Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 08-28 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION August 28,, 1980 lo 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 14, 1980 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 Commission makes recommendations to the City Council The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Randall Cook 80032 Request for rezoning from Rl to R2 of land located within the lots addressed 5301 to 5407 Brooklyn Boulevard. 6.- Rorsunsky, Krank, Erickson/Commercial Partners 80022 Request for site and building plan approval of a shopping center-theater-restaurant complex on land east of Shingle Creek Parkway north of Brookdale Ford. Plans for the restaurant are not being submitted at this time. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its July 10, 1980 and August 14, 1980 meetings. 7. Rorsunsky, Krank, Erickson/Commercial Partners 80023 Request for Special Use Permit to build and operate a theater within the complex envisioned in Application 80022. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its August 14, 1980 meeting. 8. Merila-Hansen/Commercial Partners 80021 Preliminary plat approval for subdivision including Brookdale Ford and the Brookdale Square complex-. This item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting. 9. Other Business 10. Discussion Items 11. Adjournment ► r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80032 Applicant: Randall Cook Location: 5301 to 5407 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning from RI to R2 The applicant requests that the land contained in the lots addressed 5301 to 5407 Brooklyn Boulevard be rezoned from R1 to R2, chiefly for the purpose of allowing him to build a two-family dwelling on the vacant lot to the north of 5341 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is bounded by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road on the east, by 53rd Avenue. North on the south, by single-family homes fronting on Northport Drive to the west and by the Northport Medical Clinic to the north. The lots in question are all part of Auditor's Subdivision 216 (they have metes and bounds legal descriptions) and range in width from roughly 70' to 1401 . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he states his own reasons for seeking the rezoning. He points out that there are apartments and double- bungalows roughly within one block *of the proposed rezoning -(the double- bungalows are zoned R1 and continue as nonconforming uses). He also states that an R2 zoning is consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommendation for this area (low density residential which includes R1 and R2). In addition, he observes that the two vacant lots in this area are rather large (approximately 140' and -100' in width) for single-family. Staff would add that most of the inquiries received concerning these parcels relate to their eligibility for com- mercial development. Finally, the applicant states .his, intent to remain in the area and keep the premises attractive. In terms of the guidelines for evaluating rezonings (Section 35-208:4 attached), staff would offer the following comments: a. The principal benefit from the proposed rezoning is that it is more likely to allow development of the- two vacant properties in this area than the current R1 zoning. Furthermore, develop- ment of these properties should serve to reduce some of the ' demand for commercial development in the area south of Northport Medical Clinic. b. The R2 zoning classification is considered a low density resi- dential land use by the proposed Comprehensive Plan.along with the R1 classification (implied on page 68). The R2 classific- ation allows single; as well as two-family development. c. The district requirements for lot width and area are met by the vacant parcels. Also, the two developed single-family lot immediately south of the clinic would meet the requirements for lot width in the R2 zone whereas, at present, it is substandard by 5 feet for the RI zone. d. The proposed Comprehensive Plan, recommends that the land to the north of this area eventually be rezoned to Cl if and when a development plan for service/office uses is put forward. The proposed rezoning follows the same trend toward more intensive land use along Brooklyn Boulevard within the limits established by the guide plan. 8-14-80 -1- Application No. 80032 continued e. Not a City-initiated rezoning. f. The proposed zoning would create no substandard or nonconforming conditions. g. With respect to the two vacant lots within the propos:edfdistrict, they are significantly larger than standard-size R1 lots and are located along a busy major thoroughfare. It could be added that the unanimous opinion of real estate agents inquiring about zoning of properties along the Boulevard is that frontage on Brooklyn Boulevard is a poor location for single family. h. The rezoning would expand the R2 zoning district: 1. within the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. would make available developable land, of which there is little, if- any, in the R2 district;. 