HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-29 PCP Please,dote early starting time.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
STUDY SESSION
MARCH 29, 1979
1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: March 15, 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. Steve Nelson 79009
Preliminary Plat approval to combine lots commonly
known as the Lynbrook Bowl , Spanjers and Mendenalls
Outlots into Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 , Lynbrook Bowl
Addition. (Tabled on 3/15/79)
6. Steve Nelson 79010
Variance from Chapter 15 (Subdivision Ordinance)
regarding street width (Tabled on 3/15/79) .
7. Steve Nelson 79011
Site and Building plan approval for remodeling and
rnmhininn +ha 1 vnhronk RpWI and the CnaniarS hiiildino
L_ I'AI 1 ice,..._.._1 .... I.1..•l
a 11 all aPV1 vn 11110 LC U7v JCU V i�JI.UUI uII�., .U%nvu
lounge and bowling establishment. (Tabled on 3/14/79)
8. Steve Nelson 79012
Variance from Section 35-400 (Setback Requirements)
on new construction to conform with existing setbacks
on North Lilac Drive and Camden Avenues North (Tabled
on 3/15/79) .
9. Steve Nelson 79013
Special Use Permit to allow live entertainment in the
restaurant and cocktail lounges in the remodeled
establishment. (Tabled on 3/15/79)
10. Robert L. Johnson 79014
Rezoning from R-3 (Townhouse/Garden Apartments) to
C-1 (Service/Office) and C-2 (Commercial ) of the
property located on the west side of Brooklyn
Boulevard in the 7200 block.
11 . Robert L. Johnson 79015
Preliminary Plat approval to combine part of Outlot F
of the Ponds Addition and part of Lot 19, Auditors
Subdivision No. 57 into Lots 1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 ,
R. L. Johnson's 1st Addition.
12. Consultant's Report Regarding Brooklyn Blvd.
13. Other Business
14. Adjournment
Planning Commission Information Sheet '
Application Nos. 79009 and 79010
Applicant: Steve Nelson +
Location: Northwest Quadrant of U.S. 169 and Interstate 694
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval (79009) and �a Variance from Chapter 15
(79010).
The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval to combine the Lynbrook
Bowl parcel , the Spanjers parcel and the Mendenhalls Outlots into two Lots to be
known as Lot 1a� 2; Block 1 , Lynbrook Bowl Addition. The area under consider-
ation is bounh by Camden Avenue, on the south and east by North Lilac Drive,
and on the north Aby 65th Avenue North. It includes all of the property in that
area with the exception of an approximate 148' x 286' parcel on the corner of
65th Avenue and North Lilac Drive which is owned by the City of Brooklyn Center.
The Commission's attention is directed to the March 15, 1979 Planning Commission
Information Sheet and Commission minutes relating to these applications for
further background and information. The items were tabled on March 15, to work
out some inconsistencies between the preliminary plat and the applicant's site
plan; to include the City's approximate 148' x 286' parcel on the corner of 65th
and North Lilac Drive; and to provide an additional 5 feet of roadway right-of-way
in the vicinity of the existing buildings.
We have met with the applicant regarding the inclusion of the City-owned parcel
in the plat. The estimated cost to include the parcel seems excessive and the
City is not in a position at this time to participate in the additional replatt-
ing, and it is not felt that the applicant should be required to bear the entire
replatting costs at this time. Therefore, it is not recommended that the City-
owned parcel be included with the proposed plat.
The applicant has submitted the revisea preliminary plat including the other
requested revisions. The plat seems to be in order and the Engineering Department
will be prepared to respond to Commission questions.
Application No. 79010 is a Variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance re-
garding� roadway dedication. A 50' roadway dedication is required all along North
Lilac Drive to provide the necessary right-of-way for a marginal access roadway.
Because of the location of the existing Lynbrook Bowl and Spanjers building which
are currently about 16 feet from the existing roadway, the applicant is requesting
a variance so that only a 35 ft. roadway right-of-way be provided in this area.
The required 50 ft. dedication would be provided in the area where it is feasible.
The applicant has indicated that both the Lynbrook Bowl and Spanjers buildings,
when constructed, were in conformance with all codes, restrictions and regulations
of the City of Brooklyn Center. They note that subsequent to that time, the
physical surroundings have been changed to conform to State acquisition of land
and installation of a major highway and interchange. They feel that to conform
with conditions beyond their control would be an extreme hardship and deprive
them of the reasonable use of their land.
The Commission, by consensus on March 15, indicated the variance request was in
order. The following wording is offered for recommending approval of Planning
Commission Application No. 79010:
3-29-79 -1-
l ` Applications Nos. 79009 and 79010
The Planning Commission has taken into account, the nature of the
proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity,
the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed Subdivision
and the probable effect of the proposed Subdivision upon traffic
conditions in the vicinity and finds that:
1 . There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that the strict application of the provisions
of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reason-
able use of his land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial right of the petitioner.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
,public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which said property is situated.
Approval of the preliminary plat (Application No. 79009) would be subject to the
following conditions:
1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances. A121 ,x .
3-29-79 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Nos. 79009 and 79010
Applicant: Steve Nelson
Location: Northwest quadrant of U. S. 169 and Interstate 694
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval (79009) and a Variance from Chapter 15
(79010)
The .applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to combine the Lynbrook
Bowl parcel , the Spanjers parcel and the Medenhalls outlots into two lots to be
known as Lots 1 and. 2, Block 1 , Lynbrook Bowl Addition. The area under consider-
ation is bounded on the west by Camden Avenue, on the south and east by North
Lilac Drive, and on the north by 65th Avenue North. It includes all of the
property in that area with the exception of an approximate 148' x 236' parcel on
the corner of 65th and North Lilac Drive which is owned by the City of Brooklyn
Center.
The City is requiring a 50 ft. roadway dedication along North Lilac Drive to pro-
vide the necessary right-of-way for a marginal access roadway required in the
ordinance. North Lilac Drive is presently a 30 ft. roadway and the required 50
ft. roadway right-of-way dedication all along North Lilac Drive cannot be acquired
because of the location of the present buildings which are approximately 16 ft.
from the present roadway.
The applicant has submitted a request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
requirements so that only a 30 ft. roadway right-of-way, rather than a 50 ft.
roadway right-of-way be allowed by the existing buildings. The required 50 ft.
dedication would be provided in areas where it is feasible.
