HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-001 Inf Sheet 57th and Logan Avenues North Application Filed on 1-03-02
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 3-04-02 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2002-001
Applicant: Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
Location: Southwest Corner of 57th and Logan Avenues North
Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/C-2
The applicant, Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the redevelopment of the existing
SuperAmerica site to include the adjacent property to the immediate west and south of the site.
The property in question is zoned C-2 (Commerce) and R-1 (One Family Residence) and is located at the southwest corner of 57th Avenue North and Logan Avenue North. It includes the existing
SuperAmerica site (1901 57th Avenue North), a portion of the Milavetz law firm property (1915 57th Avenue North) and the residential property at 5649 Logan Avenue North. Companion Application
No. 2002-002 consists of a preliminary plat that will divide and combine the effected parcels to create a new lot for the SuperAmerica proposal.
The property in question is bounded on the north by 57th Avenue (a County Road) with commercially zoned property on the opposite side of the street; on the east by Logan Avenue North
with R-1 zoned property on the opposite side of the street; on the south by single family homes located on R-1 zoned property; and on the west by commercially zoned property (C-2).
The applicant’s plan is to demolish the exiting SuperAmerica convenience store/gasoline station/canopy and the house and garage at 5649 Logan Avenue and then build a new, approximately
3,900 sq. ft. convenience store with six new pumping dispensers and a new canopy. The store would be located to the west and south of its present location.
The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial redevelopment. The C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because it
acknowledges the proposed use as special uses in that zoning district. The applicants are seeking modifications to the C-2 requirements to allow: a gas station to abut R-1 zoned property;
a slight encroachment on a 35 ft. buffer area; a less than 15 ft. green strip along the 57th Avenue North right of way; and to also allow signs on the canopy at the proposed site as
a second freestanding sign. These modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and they believe will be offset by various planned considerations and aspects of
the development plan that will mitigate these modifications. The land in question is acknowledged in the City’s zoning ordinance and, to a lesser extent, in the Comprehensive Plan as
being for commercial retail uses.
As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the 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 that district
(in this case C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems
and issues. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned, in this case the
applicant is seeking modifications to allow this gas station to abut R-1 zoned property; a slight encroachment into a 35 ft. buffer strip required where R-1 and C-2 property abut; a
10 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip along the 57th Avenue North right of way; and to be allowed to have identification signs on the canopy as a second freestanding sign.
Their rationale for seeking these modifications has to do with providing a more efficient use of the property which, as they point out in their submission, is to move the building and
activity areas away from the existing single family residential uses to the east and south. They propose large buffer areas, landscape and 8 ft. high opaque screening walls where the
property would abut with single family residential property. They point out that they believe that the additional site area and new building will allow them to better and more completely
serve the neighbors and the community by increasing the variety and type of products in their stores and the number and design of fueling points. They also believe their proposal will
be more compatible with the immediate neighbors by allowing them to relocate the east edge of their store 100 ft. and their canopy and fuel dispensers 60 ft. from Logan Avenue. They
also note that they believe the activity on the site will be significantly relocated to the west, much deeper into the commercial district, which is located along 57th Avenue and farther
away from the residences on Logan. Their plan, they indicate, will provide significant area adjacent to the side yards of the neighboring homes on Logan and the back yards of two neighbors
on Brookview Drive. They point out that this area will be landscaped and fenced to optimize the effectiveness of the buffer area. They state that they believe that the store will comply
with all current city performance standards and will also incorporate techniques to calm the design and operation of the store.
The less than 15 ft. green strip proposal along 57th Avenue North is consistent with other city approvals that have allowed such a green strip along a major thoroughfare where decorative
screen walls or other screening devices have been used. This was done at Brookdale in a couple locations along Xerxes Avenue and County Road 10. Also a gas station was approved at
the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, although it never was built, with less than a 15 ft. green strip. This was offset by a 3 1/2 ft. high decorative wall. The applicant’s
proposal has a combined masonry and wrought iron screen wall along 57th Avenue North, which is proposed to offset the lessened green strip. They also propose 8 ft. high opaque screening
adjacent to the R-1 zoned properties to the south based on discussions and negotiations they have had with those neighbors providing them with an acceptable type of screening device.
