HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 08-14 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
August 14., 1980
1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: July 24, 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. Frank Lachinski 80027
Request to resubdivide two 40' x 128'
lots at 5419 Fremont Avenue North which
were combined formerly for tax purposes.
6. Harron United Methodist Church 80028
Site plan and special use permit approval
to construct a 40 stall parking lot at the
northwest corner of 55th and Dupont for
off-site accessory parking.
7. Harron United Methodist Church 80029
Request for a Variance from Section
35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance which re-
quires off-street parking to -be 15' from
street right-of-way.
8. Merila-Hansen/Village Builders 80030
Site and building plan approval to
construct a 10 unit townhouse project
west of Humboldt, just north of 67th
Avenue North.
9. Merila-Hansen/Village Builders 80031
Preliminary plat approval to create 10
townhouse lots and one common area on the
property described in application 80030.
10. Commercial Partners 800211 80022
Request for preliminary plat and site and
building plan approval for the Brookdale
Square complex north of Brookdale Ford on
Shingle Creek Parkway.
11. Commercial Partners 80023
Request for a special use permit to
build and operate a United Artists Theatre
as part of the Brookdale Square complex north
of Brookdale Ford on Shingle. Creek Parkway.
' 120 Other Business
13. Discussion Item
i) ompac�t CpLrs
14. Adjournment
Tanning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 80027
Applicant: Frank Lachinski
Location: 5419 Fremont Avenue North
Request: Resubdivisi.on
The applicant requests that two lots, Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 ,..Fairhaven Park
Addition (5419 Fremont) which were combined for tax purposes``i`n 1972, be resub
divided into two separate lots. The City Assessor can make such a split only
with the approval of the City Council . Planning Commission review is routinely
made a part of this process to insure that Zoning Ordinance requirements are met.
The properties in question are located in the R2 zone.
In the present case both lots are substandard under the normal toning Ordinance
requirements for single-family lots in the R2 zone. Each is approximately 40' x
128' and 5,120 sq. ft. in area whereas the ordinance requirement is 60' in width
and 7,600 sq. ft. in area for single-family lots in the R2 zone. As a matter of
information, the house addressed 5419 Fremont is located entirely on Lot 6. Lot
7 is to the south and Lot 8 of the same subdivision, further south, is also vacant
and also measures 40' x 128' . Both lots were platted around 1912. No utility
stubs exist for Lot.7 and no assessment for water-or sewer has been made to that
-lot.
The buildability of the subject lots is governed by Section 35-500 of the City's.
Zoning Ordinance (attached) which provides that all lots of legal record within
the R1 and R2 zones prior to 1976 which are at least 40' in width and 5000 sq.-
ft. in area are buildable provided all existing setback requirements are meta
Under this provision the following categories are established:
1 . Buildable:
a) lots of record prior to 1-1-76 which are at least 40' in
width and 5,000 sq. ft. in area in the R1 and R2 zones.
b) lots of record after 1976 which meet existing ordinance
requirements for the R1 and R2 zones.
2. Not'.Bui 1 dabl e:
a) lots record prior to 1-1-76 which are. less than 40' in
width and/or less than 5,000 sq. ft.. of area , or when
current yard setback requirements are not met.
b) lots which became of legal record after 1-1-76 which do
not meet current ordinance requirements.
Lot 7, Block 1 , of Fairhaven Park Addition clearly falls into category- la and is,
therefore, buildable. It should be noted that it is the City Attorney's opinion
that combination of legal parcels for tax purposes does not affect their`�status
under the Zoning Ordinance.
8-14-80 -1-
It should also be noted that the existing house at 5419 Fremont Avenue North is
set back only 5.5' from the interior property line separating Lot 6 and Lot 7.
There is even a concrete sidewalk to the south of the dwelling which encroaches
into Lot 7 by 3". In addition, the dwelling is nonconforming in terms of its
front setback and the garage at the rear of the lot in terms of its sideyard
setback.
It is our judgment, however, that so long as they+ were not created by the owner
of Lot,7 since January 1, 11976 none of these particular factors affects the
buildability of Lot 7. To rule that they did affect buildability would make all
vacant substandard lots of record prior to 1976 subject to whether neighboring
properties complied with current zoning requirements.
This is clearly not the intent of Section 35-500. The existing dwelling is
set back a reasonable distance from the south property line, even though it fails
to meet the ordinance requirement. The encroachment of the sidewalk over the
property line is not a concern of the City since there are no setback require-
ments or permits for sidewalks. It is a prospective civil matter between the
future owners of Lot 6 and Lot 7, but as a means of addressing this potential
problem it is recommended that the applicant be required to remove the portion
of the sidewalk that extends over the property line.
The surveys supplied by the applicant indicate there is ample room on Lot 7 to
construct a dwelling which meets current setback requirements. No variance in
this regard is comprehended by the resubdivision nor authorized by the Zoning
Ordinance. Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following
conditions:
1 . The resubdivision is subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and the City Assessor prior to filing with the
County.
2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any
other action pertaining to the use of the property.
3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on Lot
6 (5419 Fremont) that encroaches onto Lot 7.
8-14-80 -2-
Section 35-414 (continued)
7. Lighting surrounding automobile service stations must meet the
provisions of Section 35-712. Lighting design must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for recommendations to the City Council and all lighting shall con-
form to drawings and specifications approved by the City Council,
8. Any required buffer or screening area shall be so constructed and
maintained as to keep the beam of automobile headlights from shining into
abutting properties.
9. There may be signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign
Ordinance.
10. The following activities are prohibited:
(a) Body work and painting
W Motor vehicle parking, except that owners and
employees automobiles and a maximum of three
service vehicles may be parked. Automobiles being
serviced may be parked for a maximum period of 48
hours at any one time.
06 11. The lawful use of land for any automobile service station existing
at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use
does not conform to the above regulations provided that the use is made to
conform to these regulations except subsections 1 , 2, 3, and 4 above, within
twelve months of the date that this ordinance is adopted. Subsection 3 of
Section 35-414 shall apply to all exterior additions, alterations, accessory
buildings and signs erected or constructed after the effective date of this
ordinance.
