Brooklyn Boulevard Plan. The Brooklyn Center Planning Department's evaluation of the proposal to date has relied on the first two criteria categories, the City's land use and zoning regulations and the City, County and State transportation planning criteria. We suggest that the following design and appearance related concerns be factored into the evaluation. 1. Does the proposed Phillips 66 facility contribute to the "place" that is or will be Brooklyn Boulevard? Is the proposed design obtrusive or does it fit in with its surroundings? 2. Does the proposed Phillips 66 appear rational from the street? Does its form tell you where to go and what to expect? 3. Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to a human scale and the scale of the surrounding buildings? 4. Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to its neighbors in terms of its form and appearance? Is it jarring or complimentary? 5. Does the proposed Phillips 66 enclose and define its site as being separate from surrounding spaces? Is there a transition from Boulevard to place? 6. Does the proposed Phillips 66 utilize "local" building materials, ones that would be associated with.Brooklyn Center? 7. Does the proposed Phillips 66 exhibit appropriate architectural detail and decoration? 8. Does the proposed Phillips 66 integrate environmental art into its proposed design? 9. Does the proposed Phillips 66 use appropriate signage to convey its presence on the Boulevard? 10. Is the lighting of the proposed Phillips 66 consistent with the Boulevard theme and does it intrude on neighboring residential areas? Ron Warren 2 July 1992 3?44�� 11. Does the surrounding community feel that the proposed Phillips 66 contributes to the role, function and theme of the 69th Avenue portion of Brooklyn Boulevard? ANALYSIS The proposed Phillips 66 gas station/convenience store/car wash was evaluated in light of the criteria above. It was also compared to several similar projects throughout the area. Table 1, Gas/Convenience Store/Car Wash Comparison summarizes these findings which are as follows: 1. A gas station, convenience store is an appropriate land use along the automobile oriented Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. 2. It appears that the car wash element is common to the 90's version of a gas station. 3. The Phillips 66 proposal is the smallest site. Further investigation reveals that the industry standard site ranges between one acre and an acre and a half of land. 4. Brooklyn Center's minimum lot size for a gas station in the C-2 zoning district is 20,000 s.f. This'is too small and should be increased in light of current gas station, convenience center configurations. 5. Setbacks are more a relationship of a structure to the surrounding land uses and roadways than they are of a structure to the internal site organization. The type of visual continuity and desired public facade for Brooklyn Boulevard should be established before granting a setback variance. 6. In general, recent developments including the Phillips 66 proposal include more site landscaping than in the past. However, in most cases the plant material has not been supplemented with sufficient hardscape; walls, fences, railings, paving materials, sculpture, etc. to adequately enclose or define the development in an urban sense. 7. These developments and the proposed Phillips 66 initially try to maximize their signage resulting in a disproportionate visual cluttering of the environment. 8. Architecturally, the SuperAmerica developments, specifically in St. Paul and to lesser degree Brooklyn Park, go the farthest in attempting to integrate their buildings into the surrounding public facade through the use of similar materials and the incorporation of building forms and details found throughout their respective districts. Apparently by design, the Phillips and Amoco sites are not interested in achieving such a relationship, but rather only stating their corporate identity and presence. I' iTABLE 1 GAS/CONVENIENCE STORE/CAR WASH COMPARISON Name Phillips 66 Bettger SuperAmerica Amoco SuperAmerica Status Proposed Under Const. Operating Denied operating Location Brooklyn Blvd. Plymouth Brooklyn Park Roseville St.Paul Brooklyn Center Program Gas/Convenience( Gas/Convenience/ Gas/Convemence/ Gas/Convenience/ Car Wash Car Wash Car Wash Car Wash Bldg.Area 1,831 s.f. 3,520 s.f. 1,248 s.f. 792 s.f.cw Site Area 29,000 s.f. 49,280 s.f. 65,776 s.f. 39,000 s.f. Zoning Class. C-2 Planned Community Development Min.Lot Size 20,000 s.f. go NO'Setbacks F S R Parking 13 spaces 18 spaces 9 spaces Site Plan& 4.3% Landscaping Signage Public Facade r S> I Ron Warren 2 July 199 2 4 RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation to deny Phillips 66 zoning variance request. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 1. The site is too small for the proposed program. 2. The geometry of the site in conjunction with the proposed development creates a confusing and unsafe automobile circulation pattern especially the relationship of the car wash exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Furthermore, the proposed layout does little to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle or public transit patrons of the convenience store. 3. The building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Little has been done architecturally to say that this is Brooklyn Center's Phillips 66 neighborhood convenience center. It is our further recommendation that the City of Brooklyn Center invite the applicant to enter into a planned development process to explore whether a mutually acceptable proposal can be prepared. The planned development regulations could focus on, but not be limited to the following: 1. Enlarging the site to accommodate the proposed program. 