The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the city’s zoning ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached).
BACKGROUND
The site of the SuperAmerica station at 57th and Logan Avenues North plays deeply into the zoning history of the City of Brooklyn Center. SuperAmerica in the mid 1960’s proposed to
rezone its current site from R-1 to C-2 and to build the convenience store/gas station complex that is currently there. The City, following public hearings, review of the matter and
much discussion and deliberation originally refused to approve the SuperAmerica development primarily because they believed it was an in appropriate mix of uses, that the site was too
small, that parking was insufficient and site circulation was difficult at best. SuperAmerica sued the City and following a lengthy court battle, won a decision that they should be
allowed to utilize the land in question in the manner they proposed. Even during the plan review process, the City objected to many aspects of the SuperAmerica plan. They were, however,
implemented over the objections of the City and the development proceeded. The City in the meantime amended its zoning regulations in a number of ways and established Section 35-414
of the City Ordinances regarding special requirements for gasoline service stations. In many respects, the SuperAmerica station that was being developed in 1968 did not meet these standards
set out for gasoline station development in Brooklyn Center. The ordinance required a minimum 20,000 sq. ft. site located on a major thoroughfare; required parking on the basis of both
the gasoline service station formula and the retail parking formula; and, among other things, prohibited gasoline stations from abutting R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property either at a property
line or a street line. These regulations went into effect in 1968 and, for all practical purposes, established the SuperAmerica as a non-conforming use, which could not expand, be enlarged,
be altered or if destroyed by more than 50 percent, could not be reestablished.
The existing SuperAmerica station, I believe, shows that the City was correct in its judgment that the site was too small, there is insufficient parking, and circulation on the site
is not good. The policy of the City for almost 35 years has been that the SuperAmerica in this location will be tolerated but not expanded. The applicants are coming forward with a
plan that they believe will be beneficial not only to them but to the city as well. The question is whether or not this is in the best interest of the community and whether or not a
modified plan is appropriate and should be pursued. The PUD process is a vehicle established which can appropriately handle this type of development request by the applicants. The
key is the determination of whether or not this is indeed in the best interests of the community.
The staff’s comments to the applicant when they first proposed these new modifications was that if an acceptable development proposal can be put forward, it is possible to rezone the
property and take the SuperAmerica property out of its non-conforming situation it is in.
REZONING
The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as being consistent with
the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review. The applicant has
submitted a written project narrative describing their proposal along with a written statement in response to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. Both of these written
submission are attached for the Commission’s review. The written project narrative explains their proposed development and highlights the site and building plans submitted with the
application. This PUD combines the various parcels previously mentioned through a preliminary plat, which is the subject of companion Application No. 2002-002. The site of the proposed
SuperAmerica redevelopment is 1.139 acres. The concept that they are using for the layout of this site positions the building as far to the west as is possible with the activity areas
on the north side of the building (57th Avenue North side) and establishes a large buffer or landscape yard between the site and the residences to the south.
As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The
policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute “spot zoning”, which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured
against the City’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the
zoning ordinance, as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and their proposal.
Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
The applicant indicates that they believe their proposal will allow them to not only serve the neighbors in the community better but also more compatibly. They point out that the additional
site area, its extension to the west and more importantly the increased depth from 57th Avenue will allow them to better and more completely serve the neighbors in the community by increasing
the variety and type of products in their store and the number and design of their fueling points. They also believe that the proposed plan will be more compatible with the immediate
neighbors in three ways. First, the additional site area to the west will allow them to relocate the east edge of the store 100 ft. and the canopy for the fuel dispensers 60 ft. farther
from Logan Avenue. Activity on the site, they note, will significantly be relocated to the west, deeper into the commercial district along 57th Avenue and farther from the residences
on Logan. Second, their proposed plan, they believe, provides a significant area adjacent to the side yard and garage of the neighboring home on Logan, and the back yards of the two
neighbors on Brookview Drive. These areas, they state, will be landscaped and fenced to optimize the effectiveness of this buffer area. Third, they believe the new store will comply
with current city performance standards will incorporate techniques to calm the design and the operation of the store which will be recorded and enforced through this PUD process.