12. The owner and lessee shall be jointly and severally responsible
for seeing that the above regulations are observed,
FSection 35-500. SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND PARCELS .
A lot or parcel which was of legal record within the R-1 or R-2 zoning
district on January 1 , 1976, and which does not meet the requirements of this
ordinance as to width or area may nevertheless be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes, provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the
property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 square feet; and provided
that yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are meta
■■ ■■ ■■ WIN ■■ e =s
�. ■■ ' ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �IM ■_
■■ MIM ■■ ■s■ ■= ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■- i
�■�i ii mm iii i■� �� �� ■■ ■M _
7.
M mm Mm
EARL BROWN '
NO ■■ ■■
f . �� . �� ■ ■■ ■■ `� ■■
•■■ ■■ _ ■■ -■■
■ _■■ ■ ■■ "■�
MIM
-■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■• ■ ■■�■ ■■ l
IM mm mm MMI om
M! mm®■ ■■ ■m ■■� ■ii■ ■ ■ ■
■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ mm ■ ■
■■ ■■ ■■ ■m m■ ■ ■�.�s r
■■ ■■■ �■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■�■■ '
■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■Im �■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \� :�:
MM mm mm MIM MIM Em m m 0
On lion
mm
■■ ■ �� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ _
®■ �� - ■ i ■■ ■■ ■■I■■
MM MIM MIMI Em
Elm MIM
I IM
®■� ■■� ■ ■■ ■m ■■ _ MIS
MIMI
IMMI
■, ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ �■
® ■ ,rte � ■ � �� � �� �
■ ■ ■ ■■ i i mom ■■
imm mm
UM
mm MIMI MM
mm mm
MIM
MIM
IMM
IM
■MI ■■ ■= i■ ■� it■■ 111111��i111 ■■ !■®
vwm
'laoning.COmmission I-nformation_:Sheet
-Application No. 80028 �
-applicant: Harron 1Jnited Methodist Dhurch
aocation: 5452 Dupont; 5501 Dupont
Request: Special Use Permit:and.:Site--and Building Plan Approval
The applicant requests site and building plan approval and special use permit
approval to install a 40 space parking lot on the northwest corner of Dupont
Avenue North and 55th Avenue North. The lot will provide an improved parking
area for the congregation of Harron -United Methodist-Church located at the south-
-east corner of the same intersection. Section 35=701 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance stipulates that all parking for residential , commercial and industrial
-uses shall be located on the same lot as the principal use served unless a
special use permit authorizes accessory off-site parking. Such_a special use
-permit can be granted only after certain conditions are met.: `(See Section 35-701
::attached) The proposed parking lot meets these conditions in every respect. As
an institutional RI use, the church and the off-site parking area are considered
'the same as a Cl use for the purposes of Section 35-701 .
The application, however, uWAA&A,also meet the normal standards for a special use
permit in that the construction of the parking lot-represents the formal expan-
sion of the church which is a _special use by itself. Mr. Gilbert Engdahl , a
member of the church board, has submitted a letter on behalf of the church ad-
4ressing these standards and those fora variance. (The letter and the standards
are attached for your review.) Mr. Engdahl points out that the improv,ed.parking
rea will improve the appearance of the site by defining-green areas and making
use of the lot in all weather conditions which cannot now be done. He also states . i
that the lot will be properly screened and that more cars will be able to use
the lot when it is paved rather than park on the public streets. We concur with s
these observations and find no violation of the Standards for a Special Use Permit
in their proposal. _
The proposed site plan calls for two entrances to the parking lot, one from Dupont
and one from 55th Avenue North. Each serves approximately half the parking lot
since there is no driving lane which connects the two curb cuts. The parking lot
makes use of eight compact car stalls measuring 7' 6" x 16 with curb overlap
These stalls are in line with the dimensions contained in the draft ordinance ".,'`
amendment to Section 35-704 which the Commission reviewed at its last study
meeting. The greenstrip facing Dupont is proposed at 12' rather than 15' as
required under past approvals_ This deviation from the standard is the subject
of the accompanying variance request.
. . . .Upon further review of the draft ordinance amendment, the staff- does not feel
that it would be appropriate at this time to pursue the compact car parking
provisions, It is not known whether the compact car spaces would be utilized
and the enforcement of such a provision is questionable,,at best. Another factor
is that designated compact car spaces might be feasible in large parking lots
(well in excess of 40 stalls) or as shown in parking ramps where physical
barriers allow the parking of compact cars only. If such stalls are not utilized
as intended the driving lane would be shortened and further problems would
result. If there is justification for a variance as recommended in the inform-
ation sheet for Application No. 80029, then perhaps it would be better to vary
even further to allow for full sized parking stalls. Another option open to the
Commission might be a recommendation that would allow compact car spaces on a
°test basis" if it is felt that they can be adequately utilized.
8-14-80 -1-
i
Application No. 80028 continued
The proposed parking lot will not meet the parking requirement of one space for
every three seats. It will, however, provide roughly one stall per every three
attendees on the average.
Drainage of the site will be roughly northwest to southeast to a catch basin at
the southeast corner of the lot to be connected by storm sewer to a catch basin
in Dupont Avenue North. Staff have recommended that the church obtain a drainage
easement over the easterly 10' of the property to west for snow storage. To date,
the owner of the neighboring property have refused to grant an easement, but have
signed a letter agreeing to allow the church to use the land for the purposes of
snow storage and to allow for new plantings to be installed should their lilacs
fail . Staff have definite reservations about this arrangement since it probably
would not be legally binding if a dispute arose.
Landscaping proposed for the site consists basically of the existing 12' high
lilac bushes on the north property line and also on the neighboring property to
the west. A new 6' high opaque fence is indicated for a 60' section along the
north property line. We have requested in a letter sent to the applicant on
July 23rd (attached) that the parking lot also be screened from the residences
. across Dupont and 55th by some form of screening consistent with the recent
approval to the Lutheran Church of the Master: This is not yet shown on the
proposed plan. We recommend that the plan be amended to indicate such screening
in accordance with Section 35-711 .