3. we defer any comment on the best interests of the community to the Planning Commission, City Council and neighboring residents. i. Insofaras the proposed rezoning meets a number of the ordinance guidelines and is consistent with the recommendations for Brooklyn Boulevard contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, it seems to have merit to the community as well as the property owner. The proposed rezoning has not been submitted by a group of petitioners made up of affected residents. This department has received no comment either from owners of the affected property or neighboring properties. Staff have recom- mended that a petition be brought although this is not mandatory. The configur- ation of the proposed R2 district was also suggested by staff as a more rational zoning district than a single lot, in view of the fact that existing single- family homes would not become nonconforming. Based on its own review and/or input from affected and surrounding property owners, the Commission, if it feels the rezoning warranted, may recommend that a smaller area be rezoned. It is recommended that any rezoning include the properties immediately south of the Northport Medical Clinic, as well as the large vacant lots to the south. As with all rezoning applications, it is recommended that the Planning Commission table the application and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 8-28-80 -2- �, �I I�� 8/3/80 Committee, The proposed rezoning of subdivision #216 will in my opinion, inhance the area , which already has R-2 and apartment dwellings with-in a one block area. Y I have been assured by the Tanning department that R-2 is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area. I am asking for the- rezoning, of this area, because of the exceptional large lots , which make it unsuitable for single family dwellings. I have lived in this subdivision #216 for the past three years. I like the area and location and have every intention of staying here. *I wouldn't want the area to change anymore than as R-I or R-2. What I am proposing is something, that I will be living next to, and I have every intention of making this into something attractive and consistant with the area. 3 RANDALL. B. COOK 534I BROOKLYN BLVD. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. 55429 1 ICI 1. Pu ose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of -the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes -to -this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-16", -the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Poll 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 zor_ing decision which discrir._instes is 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 guidelines 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 contemplated 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 }goad 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, configuration, topography or location? '(h) Will 'the rezoning resul-t'in the expansion of a zoning district, •'i warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) -the lack of developable land in -the proposed zoning district; or 3)• the • best interests of the community? , 1) Does -the proposal• demonstrate merit beyond the interests of-an • own..r or owners of an individual parcel? 17SPIiSi� ' EL um COUNTT An MEMO NORTHPORT ONEMEMOS Iloilo ir son son 1111111 1111mill i111: WE �� : � u STAVE N. mm 1-2 OR . Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80022 ' Applicant: Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson/Commercial Partners Location: Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Brookdale Ford Request: Site and Building Plan Approval Thais application requires little introduction in that it has been before the Planning Commission twice before, on July 10 and August 14 of this year. The major issue presented by the application has been the location of the major access to the site and the orientation of buildings on the site. After long and arduous negotiations with the applicant and his representatives, staff is now prepared to recommend approval of the proposed layout and landscape plan as submitted by the developer, with some relatively minor modifications. The proposed plan combines the north access and shopping center orientation of. the conceptual plan submitted to the Commission at its August 14, 1980 meeting with the south access and restaurant orientation of the initial plan submitted to the Commission on July 10, 1980. The north access is to be served by a full median cut and the south -access by a left-in-only median cut. The south access is 550' from County Road 10 and the north access is roughly 405' further north. The curb opening .to the south scales roughly 32' and should be revised and labeled to no more than 30' in width as required by Section 35-703 of the Zoning Ordinance., The north access is