Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-15 PCP At PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RcGULAR JC.JS: N March 15, 1979 1 . Cull to Order: 8:00 p. . 1 2. Roll Cali 3. Approval of Minutes: March 1 , 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 %I issior makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Howe, Inc. Site and Building plan approval to construct an 79016 approximate 217' x 74' precast concrete �rrarehouse, garage and maintenance shop building to replace ti,e building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1379. b. Howe, Inc. 79017 Variance from Section 35-111 to rebuild a nonconforming use at setback and buffer requiremFrts other than that contained in the current Zoning Ordinance. 7. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. 79007 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential ) to R-2 GMm4 1 Dori -0nn+iMl r% +-&In nnv•�hn"V1 r+ai .= r,+' an dlip 'Uximat' e Itiree +acre pdr-c;ei IULdt(JU dujdk:eIIL LU CHU easterly of Xerxes Avenue, south of interstate 94. 3. Alan I. Dale 79008 Preliminary Plat approval for the replatting of property to be known as Dale & Davies 3rd Addition. located at Lake ,reeze and France Avenues ;north. 9. Steve N21 son 79009 Preliminary Plat approval to combine lots commonly known as the Lynbrook Bowl , Span ers and Mendenhalls Outlots into Lots 1 & 2 of Block 1 , Lynbrook Bowl Addition. 10. Steve Nelson 79010 Variance from Chapter 15 (Subd-ivision Ordinance) regarding street width. 11 . Steve Nelson 79011 Site and Building plan approval for remodeling and combining the Lyn rock Bowl and the Span.jers Building into an approximate 690 seat restaurant, cocktail lounge and bowling establishment. s 12. 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. 13. Steve Nelson 79013 Special Use Permit to allow live entertainment in the restaurant and cocktail lounges in the remodeled establishment. 14. Other Business 15. Adjournment i Y Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 79016 and 79017 Applicant: Howe, Inc. Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North F • Request: Site and Building Plan Approval and a- Variance from Section 35-111 to build a nonconforming use at a setback and buffer requirements other than that contained in the current Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, under Application No. 79016, is requesting site and building plan approval to rebuild an approximate 217 x 74' building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979. Plans have been submitted that indicate the applicant proposes to con- struct a building similar in design, function and location to that of the previous building. The burned out building housed maintenance operations, chemicals and fertilizers and was used for storage of vehicles and equipment. The applicant proposes to construct a precast concrete building with fire wall separations between the warehouse area and the maintenance and garage areas. The previous building was a metal pole barn type building. The plan also shows an approximate 37 ' .x 74' lower level located approximately in the middle of the building to be used as a dead file storeroom. Another difference in the plan from the original building is that it would be 25 ft. from the middle building rather than approximately 11 ft. The building destroyed by fire also was used for storing dynamite which is used for safety purposes to bring down the overhang in particular bulk storage bins located in the south building on the site. The plans submitted do not indicate an area for storing dynamite. • Because the applicant proposes a 25 ft. sepdr'diiurr between file L-uiluiiigs, the new building would be located approximately 50 ft. to 60 fit. from the residential property at 3129 - 49th Avenue North, rather than having an approximate 85 ft. setback that had existed previously. The current Zoning Ordinance requires a '100 ft. buffer strip where I-2 abuts R-1 and this protective strip cannot be used for parking, driveways, off-street loading or storage and is required to be landscaped and contain an 8 ft. high opaque fence or wall . Another setback that may affect the building plan is the 50 ft. building setback requirement from the property line where it abuts a major thoroughfare. APPLICATION NO. 79017 A variance from Section 35-111 regarding nonconforming uses would be required to permit the applicant to rebuild the proposed building. Further variances from setback buffer requirements would also be required if the site and building plan as submitted, were recommended for approval . Copies of Section 35-111 (nonconform- ing uses) and Section 35-240 (2) (-Standards for Variances) are attached for your review. The City has retained consultants to study various aspects of the Howe Fertilizer plant relating to chemicals, water quality and explosives. The main thrust of these studies is for the consultants to evaluate the current operations of the plant, indicate the potential dangers involved with such operations, review current City and State regulations relative to such operations, and recommend changes to City Ordinances to help ensure the health, safety and general welfare of people on or near the site. 3-15-79 -1- Application No. 79017, continued The City Attorney has been requested to address the legal questions regarding the rebuilding of a nonconforming use. He has indicated