We will be prepared to discuss these and other aspects of this application at
Thursday's meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been
sent.
Approval of this application should only be granted upon at least the following
conditions being met:
1 . Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the
special . use permit.
2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
entered into by the applicant prior to the issuance of the
permit.
3. The site plan shall be modified to indicate screening of the
parking lot from residences across Dupont and across 55th Ave.
North in accordance with Section 35-711 of the City Ordinances
prior to consideration by the City Council .
4. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance com-
prehended by Application No. 80029 regarding a greenstrip -
encroachment.
5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City's Ordinance:.
8-14-80 -2-
10
l i cation ,fio._ X0028 -continued
The zpproved plan shall be certified by an architect or
:engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior to.
-the issuance of permits.
7. ?he Special Use Permit for Accessory Off-Site Parking com-
1prehended by Section 35-701 Subdivision 3 is issued to the
=Marron Methodist Church and is nontransferable.
Z. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances
oodes, and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds
for revocation.
&.^A406o
d�.
.
a7C(7r15 66 fit..
8-14-80 -3-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINA14CE NO. 80-7
y
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORD INANCES REGARDING
ACCESSORY OFF-SITE PARKING AND JOINT PARKING FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 35-701 Subdivision 3 of the City Ordinances is '
hereby amended as follows:
/eciion 35-701 . LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING.
3. Ordinance required arkin spaces accessory to uses located in a
business or industrial istrict shall be on the same lot as the
uses served unless a special use permit authorizes [supplemental]
Accessory off-site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use. Special use permits authorizing such parking -
may be issued subject to the following conditions:
(a) Special use permits may be issued only for business or in-
dustrial uses which have been continuously operational on a
specific site for at least two years.
(b) ' Accessory off-site parking shall be permitted only on properties
located in districts zoned commercial (Cl , CIA, C2) and in-
dustrial (I-1 and I-2) , and on properties which are institutional
"uses in residential zones, and having the same or less restrict-
We zoning classification as the principal use. For the purpose
of this section of the ordinance, institutional uses in resi-
dential zones shall have the same status as Ll zoned property.
(c) Accessory off-site parking shall be limited to one site per
each business or industrial use issued a special use permit.
(d) - The distance from the furthest point of the accessory off-site
parking property to the site of the principal use shall not
exceed (300] 800 feet.
(e) A minimum of 20 parking spaces must be provided on the off-site
parking property.
(f) Accessory off-site parkigsh�o cross the following roadways
llr located that apedestrian
traffic will not be required
to reach the principal use: '
(l) Major thoroughfares as defined in Section 35-900;
(2) 55th and 56th Avenues North between Xerxes Avenue and
Brooklyn Boulevard;
(3) Summi t Drive;
• (4) 66th Avenue North between Lyndale Avenue North'-and Camden
Avenue North.
(9) Accessory off-site parking spaces may be credited to the parking
requirements of the principal use if the off-site parking
property is legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing
parking accessory to the principal use.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 80-7
.(h) Accessory off-site parking site improvements shall be provided
as :requi red by.' the City Council
Section 2. Section 35-720 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 35-720. JOINT PARKING FACILITIES
With respect to development complexes, the required parking facilities
to serve two or more uses may be located on the same lot or in the same structure,
provided that the total number of parking spaces furnished shall not be less than
the sum of the separate requirements for each use.
With respect to [nondevelopment complexes] separate individual establish-
ments, the City Council may approve the joint use of common parking facilities ,
uncTer the following conditions:
1. The building or use for which application is made to utilize
the off-street parking facilities provided by another building
or use shall be located within 800 feet of [and contiguous to] -
such parking facilities [.] ; and shall not be separated by a
building or use with which it does not share parking facilities
n the manner prescribed by this ordinance. In no case will
joint parking facilities be located across those streets listed
In Section 35-701 , Sub i vi-si on f .
' 2. The applicant shall show and the City Council must determine
that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating
hours and parking demands of the two buildings or uses contem-
plating joint use of off-street parking facilities.
3. A properly drawn legal instrument providing for joint use of
off-street parking facilities, duly approved by the City Council
as to form and manner of execution shall be filed as an easement
encumbrance upon the title of the property.
Section 3. Section 35-900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended as
follows:
35-900. DEFINITIONS
Parking, Accessory Off-Site - A legal arrangement in which parking spaces,
located on property other than that of the principal use, are encumbered solely for
use by the off-site principal use. Such spaces may be credited to the ordinance
parking requirements of the principal use by a special use permit if the require-
ments of Section 35-701 Subdivision 3 are met.
Parkin Joint - An easement agreement over certain property which
gives a use located or adjacent property the right to make use of
parking s a s wit 5 th e easement area. Such agreements are for the convenience
of e respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and
cannot be used to meet the ordinance parking requirements for the off-site use.
ORDINANCE NO. 80-7
Section 4. This ordinance shall-become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this 21st ' , day of _� � July 19 so
Mayor. j
ATTEST:
er
Date of publication July 3, 1980
Effective Date August 2, 1980
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
UN170C
M
gkrron Tgited �Methocjist CILurch
5452 DUPONT AVE. N.
I BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. 55430
0 (612) 566-2780
0
CNURCM
DENNIS E. GLAD,Pastor HOME: 5453 Dupont Ave. N.
BA., M.Div., S.T.M. (612) 5608051
August 7, 1980
Mr. Gary Shallcross
Planning Assistant
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 55 +30
Dear Mr. Shallcross:
We hereby request approval for a variance and a special use permit for the construction of
a parking lot for the follow reasons..
I. Paving of the area will improve its present condition. The property is currently
being utilized as a parking lot with its surface being raw land.
2. Some members of the church are now parking on the streets and "green areas" instead
of utilizing the parking lot at certain times of the year due to wet and/or muddy
conditions.
3. The plans provide for curbing and screening of the parking area. Delineation of
parking spaces would result in a more orderly parking pattern.
4. Well defined access and egress qould reduce the harmful affect on the boulevard
green area.
