Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 04-09 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGI. .Ar; SESSION April 9, 1981 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. RolI Call 3. Approval of Minutes: Harch 12, 1981 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Ccmmi ssi on 'is an advisory body. One of the Com�mi ss i on's functions is to hold public hearings. In the mutters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes r ccrrmendati ons to tle City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 6. Hussman Anve_trncr:t Company 81019 Request tr't rezone from, Rl to R3 tl+e land between 69th and 70Th, west of Col:uml:us vi llage Apartments and east„ of tite City Main- tenance Annex at Dupont an., 69th. 6. Brooklyn Ceveloprfyanl; Company 81020 Pequest for Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide tare land at Xerxes Aver)ue North and Shingle ;reek Parkway into two blocks, one for towr hou .e devel oprcnt and one for, commercial office dove l opment. U1 V>Jn 1J 1i ire�l 1. tJ 11 i1.111e +✓v 11 t'�4it lam+• \• xequest for site anc DUI raing pran apprcvai ro construct ruu toWrrho .ss6 units o3 trio westerly and southerly portions of the property at Xerxes and Shingle Creek Parkway. S. Brooklyn uevelopmert Company 81022 Request for rezoning of 5..6 acres of ',and at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway from R3 to Cl . 9. Thomas Cook (Car X Systems) 81023 Request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 6 stall muffler repair shop a.t 6810 Brooklyn: Boulevard 10. Pamela Langr en 81024 Request to relocate a home beauty sloop from 6224 Regent Avenue !Forth to 7243 Grimes Avenue North. 11 . City of Brooklyn Center 81026 Requ=est for preliminary slat approval to subdivide into fi f-een outlotts the vacant lard east of Noble !%ve. North, south of 1-94, and north of the lots :'acing :6th Avenue North. 12. Other Business 13. Discussion Item Ordinance Amendment rolating to !Manufacture of electric cars An the i°1 zone. 14. Ad; vurnment L Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81019 Applicant: Hussman Investment Company Location: 811-821 70th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant requests rezoning from R1 to R3 the land bounded by 70th Avenue North right-of-way on the north, by Columbus Village Apartments on the east, by 69th Avenue North on the south, and by the City's public utilities maintenance annex on the west. There are currently four single family lots abutting 69th in this area which have homes on them. At the northwest corner of this area are two lots which abut the unimproved 70th Avenue North right-of-way and are owned by the Hussman Investment Company. The applicant is especially interested in rezoning the northern portion of the above-described area and has submitted a conceptual development plan for the two properties owned by Hussman Investment. The applicant has also submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the rezoning is justified on the following grounds: 1 . The property will not be efficiently utilized if developed for single family homes. 2. The R3 use would serve as an appropriate intermediate use between the apartments to the east and the single -family homes to the south. 3. The rezoning is consistent with the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan. 4. A townhouse devt1 VP11;el;i. ►�oulu JCI`VC 1.110 ;;c�uJ U1 uv U i ucI u1iu younger families who wish to reside in brooKiyn center. 5. The increased density would bring in more revenue to the City. It should be noted that the Land Use Revisions Map of the updated Comprehensive Plan does designate the northern portion of the area in question as an area for future R3 development. Although the applicant's own property is the only area included in the conceptual development plan (and the request may not, therefore, have much merit beyond the interests of the property owner), the arguments of the applicant do seem to have some merit. A denial of the rezoning request, meanwhile, would have to acknowledge one or more of the following: a) An amendment to the Land Use Revisions Map of the Comprehensive Plan. b) Deferral of the rezoning until other affected property owners are in support of the rezoning. c) A split action rezoning part of the property now and deferring rezoning of other land until a development plan is forthcoming. It should be added that the City has very preliminary plans to improve 70th Avenue North by 1982 in order to facilitate access to the Public Utilities Maintenance Annex to the west of the property in question. Pressure to develop the northern portion of the property will , therefore, likely increase. 4-9-81 -1- Application No. 81019 continued It should also be noted that we have requested, and have not yet received from the applicant, a written statement from the other landowners in question express- ing their support or opposition to the proposed rezoning. As with all rezoning requests, it is recommended that this application be tabled • and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the City Council. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 4-9-81 -2 V HUSSMA N INVESTNTENT C:0. FOX MEADOWS OFFICE PARK d SUITE 101 s BUILDING 3 • 3140 HARBOR LANE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 REALTOR® TELEPHONE 553-2200 March 18, 1981 City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am requesting that the property known as: a) That part of the West 2 of Lot 51," Auditor' s Subdivision Number 309 , and b) The North 2 of that part of the East 2 of Lot 51 , Auditor' s Subdivision Number 309 be rezoned from R-1 to R-3 for the following reasons. The land is too large to be used for two single family homes. We feel this wouldn' t be good land planning on land usage. There would be a good down zone of property from the apartment buildings to the east to the single family homes to the south. The R-3 zoning would be a good buffer here. 9-0hr- r,?7nn J net wntil d (-in ;;l orirt wi tb the Chty_ ' •- com'nrebensi ve _plan Many people who- are presently living in Brooklyn Center have expressed to me a strong desire to live in the area but they would prefer to move out of their present homes. A townhouse development would be suitable to meet the needs of these people. Retired people could sell their single family homes and move in to a to,,wnhouse with very little maintainence to do. Younger families could get a start in building equity and security for themselves. The rezoned propety would increase the density in the area and bring in more revenue to the City. At the request of the present owner, I will be attending the rezoning meetings on his behalf. I am also requesting that the following properties be rezoned along with the above me:ztioned properties. 1. South 238 feet of the West 2 of Lot 51 , Auditor' s Subdivision Number 309 (824 69th Ave. N. ) 2. South !2 of that part of the East 2 of Lot 51 , lying South of the North 660 feet thereof , Auditor' s Subdivision Number 309 . . (816 -- 691--h Ave. N. ) 2 3. . That part lying South of the North 660 feet, Lot 52, Auditor' s • Subdivision Number 309 ( 800 - 69th Ave. N. ) 4. Lot 53, Auditor' s Subdivision Number 309 ( 720 - 69th Ave. N. ) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Russell A. Fierst . RAF/bjo 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 di-scriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits , measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed �&Gllillq consisteiii% With and 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? f i ' 1 i t N • S i col\ j. `. •9 w of b «o of , «5 .S T «�'�ti� 1« I N S I � o Ln S;51.._ O-y¢ .. T 0-.07 «0•,*L w „O'OZ -0,, [4'91 in j f I i i o N T HEM Wn EVERGREEN SCHOOL 111 '' Ins AV mum BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81020 Applicant: Brooklyn [development Company • Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition into two blocks and one or more outlots of a new subdivision comprehending 100 townhouses and a commercial office use. The plat application accompanies the rezoning request of Application No, 81022 which concerns the land bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the north, Xerxes Avenue North on the east, I-94 on the south, and by "old" Xerxes Avenue North and the Earle Brown Patio Homes on the west. The land is presently zoned R3. however, application No. 81022 requests that a 5.6 acre portion at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway be rezoned to Cl . Staff have not yet received the preliminary plat survey or legal description at this time and can only make general observations about the application. A 60' side public street has been proposed extending westerly from Freeway Boulevard approximately 475' and then northerly approximately 500 feet to an intersection with Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposed street would serve primarily traffic drawn by development on the two blocks of the proposed subdivision and will not likely carry through traffic. A public sidewalk is proposed to run through the property from the intersection of "old" Xerxes and 67th Avenue North to the extension of Freeway Boulevard. The NSP power lines run along the west side of the property. 1,. 7 e^ v��a,� � viii �ici' iiifv1 iilaiLlvil i� 1 c�.c.t v,u uuU aCLlOil �uncf lili Tic Egii�b a Y'eZGiiiiy, it is recommended that the application be tabled. 4-9-81 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81021 Applicant: Brooklyn Development Company • Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval for a 100 unit townhouse development on the southerly and westerly portions of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition which is zoned R3. The site plan is submitted by the owner as an indication of intent to develop the. property for 100 townhouses . The Planning Commission and City Council expressed the concern in denying Application No. 79023 (a request to rezone 7.5 acres to I-1 ) that the townhouse development proceed before approval of any rezoning of the easterly portion of Outlot E. The proposed preliminary site plan shows 40 three-bedroom units and 60 two-bedroom units. The townhouses will be grouped in clusters of from 2 to 8 in a row. Each unit will have a one-car garage and one parking space outside. The site plan indicates a play area at the southeasterly portion of the property adjacent to Xerxes Avenue North. The plan shows a substantial amount of open green area, but no landscape plan has yet been submitted. As with Application No. 81020, there is insufficient information on the plans as submitted to make any recommendation. To some extent, the