that 4e would have a report • for the Planning Commission by Thursday evening. It is expected that the consult- ` ants report regarding the health/safety matters will be presented to the staff on Friday, March 16, 1979. The applicants attorney has been made aware of the expected completion of these reports and has requested the opportunity to review them before the Planning Commission night make its recommendation to the City Council . It is felt that it would be beneficial for all parties concerned to table further consideration of these applications to give- the Commission and the applicant time to review them. It is recommended that the Commission set up a special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 22, 1979 at 8:00 p.m. to further review these applications. Persons who were notified of this meeting through formal notices have been informed of this recommendation. 3-15-79 -2- .F:s March 15, 1979 j TO: RON WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION FROM: R.J. SCHIEFFER, CITY ATTORNEY RE: HOWE FERTILIZER You have requested a memorandum on behalf of the Planning Commission for a general review of non-conforming use requirements of City ordinances as they relate to the rebuilding of a structure which was destroyed by fire at the Howe Fertilizer Plant. The Planning Commission application reveals that request is being made to reconstruct a building which requires variances from the setback provision and the buffering provision of the current ordinance. This variance request raises the question of whether or not a use which is non-conform- ing as to setback is to be treated by the same rules as a use which is non-conforming as to the use. We have previously l answered this question, stating that under Minnesota law there is no distinction between. the two kinds of non-conformity. However, since the Minnesota Supreme Court has dealt neither in x SRUCE E.RUSSELL R R.J PHONE: 545-5653 L900 RUSSEL ESN.RUS![LL L, RUSSELL. & MCLEOD R. Errecr Mc oo AREA CODE 612 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 202 THORPE BUILDING 8085 WAYZATA BOULEVARD GOLDEN VALLEY,MINNESOTA 55426 Marcfi 13, 1979 ' City of Brooklyn Center 630 : Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center , MN 55430 Attention: Ron Warren In re: Howe Inc . Application for Building Permit Dear Mr . Warren: After discussing with you the matters to be considered at the Planning Commission meeting on March 15 , 1979 , I am Of the opinion that all -nterpsted part; AG T,rn,j1 {1 1,enofi the matter of the Application of Howe Inc . for a building permit were continued to the first available date after receipt by Brooklyn Center of the memorandum by the City Attorney and the engineering consultants who are making special reports affecting our application. Very truly:;yours , JHR:bh James H. Russell Si7pdt/3N/v�lt! �O ��:� ... -L lc zbh XA L coo-b h no 1 $ bh mv hh � h h f gbh � M 4 I --s 0;bl7 a1 h ; y Lib C' .. `.. t 1 `` � k 4 t Section 35-11?. , NU1T-CONFOR1VIljTG USES Unless specifically provided oihe;vvise herein, the law-lui use of any laid or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance ma, be continued even if such use does not conform to the rc ulatlons of this ordinance, provided: 1. No such non-conforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 2. Such non-conforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 3. A non-conforming use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural altera- tions except those required by ordinance, la-.v, or other regulation are made therein. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings, located In residential districts other than R1 or R2, provided any structural alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the P.1 district. 4. . If a non-conforming use occupies a building 4i,d ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said bi.ildirg shall be in conformity to the use regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located.* 5. tiny non-conforming use shall not be conum.:ed following 60% destruction of the building in which it was conducted by fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council. 6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a non-conforming use of land on a parcel with no structure or where there is a non-conforming use of land (such as storage of equipment and supplies) , on which there is a conforming structure, such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of this ordinance. Section 35-200 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAMNING The City Council hereby undertakes to carry on comprehensive study and planning as a continuing guide for land use and development legislation within the municipality. For this purpose, the City Council has adopted by Resolution 605-295 a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, and designates an • advisory planning agency by Section 35-201 to aid in such planning. i • Y Section 35-240 (cont'd) i 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 uniaue to the parcel. r)f land for TAIh;^h the variance ?- -cuy^ht, 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) s 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. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79007 Applicant: " Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. Location: Northern half of an approximate 3 acre parcel located adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of Interstate 94. Request: Rezoning The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential ) to R2 (Two Family Residential ) of the northern portion of an approximate 3 acre site located adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue, south of the freeway. The area is bounded on the west by Xerxes Avenue North, on the north by the freeway ramps, on the east by City Park property and on the south by single family resi- dential lots that face 65th Avenae North. The subject property is 3 acres of' a 10 acre parcel that was part of highway right-of-way. The Highway Department no longer has need for the property and the City ,,has obtained the 7 acres to the east of this site and plans to incorporate it into its Central Park plans. The applicant eventually proposes to subdivide the 3 acre site which would 'be serviced by a cul-de-sac leading from Xerxes Ave. North. He proposes to retain R-1 zoning for approximately 6 single family lots that would lie southerly of the cul-de-sac and would back up against the already existing single family lots facing 65th Avenue North. He is proposing the R2 zoning to accommodate about 4 two family lots on the north side of the cul-de-sac that would presently back up against the .freeway ramps. The applicant has in his desire for the rezoning because selling single family homes along an interstate highway is extremely difficult. He notes the • undesirability of living backed up against a freeway, the lack of noise barriers in the ar a and the uncertainty, of the land use onc? the xPrxac Avani,e exit ramps are closed as factors supporting the rezoning request. The Commission should pay particular attention to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City Ordinances. (attached) The Commission should also concern itself with what type of precedent it might be setting if it were to approve this rezoning request. An approval of such a re- zoning would mean that similar proposals for R2 or other multiple family rezonings, particular along the freeway, or other highway right-of-way property, would be in order. It should also be noted that the City is giving serious consideration to acquiring highway right-of-way property when the exit ramps off Xerxes Ave. are abated by MN/DOT. The intention would be to berm this area and provide a pedestrian/bikeway access into the Central Park from Xerxes Avenue. This would also alleviate the concerns expressed by the applicant about having single family homes abut the freeway. The acquisition of this property by -the City would provide an adequate buffer between the area and the freeway. It is felt that the rezoning proposal does not seem to demonstrate merit beyond the interest of the owner in question. It is also felt that -this area could be potentially viable for single family residential development in its entirety. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, has traditionally re- ferred all rezoning requests to the affected neighborhood advisory group. It is recommended that the Planning Commission table the request and refer it to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and comment. . I 3-15-79 s Section 3 5-208 . REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELIIIES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds -that effective maintenance of the c mprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable .' evaluation of periodic proposed changes -to -this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. • 2. Policy. It is the policy of the City -that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not : constitute "spat zoning, " defined as a zoning.decision which discrir�irates in favor of a par cular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan 'nr to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. dure. 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. _ 40 Guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need.or benefit? _ N= (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible:-with . . surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses-in -the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of -the subject property (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes -in the area since the subject-property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is 'there a Ilroad public purpose evident? a dedelo - . (f) Will 'the subject property bear fully 'the ordinance i P m-ent .- 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, copiifiguration, topography or location? ,. N 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 a) the best interests of the community? • 1) Does -the proposal demonstrate merit beyond 'the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? .................. SHINGLE CREEK PARKWA R3 , o � OPEN SPACE APPLICATION NO. 79007 0 BE CLOSED _ _ B i• j i nR .L..