5• The Dupont Avenue entrance would be further from the corner of 55th Avenue which
will help alleviate possible traffic congestion.
. 6. The variance requested on the set back requirements would allow us to provide for
forty parking spaces as opposed to twenty-five without the variance.
7. . We also request the approval to utilize the existing lilac bushes as a part of the
screening requirements. Other screening will be provided as required.
For the above stated reasons and the fact that no more intense use by the church is antici-
pated and the greatly improved aesthetics of the property that would resuit. We hereby
respectfully request approval of this application.
Members of the church have stated that- if parking for only twenty-five cars would be available,
e investment required would not be warranted.
Ve truly yours,
COMMITTEE MEMBER
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 80029
Applicant: Harron United Methodist Church
Location: 5501 Dupont Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-700 of the City's Zoning Ordinance in
order to allow for a 12' greenstrip along Dupont Avenue North to the east of the
parking lot proposed in Application No. 80028. The ordinance requirement for all
districts other than Cl and C1A is a 15' greenstrip between off-street parking
and street right-of-way.
The zoning facts which surround this case are rather complex. While the Standards
for a Variance would not seem to be met for the proposed variance if considered in
isolation, we feel there is definite merit to this request when considered along
with the particular facts surrounding the application. There are at least four
deficiencies existing, potential or proposed in the plan for this site:
1 . The seating capacity of the church is over 300 persons which
translates into a parking requirement of over 100 stalls.
Average attendance on Sunday morning is roughly 120 implying
that 40 stalls would just about meet the present parking
needs. Technically a deficiency of 60+parking stalls
remains even if the variance is granted. Without a variance,
. the parking deficiency would be approximately 75 stalls.
This is an existing condition which cannot be ameliorated
by withholding a permit.
2. The proposed greenstrip is 12' wide (10' wide if no ordinance
amendment is--adopted regarding compact car stalls), but still
provides adequate room to plant pr dense shrubrow for effect-
ive screening. The absence of sidewalk within the Dupont
right-of-way means there should be approximately 27' of unbroken
green space as opposed to the normal 301 .
3. While there is no ordinance requirement for a buffer area
between churches and other R1 uses, staff recommend that church
parking areas be kept a minimum of 5' from neighboring
property as in commercial zones. The proposed plan calls for a
separation of 5' on the north and 2.5' on the west. Mitigating
the narrow green area to the west of the parking lot is an
approximate 15' green area between the west property line and a
dense row of Lilacs on the neighboring property. The 2.5'
greenstrip at the property line is a departure from past policy
and is not literally a variance from an ordinance requirement.
It is felt that this is a wide enough area for a fence to be
erected if it becomes necessary to provide required screening.
4. The alternative to reducing the green areas or the number of
parking stalls is to reduce either the length of the parking
stalls on the width of the driving lanes. (This is accomplished
to some extent with a row of compact car stalls on the east side
of the lot). It is staff's judgment that granting a variance
from these requirements would create more problems on the site
than the reduction of the greenstrip and would set a dangerous
precedent that could possibly be used by commercial developers
8-14-80 -1- -
Application No. 80029 continued
(Condition 4)
seeking to maximize the use of available land to the point
of overutilization.
The granting of a variance would attempt to minimize the existing and potential
deficiencies of the present use in a manner that optimizes the overall benefits
to the church and to the general public. Implicit in this attempt are a set of
priorities reflecting those benefits:
1 . Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide,
as far as possible, adequate parking for the church.
2. Maintain ordinance standards for parking and driving lanes
to ensure that the lot functions properly in accommodating
church traffic.
3. Provide screening of off-street parking areas as required
by City Ordinance.
4. Provide adequate green space on the site.
We concur with former Commissioner Engdahl that the primary ordinance objective
is to reduce the existing parking deficiency for the church and that this can
reasonably be accomplished by granting a variance from the greenstrip require-
ment of Section 35-700.
Approval of the application is therefore recommended on the following grounds:
1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well would be adversely
effected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the
finding that the priorities outlined above accurately reflect
the public interest in this particular case) .
2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is
based are unique in that,the parcel in question is to be put to
use to alleviate an existing deficiency in the parking required
for the church and will not be recognized as grounds for further
expansion.
3. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this
case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or
formerly having an interest in the parcel of land in that it was
platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to
institutional needs.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood so long as the conditions attaching to the approval
of the site plan are met.
1
8-14-80 -2-
Y
l
Section 35-600, 1 (continued) ,
(b) For other uses:.
Space adequate for the convenient and uncongested loading and
unloading of materials.
2. Location
All loading berths shall be 25 feet or more from the intersection of two
street right-of-way lines. Loading berths shall not occupy any yard
requirements bordering a street.
3. Size
The first berth required shall not be less than 12 feet in width and 50 feet
In length. Additional berths shall not be less than 12 feet in width and
25 feet in length. All loading berths shall maintain a height of 14 feet or
more,
4. Access
Each loading berth shall be located so as'to provide convenient access to
a public street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic.
5.
Accessory Uses
Any area designated as a required loading berth or access drive so as to
comply with the terms of this ordinance shall .not be used for storage of
goods or inoperable vehicles nor shall such area be included as a part of
the area necessary to meet the off-street parking area.
Section 35-700. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off-street parking
and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the require-
ments of this ordinance. There shall be no off-street parking, storage of vehicles
nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right-of-way and
this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of
C1 and CIA districts, there shall be no off-street parking nor perimeter parking lot
driveway within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right-of-way and this 35 foot
strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. Off-street parking in any
residence district may
6 •
N
1
�. Section 35-700 (continued)
include not more than one commercial vehicle of 25 feet or less in length per
*dwelling unit if used by the occupant of the premises for transportation to and
from his job. It shall be parked off the street on a space adequate for its storage
aL s set forth in this section.
Section 35-701 . LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING. All accessory
off-street parking facilities required herein shall be located as follows:
1. Spaces accessory to one and two family dwellings shall be on the same
lot as the principal use served.
2. Spaces accessory to multiple family dwellings shall be on the same lot
as the use served, within 400 feet of the main entrance to the principal
building served.