plan is also subject to action on the rezoning request of Application No. 81022. Accordingly, it is recommended that this application be tabled until action on the rezoning request can be made. 4-9-81 l [ h .' � � eti f � M n l--•- `; I I NI ! x 40- • Y ` MOUND ary \ CEMETERY W CITY Cr_j `1` or o- Is, MAINTENANCE BUILDING APPLICATION NO§NiN; Y 81020, 81021 /FREEWAti' �s OPEN S 1 . !d i Q AL P W 4"` y� tQ F* CLOSED 64TH AN x T R A L �. I ('" AVE 7i i I i 1 1• • i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81022 Applicant: Brooklyn Development Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North • Request: Rezoning The applicant seeks a rezoning of a 5.6 acre portion of Outlot C, Twin Cities . Interchange Park Addition at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. The property is currently zoned R3 and is part of a 20.28 acre parcel bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the northeast, by Xerxes Avenue North on the southeast, by I-94 on the south, and by "old" Xerxes and the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses on the west. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which the past history of the property and the guidelines for evaluating rezonings are discussed. The Commission is referred to that letter for a review of the applicant's arguments. Most recently, there was a request to rezone a 72 acre portion of the property from R3 to I-1 under Application No. 79023. That request was denied because of the availability of other I-1 zoned land and the incompatibility of placing I-1 uses directly adjacent to R3 uses. At that time, however, the Planning Comission and City Council both expressed some receptivity to a possible C-1 zoning at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North on the grounds that that area may not be suitable for residential development. The proposed rezoning is accompanied by a site plan for a townhouse development (Apps icatiorn No. 81021 ) and a preliminary plat (Application No. 81020) including the dedication of 1 .3 acres for roadway purposes. The road would extend across • ; • y2JU1CVard u ,til connecting i " Shingle Crcck Pai^iwu;;. the plan calls for WO townhouse units on 13.4 acres. Regarding the guidelines for evaluating rezonings (from Section 35-208:4 attached) staff would concur with many of the arguments of'the•applicant. Specifically, it would appear that: I . The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications and can serve as a an appropriate buffer between R3 and I-1 districts (guideline 6) . 2. The property is of an appropriate size and location to support a Cl type development (guidelines c, f, g) . 3. The rezoning will add to the Cl zoning district which has a limited amount of developable land (guideline h) . 4. Because of the above considerations, the rezoning proposal seerr;s to have merit beyond the interests of the property owner (guide- , line i) . The Planning Commission may wish to explore the size and configuration of the area to be rezoned with the applicant. It is recommended that a condition of the rezoning be the completion of a substantial portion ol the townhouse development prior to approval of any commercial development on the Cl property. As with all rezoning applications, it is reco.%ma nded that the application be tabled and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood advisory Group for review and comment prior to the Commission making a recomimndat-ion to the City Council . A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 4-9-81 -1- R i • • Dominion Development Corporation April 1, 1981 Mr. Ron Plarren Citu Planner Citu of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: REZONING APPLICATION Dear Ron: I am responding to the "Rezoning Evaluation Policu and Review Guidelines", and try to explain that the present_ rezoning proposal is in the best interest of all part_i ps crnc,-rn?d - ri try. First a brief review of previous proposals is warranted, I believe. - The first rezoning proposal was to have the entire 20.28 acre tract sold to the Jesus People Church for a church and related uses. This use was voted dpi:in because the property should not be taken off the tax roles and put in a tax exempt_ stratus. - 1 believe the second rezoning proposal was to have the entire 20.28 acre parcel zoned I-l. This proposal was unacceptable because there is an R=1 zone immediately west of the property and the use was not compatable. The comprehensive plan indicates there be some tope of housing on the Property. - The third att_emnt at a rezoningT divided the property into an 8 acre parcel and a 12 arse parcel . The 8 acre parcel was to be rezoned I-1 with the remaining land keeping its present R-3 zoning classification. This proposal was defeated primarily because there was no definite plan to develop the R-3 parcel first and therefore the opportunity to spread the.I-1 zone further into the R-3 property existed. Also, sta.