HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05-30 PCP M
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MAY 30, 1991
STUDY SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3 . Approval of Minutes - May 16, 1991
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. Earle Brown Bowl 91009
Request for special use permit approval to construct a
temporary, seasonal deck capable of seating 50
immediately west of the existing Earle Brown Bowl and
also to operate two volleyball courts on a seasonal basis
in the south parking lot of the bowling alley property at
6440 James Circle.
6. Marquette Bank Brookdale 91010
Request for site and building plan approval to construct
a 5,700 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette
Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard.
7. Sunlite Properties 91006
Request for variance approval to allow a 15 ' wide buffer
between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the
Berean Evangelical Free Church property at 6625 Humboldt
Avenue North. This application was considered by the
Commission at its April 11, 1991 meeting and was tabled
with direction to staff and the applicant to pursue
options other than a variance.
8. Other Business
Sr. Discussion Items
10. Adjournment
M
}
•
a
. Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 91009
Applicant: Earle Brown Bowl
Location: 6440 James Circle
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to build_ a
temporary, seasonal deck capable of seating 50 immediately west of
the existing Earle Brown Bowl, and also to operate two volleyball
courts on a seasonal basis in the south parking lot of the bowling
alley property at 6440 James Circle. The property in question is
zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the
east by Hardees and vacant C2 zoned land, and on the south and west
by James Circle. The existing bowling alley is a special use in
the C2 zoning district and the proposed seasonal deck and
volleyball courts are considered to be an amendment to the bowling
alley's special use permit.
Applicant's Submittal
The applicant has submitted a written report (attached) separately
requesting approval of the outside deck and the outside volleyball
courts. The main reason and justification for the request is that
the bowling business drops off severely from May until Labor Day.
Relative to the deck, the applicant proposes to serve (not prepare)
food and liquor to patrons on a wood deck that would seat 50
people. They desire to keep the patio open for business until
11:00 p.m. or 12 midnight, weather permitting. They would like to
have the patio open for business until the end of October or
whenever the weather turns cold. They state that the patio will
only eliminate one parking space and will require that one
handicapped space be moved. There are no plans for outdoor
speakers or music; therefore, they do not expect noise to be a
problem. They also note that there will be additional security
personnel to insure that food and liquor are consumed only on the
patio and not at the volleyball courts.
Relative to the request for volleyball courts, the applicant states
that there would be volleyball leagues run by a group called
VolleyWorld. VolleyWorld specializes in organizing and running
volleyball leagues and runs one at another bowling center owned by
the applicant in Woodbury, Minnesota. The league play would be
conducted from 5:30 p.m. to approximately 10:30 p.m. (the last
match would start at 9:30 p.m. ) Monday through Thursday from May
through August. Friday, Saturday and Sunday are to be held open
for open play, special exhibitions, and tournaments. Earle Brown
Bowl would not earn money off the volleyball leagues, however, they
expect some increased sales from the increased traffic.
is
5-30-91 1
- — �
e
4
• Application No. 91009 continued
The volleyball courts are to be located in the parking lot to the
south of the building. The area used is approximately 90 ' square
and takes up the space for 33 parking stalls. An 8 ' high net is to
surround the two courts with doors placed at each of the four
corners. The actual playing area consists of two 30 ' x 60' courts
with a 10' wide neutral area between each court and to the outside
netting. The playing area will be lighted with two light poles
each, containing two 400 watt high pressure sodium bulbs mounted
about 10' above the existing parking lot lights. The courts will
be dismantled and the sand and railroad ties will be removed by
Labor Day.
As to the sand, the applicant states that they have had no problem
with sand washing away at their Woodbury location. They also point
out that they are very concerned about sand inasmuchas it can cause
serious problems on a bowling lane. They will have a place for
players to wash themselves off and they also keep their own sweeper
to sweep the lot. There will be no outside speakers or music at
the volleyball courts. They plan to have every participant sign a
waiver form before they can play volleyball. In addition, they
have taken out additional insurance on the participants.
Staff Analysis
Staff's concerns generally fall into the categories of parking,
drainage, noise, and sanitation.
a) Parking
The volleyball courts will temporarily eliminate 33 spaces and the
deck one space. Coupled with the loss of these 34 spaces, there
will be an increased parking demand of perhaps 30 spaces for the
seating and employees with the deck and perhaps 24 spaces for the
volleyball courts (at one space per player) . Offsetting the loss
of 34 spaces and the need for 54 new spaces is the decline in
parking demand from the cessation of league bowling. The bowling
alley contains 36 lanes and the parking requirement for these lanes
is 180 spaces based on 5 spaces per lane. The applicant has
submitted detailed sales data which indicates that bowling sales
from May through August are approximately 66% to 75% below the
level for the months of league play. This would suggest that
approximately 120 parking spaces would be unneeded during the
months of May through August. This more than offsets the 88 spaces
that must be made up by loss of spaces and new business. After
Labor Day, league bowling resumes and the volleyball courts will be
removed. However, the applicant wishes to continue to have the
deck up during September and October. The Commission may wish to
discuss this question in light of the sales data submitted. While
September and October are not the peak bowling months, they are
fairly active months and we would be inclined to recommend against
having the deck up during times when bowling leagues are active.
5-30-91 2
4
• Application No. 91009 continued
However, the Commission might consider allowing it during September
and October on a trial basis for this year.
b) Drainage
Our concern with drainage is over the possibility that sand from
the volleyball courts may be carried by rains into the storm sewer
system. The closest catch basin to the volleyball courts is
approximately 35' to the southeast. This is close enough that some
sand could wash into the storm sewer. The applicant has stated
that sand has not been a problem at their Woodbury location. They
have also pointed out that they have their own sweeper and have an
incentive to keep the sand cleaned up. On the basis of these
assurances, we would be willing to recommend in favor of the
proposal on a trail basis for this year. If sand does become a
serious problem, we would recommend that the permit be revoked or
that other measures be taken to eliminate the sand flow problem.
c) Noise
Of the two activities (dining and volleyball) it is the volleyball
matches that will probably generate the most noise. The potential
impact might be felt by patrons of the nearby hotels. These rooms
are all air conditioned and it is unlikely that noise from the
volleyball matches could be particularly noticeable. We would
• certainly recommend that play cease when the 9:30 p.m. match is
completed (approximately 10:30 p.m. ) .
d) Sanitation
Our concern with sanitation is over the possibility of food falling
through cracks in the deck to the ground below and possibly
inviting a rodent infestation. We have talked with Sanitarian Mary
Fandrey about this possibility. She has indicated that a concrete
patio would be preferable, from a sanitation standpoint, but that
Hennepin County has allowed such decks at other eating
establishments and there has not been a problem. She is willing to
allow the deck on a trial basis and see how it functions. If after
the first year there are sanitation problems, we would recommend
that the special use permit be modified to require a concrete patio
rather than a wood deck.
Recommendation
Altogether, the proposal appears to meet the concerns of staff. We
would recommend approval of the proposal on a trial basis, subject
to at least the following conditions:
1. Construction plans for the deck are subject to review and
approval by the Building Official with respect to
applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
5-30-91 3
Application No. 91009 continued
2. Seating on the deck shall be limited to 50 seats and
service shall terminate no later than midnight.
3. The outside deck and the volleyball courts may operate
during the seasonal period when bowling leagues are not
functioning between May 1 and Labor Day of each year.
4. Volleyball play shall cease not later than 10:30 p.m.
5. The applicant shall sweep the parking lot near the
volleyball courts on a regular basis to minimize the flow
of sand into the storm sewer system.
6. The volleyball courts shall be placed on the site in a
manner to minimize any disruption of parking and to avoid
proximity to catch basins.
