HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 04-12 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 12, 1979
t
1 . Call to Order: 8:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: March 29, 1979
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 on these
matters.
5. Arthur Kvamme 79018
Rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential) to R3
(Townhouse/Garden Apartments) of an approximate 32
acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenues at.
approximately Aldrich Avenue North.
6. Brauer and Associates 79019
Preliminary Plat approval for an approximate 30 acre
1 LC IULQ LCU Q L LIIC IIIVi LI ICUO L yuuu� u�� of vv u��
lU and Shingle ureeK FarKway.
7. 0th r Business
u•r o6.C.
Adjourn= nt
n .
�=L'Y�—�-fin...`, ✓�C�-C�ci-C.J p�^v�C, . �,��d - ���/ J
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79018
Applicant: Arthur Kvamme
Location: 5500 Block between Camden and Bryant Avenues North
Request: Rezoning
The applicant is seeking rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential ) to R3
(Townhouse/Garden Apartments) of an approximate 3.5 acre tract located within
the 5500 Block between Camden Avenue North and Bryant Avenue North. The property
is bounded on the north by 56th Avenue; on the south by 55th Avenue; on the east
by single family residential homes facing Camden Avenue; and on the west by
single family residential homes facing Bryant Avenue. The land in question in-
cludes what is presently the Madsen's Floral property and the property owned by
Mrs. Olga Madsen at 5501 Aldrich Avenue North. In addition, the rezoning proposal
includes the south 168 feet of 803 and 809-56th Avenue North, the north 168 feet
of 806 - 55th Avenue North and the north 158 feet of 800 - 55th Avenue North.
We have received UW confirmation from the owners of the property in question
that they are in favor of the rezoning proposal . We have also received a
letter (attached) from the applicant indicating his plans to develop a townhouse
condominium complex consisting of seven quadra homes totaling 28 units. The
applicant has also indicated the desire to develop the complex as a owner-occupied
development which he feels would be more in keeping with the single family homes
in the area. The applicant contends that the rezoning to R3 is feasibile and
acceptable for the following reasons:
1 . The area is in need of a condominium complex for the many older
residents who now inhabit the area and no longer desire to
individually maintain their building and yard exteriors.
2. All public utilities to service the area are available and
no further expansion of public streets or utilities is
necessary for the project.
3. The joint effort and combining of the properties in the rezoning
proposal eliminates potentially landlocked property and makes
practical use of the land.
4. Traffic to the area will be less than that of employees and
customers currently associated with Madsen Floral Company.
5. The development of the property as R3 will result in a larger
tax base for the City than that of the existing structures.
6. The City will rid itself of a "nonconforming use" (Madsen
Floral ) which currently exists on a great portion of the site.
A portion of the property in question was made eligible for apartment development
in 1960 by a special use permit. No .plans were ever approved for apartments and
in 1968, with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the land reverted to the
R1 classification. In 1970, the applicant proposed a rezoning to R4, but this
proposal was denied by the City Council following Planning Commission review and
a public hearing. The Council determined, at that time, that the proposal was
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and would constitute spot zoning
if approved.
4-12-79 -1-
Application No. 79018
The Comprehensive Plan, in its recommendations for the southeast neighborhood
states: "permit up to 12 story apartment buildings at no more than 12 units per
acre within the older portion of the neighborhood, but only at. the intersections
of collector or arterial streets . . . by restricting development to specific
corners, the neighborhood 's single family character will be preserved and some
of the demand for rental family living within neighborhoods will be met. Regard-
ing townhouse development, the ComprehenInterstated94ifortfuturerdevelopment of
the southeast corner of Highway 100 and
this type. _.
To develop the land in .question under its existing R1 zoning would be possible
by dedication of land for a cul-de-sac 50 feet wide with a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Otherwise, a variance from
Chapter 35 would be required to permit lots of less than 110 feet in depth if r
the property were developed with an extension of Aldrich Avenue North as a public
street between 56th and 55th Avenues. It is possible that either type of variance i
might be permitted since a literal reading of the ordinance requirement would
deny the owners the reasonable use of their land. The applicant in his letter,
indicates that the development of this property as Rl with a public street would
be economically unfeasible since the costs to remove the greenhouses and residents,
compensation for,4he loss of property and business location, and the cost of
street utilities $cquired by the City would result in the end in a sizeable net
loss to the owners of the property.
The guidelines for evaluating rezoning proposals contained in Section 35-208 of
the City Ordinances are attached for review by the Commission. Careful review
of the nn!icv and review guidelines should be undertaken by the Commission in
YCViEwiliy ��i7S +C�� i�,y Yrn n`al - Tt iS fplt. that the Commission should c:ar-eruliy
consider the applicant's contention that there is a need in this area for addi-
tional R3 zoned property and also, the viability of developing the land under
its existing R1 zoning. The existing zoning should be proven to be a clearly
inferior alternative to the proposed R3 zoning from a public standpoint rather
than only from an economic consideration.
The Commission traditionally refers rezoning applications to the appropriate
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. It is recommended that the
Commission, after conducting a public hearing and discussing the request, table
the application and refer it to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for
further review and comment.
