Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 09-15 PCP orcCr� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER September 15, 1994 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - August 11, 1994 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE MASTER 94009 Request for rezoning and development plan approval for a Planned Unit Development • involving the Church located at 1200 69th Avenue North and the three apartment buildings located to the east at 1100 69th Avenue North,. 1107 Emerson Lane and 6907 Dupont Avenue North. 6. BIMB, INC. 94010 Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into a lot and an outlot the 14+ acre site located on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of the Hennepin County Library/Service Center, 6211 through 6227 Brooklyn Boulevard. • 7. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 94011 Request for a special use permit to operate an automobile rental and leasing operation at the Boulevard Shopping Center. 8. ROBERT L. ADELMANN 94012 Request for site and building plan approval and a-special use permit to construct a 284 square foot addition to Duke's Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North. 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment t • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 94009 Applicant: Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master Location: Northwest quadrant of Dupont 69th Avenues North Request: Rezoning for Planned Unit Development - PUD/R-1 The applicant is requesting rezoning and plan approval, through the Planned Unit Development process, to incorporate three apartment buildings located immediately east of the Lutheran Church of the Master into a full church use over a phased, or staged, period of time. The rezoning proposal is for a PUD/R-1 designation to include the church property, addressed 1200 69th Avenue North, and the three apartment buildings east of the church currently addressed as 1107 Emerson Lane, 1100 69th Avenue North and 6907 Dupont Avenue North. The properties in question are currently zoned R-1 (single family residence) and R-4 (multiple family residence) and are located at the northwest quadrant of Dupont and 69th Avenues North. They are bounded on the north and east by 70th Avenue, Emerson Avenue, Emerson Lane and Dupont Avenue with single family homes and one of the city's water towers on the opposite sides of these streets; on the south by 69th Avenue with single family homes and the city's public utility building on the opposite side of 69th Avenue; and on the west by the Northbrook Terrace apartment complex. • The PUD/R-1 zonin g designation nation would allow the incorporation and use of these apartment buildings by the church over time in a manner consistent with the city's zoning ordinance. Church uses are special uses in the R-1 zone, but are not an acknowledged use, either permitted or special in the R-4 zoning district. The church has acquired the three seven unit apartment buildings under a contract for deed from Norman Chazin. Their purchase contract prohibits the church from making structural changes to the buildings until the contact is paid in full. It is our understanding that the contract provisions do not prohibit all modifications, but they must be such that they would make it impossible to re-establish a multiple residential use of the buildings. Pastor Robert Cottingham of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master has given us two written submittals (copies attached) along with their Planned Unit Development rezoning application. One is an August 15, 1994 letter explaining the staged or phased plan for the use of the buildings by the Lutheran Church of the Master and the other is an August 31, 1994 memo addressing the city's rezoning evaluation policy. The first phase (1994-1995), which the church would like to undertake as quickly as possible, would involve the use of the apartment building closest to the church as a teaching facility for the children and youth of the church. This is the building located at 1107 Emerson Lane. The letter points out how they would use the building for Sunday School between 9:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on Sundays for teaching approximately 175 to 200 second through twelveth graders. 1 L They propose using the living rooms and bedrooms in the units as classrooms for classes of . approximately ten students. They would also use this building for their Confirmation classes for grades seven through nine on Wednesday evenings. They propose no major structural changes, but would convert one restroom on each floor at this time to accommodate handicap persons. They are also looking at a way to make each floor accessible either via ramp or a lift. The proposed new use is a change of occupancy, which would require bringing this building into compliance with various handicap and accessibility requirements. The Building Official is reviewing this currently and it may be, given the staged proposal for a full incorporation of all the buildings into eventual compliance, that he might be able to allow such use, given some reasonable temporary accommodations. Again, we are pursuing this, but it appears that a PUD development calling for such accommodation on a scheduled or phased basis may make this possible. In the meantime, the church would propose to provide volunteer assistance for any and all teachers and any students with physical handicaps that would require assistance. It should be noted that this building is no longer being used for residential purposes with former tenants either moving away or being relocated to one of the other two apartment buildings. The second phase (1996), would involve the use of the building addressed as 6907 Dupont (southwest corner of Emerson Lane and Dupont Avenue North). A part of this building would be remodeled to permit large group meetings for approximately 100 people, such as adult and children chorus, drama groups, youth gatherings and a senior citizens day teaching/fellowship area. Also, plans for the second building include remodeling for small group meetings and their space needs as well as a small prayer chapel. • The third phase (1997-1998), would incorporate the last building, addressed 1100 69th Avenue North as the church's global missions center. This would involve retaining two complete apartment units strictly for use of missionary families who are on home leave for a short period of time. The Lutheran Church of the Master supports seven missionary families currently. This building would also house a short term evangelical mission home office staff. And finally, the building would provide for more office space for teaching and counseling of persons interested in doing mission work. The plans at this time do not include the physical plans to remodel and reuse the buildings. We have informed representatives of the church that a site plan, landscaping, grading, drainage, and utility plans incorporating the buildings into a church campus would have to be developed and approved once the PUD/R-1 rezoning has been accepted. The church is proceeding with such . plans and discussion as to how these physical plans would be accomplished. It should be noted that eventually, the three parcels on which the apartments currently sit