7. The applicant shall employ on the premises security
personnel whose responsibility it shall be to prevent the
consumption of food or liquor at the volleyball courts
and to respond promptly to any noise complaints.
8. City staff shall monitor any complaints pertaining to the
operation of the outside deck and/or volleyball courts
during the first summer of operation. A report on such
complaints and on any parking, drainage, noise, or
sanitation problems associated with either outdoor
activity shall be submitted to the City Council for their
consideration not later than April 1, 1992. If the
Council finds that any aspects of these outdoor
activities constitutes a nuisance, it may terminate or
modify this special use permit.
9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable
codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof
shall be grounds for revocation.
10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside
with the exception of the deck area. Consumption of
alcoholic beverages is subject to regulations established
by the Chief of Police, consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances.
11. Any noise coming from the deck or volleyball areas
constituting a nuisance shall be prohibited. The
applicant and his representatives shall cooperate fully
in complying with this directive and any others given by
police or code enforcement personnel.
5-30-91 4
Submitted by,
Gary Sha lcross
Planner
Approved by,
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
• 5-30-91 5
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.
C 2 T Y OF' B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R
Request for :
I . Temporary Outdoor Patio
II . Outdoor Sand Volleyball
Submitted by: EARLE BROWN BOWL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction & Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Request For a Temporary Outdoor Patio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Request For Outdoor Sand Volleyball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appendix A: Earle Brown Bowl, Inc.
Summarized Sales Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B: Summary of Parking Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
- 1 -
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this report are to present our position,
analysis, and reasons for requesting ( 1) a temporary outdoor
patio and ( 2 ) to conduct outdoor sand volleyball .
Even though our requests for the temporary outdoor patio and the
outdoor sand volleyball are contained within this one report we
wish these to be treated as seperate requests .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Earle Brown Bowl is owned by James E. Madden and has been a
member of Brooklyn Center 's business community since 1978 .
Earle Brown Bowl basically consists of three operations : ( 1 )
recreational bowling, ( 2 ) restaurant and ( 3 ) a nightclub. Bowling
and the individual bowler is our primary source of revenue . As
bowling revenue (activity) increases so does our restaurant and
nightclub sales, and as bowling revenue (activity) decreases so
does our restaurant and nightclub sales .
Earle Brown Bowl ' s bowling business, as with all bowling centers
in this area, is very seasonal . Bowling, specifically, league
bowling, generally runs from Labor Day until the middle of April,
approximately 33 - weeks . When league play ends in April our
monthly bowling sales drops off by an average of 77% (see
Appendix A for summarized sales information) , and our average
monthly total sales drops by 40% as compared with our average
total sales during our peak winter month (March) .
The basic idea of introducing an outdoor patio and outdoor sand
volleyball is to capitalize on our patrons desire to be outside
when the weather is nice . Our goal is to provide a pleasant
outdoor environment in which people can enjoy -- and ultimately
help increase our food and beverage sales during the slow months
of summer .
2 -
I
REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR PATIO
3 -
I
1
Request
In an effort to increase our sales during the summer months we
are requesting permission to build a temporary outdoor patio in
which food and liquor can be served (not prepared) .
Food and Liquor Service
It is our desire to serve food and liquor on this patio during
the summer months . There would be no food preparation on the
patio, all food preparation would be done in the kitchen.
Initially, our intention is to keep the patio open for business
until 11 : OOpm or 12 : 00 midnight, weather permitting. We plan to
have the patio open for business until the end of October or
until the weather turns cold .
Construction
The patio would be built in a manner which will allow us to
disassemble the patio at the end of summer and store it at a
warehouse located in St. Anthony Village .
The patio would be located on the west side of the building (see
diagram) and would be constructed out of treated wood and include
a railing and handicap ramps . The patio will be placed over an
existing sidewalk and grass area.
No lighting design has yet been developed, but our intention is
to have some kind of low intensity lighting surrounding the
patio.
Parking
The patio will only take away 1 parking space (see Appendix B for
summary of parking capacity) and will require that we move one of
our handicapped parking spaces .
Noise
We have no plans for outdoor speakers or music; consequently,
noise should not be a problem.
4 -
Safety
We will staff additional security personnel to assure that the
consumption of the food and liquor occurs only on the patio.
5 -
r r'
f J. f i•,�, .� X44 Y .
fs,► 1 f ,.. I SV�'A., ��� 1
��.
I �` ,_tit.-•(3¢ L�� �� ( �.
tO 1... _�
• r� ,;�� ;``�4-��;� .�I tr'.,' �. ,gar �J.p '�..,� JJ.--1-�►
It
UO"+ir�4� �- •,l fact l.: { L�� 1 SS: �i"•� Sr'.Y .�: lj L ..r __"L
r `rtds+ a•
/'
as
r` { i ;r'h,.•:1:'. `• y7 a .J.ti•11(f � •';li �. � ' � r.� e•f '!f r�'1 ��+�y �'rr� r '
1:
�ytl 1 M '
.rt7 I-a a t♦K<
1 c 44 t + r•.. J
r � `3 ..r: ,.: ,,. � f � �l L�-- .•� < A' i
fi
I
i
0 1
0
/
Q
. fTl
o --
(ID lid
+ m
D N X O
h m C-F
z m Z
F Q
° ro o Ul bd
o 0a
C- r
do d
� A u
n cn
�c Q
r-
�o �
< Q
Q
0
D
c�
133 .
10
REQUEST FOR OUTDOOR SAND VOLLEYBALL
8 -
Request
In an effort to increase traffic within our facility we are
requesting permission to use a portion of our south parking area
to construct two sand volleyball courts in which organized
volleyball leagues will play.
League Organization and Play
The volleyball leagues will be organized and run by a group
called VolleyWorld . VolleyWord specializes in organizing and
running volleyball - leaques and tournaments for several
establishments , including one of our bowling centers located in
Woodbury, Minnesota .
Our initial intent was to try and begin leaque play the week of
May 6, 1991; however, considering the timing of our request,
league play would actually begin sometime late June or early July
and continue through the end of August .
The leagues would be made up of all levels of play, both advanced
and recreational . There would be a mixture of teams; 6 person co-
ed, 4 person mens and womens, and some 2 persons teams . League
play would be conducted Monday through Thursday beginning at
5: 30pm, with the last match scheduled to start at 9 : 30pm.
Friday, Saturday, and Sundays are being held open to be used for
open play and special exhibitions and tournaments .
Earle Brown Bowl will not be earning any money off of the league
play, all league fees are collected by VolleyWorld . Our revenue
will come from the increased traffic that these volleyball
players will create .
There will be no food or beverages sold 'or served outside, either
on the sidewalks, in the parking lot, or on the volleyball
courts . If the outdoor deck is approved, food and liquor will be
served on the deck . Additional supervisory/security staff will
be on duty outside during the hours of operations .
Physical Description of Volleyball .Courts
The outdoor sand volleyball courts will be located in the
southside parking area (see Appendix B for diagram) and are
contained within an approximately 90 foot square area .
- 9 -
The volleyball courts will consist of an outside perimeter made
of a double layer of railroad ties . The courts will be filled
with mason sand to a center court depth of 12 inches and an
outside perimeter depth of 9 inches .
An 8 foot high netting ( fence ) surrounds the entire two courts,
with doors placed at each of the four corners .
The actual playing area consists of two courts 30 feet x 60 feet,
with a 10 foot neutral area ( playable ) between each court and the
outside nettinq. The -net standards are 4 inch diameter pipes
which are fitted into a 4 foot long sleeve which is below ground
level .
There will be two light poles, both containing two 400 watt HPS
bulbs mounted approximatly 10 feet above the existing parkinq lot
lights .