The applicant has indicated that both the Lynbrook Bowl and the Spanjers buiidirlys,
when constructed, were in conformance with all codes, restrictions and regulations
of the City of Brooklyn Center. They note that subsequent to that time the physical
surroundings have been changed to conform to State acquisition of land and' install-
ation of a major highway and interchange. They feel that to conform with conditions
beyond their control would be an extreme hardship and deprive them_ of the reasonable
use of their land.
Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the City Council to authorize
variances from the subdivision regulations when an undue hardship may result from
strict compliance. In granting any variance, the Council shall prescribe only
conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In
making its findings, the Council is required to take into account the nature of
the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number
of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect
of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a
variance, the Council must find:
1 . That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that the strict application of the provisions of
the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of his land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial right of the petitioner.
3-15-79 -1-
t
t Application No. 79009 and No. 79010, continued
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which said property is situated.
We will be prepared to review this matter in more detail Thursday evening. A public
hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent regarding both the platting
and the variance.
Approval of the preliminary plat would be subject to the following conditions:
1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City—
Ord i na nces.
.�+ -- 9L
Re ardin the
g g variance, the Commission must make its recommendation based on the
variance criteria and should, in its recommendation, make a finding that the
variance meets each specific criteria.
I
1.
3-15-79 -2-
■ ■■ ■■ mail ■� ■
HOOL
4�
i" ■■ ■■
®■■ z:■ �w
VA
■■ ■■ ■ '
mm
■ ■■ ..■. ■■. i■■m iii ■■ �
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Nos. 79011 , 79012, and 79013
Applicant: Steve Nelson
Location: Northwest Quadrant of U.S. 169 and Interstate 694
Request: Site and Building Approval (79011 ) , Variance (79012) and Special Use
Permit for Live Entertainment (79013)
The applicant is proposing to remodel and combine the existing Lynbrook Bowl and
the vacant Spanjers to an approximate 690 seat restaurant, cocktail lounge and
bowling establishment by adding a common entry area between the two buildings
which would include space for an office, storage, a nursery, restrooms and rooms
for dining and cocktails. The Commission's attention is directed to the March
15, 1979 Planning Commission information sheet and Commission mi4tes relating
to Application Nos. 79011 , 79012, and 79013 for further background and inform-
ation. These applications were tabled on March 15, 1979 so that the site plan
would accurately reflect the property lines indicated on the proposed plat; to
add berming along North Lilac Drive and Camden Avenue; and to develop recommended
language dealing with the variance request. The applicant has submitted the
necessary revisions and they seem to be in order.
Under Application No. 79012, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow con-
struction to enlarge and combine buildings that do not comply with existing set-
back regulations. He also seeks a variance from the 35 ft. setback requirements
along North Lilac Drive and the 25 ft. side corner yard setback along Camden
Avneue North. Presently the buildings along North Lilac Drive are approximately
16 ft. from the current street right-of-way and would be 11 ft. with the additional
street dedication being provided with the proposed plat. The Spanjers building
is approximately 20 feet from the Camden Avenue right-of-way and a variance is
also ue i iig requested n Li"�i s area. The proposed building add i L ion Lira t would
link the two buildings would be built at the same setback as the existing
buildings and would not aggrevate an existing condition. In the Spanjers building,
along Camden Avenue, the applicant proposes to square off the building with an
addition that would continue, but not aggrevate the existing 20 ft. setback.
When the buildings were built, Spanjers in 1955 and Lynbrook in 1956, they did
comply with existing ordinance standards. Since that time, State Highway land
acquisition and the installation of a major highway and interchange have changed
the physical surroundings and conditions such that the buildings in question do
not meet setback requirements. The applicant notes in an accompanying letter
that an undue hardship would result if they were required to conform with the
existing regulations which would mean that the front portion of the Lynbrook
Bowl and the front and side portions of the Spanjers building would have to be
removed to comply with the regulations. They also contend that the situation is
unique and distinctive because it was caused by the taking of property for a
public purpose. The applicant also points out that the variance, if granted,
would not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other land, primarily
because they would be maintaining existing setbacks and not aggrevating an already
existing situation on the property.
In Application No. 79013, the applicant is requesting a special use permit for
...live entertainment in the lounge and entertainment space next to the full service
restaurant. The entertainment would involve show groups with dancing available.
A 'special use permit may be granted after demonstration that the Standards for
Special Use Permits contained in Section 35-320, 2, have been met.
3-29-79 -1-
Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013
The Commission, at its March 15, 1979 meeting, had indicated that they felt such
a special use permit was in order.
The following points are offered for recommending. approval of_the variance con-
tained in Application No. 79012:
1 . The variance request is consistent with the Standards for
Variances contained in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly
with respect to uniqueness, hardship and the fact that it
would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
2. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the
Northeast Neighborhood.
3. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent
with uses acknowledged in the C-2 zoning district.
4. Granting of the variance is subject to the following conditions:
a) There shall be no on-street parking permitted at any time
on either side of North Lilac Drive in the area where
only a 35 ft. right-of-way is being provided.
b) Only emergency exits will be permitted along the side of
the building that is adjacent to North Lilac Drive. No
entrances, sidewalk or other amenities which encourage
pedesLr idfl dGCCSJ Lu 'Liie building 1 i, tiii s area will be
permitted.
Approval of the site and building plans, under Application No. 79011 , should be
subject to at least the following conditions:
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by 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. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to an
approved central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of
the City Ordinances.
5. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
6. All landscaped areas are to be treated with sod and shall be
equipped with an underground irrigation system to facilitate site
maintainance.
3-29-79 -2-
1 Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013
7. Plan approval acknowleges a lower level in the building
entrance and connecting link which is to be used for storage
purposes only. Any other proposed use will be subject to
further review by the City.
The Commission, in reco endingoval of the special use ermit, under Appli-
cation Poo. 79013 should indicate that the special use is consistent with the
Standards for Special Use Permits and is subject to the following conditions:
1 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator .
of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations involving live entertainment and violation thereof
shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The hours of operation for live entertainment shall coincide with
on-sale liquor license regulations.
