Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 11-05 MEMORANDUM TO: NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Louis Terzich 561 -8639 James Carlson 561 -1065 Greg McGeary 560 -3019 Barbara Sorenson 561 -4524 Jolene Heath 561 -8938 Planning Commissioners Lowell Ainas 560 -7805 Mark Holmes 560 -3036 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection 6_1L- DATE: November 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 90026 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on October 18, 1990 and has referred this rezoning request to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by Janis Blumentals on behalf of Edina Realty located at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard who request that their property be rezoned from R5 (Multiple Family) to C1 (Service /Office). The property in question is located on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between the Boulevard Plaza office condominium development and the off -site parking lot for the Brooklyn United Methodist Church. There are also some single - family homes north of this site and St. Alphonsus Church lies further east. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank tenant in the Edina Realty office building. The existing office building, which is a permitted use in the C1 zoning district, was approved with a special use permit in the R5 zone in 1985. The R5 zoning district allows most service /office uses by special use permit. However, financial institutions, which are considered to be one of the more intense C1 uses, are not allowed at all in the R5 zoning district. If the property is rezoned to Cl, both the existing service /office use and the proposed bank would be permitted uses. Lot area and buffer requirements are met for a C1 designation. However, the bank use will require the addition of nine parking stalls. The Comprehensive Plan recommends service /office use for this parcel and the vacant parcel to the east on the Land Use Revisions Map (see area #41 on Figure 15 and Table 14, attached). When this property (the old City Hall site) was sold in the early 1980's, the City held public meetings with people from the neighborhood and it was the sentiment of those present that an office use on the property was preferable to a multi- family use. Since an office use i Memo Page 2 November 5, 1990 was allowable by special use permit, no rezoning was pursued at that time. The old City Hall site included the existing Edina Realty site and the vacant parcel to the east which was subdivided off in 1985 and also approved for an office use. It is staff's recommendation that this vacant parcel be zoned the same as the Edina Realty parcel. The owner of the vacant parcel has orally consented to rezoning the vacant parcel to Cl in a meeting with staff. Edina Realty has approached the Brooklyn United Methodist Church about acquiring land from their off -site parking lot for additional parking. If land is purchased and attached to the Edina Realty site, the property would have to be replatted and the new lot would have to be rezoned. The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a written statement (attached) addressing the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the major consideration when reviewing the proposed rezoning. The following information is enclosed for review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90026 and minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 90026. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 3. A map of the area showing the location of the property to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. 4. A copy of Section 35 -314 and 35 -320 regarding uses allowed in the R5 and Cl zoning districts. 5. Figure 15 and Table 14 from the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan which contains recommended land use revisions (see area #41). 6. Correspondence from Janis Blumentals addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 1990 and will be held in the Media Center room at Willow Lane School at 71st and Perry Avenues North. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. Memo Page 3 November 5, 1990 The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation by December 1, 1990. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself. If for any reason you cannot attend the meeting, please contact us as soon as possible at 569 -3300. It is important that we have enough members present to conduct business and there will likely be people from the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation. i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 18, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas, Commissioners Ella Sander, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Chairperson Molly Malecki and Commissioners Wallace Bernards and Bertil Johnson were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Lowell Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. V •V APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty/ Blumentals Architecture) V Following the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5 to C1 a 1.1 acre parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard which is presently the site of the Edina Realty building. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90026 attached). The Secretary explained during his presentation that the application is technically only for the developed parcel, but that staff would recommend expanding the rezoning to include the vacant parcel zoned R5 to the east. He stated that the owner of that parcel, though not present, has indicated to staff that he concurs with the rezoning to C1. He explained that if it were not rezoned to C1, a multiple family development could be built on the vacant parcel. The Secretary also explained that the site in question was formerly occupied by the old City Hall years ago and, therefore, has an office use as a preceding use on the property. He stated that there had been public meetings in the past in which the neighbors and the City itself expressed a preference for office use on the property even though it was zoned R5. Commissioner Sander asked what was the size of the vacant parcel to the east. Mr. Janis Blumentals, representing the applicant, stated that it was approximately 25,000 sq. ft. In answer to another question from Commissioner Sander, the Secretary noted that the vacant parcel to the east is landlocked, but that a covenant exists 10 -18 -90 1 which allows access to that parcel across the developed parcel at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that another office building was approved for the vacant parcel, but has not been pursued to this point. Commissioner Sander asked why the property was not rezoned to C1 when the office development was proposed. The Secretary answered that it was not necessary to