Approximately the first of September (before the start of the
fall bowling leagues ) the volleyball courts will be dismantled
and the sand and railroad ties will be moved to and stored at our
bowling center in Woodbury, Minnesota .
Parking
The volleyball courts will occupy 33 parking spaces (see Appendix
B for diagrams and summary of parking capacity) . Currently,
Earle Brown Bowl has 294 regular parking spaces and 6 handicapped
spaces . Therefore, the volleyball courts will take up
approximately 11% of the regular parking spaces and none of the
handicapped spaces .
Considering that the average monthly total sales drops by
approximately 23% during the summer months (see Appendix A for
sales information) , using 33 parking places ( 11°x) for the
volleyball courts should cause no parking shortages .
Rain and the Effect on Sand Washing Away
We have used this same construction on our volleyball courts at
our bowling center in Woodbury, and we have had no problem with
sand washing away due to heavy rain or wind.
10 -
Any bowling center 's greatest problem is sand . . . if sand gets
inside the bowling center and onto the lanes, you have serious
problems . Consequently, we are very concerned about the sand,
and have designed the volleyball courts very effective at
containing the sand. We also own our own sweeper, and we sweep
our parking lots whenever they begin to show a build up of sand .
Noise
These volleyball courts will not have outdoor speakers or any
kind of music . Our experience at our bowling center in Woodbury
indicates that the noise level from the volleyball courts is
negiigible .
Safety
We have every participant sign a Waiver form before they can play
volleyball; in addition, we have taken out additional insurance
on the particpants . But again, our experience is that very few
injuries occur, and the ones that do are of the minor kind,
scraped knees , etc .
- 11 -
--...���-�;�• - � -�'_�-1 SKY
r_ - �rD�M 1.11} �►,+v• A5
vo-
.20
1 /
r
6,4"5.oc
� r _
'
r �
.t
41.01 -5 7'--� - �4?. -- _ L
/4�
1 41.0 410 t _
� + -- .3, �/ Sob•
t T•L•413•5
v,
N t4 t
!
,
. , qty•`•, _ -jy�j� '► E-
{- 1. ,'.+�{!'\ 1",.{. ��, • •^
• 4 � rCi'•f,K�+� ;�•t .�� � 1 I
RAMP I
_ sp W�p1� W1 VNvEa GaNO� i t
h4 AA
T<
"�V+� t. .. rr��•, w� ' ; 4• + .. I�a�t � '•'ci � 5��f�7 Y 1 µ.Vi' . -� -
t try
!r✓ `\ .Y'L�I`'�Si 1 `YP� •�te. t!�1� ♦ .1 t �: w`,1"' ,':W,c{�S+ �i.t/ l p�.J• 1'1 t r N
. i`re`; �T (� �. i 4.11 f :,' � i; •�• ...-
y Y•
•; l >�I Y 1F i.•'• .h � t �_ {Ib �+ 1 � �\ t � 1 �- l[ f<. ,
i• 1 1 a i N,e '} ,t l' } ;-. 1 •i• :It./ ��•'i�1 i ,, j�.^
-a.r �' y,: C•f , •' a52 ; .�N"t �^f r`� •, ' • 1. ; ,�° ` _ :! i, f r ��. lt� ...-�.•..
� tt ,r w Y�.14 ` .1 ,+� If. - F" t.• tr'n 4�.;!+ � - h��` � 17�.� `� '�11.�.. •
• ' N
5
,x
J
ry
0 U
hi 3
6
j _6
3 # z 1
a
3
p` �I
� � W
•
/U -- 30' -- io' 30 - iv
Nv
SPECIFICATIONS
►) i
G knd A . R. f;es ou lside pp ►,�Q��
Z)
i z" /Vl q,5011 (jollic- )
�Inil��uM
3` 11 ,vc,
D ie, Nf- I -1
IQnW(�
w) ro rIICLdrG1 !`IVI•Ca•-(P'GJ0 LuE•(I
N Cot/-45
5) i iN nn 0-tnIN 1 Q�5h pe 11 c'►lS
g
i
lip 1991 rya VOLLEYWORL. D@
Sand Volleyball
at Earle Brown Bowl
Bl-o okl yfi ("'.'enter,er, /VIN
League Flay begins May Cth
Iti le outdoor lighted hted sand court
.s
u, p g ,s
Professiotlal Staff
* All levels of play (recreational to dvanced)
.*. 2 eight (8) week sessions
,F Bar f ( f�c;:;t� ur£atlt: I �aCilit:ic;s
Entry forms available at Locations
For more Information . . .
Call oV+.VOLLEYWORLD� Hotline (612) 892- 9693 (24 hours)
APPENDIX A:
Earle Brown Bowl, Inc.
Summarized Sales Information
15
Lj h
.......................
1;7
777
LE
............
CUT ............
K r:
t-lf-417 54
stove:. ....... .....
................. .....
kli it fill
--f 777!T7 T.
L2-1=0
AIM
M
F--T--7—7, r-T.-
C)
IP777 i�4:4-4
7711
...x4m. V Awl .......
L�L
L6
r
LJ
MN
. . . . . . . . . ..
.. ...........
........... .........
Ld L 0 1
.r4 'r
al
ir
- ------
" ...... Off opt MW
II?
A
... ...........
7r
rE)
r4 N N
(w pupon OL11)
�...._..._._ ._. .-......... ._._ .r._._ _ 1
IN
iz
_._.,� - ,�•'•L .,'L .,.L. •,L. ~•L•. ILL••_
LL]
L-
JJ ,
Ld
Ld
L L L L L•,L• ��
L k �•. ,-r
J
-•--•-L,• .1. L ''•.,t .�,• tit ''4
L
De
—•--•.._� _....ti........_..._........
__,_._.... f
tilt,•4t••,' �•''., 't,• ,'44• '`, '11• �YL' ''•.y +:i'
ul _� � '1'' ti.,`. It~��'l.\ 4 ��-v'' '1'. '.•.. �'. `'..,• 1 �l'e ',., `'•Y l �,,1 1 ._ .+�
LC_. LD ' ,�' .� .' ~`•• t Y.'� ``t' �`, ti, CJ Ii?
Lij
tl.j C n
..............,...._.-�-__..,._ ..r
LLJ
J
c
' �+ •i �d C q !`'f10 Z A l^O Y y a d d•O C^A=i P`O 00 y A d a•CI L^i=f0!+ O W
P C^G!P O 1+ C• C7 C^ t O r P C"0 0^ d O
, b 1• W •V'�C�O d i ►W •V dC°+i ti Ci"• O ► W •O d CI'•s p d i V
1 _ W q W O•� t e - W i A 00 O•� i� W •CI W O y H �
. to N V •� OA
1 M 00�• d e 00 i i N 00 V
� f
Y r0 FN+
1 H ♦+ M q N M
q r r N N r r V N N—w Y N
_ _ O O N a/1 O
1 _ _ M s V O P s !• _ y N_ P O s P
-1 w° W e V P aPJ�w e W O W O V O O P N�W� r O O O+O�.•O♦Pil r•-•N e N w -
♦
1
,`I ~•-.M M FN+ a a+ N N V N q r ► � N q N M N r r -
/
♦ N C O 1-+W O 0Q0 w N P O C
J 00 b O w W W I e r • O +O b i V O P• e M W o N J b^W e
1 +N a w V b+ V e - O O F+N b N On b 1�N n V r O N w V O e♦+b H N On '
�n w e _
1 m C
N _ O O
_ 00 _ _ e W
_o s O e 00 = O O A
OM O O e O P O O 0 0 P P e
1 r W N O O O V O N 0 s e N 0+an V P f•O P O�+ _ F+1+w+1..•F+
1 q ! N N ra• i _ e
N •+e N a O o b r 0 O a s w a J O r W J O
W O
b 01 N O r O P W O V O O e P►~•W O•o V O y1 O A N F+V— N w
1 r O--O
i s e s O O s O O O e e s O P
♦ ►O O q e F.• a s.a T V W N P e e b e w N a J e e a V a W V w O e N e w N e w e W N n On
1 �
. N s w P Ipj FO+ .O.