--f preferred a C-1 zoning classification over an I-1. The plan is to rezone 5.6 acres of land C-1 and leave 13.38 acres R-3 and dedicate 1.30 acres to the city for a public road which will seperate the two proposed zoning districts. On the 13.38 acres, 100 townhouse units will be built in 5 phases. At the present time we have absolutelu no ;Mans to build on the C-1 . land. The preliminari, plat for the townhouse development is before you now. 3250 West 66th Street, E-dina, Minnesota 5543`-5 (6121926-5151 Page 2 Ron Warren 04/01/81 I believe the proposal is consistent with the existing City Policy as it is consistent with the comprehensive plan by; a. Providing housing as it was zoned for. b. Does not constitute spot zoning as it buffers a industrial/commercial area. The plan also does not greatly favor the developer/owner as we have found it virtually impossible to design a residential plan that included development at the intersection of Xerxes and Shingle Creek Parkway. I believe the proposal is consistent with guidelines as established by the City. a. The public need or benefit will be, this proposal will enable the construction of 100 housing units that will add students to the decreasing Brooklyn Center School District and provide additional real estate taxes for the community. b. The C-1 zone not only provides a buffer between residential and industrial land, .hut is more compatible with I-1 and R-3 zones. c. 3es all permitted uses can be contemplated in the rezoned parcel. d. No, there have been .few if any zoning changes in the area. e. Not applicable. f. Yes, the rezoned. prop_erty will be in compliance with all zoning restrictions. g. Yes, the proposed zoning change is for land that is undesireable as residential land because of t h? he,?vi - traffic at the int�s��t.:io�?4.rf S.hi-�c37,F rreek Parkwau and Xerxes Avenue. h. The rezoning will expand a zoning district, because the C-1 zone is not in the north half of the Earle'Brown Farm now. But if C-1 is to be considered similar to I-1, as far as use, then its not an expansion. I believe it is in the best interest of the community because the rezoning will allow this development and construction of housing units. i. The proposal definitely is not in the sole interest of the owner. As you may recall from past discussions, this overall plan for the 20 acres was developed with the cooperation and input from the neighborhood. An 2-1 zone rather than a C-1 classification was preferred. Overall, this proposal does the best job of satisfying the school district, city staff, neighborhood and owner. . Ron, I realize that this proposal will be contingent upon the townhouse project starting, that's okay. I would like some sort. o.f approval along with the townhouse plan because I need to know from an overall. development standpoint. If for amt reason this rezoning does not go through fron a pure planning standpoint, we may have to rething the entire 20 acres. Sin e y, L. A. Beisner Vice President • LAB/ajk Y ' �Q•N ��' tiF N�`t � � � !. JJ �•<. A4Cl .J <(< ` 8�, T .,o,`'—+,zoo _1�STQTE.�< •�, s� APPLICATION, F''"• v 1 1 - N0. 8102 So ( co N N sJ • \��, mss � � � SV A. J P� A is • h v < 30j 9RIy �r ',\\''� �► �� O • a'a � e �7 O J O PL 'ac .Q 1q,�{ff i 14.90kPS.. .. ♦,•.tea Iv .� '.:.:• •. n1 .. ,tlT+xa Tt�P�CI�. srwtwww w•s� _- __� Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81023 Applicant: Thomas G. Cook (Car X) Location: 6810 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit The applicant seeks site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a r stall Car X Muffler Repair Shop at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned C2 and is surrounded by Northstar Dodge on the southeast and northeast, by the Big Wheel Auto Parts store on the northwest, and by Brooklyn Boulevard and Brookdale Pontiac on the southwest. Applications for approval of very similar site and building plans have been submitted and approved in 1976 and 1979. Repair garages are special uses in the C2 zone. feuC The proposed plan calls for a—#ter stall repair garage 40' 4" x 96' 4". The parking formula for a repair garage is three stalls for each bay plus one stall for each employee. This results in a parking requirement of 19 spaces. Using elf=--► .��.,� the retail formula for a 3,840 sq. ft. building results in a proof-of-parking.of e i 35 stalls. The plan shows a proof-of-parking for up to 33 stalls and a consider- able amount of vacant land on the southeast side of the property. It is anti- cipated that a second business will locate on, this portion of the property within the next two to three years. At that time, a further evaluation of the parking requirements for the entire site can be made. Bituminous curb is, therefore, proposed along the south edge of the improved area. The parking plan shows one handicapped parking stall immediately in front of the southwest corner of the building. The landscape plan calls for a Norway Maple, Amur Maple and Radiant Crab at the nnrtnwesr. corner of Lr,e 5 s ce. wuum-um. Gold Drop ro «� w11� 1­1--J Arborvitae are scheduled for a planting area with wood chip muicn in Lne rrum. greenstrip adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. Unimproved areas on the southern portion of the site will be seeded and permanent improvements in this area are requested to be deferred for up to three years in' anticipation of further development. Green areas on the northern portion of the site will be sodded. An existing 10" Box Elder and another 14" diameter tree near the southeast corner of the site are scheduled to remain. Drainage of the site will be directed to two catch basins in the main driveway in the center of the site which will be connected by 12" reinforced