Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-188 CCR Member Theodore Willard introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 69 -188 RESOLUTION DENYING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 68077 SUBMITTED BY R. WILLIAM REILLY WHEREAS, on April 17, 1967 Bermel -Smaby Realty, Inc. submitted Application No. 67019 requesting rezoning from R -1 to R -B those properties known as Tracts B and C Brooklane Addition, City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 1967 Tracts B and C of Brooklane Addition were a rezoned by the City Council from R -1 to the R -B classification to permit erection of a real estate office building; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 1968 Richard Rockstad of Lowry Realty Co. submitted Application No. 68006 requesting rezoning from R -1 to B -2 those properties known as Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 6 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 5, Brooklane Addition, City of Brooklyn Center as well as parcels 2330 and 2310 of Auditors Subdivision No. 25, except the east 165 feet thereof; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 1968 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 68 -172 denying Application No. 68006 as being inconsistent with the goals of the Compre- hensive Plan as adopted on November 7, 1966; and WHEREAS, after numerous public hearings and informational mail -outs to citizens of the community, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance effective June 22, 1968; and WHEREAS, the June 22, 1968 Zoning Ordinance created new zoning districts, among them commercial districts distinguished by intensity of land use and activity as C -1 (service /office) and C -2 (commerce); and WHEREAS, the properties comprehended by Application No. 68077 submitted by R. William Reilly on December 16, 1968 had previously been designated by the new Zoning Ordinance as a C -1 (service /office) district; and WHEREAS, Application No. 68077 requested rezoning from C -1 to C -2 classification those parcels known as 2310 and 2330, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; Tracts A, B and C, Brooklane Addition, and that part of R.L.S. No. 803 lying north of 65th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, Application No. 68077 was considered in public hearing by the Planning Commission on January 2, 1969 and tabled at the request of the applicants so that he would be able to meet with residents in the neighborhood; and 27 RESOLUTION NO. 69 -188 WHEREAS, on February 2, 1969 after gathering all relevant information the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 69 -2 recommending denial of Application No. 68077 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 1969 the City Council tabled Application No. 68077 at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 1969 the City Council considered Application No. 68077 in public hearing and after receiving information from the applicant and from owners of neighboring properties the City Council tabled the application for 30 days, with the concurrence of the applicant, to allow for study of the testimony and information; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 1969 the matter was deferred until the City Council meeting of April 21, 1969; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1969 Councilman Theodore Willard presented a memorandum setting forth facts and findings regarding Application No. 68077 and recommending conclusions related thereto; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1969 individual Councilmen discussed facts relevant to Application No. 68077; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1969 consideration of the matter concluded with a motion by Theodore Willard and seconded by Howard Heck that the City Manager be instructed to prepare a draft resolution denying Application No. 68077 requesting rezoning from C -1 to C -2, which draft resolution shall include the chronological sequences of the application and findings of fact enunciated by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to declare the following findings; 1. That the present Comprehensive Plan and its implementing device, the Zoning Ordinance, was developed after years of thorough study with full participation of the citizens of this community. 2. That at the time the subject property was proposed and ultimately zoned to its present classification, the owners of said property in'no way protested the determination by the Council of its highest and best use consistent with the welfare of the neighborhood, and that when the current zoning ordinance was being studied and developed, one of the present owners on June 27, 1967 petitioned for and was granted rezoning to an R -B classification to permit erection of an office building which under current zoning ordinance is defined as a C -1 use. 229 RESOLUTION NO. 69 -188 3. That the applicant in his petition for rezoning has presented no argument to show any significant change in circumstances since adoption of the present C -1 zoning. 4. That the Planning Commission and Council review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance finds the two in their entirety consistent with respect to the subject property. 5. That the present C -1 designation provides a reasonable return to the applicant without substantially destroying the value of the adjoining properties and without destroying the possibility of achieving the Osseo Road development goals. 6. That the City Council has been consistent in its interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan and with regard to the subject area as evidenced by the denial of a C -2 rezoning request as contained in Application No. 68006. 7. That the City Council interprets the phrase "immediate vicinity of its (Osseo Road) interchange with interstate freeway 94" as contained on page 43 of the Comprehensive Plan relating to the Osseo Road Development Goals to mean property contiguous to the north side of freeway 94 as illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan map. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon all of the information and testimony presented to the City Council it is hereby determined to deny Application No. 68077 as submitted by R. William Reilly. May 5, 1969 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member john Leary and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted- in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, john Leary, Earl Rydberg, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.