•s M N saJnM V K
W N O s W N W P = b • • +n+u w e
N a—N O P a J a O O+O w a—W + — - -
'T ♦ S,y � ® N m N gMgqNq NN m
{ � N ^ W V O e O Or V w�•e O o e OQi• W N N b e s N O O p• ,
P O° FO
V YN•• O N V O h0 V r M r J 0 p r a a W oii0 _.i.•�q
y l N VZo N J N ��
•t b N w IO J 0 0
1 - p O e P m W a•-• N b b e � M O P O e m
1 P O q O ✓ N H N W�♦PSl N w q :• w N 00 ,'f 7 _
W
W W�a sa r•N b P�e� N _ _
V _
W N 00
•.. :.. V Ow N a O V W W O_s W b N b V N a W N
_ ___ _ 00 M• M N A _ __ A
- � "j"O �e O s N 0 e V F++P+ V w O O N 0 0 r N A N�!O••r e r V O r 0 A N On+r N W n V
w ^ e �O V O N = ►� w OOP b 0 r • y
{ b 0 0 O p.• A w•1...Yr V r V ONO V y1 W+W M O n N O V O O Y1 W F+F+ r a -
w
0 Y-
_
♦NJ O 0 0 0_O q A M O e.
� ~ ~��a N a�r 1� O r �•YR+O e r O e M b _
_. 1 :- _w On N O m W O�♦O .�W an N N O e O N O W O E e e J
e P N W w W J W O F•
"�' `O O V P r s 0•r V r w _ N • O r a W O T A W m n y--O—w-+J e r r P
(
G
1 y H�O L^H m e M C+m Z ww C�O H_ M M'O C•'y m<^ C•'q=w!•'O m
/� O. C O w P�s C •°ia m w y C y e•'�i m !N p i i s
-- ---
I - q p Ci9 i O Om9 C"• w C v e m=w°i �°O w O y i►� ° -
_
ww� n w ° www n w
S
w* _ ►+ Y V N
m P--O•a O W Oe� P O°-°M--u r
ljll W�P
O O a O u V e e w M r
�. t O a FN,,.N Y N N N« C r ^N O N°.1 N N` C•
y P W r 0 M
-
O O e
q 9 r A
y O r y w
o = e O = O O
_ _O e A e s s O
O e O O o
0 0 O O m
M O O O O f+O N+N e—r F+an V C^ O
w-
s r
a v1 N
NN P Y r A M YY N l09
q 41 q
_ O O
-
1
q
1 N I N
.n°e°ov®.�-•�°..ree.°.aPa.e .� an ro°°pO.�'i.---- n----
{
m N N Y m
� I ee° _e a e°sPe .. a re eWN aPa^
m °o °N e r IN+ r e e s P N P W r s K
r s s v. z n :
F F
pOe ee e Ne eee s.es. �Fis�
- M e e r e s e W N e s e W e v.w
,Yy MTi
•� '1 N « NrrO ° Na
e1 p V W s s e q
e r e we°e ooue.ar�++NrP+ i .
�+ °s e s
� e ►+ P ►+o oe-+anr�+a P Nsv o m
a e s a r W r e N N
v w
' j � e w.• e V O O O N r ONN V N N+v+ O
o a er e e e s s
? � s eee.nO�o�er •.,.+e a+.e e+ •.r w .e eP N.o+s+ -+ e-
APPENDIX B:
Summary of Parking Capacity
21 -
E'f I/•v1F7e
1 I
4 doo r
I
Fro Li
tj
CA
1
g r :r 9'vi 71•I •,• ••'� , I 1:y '
{� GaNOS�
��,�•.�♦ -A-x + 'll,. ., ;� �- 3- � ( '� ,�,a pit' �.-- � � ��{. ' 'I � 1
' a� I••y,� r/�� /
} ✓. 1jj.1�1t1 11� I .e! ,� �F'...V-V�/ ddr: ...� 1
ri11d ! ' j fir 1 tl;'O 1 V.
' .•y fit• ' .`*� k�vt.: .t � � t ry r. •
� •rj�h ?� i ' � �t7! { �'•,� gar � !S � �• �. •ip. t j. �.. -- _ _ .
A I • r�•JliVf•�i-
ri 4. .�. }~ :r r a \YYY'•' i y• a ,i�, r' 'fix- .ice
i S � w:• q l '� .��• i. h '�•p.- "!t a- 1�y~ Y Cc, � Tr! ♦ 1 t4 'r4 �' j' t:...�.
T 1 `� .� .}-Y .v I i .S; �Y to t, L r � .n •�..�, d..i:+�
♦ {,.' tr 1 �. 1 '� .`} � �41� j5 , ; I �V•T 1 j -,,,�s a..... Y
,.� • i ' T n 7 '.tir �� �•�I'•2r.r. .
YY[' - V1{y:t'.:. r. .� � �� T: • 4 i• h1; �r yt�3�.. �yfd �-'•
:%, ^1 1 7' ,a. !r• Y•. 111: 7 r L '.•.: I t • fi
vj
IFA
ro
S
1y ��i� .� 1�•' �f �, � ��.�� ti .� \a - r p• r �i ;l , °'l' S S' li����� -�- '.
E A R L S BROW N B O W L
SUMMARY OF PARKING CAPACITY
Earle Brown Bowl 's- current parking capacity is as follows :
Outside perimeter parking . . . . . . . . . 118 regular spaces
3 handicapped
Westside parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 regular spaces
Frontdoor parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 regular spaces
3 handicapped
Southside parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 reg lar spaces
Total parking capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 regular spaces
6 handicapped
The proposed outside deck will take away 1 regular parking space
from the Frontdoor parking area, and will require moving one
handicapped parking space .
E A R L S B ROW N B O W L
SUMMARY OF PARKING CAPACITY
Earle Brown Bowl 's current parking capacity is as follows :
Outside perimeter parking . . . . . . . . . 118 regular spaces
3 handicapped
Westside parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 regular spaces
Frontdoor parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 regular spaces
3 handicapped
Southside parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 regular spaces
Total parking capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 regular spaces
6 handicapped
The proposed volleyball courts will take away 33 regular parking
spaces from the Southside parking area, reducing the parking in
that area from 100 regular spaces to 67 reqular spaces .
The volleyball courts reduce Earle Brown Bowl's total overall
parking from 294 regular parking spaces and 6 handicapped spaces
to 261 regular parking spaces and 6 handicapped spaces. This
represents a ten percent ( 11%) drop in Earle Brown Bowl 's total
parking capacity.
■■i a■� ■ice ■// ■1■ �■ ��
maim
MIR
mus own,
moon
MEM MEN
Is No m ME
.■ .� ��
man
Am'�. -'` � - - ° �����■■� � = icy ��I�������I _ ■■ ■�■ N. ■i■i
�: : 1. ■■
milli IIL��:�i�
N �N mm
CREEK
awl
OPEN SPACE 61-4� m
♦ •i m
LYN CENTER
SCHOOL
law
1 r♦
a 1♦ ♦�.
c. �1 ♦♦� ■
�. ♦♦ ♦�� ■
��
��� � N • ■
goal
IN
IBM
WIL
—
/�/v�/��/III
�. � ��f,TG_is�� ♦ . NN �7
+ Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 91010
Applicant: Marquette Bank Brookdale
Location: 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Site and Building Plan
Location/Use
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct
a 5,770 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank
Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is
zoned C2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by Westbrook Mall,
on the east by a private road serving Westbrook Mall and Bakers
Square, on the south by 56th Avenue North, and on the west by
Brooklyn Boulevard. Banks are a permitted use in the C2 zoning
district.