would have to be replatted into a common lot through platting or registered land survey. Also, a water shed plan for possible ponding to control rate and quality of water run off would have to be approved by the Shingle Creek Water Shed Management Commission. By adding these buildings to the church site, it exceeds the five acre threshold for Water Shed Commission review and approval. As part of the approval of a PUD, a development agreement between the church and the city 2 would have to be put together outlining the phasing of this proposal including when platting, water shed approval, along with the physical plans would have to be accomplished. The PUD/R-1 designation would also acknowledge the continued use of the apartment building and its re-establishment should, for some reason, the church not proceed to incorporate all these buildings for their use. Again, the church wishes first phase approval as soon as possible so they can begin the Sunday school and Confirmation class uses of the first building. REZONING A Planned Unit Development proposal involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district then provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the PUD. In this specific case, the applicant is seeking R-1(single family residence) as the underlying zoning designation because churches, and church uses, are special uses in the R-1 zoning district, while they are not acknowledged uses, either permitted or special, in the R-4 zoning district. The rules and regulations governing the R-1 zoning district would, therefore, apply to the development proposal. Under the Planned Unit Development procedure, regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions imposed by the City Council to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan submittal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the city flexibility in land development and redevelopment. This PUD designation would allow the City Council to approve the continued use of the apartment . buildings under the R-4 designation while the church phases in the use of the buildings for its purposes. This process would also protect the Chazins' rights to re-establish the multiple residence use if the contract for deed is not satisfied and the ownership would revert back to them. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of Section 35-355 of the zoning ordinance which addresses Planned Unit Developments. As mentioned, the PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines are attached for the commissions review. Pastor Cottingham has submitted an August 31, 1994 memo in which he outlines how he believes the proposed church use of the three apartment buildings meets the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208. A review of those guidelines, the applicant's arguments and the staff response follows: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant - Pastor Cottingham notes that in studying the number of low cost apartments, talking with the apartment owners group and close to 100 of their neighbors, that it seems clear that the entire city, its residents and business groups will benefit through the eventual closing of all three apartment buildings and the reprogramming of their use. He notes that the public need seems 3 to call for fewer apartments at this point and the general consensus is that the area has been over built with apartments in the 1960's and 1970's. Staff- We do not argue with these observations, and in fact, the city has acquired apartment complexes and demolished them, thinning out the number of units. It should be noted, however, that there still is a need in the area for multiple residential units. One of the problems faced by apartment owners in our immediate area is that these units do not offer all of the amenities that many other apartments that have more recently been constructed and have a difficult time competing. We do not find the thinning out of these units to be a negative and the church's use of the buildings for their purpose could be considered a public need or benefit. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant - Pastor Cottingham states that the church's proposal is indeed consistent with surrounding land use classifications. He notes that there is a good mix of several zoning classifications including R-4 and R-1 in the area. He believes rezoning the three apartments will not cause any public or private differences. Staff- The area in and around the Lutheran Church of the Master is, for the most part, zoned residential, either single family or multiple family. The PUD/R-1 designation and the church use of these buildings should be consistent with and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications. Churches are acknowledged special uses in an R-1 zoning district. This • rezoning will allow the eventual phase out of the three apartment buildings to an R-1 special use designation. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant - Pastor Cottingham notes that all permitted uses in the area for schools, churches, small offices, etc. are permitted in the proposed change requested by the church. Staff - It appears that all permitted uses and proposals can be comprehended for development in this specific PUD proposal. We will need to review the actual development plans for the incorporation of these buildings into a church campus once these plans have been developed and submitted. However, the church has committed to eventually providing the necessary site plan, landscape plan, drainage, water shed, and replatting necessary to comply with city regulations. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Ap lip can t - Pastor Cottingham points out to the best of their collective memory there have not been any substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area. He does point out the changes to Highway 252 and its expansion, the 694 changes and some changes to 4 the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He notes that none of these will have an impact on the • church's proposal. Staff- The only major zoning classification change in this immediate area was the rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to R-3 (townhouse/garden apartment) of the property immediately to the south of 69th adjacent to the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. This has no major effect on the church's proposal and it is possible to have a development consistent with this as well as other residential property in the area. e. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant - They note this is not the city initiated proposal. Staff- Not applicable. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Ap 1p icant-Pastor Cottingham notes that the proposed zoning change of the three apartments will bear the ordinance development restrictions for this district. He adds that they reuse of the apartments will fit all R-1 applications as they will be used for Sunday school, Confirmation • classes and general church meetings. Staff - The subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this proposed PUD/R-1 proposal based on findings that will eventually have to be made by the City Council and a development agreement between the city and the church, which will address any and all issues raised and acknowledge an approved site plan as part of the development agreement. As we have indicated, the physical plan has not yet been submitted, but is being put together and will require further review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. We anticipate the ability to meet any and all zoning requirements and modifications to the three apartment buildings will eventually have to meet all building, accessibility, and fire code requirements. The unique aspects of the PUD zoning allow the church to make use of these buildings in the variety of ways they have indicated, including the residential use for visiting missionary families in the retained multiple dwelling in one of the buildings. The PUD designation also protects the underlying rights of the contract for deed holder to re-establish the multiple residential use of these buildings should the church's proposed use not go forward. We should note, however, that the ability to re-establish the multiple residential use will only exist until the church has full control of the property. Once the church campus has been developed, the right to use those buildings for multiple residential purposes other than outlined in the development agreement for the church use will not be permitted. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? 5 Applican t - Paster Cottingham notes that the property in the zoning request is not unsuited for • the planned uses. He states the size, configuration and location adds in a complimentary way to the church property it will become a part of. Staff- The property is generally suited for the multiple residential use made of it, however, this does not preclude the fact the church use of these buildings may be a better longer range use of the existing buildings. As indicated previously it has been City policy to thin out the number of multiple residential dwellings in the City. h. Will the rezoning result in an 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 - Pastor Cottingham notes that they do not believe the proposed zoning change will bring about any significant changes to the immediate community. They also believe that as they { make use of the rezoned facilities to reach, teach and strengthen families in the City, it will become a center for decency and morality. Staff- The City's Comprehensive Plan does not make any recommendations with respect to this particular property. A review of the land use designations map in the Comprehensive Plan will verify this. With respect to developable land in the proposed zoning district, it should be noted that there is very little developable land anywhere in the City. The only options for the church to expand, such as is being proposed, is to do so on developed land by incorporating and/or reusing already existing buildings. The church's proposal certainly does not appear to be in i conflict with the best interests of the community. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant - Pastor Cottingham does believe that their proposal demonstrates merit beyond the church's religious uses of these buildings. He notes that the church use of these buildings for education of the faith and of the training of youth in our area has potential to make for a more peaceful and moral environment. Staff- The use of the apartment buildings for church purposes and the accompanying upgrading of the site can have some positive impacts in the surrounding areas. Landscaping and physical changes to the area should be a positive factor. PROCEDURE This PUD/R-1 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development proposal. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing the rezoning proposal and development proposal 6 should be referred to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. In this case it should be referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of that Neighborhood Advisory Group within the next 30 days for that purpose. Persons receiving notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350 feet of the subject property) and anyone else who desires to be notified would be informed of the date, time, etc. of the meeting. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing on this matter and then table the application and refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Commission may wish to comment on the proposal and give any direction to the Neighborhood Advisory Group that they believe is appropriate for,their review. III • i I • 7 - r 94a Win ■ E'�.'�1/old■1/■ - town . too On lux ■■/."ice/■© //■ ■/■ ., . .. ��j7j�j�y :: — � .. ��1� �2 13 t1 1. .i� ■■■ -r X11111111 r ■ � i 111111 ����a��� . Ili ■.� s ------ ■ � �111111 ■. . N N■ 1 _ s� r _ m = mm �1� � ■ is m m Owl k,IWA AP - •......• �� roe NG p% ir AP i im i i m m� �_ llon.>• C I- ' _ �� � ■ F � i • • PRELIMINARY PLAT • EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN _CHURCH OF THE MASTER 2ND ADDITION n a•. '�E r L. .f �f`F. . �� ;,.. ....� n•. .' �•. .• �.a sy.LaF ��r is •�.rSyc�s's r....4•ri....::1 I. ..•.r r... .•K. Mls•.i./..iW.L...' `2 ?0711_ AvcNAc,qs NOQT!{I _ .. '`� pf �t W— rr J►M. `�•:Jrt . ri i Jry�.rlir fr�l.y....{���,afrM K11�.1�'Z•'� �Ir ;e F w.. Y • , • � { Yr�"�"-iw••a.Nr...a..r•yrrrlr.. •r• I I i rr• " !r/ Mwr Irr• .wr ` I• I �• �,- ....4.lrr.rww ./«M .w\ wr f. � j ��V►wr f.11.rrl .Ir rl �. � '•rr r• '•.rr wN •wr •Mr •r..•�=f..a y.1 . 1.•..•rrMrr • I `�Y A M.•L 1•r.•w%1.111.11—f1 I � 'rr •rr 'r• \'wr •.r r'\rr 'wr wr C r� .rr r rrr .wn .w.. ..1r .r.r r.r Nr �i �••�/ - r �I •�l A 2 f: .4 ! jl ..r r w•rr w 1.•.r 1.•ir.M1• n a I.� .. cr �1.rr• .r.. .rT rr.• rr I yf 3 i • r Cl j, I I N•.. .rN •r�.rY •..r NLr ...\ .rr .r it 1.�1. . �•rr �r .rY •rr~'r.•r ••r.r•. .wr. .r I'�• •I C 1♦ `I� I +i•�••i X0.1 rr �.r yr ,r« +.Wr 1 tY a � •c..r: ,.rG... �., , S r •,�.,., 1 � •.r;s.. 1 •«..t"ri( I� � ""' fM[RSON LADE Na I ) •t I/ .. • .•f•f ...•a.• 1 W.i t 1 I ♦L�. W01 W[�1' . .1 1 • lY arLfAY µPfd K Tr1 WfiSf r.r wr .-�-. •-•• . �1 �.1' r .• ' 1 w i• 1 •• 1 w.•1 r • 1 t 1 � M • r.f � .•". �`fin.w �.v u L..1 Cf- \ V _ 1 ra r.• _. 7 y � �it r.r1.AJ �•iti:J��tt..T b..r � �M+w .•.:. r" •VIM fllr �' ♦ .«.. 'ww'r.••.'."r«� •rr• c .R•.w.) r: .«..� «.. .is!i..M•_ -r"i..=i «L� 1.i. r' �.� •f i". .r• r •ri• �...1 •�i- •ry °+l",'. •.......1 I••wr. -._ .�_�.� •r..1jj-tM Mt 1wb« «' ti.r'.iw"1 ..i r/_Y�,,,►��y'�tf,,..._ 'ww�1.r` �I r �w 1. �irr •r. ."Yt� `'�/.N wY^••r.r •wr�•wr \•w• w.r �••IN i.r f•.r .rr w.• wr frr t�.Y '�{++!' -rr .y'r�.�_ -ii4L f.•..M, f.•..r�...".r..r.y. - _ y_... c.v.11 NTH I Avcmuc MORT" °'•'••••..•1 r AD 1 rrr.wry.•r•w 11..r r.•..i y r r w•was rJr.rlr r wN I r. - ft" no d.f sw-I.w i •�•'r..•.ra•\.•1•IYS r..r Tr•w.rN .S:ATf••�-. 