HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 04-15 PCP 71 1
advisory
3,S Z�'- X
i:2
ie,r C.).z:,,y
oas
/C01
17
76009
-R,
Y I
and
tE -)ruary
0�j -,)c) c-cl t I e Ire 1,
0 y
.;Ub Ili te
,
7 5A 4
c 110.
72 Lake Avemcie. w respect to prior
for !)uIl.-I. Ing setbacks.
i'n ciiantor 35 relati,,Ie to side yars-I
4 StriCt.
35 relative to rear yard
-a r-k u irEI;11111�i i C
-15 -e ative to luse of
j s
Standa
Act.
Ira f t
;A on Cay.
Application No. 76015
• Applil-ant: Robert Adel mann (Standard Oil )
6501 Humboldt Avenue North
Requeit Variance
lihis site was zoned and developed by H.-Sunray Oil Co.raparky through application
No, 67037 and No, 67038, Council Resolution 67-273 approved the commercial
(regional-busiress) zoning and adlmoiiledged the surrounding land uses.
The presei!t ordini-vice Provides for service stations in th,, C-2 district;!pie
there is na abutmant. to R--! , includipg abutment at a streent line. i he
High School property, is zoned ri®1 as is the single family residential property
across Humboldt Avenue and the Humboldt service road to the southeast.
This is a 11-echnical variance,, which is warrant-ed Linder the circumstances of the
distan,ce and nature of the R-1 uses. The ordinance does not specifically compre-
hend this unique cop'JiLniction of spt�cial R-1 use end industrial Park "gateway".
The use is compatible with the es-t-ablis:-!ed zoning and represents a continuance
014; an oricinal stat-ior, which was closed over two years ago.
ation is for approval subject to cori-tipliance with all ordinance re-
Recor.,m�endc
sou ireamen.ts relative to service stations.
PKANNIG CGIAIISS701 TAMPMATION
Application No. 76016
Applicant: Robert Adelgenn (Standard Oil )
Location: 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
Request, Special Use Permit
A special use permit was issued to the DX Sunray Company under application No. 67038;
the station has been closed for over two years-
The applicant proposes to reopen the facility with the following changes:
1 . Install a car wash in an existing bay,
2� install an underground irrigation system.
W Install a new curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard, westerly of an
existing curb cut.
Concerns include:
1 . The entire landscape treatiinent, per original plans, should be
rejuvenated, in additton to the irrigation system (now required
by ordinance). This will involve a probable replacement of
We and plantings which have not been maintained.
2. The existing curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard should be eliminated
and the area should be landscaped as a greenstrip.
W The paved areas should be repaired or replaced as necessary.
4. The existing screen fencing should be repaired as necessary.
5, Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be screened.
The City Engineer will be prepared to discuss the area traffic and recommended
access audifications''
Approval wousd be subject to the following:
Y The pernk is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility
and is non-transferable..
2„ The permit shall be subject to al! applicable ordinances, codes
and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3- A perforrRnce agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an
to be determined by the VVY manager, shall be submitted to
assure completion of the appyovk site improvements,
1 i 7 L'>Fd g 6 C o.
P 'iwo
4 Plans for building modifilcatgoes shall be subject to
review by the Building Olifficial, prior to the issuance of permits.
5 Grading, paving and curbing steal i be sLd-)J ect -to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
6. Laqdscaping and paving improvements shall be r2juvenated or
replaced as necessary I per the plans- vrplica-
t 41 Ire
z I U D
7. A ,,outside trash disposal facility shall be appropriately screened.
8 The exis,Ling cob cut onto Free ay Boulevard shall be eliminated
and V),e area shall be redev--loped as a 9-ceenstrip.
•
•
z
Rv
- -- R'3
R3
ti
r
P `d
z `_ �J, BROOKLYN CENTER Z;
HIGH SCHOOL
COL. >
a
FIREHOUSEX
/ F
Y PAR
11 LU
AJ
a rr FIRE
-' I ,. STA.
65TH AVE NO. 6 UK— AVE
2 -
2 _
C2
-- --
I1 I 1
AV
— — —
Q —, R �1.ay....-
r
oa'v e
R3 --
�
n M - -.