Vz-
601f,�P���
3-29-79 -3-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013
Applicant: Steve Nelson
Location: Northwest Quadrant of U.S. 169 and Interstate 694
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval (79011 ), Variance, (79012) and
Special Use Permit for Live Entertainment (79013)
The applicant is proposing to remodel and combine the existing Lynbrook Bowl and
the vacant Spanjers building to an approximate 690 seat, restaurant, cocktail
lounge and bowling -establishment. Based on the ordinance required parking formulas
(one stall for every two seats; one stall for every two employees at the maximum
shift; and five stalls per bowling lane), 521 parking spaces are required. The
applicant has submitted a site plan showing a parking layout that would exceed
the required amount.
The applicant proposes to provide a landscape treatment which would include sodding
around the site with an underground irrigation system. Various trees and plantings
as well as berming around the parking lot are also proposed. Access to the site
would be via three curb cuts along Camden Avenue and two along North Lilac Drive.
The plans show the applicant's desire to combine the Spanjers and Lynbrook
buildings by adding a common entry area which would include space for an office,
storage space, a nursery, restrooms and rooms for dining and cocktails. The
addition would include a lower level that the applicant indicates will be used
for storage purposes only. This area has not been calculated as space to be used
for other than storage and the applicant is aware of this.
Presently the existing buildings do not meet the 35 ft. front yard setback require-
ments contained in the Zoning Ordinance. When the buildings were built (Spanjers
iii 1955 and Lynbrook in 1956) thev did comply with Pxictinn nrr{inanrn standards
Since that time, as the applicant indicates in an accompanying letter (attached),
State Highway land acquisition and the installation of a major highway and inter-
change have changed the physical surroundings and conditions such that the buildings
in question do not meet setback requirements.
The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction to enlarge and combine
buildings that do not comply with existing setback regulations. They also seek
a variance from the 35 ft. setback requirement along North Lilac Drive and the
25 ft. side corner yard setback along Camden Avenue North. Presently the buildings
along North Lilac Drive are approximately 16 ft. from the street right-of-way,
while the Spanjers building is approximately 20 ft. from the Camden Avenue right-
of way. The proposed building addition that would link the two buildings would
be built at the same setback as the existing buildings and would not aggrevate
an existing condition. In the Spanjers building, along Camden Avenue, they propose
to square-off the building with an addition that would continue, but not aggrevate,
the existing 20 ft. setback:
The applicant notes that an undue hardship would result if they were required to
conform with the existing regulations which would mean that the front portion of
the Lynbrook Bowl and the front and side portions of the Spanjers building have
to be removed to comply with the regulations. They also contend that the situation
is unique and distinctive because it was caused by the taking of property for a
Public purpose. The applicant also points out that the variance, if granted,
would not be detrimental ' to the public or injurious to other land primarily because
they would be maintaining existing setbacks and not aggrevating an already existing
situation on the property.
3-15-79` -1-
' Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013, continued
A copy of the Standards for Variance (Section 35-208, 2) is attached for the
Commission's review. In instances where the strict enforcement of the literal
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardships because of circum-
stances unique and distinctive to an individual property under consideration, the
City Council shall have the power to grant variances in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance, considered in con-
junction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property
must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property
owner or his predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification
to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demon-
stration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met:
a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land
involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of the regulations were to be carried out.
b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought, and are not common, generally to other
property within the same zoning classification.
c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this
ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently
or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
pUbi is welfa'r'e ur mjuriuus i.0 other ian' oi' iiiipi'ui/ZiiiZnL. iii
the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
The Commission, in making its recommendation regarding these variance requests
must evaluate the above standards to see if they are met and should specifically
list them i-n its recommendation to the City Council .
In Application* No. 79013, the application is requesting a special use permit for
live entertainment in the lounge and entertainment space next to the full service
restaurant. The entertainment would involve show groups with dancing available.
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 or enhance the general public 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.
3-15-79 -2-
Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013
d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress and parking so designed as to minimumize 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.
Public hearings have been scheduled and notices have been sent for the variance
(Application No. 79012) and the special use permit (Application No. 79013) .
Approval of the site and building plans should be subject to at least the following
conditions:
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. ,Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by 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. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to an
approved central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5
of the City Ordinances.
J. All roo 1 :3-F -mac11(.mica/ equ+p+11G'nt shail from view.
6. All landscaped areas are to be treated with sod and shall be
equipped with an underground irrigation system to facilitate
site maintenance.
7. Plan approval acknowledges a lower level in the building entrance
and connecting link which is to be used for only storage purposes.
. Any other proposed use will be subject to review by the City.
The Commission, if recommending approval of the special use permit, should make its
recommendation indicating that the special use is consistent with the Standards
for Special Use Permits and is subject to at least the following conditions:
1 . The Special Use Permit is issued to the applicant as operator
of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations involving live entertainment. . Violation thereof
shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The hours of operation for live entertainment shall coincide
with on-sale liquor license regulations.
3-15-79 -3- '
ASSOCIATE P;;OJ CT
2.105 ANN'APGLi3 [M.11 -
MINNEAPOLIS, IA;h iES01A :I
(612)559-39.0
VARIENCE
The applicant requests a varience on existing conditions and new construction
for the property now known as the Lyn Brook Bowl and the Spangers building.
The Lyn Brook Bowl and the Spangers building when constructed were in
conformance with codes, restrictions and regulations of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
In the intervening years, the physical surroundings and topographical conditions
have been changed to conform to state acquisition of land and installation of
a major highway and interchange. These changes have affected the parcel of
land directly adjacent to the owner's property.
As a result of this change, the applicantA s property is now in non-conformance
to existing codes, restrictions and regulations. To conform , the front portion
of the Lyn Brook Bowl and the front and the side of the Spangers building would
have to be removed. To conform to conditions beyond his control, the applicant
would be placed in extreme hardship.
It is the applicant's intention to combine these two buildings into a common
property and to pursue and enlarge his business activities. The applicant
herein applies for a varience from the existing condition mentioned above and
for a physical link between the two existing properties. This physical link would
be on Lilac Drive and would follow the plane of the existing structures. When
completed, this addition would not encroach at any point further than the existing
condition structures.
A varience is also requested in the same classification for the extension of
the Spangers building on Camden Avenue. The extension will eleminate
hardship in operation and will not exceed the existing plane of the existing property.
All requests are noted on the accompanying site plan. The commission will
note that all new construction follows but does not exceed the existing structure
lines and that all connections and extensions are toward the interior of the
applicant's property. The applicant does not extend toward neighboring property-
and will not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other land.
