Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 05-21 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION MAY 21 , 1981 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 1981 4. Chairman'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 Corrnission makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5i* Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 81016-A r Request for amended preliminary R.L.S. approval to create two lots rather than one on the property presently Occupied by E the 61d Brooklyn Center Library and two vacant single-family residences. i 6. Ponti l l O 's Pizza 81030 Request for site and building plan approval for a 100 seat restaurant at the southerly quadrant of the intersection of tk Earle Brown Drive and Suiiimii t Drive. 7. Pontilio's Pizza 81031 Request for a special use permit to operate a recreation E room with seven electronic games in the proposed 100 seat restaurant at 5937 Summit Drive. S. Lynbrook Bowl 81032 Request for site and building plan approval to construct a 6,446 sq. ft. addition for a 230 seat restaurant at 6357 N. Lilac Drive. 9. ' Lynbrook Bowl 81033 Request for a variance froi►i the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the expansion of a structure which is nonconforminc as to setback. r 10. Brooklyn Developi�iient Company 81022 Request for rezoning of a 5.6 acre tract of land at the -- corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. 'This application was tabled on April 9, 1981 for considera- tion by the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. 11 . Howe, Inc. 81027 Request for site and building plan approval to eliminate the existing potato shed and terporary storage building and to build 14,155 sq. ft. of new industrial storage space: and 1 ,530 sq. ft. of office space at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. This application subject to tabling pending a decision by Judge Sedgwick regarding the petition for ,j amended findings. i . 12. Howe, Inc. 81029 Request for a variance from Section 35413 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow storage of equipment within the 100' buffer area required between R1 and I-2 uses. This appli- cation also subject to tabling pending a decision by Judge Sedgwick. 13. Other Business 14. Discussion Items a. Ordinance Language for Manufacture of Electric Vehicles. b. Amendment to MTC Landscape Plan. 15. Adjournment olIII II I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81016-A Applicant: Brooklyn Center, Industrial Parka Location: 5601 , 5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Amended R.L.S. Approval The applicant requests amended R.L.S. approval to create two tracts of land, rather than one, from land presently occupied, by the Brooklyn Center Public Library and two homes at 5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property would be divided into Tract A for the Library building, 1 .54 acres in area; and Tract B of .69 acres where the existing single-family homes are presently located. Tract B will not consist of all the area currently contained in the two residential lots since part of that land will be needed on Tract A to meet the parking requirements for the Library building. The property in question is all zoned Cl and is sur- rounded by the Brooklyn Law Center on the north, by the Highway 152 service road r one the east, and by Northway Dri vq on the south and west. to".-e..�..,..� fles� c ° �.< (-a eMk- The library site is large enough to accommodate at least 71 parking stalls which `��°"� will support 14,200 sq. ft. of office space. This is an amount roughly equivalent to the size of the Library building if the "notches," at the entrance area and the east end of the building, were filled in. Otherwise, there would appear to be an excess capacity of 14 stalls, since the existing Library building is 11 ,385 sq. ft. , requiring only 57 parking stalls. Tract B would accommodate an office bui16ing requiring perhaps 30 parking stalls or more. The proposed Tract B, inasmuchas it is less than one acre in size, does not meet the recomnlendation of the proposed Comprehensive Man for office sites along major thoroughfares. However, there is currently no area requirerri2nt for such office sites and the proposed Tract B does -+@0w0@Ai to meet the current lat width • and d=pth requirements for Cl properties. it might be difficult to withhold approval of the proposed plat on the grounds that a future requirement is not met. One consideration in favor of approval is that the proposed R.L.S. , as a single site, would be entirely tax-exempt under ownership by the Girl Scouts. Any second parcel , would add to the City's tax base. Approval of the proposed plat may also raise the question of the need to remove the, two existing houses and accessory buildings at 5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard which would be located on the proposed Tract B. Since these buildings would be located on a separate tract of land, no zoning violation would necessarily occur by their continuation, though occupancy would be impossible without a full site plan. However, there is concern that the two abandoned buildings , if allowed to continue to occupy the land, would become even more of a potential nuisance through further deterioration perhaps to the point of becoming a public safety concern as well as are eyesore. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition requiring removal of these structures prior to final plat approval also be contained with any reconwiendation regarding the amended preliminary R.L.S. Suggested conditions of approval of the amended application are, therefore, as follows: 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the • City Ordinances. 3. The two single-family residences and all accessory structures , fences or walls not a part of the library building prope►^ty shai be removed prior to final plat^ approval. f & -r�-a�-�' � 4. Occupancy for the o d l ibrary bui 1 d,i ng shall not be granted until the Registered Land Survey has been given final approval by the 5-21 -81 City Council and filed with the County. r. • 51" IA NORTHWAY DF . ' "arm, "A' P40 W'A V, C2 AV E. w Co 2 T _- _ - 1 t. - -- 11... ...... COLIN Y RWND Ir jr- LANE 0 t A T NORTHPORT J11 PARK APPLICATION NO. . 81016-A N - `'4 1 Ni NORTHPORT SCHOOL - Alp*% 55TH AV[ WAT E R as 54TH VV d..):Y4 LILAC Tj � -) -1 I I I T, T I 12- LL 5 1;P D AVIE M.777",6w A 5?FqD AV E A-1 ► __r__ u -_ =_ - I i r • Y 1 1 WAR; it I �i Y- ! , I � 5 r _ 1 1 f I E 1 1Y! r tt _ t c � , s i_i S RARY ajlI O/NG y. y•'1 �i ` a Lam, � _� /� r ! -- --• 1' a a'' to Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81030 Applicant: Pontillo's Pizza Location: 5937 Summit Drive Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval for a 100 seat restaurant to be located at 5937 Summit Drive on the .9 acre site, just north of K-Mart. The property is zoned C2 and is surrounded by K-Mart on the south, by Summit Drive and Toy City on the east, and by Earle Brown Drive and vacant commercial land on the north and west. The site in question is to be served by two accesses off Earle Brown Drive and none off Summit Drive. The accesses on Earle Brown Drive are 250 feet apart, centerline to centerline. The westerly of the two is to be located directly opposite LaBelle's easterly access onto Earle Brown Drive; the easterly access will be roughly 145 feet west of Summit Drive. This arrangement will allow the future shopping center across the street to have one or two accesses onto Earle Brown Drive and still meet the requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance that offsets between accesses in commercial districts be at least 125 feet measured from centerline to centerline. The parking requirement for the restaurant is 54 spaces based on 100 seats and eight employees on the average maximum shift. The plan shows 57 stalls and is, therefore, sufficient. Two handicapped stalls are provided along each side of the easterly entrance to the site. Ramping from .the parking lot to the restuarant is also provided. The drainage plan for the site proposes that all runoff flow to a single catch- basin in the northeast portion of the parking lot, and from there to the City storm sewer in the intersection of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive via a 12" private storm sewer line. The landscape plan calls for a number of decorative crab trees, including Red Splender, Sargent, and Snowdrift varieties, within greenstrip areas around the site. Four Sugar Maples are also called for in the greenstrip areas. In the planting area immediately around the restaurant, a variety of smaller plantings of an unspecified quantity are scheduled. These include Pfitzer Junipers, Gold Drop Potes-.til;as_, Purple Leaf Sand Cherries, and Golden Mockorange. Five Sargent Crabs are also designated in this area. No schedule showing specific quantities has yet been submitted. This should be amended before consideration by the City Council . Berms in greenstrip areas are the standard 2 feet to 3 feet in height. Trash bins will be placed in a four-sided enclosure adjacent to the northwest corner of the building. The exterior of the building will be primarily rough-sawn cedar with an aluminium paneling placed under windows. The plans note fire sprinkling of the building which is 3,400 square feet of floor area. With minor exceptions, the plans seem to be 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. 5-21 -81 -1- Application No. 81030 continued 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment 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. 9. The plans shall be modified to indicate appropriate quantities of landscape items prior to consideration by the City Council . i 5-21 -81 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81031 Applicant: Pontillo 's Pizza Location: 5937 Summit Drive • Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a recreation room as an accessory use to the 100 seat restaurant which is the subject of Application No. 81030. The property in question is zoned C2 and is completely surrounded by other C2 zoned land. The recreation room within the restaurant will have seven games altogether, four video-type and three pinball machines. These games are intended strictly for the restaurant customers and not as a hangout for youths (see applicant's letter attached) . Since the game room will be close to the kitchen and order area, it will be easy for restaurant employees to monitor the game room. The purpose of the game room, again, is to provide something for restaurant customers and/or their children to do while waiting for a pizza to be served. No other clientele is being sought and, according to the applicant, will not be tolerated. Staff are not as concerned about the proposed operation as would be the case if the recreation room were located near residential property and operated solely or primarily for a separate game room clientele. In light of the size and nature of the proposed operation, there appears to be no conflict with the special use standards . Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at least the following conditions : 1 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances, regulations ,_ and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. House rules, shall be clearly posted in the establishment and consistently enforced. The applicant shall submit a copy of any such rules to the Director of Planning and Inspection prior to .the issuance of the special use permit. 5-21 -81 since 1947 Nester h:u �'s rcpt++ , ,•, May 14 , 1981 To: City of Brooklyn Center Re: Special Use Permit We have applied to the city for a special use permit to operate a small game room within our new Pontillo' s Pizzeria location. Our Bloomington store, located at 9709 Lyndale was the first location that offered a game room. We decided to try it for two major reasons. First and most important was to give customers that are impatiently waiting for food they have ordered , something to do while they are waiting. This most often is the case with "take out" customers, that idle time passes very slowly. Furthermore it tends to draw these people away from the order area, thereby relieving congestion. Secondly,the game • room allows mom and dad a few private minutes while the kids play the games. Family trade is a strong part of our dinner business and giving mom and dad a few minutes of time alone has proven to be a positive attraction. The game room is provided for paying customers only. The location of the game room is in full view of our kitchen and order area, so monitoring of the space is simple. The room will never be a hangout. Tentatively we are planning three pinball machines and four_ video machines . With the sophistication of the video games today they are an attraction to all of our customers. In summary, I would say that the game room is a definite benefit to running our business and to our customers and will have no negative impact on the community. Sincer , G. M. "Mick" Stenson President Pontillo' s Pizzerias , • Inc. l PONTILLO'S PIZZERIAS, INC. • PONTILLO'S OF MN, INC. • OMTAE DEVELOPMENT CO. � 5c757 WEST 37TH STREET • MINnEAPOL. IS, MN 55416 • (612) 929-1650 �' ,. 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 proyide 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 t 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 resubmissioxl 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 cor.•mences 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 t prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- k. • 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. t r vet= '/ ✓-// .-. ,1 _.. r• � a .. -, � L� �� i iC �I . II PROPOSED ROADWAYS y----t p R O P O S E d B R I d G E S ----- ~ _.. GARDEN /,-CITY PARK " r 6 n t � �. CD � SURAl4lIT t `z W _ � P I .� APPLICATION NOS. 81030 and 81031 5, K cola. u Cry v�y I a I ` . ;7 TRWAY AN Fr F"T F----T t Q c tca:r T —t ter... __art_ T 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81032 Applicant: Lynbrook Bowl Location: 6357 N. Lilac Drive • Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 230 seat restaurant addition to the bowling alley located at 6357 N. Lilac Drive. The property is bounded by the Spanjers building on the southwest, by Camden Ave. North and Georgetown Park Townhouses on the west, by vacant C2 zoned land on the north, and by N. Lilac Drive and I-94 on the south and east. The site is zoned C2 and a restaurant is a permitted use in that zone. The proposed plan provides 261 parking stalls on the land to be occupied by the principal use. The parking requirement for a 24 lane bowling alley (120 spaces) , a 12 seat snack bar (6 spaces) , a 230 seat restaurant (115 spaces) and 25 employees (13 spaces) comes to 254 spaces, .total . The plan as submitted is, therefore, sufficient. Five (5) handicapped stalls are shown immediately north- west of the restaurant. Access to the site vrill be provided by two curb openings off N. Lilac Drive. Access across the Spanjers property and a proposed outlot to the west will allow for access from two curb openings off Camden Avenue North as well . In addition, the site shares an access off N. Lilac Drive with the Spanjer§ building. No plat application has yet been submitted for this site, but the site plan does show existing and proposed property lines. A replatting of the property is required per Section 35-540 regarding combination of land parcels. A 10' wide strip of land will be added to the northeast side of the Spanjers • property and an outlot to provide land for