2. Reducing the program on the existing site. 3. Integrating the proposed development as part of a redevelopment of the block bordered by Lee Avenue on the west, 70th Avenue North on the north, June Avenue North on the east, and 69th Avenue on the south 4. Designing the development to be consistent with the Urban Design Principles & Guidelines of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. sMlnW Iuctiiv 8 post-It'btdttd Frwp CO.TO d IV CCL Photfe9 /3. Dep �y�vttvl� �j✓3� �(odt Flix 15 WV h�tG� L oRV, , N avv 40PA�h XVVNLll5:a 0 5v 15v F:..o�lWca«Y1 -13` � THE BROOKEYN*BOULEVARD"REDEVELOPMENT'STUDY - . LANOSWL NOIffKT xe xr Avcwm P"" ImO.[re MN YN01 4:.11Plm a PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance Background The applicant requests a variance from section 35-700 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a lesser greenstrip than the 15 ' required by ordinance at the site of the proposed Phillips 66 service station at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. In some places on the site, there would essentially be no greenstrip at all, but a 3 ' high keystone wall. This application is a companion to application 92001 for site and building plan and special use permit approval. On January 30th of this year, the Commission adopted resolution 92-1 (attached) which recommended denial of both the site plan and variance applications, citing reasons why the standards for a variance contained in section 35-240 were not met in this case. The variance sought earlier this year was from the building setback requirement. The City Council tabled the matter with the consent of the applicants on February 10th and called for a study of Brooklyn Blvd. , including the question of ordinance setback requirements. The consultant selected to conduct the study has recommended that the current major thoroughfare setback of 50 ' be retained at least for the time being. The applicant has, accordingly, submitted a plan in which building setbacks comply, but greenstrips are deficient. Thus, the nature of the variance application has changed, but many of the arguments on both sides of the issue remain the same. The applicant has submitted a lengthy written response to planning consultant Timothy Griffin' s draft memo on the Phillips 66 proposal and addressing the standards for a variance. A summary of those arguments and staff response follows. Variance Standards (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. Phillips: Phillips argument relative to this standard is quite lengthy and will not be quoted verbatim here (see letter attached) . Mr. Baccus argues, as before, that the variance results directly from the requirement for an 18 ' dedication off 69th which forces the building northward and causes the infringement on the parking setback. Mr. Baccus notes that staff argued previously that the cause of the previous variance request resulted from the need to provide stacking for the car wash. He does not comprehend this argument, but points out that stacking is acceptable in the current. October 291 1992 1 a plan. The remainder of Mr. Baccus' argument on this standard relates to the issue of whether a car wash is a necessary component of the proposed service station. This is in response to a staff was not a necessary component. Our argument that a car wash y P argument cited the Superamerica station which was developed recently and which does not include a car wash. Mr. Baccus states that Phillips is in a different line of business than Superamerica. While Superamerica is primarily a convenience store which sells gas, Phillips is an oil company selling gas and offering a car wash as an optional purchase. (We would note that Superamerica is a subsidiary of Ashland Oil Company. ) Mr. Baccus states that they have done extensive market studies which indicate that offering a car wash increases gasoline sales by 30% to 40% and, therefore, are a significant contributor to whether a service station is economically viable or not. Mr. Baccus concludes his argument by pointing out that the Superamerica station exists on a larger site and could not fit on the Phillips site with or without the 18 ' dedication. Staff: We are not sure whether Mr. Baccus has identified what the hardship is in this case. He seems to anticipate that staff will argue that Phillips requirement for a car wash is the cause of the hardship and sets about proving that a car wash is a necessary element of the proposal and that the variance is caused by the requirement for the 18 ' right-of-way dedication along 69th. Our reading of this situation is that the applicant perceives a hardship because it insists on a prototype service station on an irregularly shaped parcel which may simply be too small for the applicant's entire program. We would begin with the premise that there is no guarantee that a given parcel will and ought to accommodate all uses comprehended by the existing zoning. There are frequently instances in which a development proposal simply may not fit on the site in question. In this case, Tim Griffin of DSU has developed a plan (attached) showing that a similarly sized gas station/convenience store/car wash can indeed fit on the site in question, with the 18 ' dedication accounted for, and meet all ordinance requirements. However, Mr. Griffin' s drawing, which Phillips has and alludes to in their submittal, involves a nonprototype building. The convenience store would be shaped to fit the site rather than the rectangular dictates of Phillips' prototype. It seems to us that the variance is really based on Phillips ' insistence on its prototype and not on ordinance defined criteria nor even the required 18 ' dedication. We do not believe this is a hardship in the sense comprehended by the Zoning Ordinance and