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79014
Applicant: Robert L. Johnson
Location: 7200 Block, west of Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning
The applicant is seeking rezoning from R3 (Townhouse/Garden Apartments) to C-1
(Service/Office) and C-2 (Commercial ) of an approximate 8 acre tract located in
the 7200 Block west of Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is bounded on the north
by the Brooklyn Center/Brooklyn Park municipal boundary, on the east by Brooklyn
Boulevard, on the west by Shingle Creek and on the south by the Creek Villa
townhouse neighborhood.
The same applicant had requested a rezoning to C-2 for most of this same area
during the summer of 1978. That Application (78032) was denied by the City
Council , following a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The City Council ,
after denying the rezoning request, had directed the Commission to study the
feasibility of considering a split zoning, Cl for the southerly portion of the
site and C2 for the northerly portion of the site, in light of the following
.considerations; Cl zoning to the south would be compatible with existing ad-
jacent zoning in Brooklyn Center, while C2 zoning on the northerly portion
would be compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park; the split zoning
would provide a buffer between the R3 property (Creek Villa and The Ponds) and
the commercial properties in Brooklyn Park. The Commission was also requested �.
to look at the feasibility of rezoning to Cl , a potentially landlocked parcel
to the west, lying easterly of Shingle Creek.
A staff report dated December 7, 1978 (attached) was presented to the Planning
Vounn1asiuil ai1d one 0011611 1SbIUU, Un ueceuiuer- 0, I7/ZS, re(1Ur1;eU to the City l.0UnC1I
that such a rezoning would be feasible. The City Council , on December 18, 1978,
directed that s a rezoning proposal be accepted. (Minutes attached) This
application is in response to that direction.
The applicant has indicated the desire, if the rezoning requests are approved,
to eventually develop a restaurant on the C2 property to the north and Service/
Office uses on the remainder of the parcels to be rezoned to Cl .
The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, when reviewing the C2 rezoning request
on July 5, 1978, had recommended a split C1/C2 zoning for the parcel . A copy of
their recommendation is attached for your review. In light of their recommendation
it is not felt that this matter would have to again be referred to that group for
their review and comment. The group has been notified of the current proposal ,
and has been encouraged to participate in the scheduled public hearing and to
1comment as to whether they feel there is need for.further review of the request
by their Neighborhood Group.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
.It is recommended that the Commission review the rezoning proposal in more detail ,
and if it feels that the request has merit, it should recommend the Cl/C2 rezoning,
noting the following considerations:
1 . The property in question is unique because of its location between
Shingle Creek and the commercially zoned property to the north
in Brooklyn Park;
3-29-79 -1-
Application No. 79014
2. Approval of the rezoning acknowledges the C2 zoning on the
north as being an extension of, and compatible with, the existing
commercial zoning in Brooklyn Park;
3. Approval of the rezoning is not to imply that there is a need for
further C2 rezonings along Brooklyn Boulevard;
4. T-W-The C2 zoning to the north can be adequately buffered from
the less dense residential uses to the south and west by the con-
current Cl rezoning of the remainder of the property which is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
i
3-29-79 -2-
�!• Ic �`''`.�z�/I �, I -• r)J .t ti�o . fr.y✓�•y� Y.• I�r_�it-t �) �- �, �y~ 4A&v •i`' .GO• ttc• ^
Nr` 4'r ti"/ LrY " _.__ v �`� -). :. ��j�A... _. � 'j�� lWl-�_^ -� � t i,�. � � YI •- .1', t -i. . .
,� n e, � -. ----1-a--. a. 1 I -, ---- i y? .. ;t- 1 44WV✓/•w. /
;,i• c i ¢ -1l--�H.aCQR CA Ll --'11'--------4
a." <f -.�-• r.• '.J -i r!;Trt"lad.�� .,. A:• c
�• -'> E C r r f� �,�• J D O N N.I r'g '' -- - •91� 1
E 0 K
Lj
H.
,(.>LT --- 'I ''i ��i'j �a °/t'�',3•� ►• ,, yp —J T6.�,11.`�.i � -- �
: � ` - !fi. `�i t;. V "E,�>_".._.. `�_ -,._.• ^{ �- l E.•S T A i E S
>..iCI P•y_ _ - `, i"^t�}.L 'v •��'. � ,.n __ f-. q
•1�__+aF_'
�` rS�r/j7 � - ✓�T���,�4?k p - D R r p A
0 Al Iz.a •5 ^�'� `� \K? It ! �'r trio• v {i p 0/— ,
IV
E - D 0 N N A Y S N A 11
•� f ��i`\� -- �1--9�� fi.K-o-1•L•Et�1 . ; -i" •1��, _.• - - - _
•IU<E, i� �, ' '\(S < Tn r gR~ !JKD4�4E _
aJG b
cl
8µ00K0►1Z
L E[ SI
R K.ll
0
O ` v
31_.. ot----r-_-_.♦`dPiTcir,-��� �4pO,t%�FO� ��.•\ aa-, r � �5
0 k t a �� 1\- ` +•I -� I I ..r -.-`.-�_•--'YS+�.
coIRt_ EASTr-t P 1"..
,Sf.._�E ~:,il :�`it�
� `.`I yr-•-,. —. 1 1 a.� 8.11 N f t�'� _`_
. \V - qq�'7 4A ` ' /.0.\N��y)1�r'iii�' �1. •e.p
U OUAII 111 ,
^`7 'ZQ- W iiGRCLE
•-�°ti 1 Y,tT�l��� 2 A 4 A i(`.1 :� . , ..,. - I or♦F i _
WILLOW LANEC1 -'
•- / kLa`tf I C FuCN:AR. �. SCHOOL f.
pl
17 Ft 9 aw
.C. ! -�1� -�. :.4441 •A
eR'OCxC 1
'WILLOW
-•-.CC --�- G.R K — FF \.L - !,"---� C '�i';--•
� r� OFFICE
I • T
POST
ER
t }�, _ —'-; = C i G 2 Tai . =
IGH 4 G O vo .�� — C2 RJ -
I I L;s �- .-� � R 2
u
4 J
t
TT
t
t"_ tt Yr-T-T-11-`T"� � _ . I t \ `
+J
July 5, 1978
Planning Commission
City of Brooklyn Center
From: Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group
Subject: Request:,for rezoning from R-3 (Townhouse-Garden Apartments) to
C-2 (General Commerce) per Planning Commission Application No.
78032 as submitted by Mr. R. L. Johnson, owner of the subject
property in the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (west side).