O I
ID d d
JMMIT
i
�•• OR�Vf w
J
m r--1IT I m r
.76017
Applicant or. Gregory Swerson
L 0 C a t,1c,,V, C417 and 64137 Brooklyn Boulevard
Preliminary Mat
The applicant Seeks approw-A o-F a reliminary plat for -the property of the e
I)roakpark Dental Cl mic thte Parcel proposed as the sit(I of accessory offsit
P a rkim
-11166 the proposed parking I(;- 0ould be included
ee! m, parce,,l betvvee;�,�r, the cli.,nic,
th.e Oat�
Tie Direct.or of Public: W,,.xi,s -v!j-j1 be prepari2d to discuss the fii detail .
Api-wova.1 viwld be subject to the fa 1,1 Owi Fig-
-1 . !-J!j_aJ is subject to review by the City rEngiveer.
2. Fincil p'Ja4t-, is subjec-11., -,,o the requiremep.111-s Of Chapter 15
of the, Cv,"y Ordinamces
3. 'Final a" at shall isicl Lid e LOt 1 , MOCk E-1, Nor-thgate Addition, at 6421
Brooklyn Boulevard.
V
M
r.
Application NO. X60-18
• Applicant: Dr. Gregory Swenson
Lo-,ati on: 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Special Use Pen(At
rhe applicant seeks special permission for an off-site parking facility accessory
to the Brook,park Dental Clipic, 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard. The site is located at
6417 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The request is based upon the Provi-sions of Section 35-701 . The IF011owing should
be revlgewed,.
T
Provision Vor i:�ppropriate screening around the parking lot—ir,
t-o exist-ing trees.
L Lighting -for the lot.
Re al of the existing house -and car-age and proper filling
mov,
of the basemept. The surface areas disturbed by this should
be *sandscaped with viable turf.
We will be prepared to discuss these iteitis in detail .
The Ordinance provi des,that, W the accessory parking is to be credited to the
• requirempts of 'the principle use, the use of -the accessory site must be legally
encumbered for that park-'frig (normally by deed restriction).
Appro,val ijould be subject to the -Following:
-rh #,-, el
permit -�s issijerl to tile, applican, as op ,,ator and is not
2., Grading, drafinage_- paving and curbing plans are subject to
approval by the City Lnqineer,
3a Tfl-le existing structures shall be removed, and the premises
snall be filled and restored consistent with the landscaping
of the site� Unimproved arcas shall be platited with a viable
turf and other approved vegetation.
4. A perforMance agreement- and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be de-terimined by the Cit�y Manager) shall be SO-
rr.itted to assure completion of the approved improvements.
5. oetaiied iandscaping, screen-Ing and lighting plans shall be pyre-
pa i ed prior -to Ci tIly, C,L,,Pc-'l
4
J
a
4' �' �i �°.�� �" g�s���'r t_ *dye- �� 4`?�v•�ei'
"
K
�t. �ra. ���R#waipy;•v.
L
;av;¢v.w....'.ie,:.+.+ �usvaci.-.,,sxw�.. � ��'Sl iYitax sxwrxr:rtiuiwati+aewev wit(n+m:r
f;
Application No. 76021
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Indepcmden't
School DistriCt No. 2F J6
Lov.,,tion: 6500 Hum'Doldt Avenue North
Request: Building Pl&i Approval
'Rie, applicant proposes a masonry storaq-e building under acs e 'mair, bleachers
-ructure would be used
In tiie Irligh Schoul athletic field. The 12' x 58' st
W - -! as a coll-
W store at.hle-ft.ic equip-t.mut; -it is possible terse end !Mght servt
cession statid, it is not designed for any occupancy and it would not be
'Ic
I -ated.
Approval would lbe sub"Ject to the follo,�Ang. Building plans are Subject
o approyala I�y tj)Li BLS�,jldjjj9 of-111cial prior to tilpe issuance Of a Pemli• .
PI-POMIM-n. remMISY101 SYKKT
Application No,, 76020
Applicant: Planning Commission
Location, North and westerly of Trunk Highway 100,
and south of property owned ky W. J. Dale
Request: Rezone
This applicatiop was initiated as the result of Commission review of Application
mo. 7600g submitted by W. 3 Dale, and it proposes rezoning, from 1-2 to C-2,
consistent with the Dale property.
This action is wholly contingent upon the disposition of Application No. 76009,
and the two applications should be acted upon together.
A public hearing has been scduled. The out-o ow
f-tn owner and his local real for
have been notified of he the proposed rogning.
The Southwest Ac vi Group has recompanded the inclusion of BY parcel with
the Dale property in any zoning action.