1200 69th Avenue North Pastor Robert Cottingham • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612) 561-5852 Pastor Karl Pishaw Lutheran Church of the Master August 15, 1994 Mr. Ron Warren Planning Commission City Of Brooklyn Center City Council Brooklyn Center Dear Mr. Warren I want to thank you for our meeting on August 9th, 1994 and for your input as well as that of Mr. Moe and Mr. Larson. At this point the Evangelical Lutheran Church of The Master,hereafter called LCM, wishes to file with the City of Brooklyn Center a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would allow LCM to rezone the former Chazin Apartments now owned by LCM under a • contract for deed. LCM would ask the City of Brooklyn Center to begin the process that would take from three to five years for completion. This would allow us to use the properties without extensive remodeling in the beginning, but LCM would assure the City of Brooklyn Center that we would meet all re-zoned safety codes, building codes and accessibility codes. For your information, we have contracted with Lot Survey Company to develop for LCM an accurately scaled dimensioned site plan that will include all parking areas, all required set back lines, lighting and all items listed on the City of Brooklyn Center's Procedures and Requirements Application. A landscape plan showing the entire area is also being planned including underground irrigation system. The planned unit development phases would run very close to the following: 1st Phase (1994-1995) - Proposed use of the 1st apartment building closest to the LCM church building. The legal address for the building is 1107 Emerson Lane, Brooklyn Center, 55430. The planned use for this building as stated in our request for a special use permit is to allow it to be used as a teaching facility for children and youth. This use takes place primarily at the 9:30 AM and 11:00 AM hours on Sundays. Approximately 175 to 200 children from the 2nd to the 12th grade levels would be the primary users. Our hope is that we could begin use of this building in early fall, September 11, 1994 to be exact as that is our first day of Sunday School. There are 18 individual rooms m this 7 unit apartment building. The former 1 bedroom unit provides for 2 class rooms. The first in the living room area and the second in the • bedroom. Each room would have a class of approximately 10 children. The former 2 bedroom apartments would be used in the same manner. "To Know Christ and To Make Him Known" Wednesday evening Confirmation for grades 7-9 would be the second use. Because our purchase contract calls for LCM to do no structural changes • to these buildings until the contract is paid in full, LCM is prepared to with volunteer help assist any and all teachers and children with physical handicaps to navigate either floor of the teaching facility. There are seven restrooms in the facility and in the future PUD would be to convert one restroom on each floor to accommodate handicapped persons. We are also working with an architect and contractor in discovering the most cost efficient way to make each floor accessible either via ramp or through the use of a three stage lift. The zoning of this building would be changed from Zone 4 to a Zone 1 use, or the same as the church building itself. At this date our Sunday School and Confirmation registration forms indicate no persons with handicaps that would require a lift or assistance negotiating the stairs.This will not,however,slow our investigation on how best to comply with accessibility codes. 2nd Phase (1996) - Our PUD would begin sometime in 1996,with the second apartment building whose legal address is 6907 Dupont Avenue N., Brooklyn Center, 55430. While the exact use plans are still being developed, the following is a brief description of it's probable use. 1. A portion of the building would be remodeled on the lower level to • permit larger group meetings such as Adult and Children's Choirs, Drama Group, Youth .Gatherings and a Senior Citizens Day teaching/fellowship area. This remodeling would attempt to accomplish within the city building codes a room area to accommodate approximately 100 people. 2. LCM is a growing congregation and it's objective is to meet the needs of her people through the effective use of small groups. These groups maximize at about 12 persons and are gathered around special needs or topics such as: Single Parents, Divorced and Separated, AA, Alateen, Alanon, Parents of Troubled Teens, Parents of Preschoolers, with Bible Study and prayer groups forming the base for all groups and needs. The rest of the building would be used to meet the space needs of these small groups. 3. The final use would be a room set aside to accommodate the Prayer Ministry of LCM. Our future goal is a small prayer chapel with some one praying around the clock for LCM, her people, our city, our city government, police and fire and all persons who dwell here. Our prayer is that LCM would be a lighthouse in a dark place and that it would be so through prayer, ministry and meeting the social and spiritual needs of Brooklyn Center's population. We have been placed by the Lord Himself into Brooklyn Center for a purpose. Our hope is that Brooklyn Center would be a healthy, thriving, safe community for all people who wish to live, work, play and worship here. 3rd Phase (1997-1998) - Our PUD would be in the building whose legal address is . 1100 69th Avenue N., Brooklyn Center, 55430. This building would be called our Evangelism, teaching and Global Missions Center. It would most likely be used in the following manner. 1. LCM supports 7 Missionary families around the world and in the USA. We propose to leave intact two complete apartment units; one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom unit.These units would be set aside for the strict use of Missionary families who are on home leave for a short time. They would be free lodging for these families as they both recuperate, rest and assist LCM in gaining a greater insight into mission work around the world. They would in a sense be resident teachers in our adult and children's teaching ministries and of course to the entire congregation. 2. STEM (Short Term Evangelical Missions) was founded at LCM some 12 years ago and this small but growing not for profit organization takes people to Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, and South America for short term mission exposure. This experience helps Americans get in touch with cross-cultural missions and helps them understand both the scope and dimensions of Global Ministry. LCM would propose housing the STEM home office staff in this building. A remodeling plan will be submitted at a later date. 1997/98 is one target date for this unit development. • 3. A third use for this building would be more office space for a teaching of Evangelism Center and a Counseling Center for those wrestling with a call to go into missions work. LCM, its Church Council and Pastors are aware of the tentativeness of this Planned Unit development Program, but our Long Range Planning Group will be working on the basics of this proposal each month and any changes or deviation in this plan will be submitted to the City Planners as we go along. We want to thank you Mr. Warren and the City Council in advance for your consideration and favorable response to this PUD. We would ask you only to remember that we are not a "for profit" development business, but a church with a vision, goals and objectives that will only make Brooklyn Center a better place to call home. Sincerely, The LCM Church Council Rev. Robert L. Cottingham • Senior Pastor � I 1200 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Pastor Robert Cottingham (612) 561-5852 Pastor Karl Pishaw Lutheran Church of the Master To: Mr. Ron Warren From: Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master (ELCM) Date: August 31, 1994 RE: Section 35-208 Rezoning Evaluation