The undersigned, as Secretary for the Northwest Advisory Group, was instructed
to convey the following action taken by the Group on the above subject referred
by the Planning Commission Secretary in his letter dated June 19, 1978.
Members of the Group held a meeting at 7:00 P. M. on June 29, 1978 in the
Library Conference Room of the Civic Center to consider the above subject.
(Present were: James Carlson, George Uhlenkott, Louis Terzich, and Commissioner
Richard Theis.
The applicant, Mr. Robert L. Johnson, was present to explain the request.
The following residents from Creek Villa Townhouse Group were present to
represent those residents: (Creek Villa borders the subject site on its
southern boundary)
• Sam & Bernyce Jeffries 7214 E. Perry Court
C1.vdp & Retty TAverinr�house 7222 E. Perry Court
Ken & Pat Wutschke 7226 E. Perry Court
James Carlson acted as Chairman of the meeting.
The Applicant, Mr. R': L. Johnson, made the following statements:
1. He has not been able to find a builder/developer who would develop
the subject site for Townhouses. A "For Sale" sign has been on the
property for several years.
2. Because of increased costs in labor and materials, it has become too
costly to build anything other than commercial ventures on this site.
3. Location is unique in that the usuable part of the site is separated
from the remainder of Brooklyn Center by Shingle Creek on-.its southern
boundary and by commercial properties; in Brooklyn Park on its northern
boundary.
4. Brooklyn Center does not service this site with sewer and water. These
services must be obtained from Brooklyn Park, which has these services
close by.
5. Part of the subject property lies south of Shingle Creek but is not
usuable for building and will remain in its natural state.
Page 2
6. An easement of 50 feet on both sides of the center line of Shingle
Creek will not be disturbed and will remain as is. This easement
area is heavily laden with trees . Car parking will also stay off
this easement area.
7. The area along the creek is heavily wooded. and provides an excellent
barrier for townhouse residents against-any developments on the
north side of the creek.
8. Only 2.8 acres of the total of 4.8 acres in the site is buildable
because of poor soil conditions in some areas, the 100 foot easement,
and non-accessible portion of land south of -the creek. This amounts
to about 40% of the site dedicated to green area.
9. Heavy traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard will continue to increase with
time. Brooklyn Park is only partially developed now, and it is
estimated that its population will reach 90,000 or more in the future.
Substantial numbers of these residents will use Brooklyn Blvd. and
increase the traffic load to far greater volumes than at present.
10. The Applicant is being forced by Brooklyn Center to incur a $10,000
expense to help provide sewer and water services across his property
for the benefit of another office building across Brooklyn Blvd. from
the subject site.
11. It is proposed to Qeveloped the site in the following manner:
a. It is proposed to build a low profile rambler style 2-story
office Uuiiding.wiLh ari effort to mane it blend with the
surroundings. The building (one larger, or possibly two
smaller sized) would be situated in the area adjacent to the
creek as shown on drawings and depicted on a model of the
site. The Applicant has some committments from attorneys,
dentist and others for office space. The Applicant is owner
of Big B's Pizza with several outlets in the Twin Cities area.
He would move the corporate offices into the proposed office bldg.
b. It is proposed to build a Sambos Restaurant on .the northerly
portion of the site adjacent to the Brooklyn Park commercial
property. A purchase agreement for the restaurant exists pending
the rezoning of the property. To accommodate this development,
the Applicant has had to commit to purchase the existing 12
story frame dwelling presently surrounded by the Applicant`s
present ownership, which has increased the investment in the
property.
12. The Applicant presented a model of the subject site as it is proposed
to be developed and explained the proposal and answered questions.
It was brought out during the discussions that a C-1 zoning would be
adequate for the proposed office building, and that. a C-2 zoning would
be required for the proposed Sambos Restaurant.
The Acting Chairman called for comments from the Creek Villa residents.. The
residents were unanimous in the following comments:
• Page 3
1. It would be preferred to have the proposed office building on the
site rather than more townhouses (Wutschke).
2. There would be no opposition (Liveringhouse) from Creek Villa residents
with a split zoning of the subject site and placement of the office
building and the restaurant as depicted on the scale model.
3. For better control of traffic for each of the two proposed buildings,
it would be urgently requested (Jeffries) to have no connection between
the parking lots as shown on the model. The Applicant stated he would
have no objection to placing a 5 or 6 foot berm on the dividing line
of the two sites including closing the driveway as shown connecting the
two lots -- this would tend to cut down some on the noise factor and
prevent "racing" in the parking lots, especially in late hours.
40 Would want (Liveringhouse) the 100 foot easement area and the triangular
area south of the creek left in its present natural state, and that the
parking lot for the office building to be kept off the easement area.
The Acting Chairman then closed the public meeting and called for ^statements
from the Group;
Terzich stated he had an interest in the transaction for the restaurant
site and would not vote, but offered the following observations: In general
he agreed with the comments made by the Applicant and also endorsed those
statements made by the Creek Villa residents. He emphasized his opinion
that Brooklyn Blvd. is heavily traveled with about 24,000 cars per day
(1976 data) going past the site now and increasing in the future; the site
is 1lniglro- In marlu recnprtS� Pnd thRt t.hp prn»nSpd Office blilllding !�,r.d ,S'amhno
urestaurant are in keeping with the general commercial nature of Brooklyn
Blvd. He was in favor of the split zoning as depicted on the scale model.
Uhlenkott inquired on the status of the comprehensive plan and also clari-
fication of the need for future housing as propounded by the Metropolitan
Council. It was estimated that 36 to 40 townhouses could occupy a site of
the size of the subject site. After some discussion, he stated he agreed
with the Creek Villa residents that split zoning to provide the office building
and restaurant as shown on the scale model would be a desirable development
and would vote in favor of split zoning of the site.
Carlson observed that he had a hand in developing the present Comprehensive
Plan in the 1960's, and that in normal cases the Planning Commission would
follow the Plan. However, after a period of time developments change and
the Comprehensive Plan has to be changed on occasions. This is especially
true of property along Brooklyn Blvd. Accordingly, Carlson voted in favor
of split zoning as shown on the model plan, subject to compliance of the
proposal to statements made by Creek Villa residents and requirements of
the zoning ordinances pertaining to the respective classifications.
Uhlenkott and Carlson voted in favor of the split zoning as desribed above.
Commissioner Theis stated he would look into the need for providing future
housing needs and the problem involved in split zoning as favored by the
Group and the Creek Villa residents.