3. Spaces accessory to uses located in a business or industrial district
shall be on the same lot as the uses served unless a special use permit
authorizes supplemental accessory off-site parking not located on the
same property with the principal use. Special use permits authorizing
such parking may be issued subject to the following conditions:
(a) Special use permits may be issued only for business or industrial
uses which have been continuously operational on a specific site
for at least two years.
(b) Accessory off-site parking shall be permitted only on properties
located in districts zoned commercial (Cl , C1A, C2) and industrial
(I1 , I2), and having the same or less restrictive zoning classifi-
cation as the principal use.
(c) Accessory off-site parking shall be limited to one site per each
business or industrial use issued a special use permit.
(d) The distance from the furthest point of the accessory off-site
parking property to the site of the principal use shall not exceed
300 feet.
(e) A minimum of 20 parking spaces must be provided on the off-site
parking property.
(f) Accessory off-site parking shall be located such that pedestrian
traffic will not be required to cross the following roadways to reach
the principal use:
Section 35-240 (cont'd)
--
_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 distinctive to the individual property under con-
sideration. 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 qualifications are met:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo-
graphical 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 detrimental
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 granting of variances so
as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties
�� �i �� �� � •err
WIN mm INN
mm M11M
s - : ■: ■: mm
WIN Mm mm
.i
WIN
1MIN am M III = IM
mm ■■ MM
WIN ININ 1MM WIN
girl■ ■ ■■ ®�■ ■■ MM �� ■ ®i■
■■ i■ omm ■■ i■ ■i ■-■1i ■M ■■M ■1111 ■■
..
I■ .� �■�-■i ■i iIN mm ■■ ii iI i i -� ■ IN
M1 MIN mm mm MIN MIN WIN ME m IM
MM1 mm 4111 ■■ NMI
■■ ■■ ■� ■ ■■ ■■■■■i■■ �i�.�s■
Im c S- 7■ ■■ ■■ _■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �■ ■ ■ ■
�■ ■■ m■ ■� ■■ ■■ NO ■■ ■� ■■ ■ ■ � ■
mm mm
mm M11M
■■ ■■ ■� ■■ �� ■ ■ �� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■
ME mm 1M
mm M1
MIN mm mm;mm
WIN mm RE
im
:■ ■■ :e■ :■■ :: =■ --
M mm m
1m IN! 1�oblz;
IN mm mm
IN MM1 mm mm
IN mm mm
�■ m- �_ ■■ ■■■ ®■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■� r ® ■■
M WIN IN
IN
IN
mm MIN
mm mm
IN mm
mm Mm
1MIN MM■ ■ = ■� ■ ■■■■ ■�■ C o ■ ■m 1111 111111�f111!
AVE
MINNEAPOLIS
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 80030 •
Applicant: Merila-Hansen/Village Builders
Location: 67th and Humboldt
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant requests site and building plan approval of a 10 unit townhouse
project to be located on the west side of Humboldt, just north of 67th. The
property is bounded by Humboldt Avenue on the east, by the Bardell Apartments
on the north, by Spec. 7 on the west, and by a group of 4 fourplexes on the
south. The land is presently vacant and zoned R-5. The proposed use is
permitted in the R5 zone provided it meets the requirements applicable to the
R3 district.
The proposed townhouse units would be constructed with tuck-under garages and
the applicant requests that the optional density credit of 500 sq. ft. per tuck-
stall be accorded to this development. At two stalls per unit, the credit equals
1000 sq. ft. per unit, reducing the necessary land area from 5400 sq. ft. to
4400 sq. ft. per unit. The area of the site is 49,170 sq. ft. Thus, the density
credit would allow up to 11 .2' units on the site.
The proposed layout of the site places one two-unit building set back 50' from
Humboldt Avenue North and four more two-unit structures toward the rear of the
site sharing a 21 ' wide common driveway. The main entrance drive to the site
is located along the north side, set back 5' from the north property line, and
is 24' wide. Driveways to the individual units are proposed to be 16' wide and
21 ' deep. An 8' wide landscaped median separates the driveways serving three
two-unit buildings. The other two buildings have 4' landscaped medians between
driveways. It is recommended that the driveways to the individual units be
increased to 22' and that the central driveway serving the back four buildings
.:be widened to 22' also. It is also suggested that the individual driveways be
widened to 18' from the current 16' in keeping with recent townhouse project
approvals. In addition to the private parking areas, five additional stalls
are provided for guest parking, three near the front of the site and tWo to
the rear.
Drainage on the site flows generally east to west into the open areas between
the four buildings to the rear. B612 curb and gutter is indicated around all
common driving and parking areas. There is no curbing of the individual drive-
ways. Each unit will have its own sewer and water connections. The water line
will be 12" copper pipe looped back. to an 8" water main in Humboldt Avenue North.
The applicant has proposed 8" V.C.P. pipe for the westerly portion of the sewer
line and 6" pipe from the front building to the sanitary sewer in the street.
The Superintendent of Engineering recommends that the entire length be 6" pipe
if possible.
Proposed landscaping for the site consists i�f about 30 existing trees, (mostly
Green Ash and Elms, 5" to 16" in diameter) and a number of new smaller plantings.
About 30 common lilac bushes and three Norway Maple 13/4 to 2" diameter scheduled
for the north side of the entrance drive. Three Russian Olives (8' in height)
are indicated along the west edge of the site. Pfitzer Juniper and American
Arborvitae are scheduled around the fronts and sides of the individual units.
While the total number of trees and shrubs shown on the plan is generous, the
developer should-realize from the outset that existing trees shown on the plan
are considered part of the approval and should they be removed or die off pre-
maturely, they must be replaced with trees capable of attaining the same size.
8-14-80 -1-
•
i
•
•
Application No. 80030 con't.
Generally, 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 with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility and landscaping plans are subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of permits.
3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted
to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all common driving
areas.
8-14-80 -2- ,
iiiii��i�ii ii •�i � �� �� ���
WoR
was
son OEM
ONE ��■ �'�
■ �� 1111111111■ �� �� ■�■ ■�■ ■��►�� . . .