Access/Parking
The present access off 56th Avenue North is proposed to stay where
it is near the southeast corner of the site. It is over 50' wide,
divided by a median. It is located approximately 60' west of the
private access road serving Westbrook Mall. Across the street,
another private access road opens onto 56th roughly in between
these two driveways. Ideally, accesses should line up across from
one another or be offset at least 1251 . That was not feasible here
and it was felt that the present driveway location provided some
separation from the private access drive on the north side of 56th
without complicating the turn lane onto Brooklyn Boulevard. There
is also access between this bank site and Westbrook Mall to the
north via a driveway connection in the northeast corner of the
site.
The plan proposes 101 parking spaces, including 3 handicapped
spaces. The existing building requires 66 spaces, using the retail
formula for the main floor and the office formula for the basement.
The proposed addition is 5,770 sq. ft. and requires 32 stalls at
the retail parking formula. Total required parking, therefore,
comes to 98 stalls. The proposed plan, therefore, slightly exceeds
that requirement.
Landscaping
The landscape plan calls for numerous trees and shrubs positioned
in appropriate locations around the site. The total point value of
new plantings is 467 points. The plan calls for 10 Shademaster
Honeylocust, 6 Greenspire Linden, 13 Douglas Fir, 12 Adams
Crabapple, 17 Spring Snow Crabapple and over 300 shrubs including
Cardinal Dogwood, Mint Julep Juniper, and thornless Japanese
Barberry. The existing parcel is approximately 2. 1 acres. The
point requirement under the landscape point system for this parcel
is 208 points. The proposed plan, therefore, meets the point
requirement.
5-30-91 1
• Application No. 91010 continued
Grading/Drainage/Utilities
The existing building is situated on the north side of the site,
high above the street level of 56th Avenue North. By adding to the
front of the building, the average grade from the main floor to the
street becomes steeper. We have advised the architects for this
project that parking lot grades leading to the access on 56th
should not exceed 5%. The plan, for the most part, accomplishes
this objective through the use of retaining walls, steps, and a
handicapped ramp in front of the building's southeast elevation.
The slope in front of the building is approximately 5% or less.
However, the slope appears to be steeper at the access drive and on
the east side of the site. The City Engineer must approve the
final grading plan. _and will work out these details with the
architects. The site has no access to public storm sewer. All
drainage will flow toward the southeast portion of the site onto
56th Avenue North and travel overland to storm sewer in Xerxes
Avenue North. A spillway has been shown at the southeast corner of
the parking lot. Measures should be taken to prevent erosion in
the adjacent greenstrip through which the runoff will flow. We
have asked for locations of on-site utilities, but they have not as
yet been shown. The existing building is served by City water and
sewer. A fire line will have to be added to fire sprinkler the
entire building as required by the Fire Code.
Building
The proposed expansion will almost double the size of the main
floor. Much of the space is to be used for offices and a reception
and waiting area. The entrance at the southeast corner of the
existing building will remain as primarily an employee entrance.
The main customer entrance will be moved to a barrel vaulted entry
way on the southeast side of the addition. A matching barrel vault
on the southwest elevation of the building will be over a
conference room. The building exterior is to be a new face brick
with generous clear tinted glass windows. The plans also propose
a new standing seam metal roof in a hipp design. As mentioned
earlier, the building is to be fire sprinklered in accordance with
the Fire Code.
Lighting/Trash
An existing freestanding light fixture is indicated in the middle
of the double row of parking east of the building. Two more light
poles are shown west of the building. The plan does not indicate
any new exterior lighting or how existing lighting may be
relocated. We are pursuing this question with the principal
architect for the project. Two trash dumpsters and a fenced
enclosure are shown in the northeast corner of the site.
5-30-91 2
Application No. 91010 continued
Recommendation
Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is
recommended, subject 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, utility and berming plans are subject
to 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 the issuance of
permits.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from
view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be
. connected to a central monitoring device in accordance
with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in
all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas, except along the north side of the lot
as recommended by the City Engineer.
9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the
property, improvements and utility service lines, prior
to release of the performance guarantee for this project.
10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and
Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and
Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits.
11. The plans shall be modified, prior to the issuance of
permits, to indicate the following:
a) Not greater than a 5% slope at or leading to the
access onto 56th Avenue North.
5-30-91 3
Application No. 91010 continued
b) Modification of the site plans to provide for a
method of erosion control in the greenstrip
adjacent to the spillway at the southeast corner of
the lot.
C) Proposed lighting.
d) Modification of proposed grades so as not to
encroach on the existing sidewalk along 56th Avenue
North and Brooklyn Boulevard.
e) Existing and proposed site utilities.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
Approved by,
C74
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
5-30-91 4
//III �121palls��j1� 11�on MEN/
as, AMM
T
0/%11
�
�
;s
all MINIMUM ._ 2
VT
M or 's
.M .� .. .111//1
No MM 0 MM rd 9
M 4—ft MOM
�s 22 ZZ M �� �� OR _
•,
MM
Wo an won IMMMIMMIMMI
wo MM MM MM owl
M� ■ M ...e. \ • .
MW
p- MMLpA
IA
win
so
all
NORTHPORT }
}' :�..�.. �� �. •.� ,� 111
` �.` �� :• SCHOOL ''� is .•`•i•��� ��
■; ';i�: �� �:• •ice � '� �•
lose
.,}kr _� i�•••�n�i.��•� ,m :may t• � �
$ �■
loss . .. —6F -
UFA
NINO
U�1i��7�,,� �� gg..�o♦,s r�:. .milli
AW
LW US;P.
milli
-ME
ss= >» _
z ; cl
n 3
0 c
z
osuo Row
7 V
v $ 4A
0 to Z
Z I C)
z
z
I n
r I
o I
o
� 1
jE 3Y
$ �
7 _ I
�ii� 'Rs•�
o v
R .!
o;
0
sa
I
i
-4
DI
ED
DOOL
0 z
r � �, I
o u
o� -
i o n
' . �
ra it
—
r
y I !'yi
Pi I: o
i
Ij
77:u - --
® ;,
b r w i z
� n
i
T�
i
s ! r i !.
mom
is
N
1111131�11111�1�1�1l11�1 � ��►►�. , _
1�11111111191111111�11�1 • - �� �)%
i
�I�IIllalllll811111011�1 � ;`�}�� : .-
1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�11'�1
i
uko
�- .■■■o31, Tr.
Ins MR-MEN
wim
YYY INQ
�I
.111
1 '' I'! ' I' I`ll!11!I I' I I IE'i
�il i!,!;� fl ,t, jI II�I II iI f I fill
r ! E lti I I IE !Ij I It I '11 I lift!) d
I Ij I'1'' I,II'I i11'III ,.
