HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 01-29 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 86045
Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc.
Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use
The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to
construct a 2,688 sq. ft. convenience retail store with gas pumps at 6100 Brooklyn
Boulevard, the site of the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant. This application was
tabled by the Commission on December 11, 1986 with direction to the applicant to
redesign the plans so as to eliminate the need for any variances. The applicant has
resubmitted a new plan calling for a smaller building (reduced from 4,000 sq. ft. to
the present 2,688 sq. ft.) , adequate parking and required setbacks and reoriented
gas pump islands. Therefore, Application Nos. 86046 (rear yard setback variance)
and 86047 (parking variance) are being withdrawn and should be acknowledged by the
Commission.
Attached are copies of the Planning Commission minutes and the information sheet for
Application No. 86045 from December 11, 1986 for the Commission's review.
The applicant's representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a letter dated
January 21, 1987 (attached) outlining the proposed changes and setting forth their
argument for the plan.
Access/Parking
The proposed site plan makes no significant change in the access from that presented
on December 11. The plan calls for closing the single access currently serving the
Arthur Treacher's site and opening two accesses, approximately 59' apart. The
existing access lines up directly with 61st Avenue on the opposite side of Brooklyn
Boulevard. The current alignment was designed this way when the Arthur Treacher's
site was developed, replacing a gasoline station with two accesses that previously
existed. More discussion of the proposed access arrangement will be made later in
this report when dealing with the Standards for Special Use Permits.
The parking requirement for this 2,688 sq. ft. convenience store is 25 spaces based
on the retail parking formula. The proposed plan shows 25 spaces around the
perimeter of the site and at least one space at the pump island. The spaces numbered
9 and 10 on the site plan should be eliminated to provide an appropriate turn around
for cars backing out of the spaces numbered 8 and 11. Also, the plan does not
provide for the required 15' greenstrip at the northwest corner of the site,
northerly of the north access. Providing the required greenstrip would eliminate
one stall in that location. Elimination of these 3 parking stalls, however, could
be accommodated by acknowledging 3 parking stalls at the pump islands.
Acknowledging these stalls would be consistent with the criteria used in past
approvals such as at the convenience store/gas station and 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard.
The pump island location has also been altered from the plan reviewed on December 11,
so they are parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard rather than the store. Only one way
traffic would be allowed between the store and the first pump island.
Landscaping/Screening
The new plan calls for retention of the 32 existing cedar trees along the north and
east property lines and the retention of an existing hedge along the south property
1-29-87 _1_
Application No. 86045 continued
line. In addition, 2 red maples are proposed in the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip,
one north of the northerly access, the other south of the southerly access. Two
Japanese Lilacs are proposed for the center island greenstrip between the two
accesses. The plan notes that any existing trees damaged or destroyed during
construction will be replaced. An open area to the east and north of the building
will be sodded. Underground irrigation is required and noted in all landscaped
areas.
A six foot high screen fence on top of a retaining wall along the east property line
is shown. Currently the retaining wall is giving way and the fence is also in need
of repair. Both are required to be repaired or replaced consistent with the
recommendations of the City Engineer and Building Official.
Drainage/Utilities
The drainage plan calling for surface drainage to Brooklyn Boulevard consistent
with the existing site and other business in the area is apparently acceptable. No
storm sewer would be required at this time because it would require tying into storm
sewer on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. However, if Brooklyn Boulevard is
ever reconstructed and storm sewer provided on the east side, all surfacing draining
properties, such as this one, will be required to hook up to storm sewer.
Building/Canopy
The proposed building elevations now call for brick on all four walls with a 4' high
white metal facia extending out 5' along the front elevation. Elevations show the
wall heights to be 20' except for a portion of the west (or front) elevation which
shows a wall height of 16' . Further clarification of this "break" would be in order.
The canopy extends from the roof line at a height of 201 . It would be a 4' wide white
metal band with 2" red vertical stripes at the top and bottom and would contain
lighting for the pump island area. It should be noted that signs, other than
directional type signs, are not permitted on the canopy per the sign ordinance,
except in lieu of permitted freestanding signs.