Northwe Teighborho_od Advisory Group
By: (l.�
Louis Terzich, $ cy.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members 11
• FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretaryf " ti.
DATE: December 7, 1978
SUBJECT: Restaurant Use in Cl Zone
The City has received a recommendation from the Planning Consultant, BRW, regarding
a matter that had been referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council
involving the possibility of permitting a restaurant use on the property located in
the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is currently zoned R3 (Townhouse
and Garden Apartments) and is bounded on the north by the Municipal Boundary; on
the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by Shingle Creek and Creek Villa Town-
houses; and on the west by "The Ponds" planned residential development. Mr. R. L.
Johnson had earlier this year submitted a rezoning request to zone the property
C2 (Commerce) and had indicated a desire to develop an office building on the south
portion of the property and a restaurant on the north portion. The rezoning re-
quest, following public hearings by the Planning Commission, review and comment
from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, and review by the City Council
was denied. The Planning Commission was requested by the City Council to review a
proposed split zoning of the property (Cl to the south and C2 to the north) on the
basis that a Cl use of the southerly portion would be compatible to existing ad-
jacent zoning in Brooklyn Center while a C2 use on the northerly portion would be
compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park, and that the split zoning would
• provide a buffer between the R3 property in Brooklyn Center and the commercial
properties in Brooklyn Park. ii way diSU Fuquested that tilt Co1miss-Ion look- at,
the feasibility of rezoning to Cl , a potentially landlocked piece of property
which is part of "The Ponds" development, but lies east of Shingle Creek.
BRW recommended,as a solution to this problem and as a means to permit the develop-
ment of an-office use and a restaurant use on the property, the rezoning of the
parcel to Cl , .which would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and an amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit restaurants which seat a minimum of 130
persons in the Cl zone. The recommendation went on to note that restaurants along
Brooklyn Boulevard would not appreciably interfere with the roadway's ability to
handle traffic demands. They felt that with one properly designed curb cut to
service the two uses, the impact on the traffic flow of Brooklyn Boulevard would
be no greater than an office development. They also recommended that there be
no additional C2 zoning on a parcel by parcel basis o-n Brooklyn Boulevard. They
indicated that generally a 130 seat restaurant seems to be a worthwhile number to
distinguish between family restaurants and convenience food restaurants.
At first glance this seemed like a feasible way to proceed to address the problem
presented by the proposal . But, after much review involving the City Manager,
the City Attorney, the Director of Public Works and myself regarding the con-
sequences of such an amendment, it is not felt that this type amendment would be
in the best interests of the City. First of all , there may well be a problem
with using the number of seats as .a qualifier for permitting a restaurant in a
Cl zone. For instance, this might only encourage larger convenience food
restaurants.
Another major concern would be with respect to other Cl zoned property along
Brooklyn Boulevard. There are a number of Cl locations on Brooklyn Boulevard
where a restaurant would not be compatible with surrounding uses. An example
would be the Library property, currently zoned Cl . Also, there are a number of
other Cl zoned properties where it is .felt that a restaurant would not be appro-
priate. We feel that the City would be hardpressed to deny these restaurant uses
if the Zoning Ordinance were amended in such a manner.
It is felt that the original action to deny the C2 use of any portion of the
property was the best overall decision and it would be our recommendation that this
decision stand. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels it- is in the best
interests of the City to have a restaurant or another C2 use- on a portion of the
property in question, then we would recommend that a split zoning occur, noting
that this property is unique because of the location of Shingle Creek and acknow-
ledging a C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the property as being an extension
of and compatible with the commercial zoning to the north in Brooklyn Park. We
would also recommend that the Commission acknowledge that there is no rationale
to rezone -any other Brooklyn Boulevard property to C2; that this action is merely
a minor extension of an already existing zoning in another community which will
not cause a major traffic impact on Brooklyn Boulevard; and that the C2 use can
be adequately buffered from the less dense uses to the south by a rezoning of the
remainder of the property to Cl which is compatible with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
If such a split zoning were undertaken, a determination would have to be made
regarding the best location for drawing the zoning line and the applicant would
be encouraged to contact "The Ponds" about the possibility of rezoning that land-
locked property to Cl as well .
Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book and
Theis. Voting against: Commissioner Hawes. Not voting: none. The motion
passed.
OTHER BUSINESS: CRITICAL AREA PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
f� In other business the Secretary recommended that the public hearing on the Critical
Area Plan be deferred from December 14 to December 21, 1978. He stated that this
would allow those -concerned with the plan to review it prior to the hearing. He
also commented that if everything was in order and the• response to the plan was
favorable, the Commission, would be able to approve the plan on the 21st and forward
their approval to the City Council for its first meeting in January. It was the
consensus of the Commission that the public hearing be deferred to December 21, 1978.
RESTAURANT USE IN C1 ZONE/R.L. JOHNSON REZONING REQUEST
In other business the Secretary reviewed a memorandum regarding restaurant uses
in the C1 zoning district. He stated that the City had received a recommendation
from the Planning Consultant,. BRW, ,Inc. ,. regar.ding..a matter..which had been referred
to the Planning Commission from the City Council involving the possibility of permiting
a restaurant use on the property located in the 72QO Block of Brooklyn Boulevard.
He stated that the property was currently zoned Rf�tTownhouse and Garden Apartments)
and was bounded on the north by the municipal boundary; and the east by Brooklyn
Boulevard; on the south by Shingle Creek and Creek Villa Tb*nhouses; and on the west
by "The Ponds" planned residential development. He continued that Mr. R. L. Johnson.
had earlier this year submitted a rezoning request (Application No. 78032) to zone
the property C' (Commerce) and had indicated a desire to develop the property with
an office building on the south portion and a restaurant on the north portion. The
rezoning request, following public hearings by the Planning Commission, review and
�—, comment from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, and review by the City Council
• was denied. He continued that the Planning Commission was requested by the City
Council to review a -pr000sed split zonin4 of the property (Li to the south and C2
to the north) on the basis that a Cl use of the southerly portion would be compatible
to existing zoning in Brooklyn Center while a C2 use on the northerly portion would
be compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park, and that the split zoning
would provide a buffer between the R3 property in Brooklyn Center and the Commercial
properties in Brooklyn Park. It was also requested that the Commission look at
the feasibility of rezoning to Cl , a potentially landlocked piece of property which
is part of "The Ponds" development, that lies easterly of Shingle Creek.
