Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-03 i R MEMORANDUM TO: NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Douglas Peter 566 -8558 Douglas Baker 561 -5814 Curtis Danielson 561 -8268 Steve Boone 560 -8601 Ray Haroldson 561 - 2092 1 FROM: Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspect ion' -V DATE: March 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89006 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on February 16, 1989 and has referred this rezoning reouest to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by E and H Properties ( Howard Atkins of Atkins Mechanics 1) which requests rezoning from R5 to C2 of a small sliver of land to the east and south of the Atkins Mechanical building. The land in question is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5 property to the east, by an 18 unit apartment building and the Brookdale Motel on the south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins Mechanical on the west. The purpose of the rezoning is to slightly expand the existing C2 district for development as a Fina service station /car wash /convenience store. The expanded C2 district will make the site more rectangular, will allow for a more efficient site layout, and will allow for an access drive lined up with the median opening in 66th Avenue North. The Comprehensive Plan actually recommends that all the land over to Willow Lane be developed with commercial retail. However, the Planning Commission is recommending that the neighboring R5 land be rezoned to C1 (service /office) so that an office development can buffer the service station from the residential neighborhood across Willow Lane. The applicant's architect has prepared a conceptual plan showing that an office building can still be built on the remaining land to the east. The Neighborhood Advisory Group should evaluate both the proposal for C2 zoning of the sliver of land and the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone the R5 land to C1. The applicant has submitted a written statement (attached) in which he asserts that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with 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. 89006 and minutes of the February 1.6, 1989 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 89006. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. Page 2 March 3, 1989 3. A map of the area showing the location of the property to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. There is also a survey of the property indicating the land to be rezoned. 4. A copy of Sections 35 -322 and 35 -320 regarding uses allowed in the C2 and C1 zoning districts. 5. Table 14 and Figure 15 of the City's Comprehensive Plan which list recommended Land Use Revisions. 6. Correspondence from Howard Atkins addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. 7. A site plan of the proposed Fina service station /car wash /convenience store. The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 1989 and will be held in the faculty lounge at Brooklyn Center High School. The meeting will begin at 7:30 P.M. (You go in the main doors, turn right, go almost to the end of the hall and the faculty lounge is on the right. There will be someone at the school to direct people to the meeting.) The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation within thirty days. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your participation. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 89006 Applicant: E and H Properties Location: 6550 West River Road Request: Rezoning The applicant requests approval to rezone from R5 to C2 a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The land is located to the east of the present C2 zoning district, adjacent to the Atkins Mechanical site. It is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5 zoned land on the east, by an 18 unit apartment building on the south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins Mechanical on the west. The zoning line presently angles southeastward at the southeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site. The proposed rezoning would draw the zoning line directly from the northeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site to the southeast corner of the vacant C2 land south of Atkins Mechanical (see area map, attached). Background The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to square out the C2 district at the southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 and thereby simplify development of the C2 land for a gas station /convenience store /car wash. The squared out district will also make access to 66th easier and allow for left turns out of the site onto 66th. A replat of the property is also required to put all of the C2 land into a single parcel and to complete the transfer of land from the R5 to the C2 zoning district. Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . Mr. Howard Atkins of E and H Properties has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he briefly addresses the guidelines. Mr. Atkins' arguments and staff comments follow below: a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and R5 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and will align access with new median opening." Staff: Placing the access to the gas station in such a location as to put it beyond (eastward of) the median in 66th Avenue North is appropriate. An efficient site layout is also generally a public benefit, but this case certainly has private benefits as well by allowing more retail space and more maneuverability for cars on the site. To the extent that an "efficient" layout increases traffic, noise, glare from headlights, etc. the more concern there is that there might be some detriment to neighboring properties. b) Is the proposed rezoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Atkins: "The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely compatible with surrounding land use." 2 -16 -89 -1- Application No. 89006 continued Staff: The straightening of the zoning line h the issue s i the g g g is not so much e a s ultimate use of the property. Service stations and car washes are not permitted to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. The proposed development will not abut Rl, R2, or R3 land, but the land which will serve as a buffer is vacant and does little to separate the service station from the single - family residential neighborhood on the east side of Willow Lane. We anticipate some neighborhood opposition to the development. If an office development were proposed concurrently on the R5 land to the east of the site, (which should perhaps be zoned to Cl) this might go some distance in providing an effective buffer to the service station. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in the C2 zone." Staff: Service stations are comprehended in the C2 zone by special use permit and are subject to the standards for special uses contained in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? • Atkins: "There have been no physical or zoning classification changes since the subject property was zoned." Staff: There has certainly been an upgrading of Highway 252 in this area which has no doubt raised the value of real estate at the intersection of 66th and Highway 252. Another physical change, which surely contributes to the service station proposed, is the elimination of two gas stations at this intersection as a result of the reconstruction of Highway 252 and the frontage road entrance to West River Road. Superamerica, at the southwest corner of the intersection, has been doing well and has plans to expand its site in the near future. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not require developers to prove with a market analysis that a business will be successful, nor can the City protect existing businesses from competition by discriminatory zoning actions. Nevertheless, we certainly hope that this intersection will not be home to four gas stations as it was at one point in the 1970's. Such an outcome would probably result in the failure of one or more stations and lead ultimately to redevelopment as in the case of the existing Atkins Mechanical office on the subject site. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Atkins: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. 2 -16 -89 -2- a Application No. 89006 continued • f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development restrictions for the C2 zoning district." Staff: The plans we have seen thus far comply with ordinance requirements. No variances are sought and none are recommended. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will align the C2 property with the proposed access road and new median opening on 66th Avenue North." Staff: Perhaps one consideration should be whether the land remaining in the parcel to the east will be sufficient for construction of a development that will screen and buffer the gas station from the residential neighborhood to the east. We have seen no plans for that parcel as yet, but we believe it is at least feasible to design such a development, though it will likely be tight, • given the lack of width of the parcel. The Commission may wish to ask the applicant to submit at least a concept plan for the remaining R5 parcel. Our understanding at this time is that the applicant intends to develop it ultimately for office use. Again, consideration of a rezoning from R5 to C1 may well be in order, as a service /office use appears to be a more desirable buffer than multiple residential use of the property. 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? Atkins: "The rezoning will not result in the expansion of the zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line." Staff: It seems obvious that the rezoning action would result in a slight expansion of the C2 zoning district. This is not in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan Revisions map at figure 15 of the Comprehensive Plan includes all of the vacant land surrounding the Atkins Mechanical site (including the R5 land) in area #3. Table 14 (attached with figure 15) lists the recommended use of this land as "commercial retail." A rezoning of all the land zoned R5 at the southwest corner of 66th and Willow Lane to C2 could, therefore, be comprehended. lie would not recommend such a rezoning today. One reason for the Plan recommendation may have been to eliminate the R5 zoning and thereby potential apartment development. The Northeast Neighborhood of the City (in which this land is situated) has the 2 -16 -89 -3- Application No. 89006 continued highest concentration of multiple family dwellings in the City; yet the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the northeast neighborhood be predominantly single - family residential. We presume that the Plan recommendation was intended more to preclude apartment development than to place commercial retail development across the street from single - family homes. We would recommend that the R5 land be rezoned to C1 to allow for office development. This would be in keeping with the Plan and would provide some buffer between the C2 and R1 zoning districts. i) Does the proposal demonstate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better traffic flow by allowing direct access to new median opening." Staff: We agree that an access to the C2 property should be to the east of the median in 66th Avenue North to allow for left turns directly onto westbound 66th without making U -turns or turning around in people's driveways on Willow Lane. Also, the R5 zone does not allow as an accessory use "any business or industrial accessory use." We have considered access drives serving commercial uses to be an example of such an accessory use disallowed under Section 35 -314 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). We, therefore, would recommend avoiding some sort of cross - access arrangement where the service station traffic would cross over a residentially zoned parcel to exit onto 66th Avenue North. Of course, if this property (the R5 property) were zoned Cl, such a conflict would not arise. (The Commission may wish to expand this . application to include a rezoning of the R5 land to Cl, thus insuring that an office development will ultimately be built between the C2 district and Willow Lane). At any rate, we would agree that there is merit to at least some expansion of the C2 district boundary. Procedure As the Commission is aware, the normal procedure with rezoning applications is to open the public hearing, take comments from the neighborhood and then table the matter, referring it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group (in this case, it would be the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group) for review and comment. In this case, due to the slight area of land involved, the Commission may wish to waive the review of the neighborhood group although this is not recommended. In any case, tabling of the application is in order as no development plans or preliminary plat have yet been submitted to flesh out the rezoning proposal. As we have discussed briefly in our analysis of the proposal, the Commission may wish to consider jointly a rezoning of the remaining R5 land to Cl. We believe the neighborhood would prefer to see an office development as a buffer to the service station rather than an apartment building. The applicant's future plans presently lean in this direction and it would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for the area. If a companion rezoning to C1 were pursued, a referral to the neighborhood group might be more appropriate. 