roughly 58' wide with a 4' median and two 27' driving lanes. Proof-of-parking for the site has been increased to 1429 spaces by utilizing 24' driving lanes, but no compact parking stalls. This amount of potential parking supports the proposed 88,326 sq. ft. shopping center, 2045 seat theater, and a restaurant of approximately 400 seats (216 parking spaces) . There is, at this time, no specific design for the restaurant on this site. The proposed plan indicates that no construction will take place in the area around the restaurant. The applicant requests that the curbing along the south side of the south entrance drive be rolled bituminous with the deferral of concrete curb until the restaurant is built. As with other applications, staff would recommend that this deferral be limited to no more than three years with a financial guarantee held for completion of this work. Other changes from the plan submitted include the proposed installation of four- way stop signs at the intersection of the main entrance drive and the east-west drive running in front of the shopping center. Also, a stop sign is indicated for traffic coming from the rear of the center and Northwestern Bell to the main access/egress drive. Proposed landscaping for the site has again been revised to provide roughly the same number of plantings as requested by the Commission at its July 10, 1980 meeting, but in clumps, rather than evenly spaced. Landscaping immediately in front of the building has been somewhat reduced. No sizes are indicated for the proposed plantings on the latest plan submitted. It is recommended that these be included prior to consideration by the City Council . Also there is a "free form shrub mass" indicated at the northwest corner of the site. Further definition of this landscaping should be soughtprior to approval . In addition, it is recommended that either more trees or snrubs be added along Shingle Creek Parkway. 8-28-80 -1- R - -_ _ -- -- Application No. 80022 continued The new drainage and utility plan adds storm sewer line and four catch basins in the area behind the shopping center. Also, there is a storm sewer connection from the northwest area of the Ford site to a catch basin south of the restaurant. Water service to the theater is to be provided off. a water main to. connedt the mains on the Cinema I, II, III, IV site and Brookdale Ford site. Sanitary sewer for the theater is proposed to run behind the shopping center to an existing connect- ion on the east side of Shingle Creek Parkway. "Jumbo" face brick, rather than regular face brick is proposed for the exterior. Wood screening is indicated around HVAC units located on the roof. Altogether, the plans seem to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. ee ➢➢,, u�t 6. :Ate eMAr\ - buildings ' to be equipped with an automatic fire, extinguishing system" to meet NFPA Standards and shall be con- nected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 9. . The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits, in accordance with Section 15-111 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 10. The plans shall be modified prior to consideration.by the City Council in the following respects: a. The proposed landscaping schedule shall include size designationsof 212-" to 3" diameter trees and shrubs of Various heig ts. 8-28-80 2- P :f�'?w-"� �^�--+lr'•. �'r.n�rr yK V.el��`,l vY.'1R'e�e.�. r�.« .�'.T UGG9 -___.. _-,A':�!r �1'1 t S 9 i I fTr'I I.i rl I Y'N1..k ac�� �'nln�aa ►x- t UL4 ` �. W Ul G9 Ul �---�s G N 4- W Z CL N `�" .r ____ _ ._ � �.i•J W:•� I�il `�'I 1 I l�il I (�l I I I�IlI�( ji o, t .� �/_••rte --__'--- �'I N cc to ►. t•• (� " ui , sa 50 �Y �,� ilillllllllllllill11111ll Ilu- HM CL *m it / N cc mp a T �m 5� r c • .d �"N � _, t Ot- � ter-• I �.. W n� •�. ?f��� cc 11 1 cc 40 COD CA M �bd 31ON34S ti • - - 1 ! Application No. 80022 continued b. The width of the southerly curb opening shall be designated as 30 feet. c. The number of seats and employees on the average maximum shift at the future restaurant shall be indicated so as to fit within the 216 parking spaces available for this use. 11 . Plan approval acknowledges four-way stop signs at the intersection of the main entrance drive and the driving lane immediately south of the shopping center and a stop sign for exiting traffic on the , driving lane shared by Northwestern Bell at its intersection with the main entrance/exit drive. 12. Plan approval also acknowledges deferral of concrete curb and gutter along the south side of the south entrance drive for a period not to exceed three years. Bituminous paving will be provided in this location during the interim and the financial guarantee shall be held by the City during this period to ensure the completion of the required B612 curbing. 