It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the development criteria established by the City
and if indeed it balances the business needs of the community and the residential needs of adjoining properties as well. It is not anticipated that their proposal will be a detriment,
but, on the other hand, it should be a positive factor in providing benefits that positively affect the community as well as the applicant.
Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use clasifications?
The applicant notes that the commercial development and the use on the south side of 57th Avenue has historically provided the transition between the commercial uses recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance along both sides of 57th and the surrounding residential districts. Allowing the new investment proposed in this development plan by SuperAmerica
will not be an exception to the planned, permitted, historic and expected pattern of use along 57th Avenue and will expand and reinforce the usefulness of this established commercial
district for its neighbors and the city.
The staff would concur with the comments made. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that this proposed commercial development and gasoline station can be considered
consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications given the development considerations being proposed such as a buffer area, adequate, acceptable screening, the
fact that the rear of the building will not be used as an activity area with limited lighting and comments that the applicant has made regarding noise mitigation with respect to required
speakers at pumps under the canopy.
Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property?
The applicant notes that the requested PUD designation will limit the potential use of this property to solely the use approved in the development plan while allowing the protection
and buffering of abutting residential properties provided by the development and the detail of residential transition zone. They note that the development of this zone in the westward
relocation of the fuel dispensers and store in the activity zone, will substitute for the citywide zoning provision that would not permit the proposed redevelopment abutting residential
properties located along Logan and Brookview Drive. It will also permit approval of specific features of the development plan that are accustomed to the conditions surrounding this
site.
We would concur with the applicant’s comments. Although the zoning ordinance discourages gasoline stations from abutting residentially zoned property, we have, through various studies
over the past eight to ten years changed somewhat this idea in that it is believed that gas stations can be appropriately screened and buffered from abutting residential properties given
some extraordinary screening, landscaping and buffering devices. As the development plan will show, we believe the measures taken are appropriate and compatibility can be achieved between
these two potentially conflicting land uses.
Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned?
The applicant notes that since the construction of this store, the City has adopted regulations that would not allow a new store to be adjacent to a residential use at this location.
The requested zoning change to PUD is the most direct and careful approach to allow the benefits of the new store in the expanded site and provide protection for the adjoining properties.
The staff would comment by acknowledging the past history, which required the SuperAmerica station to be built over the objection of the City. We believe the City was correct in its
analysis back in the late 1960’s that indicated that the site was too small, lacked parking and created congestion on the site and adjoining streets. The use of the site, however, as
a convenience store has proven beneficial to the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. There are no other such facilities serving the southeast portion of Brooklyn Center and parts
of north Minneapolis as well. It can be said that the gas station/convenience store does serve a basic need of the community. It is from this perspective that we believe modifications
to the site to make it a better operation is an appropriate goal. The adoption of the Planned Unit Development ordinance a number of years ago gives the City the flexibility to deal
with development issues and to provide modifications to its ordinance based on acceptable development plans that mitigate or make situations compatible. We believe this to be the case
in this specific situation.
In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because it is not a city initiated zoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
Will the subject project bare fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
The applicant notes that the PUD will allow the protection and buffering of abutting residential properties provided by the development and the detail of a residential transition zone,
and the westward relocation of the fuel dispensers and store in the activity zone, to substitute for the citywide zoning provision that would not permit a proposed redevelopment of abutting
residential properties located on Logan and on Brookview Drive. They go on to site as outlined in their written submittal noting the establishment of a residential transition zone with
no exterior activity extending 75 to 85 feet from the shared property line; a lighting plan that restricts almost all ambient light of more than one foot candle to the activity zone;
a noise mitigation plan that includes relocation of activity on the site away from Logan and the use of fuel dispensers mounted with fueling point specific microphones and speakers for
required communication; a circulation plan that relocates the driveways farther away from the intersection of 57th and Logan; a more than doubling of the area of the store expanding
product mix and depth of the store; a plan for plantings along Logan that reinforces the residential edge and introduces architectural fence features as well as expanded yard to define
and reinforce 57th Avenue edge; and an architectural metal and masonry fence to offset the 10 ft. rather than 15 ft. landscaped area on 57th Avenue.