,l I i �
lI
_
!' II If
l , II �
a 1 I t' ' III' PI Y Pql I �'�le Ii I 1 ,e u , ► , �
Il If41 I��j��I li!II�Ilj jlf.!'illj I r fii�I jl II Ijl I,i�Ii 4 Illih I !4!ill g��I �
II 'tfil
4- _.1+H i It1 I II it iii!i 1`I I �!I'I I!'j I III ui,j'I IiIIIII Ids II 't 4
E E E 1, 'sI I,t�1` III 14+'!1!Iijl;i I Il I I; ! 4!,14!i�1 4111111 't III III`
. � It I' I I•II , � I ',I ' t fl �. 111,•, � I 'I ' III 1! II!I
;II j i II , III !4 IIE • I � i II E EI !I• I �I ,II �ii�i i�(!� i I u+,4
oavn3nnoe k
� � 'I' r � 3j i �• i t i
I Zt61
'' ■rrrrR� Epii� �.. - -I_ /_ _q .- br" 293
� � • � $ x. � it �t t ;
I
� ■ - !3 � Q.IS I o i I i
CD
LD
t Ate' n R o II:
m
rr
irn H8
!c 1, a. N ! FF - T
.NiO, {
a a^
i Z F y
in
i7 V
lit ji
CD
-11.n s sno»I wnn» W
i i E' H
i _ °= i o W
+ I I I IT ° d
e/ w Q
jr
CL
f _ ? .` N. z
s W
.iE�l
w
• W 3
>
•�-
'' = IK Y y � ' ;`1.\— Y` .III V jl' �• _ —
w cr (p
e � x
� _ � r— N 9 � SIB I'•' --
1
r — - a ,'J �' 6•� ��tii
-66Z R•1Sg949
r •� _ L. 193.22
-
099— SQULEVARD - °6
_ �_•
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 91006
Applicant: Sunlite Properties
Location: 1601 67th Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-413. la of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a buffer strip of 15 ' between the parking
lot at 1601 67th Avenue North (an industrial site) and the site of
the Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 100 ' buffer, but a 50 ' buffer was
approved by variance in 1977. The industrial site is zoned I-1 and
is bounded by 67th Avenue North and the Spec. 7 Industrial Building
on the north, by the Berean Evangelical Free Church on the east,
and by Hoffmann Engineering on the south and west. This
application was considered by the Commission at its April 11, 1991
regular meeting and was tabled with direction to the applicant and
staff to pursue options other than a variance (See copies of the
April 11, 1991 minutes and Planning Commission Information Sheet
attached) .
Staff met with the applicant and his architect in late April and
discussed the option of Sunlite Properties purchasing more land
from the church and possibly pursuing a building addition as well
as expanded parking. We also discussed the possibility of an
ordinance amendment pertaining to buffers adjacent to institutional
uses. The applicant approached the church about the possibility of
acquiring more land in early May. The church board met May 9 to
consider the possibility and indicated it would be interested in
selling land if it would not adversely affect a possible expansion
of the church. Before this question could be addressed, Mr.
Steffens of Sunlite Properties approached his industrial tenants
and learned from them that there was no desire for additional
space. Given that fact, Mr. Steffens decided he was not interested
in purchasing any additional land from the church.
We are, therefore, left at this point with the option of pursuing
the variance or possibly an ordinance amendment pertaining to
buffers where industrial uses abut institutional uses. A draft
ordinance amendment is attached for the Commission's consideration
which would allow for a 15 ' wide buffer where an I-1 or I-2 use
abuts an institutional use. Institutional uses are considered
comparable to C1 service/office uses in their land use impacts and
in their treatment with respect to off-site accessory parking. No
buffer is required where I-1 or I-2 abuts C1.
5-30-91
1
Application No. 91006 continued
We do not recommend approval of the variance application for the
reasons outlined in the previous staff report. We do not believe
that the lack of convenient parking is a true hardship as that term
is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The circumstances have been
created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the
property in question. For these reasons, we conclude that the
variance request does not meet all the standards for a variance and
we, therefore, recommend denial of the application. We would,
however, recommend that the attached ordinance amendment at least
be considered as a means of resolving the issue.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
roved by,
C •
Ronald A. Warren
0 Director of Planning and Inspection
•
5-30-91 2
DRAFT
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall,
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding the required buffer when an industrial use
abuts an institutional use.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel
Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A LESSER BUFFER WHERE AN
INDUSTRIAL USE ABUTS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City
of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35-413 . SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN I-1 AND I-2
DISTRICTS.
1. Buffer and Setback
Where a proposed I-1 or I-2 development abuts any
residential district (R1 through R7) either at a
property line or a public street line, buffer
provisions shall be established according to the
following:
a. Where I-1 or I-2 development abuts R1, R2, R3
at a property line, the protective strip shall
be no less than 100 feet in width, except that
the buffer strip when an I-1 or I-2 use abuts
an institutional use shall be no less than 15
feet. The protective strip shall not be used
for parking, driveway, off-street loading or
storage and shall be landscaped. The
landscaped treatment shall contain an opaque
fence or wall which shall not extend within 10
feet of any street right-of-way. The fence or
wall design must be approved by the City
Council as being in harmony with the
residential neighborhood and providing
sufficient screening of the industrial area.
The fence or wall shall be eight feet in
height. The protective strip shall contain no
structures other than the approved fence or
wall.
b. Where I-1 or I-2 abuts R1, R2, or R3 at a
public street line, the protective buffer
strip shall be no less that 50 feet in width,
except that the buffer across the street from
an institutional use shall be no less than 15
feet in width [ , 1 . The protective buffer
strip shall not be used for parking, off-
street loading, storage, or any other
industrial activity, and shall be landscaped.
Activity areas shall be effectively screened
from view of the residential district in a
manner to be approved by the City Council.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1991.
Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new
matter. )
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 11, 1991
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to
order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Kristen
Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson
Malecki noted that Commissioner Bernards and Johnson were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1991
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to
approve the minutes of the February 28, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties, Inc. )
Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced
the first item of business, a request for approval of a variance to
allow a 15 ' buffer strip between its parking lot at 1601 67th
Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property to the
east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see
Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006,
attached) .
Commissioner Ainas asked if the church property were rezoned, what
other properties in the City would be affected. The Secretary
stated that no other properties would be affected that he could
think of. Commissioner Ainas asked whether there were any other
churches adjacent to industrial property. The Secretary responded
in the negative.
Commissioner Holmes asked for a clarification of the problem with
the parsonage. The Secretary pointed out that the parsonage is a
single family use which is permitted in the R1 zone whereas the
church is a special use in the R1 zone. He stated that if the
church property were zoned R5, the single family use would become
nonconforming and the church would still be a special use.
Commissioner Holmes asked another question regarding the east
entrance to the building. The Secretary showed the location of the
east entrance to the building. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect
representing the applicant, explained the tenant layout within the
building. He explained that the owner of the building wants to
4-11-91 1
make parking for the tenant which would use the east entrance
visible from that entrance.
Commissioner Sander arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Blumentals asked the Commission what would be considered a
hardship. He stated that it was really a question of degree. He
stated that whether the church is spot zoned or left over zoned was
really a question of semantics. He stated that he felt the
variance was not unreasonable. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr.
Blumentals about the possibility of Sunlite Properties buying
additional land from the church property to maintain a 50 ' buffer.
Mr. Blumentals stated that that would cost money. He pointed out
that the applicant had looked at providing more spaces along the
east side of the building which would have involved an even more
extensive variance. _ He stated that the applicant had concluded
that this would not be feasible.
Commissioner Holmes asked who would be using the east entrance.
Mr. Jerry Steffens, of Sunlite Properties Inc. , stated that it
would be office employees. Commissioner Mann asked whether there
was any way to get to the new office area from the north entrance.
Mr. Blumentals stated that this would require employees to go
through one tenant space to get to another. He stated that one of
the purposes of this variance request was to eliminate the internal
public corridor.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91006)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on
Application No. 91006 and asked whether anyone present wished to
speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a
motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close
the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Holmes asked if the industrial building had enough
parking at present. The Secretary responded in the affirmative.
Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt the parking situation was
more of an inconvenience rather than a hardship for the applicant.
She added that she did not feel the City wanted more R5 zoning
along Humboldt Avenue North. Commissioner Holmes asked what would
happen if the church left and the property were reused. He asked
whether single family would be allowed. The Secretary responded in
the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes concluded that there were
various options before the Commission, including: a rezoning of
land, a revision to the Zoning Ordinance, the granting of a
variance and acquisition of more land. He stated that he also was
concerned about safety for the employees and wondered what
precedent would be set if a variance were granted.