Policy ELCM understands that the zoning policy of the City of Brooklyn Center will not constitute "spot zoning" and we believe the rezoning of the three apartment buildings at 1107 Emerson Lane, 6907 Dupont Avenue North and 1100 69th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center will not constitute a breaking of the policy. • The three apartments and their property lines all join the property that belongs to ELCM. Thus, in changing the three apartments from R-4 (Multiple Residential) to R-1 which includes such enterprises as schools, churches, etc. , ELCM will make every attempt to work within the guidelines set forth in Section 35-208 (Guidelines a-i) . a. In studying the number of low cost apartments, talking with the apartment owners' group and close to 100 of our neighbors, the sense seems to be clear. That sense is that the entire city and its residents and business groups will benefit through the eventual closing of all three apartment buildings and reprogramming their use. The public need seems to call for fewer apartments at this point in the history of Brooklyn Center. The general consensus is that the Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park had over built apartments in the 1960's and 70's. With more new suburbs continuing to open to our north and west with both single family homes and newer, more modern apartments; this creates severe competition for older apartment units such as ELCM's and they will not be missed. b. The zoning proposed by ELCM is indeed consistent with the surrounding land use classifications. The zoning on 69th Avenue from Highway 252 to Brooklyn Boulevard are a good mix of several zoning classifications including R-4 and R-1. • Rezoning the three apartments will not cause any public or private differences in our areas. "To Know Christ and To Make Him Known" Mr. Ron Warren 2 August 31, 1994 C. All the permitted uses in our area for schools, churches, small offices, etc. are permitted in the proposal change requested by ELCM. d. To the best of ELCM'S collective memory there has not been any substantial physical or zoning classification changes in our immediate area. The three immediate changes were Highway 252 and its expansion, which helped people travel , north easier. Highway 694, which is an older change, will not affect ELCM and lastly, the small and struggling strip mall called Humboldt Square. None of these changes will impact ELCM'S proposed change. e. ELCM's proposed change is not a city initiated proposal and should not draw any broad public interest. f. ELCM's proposed zoning change of the three apartments will bear the ordinance development restrictions for this district. The re-use of the apartments will fit all R-1 applications as they will be used for Sunday School, Confirmation classes and general church meetings. g. The property in the rezoning request is not unsuited for the planned uses. The size, configuration and location adds in . a complimentary way to the church property it will become a part of. h. The rezoning of the property will not change in any considerable way the size of the rezoned area. It changes the church property's 5.4 acres to only a 7.2 acre total. We believe the zone change will not bring about any significant changes to our immediate community. We also believe, as we use these rezoned facilities to reach, teach and strengthen families in our city, it will become a center for decency and morality. i. The P.U.D. proposed by ELCM does demonstrate merit beyond ELCM's own religious uses. As ELCM uses these buildings for education of the faith and of the training of youth in our area it has the potential to make for a more peaceful and moral environment. RLC/ch 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. (aT 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? • � i • • i i Section 35-355 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. • Subdivision 1 Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure ,a high quality of design. Subdivision 2 Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various _parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the • Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD-MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3 Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights-of-way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: • 35-355 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the . surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a ,public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless • the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. • 35-355 i • e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; I 3. A grading plan; • 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying ,zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. 35-355 b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development • plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the. City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate re ardin g g the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be . located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35-230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. 35-355 • e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i_ Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. • • Planning Commission Information Sheet f Application No. 94010 Applicant: BIMB, Inc. Location: West side of Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide into a lot and an outlot the vacant property located along the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of the Hennepin County Library/Service Center. The property in question is zoned R7 (Multiple Family Residence) and is bounded on the north by the Hennepin County Library/Service Center; on the east and southeast by Shingle Creek Parkway; and on the west by public property containing Shingle Creek and a bike and pedestrian trail. Access to the Shingle Creek Trailway is at the very southerly tip of the property in question. The current legal description of the property is Tract B, Registered Land Survey 1543. The new legal description is proposed to be Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Amcorp Addition. Outlot A is proposed to be 10.89 acres and is primarily wetland and woods. The boundary of the 100 year flood zone for Shingle Creek (843.8 feet) is, for the most part, located within the proposed Outlot A. Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 3.35 acres and, for the most part, • is above the 100 year flood boundary for Shingle Creek. This higher ground is, depending on soil tests and analysis, considered buildable. There is a low circular area below the 843 foot elevation at the northeasterly portion of Lot 1 that may have to be left undisturbed depending on a determination of whether or not it is considered wetland. This will have to be looked at in the future at a time when this property is reviewed for development purposes. In discussion we have had with a representative of the applicant, we have been informed that they are proposing to dedicate, or gift, the proposed outlot to the City. The City Council has not yet indicated a willingness to accept the land, however, it is believed we would be interested as a means of preserving this wetland and wooded area in relationship to the adjoining creek, trails and open space. The applicant has apparently had some discussion with Hennepin County regarding the County's interest in the proposed Lot 1 for some possible future expansion of the Library/Service Center. There currently is a 50 foot wide driveway easement 9ver the northeasterly portion of the property serving as one of the accesses to the Hennepin County Library/Service Center. This lines up directly across Shingle Creek Parkway with John Martin Drive. Hennepin County, improved this area when the Library/Service Center was built in 1980-81 and is responsible for its maintenance. This easement will continue with the new plat and should be shown on the final plat. A thirty foot wide drainage easement runs east/west through the proposed Outlot A. This easement has no pipes within it but serves as an outfall or overflow for a 54" storm sewer • located in Shingle Creek Parkway. This easement will also continue and should be shown on the final plat. - 9-15-94 -1- Planning Commission Information Sheet The preliminary plat survey shows a median opening in Shingle Creek Parkway just easterly of the drainage easement. This opening does not exist and the City will consider no median openings in this area. Full access to this site will be at the John Martin Drive/Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. It should be noted that this preliminary plat in no way commits the City to a future rezoning or a site plan (other than the existing access) with respect to the future use of the proposed Lot 1. These matters will have to be addressed at the time of a proposed development. It should also be noted that the density for an R7 development is significantly reduced with this proposed division as the wetland and the flood plain areas could be used as land for density purposes with a multiple family dwelling development. The R7 zoning district does not limit the height of buildings and high rise residential development such as the Shingle Creek Towers and the Earle Brown Commons was, subject to soil conditions, anticipated for this property. The former City Engineer recommended that any watershed plans and approvals be undertaken at the time of development of the proposed Lot 1. If the County does acquire the proposed Lot 1 in the future and wishes to proceed to expand the Library/Service Center by utilizing this land, they will need to rezone this property 3to a zonin g designation consistent with the Library/Service Center site(C lA)and combine the proposed Lot • 1 with the County property through. platting or Registered Land Survey prior to commencing such a project. A public hearing has;been scheduled with this preliminary plat application and notices of the Planning Commission consideration have been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. Recommendation This preliminary plat appears to be in order and is recommended for approval subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing 50' wide driveway easement and the 30' wide drainage easement shall be continued and be shown on the final plat for this property. 4. Approval of this preliminary plat does not commit the City to a future rezoning of the property or to a site plan and platting. These matters will need to be pursued through the appropriate Planning Commission applications when such • plans are finalized. 9-15-94 -2- I oil �•�� •�� ".�jjljGyi♦ ► �� t1111111� ������ � �♦��''o t►. III f� ��..,,`.,..� 11111►j���j I�� _ �'�.'� .° 111M� oil �i�I X11 IIIIIt111111111�i�� �� 4�4 v, till► ►� ���; �!�••.'��° �, • III 111111�1�11 ��. �•��� 11 ■ 111® 1111111/��1111 ����� p'�:�O �' `"/`/,, �- 1tt1111tt1t11t1 111111111111I� �i�i�:%,'''�.���' '��•i `:��!��. Ittlltlttltl .■ ItIF'�itt1g1� � s:r•�♦♦♦ � ►a �S — - SEEN ���111� 11 1111111/1►.� ,�>;.d.!• r y'♦;�:ji�;•, �y' �_ 1 ��t1■ m11��s ♦ sue,'•,♦,'�;•• -I 1111�1� �� \t 11111111/ ��, q; s;' °°,♦ i I�►I ,I����1t 1111111► ���!hi*♦,GS:. ,PP _ 1 a 11111 ���4o�' y;;;. •-• • ' 11111 , ► �,y�4 , ;;r,, JOE ■111lf�l�Ittt■ �,,�o.♦h♦�♦i,�i� yam/ �.� ■. �. M.. MEME WE� MEME MME ME ME "M 0 P40 ME ME r ME ` .♦♦ ME ME ME ME ME EE M EMEM ME ME ..r ;%,' ��' ♦1111♦ ' ■� 0 ME ME ME M ME ME ME ME 0 _ A 14 ME MEE 1 A E t • r �' E .5;r:�275`�5., t,, :.'; �— .}���Jj .r?.. •:w �/+::?ii*� ♦ Plc: ``.. 7k�2}��f�^'�:. �`�S:ih�.22h?t'2. ::vy::T-],:•:;::a:•?_:..._: u .�.� t tNACOF�ADDITION emu"0AW"ftw" • •It • r • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 94011 Applicant: Enterprise Rent-A-Car Location: Boulevard Shopping Center Request: Special Use Permit The applicant is seeking a Special Use Permit to operate an automobile rental and leasing operation including the out-of-door storage of vehicles at the Boulevard Shopping Center, which is located along the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard in the 6200 block. This shopping center includes the addresses of 6211 thru 6227 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by a former Union 76 gasoline station and auto repair operation (which is now only an auto repair operation); on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard with the city's liquor store, west fire station and a pump house, along with various single family homes on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by the Bridgeman's restaurant; and on the west by Ewing Avenue with R-4 zoned property containing the Ewing Square Townhomes on the west side of Ewing Avenue. Automobile rental and leasing operations are listed as special uses in the C-2 zoning district. (Note - leasing offices only are considered a permitted use in both the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts.) The applicant's representative, Mr. Spencer Cooke, has submitted a letter (copy attached) • describing the proposed auto leasing operation. They would occupy approximately 1200 sq. ft. at the northeast corner of the shopping center building surrounded by Nicollet Watch and Diamond and Beloved Rings and would employ six to eight full time employees. They have indicated a need to store an average of 5 to 10 cars daily on the site with a maximum of 25 cars at any one time. They also propose to utilize approximately 450 sq. ft. at the southeast corner of the building for the cleaning of vehicles at this location. Their letter indicates this space would be used for hand washing the exterior and the vacuuming of the interior of cars stored there. No servicing of vehicles will be done on the site. We have been informed that no power washing equipment would be utilized. A hose, water, cleaning detergents and a standard vacuum cleaner would make up the bulk of the equipment utilized in this area. An overhead door would need to be installed along the west side of the building. The applicant has provided a site plan of the shopping center showing their proposed locations and also the location of parking stalls they plan to use. The letter points out that the Boulevard Shopping Center currently has a surplus of on site parking spaces given the city's parking requirement of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area of a building. The center has 20,120 sq. ft. and is required to have 111 parking spaces. There are 164 spaces on site, thus, a surplus of 53 parking spaces. Sufficient parking, therefore, exists to accommodate the extra 25 parking spaces needed for the maximum number of vehicles proposed to be stored by Enterprise Rent-a-Car at any one time in this location. It should be noted that these additional 25 parking spaces for storage purposes now expands the parking requirements for the Boulevard Shopping Center to 136 and this number of parking spaces will need to be provided for as long as Enterprise Rent-A-Car occupies space at the center. This has some limiting effect on the owner's plans to convey land along the north side of the property to the adjacent service center site. (A matter which has been discussed with the staff about a year ago.) Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of Section 35-220, Subdivision 2 of the city ordinances containing the standards for Special Use Permits. We find no conflict between the applicant's proposal and the standards. It does not appear that the operation will have a detrimental effect on the general public welfare, be injurious to surrounding property, nor impede the normal and orderly development or redevelopment of surrounding property. Adequate measures are being taken to provide necessary on site parking and the applicant will be required to meet all necessary building code regulations with respect to tenant remodeling and the construction of an overhead door. One area that needs to be addressed and should be indicated in the Conditions of Approval relating to this application involves sales and display of vehicles. The Special Use Permit is being granted for a rental and leasing operation only with incidental storage and cleaning of vehicles allowed. Vehicles should not be displayed with banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, or other attention attracting devices other than what may be allowed through the issuance of administrative permits (limited to two such per permits per calendar year, not to exceed ten consecutive days in duration). Regular sale of vehicles is also not a part of the acknowledged Special Use Permit. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent to surrounding property owners. Recommendation All in all it appears that this application is in order and the standards for Special Use Permits • are met. Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for an automobile rental and leasing operation with incidental outside storage of vehicles and a hand washing and vacuuming service bay only. Any change in the use of the operation not comprehended by this application or permitted under the zoning ordinance will require approval of an amendment to this Special Use Permit. 2. Building plans for tenant remodeling and an overhead door shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. There shall be no service, repair or maintenance of leased or stored vehicles on the site other than the hand washing and vacuuming of vehicles comprehended under the approval of this Special Use Permit. 4. No banners, pennants, streamers, balloons or other attention attracting devices may be used in conjunction with the storage and display of vehicles on this site other than that which is authorized under administrative permits. 5. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. ■■ �� ° j ° ��►/1I11/111 'y��•. 1 ii ii � �C - ■ 1111 _ s INS mm ■s NIMMS Im ;�� • � � 7171 � ��, �� , , �`�'\ 7171 NNW ■. NIEMEN 11111111 �® � �. _ rr1�11 11111 � ° .C ■11 � ♦♦ �% 1/111/11 ♦ '' 1�1 1111!■�//Lr��� �:.,� v � � ■111 ►1 1��1/1 / ® _. 111/M 111 �r '••••_.�- MINE MINIM 4174 Application No.' 94011 r1rr��11111�Bills- was •� 1111111/111 INS ■������� ������ 11111/11111/ ,�1�!s'' y�f� .,r �... °.. = *?>I 1 1111111111 ■ 111h'�i11l�1I �� .f i1i�111111����� I� - ZME 1111 1111111111 111111/t/ 1ss�,� 111 ���� � • . � I � �� 111 /11� M� 111 11,111 11r1�i1 yiyp� i 11111, ���/1111 - % 11 iO4 ,� ♦♦♦� logo ■1rmj �i� 11111 1 // r• �� ,�� ♦ .ate � 1�j 111111.: .. 11 ► 11 11�� 111111 . .. 11� 1111111 � � ' • - I►I � �� ��•, �� /���. /11111111►� - .� � �I�����/\►`� �����•�i���i�oi,� > > m� 11111111/ �111lf�1t�l111■ as NEW �� �� X1111/ mm �■� Imm �■i _ _ t m� �� �� �� �� ■�� i l� %20 .�-::.�: ..a ��• .� _ -11111 ... -- �. �,� .� �_ -- -�/ .%• i� •• r M. /,7120 '�■ ■�� ► �� �� a ■°� i !$11 71 INS EWA- NOR ;� X1111 C° u: — �■Z ►7171 s x'11 ;;111111\!� '■ = = � ,_ s I s� ,°. , 111111► ;► ., .;, , , _ Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: . (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest • and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. • In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. -.ENTERPRISE - RENT-A-CAR Group Headquarters September 1, 1994 City of Brooklyn Center Attn: Mr. Ronald Warren 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Warren, Our application for a Special Use Permit is to allow Enterprise Rent-A-Car to operate a rental Branch to service the residents of Brooklyn Center. This location would employ approximately 6-8 full-time employees, would handle the needs of 20-25 customers per day and would require the storage of an average of 5-10 cars overnight with a maximum of 25 cars at anyone time. All overnight parking would be in spaces of the existing parking area designated in such a way as to always • insure easy access to the center by all residents. (See attached site plan for designated parking. ) These spaces would not require any additional parking to be constructed thereby not causing any of the existing neighborhood environment to change. By City Code there must be a minimum of 5 .5 parking spaces per every 1 ,000 square feet of leasable building space. Boulevard Shopping Center' s 20, 120 square feet requires a minimum of 110 parking spaces. The center has 164 spaces in existence today thereby creating a surplus of approximately 54 spaces. The site, Boulevard Shopping Center, Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue, has a total area of 2 .22 acres or 96,841 square feet with a building area existing of 20, 120 square feet. The applicant will occupy approximately 1 ,650 square feet of this existing building. (See attached site plan, bay #6 and part of #1 highlighted. ) We also propose to improve the site to facilitate the cleaning of our vehicles inside at this location. This would only include hand washing the exterior and vacuuming the interior of the car. No servicing of vehicles will be done on site. The level of activity that will exist will only mirror the washing and vacuuming needs of the day. On the whole this level will usually be low. All construction will be completed by a city approved firm in a timely manner. We intend to protect both the integrity and value of. our community by creating a clean and safe environment in which to operate. 2484 North Cleveland Ave. Roseville,Minnesota 55113 612-628-9000 Enterprise Rent-A-Car is committed to conform to applicable regulations of the district. Our mission is to provide excellent service to the residents of Brooklyn Center at a reasonable cost. We pledge to be a long term partner in the future of Brooklyn Center and always work to enhance our new Community by creating a strong and vibrant entity, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, to service its needs. Sincerely, u, vZ_ Gtr Spe cer R. Cooke City Rental Manager SRC/nbw I 4` cr G 0 44 cr � o , C wm w CD Y i .oar N CL I m I awa r A 0 � i O « WOAD R er. k woe V X w O •-�• Ilk T � I CD TF CD I I I H i ! i � s CD 0 IPP d C c � L0'd. T9108Z9ZT9T6 Ol sinnitiw 110I21wI wo8-A £S 90 b66T-T0-dm k;,. �, ,._Yh. ....;�-�_ -.