The staff generally believes that the subject property will bear the ordinance development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with the deviations from the standard ordinance
requirements mentioned. We believe providing a good buffer and redevelopment in this area offsets these modifications. The screening and buffering provided, we believe, is very appropriate,
the lack of lighting and activity to the rear of the building should be of benefit to the neighboring properties and the individualized communication devices mounted at the fuel dispensing
stations should eliminate or reduce the amount of noise on the site from required communication devices. All in all we believe the proposals made by the applicant are appropriate.
Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The applicant indicates that the designation of this site as a PUD will allow the replacement of the present non-conforming store within an expanded store on an expanded site which could
not occur under the present zoning provisions.
The staff would concur with the comments made by the applicant. The expanded site makes for a more efficient use by SuperAmerica. We do not believe that the City’s current policy with
respect to the SuperAmerica site of not allowing expansion should be continued. An appropriate redevelopment, such as being proposed, should go forward.
Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of Developable Land in the Proposed Zoning District, or; 3. The Best
Interest of the Community?
The staff would comment that the proposed zoning can be considered consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area. We are not proposing to change the commercial nature
of this or surrounding properties. We also believe that the proposed development can be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is developed in the manner that
is being proposed. This appears to be a good balance between the commercial needs and the residential needs of the community.
Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
The applicant notes that each element of their development plan is designed to reduce the impact of their store operations on the neighborhood while providing a state of the art facility
for the best possible shopping and service experience for their customers.
Again, the staff would concur with the developers comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and will lead to
a redevelopment that we believe is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. This proposal appears to provide a good development, consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and the general interest of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
The proposal calls for an approximate 3,900 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station with six gasoline dispensers under a canopy area at 1901 57th Avenue North.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to this site will be provided from two driveway locations, one along Logan Avenue and the other on 57th Avenue North. The Logan Avenue entrance will be shifted to the south of
its present location to better align with the proposed layout for the site. The 57th Avenue entrance will be shifted to the west with the existing access from 57th being closed. 57th
Avenue North is a county road and a driveway permit from the County will be required, however, it is not anticipated that there will be objection from the County. As mentioned previously,
the old SuperAmerica store and dispensing areas will be demolished with new ones being rebuilt. Existing underground tanks will be removed and new tanks will be provided on the westerly
side of the site. Six dispensing stations will be located under a new canopy. Circulation through the site will be either from the access on 57th through to Logan or vice versa, from
Logan to 57th.
Parking for this approximate 3,969 sq. ft. building is 22 spaces based on a parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The applicant’s plan shows 21
parking spaces in front of the building and has the capability of providing at least six more pump island parking spaces. Practically speaking, 12 spaces will probably be utilized at
the pump islands. Adequate drive lanes serving the pump island areas and parking spaces are provided on the site. A trash container is located to the west of the building and the area
in front of the trash container will be used for the parking of delivery vehicles and access for a garbage truck.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has provided a grading, drainage and utility plan, which is being reviewed by the City Engineer. It should be noted that an erosion control plan has also been submitted
and appears to be appropriate. All storm drainage will be collected in catch basins and conveyed underground to storm sewer in 57th Avenue North. Water and sewer connections will be
tied into water and sewer lines in Logan Avenue North. The City Engineer will be reviewing these plans and making comments, which we will pass along to the Commission as we receive
them. The site is under five acres in area and no Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review is required.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Commission to evaluate such plans. This 1.139 acre site requires 91.12 points.
The applicant proposes to exceed this minimum point requirement by providing 260 landscape points. They provide a variety of plantings including Norway Maple, Red Maple, Seedless Green
Ash, Pin Oak, as well as shrubs such as Pyramidal Arborvitae and Vibernum. On the landscape plan they have shown visibility triangles where plantings and other obstructions will not
create site line problems. The landscape plan also shows the various screening devices that will be utilized to screen abutting residential property. Along the south property line,
the applicants are proposing to provide a board on board 8 ft. high opaque fence adjacent to the property at 5639 Logan Avenue North. An 8 ft. high cedar decorative stockade screening
fence will be provided between this site and the properties at 1918 Brookview Drive and 2000 Brookview Drive. An 8 ft. high board on board fence will be placed between the SuperAmerica
site and the Milavetz law firm to the west. These screening devices have been agreed upon by adjoining property owners in discussions with representatives from SuperAmerica and, it
is our understanding, that they are acceptable screening devices.