should not be a basis for approving this variance application. (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. October 29, 1992 2 Phillips: Phillips' argument relative to this standard is that the i cause of the variance is the requirement to dedicate 18 ' from the southerly, most developable portion of the site which forces the station north to the area of the site with shallower depth off Brooklyn Blvd. , thus necessitating a variance. Mr. Baccus states that such a circumstance is unique and that similar variance requests would be justified. He concludes by stating that requiring Phillips to move its development north (where there is a lack of depth) "leaves no reasonable alternative but to seek a variance, just compensation, or some other relief or remedy. " Staff: Apparently, Phillips does not believe that designing its development to fit the site, as Mr. Griffin has, is "reasonable" . We do, however. While we would acknowledge that the parcel is an uncommon shape and that the required 18 ' dedication imposes some challenges in designing a suitable development, we believe that the applicant should be prepared to depart from its prototype building in addressing the unique circumstances of this site. We believe that that is reasonable and that the City should not compromise its landscape standards unnecessarily at a time when it is striving to improve the image of Brooklyn Blvd. Redevelopment almost always is more challenging than development of an area where property lines are not fixed and variances will need to be granted in some cases. However, in this case, we believe that the variance sought is unnecessary and that the City would be giving up its own objectives for the Boulevard unnecessarily to accommodate a corporate prototype. (c) The 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. Phillips: "Phillips current inability to develop its property is related to the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along Brooklyn Boulevard [69th Ave. N] . If not for that requirement Phillips could develop its property and meet parking setback and building setback requirements. Phillips did not create the hardship. "In its previous report staff stated that the hardship was created from insufficient lot depth, the need for car wash stacking, and Phillips' business plans. It is not Phillips ' desire for a car wash that creates the hardship, it is the City' s desire for a dedicated 18 foot strip. The hardship is not self-imposed, it is City-imposed. " Staff: We simply disagree. The 18 ' dedication presents challenges in designing the site and building. The applicant has been unable to address the challenges within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and has rejected a suggested plan that does meet the requirements while insisting the City must compromise its standards since it is the one requiring the dedication. It should be noted October 29, 1992 3 f I that, it is Hennepin County, through the platting process, which is requiring the 18 ' dedication, not the City. And, the platting process is required because the applicant would not even be able to locate its facility on the site if it did not transfer a portion of its land abutting the R1 zone to another property. The 18 ' dedication is necessary for doing business at this site. It should also be noted that, when the Holiday station across the street was developed in 1984, it was also required to dedicate land for the eventual widening of 69th. It did so and even though that site is shallower than this site, it did not seek a variance from the greenstrip requirement, but designed its facility to fit the site. The hardship in this case, we believe, is that Phillips cannot build a prototype building while meeting City requirements. We will leave it to the Commission to judge whether or not this is a self-imposed hardship. (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. Phillips: "The Planning Commission found that the standard had not been met because 'granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard. ' As previously addressed, the only precedent which would be set by granting Phillips its • requested variance would be that a future applicant who proposed a development plan and was then advised that it would have to dedicate an amount of land which would render its proposed development unworkable within City setback requirements, might be entitled to a variance not only on the merits of its case but on the fact one had been granted to Phillips. Again, this is an unlikely scenario. "In its report planning staff addressed the detrimental/injurious standard by noting that it is less than desirable to have cars exit the car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. The layout which is the subject of this request does not have cars exiting "almost immediately" onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and in recent meetings with City Staff, it has indicated that it feels this concern is addressed with this layout. "The only question which might arise on this issue would concern the width of the green strip. As previously discussed, Phillips has incorporated enhancements suggested by City Staff and enhancements developed by Phillips' architects (berming and a keystone wall) which will make the landscape view from the street more aesthetically pleasing than a. landscape meeting minimum code requirements. " Staff: On the issue of cars exiting the car wash and entering onto Brooklyn Blvd. , we agree that that concern has largely been met by October 29, 1992 4 o i the proposed plan. On the issue of precedent, we strongly disagree with the applicant's comments. It is not at all unlikely that the City will be faced in the relatively near future with a similar request which may involve a request