4-11-91 2
Chairperson Malecki stated that the Commission was already dealing
with the precedent set in 1977 by granting the variance to allow a
50' buffer instead of the required 100' buffer. She stated that
the Commission has to decide whether the variance standards are
met.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the variance standards were
not met. He recommended as an alternate that the church property
be rezoned to I-1. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there was
another option. The Secretary stated that the City could amend the
ordinance to allow a lesser buffer where an industrial use abuts an
institutional use. He stated that there was no great harm to the
church site except possibly to the parsonage. He stated that the
problem is the lack of a 100' buffer in this area. Commissioner
Ainas stated that an I-1 zoning of the church property would be
compatible with the, adjacent land uses and would allow for
redevelopment in the future. Mr. Blumentals stated that he felt a
single family use would not be a good use of the property on the
church site if the church were moved.
Commissioner Sander asked what zones churches exist in. The
Secretary answered that they are mostly located in the R1 zone. He
pointed out, however, that the Spiritual Life Ministries operation
is located in the industrial park. He pointed out that churches
are allowed by special use permit in the R1, R2, R5 and I-1 zones
and are a permitted use in the C1 and C2 zones. He stated that the
Commission has to look at the question of whether these two parking
lots next to each other would be a problem. He reviewed the
standards for a variance and stated that some of them could perhaps
be met. He added that the ordinance could be amended relative to
buffers adjacent to institutional uses. He stated that if the
property were converted to single family, the industrial site was
already nonconforming relative to the R1 zone by virtue of the
granting of a variance. He asked the Commission to give the staff
direction on where to go with this application. He stated that if
the Commission recommended denial of the variance, the staff could
bring back a resolution outlining the reasoning or could bring back
a rezoning application for the church property if the church
acquiesced. He added that another possibility was to draft an
ordinance amendment. The Planner noted the existence of the
parsonage adjacent to the I-1 property and wondered whether an
ordinance amendment would cover this situation or whether it would
have an effect on the Howe Fertilizer site which also abuts single-
family homes.
Commissioner Mann asked for a clarification of the east entrance.
Mr. Blumentals stated that when the building was built, the east
entrance was a fire exit. He stated that now the applicant wishes
to make the east entrance a separate entrance for a tenant space.
He added that the Commission does have the option of recommending
approval .of the variance.
4-11-91 3
s
Commissioner Holmes stated that he did not believe the application
met the standards for a variance. He recommended that the
application be tabled and that some other resolution of the problem
be pursued. He stated that he did not believe the church property
should be zoned R1. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes
if he was sympathetic to an ordinance amendment. Commissioner
Holmes responded that he was open to that as well. Commissioner
Mann stated she did not feel the standards were met in this case.
She expressed a preference that the applicant acquire land from the
church and rezone it and thereby provide the same 50' buffer.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he would also recommend denying the
variance, but direct staff to prepare an ordinance change or to
rezone the church to I-1. He stated that he did not favor tabling
the application. Commissioner Sander also stated that she
preferred to deny the variance and seek some other resolution of
the issue.
The Secretary asked the Commission whether they prefer to move the
application on or whether to bring it back in 30 days with some
other resolution of the issue. Commissioner Ainas noted that a
rezoning would be a separate application. The Secretary stated
that an ordinance amendment was also a possibility and could be
brought back with a resolution to deny the variance. Chairperson
Malecki wondered if tabling the application made sense if an
ordinance amendment were not the preferred vehicle for resolving
the issue. She stated that she did not like any of the options
except for the applicant to acquire more property. Mr. Blumentals
stated that, if the Commission were going to vote to deny the
variance, he would prefer that the application be tabled.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties, Inc. )
WITH DIRECTION TO PURSUE OTHER OPTIONS
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to
table Application No. 91006 and to direct staff to pursue with the
applicant other possible vehicles for resolving the buffer issue
other than a variance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
The Secretary stated that staff could pursue all possibilities with
the applicant including rezoning, land acquisition, and an
ordinance change.
Commissioner Mann asked whether I-1 properties are required to
provide any green area. The Secretary responded that a 15 '
greenstrip is required adjacent to public right-of-way.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Chairperson
4-11-91 4
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 91006
Applicant: Sunlite Properties
Location: 1601 67th Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a 15 ' buffer
strip between its parking lot and the Berean Evangelical Free
Church property to the east. There is presently a 50 ' buffer which
was allowed by variance in 1977 from the ordinance requirement of
1001 . The property in question is an industrial/office building
that is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the north by the Spec. 7
industrial building (TCR et al) , on the east by the Berean
Evangelical Free Church, on the south by Hoffmann Engineering
parking lot, and on the west by the Hoffmann Engineering parking to
and the 67th Avenue North cul-de-sac. The church to the east is
zoned R1. Under - section 35-413 of the City's Zoning Ordinance,
when an I-1 or I-2 use abuts an R1, R2, or R3 use at a property
line, a 100 ' landscaped buffer is required of the industrial
property. In this case, a variance was granted in 1977 to allow a
50 ' buffer for both building and parking. The applicant wishes to
add 7 parking stalls in the green area east of the existing parking
lot on the north side of the site (see site plan, attached) .
Background
The 1977 variance for this property (Application No. 77052) was
based on six findings which are listed below:
"1. The standards for variance listed in Section 35-240 are
met, especially with respect to uniqueness and hardship.
2 . The direct abutment of the I-1 zoned site to the R1
property is unique in the I-1 district.
3 . The ordinance buffering standard, where I-1 sites
directly abut Rl property can be reduced in this instance
due to the proposed I-1 site layout and the special use
institutional character of the R1 property.
4 . Screen fencing of the parking lot only is within the
intent of the ordinance buffering requirements due to the
location of the church parking facilities and due to the
orientation of the I-1 development to the west.
5. The variances and circumstances are similar to those
considered and approved under Application No. 74044.
6. No objection to the variance request was made by adjacent
property owners or other parties. "
4-11-91 1
•
•
• I
Application No. 74044 was a request for site and building plan
approval for the Spec. 7 industrial building to the north of this
site which comprehended a buffer variance from the church property
which, at that time, extended westward, including the property
presently occupied by this industrial building. In 1977,
approximately the west half of the church property was rezoned from
R1 to I-1 and the industrial building at 1601 67th Avenue North was
subsequently approved. Application No. 74044 comprehended a buffer
variance along the south side of the Spec. 7 property adjacent to
what was then the R1 church property. The variance acknowledged a
greenstrip which would vary from 59 ' to 221 , thus a maximum
variance of 78 ' from the required 100 ' buffer. The bases for the
variance were enumerated as follows:
"1. Due to the particular physical surroundings of the
specific parcel of land involved a hardship would be
realized if the strict letter of the buffer requirements
were carried out.
2. The conditions of the application are unique in the
specific parcel and are not common generally, to other
property in the I-1 district.
3. The alleged hardship is related to ordinance
requirements, the established R1 parcel, so zoned because
of an existing special use, and to the dedicated, but
undeveloped street right-of-way.
4. The proposed variance is not deemed to be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to neighboring
properties.
5. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is retained in
conjunction with the site and building plan approval
considerations for appropriate screening. "
A key consideration in both variances appears to have been the
institutional nature of the adjacent R1 use and the fact that it,
too, has a parking lot located west of the church building. The
church was built in 1961, about the same time as the older
apartments to the north. This was before the City adopted its
first Comprehensive Plan and before the Industrial Park was
planned, zoned, and developed. The R1 zoning of the church
property probably existed from the City's first Zoning Ordinance
and was left in place, because of the church use, after surrounding
property was zoned industrial and multi-family.