The applicant, in lieu of providing a 15 ft. green strip along 57th Avenue North, is proposing a decorative masonry and aluminum fence. Block and concrete masonry piers approximately
30 ft. apart with aluminum bars in between will be provided. This appears to be a nicely done fence and should provide appropriate screening consistent with other approvals where the
City has allowed less than 15 ft. green strips.
Underground irrigation will be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building plans for the new proposed building. Building exteriors will be a split face single score architectural concrete block on the lower portion of the
building with a smooth face single score architectural concrete block around the upper level. Colors are a light gray and white. The building will have a black shingled, hip style
roof with screening on the back or rear side for roof top equipment. Display windows are located along the north and a portion of the east walls. Wall signs are proposed that are within
the limits allowed under the City’s sign ordinance.
The canopy over the pump dispensers will not be illuminated and will contain gray, white and red stripes. The applicant has proposed to be allowed to have the SuperAmerica logo and
SuperAmerica identification signs on the east, north and west faces of the canopy. They request that they be allowed to have these signs on the canopy in recognition of the fact that
they are putting up less than what they are allowed to put up for wall signery on the site. It has been explained that canopy signs are considered to be a form of freestanding sign
unless they can meet the criteria laid out in the sign ordinance for wall signs. The signs do not meet that criteria and, under the sign ordinance, are only allowed in lieu of permitted
freestanding signery. The staff believes there is appropriate signery without the canopy signs and the applicants are not willing to have canopy signs in lieu of their freestanding
signery. We believe it would be a bad precedent to allow SuperAmerica signs on the canopy as they would be the only gasoline station in Brooklyn Center allowed such consideration.
Furthermore, the reduced amount of wall signs does not, in our opinion, justify the canopy signs. There appears to be enough necessary signery without canopy signs. We, therefore,
do not recommend that this aspect of their proposal be acknowledged as an approved part of their Planned Unit Development.
LIGHTING AND TRASH
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed lighting for the site. They intend to use four perimeter pole fixtures, one at each driveway, one at the edge of
the parking area east of the store and one above the underground tanks on the west edge of the site. Also, there will be lighting under the canopy above the fuel dispensers. They note
that the light intensity drops to less than one foot candle at the property line and, with the exception of the area immediately at the base of the pole fixture illuminating the parking
area, it is below one foot candle in all residential transition zones. All fixtures will be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties. It should be noted
that the lights in the canopy will be flush with the canopy, which we understand is a new design for SuperAmerica. No lighting will exist between the building and the residential property
to the south other than a light over the exit on the back of the building, which would be activated only when the exit is used.
The plan indicates a trash enclosure area to be west of and adjacent to the building. The screening device will be a masonry structure to match the existing building. Gates for the
device should be solid opaque material and not chain link with plastic slats.
PROCEDURE
Normally rezoning applications that are considered by the Planning Commission are referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group, in this case the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group. State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time frame from the date a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This
application was filed on January 3, 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 on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than March
4, 2002. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission’s public hearing is even held. This requirement makes it difficult for the
City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission has instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory
Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the meeting and are encouraging their comments and participation
at this evening’s meeting. A staff report will be delivered to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members at the same time that it is delivered the Planning Commission members. Hopefully,
they will have an opportunity to review the matter and to make comment to the Commission at Thursday evening’s meeting. It should be noted that representatives of SuperAmerica met with
neighboring property owners and members of the Neighborhood Advisory Group at a meeting that was held at the Earle Brown Elementary School on December 11, 2001. The applicants have
indicated that they have talked with approximately 15 neighbors and are attempting to address any issues that were raised. It was their sense that the effected neighbors tended to support
their proposal as being more compatible with the neighborhood than the existing facility.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have also been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission,
following the public hearing, should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The resolution is offered for the
Planning Commission’s consideration.
1-31-02
Page 11