The applicant has also indicated a desire for the Commission to review and comment
on the possibility of a later variance request from buffer requirements if the
rezoning proposal were approved. I will be prepared to review the nature of this
request at Thursday evening's meeting and comment relative to it.
A'public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
��.e..►,� Gam, U�-Q.� -�/.1 a�.S�
4-12-79 -2-
15 1979
January ,
Mr. Ronald Warren
Administrative Assistant
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Warren,
This letter is to advise that six adjacent property owners have reached
tenative agreement on a joint effort to request rezoning of all or part of their
property to R-3. The owners are Madsen Floral Co, 5501 Aldrich Ave No. ,
Mrs. Olga Madsen, 5501 Aldrich Ave. No. , Edwin Trembley 803-56th Ave. No.,
Jim Shetler 809-56th Ave. No. , Mrs. Myra Swennes, 800-55th Ave. No. , and
Mrs. Darlene Walter 806-55th Ave. No. The property being considered for re-
zoning is all owned by Madsen Floral described as the West 3i of lot 40 and the
West �j of lot 47 Garcelon's addition except the South 110 feet of lot 47;
all of the property of Olga Madsen being the South 110 feet 'of lot 47 described
above; parts of the other four properties mentioned above described as the
South 170 feet of the properties of Trembley and Shetler, and the North 170
feet of the properties of Swennes and Walter. A boundrey and topographical
�.. survey of the above properties is attached.
Madsen Floral have conducted a retail and wholesale floral business at
their present location since 1918. Because of increasing energy costs;, they
are presently considering to eliminate the growing and the wholesale portion
of the business and will continue and expand the retail operation. Plans are
to continue the retail operation at the present location unless the above
mentioned properties are re-zoned. If that occures the retail business will
be moved to another location. The complete development of the property if
re-zoned will result in the removal of all the greenhouses and retail buildings
and the residence of Mrs. Olga Mad.sen.
Madsen Floral has strongly considered selling their portion of their
property facing 56th Ave, (lot 40) in the form of two residential lots result-
ing in lots approximately 300 feet deep similiar to the lots of the four
adjacent owners mentioned above. This not only results in two more (six total
and adjacent) lots over twice the area required for a single family lot, but
also results in not only "land-locking" the extra area in these six lots, but
also the area in all of lot 47.owned by Madsen Flora.l, to any public street.
Mention has been made by some of the City staff members that a street
(Aldrich Ave) could be constructed over the westerly side of the Madsen pro -
perties. This alternative is completely unfeasible since the cost to remove
the greenhouses and residence, compensation for loss of property and business
location , and cost of street and utilities required by the ci tv is such that the
and result is a sizeable net loss. In addition none of the other adjacent
property owners (Swennes and Trombley) have expressed a�Zesire-Eorv-the'• atreat.,
page 2
This is understandable since the street would run only a few feet from the side
of their residence and far from the side' lot set back- required by: the city.
The Madsen properties were at one time re-zoned to R-5 (2�5 story) with a
special use provision. A few years later Madsen"s found out the permit was no
longer valid. Madsen's never were given a written notice that the re-zoning
would or had expired. When this fact was discussed with the city staff to re-
apply for the re-zoning again to R-59 they recommended that the request be for R-4.
(1 story). This went through the re-zoning process but was surprisingly denied-
.why we have never understood. _.
Plans are to deve.lope a town-house condominium complex consisting of quads
rather than a 1•inear arrangement although either can be arranged on the property
being considered. Since the results will be individually owned single family
units, the quads are more in keeping with the,Andividual homes in-the.-area:
Reasons that make the R-3 feasible and acceptable to all concerened parties
are as fol lows s
1. The area is in need of a condominium complex to the many older residents
who now inhabit the area and no longer individually desire to maintain
their building and yard exteriors.
2. All public utilities are not only available but no further expansion of
public streets or utilities is necessary for the project.
3. The joint effort and combining of properties eliminates the "land-docked"
grope,-,y and ,makes rnrantical use of the lanai.
4. Traffic to the area will be less then that of employees and customers of
Madsen Floral Co. '
5. The value of the development will be several times that of the existing
structures providing a much larger tax base to the city.
6. The City will rid itself, at that location, of one of its oldel3t businesses
they have unfairly classisfied. as- "non-conforming" in spite of the fact
Madsen Floral located long before the City began development.
It is the desire of the above mentioned property owners to now proceed with
the re-zoning process as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Sincerely,
es�
Arthur E. Kvamme
Madsen Floral Co. Inc.
4
►�
/ �W WNW NMI
EM
BROOKLYN CENTER
HIGH SCHOOL
�Ti).__ __ !! __
�- __ • ==rmmm;_
N _
a
• � -__ __.._ �_ __ . _„fir �
IN
mm mm
�■� �■ s
MIN WIN
_IMM11 ■_■■.■
no
oil
BMW
N __ _ ■� �- __ __ __ ��
■ _ �_ _ � ! :.!! � �� :_ _� � � =ice
N 77
IN
IN
IN
till
till
1.M-1 �11.