Appi i cat-i on No. 7 000 9'
Applicant: I-L J. Dale
Loc at i On- Sotrth of Lakebreeze Avenue, easterly
of Azaiion? Avenue; westerly of Trunk
Highway 100
R
Rcequest: Rezone
The ite.tn raceived formal public hearing on February 12, 1976 and was tabled and
4.
referred to the South%mest Neighborhooci Group, for review and comment. the appli-
cant was directed to develop a concept-lual -,,,;astr--r plan of the av,ea, incorporating
pertinent deyelopn-rant proposals by the 1-ilight.iay Departraent. wnhich WOLIld affect the
property.
The neighborhood gm-up has recorfariended 1;vIia rezoning, per the attached letter.
Application No. ✓6020 was initiated as a companion step, and involves the adjacent
property to the south.
the applicant has not „yet submitted ca master plan of the area, al though one is
'Ile
apparently being prepa ad according to Vir,: Oc
The City Engineer has prepared a layout indicating possible highway improvements,
easemeni"s, and access roeds. 1,?e will be prepared to review this inff--)rmation.
The item shout e, be tabled to permit adequate si:aff review of the conceptual
• q€�ster' plan
Su&I a pla-1 is basic to the rez-on ing of an area of this i-,�agnitude, especially in
consideration of the location, potential traffic ge-aeration, and acce ss concerns.
Further,-,,ore, a. standard, of such c-tn action would be the replatting of
the property (nG'--V MlSistfi en
lg 0", several parcels includillg residential dimension
f�
1 0t5) 10 F r whic'n a iplan could serve as the preliminary plzat.
On March 17, 19760 the southwest neighborhood committee
met to discuss rir. Dales property, to be rezoned.
1. We were in favor of the property being rezoned
to C 2.
2. We felt the entire corner should be rezoned the
same.
3. There should be a sidewalk easement granted.
4. There should be no entrance or exit onto Azelia.
5. The entire corner should be filled and leveled.
6. A proper buffer zone joining R 2 area.
Present ;
Dean Hill
Charles Gellerman
Yvonne Quady
neighbors;
Mr. & Mrs. Fadden
Ceil Scott 4/7/76/YQ
r
A
5
App
A,
1i
1
i
-L... +lz +� art:':.:awls9M ir'.-�'"'' •'+� QM1 �•
r� •
AV E
rn
7wim itKE r
777
to x;� �--------
_7_77 i
r v, i �
C -
^ r
c
>
7V j
y #
FRANCES z` {Y /Cj
rt( g
EWMG AVM
i
ci�AVE
4440C/I
�j e j
Application NIO, 74054 (Reconsiderat,ion)
Ap p an t o DC111gi.as Quady
472-5 Trvtin Lake Avenue
P.e t V a r ia v I c el
The CoRmission recom.,nerv-ded denia.1 and the COLAncil conourred on December 9, 1974
as folloyis.
b• Cuundlmat'. oansen zmd seconded by Councilwan Kuefler 'to deny
iii.p.pHeation No- 74054 s ubmi t'at.,! by Mr. D0111glas QuadY
I The petit-ion and suppo,ri"Ang evidence do noll- Clearly
s,."Fnd`ards for var4,.jrjf,e set forth fin 01hapter 35.
1 U
varia%nce of' -.',hiL sLg'-jje(:t woul d represent
ting mm yard setbacks•U
the r,omwMnitv.
3,l The locatiors of 61e pilri.^el is mot- deeimed a basis
for w;ctnting tj'-.e var-�apce exis-t-ing ordinance standards.
Voting in favor were: Maywr Ul:nhen, Councilmen Britts, Pignar, Ktiefler and
Jansen. votinif.l against: mone, T6hp n;otion passed unan i fi-ious
T'e City Council has irEquost 'if to reconsider the application in terms
Ci., ordinance latnguage y'hi --vi sb"d JCllf.e house and garage wterfe built and which
wa's delet."'d, froffl, thiel t ;'U:,-
In 1968.