• ■■ WIN ME■ i� MIN ii
mm mm m MIN
mm mm mm
NO
mm ttv-st
mm mm
r ■
IN
MAINTENANCE
ANNEX
WATER TOWER
J.
MIEN
" :1 11111[ �' ��•�
111 ■
ae1�e��a m ■� - - �.
. . 1 ' -.a�-,•
• °� t
MINI
MINI
■
r
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 80031
Applicant: Merila-Hansen for Village Builders
Location: 67th and Humboldt
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant seeks approval of the preliminary plat for Rosemary
Terrace addition. The plat consists of eleven lots demarcating ten
townhouse units and one lot for common area as described under re-
port No. 80030. The property is located west of Humboldt, just
north of 67th and measures 164 ' x 299 ' (the narrower dimension
abutting Humboldt Avenue North) .
Without cataloging them separately, the proposed plat meets all
requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances with respect
to lot dimensions and setbacks. Each individual unit will have
a 10' rear yard and 5 ' side yard as private green space in addition
to the land under the dwelling unit and the private drive.
Two common driving lanes and five guest parking stalls are con-
tained in the common area, lot 11, along with the majority of the
green area. A sidewalk exists along the east edge of the site, a
few feet from the property line. No easement is indicated or pro-
posed on the plat as presented and we would recommend that this be
added, or that dedication of the land be made a part of this plat
prior to consideration by the City Council. Other changes in the
proposed plat will be necessary to conform with the changes re-
commended for the site plan.
Otherwise, the preliminary plat seems to be in order and approval
is recommended subject to at least the following conditions:
1) Firial plat approval is subject to Chapter 15
of the City Ordinance.
2) The final plat is subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
3) The homeowners association documents shall
be filed with the plat at the County and
shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Attorney.
4) The preliminary plat shall be modified to
indicate longer and wider driveways to the
individual units and a wider common drive-
way serving the westerly four buildings
as indicated in approval of application
No. 80030. -The-.
t,G ..:vf n easement or
public sidewalk along the easterly 10'
of the property.a4_,_x,9Z-t .�,�e�-�-�- - G��°�"„'.✓1.
U
8-14-80 -1-
Planning Commission Information Sheet .
V
Application Nos. 80021 and 80022
Applicant: Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson for Commercial Partners
Location: Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Brookdale Ford
Request: Site and Building Plan approval and Preliminary
Plat approval
The applicant seeks site and building plan (80022) and preliminary
plat (80021) approval of a shopping center, theatre, and restaurant
complex on the 16 acre tract of vacant C2 zoned land north of Brook-
dale Ford and south of Northwestern Bell on the east side of Shingle
Creek Parkway. This application was tabled by the Planning Commis-
sion at its July 10 , 1980 meeting. A preliminary plat application
accompanying the site plan was sent to the City Council at that
time with a recommendation to deny. The City Council considered
the proposed plat at its July 21, 1980 meeting and, after much
discussion with the applicant and with staff, abandoned the policy
of a roadway along the north edge of the site and referred the
matter back to the Planning Commission. In so doing, the Council
directed the plans be revised in such a manner as to feasibly
. make the major access to the site the access at the northwest
corner of the property, also 'to be shared with Northwestern Bell.
The Council also expressed a desire to limit the number of traffic
signals serving the development to one, located at the northwest
corner of the property.
The applicant's response to this direction has been to submit a
slightly modified site plan showing a directional sign to the north
and east of the proposed shopping center that would indicate an
exit route to the northwest corner of the site along the back side
of the shopping center. The modified plan also places a median in
the entrance drive at the northwest corner of the site for approx-
imately 200' from Shingle Creek Parkway right-of-way. Staff have
communicated to the applicant through its architect that the latest
proposed plan does not meet the direction given by the City Council,
as we perceive that direction. A consultant has been retained by
the City to suggest alternative layouts for the site and to provide
ark outside opinion on the "visibility issue. " Four alternate lay-
outs (attached) were developed by the consultant and were offered
by Staff to the architect at our latest meeting on August 1, 1980.
Korsunsky-Krank has been evaluating these alternates and on behalf
of the applicant has accepted none of them to date.
The applicants, through their representative, have- repeatedly ex-
pressed skepticism over the City Staff's concern that the proposed
,layout will make the southerly access to the site the major access
point and that signals will ultimately be installed close to County
Road 10. They have argued, on the basis of two traffic studies by
Barton-Aschman Associates and by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, that
the interface of traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway with the traffic
generated by the site will not meet the MN/DOT warrants for a traffic
signal. Therefore, a signal will not become necessary. Resting on
this assumption, the applicant considers the orientation of the
shopping center a matter on which the City should be neutral.
8-14-80 -1-
Application Nos. 80021 and 80022
Staff, however, remain equally skeptical as to the likelihood of
this scenario and of the applicant's stated need to orient the
shopping center toward County Road 10 and Brookdale as opposed to
Shingle Creek Parkway. The applicant's assumptions appear to be
based on a narrow interpretation of the evidence. For our part,
we perceive the following difficulties with the proposed plan:
1. The traffic volumes projected are based on the
particular uses proposed for the site as opposed
to the potential uses allowable under the C2
zoning.
2. Although traffic warrants are not met by the
interface of site-generated traffic and
Shingle Creek Parkway traffic, there is no
guarantee that other uses occupying the- same
buildings would not generate traffic sufficient
to meet the warrants for a traffic signal; or,
that safety considerations, when combined with
projected traffic would not bring about the
need and demand for traffic signals.
3. The City has already received a request from
Northwestern Bell to place a stop sign on
Shingle Creek Parkway at its north entrance
to allow its employees to turn left, out of
their site. If a stop sign is requested
with the current level of traffic, it would
seem certain that signals will be requested
by many major users along Shingle Creek Parkway
when traffic levels increase due to modifica-
tion to- the I94/Shingle Creek Parkway Inter-
change.