for a variance. In such a case, what the City does in this case will definitely set a precedent and a tone for how such compromises of City standards are to be handled. We do not rule out the possibility of compromise, but, in this case, we believe that the compromise being sought by the applicant is unnecessary and detrimental to the city's best interests. This site is to be cleared and the redevelopment of the site should meet the constraints of the site. To grant greenstrip variances, setback variances or other such variances because of expanded right-of-way can lead to problems such as those experienced on the other side of Brooklyn Blvd. involving over utilization of the land. It is not additional land for right-of-way that will be the common thread of the requested variance, but the ability to put more on to a site at the expense of required setbacks and greenstrips and the benefits derived from them. On the question of tradeoffs to allow a masonry wall in lieu of a reduced green strip, we would note first of all that no masonry wall is proposed along 69th where the greenstrip is to be only 5 ' in width. For an example of masonry screening devices in front greenstrips, we would refer the Commission to an office building in • New Hope on the east side of Winnetka Avenue, about a block north of Medicine Lake Road. We do not find this wall particularly attractive. Though the proposed wall could certainly be made more attractive than the example cited, there is no guarantee that it will remain so or that other such walls may not turn out to be eyesores. If the Commission is open to considering such an allowance, we would recommend that it consider it in terms of an ordinance amendment so that the option would be available to other sites. We do not believe such an ordinance would improve the aesthetics of parking lots. Rather, it may detract from them. Other Considerations We have reviewed the applicant's arguments relating to the variance standards first. However, the first half of the applicant's submittal reviews the history of the application and comments on criticisms of the original plan by the City's planning consultant, Tim Griffin of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Griffin submitted a memorandum on July 2 , 1992 providing an analysis of the previous Phillips 66 proposal. While the present plan has changed somewhat from that plan, we believe that many of the conclusions of Mr. Griffin's analysis are still relevant. Those conclusions include: 111. A gas station, convenience store is an appropriate land use along the automobile oriented Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. October 29, 1992 5 2 . It appears that the car wash element is common to the 90 's version of a gas station. 3 . The Phillips 66 proposal is the smallest site. [in comparison to others reviewed in the memo] Further investigation reveals that the industry standard site ranges between one acre and an acre and a half of land. 4 . Brooklyn Center's minimum lot size for a gas station in the C-2 zoning district is 20, 000 s. f. This is too small and should be increased in light of current gas station, convenience center configurations. 6. In general, recent developments including the Phillips 66 proposal include more site landscaping than in the past. However, inmost cases the plant material has not been supplemented with sufficient hardscape; walls, fences, railings, paving materials, sculpture, etc. to adequately enclose or define the development in an urban sense. 7. These developments and the proposed Phillips 66 initially try to maximize their signage resulting in a disproportionate visual cluttering of the environment. 8. Architecturally, the Superamerica developments, specifically in St. Paul and to a lesser degree Brooklyn Park, go the farthest in attempting to integrate their buildings into the surrounding public facade through the use of similar materials and the incorporation of building forms and details found throughout their respective districts. Apparently by design,the Phillips and Amoco sites are not interested in achieving such a relationship, but rather only stating their corporate identity and presence. " Mr. Griffin recommended denial of the proposed variance because the site is too small for the proposed program, because the site design was confusing and did not take pedestrians into account, and because the building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Mr. Griffin went on to recommend the following relative to the Phillips 66 proposal: 111. Enlarging the site to accommodate the proposed program. 2 . Reducing the program on the existing site. 3 . Integrating the proposed development as part of a redevelopment of the block bordered by Lee Avenue on the west, 70th Avenue North on the north, June Avenue North on the east, and 69th Avenue on the south. 4 . Designing the development to be consistent with the Urban October 29, 1992 6 4 Design Principles & Guidelines of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. " Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the proposed variance does not meet the standards for a variance and that the granting of such a variance would do damage to the prospect of improving the aesthetic standards for Brooklyn Blvd. We believe that a better plan such as Mr. Griffin's is possible and should be pursued by Phillips 66. We do not believe that the variance as proposed is in the City's best interests, but that a proposal that was more sensitive to the City's concerns and required a variance should not be ruled out. Relative to the variance standards, we would recommend the following findings: 1. The hardship experienced by the applicant results from its insistence on building a prototype building on a limited and irregularly shaped lot. The Zoning Ordinance does not recognize a right to a prototype design as grounds for granting a variance from any provision of the code. 2 . The circumstances surrounding this variance application are not unique, but are likely to be repeated in other instances along Brooklyn Blvd. 3 . The hardship of not being able to build a prototype building on this site is a self-imposed hardship. The requirement to dedicate 18 ' of right-of-way results partly from the applicant' s need to eliminate R1 abutment in order to operate on this site. While the 18 ' dedication is a challenge to developing a proper site layout, it is not a prohibitive challenge. Design solutions exist which the applicant simply refuses to consider. 