The canopy would cover the entire pump island area by extending approximately 100'
out from the building on the north and approximately 83' on the south in a trapezoid
fashion.
There is a 5' concrete walk proposed along the west and south sides of the building
and a 6' high brick trash enclosure with a wooden gate indicated at the southeast
corner of the building.
Although signery is not part of site and building plan review, it should be
understood that the freestanding sign shown on the site plan exceeds the size
allowed by the Sign Ordinance for a building of this size. The maximum size
freestanding sign permitted would be 112 sq. ft. and at a height no greater than 241
measured from the first floor building elevation.
Special Use Permit
Gasoline service stations are special uses in the C2 zoning district. As such they
are subject to the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35-220
(copy attached) . The report presented to the Planning Commission on December 11
outlines the staff's analysis as to how this proposed use complies with those
standards. Our concern then was primarily with standard (d) which 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." It was
pointed out then that the addition of another access drive is certainly a step
1-29-87 -2-
Application No. 86045 continued
backward for managing traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. It is the staff's opinion
that the potential for conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting this site and
other sites in the vicinity will certainly increase with two driveways to the site
relative to what would be the case with only a single driveway.
It should be noted that already on the commercially zoned (Cl and C2) property along
the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard in this area there are six driveways (including
the one at Arthur Treacher's) serving four commercial sites. In driving Brooklyn
Boulevard these driveways come almost one right after another and it is confusing at
best for a driver trying to decide which one to turn into. The addition of one more
will further complicate this rather than improve it.
As was mentioned earlier, when the Arthur Treacher's site was developed only one
access, directly across from 61st Avenue North was allowed. This was considered an
improvement over the then existing situation. Going back to two access drives will
only add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard in this area. The City has long had the
policy of reducing the number of accesses on Brooklyn Boulevard and to encourage the
sharing of access.
The staff strongly believes that the City should start from the premise that only one
access to this site, where it is currently situated, should be granted for
development or redevelopment to allow for the proper functioning of Brooklyn
Boulevard and that any use of the property will have to operate within this
constraint. Uses which cannot survive with one access are too intense for
development on the site and will only add to an already bad situation.
The argument will most certainly be made that to limit this site to one access will
prohibit the gasoline operation from functioning properly and will, in all
likelihood, mean it can't or won't be built. That is probably true and is
indicative of the fact that use should, therefore, not be allowed.
Mr. Finley, in his letter, notes that the properties on either side of this site have
two accesses and there had been no requirements made to limit accesses in the past.
It should be pointed out that the Amoco operation has been there since 1958 and also
has a distance between driveways of 120' , much greater than that proopsed on the site
under consideration. The Burger King operation has been there since 1965 and is a
one-way drive through that limits to some extent potential congestion because of
that type of traffic flow. On the other hand, the fact that we are stuck with these
two sites having two accesses should not be an argument that we continue to make site
design decisions that will compound a problem rather than reduce or eliminate it.
The proposal before the Planning Commission is redevelopment of the site. With
redevelopment should come improvement not a worsening of the situation.
Following the Commission's December 11, 1986 tabling of this application we had an
opportunity to review the situation with a member of Hennepin County's staff.
(Hennepin County issues access permits for Brooklyn Boulevard, a County Road) The
matter was studied and the undesireability of providing another access to the site
was determined and later conveyed to the applicant.
Mr. Finley cites a January 8, 1987 memo from Vern Genzlinger, Director of Public
Works and Assistant County Administrator saying that after discussion the County
would agree to issue a permit for two entrances on Brooklyn Boulevard for Crown Oil.
He states that the County has, therefore, withdrawn their objections to the two
entrances.
It is our understanding that it is the County's position that they will not take the
lead in this issue and that they will accept the recommendations of the City of
Brooklyn Center regarding this matter.
1-29-87 -3-
Given the above considerations, it is the staff's belief that to permit two access
points at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard would add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard.
Therefore, we recommend denial of Application No. 86045 on the grounds that it is in
conflict with Standard (d) of Section 35-220 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the granting of Special Use Permits.
The public hearing has been continued to this evening's Commission meeting and
notices have been sent.
1 -29-87 -4-