4. The most rational location for such signals
would be where the common boundary of the
subject site and Northwestern Bell meets
Shingle Creek Parkway. This location would
provide uniform spacing of signals on Shingle
Creek Parkway from County Road 10 to the
freeway. It would also allow adequate space
to provide necessary left turn lanes on
Shingle Creek Parkway for vehicles entering
and exiting the site. The proposed site plan
places the major access to the south, roughly
545' from County Road 10. This location provides
neither optimal signal spacing nor a comfortable
distance for traffic to sort itself out between
the south access and County Road 10. '
5. The proposed site plan simply does not address
the direction given by the City Council that
the major access to the site be the north
access. The applicant has insisted, rather,
that the south access should be the major
access since this will work best with the
internal arrangement of uses on his site.
8-14-80 -2-
I
Application Nos. 80021 and 80022
We would point out that the internal arrange-
ment proposed by the applicant not only relates
poorly to Shingle, Creek Parkway, but to other
property in the immediate vicinity. The pro-
posed theatre, for instance, will compete with,
rather than compliment, the existing Cinema to
the east by attracting all theatre traffic to
the southerly portions of both sites. Also,
neither Northwestern Bell nor Brookdale Ford
will have as convenient an ingress/egress 1
arrangement under the proposed plan as they
would if the whole site layout were reversed
putting the shopping center on the south. .
6. The assumption of the developer implied by
the proposed plan is not at all mindful of
the City's interest. Rather than taking the
City's concerns into account and developing
a site plan which at least minimally addresses
those concerns, the developer has insisted on
a particular site layout which he feels max-
imizes his own gain from the land. Moreover,
he has insisted that the City show how he will
benefit from any requested change and has re-
fused to make any changes without evidence of
such gain. We cannot recommend that the
Planning Commission or City Council take such ,
an approach when considering this application.
It is, after all, the City's approval which is
being sought, not the developer's. And until
the City's interest as expressed by the City
Council is adequately ' addressed in the pro-
posed plan, we cannot recommend approval of
this application.
Based on the above stated considerations, we recommend that this
and the accompanying applications be tabled until the direction of
the City Council is fully satisfied.
8-14-80 -3-
•
i
• I!
•
IIInn1�If �
CA
qw
�tNINE a �
nnn�V
��iy���� nn�►
31rnUNION
IMMI
(rsr �■� MUM
�, - i� ill ill ill
sr#
i s s, mm m
; m
..# ms,
mss, mss,
mm s, sus
,i# N IMMI IM
ii N
ii su•
mum s�i is• 3/ / iE
on
ii sl
_ sly ssa �s� Ms, IM IM
IM
'
Mrs a_ i on
♦ NOW w sin N ii W #�
I� ♦�� �� : .■= n� oils
MIM M1
�sii ss• mm
MUM
n s• �sl i/ s!i =�
slr s!i �
y v
. . ........................
ir
j m` E j 01
1 i
b
in
i .
k ; C]
r
St�l1�'C� CFA
Mir
Q Q Q RS •.�'
lk
k V
{
i
S{-IIn�Cat.,� CpFk� (
.• �a - ice► �'!►J..
t4i t
Ini
r ]v,
� P-DL4
r
,a
t
.41 O
in v
LML
» 0 O
Tk
No
ri (DMF_DD/2AL FIR 93(MU6�M[g HO-4-�Y.YrA
V
t
y
Planning Commission Information Sheet
" Application No. 80023
Applicant: Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson/Commercial Partners
Location: North of Brookdale Ford, east of Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests a special use permit to build and operate a motion picture
theater on the property located north of Brookdale Ford, west of Cinema I-IV,
south of Northwestern Bell , and east of Shingle Creek Parkway. This application
is submitted in conjunction with the plan for the development of the entire site
which is discussed in report #80022. The property in question is zoned C2 and
motion picture theaters are special uses in that district.
On July 17, 1980, staff received a letter from the applicant (attached) which
purported to address the Standards for a Special Use Permit. Comparing this
letter with the Standards for a Special Use (also attached) .we found it to be
nothing more than restatement of those standards. The applicant seemed to
presume in the letter that the special use permit is granted unless there are
clear . reasons to deny it. This is not a presumption found in the Zoning
Ordinance, which stipulates that a special use permit may only be granted "after
demonstration b evidence that all of the standards ..a-re. met." (Emphasis add—e
The presumption of the ordinance is just the opposite.
We conveyed to the applicant (United Artists) a draft information sheet (attached)
spelling out various concerns which justifiably result from applying the special
use standards to the proposed use. On August 8, 1980 we received a second letter
from the applicant which did attempt to address the concerns expressed in the
draft information sheet. While not supported by evidence, the arguments expressed
by the applicant would seem to have merit. Nevertheless, we would suggest that
additional concerns may be raised with the applicant in pursuit of valid zoning
objectives.
1. The age of most movie-goers is 15-30 years. This is an age group
whose population has just peaked as a result of baby boom era
children having reached this age range. The population of this
age group will drop dramatically in coming years as has been '
experienced by school districts with declining enrollments.
2. As this age group shrinks, so may the market theaters cater to.
The proposed theater will add eight screens to the five existing
in this immediate area. Thus, a smaller market will have to be
split by 13 screens instead of five.
3. It seems logical to conclude from these projections that even
-if the new theater draws from a slightly larger area
(which has not been established), the "entertainment hub"
envisioned by the applicant may not be a very healthy one.
Demand for theater space may decline leading to lower rental
rates chargeable to operators and as a result lower property
values and less maintenance of the theaters.
These questions are valid concerns of the Planning Commission in its effort apply
the Zoning Ordinance effectively to potential special use developments. It is
certainly true that restriction of business competition is not a valid zoning
objective. However, the prevention of blight and the encouragement of development
in the community which meets the public's needs are valid zoning objectives as
indicated by the standards. Courts have generally ruled that restriction of
business competition is permissable if, and only if, it is a by=product of a
8=14-80 -1-
Application No.. 80023 continued
valid zoning action and is not the primary aim itself. We would recommend that
the Planning Commission pursue reasonable questions and concerns regarding the
proposed use before making its recommendation to the City Council .