Variance Standards
The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted
a letter (attached) in which he addresses the Standards for
Variance-contained in Section 35-240 (also attached) . A recitation
4-11-91 2
. ,
i
of those standards and Mr. Blumentals' arguments and staff comments
follow below:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,
or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of
land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if
the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried
out.
Applicant: "Because this particular parcel of land is located next
to a church property, the setbacks for the parking is different
than all the other adjacent industrial properties. The question of
zoning of the church property is reviewed under Qualification B.
"The existing industrial building on this property was built in
1978/79 as a multi-use, multi-tenant building. Office uses were
located in the northeast corner of the building with one door to
the north and the other door to the east (For reference: The
church is east of this building) . Industrial uses are located in
the balance of the building with entrances and loading away from
the church property.
"Office uses (approximately 5,000 sq. ft. ) were planned to be
multi-tenant spaces for several small office tenants. Due to
market changes there is not the demand for such spaces and the
owner has the possibility to lease out the space only to two larger
tenants where each tenant would have their own private entrances.
"The tenant that would use the east entrance requires parking near
this entrance. The new seven parking spaces would provide the
necessary parking instead of using existing spaces that are over
100 feet away and would have a conflict with the parking for the
other tenant. "
Staff: We regard the impediment to more convenient parking to be
an inconvenience and not a hardship as that term is used in the
Zoning Ordinance. If there is an uncontrollable factor affecting
the use of the applicant's property, it is the zoning of the
property to the east containing the church and the parsonage. The
R1 zoning of the church property imposes burdens on this site which
other industrial properties in this area do not face since they
abut R5 property. Perhaps the protection afforded by the buffer is
not as critical in this case, given the institutional nature of the
adjacent R1 use. However, the 50 ' buffer was apparently deemed to
be an acceptable compromise when the building was built and the
circumstances which have changed since then do not seem to meet the
definition of a "hardship. "
(b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
4-11-91 3
i
variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Applicant: "This particular parcel of land is located in the
industrial area (I-1 zone) that is adjacent to multi-residential
area (R5 zone) . Directly east of this property is Berean
Evangelical Free Church. The church property is zoned R1.
Typically, all churches are zoned R1 so that they can be located in
the neighborhoods of one family residences. In this location that
is not true: if the church would not be there, this church
property would be zoned R5 just like the adjacent properties are.
The variance applied for complies with setbacks for the R5 zone. "
Staff: This property is unique in the I-1 zone in abutting an R1
parcel directly. The Palmer Lake Plaza site provided the required
50' buffer along Shingle Creek Parkway when it was developed across
the street from what was, at the time, R3 zoned property. It seems
useless, however,_ to excuse a property owner from an ordinance
requirement in the one case where it applies. The City might as
well change its ordinance. Perhaps it is more a matter of the
church being unique in being located in an area surrounded by
multi-family dwellings and industrial buildings rather than, as the
applicant states, in a single-family neighborhood. (It should be
noted that, under the Zoning Ordinance, churches are to be located
such that they have primary access off collector or arterial
streets. ) Another way of allowing a lesser buffer in this case
would be to rezone the church property to R5 (churches are now a
special use in the R5 zone) . However, this would make the existing
parsonage a nonconforming use and would also open up the
possibility of future multi-family development on the church
property. The abundance of apartments in this area lessens the
need for more.
A church is a somewhat unique use in the R1 zone and there may be
some justification in considering a lesser buffer adjacent to a
church. However, as we have noted above, the buffer question was
considered in 1977 and the present 50' buffer was approved by
variance. The changes which have taken place since then are minor
and do not make this situation any more unique than it was then.
(c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of
this ordinance and has not been created by any persons
presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of
land.
Applicant: "To no fault by anybody the adjacent church property is
spot zoned: R1 property located in the R5 zone that is adjacent to
industrial area. See Qualification B. "
Staff: The applicant alleges that the church property is "spot
zoned. " We would point out that there is R1 property across the
street (Brooklyn Center Jr.-Sr. High School) and that the R1
4-11-91 4
zoning, while somewhat isolated, is consistent with the City's
original and updated Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the church
property is always an option, but that should be pursued by the
church. There is also the possibility that the church could sell
additional land to Sunlite Properties to become part of the
industrial site and maintain a minimum of a 50' buffer. This would
involve a replat and a rezoning. We have suggested this option to
the applicant's representative, but they have pursued the variance
instead. Perhaps the church is not interested in selling any land;
or perhaps the applicant simply regards this option as too
expensive.
The current situation has been brought about by the previous owner
of the industrial site (the church) who pursued a rezoning of the
property to I-1 and by the present owner and by the City which
agreed to a 50 ' buffer in 1977. If the isolated R1 zoning creates
a hardship, that zoning should perhaps be reviewed in consultation
with the church. _ The zoning of the church property and that of
surrounding land have been established by the City. The Rl zoning,
in all likelihood, existed prior to the adjacent industrial and
multi-family zones and is simply a leftover zoning that is
consistent with the current use of the property and with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or
. improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of
land is located.
"Applicant: "The variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare in any way because it would provide the same setbacks as
for all other adjacent industrial properties and would not provide
any precedent for any other property that is located next to a
church because this is a very unique case.
"The variance will not be detrimental to the Berean Evangelical
Free Church because:
"l. The new seven parking spaces by layout will be limited to
car parking only (no trucks) and further will be limited
to the office hours.
2. The new seven parking spaces will be screened as per
Zoning Ordinance and the visibility of the cars will be
considerably less than the truck parking on the property
to the south.
3. The new seven parking spaces are not required parking,
but are additional parking above the required parking. "
4-11-91 5
mom
.. am �a
;as — C
s ■. a a .
OPEN SPACE
APPLICATION NO. v♦• H
-
91006
�� v
♦♦. as
te BROOKLYN CENTER ♦♦i q
Nt HIGH SCHOOL
i
pp
'igloo �,,.�,�����°s . A ■■a a� as a
- . •,•;Ors s ��s''����9�� �e / � �� ■
•• :•,,�?vi. bd a X44 aas...��+r
IM slt•
+S • r ��9'sA '' �� �7 _s
ifi ... m v
aai's a s ► t� MU� mo ���
as s 1 ss dal maimILlW
sa - as d
;z I / ��'�e•�♦••���� as �a
ss RS
_ . • 1 ♦ ♦ sa v
som 14
MUM 11111110111
as d
mc MOM
No No MUM
11111111110 MU
_ r d
mm mm
iiinom s� as as
N
_1m_ mum mum
- -- : = � oVyvMas
J
z
s :
'03---
ITm--F
I
Q — x
® O t• O
' S
—�
z t��
Sal I I
—A--—A-----4
� � J1
''.`• co CO rn - Q7
Ln 'r3
ca 0
r F7
it
� O °
Ns � O
z -4d CD
y.nA Its IL LL
v
I
Z '% *^
Z IN
lu
F- 9 z � du'a N
15►-4 l�u
1213A '09 �; Z:
xx� wwT _ t� lU
i Ll1 L1L x •- I � �p i �L � �? �r p�_,lii n-:�.�-
q y M 5N 0-11
LN
W Q UI
a.�E_ --- T �` :� � � 1!llllu lll �z� u-1 ►—� ►-'`d- 11�.) 3' (�� 1i�t ���(�.� -1
LA lul
LLJ
Z /l lY Z tip f Z tit d _I CL Z iI L uC fir?,�
� "Yi NZ
. 4 x u! 3 .�
m 4
� - ul u� �
11!! jnIZ
Ul
IL-
E _ 1i
l 9Krn snorvl wnUll N aN �Ivrnd� 1sIX�
3a
z