Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 09-12 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - August 15, 1991 4. Chairperson' s Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Darrell Lynch 91015 Request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16 ' front yard setback rather than the required 35 ' at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. 6. Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. 91016 Request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. 7. Dennis and Gloria Cardinal 91017 Request for an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone (6544 France Avenue North) is a nuisance as defined by Section 19-103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. 8. PDQ Food Stores, Inc. 91018 Request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station/con- venience store/car wash at the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. 7. Other Business 8. Discussion Items 9. Adjournment 41• • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91015 Applicant: Darrell Lynch Location: 7042 Halifax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 351 . The purpose of the variance is to allow a two car attached garage to be added in front of the existing attached garage and for the existing garage to become a workshop. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 71st Avenue North on the north, by single-family homes on the east and south and by Halifax Avenue North on the west. Across Halifax Avenue is St. Alphonsus Church. Applicant's Submittal The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey of the property as-built and a brief letter (both attached) describing the request with a drawing to illustrate what is proposed. The letter explains that they cannot go to the rear with the workshop addition (the net effect is the addition of a workshop) because there is an attached three season porch behind the garage with a basement below. Also, the floor of the porch is 2 ' 3" higher than the garage floor. The letter goes on to explain that about four years ago, the City installed a traffic circle at the intersection of 71st and Halifax. As a result of this improvement, the Lynchs' gained 25 ' of front yard (boulevard) and driveway. Because of this, the letter states, they would have 47 ' from the new addition to the street. The letter concludes that the addition would blend in well with other houses on the street. The house two doors down, he states is 49 ' back from the street. Staff Response By way of explanation, the front property line of the lot in question is at an angle. Halifax jogs to the east at 71st Avenue North and the street south of 71st formerly was set at an angle, parallel to the lot line. This angled street extended at the same angle for the next lot to the south also. When the modification was made to the intersection some years ago, Halifax became a true north-south street in this area, intersecting with a traffic circle at 90 rather than angling toward the other leg of Halifax, north of 71st Avenue North. As a result of this modification, the street is now located further from the front of the house than normal on a residential street. The as-built survey indicates the house is now 69 ' from the edge of the street. We have also measured the house two doors down and found it to be 50' 4" from the street. We have asked for the surveyor to give an accurate measurement and his measurement is 50.7 ' for that house. We have also asked for a 9-12-91 1 • Application No. 91015 continued reading on the side setback to verify that the garage addition can, in fact, be built along the same building line. The surveyor reports that the side setback is 2.1 feet which is just 70% of the minimum requirement. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the expansion can take place along the same building line since it is 70% of the required sideyard setback. variance applications are subject to four standards contained in Section 35-240 attached. We will review the variance request in light of these four 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. The shape of the lot in question is no longer a reflection of the pathway of the street, the public space from which dwellings and accessory structures are to be set back. The owner probably has other options for building a different garage, such as a detached garage behind the house. But, it may be asked if any public purpose is really served by continuing to enforce the setback based on a property line which no longer reflects the street location. The City does not wish to vacate the right-of-way in front of this property because the utilities still run under the old location of the street. However, it is not common to require an extra setback from a utility easement. The purpose of a setback is for light, air and ventilation which relate more to the location of the street. In terms of the street location, there is clearly excess right-of-way in- this case. (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. The excess right-of-way in this case is fairly unique. Certainly, there are few instances where streets have been relocated away from their old alignment. In other cases of excess right-of-way adjacent to a major thoroughfare, some mitigation from the normally required setback is allowed. (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. 9-12-91 2 Application No. 91015 continued If the hardship is an extraordinary setback from the public street, it has been created by an action of the City, not the applicant. (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. Since other houses along Halifax Avenue North are set back approximately 50' from the street, it does not appear that allowing a 50' setback from the street in this case will be detrimental. We do recommend, however, that the addition not extend closer than 50' from the street since that reflects the standard 35' setback plus 15' of boulevard. In this case, there will be more boulevard than front yard. This will allow for a 19 ' addition rather than 22 ' as requested. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the standards for a variance are met in this case. Variance approval is recommended in light of the following findings: 1) Imposing a 35 ' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2) The condition of excess right-of-way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50 ' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Submitted by, C-7 CI.L-I Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9-12-91 3 s • Description - of Request We are requesting a variance so we may d 22 ' to tbecfront of our existing garage. The existing garage e. a workshop area . The addition would then be the garage. The reason we can' t go out the back for the addition is that there is a three-season porch attached behind the garage with a basement below. (See illust ration floor of the porch is 2131, higher then the g age About four years ago the city altered the street to put in a traffic circle. When this was done eew gained have' 47f front yard and driveway. Because of this, j� the new addition to the street . This addition would also blend in well with the houses on Halifax avenue. For instance the house two doors to the south is 49 ' from the street. 24. 1 EXISTING HOUSE I I I EXISTING PROPOSED EXIS'T'ING THREE- wl DRIVEWAY ADDITION GARAGE SEASON w PORCH x U)I 20 22 .0 .0 8. 