2 -16 -89 -4- 11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. 13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of SEction 35- 712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits to eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light poles on the site. 1 One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. 15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping with community standards. 16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards Ainas and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning approval of a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North from R5 to C2. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006, attached). Commissioner Sander asked whether the rezoning to C2 would allow something to be built on the property, that the property was essentially unbuildable now. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that some development could be built on the existing C2 land, but that the site design could be more efficient if some additional land were rezoned to C2. He stated that without the rezoning it was possible that some of the traffic exiting the site would wind up going down to Willow Lane to turn around to make their westbound movement onto 66th Avenue North. He stated that moving the zoning line would allow better use of the median opening in 66th. Commissioner Sander stated that she did not want to see traffic from this development going down Willow Lane. The Secretary answered that the City could refuse to allow access from the easterly parcel to Willow Lane. He stated that the R5 parcel, in this case, would have to serve as a buffer between the service station use and the residential neighborhood to the east. He stated that the staff wanted the applicant to show that an office development would fit in this location. He added that the City staff detects that the neighborhood would prefer an office development as a buffer rather than apartments and that perhaps the land should be rezoned to C1 to lock in this development option. 2 -16 -89 -3- Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Howard Atkins, owner of the property in question, stated that his intention was to build a 12,000 sq. ft. office building on the land to the east of the service station site. He introduced architect Hal Pierce to show the Planning Commission some possible development layouts for the easterly property. Mr. Pierce then showed the Planning Commission potential site layouts for offices, apartments, and a day care center. During the Planning Commission's discussion, a neighbor who attended the meeting, stated that he objected to the traffic and noise from the Superamerica station across Highway 252. He stated that the service station development proposal would bring it closer to Willow Lane by developing the land east of Highway 252 for a service station. Chairman Nelson asked what was the feeling on the possibility of rezoning of the R5 land to Cl. An unidentified neighbor stated that there was an office development proposed two years ago and now a gas station is proposed. He stated that he wanted a buffer building to be constructed before a gas station. The Secretary stated that the City does not have the power to force one building to be built before the other. Mr. Howard Atkins explained that development of the easterly property depends on the sale of land adjacent to Highway 252 for a gas station. The Secretary indicated that there appears to be some concern about screening the gas station site. Commissioner Sander asked about screening of the gas station site from the office building. The Secretary explained that screening is not required between C2 uses and C1 uses, but that it would be appropriate to provide such screening anyway, especially if the office building is not built right away. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89006) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone wished to formally present their views. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow Lane expressed concern regarding traffic and noise from a 24 hour gas station and convenience store. He stated that the rezoning would only help the gas station and not the neighborhood. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Neuberger if he had any problem rezoning the vacant land to the east from R5 to C1. Mr. Neuberger responded that he had no problem with such rezoning. Chairman Nelson noted the entrance to the site would probably be off the Highway 252 frontage road and that most cars would exit onto 66th. The Secretary stated that the rezoning to C2 would help improve the access to 66th and may prevent movements down to Willow Lane. Mr. Neuberger stated that Superamerica is already a headache with the noise and litter and traffic that comes from that site. He stated that another gas station on the east side of Highway 252 would present even more problems. Mr. Richard Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, complained about problems with Superamerica and the decline of property values and crime that has been prevalent in the area recently. He stated he was concerned about a decline in his own property values and yet he understood the fact Mr. Atkins has the right to develop his property. He stated he did not know what the best answer was. He complained that, at present, he cannot let his son play in the street in front of his house because of the traffic coming down to Willow Lane. He stated that he felt the new gas station would increase traffic on Willow Lane. He expressed his concern that he would be unable to sell his home and cited the example of another home in the area that has been for sale for a couple of years and has not been able to sell. He stated that the rezoning presents an issue of residents versus a commercial business. Chairman Nelson then asked the Planning Commission for their comments. Commissioner Malecki stated that the Commission needs more input from neighbors in the area. She urged that the application be tabled and referred to the Northeast 2 -16 -89 -4- Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning include the rezoning of the R5 land to C1. Commissioner Malecki stated there were • really two questions to look at. One was the rezoning of land to C2 for the service station site; the other was to look at the desirability of rezoning the R5 land to C1 whether or not the rezoning to C2 took place. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 89006, continue the public hearing, and refer the application to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to evaluate rezoning of the R5 land to C1. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, one of the neighbors asked whether the advisory group would be told that it is a gas station that is proposed. The Secretary stated that the advisory group would be aware of the gas station proposal, but that the rezoning really has to be decided on the merits of the basic use of the land. He explained that a gas station is already allowed in the C2 zoning district which covers most of the land for the proposed service station site. The rezoning of a small portion of the property to C2 is one of the questions that needs to be addressed. APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to place an identification sign for Maranatha Place apartments on a retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89007 attached). The Secretary added that the nursing home is allowed a 36 sq. ft. sign already. Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Viland, the administrator of the Maranatha Care Center, showed the Planning Commission a site plan of the entire care center and apartment complex and the location of the proposed sign and the location of the driveway serving both aspects of the development. He explained that construction of the Maranatha Place apartments required soil corrections and 6,000 yards of fill to be disposed of. He explained that the fill was used to create a bermed area in front of the care center and that the retaining wall would help to buttress that berm. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the retaining wall would be brick. Mr. Viland responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the sign variance would set a precedent for other apartment complexes in the City. The Secretary stated that he did not think so because of the unique circumstance of the care center and the apartment complex being attached and being one continuous use. The Secretary added that the Commission could look at an ordinance amendment on multiple- family signery. He stated that the limit for this particular building is rather stringent, limiting it to only a 10 sq. ft. sign on the wall of the building. In response to another comment from Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary agreed that the sign was aesthetically attractive and should not be any detriment to surrounding properties. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89007) Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether • anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 2 -16 -89 -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? a- t-'� ' ; ►'� -� �__ '� 68TH AVE. N. Z + W • (n Z 1 cr- D c!) t— a Q m O W LL L � Q O I 0 3 e �,� r 67 TH AV AVE. • � 1 ' t- 1 i o v �) 1 � a IN J 66TH AVE. N. APP CATION NO. J� < X 89006 REHOUSE \ f PA RK =iRE � \ ` 65TH AVE. N• u j I \� { .. _N. X 5 C2 r w o �� p U m - - 64TH AVE. N. U - � I 694 \ ` 1 ' 63 RD AVE. N CAMDEN C iU Q / " � /1 AVE N 62ND AVE. � 2ND — \ I T. 119 N. AVE. N.' • /` ,1 / T S 61 ST AVE. I e 1 ! 90TH AVE 35 -316 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances. Special 35 -320. Cl 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 0 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. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances. 35 -320 i 0 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 C1 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 C1 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. C1A 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 C1A 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 C1A district. Special 35 -322 C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. The retail sale of food. b. Eating establishments, provided they do not offer live entertainment and further provided that the category does not permit drive -in eating places and convenience -food restaurants. C. The following uses: 1. The retail sale of heating and plumbing equipment, paint, glass, and wallpaper, electrical supplies, and building supplies. 2. The retail sale of tires, batteries and automobile accessories and marine craft accessories. 3. The retail sales of apparel and related accessories. 4. The retail sale of furniture, home furnishings and related equipment. 5. The retail sale of miscellaneous items such as the following: Drugs and proprietary items Liquors Antiques and secondhand merchandise Books and stationery Garden supplies Jewelry Flowers and floral accessories Cigars and cigarettes Newspapers and magazines Cameras and photographic supplies Gifts, novelties and souvenirs Pets Optical goods Sporting goods and bicycles d. Service /office uses described in Subsection (b) through (u) of Section 35 -320. e. The following repair /service uses: 1. Electrical repair service shops. 2. Household appliances, electrical supplies, heating and plumbing equipment. 3. Radio and television repair service shops. 4. Watch, clock and jewelry repair service shops. 35 -322 5. Reupholstery and furniture repair shops. 6. Laundering, dry cleaning g y and dyeing. 7. Equipment rental and leasing services. f. The following medical and health uses: 1. Hospitals, not including animal hospitals. 2. Medical laboratories. 3. Dental laboratories. g. The following contract /construction uses: 1. Building construction contractors' offices. 