the parking needed by the Spanjers building (if total retail occupancy is assumed. ) In addition, there will be dedication of more right-of-way for N. Lilac Drive. This dedication will provide the City with 50 feet of right-of-way along much of the property which meets the requirement for a marginal access street. Less right-of-way is avail- able adjacent to the buildings; however, this is accepted as an existing con- dition which cannot be altered without physically tearing down structures. It should be noted that the preliminary plat and the proposed site plan will have to coincide with one another. Also, that plat will have to be given final approval by the City Council and filed prior to the issuance of the building permits for this addition. The landscape plan for the site proposes 34 shade trees in greenstrip .areas and on large parking lot islands around the site including species such as Summit Ash, Red Maple, Paper Birch, and Sunburst Locust. These will be interspersed with decorative trees including 9 Radiant Crabs and other varieties. The large green areas adjacent to the restaurant and the green area along N. Lilac Drive will also have numerous,smaller plantings including Arrowwood Vibernum, Zable Honeysuckle, Dwarf Lilac and Hughes Junipers.' Berming is proposed in the greenstrip along Camden Avenue North and along the north property line, but not along N. Lilac Drive. Staff would recommend that berming be included as well along N. Lilac Drive and that the plans be modified to indicate this prior to the City Council 's review. • 5-21-81 -1 - Application No. 81032 continued The drainage plan for the site proposes that all runoff flow into five catch basins located generally on the northern half of the site and all connected by storm sewer leading to City storm sewer in Camden Avenue North. No pipe dimens- ions have been given. Curb and gutter is indicated around the permieter of all S paved areas, but not around the parking lot islands. The plan, however, does contain the appropriate note as to B612 curb and gutter and -it should be under- stood that the islands will receive curb and gutter as well . The exterior treatment of the restaurant addition will be scored concrete block with a "corduroy" block canopy similar to the treatment of some of the buildings in the Industrial Park. The south side of the addition will be staggered along an angle approximately 1100 to the existing northeast wall of the bowling alley. Within the insets facing southeast will be 8" square glass block in a "vue" pattern. The plans note that both the existing building and the addition will be served by an automatic fire extinguishing system. The existing building has a red and tan brick exterior along North Lilac Drive. The remainder of the building is concrete block. No information has been provided regarding the color of the new addition. Further discussion regarding the compatibility of the addition with the existing building would seem to be in order. In general , the plans seem to be 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The entire 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. 9. The plans shall be modified prior to'City Council review to . provide additional berming along North Lilac Drive and to indicate B612 curb and gutter around the island areas. 5-21-81 -2- N Application No. 81032 continued 10. The property is required to be replatted in accordance with Section 35--540 of the City Ordinances. The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and filed with the County prior to the issuance of building permits for the restaurant addition. • 5-21-81 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81033 Applicant: Lynbrook Bowl Location: 6357 N. Lilac Drive . Reauest: Variance. The applicant requests a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition to a structure which is nonconforming as to setback at 6357 N. Lilac Drive. The location and nature of the proposed addition are discussed under Application No. 81032. Additions to nonconforming structures have typically been allowed, provided the new construction meets all setback and other zoning requirements. The plan sub- mitted shows that the proposed addition will be 35' from the right-of-way line of N. Lilac Drive which meets the current ordinance requirement. It should be added that the nonconforming situation was caused by highway taking and not by those having an interest in the property. To forbid any addition to the existing structure would seem unreasonable. Denial of the variance would cause a hardship for the property owner in that ample land is available to accom- modate the expansion �-,ihi l e meting ordinance requirements and, therefore, some investment potential tr,,ould be foreclosed. i=inaliy, the proposed addition will not be detrimental to the pitblic, but will actually serve as a vehicle for up- grading the entire site to current ordinance requirements. In light of these considerations , approval of the variance request is recommended on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met. • 5-21-81 Section. 