The Secretary continued that the Planning Consultant had recommended as a solution
to the problem and as a means to permit the development of an office use and a
restaurant use on the property, the rezoning of the parcel to Cl , which would be
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to permit restaurants which seat a minimum of 130 persons in the Cl zone. The
recommendation went on to note that restaurants along-$rooklyn 'Boulevard would not
appreciably interfere with the roadway's ability to handle traffic demands. The
consultant felt that with one properly designed curb cut to service the two uses,
the impact on the traffic flow of Brooklyn Boulevard would be no greater than that
of an office development. They also recommended that there be no additional C2
_ zoning on a parcel by parcel basis on Brooklyn Boulevard, and indicated that gener-
ally a 130 seat restaurant seemed to be a valid number of seats to distinguish
between family restaurants and convenience. food restaurants.
.12-7-78 -13-
Commissioner Theis stated that the parcel is unique in Brooklyn Center due to its
proximity to the Brooklyn Park commercial district. He inquired as to the meaning
of "split zoning." The Secretary explained that as the property under consideration
was currently one parcel and the Commission had referred to the possibility of zoning
a portion of it Cl and a portion C2 as "split zoning: He pointed out that the
property would be required to be replatted and that once this was accomplished there
• would be a separate legal desc�-iption and only one zoning classification per parcel .
In further discussion regarding the development proposal , Commissioner Hawes inquired
whether the applicant still intended to encumber the adjacent property in- Brooklyn
Park to provide for parking. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Commis-
sioner Book commented that the proposed rezoning would appear to be consistent with
the Rezoning Review Guidelines. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis,
the Secretary stated that the Council had requested the Planning Commission to re-
view the matter and make a recommendation. He explained that if the Planning Com-
mission recommended that a Cl zoning for the southerly part of the property and a
C2 zoning for the northerly part of the property be considered, and the Council
concurred with the recommendation, then the applicant would submit a new rezoning
appl ication.
In a unanimous decision, the Commission recommended that a rezoning of the property
located in the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard to comprehend a Cl zoning on the
southerly portion of the property and a C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the
property be considered noting that this property is unique because of the location
of Shingle Creek and acknowledging that a C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the
property as being an extension of, and compatible with the commercial zoning to the
north in Brooklyn Park. The Commission also acknowledged that there is no rationale
to rezone any other Brooklyn Boulevard property to C2; that this action is merely a
minor extension of an already existing zoning in another community which will not
-- cause a major traffic impact on Brooklyn Boulevard; and that the C2 use can be
• adequately buffered from the less dense uses to the south by a rezoning of the
remainder of the property to C i which .r s cumpd Li b i e with Lhe City's Compre yens i ve
Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
'lotion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the
meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :30
p.m.
_ 1
C�'ali rman
V
12-7-78 -15-
Th� first C'Aiscus-:-`Lc,,i was a rezening r.:--luest '',-Y j". L. Jo ,risjon. The lann-Inq
Co.mmilt-c.irm z,.,t its 'Lec--r-riber 7, 1-127C Picinning Cr),--m,,-'L;s1-on rj�e-c-ting madle rccOnrc-
I-- - ic,c of
morid,--'lon ccncern-rig the split Zoning in 41-h,:,, 7203 s k,-yn
Boulevard . The Dire,,-,'L-cr of- Planning and inspection nc-�'LeJ that Mr. johnso;i
earlier this year submitted a rezoning rcquest to rczone the property in question
C-2 a,,-,d had indlcat-cC" the ctr--;sirc. to the property wit"n cm C),-['-', ic-c hu.i 11,1-11 ir,C-,,
on the south porU o;-i P-n a' ---i r e s L a u r n t ,),,i t h tF: n c.)r -1 p o rt i o-,I T!i c r c zz o.,i,n g r C- U, S
I llc,*'.,in- publkic hcaring,-, 1,y 'the P.'anning (rovic"v" Fli-�j
10
the 1'Jcr0--.-%-cst N'L;c;hbcr11,)c.cf 11,!vi-Tory Gro,,,:P) an by the Cii-v
denied. Etc., c:Dntinuc-d tho Planning Con-l-rdissiu-n as requesteu, by t-he City Council
revicn,ved a pccoosed spilt zoning-in the property on the ba-sis that the C-."L u-se of
the sout'Je-.1%, port-ion would be cccmpatihla with tho existing zc)i-.ing in Broc11-yn
Center w,-,-,*J.e thc-; C-2 u-se on the northc,Ily portion would he conipa t ill-la with
land uses in Perk an th3t t1he split zoning would provi c, zi
-),n:.-vccn the RZ-3 pinop-:�;,.,,ty in B,-ockIN i Cc- anzi lhc� commercial p i-rtics,
bu f f er 'L
In Brcc:I-n Park, It I.- a1so re,.-ue-.-.,'cd th.at t Cc)-nn�Lission look, ct.i-he fcasibili'zy
.1 -
of 2coning o C-1 pD!L-cijL-ia1j'-y !a-;-d locked piece of property whica is part of
"T ho Ponds" -which lies easterly of Shingle Greek,
12-18-78
r
Kuefler moved tl:`t the staff be instructc,3 to accCpt. a proposal. for a split ncr,ing
r;n the hrc;perty for C -1/'C-2 . Courlci'*n;mI:er Fignar seconded the in Lion,
f VOt ill g In :vVOC; iViayor i�+'J CIL`iSt, C0:1:7:i11! ?i7? )O:S :uGfler, I'iy:13r, Li1Gtl:il, i1.^.d
-- Scott. VCiing arainst: ',noun. The motioI7 passed ur.F.nlmously.
�` nv pr.\• VTF� r*--nIDr. •�,, '�T r,V 1 r�Lr „nT.