2. Plumbing, heating and air conditioning contractors' offices. 3. Painting, paper hanging and decorating contractors' offices. 4. Masonry, stone work, tile setting and plastering contractors' offices. 5. Carpentering and wood flooring contractors' offices. 6. Roofing and sheet metal contractors' offices. 7. Concrete contractors' offices. 8. Water well drilling contractors' offices. h. Educational uses. i. 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. Outside display and sale of merchandise provided that an administrative permit is first obtained pursuant to Section 35- 800 of these ordinances. j. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council. 35 -322 k. 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. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -412 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35 -414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in conjunction with these uses, provided that there is adequate trailer parking space. b. The sale or vending at gasoline service stations of items other than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and accessories (and other than the vending of soft drinks, candy, cigarettes and other incidental items for the convenience of customers within the principal building) provided adequate parking is available consistent with the Section 35 -704, 2 (b) and 2 (c). C. Drive -in eating establishments and convenience -food restaurants provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district including abutment at a street line. (However, convenience food restaurants without drive -up facilities and located within the principal structure of a shopping center of over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area shall be considered a permitted use.) d. Eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation and amusement places such as motion picture theaters and legitimate theater; sports arenas, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and gymnasiums, all provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at a street line. e. The sale of motor vehicles at retail. f. The out -of -door display and sale of marine craft at retail. g. Transient lodging. h. Animal hospitals. i. Public transportation terminals (excluding truck terminals). j. Clubrooms and lodges. k. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. 35 -322 1. Sauna establishments and massage establishments, provided they do not abut any residential (RI through R7) district, including abutment at a street line. M. School bus garage facilities provided all storage, including vehicles, and minor servicing and minor repair shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building and further provided it does not abut any residential (R1 through R7) districts, including abutment at a street line. n. Amusement centers provided the property on which the amusement center is to be located is riot within 150 feet of any residentially zoned (Rl through R7) property. o. Automobile and truck rental and leasing. p. Tennis clubs, racket and swim clubs and other athletic clubs, health spas and suntan studios. q. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same property as or adjacent to any use which is not permitted to abut Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property and provided they are not located in a retail shopping center; and further 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 C2 district generally. 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C2 district generally. 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 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. Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special requirements set forth in Section 35 -412. TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions F 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, Service /Office and Commercial 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 39 � _ I,;tL�,, ",�� «�__�--- +- .- �.� —it :':ter ` (� � • H { � f f 'l.:_ • �i -.l w 'ter•, / �/� - '��'i�^ .,'1� i /. Jam,. �J r . P. Ne MLJ IN -�� > � Ott, - -- �.r' ��• `,'�� . �0' : ��� �� `* �: �� � �. � If �` ,'\�' i �L y i > "`�•':e `~- L_I 8 RFFERENC£ NL*Awq '— Lan J p d Use Plan a /aru u•a T Revisions � EL M�7 ( gq FE�yo n LED 0 0 - )Comprehensive Plan January 26, 1989 City of Brooklyn Center Planning Department Attn: Mr. Gary Shallcross RE: E & H Properties C 2 Land Development 66th Ave. No. & Highway 252 Gentlemen: Guidlines for Rezoning (a) Clear & public need present zoning line between C2 and R5 is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and will align access with new median opening. (b) The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely compatable with surrounding land use. (c) Yes; proposed use is a service station which is permitted in C2 zone. (d) There have been no physical or zoning classification changes since the subject property was zoned. (e) Not applicable (f) The subject property will comply fully with development restrictions for the C2 zoning district. (g) The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will align the C2 property with the proposed access road and new median opening on 66th Ave. North. - continued - City of Brooklyn Center Letter of 1 -26 -89 Page 2 (h) The re- zoning will not result in the expansion of the zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning line. (i) Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better traffic flow by allowing direct access to new median opening. Respectfully submitted, E & H Properties Howard J. Atkins WEST RIVER ROAD 1v o J ),- _— ,: •1 d PC I N••• � R s I ' t '�� ' �i ry � 1 1 I 11 I I ✓ � o. �I � �. 1 r O ti , 11\ 1 I `` -•� V t _ — ` j'7• N � i _ I ; ' A� � i . , lyprw•- :.'2•f'(ri `.. - -- ro 'I y' ro I i \\ �• t � r � 1 1 .�I -, '1 µ.W!.wl •- - � —�`� '- • � -- 1. •f,�i, .n. I� -.\ --� � / 1 ��••!i�+l - ' t ` y am I � I � � Mrs•• . r /�.✓� 1Mi .�• lt • _,� is o m r. it a Paw r � I 3 v n N D c r CD I f i �j - =•• s3 a L x 8 F tf . °tt •1 [iR co < f%3 to rn o r. '- -' Crtq o =' F fit CL m r 0) t S i i 3rtlj O, rn rn _ f f N -Z \^ L ,NISCAY E SETBAC L INE � f 1 / BUILDING SETBACK LINE _^ --. 6 / I I / 1 5 I I i s / LDRLVE -UP PAY L- AIR/VAC. U TELEPHONE y / I 1 c HC I f I o 50' X 50' , I CONVENIENCE STORE f I I 1 a I 1 3 � ` DUMPSTER AND . I I SCREEN I I I I TALCS MUTUAL ACCESS 1 3