4 . Approval of the variance in question would not be in the city's best interests inasmuch as it would set a poor precedent for future development and redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard by placing corporate image above local aesthetic standards. Submitted by, C*`,�] Gary Shallcross Planner October 29, 1992 7 a 7 Approved by, Ronald A.Warren Director of Planning and Inspections October 29, 1992 8 PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY HOUSTON, TEXAS 77251-1967 BOX 1967 PROPERTY TAXES, REAL ESTATE AND CLAIMS A" 19: 2 October 21, 1992 C ,v r_W `. SS 27831 Brooklyn Center, MN MN/Hennepin R001 Chairman Wallace Bernards and Members of the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Chairman Bernards and Members of the Planning Commission: Phillips Petroleum Company proposes a redevelopment project on its property at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The proposed redevelopment is a state-of-the-art gasoline station which would consist of a sales building, canopy and car wash building. Approximately two years ago Phillips developed a design plan which would function well from customer and operational standpoints, and would meet all city code requirements. Thereafter, Phillips was advised by city staff that 18 feet along 69th Avenue was needed for possible future widening of 69th Avenue. As you can see from the attached drawing, the tract is widest and the most developable at the southern portion--the portion along 69th Avenue. The taking of 18 feet along 69th Avenue obviously necessitates shifting the development north to the more narrow portion of the property. As a result, neither the originally proposed design, or any other of the numerous design plans Phillips' architects have since developed can meet the burdensome building setback requirements and parking setback requirements. Based on discussions with the City, Phillips developed a plan with the building backing up to the north property line; the plan prior to the taking of the 18 feet depicted the building backing up to the west property line. This plan met all of the parking setback/greenbelt requirements, but required a variance from the 50 foot building setback along Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Two The redevelopment request, including the variance request, was heard by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 and January 30, 1992 meetings, and it recommended denial of the variance request based upon the following grounds: "1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet the required setbacks. A gas station/convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Avenue and Highway 252. 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Boulevard are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Boulevard. 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self-imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Boulevard is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variance." The applications proceeded to the City Council on February 10, 1992, and were tabled so that "the Planning Commission (could) work on possible ordinance amendments. . . and explore the concept and legality of offering setback credits (for the taking of right of way) . . ." Thereafter, the City retained a consultant to study Brooklyn Boulevard. Apparently in response to the City Council's directive, on July 2, 1992 the consultant issued a Memorandum, a copy of which is attached, in which he recommended denial of Phillips' variance request based upon the following reasons: "l. The site is too small for the proposed program. 2. The geometry of the site in conjunction with the proposed development creates a confusing and unsafe automobile circulation pattern especially the relationship of the car wash exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Furthermore, the proposed layout does little to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle or public transit patrons of the convenience store. Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Three 3. The building architecture is 100 percent corporate Phillips 66 image and 0 percent Brooklyn Center. Little has been done architecturally to say that this is Brooklyn Center's Phillips 66 neighborhood convenience store." Also, in his Memorandum, the consultant suggested certain concerns be considered, some of which are as follows: - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 facility contribute to the 'place' that is or will be Brooklyn Boulevard? Is the proposed design obtrusive or does it fit in with its surroundings?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 appear to be rational from the street? Does its form tell you where to go and what to expect?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to a human scale and the scale of the surrounding buildings?