TEI✓PC;:.•;_ F _ ,L OF .,r 1_DI DE. <, t.�t,. .�P RT'�1 N� T It%? .,,_•L
The D' .cro: of 1 nninq a-n i:.:r)2ctic.:, rc,.r-i .•.E c' the p::bIcr.,s :, :gin the Cj7=r)_; _ A
Park arL. rtments as related at the Deccm'r.f�-.r 4, 1978 Cot'n-11 mceting noting C'Jat
the Problems had been corrected. The problems that remained could not be corrected
until s-ring of the year. Council-r ember Scott n'.,ocr d that a ter.riporary license he
issuec?•io the Chi.opeiaa ',Bari: -.partment comp le.!,,, until •line 1 , 110%9 . The motion
was secondeu by Ccuncilmer7ber Lhotka . A brief discussion then ensued and
COtlriCilm;:Irb?r SCO-noted the-'- it the matters were not ccmplotely taken c:lre of
by June 1 , 1979, she would not hesitate to again c?eriy c license: to the apz:rtment
The :-GLF' ^.'a5 't�li7 iti';E'rt 4',)tiYig i.li iu�%Or' i1T3yOf i\TJ:I I, COUTI *I-
me tubers Miefi. , ri.gna r,-, ?hotka , anCl Scott. Von, gy a(?l inst` r'O :�'t7 m0'i'.on
passed un&niraouisls. .
ME;l7.;iee C:'1'i. 7teCi the SOliCj-:�:?1' r£c:i�l.11°• l 7 :{r
.i0.1 cnU i&vcd :...� ed ,n'i'..or.
RESOLlIT ICJ13 1 CCEI'TI''r G 't�'JOR! UND" COT?;ItnCT 1:"0. 197 9.
97 -L .(GOi':TF� TED
BY MY)
)
The rr,c,aon .1. - F. + on G:. t-ie foregoing rcLi l u''?.r' '�'as :lttl" s O'O.0:+.nO. I'
Ci"nbzr Ton K1 -ler and upon t- being x •kcr the,-E!0-1 {L ) �;.� r
v,,.. F;.. �.3.. .t the �1_ z. �< t vo'_• cf An i
ctnr .. rr.(},, -, :.:i._ .j-,; .- -'Y i:lli G -1-' 1,hoV'.a Ell-IQ l.fcliE
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution `
Was declared dzi1y passed and adopted.
RESO;,i;7_ n T_<< 2 P_
Mcmhcr Celle Lhoti:a introduced Ilia foliov:inn lasolu;.icn and maven its ado;t.on :
RESGJT Jr) "TT r,1-IN' 1'=^ C-JT C�._+ -� �s -�_ ��-tr-•.•.� 1 '�.,_ .t. •-�l
� li i � y .I'C _ :: t,a T..z- I'UI Or S£`J,, '? (r; Fl:i 5� .;t ,:• 1,_
SELF Co ,:'-". 11 ?,. 12:,i ATEIf PP"' iT v C
The motion for the.adoption of the fore-going resolu-c,- wc,s dilly s;3C on,iiEd 7y
Meli bar M.1_• :1C.:7F�_'', and upDn voL bei.�1CI 'ict'�i1 tt]'�C:'Q_1 the SOIlU�a?i7'T ':' ,I
, C°'Ei in
favor th---rCC:f: Dean Nyquist, Tony K--cfier, Bill i'i:�„ar, Cen Li:O :mac; , anal Celia
Scott; and the vrt---d sal;-,e: none, whercupon said t
wa:, t'euiared ;iu'y �:-Css?d and, adopted.
RESOL Jn--' ON NO 7£?_295
ME.lnlier Bill ;'ignar introdu-qe6 the folloiVl:lq resolution and move?i its adoption:
RESOLL''ilcV At�T?To?'c1�1XG ".' 11 :URCHASE OF MECH NIC11L !NTV'e.'IRT SPRAYING
12-18-78 -I1-
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group
Douglas Olson 561-6968
James Carlson 561-1065
Louis- Terzich 561-8639
Eilert Pecerson 561 -5654
Dale Magnuson 561-8533
Commissioner Theis 561-8738
FROM: Ronald A. Warren,. Planning Commission Secretar Y ! � �
.j-
DATE: March 23, 1979
SUBJECT: Application, No. 79014, Submitted by R. L. Johnson
On March 29, 1979 the Planning Commission will be reviewing Application No. 79014
submitted by Mr. R. L. Johnson which consists of a request to rezone from R-3
(Townhouse/Garden Apartments) to C-1 (Service/Office) and C-2 (Commercial ),
the property located west of Brooklyn Boulevard; south of the municipal boundary,
lying north and easterly of Shingle Creek.
A request to rezone the same property, all to C-2, was reviewed last summer. The
Northwest Neighborhood Group recommended a "split zoning" of the parcel (C-2 to.
the north and C-1 to south) in its report to the Planning Commission. The re-
f �... rd fin. C..'? �n..i�.� `,or l3tnv. .anninrl IJ .the rit�i rno,,-,il l�rrt the Stiff Was
o i =ni 1 �I IAJ late- denied ed y �., , 4.J , but staff
req uestan To r(aviour fw-rnar tiP nnccihi1ifv of the sni ii. , -11C-2) !Coma. A -
report was submitted to the City Council , who agreed to consider such a rezoning.
The staff will be recommending the rezoning, .but will not be recommending that
the application be referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Group because of their
recent recommendation; You are invited to attend the meeting and participate in
a scheduled public hearing. If you feel strongly that the request should be
referred to the neighborhood group for review and comment, you can make such a
request of the Commission.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at City Nall (561-5440) .
Planning Commission', Information Sheet
Application No. 79015
Application: Robert L. Johnson
Location: 7200 Block west of Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking preliminary.plat approval to. combine part of Outlot F
of The Ponds Addition and part of Lot 19, Auditors Subdivision No. 57 into Lots
1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 , R. L. Johnson's lst Addition. This is the property compre-
hended in the rezoning request under Application No. 79014. Three lots would
be created, all having access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. A drainage, utility and
access easement of 54 ft. either side of Shingle Creek would be provided comparable
to the easement obtained along Shingle Creek on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard
when that property was platted last fall .
The parcel to the extreme west of Brooklyn Boulevard would have an arm extending
to Brooklyn Boulevard to provide access onto a public street as required by City
Ordinances. It is anticipated that this area, with the proper legal agreements
and restrictions, could be used as a common access to serve all -three lots in
the plat. The Commission should review and discuss the possibility of requiring
this area to be 50 ft. rather than the 30 ft. indicated on the plat.
The Engineering Department will be prepared to review the plat in more detail
Thursday evening. 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. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
�. Final h��t ',� rat iOr�- t 4. ,� ..n..1._ _._�_ r t, ..� , r
r 3 wb,,*..,. .� .+t.. i�� .lut� 2Yilci �.l iii l.udNtC(" LJ UI Ule
City Ordinances. r
E .
3-29-79