35-240. VARIANCrS 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinc- tive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person' s land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifica- tions are met: (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. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. • (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. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the grant- ing of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. • , k c +'(.t.v✓� ,�!%tt=• � foiL4`- �. 4�c f; �r'� T�J,ii. ` ` \�� �^! i --�--•� + I frJ':s' \'F'+-'?.fS �.1:{(r.NF"rN'i �G�'..1>' pj�Z' �- _ ^^ .♦_ i4 K. � \��`\\ �i r�� ,. � i' - •,S`. 7 i fJ't�r Yni<-x.>r!-6 'ZJ+t%-ti �a;•,�,,4' rs.- ., � !� S -• .�:". '�:�. � 5 i i :x'1 i'rt,�•.t�c:.Nit 1E''�1 f. > a. (" ' y U t °.'f '-i!3�Ot t All'i II.+�°'^ I'r.' 4' i,,i• i,r' ik I v.#_ 4; Sgt 1 TV A t W j4 �R jyLr tt OK CIS ENTER OOH -- E FIRE #OtJ PAR ii ---�: i R s � � tai °mss / ; ——-- 4! j n a _ T S P., .... r f h1 G''kr� 64 �w,a r �tY —.�J - Q i~"�€,+�.'�Yy'•B 4! r_� . tr"a J r V—=--APPLICATION NOS . 94 81032 and 81033 w i \,, i COUPT �jl' ' AV E A l R j? If Al !;=T r>9 t l t , 3" Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81022 Applicant: Brooklyn Development Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant requests rezoning from R3 to Cl a 5.6 acre tract of land at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. The property is bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the northeast, by Xerxes Avenue North on the southeast, and by Freeway Boulevard extended on the southwest and west. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 9, 1981 meeting and tabled at that time for review by the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Members of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group and residents of the area in question met on April 30, 1981 to consider the proposed rezoning (see minutes of the Advisory Group attached. ) The recommendation of the Neighborhood Group was favorable to the rezoning request, though one member preferred to withhold the rezoning until a definite site plan for a one-storey office building is also submitted. The staff recommendation on the proposed rezoning is also favorable. As we pointed Out in our original report on this application, the proposed rezoning meets a number of guidelines for evaluating rezonings set forth in Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should also be noted that the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Northwest Neighborhood acknowledges some service/office use of the land at the easterly edge of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. In general , the Cl area should serve as an appropriate buffer between the townhouse project • to the west and the light industrial use to the east. Approval is recommended based on the fact that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it is consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and does not constitute "spot zoning. " i i F. is • r. 5-21-81 TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection FROM: Northwest Nei ah orhood Advisory Group 4/. DATE: May 8, 1981 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 81.022 (Rezoning) The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group held a hearing on April 30, 1981 in the City Eall Council Chambers, 6301 ,Shingle Creek Parkway, at 7:30 P.M., to consider the above application as referred by the Planning Commission. Members of the Group present were: Richard Theis, James Carlson, Greg McGeary, and Louis Terzieh. James Carlson was designated as Chairman for the meeting and Terzich as Secretary. Residents from the neighborhood attending were: Bill C.reEan, 3818 Thurber Road I`r. & Firs. Dil!_ey, 6245 York Place Mr. Al Beisner represented the Applicant, Brooklyn Development Co. Application No. 81022 was for a request to rezone the northeasterly 5.6 acres of Outlet E, Twin Cities InterchanSo Park Addition from R-3 (Town- house/Garden Apartments) to CI (Service/Office). Mr. Beisner explained the request for the rezoning, stating that previous requests to permit a church construction in one case and to rezone the entire Outlet E of approximately 20 acres in another situation were turned down. The present application is to rezone the northeasterly 5.6 acres of Outlet E to CI for, among others, the following reasons: The area is bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the north and Xerxes Avenue on the east and the traffic past this corner lot would not readily lend itself to residential development. The remaining approximate 14.66 acrea of the total parcel is to be developed into a 100 unit townhouse comples, and it was felt this would be adequate for the area. A major reason stressed by Mr. Beisner was the fact that the total taxes and special assessments on the entire 20 acre parcel was too large to prorate to the individual townhouse lots which would cause the unit costs to be too high to market the townhouses. However, it is planned to shift some of the tax burden to the proposed CI tract which can more readily absorb the taxes. It was indicated that the townhouses would be priced from the upper 50 thousand bracket with varied op6ions to the bbyers. DeVrics