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 relate to its neighbors in terms of its form and appearance? Is it jarring or complimentary?" - "Does the proposed Phillips 66 enclose and define its site as being separate from surrounding spaces? Is there a transition from Boulevard to place?" In meetings subsequent to the consultant's Memorandum, the consultant indicated that he does not recommend reducing the building setback along Brooklyn Boulevard, apparently because he and the planning staff envision a service road along Brooklyn Boulevard through Phillips' property. It does not appear that the suggestion of setback credits for right of way dedication was explored. That being the recommendation, it was suggested that Phillips prepare a plan which meets the building setback requirements and still contemplates the 18 foot dedication along 69th Avenue. Recognizing that this would necessitate utilization of portions of the parking setback area, it was further suggested that Phillips' landscape architect incorporate designs to "enhance" the landscaped area. Thus we have come virtually full circle and will present to you at the October 29, 1992 hearing a plan substantially similar to the original plan, but which shifts the building north to accommodate the proposed 18 foot taking. The plan meets the building setback requirements and all other code requirements except that shifting the building to the north (which as previously mentioned becomes more narrow) to accommodate the Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Four proposed taking necessitates infringing upon the parking setback area. Furthermore, the plan incorporates a landscape berm from the street up to an interior keystone wall. In the narrower area along Brooklyn Boulevard, the berm will taper down from the north and south and the keystone wall will be exposed to the street. The keystone will be at least substantially similar to what has been utilized along the 69th Avenue improvement project and we believe the overall plan will be much more appealing from the street than would a landscape merely meeting minimum Code requirements. From the standpoint of fairness, common sense, and what is in the best interest of the City and Phillips, Phillips submits that the requested variance should be granted based upon the above. In addition, Ron Warren requires that prior to the hearing we furnish him with a written statement of our arguments concerning the standards set forth in Code Section 35-240(2) , and the remainder of this letter will be devoted to satisfying his requirement. As a general statement, the standards set forth in the Code can be viewed in as broad or restricted a fashion as a city governing body may choose. Different cities apply these same standards in very different ways. Case law interpreting these standards, however, indicates that a city cannot apply these standards so narrowly that no case could qualify for a variance. Regardless of how the standards are applied, unless a variance would never be granted, the circumstances which give rise to Phillips' request meet the standards from both a practical standpoint and a legal standpoint. Each.standard will be addressed separately below. 1. 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. The need for a variance results directly from the requirement that Phillips dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. Any contention that the need for a variance results from something else only begs the question. If not for the 18 foot dedication, Phillips' plan would meet all Code requirements. With the dedication Phillips must either shift the layout north and infringe upon the parking setback or relocate the building to the north property line and infringe upon the building setback. • s Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Five As was previously discussed, the subject property has the most depth from Brooklyn Boulevard at the southern portion (i.e. along 69th Avenue) . As you proceed north on the property the depth from Brooklyn Boulevard decreases significantly. The 18 feet is being taken from the most developable portion and forcing Phillips to relocate the development more to the less developable portion. In its report concerning Phillips' previous variance request, planning staff concluded that the need for a variance did not result from the required dedication, instead concluding it resulted from the need to provide proper stacking for the car wash facility. We do not understand what staff meant by this but it should be noted that regardless of where the layout is shifted in order to accommodate the 18 foot dedication, any location necessitates a variance whether or not that location provides proper stacking. It should also be noted that the proposed plan provides proper stacking and in recent meetings City Staff has indicated it is acceptable. . In its report, planning staff also suggested that eliminating the car wash would eliminate the need for a variance and one of the Planning Commission grounds for recommending denial was that Phillips had "not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash". It went on to state that "a gas station/convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Avenue and Highway 252". Phillips' economic feasibility study contemplated the installation of a car wash and the projected return on investment fell barely within the range of acceptability; therefore, to develop this service station without a car wash is not economically feasible. First it should be noted that Phillips utilizes the most state-of-the-art equipment (environmental and otherwise) which technology has to offer. Since the building and equipment costs are relatively fixed, the two variables which determine whether it would be economically feasible to develop a particular site are projected sales and land cost. The projected sales for this location are good. However, the land cost of $480,000 (approxi- mately $16.50 per