8-28-80 -3- • i • • " Planning Commission Information Sheet L Application No. 80023 Applicant: Korsunsky, Krank Architects/Commercial Partners/United Artists Theater Location: Shingle Creek Parkway north of Brookdale Ford Request: Special Use Permit This application was tabled by the Commission at its August 14, 1980 meeting pending the completion of plans for the accompanying site plan. Those plans are now fairly complete. As a result of the revised plan, it is our judgment -that Standard (d) regarding ingress and egress has been satisfied. Standards (c) and (e) have not been viewed as real issues in this application since most of the surrounding property is already developed and conformance to regulations is on-going. With respect to Standards (a) and (b) regarding public benefit from the proposed special use and noninjury to property values, we have expressed some skepticism in past reports. The prospect of these benefits and injuries are ultimately a judgment to be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council . While questions arise concerning the demand for an additional eight screens (2045 seats) in this area and the possibility of failure, it would not be proper to base a denial of the special use permit on disagreements over a prospective market. Only if definite injuries are perceived to be associated with the proposed use should the permit be denied. It would certainly be difficult to deny that some public benefit derives from movie theaters per se considering that existing theaters are regularly and well attr.ided. It would also be our judgment that the proposed theater location is far preferable to many other C2 properties in the City. Therefore, assuming the applicant pursues the implementation of his latest plan, approval of the special use permit should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The-special use permit is issued to ths imOM as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Site plan approval for the theater building is comprehended under approval of Planning Commission Application No. 80022 and the applicant is responsible for compliance with all applicable conditions and restrictions of that application. 8-28-80 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. f 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. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80021 Applicant: Merila-Hansen/Commercial Partners Location: Shingle Creek Parkway north of Brookdale Ford Request: Preliminary Plat Approval The applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat for a subdivision including the Brookdale Square Development, Brookdale Ford, and Shingle Creek right-of-way west of Shingle Creek Parkway. Staff have received no revised plat at this time. The original plat provided for a Lot 1 , Block 2 for Brookdale Square and the United Artists Theater; Lot 2, Block 2 for Brookdale Ford; and apparently an Outlot A for the restaurant site to the south and west of a proposed driveway easement from Brookdale Ford to the south access opening onto Shingle Creek Parkway. Another proposed driveway easement to be shared with Northwestern Bell will have to be relocated down through the Brookdale Square site to the new opening proposed at the northwest corner of the site. We are disturbed by the apparent existence of the outlot (there is no "Outlot A" among the existing legal descriptions for the property) for the restaurant and cannot recommend approval of any preliminary plat which includes it. The , area within the apparent outlot contains only 77 parking spaces rather than the 216 available on the site plan for Application No. 80022. The existence of an outlot would, therefore, create immense difficulties for the future restaurant in that off-site accessory parking arrangements can only be approved for expand- ing and not new businesses. This matter should be thoroughly pursued with the applicant prior to action on the plat. If the Planning Commission is satisfied that no outlot is intended by the proposed plat and is willing to forward the plat on to the City Council absent any revisions in accordance with the latest site plan, the following conditions are recommended: - 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to Chapter 1.5 of the City Ordinances. 3. The plat shall be revised prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: a. The driveway easements providing access across the site _ for Brookdale Ford and Northwestern Bell shall be - Z' 4or the platfand shall not exceed 30 feet in width. b. The proposed plat shall in all respects conform to the conditions established with the approved site plan under Application No. 80022. ,�. 8-28-80 _67 r • • • I OPEN SPACE t i s / t Y R5 / r 'aA ~ ' FIE TO at GtAS[D� �--1� y• ���` +r i iyW 1 � n� . � 1 J • , r i I \`\`�! i its- ..Iw+ X11 C2 it J CENTRAL- / PARK/ ,Ti , rROVOSEO RoAOYATs .• y-I ►RDIOSED IRIDGES ' 1 � 1 j G MEN 1171CITY j PARK ; 1 / l ply I� ! r �± SUMMIT D I R/y�. W .. C_I A ' If U _ I n �f R7 4e��t ,y I C PPLICATION NOS. 80021 , 80022, 80023 trA0 i - / - s. ►�"� ,�. . PARK�. MORTNM•AT DR. .� R5 ` 1l•+ 1• � / C2of ho d ORf ` 1 COUNTY -�/ NO�o %\ 0 �• % n II a I �� LIONS rATCR T[I/[R I,� PARK •C2 st ,:,: ' ; , , _:- :�-�- ('•�may, ��- ,_