concrete pipe (r.c.p.) to City storm sewer in the street. The planting areas within the front greenstrip will be placed over berms 2' to 3' in height. Inasmuch as the site is surrounded by other commercial development, no screening or buffers are required adjacent to other properties. A trash container is to be located on the east end of the building and will be screened by a 5' high redwood fence. Access to the site is via one 30' wide entrance which will also serve any development on the south end of the site. The plans submitted are very similar to previously approved plans and seem to be generally in order. Approval is , therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building 4 Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval -by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4-9-81 -1- Application No. 81023 continued . 3. A performance bond and supporting financial guarantee (i'n an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguish- ing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with .Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. All outside trash disposal equipment and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas north of the main entrance drive. Bituminous curb shall substitute for permanent curb on the south side of the entrance drive for up to three years. 7. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 8. The permit shall be subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation, thereof, shall be grounds for revocation. 9. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all land- scaped areas tp, p�a.l;i t to ;pttpxamna-i_ntenanpe. , pstal lation of 'Ulel IC'VIgd-burl S;yStUll dflu• .IdVidsuapinq on tile suutherly purtiun of the site proposed for future development may be deferred for up to three years. Additional landscaping will be provided subject to Planning Commission review. The performance bond will not be released in its entirety until the total irrigation system and the landscaping is installed. 4-9-81 -2- Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PEP14ITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence til'at 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 irunediate 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 .r.eaui rF,t suCn •evidence .,rd 4ilnrantees 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 nearly 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 con-Mienced 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- . ;�•nt. .•-1 ro ' �►. i1 L-..a,�ir-.<i==.�Ur`.µ. 'Z = L-6- . 2oJ- .�. 1 u Gtt vJaJ� ! I i � i ( `P.7R- ELiTi• �..f-/rt�1'9 R�Py,1P.r GI", � �_ li ��� � �. 1 � - ! (°V.lst '��.•Pj ., I d .`<� +-�TL .i ✓1/^T��N � Y -t M ° 1���' -.. .�. _ -�.!_ 7 � 1 �� 1 o✓T FoP� v � � � � � .,\ I 'r-'^ti•Y -- ��t---- =0 I 1 1 { ( i t•{ia�tc.►?Pt {. Fl— YJ h,C�J Y \• �� \ � 1Qi P.v.o• PAP I c.t;. _c_e _ , -� I p�Y..av c,r� • - - l i r li 4 l LGC�Y 1 N .> I ,.F.,,,,-•+L C, . 1, � 1 � �iYP': I�}�;--r-c- .. .-:-_..s_-�. _r-__� II d L9 MT, i 1✓ 1 1; , I, t4 1 1 II 1 • f - 4 �._ Gcw...r-TY1'. � 1 t 1 I ! -1 r h� 1 , 1 I '� •Y ( b d r •`4 I 1 do POST OFFICE ill F loco PARK -GARDEN CITVM� SCHOOL . s N Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81024 Applicant: Pamela Langren Location: 7243 Grimes Avenue North Request: Special Use/Home Occupation The applicant seeks special use permit approval to operate a home beauty shop in the residence at 7243 Grimes Avenue North. The property is located just inside Brooklyn Center, is zoned Rl , and is surrounded by single-family homes. The applicant presently operates a beauty shop at 6224 Regent Avenue North which was approved under Application No. 78046. She will be moving to her new residence at the end of April . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she describes the operation and provides other relevant information including the following: a) There are two double concrete driveways (it is a corner lot), one on Grimes and one on 73rd. b) She will be working full time, but not after 9:00 p.m. or Sundays. c) The shop is to be located on the ground floor with a door leading directly outside. d) There will be no outside employees. e) There will not be more than two customers parked at'the residence at any one time. Althcu-h 'L;-Id-,;n-,, Off. " ',,I- n?t het lns-n�c±^d ±rV m -cs ?opy f his report should be available at Thursday night's meeting. Based on the in- formation provided by the applicant, it appears that there is no conflict with the standards for a special use permit. Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions: I . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current State operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. All parking related to the special use shall be off-street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Hours of operation shat l be: np -� 9!0c) >1 is 6. The op ation shall conform to the recommendations of the Bull g Official 's report prior to the issuance of the special use p rmi t. Ct - G� 4-9-81 ol �- t� , All A _ PPOST OST MOUND WAT CEMETERY TOWER Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81025 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: East of Noble Avenue North between I-94 and 66th Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The City of Brooklyn Center proposes a plat of the vacant land east of Noble Avenue North and between I-94 and the lots on the north side of 66th Avenue North. The property is 115' wide at Noble Avenue North and tapers down to 83 feet wide between Lee Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is a remnant of a MN/DOT taking for noise barriers purposes. In March, 1978 the City agreed to acquire the excess property from MN/DOT after noise- barriers were constructed. It was the express purpose of the City to in turn convey this property to abutting property owners . (See copies of Council Minutes from 3/27,178 and Resolution No. 78-60 attached for further background). The property is not wide enough to develop standard single family lots which have access to a public street and residents of the area who live south of the land in question have agreed to purchase respective portions of the property for the cost of the platting. (See copy of memo sent to abutting property owners from the Public Works Director, attached) . The land is zoned R1 and no change in that designation has been recommended in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The plat establishes 15 outlots and two turnaround areas at the north end of Lee Avenue North and Noble Avenue North. The Zoning Ordinance defines an "Outlot" in part to be "A parcel of land included in a plat which is smaller than the minimum size permitted and which is thereby declared unbuildable until combined with additional land; . . . The outlots will be unbuildable by themselves and will be combined with the exst ing single family lots to the south which face 66th Avenue North. Permits for accessory structures will only be permitted after proof that the property has been combined. A 20' wide drainage easement will run through the approximate middle of the string of outlots . Run-off will be conveyed through a drainage swale east and west from Lee Avenue North to two storm sewer lines, one at the east and one at the west end of the proposed subdivision, and from there into the Interstate 94 ri ght-of-way. A public hearing has been scheduled and informational- notices have been sent to affected property owners. The plat generally seems to be in order and approval , of course, is recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Plat approval authorizes the combining of outlots with other existing parcels without a plat or registered land survey. Building permits for accessory structures proposed for location on outlots will not be issued until verification of the combination has been presented to the Building Official . 4-9-81 / C .rte. QC_ e C ` r((-�- C .0 z-E t The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean w Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Fire Pension Bill The City Manager introduced the next item of business on the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the purpose of approving the Fire Pension Bill recently enacted by the State Legislature. He explained that the Legislature had reduced the maximum amount of the monthly benefit from the Council recommended $250 a month to $150 a month. He explained that the Legislature's feeling was that to retain the recom- mended $250 a month would make a longer period of time before approval would again be necessary by the State Legislature. He pointed out that the Legislature wants to take a look at many local fire pension bills within the relative near future in order to develop common and basic wording for as many of these bills as possible. He added that apprently there is no real standard fire pension bills and the Legislature hopes to develop a more standard approach to these pensions. He noted that if the City Council wishes to exceed the autho- rized $150 a month benefit, it will have to seek such autho- rization from the State Legislature, A brief discussion ensued relative to the Fire Pension Bill wit] the City Manager stating that he anticipates that the Fire Department will be making corresponding changes to the Fire Department Bylaws for City Council approval within the relatively near future. • RESOLUTION Member-Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moveu iii RESOLUTION APPROVING LAWS OF MINNESOTA FOR 1978, CHAPTER 683 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Requesting MN/DOT The City Manager introduced the next item of business on the to Convey Excess Land agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the purpose of to the City requesting the Commissioner of MN/DOT to convey to the City excess land located south of FI-94 from Noble easterly approximately 1,000 feet between the proposed noise abate- ment mound-wall and the existing property line of abutting residential property., He explained that this excess land will exist after completion of the proposed noise abatement structures in that area and that it is the intent of the City to in turn convey the land to abutting property owners following completion of the project. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed slides of the area and explained in more detail the recommended resolution, He stated that MN/DOT will be opening bids for the project in May of this year. He explained that if the City accepts the conveyance of this excess land, MN/DOT will eruct. a fence to depict where the excess land ends and the frec'Aroy noiso abatement mound-wall begins. IIe pointed out that if the City does not Nish this conveyance, the NIN/DOT will eroct a fence near the property lines of abutting property and -3- 3-27-78 would be required to maintain this area. He further explained that there is a need for a formal agreement because MN/DOT T' cannot convey this amount of property without some type of formal agreement, M The Director of Public Works reported that he has met with many of the property owners in the affected area and they have signed a petition to urge the City to seek the convey- ance of this property from MN/DOT. He added that it is recommended that the property be turned over to the abutting property owners, with certain considerations, after the noise abatement walls and mounds have been constructed. He further explained that 12 of the 14 affected property owners had signed In favor of the petition and that the remaining two had indicated that they were not against the conveyance of the excess land. A brief discussion ensued relative to the Director of Public Works report and the recommended resolution with the Director of Public Works briefly commenting on some of the conditions that might exist at the time the excess property is conveyed to abutting property owners. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 78-60 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONVEY j SURPLUS REMNANT LAND TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony. Kaefier, Bill Fiqnar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Srntt• roll tho fn11MA7i1nCT vptprl arrainct tha aarnar none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager introduced the next item of business by Salary for Superintendent stating that the Director of Public Works has recommended of Engineering Position an adjustment to the Superintendent of Engineering position salary. He explained that currently applicants are being interviewed for the vacant Superintendent of Engineering position and that it appears that an increase is necessary in the salary for the position in order to attract a competent engineer. He further explained that a survey of Superintendent . of Engineering or Assistant City Engineer positions of 10 metropolitan municipalities with populations of 30,000 or over indicate that the City's` 1977 salary of $18,720 is approximately 10,4% less than the average salary of >20,G22 for the 10 communities, He pointed out that the survey also indicates that the City's 1977 salary for,the j Superintendent of Engineering position is nearly 67. less j than the average salary for.the seven communities with Populations less than 30,000. The City Manager further reported that from 1972 to 1974 the Su per:ntendent of Engineering's salary was equal to or greater than the Superintendent of Streets and Parks. He stated thit at the time salaries were being recommended for the 197S annual sala ry adjustments, the probation period for thn_ person in the position of Superintendent of Engineering as rxtended beyond January 1, 1975 and that the City i°i,!na Jnr at that time elected not to seek a salary increase f<�r that position when the normal salary increase for other i • I i -?,7-78 -4- Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 78-60 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONVEY SURPLUS REMNANT LAND TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation proposes to construct noise abatement structures in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS,. the Minnesota Department of Transportation is in the process of acquiring property along the south side of F.I . 94 from Noble Avenue North to approximately 1, 100 feet easterly of Noble Avenue for said noise abatement structures; and WHEREAS, after completion of said acquisitions and construction, a strip of undevelopable remnant land owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation will exist between the said structure and abutting residential properties; and WHEREAS, it is to the best interest of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Brooklyn Center to have said remnant land conveyed to the City of Brooklyn Center: FONT, m I HFREE... n p � RF R P_0v,n_T-'V E? L1 4_-hc C i-y o Ln^-4 - Of the City of Brooklyn Center to request agreement from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to convey surplus undevelopable remnant land which will exist between the abutting residential properties and the proposed noise abatement structures along the south side of F.I. 94 from Noble Avenue easterly approximately 1, 100 feet to the City of Brooklyn Center for one dollar ($1. 