rezone the property, but that a special use permit was pursued instead. The Planner explained that the property was probably zoned R5 in 1968 when apartment development was popular. He stated that, as apartment development declined and office development increased during the 1970's, an ordinance amendment was passed to allow office uses by special use permit in the R5 zone. He stated that it was then easier for developers to seek a special use permit for an office development than to go through the rezoning process. The Secretary added that the old RB zone which existed in the Zoning Ordinance prior to 1968 also allowed both multiple family development and limited commercial development. Commissioner Holmes asked if the reason for the rezoning was really for a bank. The Secretary answered that the firm that wishes to go into the building calls itself a bank. He stated that a finance office would be allowed in the R5 zone, but not a bank. He also noted that a bank use requires parking based on the retail parking formula. He added that the proposed bank tenant would have tellers. Mr. Janis Blumentals explained that Edina Realty is owned by Metropolitan Federal Bank and that it is a corporate policy to move a small branch bank facility into the real estate offices of Edina Realty to provide one stop shopping. He stated that there was no intent for a driveup facility and pointed out that Metropolitan Federal is presently located in K Mart. The Planner asked Mr. Blumentals to clarify whether Metropolitan Federal would be open to the public. Mr. Blumentals responded in the affirmative. The Secretary commented that if the bank were not open to the public, it could be considered to be an accessory use to the real estate office and would not require rezoning. He stated that the rezoning opens up the property to a broader range of service /office uses. Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked how many square feet the office building was. Mr. Blumentals responded that it was approximately 10,000 sq. ft. (the Planner noted that the gross floor area is closer to 14,000 sq. ft.). Chairman Pro tem Ainas asked for the size of the bank facility. Mr. Blumentals responded that it would only be about 400 sq. ft. There followed a brief discussion regarding signery for the bank. The Secretary explained that wall signery is limited to building identification signery and does not allow for tenant identification signery. Commissioner Sander stated that the applicant would still need a site plan approval for the additional parking. The Secretary 10-18-90 2 agreed and noted that the applicants are working with the church to possibly expand parking into an unused portion of their off -site parking lot. He added that the Edina Realty building could expand its site and take land from the vacant parcel to the east to provide more parking. He stated that he recommended combining whatever land was needed for the additional parking through a plat and that that land also be rezoned to C1. He added that the City did not want to allow shortcutting through the Edina Realty site and through the church's off -site parking lot to avoid the signal at Noble and Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Blumentals stated that they were negotiating with the church, but that it was more difficult than negotiating with an individual and that he hoped a site plan would be available for the Commission's review when the rezoning comes back for final consideration. Commissioner Sander stated that she thought that Edina Realty had approximately 80 agents office in the existing building. She stated that the site is already short on parking spaces in practical terms and that more parking is needed even without the bank. There followed a brief discussion of parking problems in the area and the formulas for office, medical and bank uses. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the provision for handicapped ,parking. The Secretary stated that handicapped parking stalls were already provided and no new ones would probably be needed because of the additional stalls. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 90026) Chairman Pro tem Ainas then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 90026 and asked whether anyone present wished to comment regarding the proposal. No one spoke. Commissioner Holmes stated that his main concern with the proposal was the need for additional parking. Commissioner Sander asked whether it was necessary to send this application to a neighborhood advisory group in light of the fact that they were notified and yet no one has shown up to comment on the application. The Secretary stated that he still recommended that the standard procedure be followed and that the rezoning be referred to a neighborhood advisory group. He stated that people may simply support the office development and oppose multiple family and, therefore, have no objection to the rezoning; or there may be other reasons why no one showed up at the public hearing. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO 90026 (Edina Realty / Blumentals Architecture) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to table Application No. 90026 and refer the matter to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in 10 -18 -90 3 favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 10 -18 -90 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90026 Applicant: Edina Realty /Blumentals Architecture, Inc. Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The applicant requests rezoning from R5 to C1 of a 1.1 acre parcel of land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question is presently developed as the site of the Edina Realty office building. It is bounded on the north by the Brooklyn United Methodist Church parking lot and two single - family homes, on the east by a vacant R5 zoned parcel that was to be the site of another smaller office building, on the south by the Boulevard Plaza office condominium development, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. The basic purpose of the rezoning is to allow a small bank facility to locate in the existing Edina Realty office building. Financial institutions are a permitted use in the Cl zoning district, but are not one of the service /office uses allowed by special use permit in the existing R5 zoning district. All rezoning applications are to be evaluated in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (copy attached) . The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he addresses the guidelines point by point. A recitation of the guidelines and the applicant's arguments along with staff comments follows. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service /office use." Staff: The Comprehensive Plan does specifically recommend service /office use on this site and the vacant site to the east (see area #41 on the Land Use Revisions Map, attached) . The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the Plan recommendation. Perhaps the more immediate question is whether there is a benefit to allowing some service /office uses, such as banks, which are allowed in the C1 zone, but not the R5 zone. The C1 zoning would allow for slightly more intense uses, but would also preclude multi - family uses which are not consistent with the Plan for this area. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? 10 -18 -90 1 Application No. 90026 continued Applicant: "The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either R5, Cl or C2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard many of the R5 lots have been developed as Cl by special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property is planned and designed for an office building." Staff: We would agree that the proposed Cl zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications and with the nature of Brooklyn Boulevard as a major thoroughfare. C) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of the existing office building will work, since this land is already developed as an office building and its required parking." Staff: One of the issues that needs to be addressed with a bank occupancy within the existing office building is parking. Financial institutions are required to have parking based on the retail parking formula. The proposed bank facility would occupy approximately 400 sq. ft. of space on the first floor. The general office formula requires only two spaces for this area. However, the retail formula requires 11 spaces for the first 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Therefore, the retail formula requirement for this space is 11 spaces. The irony of the situation is that, if the bank use were larger, the total parking requirement for the building would actually be less. There may be a need to address this irony somehow in the ordinance. At present, however, there is a need to provide nine (9) additional parking stalls. It is our understanding that there have been discussions with the Brooklyn United Methodist Church to either acquire or encumber land on their off -site parking lot to provide additional parking. As a result, the applicant will either have to obtain a special use permit for off -site accessory parking or may have to expand the area to be rezoned to include whatever land is acquired. The buffer requirements for a parking lot for an office building are the same as for a church parking lot. We do not believe the need to provide more parking for the bank use presents additional issues which argue against the rezoning of the office building site. They can feasibly be addressed through a proper site plan which may be forthcoming. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? 10 -18 -90 2 Application No. 90026 continued Applicant: "Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R5 have used special use permits for Cl use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial, even though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial character of the avenue." Staff: One zoning change that has taken place since this property was zoned R5, is that the land to the south, which contains the Boulevard Plaza office condominiums was rezoned from R5 to R3. A special use permit was granted for the office use in the R3 zone. Zoning this property to R3 would be somewhat consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but would preclude a bank occupancy. The proposed C1 zoning is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this parcel since it calls specifically for service /office uses. The applicant is correct in observing that there have been office developments in this area and that, because of the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard, service /office use of the property is logical. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Applicant: "The subject property is in compliance with zoning regulations presently in force for Cl districts, and through rezoning would allow uses such as financial institutions, in this building." Staff: The applicant has addressed use compliance with Cl regulations, but not other C1 requirements, such as parking. The site meets lot width and area requirements for a Cl parcel adjacent to a major thoroughfare. The greenstrip, setback and parking requirements are met for a general office use. However, as has been pointed out above, the site does not have adequate parking if a bank occupancy is proposed. The applicant must address the parking issue by acquiring or encumbering land beyond the existing site. However, even if no additional parking can be obtained, we do not feel the rezoning should, therefore, be denied. The 40 10 -18 -90 3 Application No. 90026 continued ro osed rezoning p p g is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use is consistent with the proposed zoning. A bank use may not become feasible for parking reasons. Nevertheless, most service /office uses can be comprehended. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "The present R5 zoning without the special use permit for this piece of land would not have been useful for the original development, since the size of this lot is not sufficient to provide multi - family housing and the necessary green areas and amenities, etc. The use of the office buildings as buffers between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single - family residential has proven superior to multi- family housing developments, due to the limited hours of business, and generally clean nature of offices." Staff: We would not agree that the original parcel (about 72,500 sq. ft.) was too small for multi - family development, but certainly a project of that size would have limited amenities. The R5 zoning probably made sense 20 years ago when traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard was less than today and when there was a strong demand for apartments. Today, it is felt that the community has a surplus of apartments and the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard probably lends itself more to commercial than residential development. Service /office uses have been viewed for some time as a good transitional use along Brooklyn Boulevard to buffer retail nodes from each other and the Brooklyn Boulevard from single - family development. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicant: 11 1. This rezoning will expand the Cl zone only to the extent that this land will become part of the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in compliance with the regulations set forth for the C1 zone. 3. It is in the best interest of the community to have the actual zoning reflect what exists on the property and eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a special use permit." 