•...,1+:+.aa. :,._...wrd-'E�I.rT:d±%1Ct.:w-...2�...,.,r,....��,,.� _._ - „ - SEP-01-1994 0654 'FROM ' '916126280161 08 MARR I OTT MARQUIS TO n p. ;r<, • i $OVAm 1 LOWELL'S AIITOMOTM SPECIALISTS 8,418 2 SPECIAL SIZE SHOP 4,002 3 CLEAN 'N' PRESS 21000 4 LITTLE BROOKLYN 2,000 5 & 7 NICOLLET WATCH & DIAMOND- 2 500 & BELOVED RINGS 6 1,200 • Revised 2/1/94 TENLIST/blvd • • �I� Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 94012 Applicant: Robert L. Adelmann Location: Duke's Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit/Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking Site and Building Plan approval and an amendment to his Special Use Permit to construct a 284 square. ft. addition to the existing Duke's Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north and west by R-5 (multiple family residence) zoned property containing the 102 unit Pines apartment complex; on the east by Humboldt Avenue with Brooklyn Center High School on the opposite side; and on the south by Freeway Boulevard with the Days Inn on the opposite side. A gas station, repair garage, car wash and convenience store, such as Duke's Mobil, is a special use in the C-2 zoning district. The applicant's plan is to expand the building approximately four to six feet along a portion of the east and south,sides with a solarium type addition that will add approximately 284 square feet to the building. This relatively small addition will allow the applicant to rearrange and expand somewhat the sales area and remodel and create a handicap accessible unisex bathroom facility on the site. A new 4 ft. wide concrete sidewalk with curb, gutter, • and a handicap ramp will also be added surrounding the new building addition. Access/Parking The plan calls for no change to the access and parking on the site. Access is gained from a driveway along Humboldt Avenue and a driveway along Freeway Boulevard. There are 25 parking spaces shown on the site plan with 17 of those along the north property line, which serve primarily as parking for the three service bays along the north side of the building. Circulation to the drive-through car wash on the westerly end of the building is in a counter clockwise fashion. The building addition and concrete sidewalk leave approximately 18 feet between the edge of the sidewalk and the pump islands. This is tight, but workable provided this area is signed as "no parking, fire lane". The parking requirement for such a facility is 11 spaces for the first 2,000 square feet of retail space, three spaces per each service bay, one space for each service bay employee, plus at least two spaces for service vehicles. This comes to 25 on site parking spaces without giving any consideration to pump island parking. The site will be tight, but should work. Grading/Drainage/Utilities • There are no alterations being made with respect to this site regarding change in grading, draining or utilities. Landscaping and maintained currently. The applicant has submitted a The site is fairly well landscaped y pp landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate site landscaping. The plan shows existing and proposed landscaping. This site is less than two acres and, therefore, requires only 80 landscape points. The proposed plan, which takes into account existing landscaping with the addition of three new maple trees along the west side has a point value of 81 points. Buildin The building addition exterior is primarily double insulated tempered glass solarium with the lower portion being an approximate 3 ft. 4 in. face brick wall to match the existing wall. Trash/Li hg, ling There are no changes to the site lighting proposed with this building addition. With respect to trash, it should be noted that at the northwest corner of the site, the applicant has stored discarded tires and a dumpster in an unscreened area. There is an approximate 6 ft. high metal screen wall along the north and west property lines that provides sufficient screening from the abutting residential property to the west and north. However, an appropriate screening device should be provided for trash and the discarded tires per city ordinance requirements. Special Use Standards A public hearing has been schedule for this special use permit and notices have been sent. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy Section 35-220 containing the five standards for special use permits. This is an existing facility and, for the most part, it is believed this addition is compatible with the standards for special use permit. One item that needs to be addressed by the applicant involves a tire display rack located at the very northeast portion of the building. The Zoning Ordinance states that no merchandise may be displayed for sale outside the principal building of a gasoline service station except within four feet of the building or in pump islands. This tire rack appears to exceed this four foot limitation. It is also in an area that, with the expansion of the building, may make this site more congested with the building being closer to the pump islands. The applicant should take the appropriate measures to bring this matter into compliance with the city ordinances. Recommendation All together the plans appear to be in order and the special use permit standards can be meet provided the trash and display matters are corrected. Approval is, therefore, recommended subjected to at least the following conditions: 1 Building plans are subject to review and approval by the building official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to a final review and approval by the city engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee ( in an amount to be determined by the city manager) shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities, including the storage of discarded tires, shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected by a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving lanes. 8. The area to the east and south of the new building addition shall be signed as a "no parking fire lane" area as determined by the Fire Chief. • 9. The amended special use permit is granted to the applicant for an expanded gasoline service station, repair garage, car wash, and convenience store at 6501 Humboldt Avenue North as contained in the plans submitted. Any expansion or alteration of the use shall require additional amendments to the special use permit. 10. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, any violation thereof could be grounds for revocation. ■ SHIM ■1111 // `m Wa ENRON IN" PI ■■■■■■■■■ __ _� ■� _ry �� _ 4 � 'i _ � ale ■icy■■ __ __ �� __ _ .. � . , �� i _ � ii i� _ � w !i7 w i ww ♦��► I.��►� rc�,:� cur..�i.� ���������A���4 FW LAS �■■■ WILA AP s i - .., New nMfLE'4�-� - NEW MA" r;IARr, 416H& n IT mvi 3 I HAN1714Ar fAAAr �6--I�fi�N{G1_, � + i'Lir P �kA'e`y�' �Y� alai[. t 14L! NLIE t 'N L�NbyC,Af Q-Ty "tAOOL• 17a/-,1-fLI10"(IaN IICll�,t' I t 'L .:GILoce Awrvrr-w. Yeg — 110. I.o�(Z .fE"i — Gi �I 1'= 30' Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest • and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- . ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment.