HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-018 & 019 Inf SH 615 66th Avenue North Application Filed on 11-14-02
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 01-13-03 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2002-018 And 2002-019
Applicant: McDonald's Corporation
Location: Southeast Corner of 66th and Camden Avenues North
Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Development Plan Approval
The applicant, McDonald’s Corporation, is seeking a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment under Planning Commission Application 2002-018 to modify the original Planned Unit Development
approval and agreement for this area to be allowed to construct an otherwise non-permitted convenience food restaurant at the southeast corner of 66th and Camden Avenues North. They
also seek development plan (or site and building plan) approval under Planning Commission Application No. 2002-019 for an approximate 4,300 sq. ft., 90 seat McDonald’s restaurant on
this site which is addressed 615 66th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue with R-3
(Multiple Family Residence – Townhomes) zoned property containing the Georgetown and Riverwood townhomes along with C-2 (Commerce) zoned property containing the Riverwood Dental Center
and Holiday Station on the opposite side of the street; on the east by C-2 zoned property containing the SuperAmerica station; on the south by PUD/C-2 zoned property containing the Regal
Theater; and on the west by Camden Avenue with R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) zoned property containing the Melrose Gates Apartments on the opposite site of the street.
Convenience food restaurants such as proposed by the applicant are prohibited from locating in this PUD/C-2 zone based on the conditions and findings made at the time the City approved
the Planned Unit Development rezoning for the Regal theater and surrounding property. Furthermore, the underlying C-2 zone which provides the regulations governing uses and structures
within the PUD, prohibits convenience food restaurants from abutting an R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning district including abutment at a street line, such as the abutment that exists along the
north side of 66th Avenue.
BACKGROUND
A Planned Unit Development rezoning from C-2 to PUD/C-2 and development plan approval for a 20 screen, 85,240 sq. ft. Regal Theater was approved by the City Council under Resolution
No. 98-133 on July 27, 1998. Attached for the Commission’s review is a copy of that resolution containing various findings, considerations and conditions of approval for that proposal.
The land rezoned consisted of the Regal Theater site and two restaurant sites along Camden Avenue, one to the north of the theater, the other to the south of the theater, which were
identified and referred to during this process as “pad site 2” and “pad site 3” respectively. (Note: Pad site 2 eventually became the site currently under consideration following the
filing of the final plat for all of the property in the PUD.) A PUD amendment for an alternate storm water detention plan was subsequently approved by the City Council on September
28, 1998, after Planning Commission review and recommendation. These approvals became the Planned Unit Development for the Regal Theater and surrounding property. Condition No. 16
of City Council Resolution No. 98-133 states “the applicant has agreed and the City acknowledges that it will not allow the development of ‘pad site 2’ and ‘pad site 3’ as a fast food/convenience
food restaurant, a gasoline service station/convenience store, car wash, pawn shop or check cashing operation and the development agreement will acknowledge this restriction or limitation
on the future use of the property.”
This condition was agreed to by the developers and the owner of the restaurant sites, Mr. Terry Moses of Crown Brawley, LLC. This condition was considered an integral part of the decision
to rezone the property and allow the development of the theater. Even though “pad site 2” could not be used for a convenience food restaurant given the underlying C-2 zone, which prohibits
such abutment with R-3 property, the City wanted to assure that there would be no dispute about future unacceptable land uses for both “pad site 2” and “pad site 3”. Among other things,
the traffic analysis prepared and presented at the time of the PUD rezoning, did not comprehend convenience food restaurant but rather sit down restaurants, which have different traffic
generations, particularly with respect to PM peak hour traffic rates, which were of concern because of theater traffic generation. Minutes from a number of meetings held during the
time of the Planning Commission and City Council review indicate that this was a significant factor and the parties assured the City that this was an acceptable condition or limitation
for future development.
As the Commission is aware, the PUD process involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying
zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing the district (in this case C-2) apply
to the development proposal unless the City determines that another standard or use would be appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans submitted by the
developer. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems.
Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The PUD process, including amendments such as
this, involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to meeting the City’s rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines that are contained in Section 35-208 of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance. Also, proposals and amendments must be consistent with Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments. Attached for the
Commission’s review are copies of Section 35-208 and 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance for review. As mentioned previously, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the overall
PUD for the Regal Theater development and surrounding property. That resolution contained the various findings and considerations necessary for approving that PUD and also contained
the restriction on convenience food restaurants as well as other uses on the surrounding property. Any approval of this PUD amendment should acknowledge compatibility with the policy
and review guidelines of the previously mentioned Section 35-208 and also the provisions of Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment must be consistent and compatible
with surrounding land uses in the area. The proposed amendment should be offset by factors related to the development. Also, the overall development must be a reasonable use of the
property and be considered to be in the best interests of the community.
The applicant has submitted a full set of development plans and is seeking site and building plan approval for the McDonald’s restaurant. We will review their plans in more detail following
review of their PUD amendment request.
Mr. Terry Moses of Crown Brawley, LLC, owner of the two restaurant sites adjacent to the Regal Theater has submitted written comments in support of the amendment to allow convenience
food restaurants on the sites where they were prohibited under the PUD approval. He explains that he agreed with the prohibition when it was enacted four years ago. He claims there
has been very little interest in the site primarily because of the size of the site and only McDonald’s has come forward with an offer for the property. He indicates that the immediate
area, because of its high traffic and easy access, has evolved into a convenience retail location. He points out that the Regal Cinema has not generated the vehicle traffic that was
originally feared and he anticipates that many McDonald’s customers would be existing SuperAmerica and Subway customers thereby holding the increase in traffic down. He states another
advantage is that the proposed use would share the existing driveway with SuperAmerica and Subway, making a change in traffic patterns less likely. He notes that commercial properties
should be positioned close to freeways and through ways to keep traffic from residential area and still allow easy access for local residents. He indicates that there is a demand for
quick serve restaurants, however, there is a distinct shortage of suitable sites. He also notes that McDonald’s analysis shows this to be a good site for their business.
The written comments make no mention of the extent to which efforts have been made to market the property for sit down or non-convenience food restaurants. Inquiries have been made
to the City about these potential sites and these parties have been referred to the owner of the property after discussion regarding the Planned Unit Development conditions. If the
site is indeed too small for such development as indicated in the written comments, perhaps accommodations could be made under the PUD process to make a desired restaurant development
workable. Furthermore, the creation and size of these sites was determined by the owner of the property at the time of the Regal Theater development and assurances were given that they
would be suitable for sit down restaurants. To abandon the restriction on convenience food restaurants, as well as the other prohibited uses, should be done only if it is justifiable
based on the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines and such a recommendation should be consistent with the provisions of Section 35-355 regarding Planned Unit Developments.
It seems that the only justification put forth thus far to allow such a use is that McDonald’s is willing and able to develop the site and that they think it is a good site for their
business. Their building plans do not seem to mitigate, or offset, the negative aspects of having a convenience food restaurant directly across the street from R-3 zoned property.
Where other PUD’s have had property line abutment with residential property such as the recent SA project at 57th and Logan Avenues North, an 8 ft. high solid opaque screen fence, landscaping
and a buffer strip were established. The applicant’s plan calls for nothing in the way of plan mitigation; in fact they propose a less than 15 ft. green strip along the 66th Avenue
right of way across from the R-3 zoned property.
The policy guidelines ask questions such as is there a clear and public need or benefit? Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications?
Can all permitted uses be contemplated for development of the subject property? Will the property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
Is the property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district? Is the proposal warranted by comprehensive planning – the lack of developable land in the proposed
zoning district or the best interest of the community? And finally does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? It does
not seem that there is a clear and public need or benefit in changing the conditions of the PUD that prohibit certain types of uses that are considered inappropriate for this development.
It is believed that the proposed amendment is not compatible with surrounding land uses, that non-convenience food restaurants or other appropriate uses could be developed on the property
given time and an adequate marketing plan. This proposal seems only to benefit the interests of the owner or the developer of the property. Based on these factors, it is not believed
that this proposed PUD amendment to allow convenience food restaurants in this PUD is consistent with the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. Also, we do not believe it
is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the PUD section of the ordinance and it only seems to be in the interest of the owner of the land and not necessarily of the
best interests of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
The applicant, under Planning Commission Application No. 2002-019, has submitted a site and building plan proposal in hopes that the City will amend the Planned Unit Development to allow
a convenience food restaurant. The plan calls for an approximate 4,304 sq. ft., 90 seat McDonald’s restaurant on a 1.28 acre site.
ACCESS/PARKING
The only access to the site is a shared access off 66th Avenue with the SuperAmerica to the east. The building would be situated to the southwest corner of the site with parking for
63 vehicles, including three handicapped, on the north site of the building. A drive up lane would be located on the westerly side of the building with the pick up windows on the south
side. Vehicles would move in a counter clockwise fashion around the building for the drive up facility. As mentioned previously, the plan calls for a less than 15 ft. green strip in
portions of the 66th Avenue green strip. The plan indicates 90 seats and 16 employees at the maximum shift requiring a total of 53 parking spaces. The shared access is a cross access
agreement that has been in existence for some time. The only access to the site would be off of 66th Avenue. No other access on Camden or across the Regal Theater site is allowed
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has provided grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the City Engineer. A retention pond was constructed on the Regal Theater site to accommodate
drainage for this entire area. The drainage plan seems to indicate that the site will connect to storm sewer in 66th and Camden Avenues rather than being directed to the retention pond.
These are matters that would need to be addressed by the City Engineer. Water and sanitary sewer would be connected to existing utilities in Camden Avenue North.
B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas and is indicated on the plan.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. This 1.28 acre site requires a total
of 102.4 points rather than the 62.5 landscape points indicated on the plan. The applicant proposes to provide 138 landscape points per the point schedule. They propose five shade
trees (Patmore Ash and River Birch), 11 coniferous trees (Austrian Pine), 14 ornamental trees (Spring Snow Crab and Japanese Tree Lilac) and 56 shrubs (Dwarf Burning Bush, Gro-Low Sumac,
Goldflame Spirea, Goldmound Spirea, Andora Compact Juniper and Scandia Juniper). The shade trees are located along islands separating this site from the SuperAmerica site to the east.
The coniferous trees are located in the north green strip along with River Birch and the Spring Snow Crab. Austrian Pine and Spring Snow Crab are also located at the southwesterly
portion of the site. The shrubbery would be located primarily to the west portion of the building next to the drive up land and dumpster enclosure as well as at the southeast corner
of the building.
Landscaping would seem appropriate given the variety and points proposed.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building elevations showing the exterior of the McDonald’s building. The exterior finish would be primarily brick veneer with a soldier course of block around
the lower portion of the building. The colors are indicated as “to be determined”. A red standing seam metal roof, or mansard type treatment is shown around the exterior of three of
the sides of the building. To be consistent with other approvals, the mansard treatment should be carried around the backside of the building as well. The building elevations show
a trash enclosure of the same material as the building with solid gates.
LIGHTING
The applicant has also submitted a lighting plan, which appears to be consistent with the lighting standards contained in the City Ordinances. General concern is that all lighting be
shielded and directed downward on the site to avoid glare.
PROCEDURE
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have also been sent to neighboring property owners.
For a number of years rezoning applications considered by the Planning Commission were referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for input and comment. In this case, it
would be the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. State statutes, however, require the City to respond to zoning applications within 60 days of the date a properly submitted application
has been filed with the City. This application was filed on November 14, 2002. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, this application needs to be submitted approximately
four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The clock, however, begins at the date the application is properly filed. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made
by the City Council no later than January 13, 2003. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Commission’s public hearing has even held. This requirement
makes it almost impossible for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings that they normally have had.
The Planning Commission has instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these PUD applications and amendments. We
have invited the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the public hearing and are encouraging their comments and participation at the meeting. A staff report will be delivered
to the advisory group members at the same time that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to review the matter and make comments to the
Commission at Thursday evening’s meeting.
It is recommended that the Planned Unit Development amendment submitted by McDonald’s Corporation be denied on the basis that it is not consistent with the rezoning evaluation policy
and review guidelines as well as not being consistent with Section 35-355 of the City Ordinances regarding Planned Unit Developments. A draft resolution recommending denial of the Planned
Unit Development will be prepared. The site and building application (No. 2002-019) also should be denied on the basis that it is inconsistent with the conditions of the original Planned
Unit Development, which prohibits convenience food restaurants within this PUD.
12-12-02
Page 5