3 I - - - - - 47 _0 _ - - - - � SCALE I i 35-240 d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the 10 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: - t 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. t •r 1111p 1111111 �,,, .,, ■ �r �� 1111► N�� � • � �� �� X11{I� . :. �1 1 � ■■ ■■ ��j�//j` 11111►A����,`� ■ _ ■� M IN ■ \ A 91,4015 ■ , Aar/ I:11� ■ ■■11 � - ■ ■ � . • . - .. ■■11 'C Y1�1 - �� �� M1C ■ ICS■��� ■■ ■■ ■ ,■ ■ � ; , �� �■ 111■ 1 ORRIN all IN sommosso son ■■■■ ■■■■�■� �►�, , 1111111! 1��1�1111� � ■■ ■_� MUUMUU ■_v■ n■ ■ ��_ S� ■■ ■■ ■■r �►� - = =© = =■ : ■ �I ■ - - ■tll� ■■ ■ ■ ■ PIP Wpm stings S ME mm M mm No I NIP, WESENUM mom logo Un pt 11 111 � ■ � ��r� - 1//I �I�fll ..� � milli CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DARREL LYNCH 71ST AVE . N o L o 1. N � u ji:2 6 z � � LOT h 1Z � o X Q ^ = rj o �! log 'k, 38' v c Q 4. 69' sr-i riN6 Q D w - o GARA&E 'N t N Ceor c.) $ 3. 97 5 IT°y6 '38^'E N 60 Scale 1" = 30' Bearings are based on assumed datum o Denotes 1/2" 0 Iron Pipe Set • Denotes iron monument found NOTE: The Dimension from the East edge of the street to the West Side of the house at 7030 Halifax ( 2 houses south of here) is 50 .7 feet. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 26, Block 1 BOBENDRIER'S 4TH ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota ALL-METRO I HERESY Cony THAT TIMS SMVEY wAS PREIMMIM BY M Oft DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, P.A. AND THAT 1NHAT I 1 A t � ' AM A DIAY REGIS'1E11FD LAND SURVEYOR LkND:AVEYING•ENGINEERING•CONSTRUCTION STAKING L"DEX THE l A AS OF THE STATE Of MMOESOM Thomas H. Veenker. President Registered Land Surveyor i- .2.�ArLIU�1/ 7441 J,3ily Lane Tele. (612) 425-6161 6 rq.i2zs4 DATE g^�-9/ No. 9/0 V G Brook;yn Park. MN 55428 FAX(612) 4252033 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91016 Applicant: Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. Location: 7000 block of Willow Lane Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by a single-family home, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by a single-family home, and on the west by Willow Lane. There is presently an access through the southerly lot to an island in the river that is actually in Brooklyn Park, though it is proximate to this land in Brooklyn Center. One of the purposes of the subdivision is to create a different access to this island and allow for two buildable lots. The proposed plat, which is called Larry Addition, provides for two buildable lots (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2) separated by an outlot. The following dimensions describe the lots: Lot Width Depth Area Buildability Lot 1, Block 1 80.52 ' 244.24 ' 19,466 s.f. Buildable Outlot A 45. 05 ' 239.99 ' 10,346 s.f. Unbuildable Lot 1, Block 2 78.43 ' 222.88 ' 16,866 s.f. Buildable Block 1 is on the north. Block 2 is on the south. The outlot is in the middle. The present access to the island which includes a gravel drive, wood steps to the water, and a wire cable over the water is located on Block 2. Mr. Lindquist intends to relocate the access to the outlot. No building can be built on the outlot unless it is attached to a buildable lot. There is a dwelling on the island, but it is our understanding that it is not occupied year round. It may be that the outlot could be combined with the island lot since both are located in Hennepin County. Given this kind of attachment, a garage could perhaps be built on the outlot. However, the outlot is not a buildable lot for a dwelling. It should also be noted that there is an approximate 3.3 ' encroachment on the northerly lot by a shed belonging to the neighboring lot to the north. Mr. Lindquist has apparently agreed to grant an easement to the. adjacent property owner. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions and considerations: 9-12-91 1 Application No. 91016 continued 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) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot. Submitted by,, f Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by,* Cke Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9-12-91 2 W < N > J K N t+ m 0 <O Z O C O 0 0 W O < ' S H _ O O tyN =0 pJ OO �y�-00 �O `Qj 00 2p0 = fL J8O _ In _ p_ U mOl <a� Ulm rA/G 1— 3 <C!7 ac CN �. -44 �W-, • I WOODBINE u ' � c• WOODBINE AVE. N. ' • w z C' T2ND A J 1 72ND AVE. N. s j AVE N. 72ND AVE. N Tta ' �i�C . r AMY LA. - > w X, �X> , 1 71ST AVE. N. 2N MAW7. N R4 j z Z < < .x x", x ; X < / Saw" lsa riX��<�X�c�y • o ' 70TH AV �,,�C `� c • � A AVE, NJ I IS-1 AVE ; • ,; •, VING RA LA.N. � ;i PLICATION EhERSON Nor 1 • I r.u_e_r Nil • 0 91016 _ I� TH. AVE. N • ;9TH. AVE. N. i ��±+iu�i I R5 i tffill w C2 Z 4 I tf�.,�`e1i cr U; 68TH. `AVE. N. 1 I ;.1 w NIllD.Gi 'Z' z i to ` rLAM o Z Z • >I ; V1 I < zw c ; r 1 �s o i AVE. N., R5 '� to 1 • 1 •' c, ' 66TH z T� YN e o 1 R !1791 SQStlgC W X < FDWJtXSE�, InI � PA9C ' �� _ • x v ' JFREEWAY ELVD. CZ Annv �.�`� �'� 65TH AVE. N. ` • 65TH AVE. z 02 • r C2 ' 7a x • .tA►ES CIF. N. z o W R5 7 - • • < 1'' 1 i J i i / I �� i 02 _ _ ; 1 � AeUTAX t yN. t. CfVJ&i �e 1 ,// / \G ��` 3g a W(•v°'/b .._.�_'..�„c'o ... ,y - ..':.'... •-_ .ti4 \�,!•,c34 ff,/ , A4. why �3.'+�T`:";� er C i d •i: G c er S$ IV Z.Ibm3 w /OF r Ni \ ` 2 4�Op`�� -/2.Gd0 Al umWic z EVD .+UT/A/M G 11 ���i B3AO, ”~m `4.50 q F• l/ � F� � mmcn FN 7. 1 �UnI 1Q sir 1 _ S �� �He A 0 ' D o t r 1 I "E/e c m t ; n n I SI 835.78 Q T w�~es a 11 F I`I 24"Aeh p , r \ nd v I m SI C X I I \ I � /ly4GE A/yO 417-/ 936 C \ 4/r F ` Imo 1 m i35a ;n ash 1D I r \MFNr n I 0 1TI Q1 •=.7 1 1 �rt , to p 1 S n m �( T ' 1 I H z2ril4a•Tw,'n Ash I, d ] •� QW l a 0 to r to D I 0% ' 1 24 Ash Qj -T A C7 m .I m p0''• Vl N o +� z � 41 _ l o m ~ C O N 833.89 O N� ,� W c N".I t4"Ash � (11 Z •i-Q I �;•, N m i m w w: iWU x w ° L� O t, ° ^ tj, ? I in 73 th M~ i• w. m Diu N � 2 W I'1' '� I pNi i11 •. ;i W 0 �p U+ Ash o j p� D A'IIInI m^� i JO W _ - W N? 1 I lul yh 2 \' ND I Im 1 —�—3 N 1p m n i O I N CW1n I W 1 lD W o Z �`A 6•3s k' C ��1` '6Ni j m � m 1 •833.79 -•.. � a a « oI 6 Q \ p°h o, y 1 I �m I It CL tnc� ft C. 4� ee W ` U m n ym 1 1 N m G'Q t.7. m to I ° o=\ °� n 1 I* a ' O s / cabP, �� N 0 I 1t � In a � \� m a D 9? r .. �. ' Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91017 Applicant: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal Location: 6544 France Avenue North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19-103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The applicant's live at 6544 France Avenue North which is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by France Avenue North. In 1989 Chapter 19 (Nuisances) of the City Ordinances was amended to declare the parking of most commercial vehicles in residential areas to be a public nuisance. (See Section 19-103.12 attached) . The ordinance specifically lists the parking of tow trucks in a residential zone as such a public nuisance. On May 23, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher informed Mr. Cardinal by letter that the tow truck parked on his property was in violation and gave him 30 days to remove it from the property. Mr. James J. Tuzinski, an attorney representing the Cardinals, in a letter dated June 3, 1991 questioned whether there was indeed a violation of the City Ordinances. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded to the attorney's letter pointing out the proper interpretation of the ordinance and suggested that he advise his clients comply with Mr. Fisher's original 30 day compliance deadline or run the risk of being cited for a misdemeanor violation of City Ordinances (see attached correspondence) . On June 24, 1991, Mr. Fisher requested that a tag be issued. On June 26, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection transmitted a request for a tag to the Chief of Police if the violation continued. A citation was issued soon thereafter. On August 6, 1991, Mr. Cardinal's attorney, Robert Wilson, submitted an application to the Planning and Inspection Department for a Special Use Permit to park tow trucks at the Cardinal residence noting that the Cardinals had been doing this for the last 21 years. On August 9, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection issued a letter to Robert Wilson, attorney for the Cardinals, advising him that a Special Use Permit application would not be accepted because the continuation of a nuisance violation is not a proper special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The letter also pointed out that granting a variance to allow the parking of the truck would be a use variance which is prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by state law. (Copies of all correspondence are attached for the Commission's review. ) Applicant's Submittal On August 29, 1991, an appeal was filed by Mr. Robert Wilson representing the Cardinals. A handwritten letter was submitted by the Cardinals stating that they believe that under Section 35-220 9-12-91 1 Application No. 91017 continued of the City Zoning Ordinance on special uses, a special use permit application is appropriate for consideration. They refer to a letter submitted by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson's letter cites a portion of Section 35-220 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with permitted uses in the district. " Mr. Wilson states that a speedy response time to accidents is required for the public welfare. He notes the staff's position that parking a tow truck in a residential area constitutes a nuisance, but argues that precisely because this use is "incompatible with the permitted uses, " this use is eligible for Special Use consideration. The remainder of Mr. Wilson's letter addresses the standards for a special use permit, arguing that they are met in this case. Since this application is an appeal and not for special use permit approval, we will not review those arguments in depth at this time. Staff Response The purpose of this appeal application, as we see it, is to determine whether the parking of a tow truck at a residential property can be considered a special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Such an activity is classified by Section 19-103 of the City Ordinances as a nuisance. We do not believe that a special use permit can be granted to carry on a nuisance violation in any zone. The parking of a vehicle is not a principle use in any residential district, certainly not in the R1 district. Parking is an accessory use which for zoning purposes is usually regulated through the control of physical improvements such as driveways and garages. Such physical improvements can be used for the parking of many kinds of vehicles. In this case, tow trucks are no longer a legal vehicle to be parked in the residential zones of the City except if they are actively engaged in providing a service at the time they are parked. The Zoning Ordinance allows one family dwellings and various accessory uses as permitted uses in the R1 zoning district. A number of special uses are also allowed in the R1 zone by special use permit. (See Section 35-310 attached. ) While all these uses involve the parking of vehicles, there is no explicit mention of tow trucks being allowed in the R1 zone as a special use. What must be understood about special uses is that they are specifically listed. Just because an activity is incompatible with the uses allowed in a district does not mean it qualifies as a special use in that district. It must be listed as a special use or be very similar to a listed special use to qualify for a special use permit. All special uses are somewhat incompatible, but not all incompatibilities are special uses. If every nuisance violation is eligible for a special use permit, there will be no end to the challenges to every code infraction in the City and code enforcement will suffer as will the efforts to keep the community a pleasant place to live and work. 9-12-91 2 Y Application No. 91017 continued A review of nuisance regulations will give one the understanding of the types of activity regulated through this body of regulations. In addition to the parking and/or storage of vehicles in residential areas, nuisance regulations also control among other things the following: disturbing the peace; disorderly conduct; the accumulation of junk, rubbish and debris; storing inoperable and/or unlicensed vehicles or vehicle parts; misdemeanor assault; indecent conduct; fighting and brawling; the sale and use of fireworks; possession, purchase and/or delivery of certain drugs; prostitution, nudity and related acts; the dissemination of pornography and related materials. Nuisances are unacceptable conduct or activity as determined by the City Council and are prohibited. It makes little sense to prohibit certain activity or conduct and then, somehow, grant a special use permit to allow the activity to be conducted. The activity is either prohibited or not prohibited as determined by the City Council through its legislative authority. Parking a two truck is not a land use regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses which involve a substantial investment in real property. Parking the tow truck is an activity. The single family home at 6544 France Avenue North was built as a residence and continues to function as a residence. It has never been a truck garage. The realization of the investment in the dwelling as a dwelling does not depend on the parking of a tow truck on the premises. The parking of a tow truck is, therefore, a nuisance activity and not a land use. We recommend that the appeal be denied and that the matter be prosecuted as a nuisance violation as long as the ordinance is in effect. Submitted by, Gary Sha lcross Planner A proved by, , a w-4-48 1% • Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9-12-91 3 t Section 35-251. APPEALS. 1. Appeal Matters The Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall hear and recommend and the City Council shall make a final determination in the following appeal matters: a. Appeals from the denial of a building permit made pursuant to the adoption of an official map as provided for in Minnesota State Law. b. Appeals from an order, requirement, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance, where it is alleged that some error in interpretation or judgment exists as provided for in Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 (1) , Laws of Minnesota. 2. Procedures a. A written appeal stating the position of the appellant and a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. b. The Secretary shall refer the matter to the Board by placing the application upon the agenda of the Board's next regular meeting. C. The Board shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than thirty (30) days following the date of referral to the Board. d. 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 forty-eight (48) days of the date of referral to the Board. e. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within thirty-two (32) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within sixty-two (62) days of the date of referral to the Board. f. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, following the Board's action upon the application, and 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. f BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES CHAPTER 19 - PUBLIC NUISANCES AND PETTY OFFENSES Section 19-103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 12. The parking and/or storage cf construction equipment, farm vehicles and equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greaoer than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 Founds, continuously for mere than two hours on any property within a residential zoning distric= or being lawfully used for residential purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties. Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not _invited to, the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, tack hoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well dr=lling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck-tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. the prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility,crovernmental agency, construction company, moving company or similar company which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle. b) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is actually making a pickup or delivery at tt - location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be unlawful. c) Any equipment or vehicle exceeding the above described length, height or weight limitations, but wrnich is classified as recreation equipment as specified in Minnesota Statutes 168.011, Subdivision 25. d) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property zoned residential and being lawfully used as a church, school, cemetery, golf nourse, park, playground or publicly owned structure provided the equipment or vehicle is used by said use in the conduct of its normal affairs. e) Asiy equipment or veh._cle descrited above which is parked or stored on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming ,within tae meaning of Section 35-711 of the C_ty Crdinances, provided such parking or storage =s not increased or expanded after the effective date of this ordinance. ROBERT E. WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW . 7050 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 TELEPHONE(612)560-3900 FAX(612)566-4416 August 28, 1991 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Special Use Application 6544 France Avenue North Dennis Cardinal Our File No. 26081-01 Dear Mr. Warren: Attached please find a check for $50. 00. This is to cover the filing fee for the appeal regarding the parking of tow trucks at the home of Dennis and Gloria Cardinal. • Brooklyn Center City Ordinance, Section 35-220, states: "Special uses are those which may be required for the welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. " It is our position that a speedy response time to accidents is required for the public welfare. It is your position that the parking of a tow truck in a residential area is in violation of Brooklyn Center's Ordinance Section 19-103 . Because this use is 111 wutibl. wit:: the permitted uses", this u i eligible. for ? �lvc:r� h use s li Special Use consideration. Brooklyn Center City ordinance, Section 35-220 subd. 2, outlines five standards that must be met for a Special Use Permit to be granted. Mr. Cardinal meets these standards. 1. The granting of the Special Use Permit will promote and enhance the general public welfare through speedy response to accident scenes. 2. Granting of the Special Use Permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. (See attached letters) Mr. Cardinal 's vehicle is no louder than the average pick-up truck. If he gets a late night call, he responds very quietly and discretely. He even turns off Page two August 28, 1991 his headlights and engine when he pulls into his driveway on his return. 3 . Establishment of the Special Use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. 4. There is no concern of parking congestion in the Special Use Permit. 5. Special Use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. If you have any comments or if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Robert E. Wilson Attorney at Law REW:jt P.S. I have also attached a copy of the original Special Use Permit application. `i.. ' CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569-3300 CENTER FAX: 569-3494 EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE May 23 , 1991 911 Dennis And Gloria Cardinal 6544 France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 First Notice Re: 6544 France Avenue North, Tow truck stored at residents Dear Mr. and Mrs Cardinal The Brooklyn Center City Council, in an effort to maintain the residential character of its neighborhoods, has adopted regulations restricting the parking and storing of certain types of vehicles and equipment in these residential areas. These regulations generally prohibit the parking and/or storage of tow trucks and equipment in residential areas. More specifically, the ordinance prohibits the parking and/or storage of commercial vehicles with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9, 000 pounds for more than two consecutive hours in residential areas. Examples of such vehicles and equipment include the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, backhoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. There are certain exceptions to these regulations such as vehicles and equipment needed to make deliveries, repairs, or to do authorized construction work; vehicles and equipment classified as recreational; vehicles and equipment legitimately used by churches, schools, playgrounds or other public uses in residential zones; or vehicles and equipment associated with a legal nonconforming use as provided for in the City's Zoning Ordinance. A copy of this City ordinance (Section 19-103, Subdivision 12) is attached for your review. i Page 2 It has been brought to my attention that a vehicle(s) or equipment prohibited by this ordinance is being parked and/or stored on property owned or controlled by you. Please be advised that you have 30 days from the date of this letter to come into compliance with the provisions of Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City ordinances. If you have any questions regarding the above, or care to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Sincerely, David Fisher Building Inspector DF JAMES J . TUZINSKI ATTORNEY-AT-LAY (612) 560-3900 7050 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (612) 566-4411 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55429 FAX:(612) 566-4416 June 3, 1991 Mr. David Fisher Building Inspector City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Cardinal, Dennis &Gloria 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Fisher: Mr. and Mrs. Cardinal have requested that I respond to your letter of May 23, 1991 regarding the parking of tow trucks at their property. The tow trucks parked at their home do not violate city regulations. The trucks are less than 21 feet in length and are lower than 8 feet. Mr. Cardinal has operated his towing business in this area for more than 20 years and has parked units at his home since 1970. To the best of his knowledge, he has never had a