The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC86046 - 12/11/86 - 6100 Brooklyn BlvdPLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 8601-16 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: Ca PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission i.2� City Vault Minutes: City Council -7 City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council 63 J- 1-1 City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 36046 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center Legal Description of Property Lot 1, Block 1', Arthur Treacher' s Addition Owner Centen, Inc. Address Philadelphia Phone No. Applicant Crown CoCo, Inc. Address 319 Ulysses Street N.E. , Mpls. , MN 55413 Phone No. 612-331-9344 Type of Request: Rezoning x Variance $ 5 0.0 0 Special Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Other: Description of Request: Allow a thirty foot variance of the rear yard set -hack - From a forty foot set -back to ten foot rear yard sPt-hark_ The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Clown Coco, Inc. Fee $ 50.00 Robert P. Mack, Pres. scant s Signature Receipt No. 72840 Date: November 26, 19 R 6 PLANNING COM%PISSION RECOMMENDATION i� Dates of P.C. Consideration. �h 17, —//_Vo� Approved Denied this day of "d6,24, CITY COUNCIL ACTION 19 subject to the Dates of Council Consideration:�`—`— Approved Denied this day of �`�ezr,,e� 19, with the following amendment: n _7 X Lie P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86046 Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc. Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a rear yard setback of 101, rather than the required 401. The property in question is the same as addressed in Application Nos. 86045 and 86047. Variances from the Zoning Ordinance are comprehended by Section 35-240 (attached), provided the standards for a variance are met. Those standards are as follows: 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. Applicant's Case The applicant's representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a letter (attached) advocating the proposed special use permit (Application No. 86045) and variances for rear setback (No. 86046) and parking (No. 86047). The setback variance is addressed in point #1 of Mr. Finley's letter. Mr. Finley states the variance is necessary because the proposed building which is only two-thirds (2/3) the standard size now being built, must be put as far back on the property as possible to allow smooth ingress and egress and to alleviate internal and external traffic congestion. He states that the variance is necessary if the applicant is to compete in the existing convenience one -stop market. He also states that the variance would not be needed if the parcel were not pie -shaped. He concludes by stating that this circumstance was not created by the applicant and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to any other land. Staff Analysis a Hardship: It is not clear from Mr. Finley's letter, whether the applicant considers a 4,000 sq. ft. building or some lesser size to be a hardship. However, we definitely do not. One thing must always be borne in mind with respect to density: the amount of land on a given parcel is unchangeable; the amount of building on that land is changeable. Therefore, the size and location of a lot are always more basic than what is to be put on it. Staff would agree, however, that smooth ingress and egress are important concerns of the public as well as the property owner. The question is whether the building 12-11-86 -1- Application No. 86046 continued actually has to be set back as far as proposed to allow a smooth flow of traffic and, if so, whether that objective is more important to the public than the rear yard setback. We feel these questions ultimately lead back to the question of density. The Planner has developed a couple of site layouts which put a 4,000 sq. ft. building and required parking within appropriate setbacks. However, they only have one pump island, whereas the applicant desires two islands. A plan with two islands and a trapezoid -shaped building of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. also appears to be possible. A 4,000 sq. ft. building with two pump islands simply does not appear feasible if the rear setback requirement is to be met. We do not feel that a smaller building, fewer gas pumps, or a trapezoid -shaped building are necessarily hardships created by the parcel or the City's ordinance. b) Uniqueness: A trapezoid -shaped parcel along Brooklyn Boulevard is not a unique occurance. It does present some challenges in designing a site layout, but most other buildings along Brooklyn Boulevard meet the required rear yard setback. c) Cause: What brings about this variance request is that the applicant has no use for a rear "yard", whereas the Zoning Ordinance presumes the need in all zoning districts for a minimum rear yard. It may be that accessory uses such as employee parking, trash storage, and other storage (provided it is screened) are assumed to be a part of every business operation; and, if they exist that it is appropriate for them to be conducted behind the building. The imposition of a rear yard requirement in this case tends to push the building to a position on the lot that either reduces its size or reduces the number of gas pumps. On the other hand, it creates more room for required parking which has not been provided on the proposed plan. The ordinance requirements thus reduces space for the principal use while expanding space for accessory uses. d) Impact: In this case, there is an apartment complex to the east of the site, zoned R5. There is no buffer required between a C2 use and an R5 district. Parking lot screening is required. In this case, there was a fence on top of a retaining wall screening this site from the apartment complex to the east. The fence has collapsed from lack of maintenance. On the R5 property, there are garages on the west side of the apartment site. Staff would concede that, in this particular case, the impact of the back of the building being 10' from the rear property line is probably not noticeably greater than the impact of accessory uses such as parking and storage. Precedent The applicant will no doubt point out that the service station to the south is set back less than 40' from its rear property line. This is true. That station is approximately 14.5' from the rear property line. When originally built in 1958, the station was 28' from the rear lot line. A car wash addition in 1972 required a rear yard setback variance which was granted. Staff do not find the reasons for granting that variance very inspiring. They boil down to: better to allow a rear yard setback variance than a front yard setback variance. If those were the only choices, we'd agree. But, in light of more recent variance applications, it must be pointed out that the option of denial does also exist. Rear yard setbacks of less than 40' also exist for some of the buildings on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 55th Avenue North and 56th Avenue North. These businesses have no access onto Brooklyn Boulevard and so might logically be located closer to it, but they tend to be set back close to the private street between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North by which their customers gain access. 12-11-86 _2_ Application No. 86046 continued Zantigos restaurant, which was recently built, was allowed closer than 40' from its rear property line. Nevertheless, there are far more examples of conformity, including the previous use of this property. In general, staff are opposed to granting a setback variance for a flat and (to be) vacant parcel of land. Recommendation We are simply not convinced at this point that a variance is necessary. If alternative layouts which meet the setback requirement all appear to have serious drawbacks, perhaps a variance should be considered. As of yet, however, we do not feel the applicant has given this design problem his best effort. A revised plan should definitely be submitted before favorable action on this application. 12-11-86 -3-