Noo I F"'
i
V4
to
_ AV
• - t ,, ... i • (572::, ;r"
F h9oc) o A -- -1 -
• r �R,^o! el )
'•' 200 I "S9:c ) i •. `- t." ` f
Im
_ l
• ! I I 10 F- jStS.ar.
E :1 (5600).
in _
tin
F
F {
I_`,t:
(g 71
'flail �. at N
JZ l Z` �r..t••/ �t �: I j' Sc�1.�+,3.J _ - �.. �...1�... ._.
3 B, � lol t--- ----,
l'oa 65
/ / // �3ras5� t 'c. ,�(/1300 2 7dl�r 7•:w'r�7
IT
- eS'O), 1 0 / 1 " ; i
x i Ilk
19
2 ,goo)
(320-)
33ro (206. < < J
;�:9EC ,ir f f '✓ / A 3.50) (2060) --
! ' %/ 3 (g4/O) �3G1O1 �Z►GO) \ ___:fir
(�
171 / (3415) 'I (3020)— .`'roc) b" ; 470
,..__ 33520) ' ._23• , `-
40° / i,'pa
481$) ►/ / / ✓/ i (3625)x` _. (2C-�b0) �:
'(4615
t � / ,bad / /��{ :PO- ) _ _ _. � ... t 1a-°r - _•iT
�. ..'
10
(3 7 25) .
w I 1 / / / (3765) 1 (j660)
U.I 91o)
tt7i
Section 3 5-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELIIJ ES.
1. Purpose.
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 Resoiution'No. 77-167, -the City Council ilas 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 "spo zoning, " defined as a zor_ing.decision which discrir^irates iz
fa-,;or of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Corrrpreher.sive 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.
C 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 distric� 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
hroad public purpose evident?
(fl
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 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?
1) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an
owner or owners of an individual p-�rce1?
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79019
Applicant: Brauer and Associates
Location: Northeast Quadrant of County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for an approximate 30 acre
site located at the northeast quadrant of "County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway.
The property is bounded on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by
County Road 10, and on the east by the parking lot of Brookdale East Cinema I,
II, III, IV. The theater parking also abuts some of the site on the north with
the balance of the northern boundary being abutted by Northwestern Bell Telephone
Company. ,
The. parcel is proposed to be subdivided into three blocks with Block l being 16.22
acres, Block 2, 8.8 acres and Block 3, 4.22 acres. Block 1 will contain four lots
ranging in size from 2.5 acres to 4.9 acres and a .49 acre Outlot. Block l is
presently undeveloped and zoned C2. The subdivision is proposed for future de-
.velopment of this area and the projected uses are unknown at this time. Block 2
is currently occupied by Brookdale Ford and the boundaries have changed somewhat
as a result of acquisition of former NSP property by Brookdale Ford. Block 3,
lying westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway and easterly of Shingle Creek, is City
open space.
Access to the lots in Block 1 will be accomplished by utilizing Shingle Creek
Parkway, `County Road 10 and by constructing a roadway in the center of the site
which would terminate in a cul-de-sac at Lots 2 and 3. The proposal also requires
a median cut along Shingle Creek Parkway where the cul-de-sac roadway would be
�. located_ Proposed curb cuts are requested for right turn in and out for Lots 1
f/ cc . nn irk Na,, . The ancnc c nr..J1C tS for t�//n curb ..
cuts should be close to the common property line with Northwestern Bell and
Brookdale Ford so that common use can be made of these access points.
Presently along the east side of the plat, there is a 40. ft. roadway easement for
Penn Avenue North. It has been requested that this half of Penn Avenue North be
vacated and returned to the Charlson and Brookdale Ford properties. The other
half of the Penn Avenue easement has been previously vacated and returned to the
Cinema I, II, III, IV property. This roadway had serviced a nonconforming single
family residential home situated irt4e northeast corner of the site. he home
was demolished in Jpne of 1978. ,co4a Qe ,� J
- c-
The City Engineer will be prepare ,Thursday evening to comment further regarding
the proposed preliminary plat.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Approval of the application should be subject to at least the following conditions:
1 . The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
4-12-79 A*
J, C/le
-Ai
,.■ ��
.■. :
oil �!�I �■■�.
PEN SPAC&
Mum
FREEWAY BOULEVAR
0 MEN
MAIN
i UNION 06
Naomi
pop
'■' ��
�■i ii ii p �, • �.����
Ems. •� N -�' ���•� � 1Z�,. _
r��- � I■INIf/��I�n��I ��
U .0 •� �'i
■� . .: �� � a ii �� ii �� iii �
• ii ii ii �i ii �i�!
�, ii ii i=■ � �,�
�[�7.� ��■ ie ii ii ii ii iii / .j�
r _= iii rim
■e■■ ii ii / '
•
Elm
/►'�► � i aZ a � i i i��
NIA ���.� - .� ■: ': � ='�:�•p� e- -�-
��e�au111�
�,. . dun ....-!� Z. _� ■