00) and other considerations after completion of said noise abatement project. March 27, 1978 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott � and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, • Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka , and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i • • TO: Property Owners on 66th Avenue Nbrth lOjacent to Ibise Walls from I,bble Avenue to East of Lee Avenue FRCM: Sy Kropp, Director of Public inbr-ks DATE: February 25, 1981 In accordance with our previous discussions; the 1.981 Minnesota legislature passed a special bill which: (1) authorized the �,iinnesota Department of Transportation to convey ownership for the excess property which lies between your property and the noise walls; and (2) authorized the City to reconvey this property. The City has now received title to this property from MN/DbT, and it is our intent to cc:nplete the process by conveying it to the adjoining property owners. (2) conveyance of the individual properties by quit-claim deed Enclosed herewith is a copy of a "Prelimirsary Sketch of Ibrthgate 3" which shows our tentative concept for subdividing this property. You will note that it is divided into fifteen parcels. We tentatively propose that Parcels 1 through 14 be conveyed to the adjacent property owners (i.e., Iots 1 t xouah 8 of Block 30, and Lots 14 through 19 of Block 2) and that Parcel 15 be conveyed to the owner of the adjacent unplatted property which lies behind Lots 8 through 13 of Block .2. You will also note that we have tentatively pro M_. to plat "extensions" of Lee Avenue and I\bble Avenue which would allow future construction of a T-shaped "hammerhead" turnaround at each of these streets. There is no current plan to construct these extensions, but we feel that, unless the existing dead-end streets are vacated, this option should be kept open. Conveyances will be made by "quit claim deeds" subject- to the following restric- tions (as contained in the quit-claim deed which the City received from MUVDQT) : (1) Nb access will be permitted to I-94, and (2) The State of Minnesota reserves a. permanent wall maintenance easarent to the ten feet which lies adjacent to the wall. Also, appropriate drainage and utility easnrnents will be dedicated ors the plat. No other restrictions are contemplated at this tame. • Before proceeding with the plat, we wish to ascertain your desire to acquire the parcel adjacent to your present. property. Should any property owner not wish to acquire the parcel adjacent to their property, .,,e then plan to offer it to tUIV=_ February 25, 1981 Memo to Property Owners Adjacent to Noise Walls Page 2 adjacent owner(s) , etc., so that, in the end result, the City will not retain any portion of the property other than the street extensions noted above. She estimated total cost for preparing and processing the plat, for preparing the required deeds, etc. is $4,500.00. Since there are fifteen parcels, we estimate that the cost for each tercel will be $300.00 (the City does not wish to make any profit on this venture--we simply,wish to cover the direct costs involved). She next step is up to you. Enclosed is a "letter of intent" for your use in advising us of your interest in these properties. Please car,-plete and return this form on or before Friday, .March 10, 1981. Once we know everyone's intent, we can proceed with the final plat and prepare the deeds. That process will take about t4o months. Should you have any questions, please feel free- to call me. Also, if you wish to discuss the planning/zoning/buildinq implications, please contact Imo. Ron Tbrren, Director of Planning and Inspections. And, if you wish to discuss the effect of any acquisition on your property valua- tion and property taxes, please contact our City Assessor, Mr. Pete Koole. T woilld be psi 1 l L r r �. t .. �y... ;�...,... ..�� .., 0i air affected,property �w Lo discuss this matter � necessary. I don't see a need for it now, but if a need arises,.we'll notify you of such meeting. Shank you for your patience and cooperation. Sy Kna cb Ercls. - Preliminary Sketch Letter of Intent Mem from City Assessor • Mr. Sy app Director of Public Trbrks City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, IMN 55430 in response to your February 23, 1981 letter, I(we) the undersigned, owners of the following property: Int. , Block , Northgate Addition House address: 66th Avenue Ibrth Other description: advise you of our intent as follows: I (we) agree to purchase the parcel adjacent to our present property, at a cost not to exceed $300.'00 I (we) do not wish to purchase the adjacent property. If my (our) neighbors do not wish to purchase the parcel adjacent to their present property, I (we) would be interested in purchasing a • part of all of such parcel. cements: ether Comm eats: Signed by: Mailing address: a • ��� f t • 1 L � f t _ Sdc � I � r I 1 I I _•��. 'J3✓JB lS t' �.SO4l�JG •// YY `'/� .�QUTLOT © O VT OT ; _ L s S". t ri .I . .._--1 - - �.:, �UuTLOT F . =1--OU=LOT I CUTLOT j wev vG,w r OUTLOT _ -✓ae rt n. _ - �O " _ T OJT LOT T�OU7LU 1+i��^j.l •s-c , is I I i I <f,..�."J 1 •" r - „. '— - M 3:IL . j•',.11 I , I 1 � I I i :al ri I�* � 1 � ' � I � i•:.•i i 1 I . I`-1 I 1 , 1 1• I .- 1 I / 1 1 1 1 1 ti OWNER- SUGDIVIG:jt r IL i I • ....1155.6 �F n..,y .. . /�, �� _ a ,-•.�.•_ ----;-- horo:3<'ry -644 •3a�, pis 0 3 L c cc r—i #5 J t� ao 50 00 f an i V eC �v _ �• -- I w vt �• \T1 101.�b i i' ( "1 ~ Ov,C?� v I _ i � i 6 •pg e �, r I Ln - � �: �' � i�• � G� _ 1:1.9._, I �i 1 i;'tmN tr LEE $3044*26"Vy 63. i t l� , � r;@1'\0 � of 4 .ni.n vu - _rr � 'f � _,�� „ t c Q •• � C:wi O 1 p 1 � J All V II t' O to Jill i 'i 6°• w l'"r; i V� j p� • � IU I � �' QO �• •t NI .C"`.t._. ;n to i s ,Ia B 4 cp co _ 4 p , rn 0 O � 1 •+ '�sY N •I: � 1 r' -� N J -•�n _ I G Z-fi 4� � I•�• � s• . v I' W N pot. W w NL 1 �� h' N c. t•.t �` N oo !Y_•._R_--7 � `� �}�� � ,� �W 1.;4yty. ��/�//• ' ' A�}�1•ijtC<J>�-o: -� CNh �:; :11�.ft u '-=•'SS -t 3 _ —_�f.2. fit.`• ,���✓ �ij,.0 rt1 'w �i�� � r, •�`;y. u��t `•i?._.,�._Ktylt�ll:P•JoA `.�r:.1, i _#