Builders, Inc. will be the builder of the townhouse project. Mr. Beisner stated it was their intention to build a Gae-story office type building, 12 to 14 feet high, on the proposed CI area, but this may be two or more years away. For now, it is planned to start construction of the townhouses on the remaining R-3 area shortly after rezoning of the CI area has been approved by the City. A preliminary colored layout of the proposed townhouse development aas presented by 50. Beisner. He also stressed the fact that development of the townhouse project was subject to the rezoning request to CI of the subject 5.6 acres. Cont.Page 2 Page 2 Hr. Carlson as',,,ed for con ents from the residents present. Mr. Crcgan stated that the entire plan to I .:d good to him. 211/41 Dilley both stated they were in flavor of the plans as shown, in1icating that the townhouse pro,,ect could be considered an extersion of their r � o-unl �hoes e in the Earle Brown Patio Hoes develolrnent and that this would help in the future sale of their townh, <se wh°r. that, time cane. Mr. Carlson asked for opinions from the Group. M-cGeary -- in favor of request to rezone to CI Terzich -- in favor of rezoning, noting that this 20 acre parcel has been the object of several proposals in the last few years and that the present request appears to be the best use. He also r :ninded the Group of a me o- randum dated March 14, 1980 from the Planning Commission Secretary outlining Brooklyn Center's Neighborhood Policy P.ecom,endations in which it was recor-riended at that blue that consideration be given to a service office type use for the subject lot to provide addit- ional buffer for the townhouse development from the industrial park to the east. The present request appears to Con:orii to this rccoinmendation. Theis -- in favor of the CI request, especially if eommittren.t is to 'put in the townhouse prouect first. Carlson -- the best plan seen for the subject area and in favor of the entire plan as proposed, however against CI .rezoning for now without seeing plans for the proposed office building to make sure about the height, size, parking, etc. If could be assured of a low one-story building as suggested by Mr. Beisner, Carlson stated he would be in favor of the entire plan. Magnuson -- Dale Magnuson could not attend the meeting as he was out of town. Terzich explained the main poinLs of discussion to Magnuson on the day following tree meeting and Magnuson stated he was in favor of the CI rezoning, mainly because the townhouse development would provide a buffer from the CI area to the existing single family homes along the "old" Xerxes Avenue to the west. Mr. Theis stated that the Planning Corfmission wanted on expression of opinion from the Group regarding the location of sidewalk from the "old" Xerxes Ave. It was the unani_~.ous opinion of the Group and of the residents present that the proposed location of the sidewalk as shown on the colored layout from the intersection of "old" Xerxes and 67th Avenue North to the extension of Freeway Boulevard was the best place for the sidewalk. Ver• ,-ruly yours, Louis Terzich Secy, N.W. Neighborhood Advisory Group • 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 E, 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 7z 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 113 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 (Application No. 81021 ) and a preliminary plat (Application No. 81020) including the dedication of 1 .3 acres for roadway purposes. The road would extend across from Freeway Boulevard west and north until connecting with Shingle Creek Parkway. The plan calls for 100 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: 1 . 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 seems 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 of the townhouse • development prior to approval of any commercial development on the Cl property. As with all rezoning applications, it is recommended that the application be tabled and referred to the Northwest 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 -1- Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose , by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy.. It is the policy of the City that : a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning, " defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits , measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines . a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals , is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? • (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 1 r• ; � /: .96. �.r 1R4C1 Syv b �vE`O { �a i L lJ. Coc.`s3.o3e) S8fi6 .9^ I 'o ,: �' rte_ _.r"� �'" °`' .r-•°'"'� � r• '� -�`-i CL's T ANA.. 48`` \O io Pcp 4 Q C\ 14 f� Sd A. pP ® y off• `' a `' � ""' - °< a =n w o� Dq 3`z 431!{y ~ • \ O .c 'r m P p v51\ ,J,•O °. pL47, H ` Oe S,•'J 7o i97 /` 5 ►(J�r d, ;Ste' %80 i �� ki , /. 11 ,FAR " ' Ai . S -.+- ios• �. , �. ,.yitfJk' _1� I.ADpEs `B J "BROWN - - 7z.{ �__� —.-- - �►,----- . 12 7 v ;t 7 eo L 'r * >Q.Scc•i v,/� �r 23 LHB 1° %W A lVA. AFf t4 T10 Pt AI w 't15P.Af IN'.OM::._:.':fa Cl- rN!"!:..VP :.:5'. IV:,r,tA• / - ATE ':b/IZ AND ,V"A Kl�uCl a. '7