complaint in this regard. Mr Cardinal parks tow trucks at his property in the evening so that he can quickly respond to emergency towing requests from the police, fire and highway patrol. If you ;feel a meeting is necessary to resolve this matter, please contact me. We would be happy to meet with you at your conveniei- e ou s, T zins JJ /j cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal June 20, 1991 Mr. James J. Tuzinski Attorney at Law 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Tuzinski: Building Inspector David Fisher has provided me with your June 3, 1991 letter regarding tow trucks being parked at 6544 France Avenue North by your clients Dennis and Gloria Cardinal and asked me to review this matter and respond to you. I You have stated that the tow trucks at your clients' home do not violate City regulations noting that the tow trucks are less than 21 feet in length and are lower than 8 feet in height. Please be advised that Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances (copy attached) prohibits the parking and/or storage of various equipment and vehicles including commercial vehicles with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 lbs. on residentially used property. If a commercial vehicle exceeds any of the length, height, or weight limitations, it may not be parked or stored in a residential area. Mr. Fisher's notice referred to a 1989 Ford tow truck with a license number of YU69419. This vehicle may, or may not, be less than 21 feet in length and less than 8 feet in height as you indicate in your letter, however, it has a gross vehicle weight of 15,000 lbs. which exceeds the 9,000 lbs. limit and is, therefore, in violation of the ordinance. Furthermore, tow trucks are specifically listed in this ordinance as a type of vehicle not allowed to be parked in a residential area. The interpretation given to this ordinance is that the types of vehicles and equipment specifically listed in the ordinance are prohibited from being parked in residential areas regardless of the is length, height, or weight. James J. Tuzinski Page 2 June 20, 1991 I would suggest that you advise your clients to comply with Mr. Fisher's May 23, 1991 notice giving them 30 days in which to come into compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances regarding the parking and/or storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas. Your clients may be cited for misdemeanor violations if any vehicles or equipment are being parked or stored in violation of the above ordinance provision after June 24, 1991. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal, 6544 France Avenue North Bill Clelland, City Prosecutor James Lindsay, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM To: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection From: David Fisher, Building Inspector -ct-ci Date: June 25, 1991 Subject: Dennis Cardinal, tow truck license number Y/U 84096 at 6544 France Avenue North A letter was sent May 23 , 1991 providing notice to Dennis Cardinal at 6544 France Avenue North, his residence. The letter explained the regulations prohibiting the parking and storing his tow truck in a residential area. He was given 30 days to have the tow truck removed. Mr. Cardinal responded by contacting his Attorney and having him send a letter to me at the City. The letter questioned the regulations of height and length of the ordinance. In responce to the attorney's letter, Ronald Warren sent the Attorney and Mr. Cardinal a follow up letter advising them that June 24, 1991 would be the compliance date to have the tow truck removed. On June 24, 1991 a follow up inspection was conducted at Mr. Cardinal 's residence. I observed a tow truck license number Y/U 84096. Mr. Cardinal came out of his house and spoke with me about the tow truck. He said "a judge will have to decide on whether I can park my tow truck at my residence or not". I therefore, request the issuance of a citation for the violation of the Public Nuisance Ordinance Section 19-103 Subdivision 12 prohibiting parking and storing a tow truck in a residential area. Citation to be issued to: Dennis Cardinal 6544 France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 . MEMORANDUM TO: � James Lindsay, Chief of Police FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection-;f . DATE: June 26, 1991 SUBJECT: 6544 France Avenue North Attached is a copy of a memo I have received from Building Inspector Dave Fisher regarding the parking and/or storing of prohibited vehicles by Dennis Cardinal on his property at 6544 France Avenue North. Dave originally sent a notice on May 23, 1991 informing the Cardinals that they were parking or storing a vehicle (tow truck) in violation of Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. He gave them 30 days to come into compliance with this ordinance. I have had written correspondence with the Cardinals' attorney, James Tuzinski, explaining the ordinance and recommending that he advise his clients to comply with the Building Inspector's request or be subject to a misdemeanor citation. Dave Fisher has since talked with Dennis Cardinal, who left him with the impression that he does not intend to comply with the notice. Dave notes that a prohibited vehicle was parked at 6544 France Avenue North by Cardinal and he has requested a citation be issued. Also attached are copies of all correspondence and reports that we have to date regarding this matter, and a copy of 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. I recommend having a Code Enforcement Officer or a Police Officer review this property periodically, and if they find a vehicle parked on this property, or the street adjacent to this property, belonging to, or in control of, Dennis or Gloria Cardinal, or Cardinal Towing, Inc. , that is in violation of the above ordinance, then issue an appropriate citation. Please advise me of any citations that may be issued. Thanks for your cooperation. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569-3300 CENTER FAX: 569-3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE August 9, 1991 911 Mr. Robert E. Wilson Attorney at Law 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Wilson: On Tuesday morning, August 6, 1991 you came to the Planning and Inspection Department in the Brooklyn Center City Hall and attempted to submit a planning commission application on behalf of Dennis and Gloria Cardinal requesting a special use permit apparently to be allowed to park a tow truck, or tow trucks, at 6544 France Avenue North. You also submitted a $50 check as a filing fee. The Planning and Inspection Department Secretary explained to you that she could not process this application without my approval. You and I have discussed quite extensively the parking and/or storage of a tow truck at the Cardinal residence and the ordinance citation they received for a violation of Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City's Nuisance Ordinance. You have requested, and I have provided, copies of City Council minutes, staff reports and other written matters relating to the City Council's adoption of the Nuisance Ordinance provision in question. I have also provided written correspondence to your colleague, Mr. James Tuzinksi, regarding this provision of the ordinance. ,�esui�uan � Robert E. Wilson Page 2 August 9, 1991 Please be advised that I am not accepting an application for a special use permit in this matter and, therefore, returning your $50 check. The reason for not accepting such an application is my determination that the proposed application is not related to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Your client has been cited for a nuisance violation and the City's Zoning Ordinance does not comprehend allowing a nuisance to be carried on as a special use in the residential zoning district where your client's property is located. Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given zoning district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. I am not aware of any special uses which would allow nuisance violations to be carried on in an R1 zoning district. Furthermore, the City Council is prohibited from allowing, as a variance, any use that is not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance in the district where an affected person's land is located. To allow your client to park the tow truck in question on residential property would be a use variance which is prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by state law. Your concern apparently is the propriety or fairness of a nuisance regulation as it relates to your client. In my opinion this matter is legislative in nature and relief to your client can only be granted by the City Council amending the nuisance ordinance provision in question. Be advised that Section 35-251 of the City's Zoning Ordinance at Subdivision lb allows appeals from an, order, requirement or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance, where it is alleged that some error in interpretation or judgment exists. You, or your client, have the right to appeal my interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance as it relates to whether or not this matter is a special use permit or whether the granting of such a special use permit would be a use variance prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance. If you choose to appeal this determination, you may submit an application for such an appeal accompanied by a $25 filing fee and a written argument pointing out the error in interpretation or judgment. If you wish to proceed in this fashion, I would advise you to contact me regarding the specifics for filing such an application. • Robert E. Wilson Page 3 I August 9, 1991 If you have any other questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Charlie LeFevere, . City Attorney Bill Clelland, City Prosecutor r, n IT 4 - j uIv. r i /, % / / // �.w.-,o rwn/ ,, Mw r .4 _.+r :tz tAl Q1 l�t��� LL op NO : r Section 35-310 R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed, the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. 7. Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10. Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35-800 of these ordinances. 11. Rummage sales as defined in Section 35-900. f 35-310 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. c. Golf courses and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Cemeteries. e. Publicly-owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights-of-way of public streets or alleys. f. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35-900. g. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an Rl `district, as determined by the City Council. Section 35-311. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. _ 1. Permitted Uses _ a. One and two family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. t un s RM MOVE all ANN m SIAM mm NO mm mm moil SM A MERIN YY� ����� ���rJ■ �I/L �� - �� slowY. •ISM I m- mm mm �■ ■� ■m mum /1. /�, �� � � 111//►I ��1� /�� ME ME3 ME m MEW Ems F, MEN SWW i�Y t1■ C - - • ��' YYY�YYYYYYYNYYY YYY ■iiii��11111111� ��. ■■ ill � Iiiill� �■ ■ now ��� ���� ■ : alII��•//���I�• jai �' - �lo/�► ,•I�j•� �� YY; Ems SM NO ME mill y ! � ,'. = -11111 �� ■ =1:. =� = - OR Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91018 Applicant: PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Location: Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store and a 945 sq. ft. detached car wash on the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 . The property in question has been approved for C2 zoning (subject to filing of the replat of this property) and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant C1 zoned land (again, subject to filing of the plat) on the east, by the Brookdale Motel on the south, and by the West River Road frontage road on the west. Highway 252 lies further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. The proposed station would have nine (9) pump islands, six to the north and three to the south of the building. The proposed detached car wash is not consistent with Section 35-414. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that facilities for washing "must be enclosed within the principal building. " The applicant requests that the City consider an ordinance amendment to allow separate facilities for car washes. This request will be reviewed at the end of the report. A review of the site and building plan follows. Access/Parking The proposed plan calls for three accesses to the site, two 30' wide driveways off the West River Road frontage road and one 30, wide access onto a driveway to be constructed on the parcel to the east which will access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening. The driveway on the parcel to the east will become a joint access when that parcel is developed. The PDQ access to this joint driveway is proposed approximately 225' south of 66th Avenue North. Staff have recommended to the, applicant that the access to this joint driveway be further north as was the case with the Fina plan that was approved last year. We have also taken the position that no access off the frontage road should be closer to 66th than the current access to Atkins Mechanical. The northerly proposed access is about 25' closer. It is our belief that the proposed access arrangement is not conducive to cars exiting the site via the joint driveway to the east; rather it appears that many drivers, especially those that use the car wash, will exit the site onto the frontage road and will travel north to 66th Avenue North where they will have to turn right and make a U-turn around the traffic bubble. This movement we believe will interfere with cars turning right off Highway 252 onto 66th Avenue North. Since Highway 252 is a major highway, traffic congestion at this critical point is unacceptable. Standard (d) from Section 35-220 regarding 9-12-91 1 F • Application No. 91018 continued special uses requires that "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. " Because of the potential for congestion at a critical location, we do not believe the proposed plan meets the standards for a special use permit. One of the things driving the design of the PDQ site is the desire on the part of the applicant to have the main building as high and as close to 66th as possible. This makes the grade differential between the gas pumps and 66th too steep for a workable access drive. We have suggested a redesign of the plan to put the building or more of the gas pumps further south and to eliminate one access onto the frontage road in order to make exiting onto the frontage road less likely. The building can also be somewhat lower. The guiding principal in the staff's position is that the site should be designed so that cars are led to exit onto 66th Avenue North rather than on the frontage road. The guiding principal of the applicant's plan