As this application is dependent on the action relating to Application No. 80022,
it is recommended that this application also be tabled until the direction given
by the City Council is satisfied.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
8-14-80 -2-
IImRSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCI-11TECTS. INC. XCHITECTS PLANNERS INTERIOR DESIGN
July 17, 1980
fir. Ron Warren
City Planner
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway '
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: ' Brookdale Square ,
Comm. No. 79-145
Dear Mr. Warren:
• x
In connection with our application for Site and Building Plan Approval for
the multiplex theater located in the Brookdale Square development, this is
to assure you that all of the following standards for Special Use Permit have
been met:
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote
and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
b. The multiplex theater will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted,
nor substnatially diminish and impair property values within the neighbor-
hood.
C. The multiplex theater 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.
i. e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable
regulations of the C-1 zoning district in which it is located.
l ,
Mr. Ron Warren
July 17, 1980 .
Page Two .
Comm. No. .79-145
• We will be glad to furnish you with additional information as you may require.
Sincerely,
UNITED ARTIST THEATER CIRCUIT, INC.
KORSUNSKY WNK ER CKSON ARCHITECTS, INC.
Daryl P. Fortier
Architect
DPF/dkj
cc: Bill Cress
Morris Goldschlager
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 80023
--Applicant: Krosunsky, Krank, -Erickson on behalf of United Artists
Location: Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to construct an eight-screen,
2045 seat movie theater at the southeast corner of the Charlson property, immedi-
-ately west of Cinema I, II, III, IV. Aspects of the site and building plan for
the theater were reviewed in the staff report for Application No. 80022. We have
requested a letter from the applicant addressing the Standards for a Special Use
Permit. Both the letter and the ordinance standards are attached for your review.
As can readily be seen, the letter of the applicant in no substantive way addresses
the Standards for a Special Use Permit. Simply because there are two other
theaters in the area does not ensure that this theater should be approved. We
remain skeptical on the following points:
Standard (a). Will the public welfare be enhanced by eight more movie
screens in an area that already has five? What kind of movies will
be shown? Will there be movies for all groups of Brooklyn Center
residents?
Standard M. Will the eight screen theater have the effect of
Neva uing the Cinema I, II, III, IV property or will it. expand and
.enhance an existing market of movie-goers to this area? Could there
be any negative effect on the office properties in the vicinity
-(Northwestern Bell , A.F.I.A., and State Farm)?
Standard (c). We would agree that the theater should not impede
t e normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the C2 district.
Standard (d)_ We do not believe the proposed site plan minimizes
traffic congestion in the public streets. It is staff's opinion
that a public street along the north side-of-the Charlson property
would best serve to channel traffic in an orderly manner to and
from the theater.
Standard (e). Conformance to applicable regulations would be an
on-going condition of the special use permit should this appli-
cation be approved.
In light of the lack of information supplied by the applicant regarding the
Standards for a Special Use Permit, staff cannot recommend approval of this appli-
cation at this time. If the Commission is satisfied after questioning the appli-
cant that the permit should be issued, we will be prepared to suggest conditions
at Thursday's meeting. It is also recommended that this application not be
,approved until the issue of access to the site has been resolved.
A .public hearing has been scheduled and notices to owners of surrounding property
have been sent. `
7-24-80
r
Z. 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 public welfare and will not be
detrimental to or endanger the pub_ lic 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 ii'npair 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 appli-
cable regulations of the district in which it is located. -
3. Conditions and Restrictions
. The'Plannin
g 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 pro-
tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements
specified in this ordinance. 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'connection 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.
S,. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits - - .•
When a special use permit has been issued pursuant.to the provisions 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 subject property within one year of the
date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the
1 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
tts nn.
1
a
Y
KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECTS /PLANNERS /INTERIOR DESIGN
August 8, 1980
Mr. Ron Warren
City Planner
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Brookdale Square
Comm. No. 79-145
Dear Mr. Warren:
In response to the requirements for the Special. Use Permit for the United
Artist Theater Circuit, we offer the following:
A. The establishment of the special use will promote the general welfare
and will not be detrimental to public health, safety, morals or comfort.
Yes, we feel our theater will enhance the general welfare and recreational
facilities of the community by concentrating movies within general areas
and create an entertainment hub. At the same time, our facility will
offer the movie goer an expanded selection of movies and will broaden
the existing market. We show general audience movies which are conducive
to viewing by the general public. These movies will be for all groups
within the Brooklyn Center area.
B. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
properties, nor diminish property values within the neighborhood.
The above mentioned creation of an entertainment hub and the broadening
of the movie market will have a positive affect on nearby theater properties.
The location of our theater is an architecturally pleasing and high
quality shopping center in this C-2 district should also enhance the other
adjacent properties.
C. The establishment of the special use will not impede normal property develop-
ment.
The site selection for our theaters includes. concern over the orderly
development of the surrounding property and that our theater will function
properly within that district., As this area will be fully developed with
these proposed projects, we do not believe we would impede any additional
development.
555 SHELARD TOWER 600 SOUTH COUNTY ROAD 18 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 (612)546-5381
h
M
•
Mr. Ron Warren
August 8, 1980
Page Two
Comm. No. 79-145
D. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress, egress and parking
to minimize traffic congestion in public streets.
We believe the proposed site is well located in Brooklyn Center, and that
the public streets will provide excellent traffic access through the en-
trances, exits and median cuts as indicated on the proposed site plan.
It is further our opinion that once traffic is on our site, it will pro-
ceed in an orderly manner to and from the theater.
E. The special use shall conform to the applicable regulations of the district.
As noted by your staff, conformance to the current applicable regulations
will indeed be an ongoing condition of the Special Use Permit.
We sincerely hope this information will be of use in considering our Special
Use Permit application. We will be glad to furnish• additional information as
required on any specific issue.
Sincerely,
SUNSKY KRANK E CKSON ARCHITECTS, INC.
Daryl P. Fortier
On Behalf of United Artist Theater Circuit
Dictated by Telephone
DPF/dkj
cc: Alan Gustafson
Bill Cress
Morris Goldschlager
a-
I