sq. ft. ) is slightly above normal. Without a car wash, land, building, and equipment costs, when compared to projected sales, would result in an unacceptable return on investment by any standard. Phillips has conducted extensive studies on the impact a car wash has on gasoline sales. Its studies have concluded that a car wash increases gasolines sales by 30%-40%, and the percentage of gasoline buyers who use the car wash is 40%-60X. t Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Six The final point which was raised regarding this standard concerned the statement that the Super America had been constructed without a car wash at 252 and 66th. Using Super America is comparing apples to oranges. Super America in in the convenience store business and includes gas sales as part of its business; Phillips is in the gasoline sales business and includes a small convenience store as part of its business. Another important point in addressing this statement is that the Super America at 252 and 66th has a total building area of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 sq. ft. , and that building would not fit on Phillips' site with or without the required 18 foot dedication. Phillips' total building area with the car wash is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. Finally, it should be noted that Super America is now installing car washes in its new developments along with its large convenience store. 2. 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. Phillips' application for a variance request is based on the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. That condition, coupled with the fact that the lot's shape is such that the land is being taken from the most developable portion, are unique to this parcel of land. The only precedent which would be set in granting the variance would be that a future variance might be warranted where an applicant proposed a plan and was then advised it had to dedicate an amount of land which rendered its originally proposed development not possible under the then existing setback requirements. That scenario is not very likely to occur. In its previous report addressing this standard, planning staff stated that "the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard" (recall that earlier in the report staff had attributed the need for a variance to proper car wash stacking) . The Planning Commission, in its finding that the standards had not been met, stated that "the circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. " Both of these observations skirt the issue. True, shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Boulevard is not unique. However, lot depth off Brooklyn �. J 3 i i Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Seven Boulevard does not become a problem or become relevant until you impose the requirement that Phillips dedicate 18 feet along 69th Avenue. Again, the uniqueness lies in the combined effect of the requirement of an 18 foot dedication from the southern, more developable portion of the property and the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard at the northern portion of the property. Requiring Phillips to move its development north (where there is the lack of depth) leaves no reasonable alternative but to seek a variance, just compensation, or some other relief or remedy. 3. The 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. Phillips' current inability to develop its property is related to the requirement that it dedicate 18 feet along Brooklyn Boulevard. If not for that requirement Phillips could develop its property and meet the parking setback and building setback requirements. Phillips did not create the hardship. In its previous report staff stated that the hardship was created from insufficient lot depth, the need for car wash stacking, and Phillips' business plans. It is not Phillips' desire for a car wash that creates the hardship, it is the City's desire for a dedicated 18 foot strip. The hardship is not self-imposed, it is City-imposed. 4. 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. The Planning Commission found that the standard had not been met because "granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Boulevard. " As previously addressed, the only precedent which would be set by granting Phillips its requested variance would be that a future applicant who proposed a development plan and was then advised that it would have to dedicate an amount of land which would render its proposed development unworkable within City setback requirements, might be entitled to a variance not only on the merits of its case but on the fact one had been granted to Phillips. Again, this is an unlikely scenario. t Chairman Wallace Bernards October 21, 1992 Page Eight In its report planning staff addressed the detrimental/injurious standard by noting that it is less than desirable to have cars exit the car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. The layout which is the subject of this request does not have cars exiting "almost immediately" onto Brooklyn Boulevard, and in recent meetings with City Staff, it has indicated that it feels this concern is addressed with this layout. The only question which might arise on this issue would concern the width of the green strip. As previously discussed, Phillips has incorporated enhancements suggested by City Staff and enhancements developed by Phillips' architects (berming and a keystone wall) which will make the landscape view from the street more aestheti- cally pleasing than a landscape meeting minimum code requirements. Phillips respectfully requests that it be granted the requested variance. Very truly yours, Jon D. Baccus JDB:gp JDBGP141/PPCO- Attachment cc: Gerald Splinter Ronald Warrenl� ti �..