appears to be: maximize visibility and facilitate traffic flow to the detached car wash. The applicant's original plan had no access onto 66th at all. This plan is only marginally better. As for parking, the total building area on the site requires 18 parking stalls. The addition of a future car wash bay would bring the total parking requirement to 24 stalls. The plan proposes 13 striped stalls and nine (9) additional stalls on the perimeter of the pump islands. There is room for stacking of at least six cars at the proposed car wash bay and at least four additional stacking spaces at the future car wash bay. It appears that, if the car wash building were ever converted to retail use, there would be adequate space on the site to provide the necessary additional parking stalls. The plan, therefore, does not appear to overbuild the site. It should be noted that circulation to and through the car wash will be in a clockwise rather than a counterclockwise fashion on the site. With the car wash exit close to the southerly access off the frontage road, it appears likely to us that car wash traffic will tend to exit onto the frontage road and that congestion at 66th and Highway 252 will become more likely. Otherwise, cars may go south around the block onto Willow Lane. This is also undesirable. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for 23 Profusion Crab trees in the perimeter greenstrips on the north, west, and south sides of the site. Planting beds with Dwarf Mugho Pine shrubs and Dragons Blood Sedum are to be placed at driveway openings and at the northeast and northwest corners of the parking lot. Some Techny Arborvitae shrubs are shown in the southerly greenstrip. In the green area bordering the C1 site to the east, the plan proposes seven Black 9-12-91 2 r Application No. 91018 continued Hills Spruce, three Hackberry trees, a few shrubs and a 6 ' high wood screen fence. A 6 ' high screen fence would also be placed on the opposite side of the common drive to block headlights until a building is built on the C1 site. The approval of the Fina plan included a requirement for a 6 ' high masonry wall. The Commission should discuss whether a wood fence is acceptable in this location. The trees will be planted on the east side of the fence to provide visual relief. It will be necessary, however, as the Spruce trees grow, to trim them up to the top of the fence because they will be planted adjacent to it. The total point value of all plantings is approximately 155 points. The site is 1. 025 acres in area and the landscape point system requires 82 points. The plan, therefore, complies. Sod is indicated in all perimeter green areas and in the boulevard. Underground irrigation is to be provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The site will be highest at the floor of the main building and will drain to the perimeter. A catch basin in the frontage road, one in the parking area north of the car wash, and one at the southeast corner of the parking lot are connected by a 12" diameter storm sewer line that will flow east under the southerly portion of the C1 site to a City storm sewer line in Willow Lane. Another catch basin at the northeast corner of the site will be connected to the storm sewer in Willow Lane by a separate 12" line flowing eastward. The plan proposes a 4" watermain service for both the main building and the car wash coming off the main in 66th Avenue North. This may not be adequate to serve both domestic and fire protection purposes. A 6" sanitary sewer service will be connected to the main in 66th. Concrete curb and gutter (B612) is indicated around all parking and driving areas. The grading and utility plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Buildings/Canopy Both the main convenience store building and the car wash building are to have a brick exterior with a metalfascia and soffit to match the gasoline canopy. Both the car wash fascia and the canopy will have a neon accent band on the north, west and south elevations. This band may be considered to be signery and can be allowed on the car wash fascia, but not on the canopy since that would make the canopy a freestanding sign. The plans propose 400 watt super metal halide surface mounted light fixtures attached to the under side of the canopy. Staff have asked that the applicant recess these lights so as to minimize glare projecting off the property, but the applicant has ignored this request. Light glare at night is one of the factors cited in the preamble of Section 35-414 as necessitating special requirements for service stations. The proposed canopy is to be one large structure that will extend 9-12-91 3 z Application No. 91018 continued continuously over the northerly six pump islands, the building and the southerly three pump islands. The plan shows that the canopy is to be attached to the main building by steel support columns. Section 35-414 .3 requires that the building and the canopy be in scale with the surroundings. The principal building is to be only 10 ' 8" high. The canopy is to be 18 ' high with 15' clearance. With the high elevation of the site, the high canopy with protruding lights we believe will cause a glare problem. We would recommend that the plans be modified to indicate recessed lighting. The proposed car wash is to have one bay at present with an area paved for a potential second bay in the future. We would recommend that any excess land area be landscaped for the present in case no future car wash bay is built. The plans also call for only a 5 ' wide sidewalk in front of the building and less than 4 ' wide on the sides. This does not allow enough room for both pedestrians and merchandise display that is common at gas stations. We recommend that either the sidewalks be widened by at least 4 ' or that outside display be prohibited at this site. We would prefer the wider sidewalk. Lighting/Trash The plans call for nine 16 ' high light poles at various locations around the perimeter of the parking lot. While this is certainly an appropriate scale, no details have been provided on the appearance of the light fixtures or the wattage of the lamps. Trash is to be stored in an enclosure behind the northeast corner of the building. Ordinance Amendment on Detached Car Wash A detached car wash is not permitted under current ordinance. The applicant has requested in writing that the ordinance be amended (see letter attached) . The applicant cites three operational reasons why a detached car wash works best for them: "1) The car wash is located a greater distance from the residential area. 2) The separate buildings provide for a better traffic flow pattern on the site. 3) An attached car wash will not allow for adequate stacking (blocks egress from gas island) . " The applicant also notes that the present ordinance was written over 20 years ago when "traditional car wash facilities were in unattractive, quonset type buildings or no buildings at all. " They point out, however, that in the last 10 years detached car wash facilities at service stations have become more popular as they 9-12-91 4 r Application No. 91018 continued have become more attractive. They point out that construction materials and the detached design provide for noise attenuation, vacuum stations and stacking capacity. They conclude their letter by noting that detached car wash facilities are allowed in a number of communities, among them Blaine, Fridley, Edina, St. Louis Park, Maple Grove, and