10 -18 -90 4 Application No. 90026 continued Staff: The proposed zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is little vacant land in either the R5 or Cl zones; however, this parcel is not vacant anyway. We would recommend that the area to be rezoned be expanded to the vacant parcel to the east. That parcel was created about five years ago and was planned to be the site of another, smaller office building. We do not feel that it would be appropriate to leave that parcel zoned R5 and possibly allow any apartment building which would have to gain access through the existing office building site at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The plat that divided the original parcel was approved with the understanding that the easterly parcel would be developed as an office. An approved plan for an office building on that parcel does exist. We believe it would be in the best interests of the community to rezone both parcels to C1 and preclude any multi - family development in this location. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant: "It is in the interest of the City to clarify the actual zoning of this property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is on the site." Staff: We agree in this case and would add that it is in the City's interest to have both zoning and use consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Procedure The City's practice with rezoning applications is for the Planning Commission to open a public hearing, take comments and then table the application and refer it to the relevant neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. We would recommend following that procedure in this case also. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross, Planner roved by, Ronald A. arren, Director of Planning and Inspection 10 -18 -90 5 Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? mum �+ mm am IM. • MI= ME MEN OWN MEN LkNE MEN 1 90026 x', IME IM MR MEN SMIN MWE MEN IN � il mw IN IN IN mm MIN MI _ � 1646 ■ M IME r M slas MEN AP am men • .. �u��■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■����" i• .� '111111111 11111l�UIu• ' � " � ■■■ M ilan , / / ��I� ��� C r"3 ■� C - Ci mot' � :iii IM IM Noll NO Section 35 -313. R4 MULTIPLE FAMMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. C. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. i� Section 35 -314. R5 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of two and one half or three stories in height. b. R3 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R3 zoning district. 35 -314 C. R4 uses, provided such uses shall adhere to the district requirements that prevail in the R4 zoning district. d. Parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Playground equipment and installations, including swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, boarding care homes and child care homes, provided that these institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulation, or by municipal ordinance, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Certain service- office uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R5 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 1 35 -314 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. and which are described in Section 35 -320, Subsections 1 (b) (c) (d) and (j) through (t). Such service- office uses shall be subject to the Cl district requirements of Sections 35 -400 and 35 -411, and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed use represents. C. Chapels, churches, synagogues and temples, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. Section 35 -315. R6 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Multiple family dwellings of four or five stories in height. b. Low rise multiple family dwellings of one and one -half through three stories in height, provided such low rise dwellings are part of a planned integral development with (a) above. Further provided such low rise dwellings: 1. Shall contain no more than 65% of the total dwelling units in the planned development. 2. Shall conform to the density requirements of the zoning district which their respective heights prescribe. C. Retail food shops, drycleaning pickup stations, beauty parlors, barber shops, and valet shops within multiple family dwellings containing 30 or more dwelling units. Such shops shall be accessible to the public through a lobby with no advertising or display to be visible from outside the building, and shall be restricted to the ground floor or subfloors. d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use. 3. Swimming pools and tennis courts. 4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling apartment units in the development in which it is located. 35 -316 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. / Special 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses The following service /office uses are permitted in the C1 district, provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not exceed three stories, or in the event that a basement is proposed, three stories plus basement: a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided, however, that such institutions shall, where required by state law, or regulations of the licensing authority, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority. b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office. C. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices. d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory facilities), accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban planning agency offices. e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art galleries. f. Beauty and barber services. g. Funeral and crematory services. h. Photographic services. i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe repair. j. Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall not be a permitted use. k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services office, adjustment and collection service offices. 1. Duplicating, mailing and stenographic service offices. M. Employment agency offices. n. Business and management consultant offices. o. Detective and protective agency offices. 35 -320 p. Contractor's offices. q. Governmental offices. r. Business association, professional membership organizations, labor unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices. S. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 3. The compounding, dispensing or sale (at retail) of drugs, prescription items, patent or proprietary medicines, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily by medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric offices. 