-_.T- m AD CENTRAL 93RD AV E p� / 4r 4. / i o f GARDEN -,CITY,--- PARK BROOKLYX CIA � it u A q � t Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79008 Applicant: Alan I. Dale Location: Lakebreeze and France Avenues North Request: Preliminary Plat Approval On March 12, 1979 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 79006 which consisted of site and building plan review of an approximate 32,000 sq. ft. warehouse; showroom, and office site for the Dale Tile Company. One of the conditions of that approval was that the property was subject to replatting and that submission of a preliminary plat was required prior to the issuance of building permits. This application is in response to that condition. The proposed plat comprehends Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Dale and Davies 3rd .Addition. The effect of the replatting is to shift the current property line easterly so that the proposed new building would be located on a single parcel . The applicant is required to execute the necessary agreements to provide joint access to both Lots 1 and 2. A 20 ft. drainage and utility easement is also necessary along the the west property line of Lot 2. The plat seems to be in order and the City Engineer will be prepared to comment further. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Approval of the application would be subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. • 9 Final plat is ct�ninr t to +h-- • -..._t_ c 0; . ..._. _ .., o. ..,....� ,.v :.��.. . eyU i� Cuici�w O 1 ��,uNi;eY' 1 J UT +.17e City Ordinances. 3. An appropriate agreement for joint access purposes, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be filed as a deed restriction on the properties. 3-15-79 a 53 ItD TWIN 0tQ AV LAKE E -�T IL > Z = � W R 5 f LAKESIDE PARK 3 ' 1 A E N No i 11 W 61 STAVE N. t� - — �� APP I-2 E I-E T H Ir APPLiCAuCIN NO, �� o • 79008 49TH W - _ } Y LAKE RREEZE -�4V 3 � W P Z pq C.-2 -4-- TH A t N I r LAKESIDE AVE c�'��' C�� 4 TH AVE N i EACH PARK / ROBBINSDALE Z W W C v W > t Z > ♦6TM AVE M ' y 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 pr-.- 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. ThA annlirant has indiratprl that Mth the Iynhronk Rawl and the Soan_iers hoildinas. YYIIGII 46/IJ VI U' it Ga J, YY Z 111 V V tI f VIIIIG II C L YII11.11 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 instail - 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 ti;at 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 f ` 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 Ordinances. Regarding the variance, the Commission must make its recommendation based on the variance criteria and should, in its recommendation, make a finding that the 4 variance meets each specific criteria. 3-15-79 -2- M Z w w - _! W ' In 67TH AVE N. 11 W o RIVERBROOK CT. ®5 CENTER. o Q HOOL a V / 603TH AV J FIREHOUSE ; 1 PAR a h FIRE STA. C2 Pv E. 6r�N i % Z rift r_lw r > ' C.2 a _ w .qr -4' / J t - -1 `1--f—in#---,--R�1- AV _ It ' _.� APPLICATION NOS. 79009, 79010, 79011 , 79012, & 79013 ,- - BOAT LANOING r CAMDE COURT O B N0 AVE M. i h�� GI IT YE w. 1� fi4 �,, A Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013 Applicant: S to ve 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 treatme t which would include sodding around the site with an uhderground 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 panjers and Lynbrook buildings by adding a common entry -area which would i clude`space for an office, storage space, a nursery, restrooms and rooms for dining and cocktails. The addition would include a lower level that the applica t indicates will be used for storage purposes only. This area has not been ca culated as space to be used for other than storage and the applicant is aware of his. Presently the existing buildings do not meet the 35 f . front yard setback require- ments contained in the Zoning Ordinance. When the buildings were built (Spanjers in 1,0_55 anal Lynbrook, in 1Q�6) +l .�yr a •� ��...plj% W4 4-L tii St lily U'r'dl�laillE SLiitiUdC'QS. 1 1 JN bl1 t.. u 14 ; 1t,e WiaL i ime, as Lfle applicant indicates in an ace mpanying letter (attached) , State Highway land acquisition and the installation ol a major highway and inter- change have changed the physical surroundings and con itions such that the buildings in question do not meet setback requirements. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construe ion to enlarge and combine buildings that do not comply with existing setback re ulations. They also seek a variance from the 35 ft. setback requirement along orth Lilac Drive and the 25 ft. side corner yard setback along Camden Avenue N rth. 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 li k the two buildings would be built at the same setback as the existing building and would not aggreva to an existing condition. In the Spanjers building, alo g Camden Avenue, they propose to square-off the building with an addition that woul continue, but not aggre=rate , 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 mear that the front portion of the Lynbrook Bowl and the front and side portions of 1he 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 tle variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to the public or injurious tc other land primarily because they ,Mould be maintaining existing setbacks and not a grevating an already existing situation on the property. 