0 p-mAirs., additional dwej'j.jrq spac(;,, atop an existing
below-gra6e garage:
1 Moinconforminq,, Construction
t 4q I -C-4 follow-im, Council
J Thie 25, x 4,0 d��,Iling was buil 19
o 1)�,r-, Z4 ovi- a Valianc- to build. on th,:.,� 56.29 foot wide lot, ,v!th
a' 6 th -side, Jnit-ially, thi proposed Imrit.-L.
yard seti-baclK was e be Une 35 I`oot, howaw,,.r 1-,he actual
sethazk -'is 45 f:ae-t_ Als,,-J, ihouse v,;as not postioned squarely,
e7,,I,d at ornr- corner 'is versus thve a.uthorizcad 6 fee't'I , frorn
Dcspite I'A-11�- cvmcerr. t,-)2,.t- appropriette area be left for a garage,,
a ptrmit wFis issuad in 196a garage which encroaChes
tl yar(l setbair!.. in Othey'
Lr located in
, - ! the
OU i;-,, tt-IL aj. -ached to the
homse, do
citie i,ite Follfowinr ordin .nca language-
A c ra n I
ajrjat�e,,It st,;-L)ctures have.
1 -11" y a xd
setbacks diff'erern. firom 'those required, the
�rout yard setback silall corifform, to the
average setback, of :the adjacent structures.
I,i' only one ad,jacent of is occupied by a
strvctur , the front.. yard -,etbac?x shall he
6ie, average of the irequired setback and the
setback of t-hat adjac.ent. structure.
The staff determined that in this case, the garage could be
located within 20 feel; of the property line (it was built 122
Feet frofil the line).
Z_ Side Yard Setbacks
In addit'loi,, -to the yard setback encroachment, there wouild be
a sideyard encroachi&wnt of approxii-iatellY I foot, since the garage
is 9 feet "rovi 11:h,n north linp_ Owe'llings should be 10 feet frorp
t1te Ifile,
'TI're Council and on ja•uary 22, 1976: joint"lly discussed this ,-,k ttar
and the subJect of !,,4,-iether specl-al), zoning provisic""Is Nere In order -for water-
fa-one" pmroper-ties.
'it was -the cortsensus thaC:
i -- feasible to establish su-ch standards an a
it is not-
=xixi,,,AtyvJde I.msis irk consideration of tha size of
miist. ,o,at-rFront propei,Mes, as well, as the ..Fact that
11)st Of- them ar-e 6eveloped wINEMn existing oedirtance
s+anda,rI.1'4,S
2, Individual situat`ons Involving re-naining properties
aibuttiing the viater, DW'tkLilarly in the southwest
neiahbc.rlhoodl, si-iould be reviewed onttheir merits as
to whether norsial c-Onstrufl-tion is Poss-Ible Within
Vnc evistitog ordinance setbac,", sl,anidards. it),a v i e,,�i
of the zoning and land use plainning iin the area is
fin, order and shou ,d take into accouint thel variety
of env3 ronviiontal factors ir, that neighborhood.
I d ;ic rid pro-
"i ect 'to the Douglas Quad,-,! res i e e a
Wrth resp I..
posed as rarRicisted in a 19 7 4 via r i a.r,c e tape 1-1 Ca-
r P v i I!j i r,g the history of
,he particular p-operty dhif e I I I:, with res pc
ct to
the tjr,;:;:,; �?,-ZMra of the &-loption of present: ordinance
Which does ce-Itain Provisions undar 'which
• Oe housc-., ;%tas origina"HY Ibuilt.
(Cont
T'he Building Of-.1"iCiZO Iris deteygnined ;-,rat,. the roor' structure o':',' the garage
c 'Id supporl-. an ddi ti on—beca Lisp- I`Ia.t roof load requirements are the same
ou ;i &,. U
as norma' 41(,.ar load requirament.s.
Therp is 'no evi.&",elce the original oiwnerbuild.&�, int-Anded or proposlad an
o�ej- the char~; V2- his request was for a garage only ,
The issue now -is:
1 . Did the daletion of the "averaging forMula" in 1963 establish
the basis for a "hay dsMp caused by the Ordinance"?
so, is t�,jej.L_,
U-,j beasjs -I-or the variance within the
scope of s-tIandti.-rds for granting a variance?
3. Should 1"he '1974 denial action be therefore affirmd or t°av-rsed
(reve�rsal mean-Ing the front yard and one font side yam, variances
are in and permits should be issued)?
i
I
I
i
I
I
6' I
� I
I
,k
1.
i 3
3 Pi'-t t9'✓ � F 7
x � a C4 i
f ti
I
I
J
el a'j
......-.........,......,.,......,....,.....a..,�....,,aw,..,-.:..,..-..,..,,.,. n-....e.<.......n....»..r...*.•�..,cw.-..masaw.�aw-.+...c�a...+u.�.scc«'.yu'
v<+m�'awwrawrr.m aa.�� I'
I
.�
�4