4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops, tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar accessory retail shops within multistory office buildings over 40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no associated signery visible from the exterior of the building; there is no carry -out or delivery of food from the lot; and the total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building. t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as determined by the City Council. U. Financial institutions including, but not limited to, full - service banks and savings and loan associations. V. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted annually to the City. W. Leasing offices, provided there is no storage or display of products on the use site. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 35 -320 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut Rl, R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the Cl district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted Cl district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to children served by the day care use. and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -411 are adhered to. / C. Instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing and the like and studios for like activity. Section 35 -321. CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation) a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be permitted in a building or establishment in the CIA district. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. b. All of the special uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be allowed by special use permit in the CIA district. Figure 15 71 —_ � �_ � iLLYtn' K ��i�• �i..— �_���� ��y� J F ,_��� r . 1 7=1 rI cl -- - l ��x i�' -�� I � � } - ��r"��'r yf•��.'� t'? I' �� - �'� 1 1� r �� {` - ! "� tut t--ii ..� � 4KL '� -�- -� / CrGK�r 'm+ TKI•i�� � t_.t..+T�l�+.fr : � U a�r� acF raa+eEa Land Use ,..K ..�'�� Plan .! Revisions Comprehensive Plan M um TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid - Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid- Density Residential 2. Single - Family Residential 3• Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid- Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid- Density Residential 7a. Single - Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple - Family Residential 9• Commercial /Retail 10. Commercial /Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid- Density Residential /High Density Residential 13. Mid- Density Residential 14. Single- or Two - Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space • 17. Mid- Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 19• Commercial 20. Low - Density Residential 21. Service /Office 22. Low - Density Residential 23. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 24. Service /Office 25. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 26. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 27. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 28. Service /Office/Mid- Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office 31. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential 32. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 33• Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office 34. Mid- Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office 37. Mid- Density Residential 38. Single - Family Residential 39• Service /Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service /Office 42. Mid- Density Residential 98 Blumentals0 6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561 -5757 September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF REZONING APPLICATION FOR EDINA REALTY BUILDING, 7100 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER A) IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? The rezoning would make this site, presently zoned R -5, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for service /office use. B) IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? The neighboring land, on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned either R -5, C -1 or C -2. With the heavy traffic on the boulevard many of the R -5 lots have been developed as C -1 by special use permit. Directly to the north of our site is a very large church parking lot. The undeveloped land behind our property is planned and designed for an office building. C) CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? Permitted uses that are compatible with the constraints of the existing office building will work, since this land is already developed as an office building and its required parking. D) HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? Several of the adjoining properties that are zoned R -5 have used spec i a I use permits for C -1 use, in lieu of rezoning, so the general atmosphere of Brooklyn Boulevard is commercial, even though the present zoning on many of those sites is for apartments. The amount of traffic on the Boulevard reinforces the commercial character of the avenue. E) IN THE CASE OF CITY - INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? Not applicable. September 26, 1990 REZONING EVALUATION Page 2 of 2 F) WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS? The subject property is in compliance with zoning regulations presently in force for C -1 districts, and through rezoning would allow uses, such as financial institutions, in this building. G) IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? The present R -5 z o n i n g without the spec i a l use p e r m i t for t h i s piece of land would not have been useful for the original development, since the size of this lot is not sufficient to provide multi - family housing and the necessary green areas and amenities, etc. The use of office buildings as buffers between commercial or street with heavy traffic and single family residential has proven superior to multi - family housing developments, due to the limited hours of business, and generally "clean" nature of offices. H) WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING DISTRICT, WARRANTED BY: 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; 2) THE LACK OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT; OR 3) THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY? 1. This rezoning will expand the C -1 zone only to the extent that t h i s land w i I I become part of the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This piece of land is already developed, and is in compliance with the regulations set forth for C -1 zone. 3. it is In the best interest to the community to have the actual zoning reflect what exists on the property, and eliminate any questions or gray areas created by a special use permit. 1) DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN I N D I V I D U A L PARCEL? It Is in the i n t e r e s t of the C i t y to c l a r i f y the actual z o n i n g of t h i s property, so that what is on paper agrees with what there is on the s i te.