Eden Prairie. While we have not delved deeply into the original rationale for the current ordinance, we would agree that it probably derives from some of the concerns cited by the applicant. The architectural quality of the proposed car wash is and should be equal to that of the principal building. This is surely one of the key objectives of the current ordinance. We would also agree with the applicant that allowing for a detached car wash gives the greatest flexibility in designing the site for good traffic circulation and appropriate stacking. We do not agree with the site design that the applicant has submitted, but that does not necessarily mean that a better site design will automatically result if an attached car wash is required. We would recommend that the Commission discuss the question of an ordinance amendment and direct staff whether or not to prepare an ordinance amendment aiming at comparable architectural quality between car washes and principal buildings. Recommendation Because of the way we see the proposed site plan relating to the public streets, we cannot recommend approval of the application as proposed. We recommend that the Commission discuss the matters raised in this report and any other issues raised with the applicant. If the applicant is unwilling to alter the site design, we would recommend that the matter be tabled with direction to staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the application. If the applicant is willing to redesign, we would also recommend tabling with direction on what aspects need to be changed. The aspects we see a need to change are as follows: 1) No access off the frontage road closer than the existing access serving Atkins Mechanical. 2) A site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via the shared access drive leading to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 3) Elimination of the paved area immediately north of the proposed car wash and installation of additional landscaping. 4) Widening of the sidewalk in front and to the sides of the building by at least 41 . 9-12-91 5 Application No. 91018 continued 5) Provision of lighting details and revision of the plans to indicate recessed lighting in the canopy. 6) Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. 7) Submittal of a site plan for the property to the east to verify viability of the site for future office development. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, 'Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9-12-91 6 1 FOOD STORES, Inc. August 29, 1991 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: PDQ Food Store, Gas Station & Car Wash Dear Mr. Warren: PDQ Food Stores is proposing to construct a convenience store with a gasoline service station and car washing facility at the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center. We are submitting application to the city for the following: 1. A Special Use Permit to operate a convenience store with gasoline sales and a car washing facility. 2. Site and building plan approval for the above. 3. Request an amendment or variance of Section 35-414.6 of the zoning ordinance to permit a car washing facility to be in an accessory building rather than being enclosed in the principal building as specified by the ordinance. It is our opinion that the following standards for granting a Special Use Permit will be met by our proposed development: 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 diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 6600 City West Parkway, Suite 210 • Eden Prairie, Minnesota • 55344 • (612) 941-3343 • FAX (612) 941-9713 Mr. Ron Warren August 29, 1991 Page 2 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. PDQ Food Stores require the car wash facility to be located in an accessory building rather than being enclosed in the principal building for the following reasons: 1. The car wash is located a greater distance from the residential area. 2 . The separate buildings provide for a better traffic flow pattern on site. 3. An attached car wash will not allow for adequate stacking (blocks egress from gas island) . It is our understanding that the current city ordinance was written over 20 years ago. At that time traditional car wash facilities were in unattractive, quonset type buildings or no buildings at all. Therefore, at that time, we can understand the reason for requiring the washing facility to be in the principal building. However, during the past 10 years, detached car wash facilities at service stations, have become very popular throughout the United States. The current design style of detached car wash facilities is to design the building in an aesthetically pleasing, architectural compatible building relative to the principal building and site. Furthermore, the construction materials and detached design provides for noise attenuation, vacuum stations and stacking capacity. We are aware that other neighboring cities permit detached car wash facilities for reasons stated above. Some examples are Blaine, Fridley, Edina, Eagan, St. Louis Park, Maple Grove and Eden Prairie who now approve this new concept. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We will be available for a meeting regarding our request at your convenience. Mr. Ron Warren August 29, 1991 Page 3 If you have any questions relative to the application, please call us at 941-3343. Sincerely PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Jerry Archer Director of Real Estate c 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. _ r ■ ml m mm mm m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm Ems---.•;' �t 7� � ii mm AWE m • 1 I I.M1 I•• N , M M•� 66TH AVE g it AL -77 .r,-.•— J al , -.__.-�Dw.-JI/.vwi/ lam•.�i -.,v.N JNY.N'Y,'- . �, � •i ' 1 � t j m c� ��+• r r �nt 4J1 itii S7lE� ���"�� • .� • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I r&Aw wT� t1-117 �NOORIYN O[NTIoL NIN- IOTA ��« ENfiU4ERN0 EuRYEYINO RANiO I M �:rt:.., fil••..... f;:::;:: . .;z;;: Iiiiifi••:e:;•; ra:: .-...:; ;u D ------ s O rn :l: us 1 cn Vl .Pg t bfi :fix•'� i•-j ----° °£ E Go'L 1� 3 3 ?S� Q s� Q� ••N _ 1 r. CONVENAMACESMM. 8a wESN MERIIA 9 � ""• PLAT &ASSOCIATES •=•mss 'et-11) ItUto0141M tartoE I'•• - •`•, EIkJN LAW.SUHVEY646 PIANWJG' ___ _ YMIe.01A I•. 1 .N ,3^y H199 r - En •! C=3 C-3 ! N 4 i s I r 4E m � I 1 s � . I I I / o 0 or s I ..,7 W •• + COMMENCE STORE GAS 1 VASH •°••°••• _ 'F-��� .+......� MMERIIA " SITE PLAN ....,.N,N. M&ASSOCIATES •u.Y»Y 'EI-117 I BROOKLYN CENTER, YINNEEOlA BAH r2•Aau- ENGIKERNG SURVEYING PLANNING E , 1 1 a•:._, d — 66TH AvE.A 1 CT " j •.r;�b. tom, --` +,.. .. ��el I � `: �_, ,'. I ,rw • � ' l � �1.. y h I j 1 '• ' ( 1 1 F —, as !. Ij•,. ! `'L 1 .a t I go. _ _ c o �- 1 , i I T 1 � P nwira o _ 1 ii G `_p list 3?:i ],.,II p Ps R '•R9 xe ca s. c 1 z , COMWAPEES ors,►ws�r �.�N�...._,.. a :+z-=_�- MERIIA GRADING 8 UTILITY PLAN yr��•/�' �_ r&�+ssoFcV 5 ,�",r EROONITN CENTER. NINME,OUI � — — ENG„EEPWO SKAWE"PLAN O .N ..3�V N199 � a / s a s ■ • • C=3 O E=3 s J _ y 1 p ■ > r n i pt I o m r i m � Ip C=3 i s I z ■ . o ` � _ I (n > I ■ ® A ® Q a ® 6 • E�i� � � I � � jE � jj +. jig iii EE ►ws„ ►�'MERILA �Y _ LANDSCAPE PLAN 4~0 r KYn � Y&ASSOICLATES `•; got— .CENreR y`-LYIf }.�l/ ENCimE' V*4 Ruew4,� YINNElOTA • 4 u i . .. . . . .. —L._:.._: i I..:..�♦..:- E aE j i4� M.'.iI IL Itl A IL_ti- - - � o I i6 I ;e E op 0 1 I a1 . - — ——------ - ---- ----I KI I - - .c - --Lj 1 - 1 I e -� sA H w•� e%o`"�� =M�Y1 RD. 0 66tH SH--- MINNESOTA MEN