3-15-79 -1- i a 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 e forcement of the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue liardships 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 o dinance, considered in con- junction with the unique and distinctive circumstance affecting the property must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumst nces caused by the property owner or his predecessor in title shall not constitut sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by th City Council after demon- stration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surrounds gs, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific par els of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict lettir of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the-application fo a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land fo which the variance is sought, and are not common, gene ally to other property within the same zoning classificati n. 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 n,rbl ;. ''JClfar` or ;n;­r:Cl:S to other land or imnrnvementc in the neignuornuuu in which the Faeces ul sari.' 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 in 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 s ace next to the full service restaurant. The entertainment would involve show gr ups with dancing available. y� r 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' he -1th, 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 minimum'ze 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 (A placation 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. 5. All rooftop mechanical oqL,4Tmm...cn+. shall _o a nrnI—ately 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 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 co sistent-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 entertainme t shall coincide with on-sale liquor license regulations. 3-15-79 -3- C ASSOCIATE PROJECT CORPCRAT'ON 3 March 1979 2.05 ANNAPOLIS LANE, SJ!TE "INNEAPOLIS, '�41NNES0TA :�; ? (612159-3930 El 559-5 31 Mr. Ron Warren City of Brooklyn Center Planning Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 ` Project: Gulliver I s 6357 North Lilac Drive Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Warren: Enclosed please find the revised statements you had requested on the varience, subdivision and special use permits that will be required from the planning commision. We hope that this will cover the proper -f Yvriil that-C1t you 'v'v1Sh t0 picScni.- Should any changes on this format be required by your department, our office is at you service. s veryul, , I ohn T. i JTN:sjm Enclosures cc: Mr. Steve Nelson ?_4C5 ANX!%POLi3 LAN':. r;i... .. MINNEAP01.IS, t.1'NNE,",G",l. (612)55'?3930 r ;7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT - LIVE ENTERTAINMENT The applicant requests a special use permit to include live entertainment in the new extension of his business activities. The new business complex will include a family bowling center with a snack bar area. An adjacent lounge and dining facilities will be offered within the area of the bowling alleys. In the ' new expanded space a full service restaurant will be offered serving breakfast, lunch and,dinner. The live entertainment will be offered in a lounge and enter- tainment space next to the full service restaurant. The planned acts will be show groups with dancing available. I • ASSOC;ATE oj_c- MINNEAPOLIS. t: t i (612)559-3930 ❑ VARIENCE Tile 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 applicant°'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. UThen completed, this addition would not encroach at any point further than the existilrj condition structures. A varience is also requested in the same classification for the extension of the Spangers building on Camden Avenue. The extension will el.eminate 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. ..tan arc)S tor E' 'i I'CrMITS 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 v�ill promote and enhance the general public welfare and wall not be c?etrirnen_al 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 rill not impede the normal and orderly development_ and improvement of surrounding property for u.s es permitted in the district. (d) "Y Adequate ;l;easures have Veen or will be taken to provide-1 . egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion ---,. in th-e s streets.- publi_ (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 planking GeY m'sL'an :r ;'. roc^mmel.? a„d th^ City v;,uncil may 11llUVSc such conditions ana restrictions upon the establishment, location, ronstrixction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the pro- tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with reauirements 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 I:.ay . 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 or twelve (12). months from the date of the fin:xl determination by the City Council; except that the applicant n av set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to yair. the ccrsont of the City Council for resubrnission at an earlier time. b. Revocation and 'E::1-ensic-n of Special. Use Permits When a special. use permit has. been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such pcn-nit Shall expire without further acti-on by the Planning • Commission or the City' Council unless the applicant or his assignee or Successor cO:lmen;;os wort: upon the SUO.'ec.t pi'Operty wit.7in one year of the date the special trsc permit is grzirtca, or unless before he expir`tien of the one ;scar peried thc: applicant shall. a. my for an Cxtenscion thereof by filling out and SUbillitti g to thn- Secretary Of tic, ill.nning Commission a "Special Use Permit” application recucstinCJ SUCir f'::% :i'�.3 n oil(] paying an ad_litional ice o1: $15 .00.