HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC70070 - 7/5/73 - 69th Ave & James Aver--
PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST
File Purge Date: I h I -),I Ct Ll
FILE INFORMATION
Planning Commission Application Number: CD
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Zoning:
PLAN REFERENCE
Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for
consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were
consolidated.
• Site Plans
• Building Plans
• Other:
FILE REFERENCE
Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We
have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents.
Document Type Date Range Location
Agendas: Planning Commission Office
Minutes: Planning Commission City Vault
Minutes: City Council City Vault
Document Type Number Location
Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault
Resolutions: City Council City Vault
Ordinances: City Council City Vault
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Zoning Application
Application No. 70070
Street Location of Property 69th Avenue & James Avenue (as vacated)
Legal Description of Property Outlot A and B, Twin Cities Inter-
change Park Addition
Owner B. C. Development Address 6128 Logan Avenue North
Telephone No.
Applicant Same Address
Telephone No.
Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit
Variance Subdivision Approval
—� Other
Description of Request Site and building plan approval for 3 phase
Reason for Request
Fee $
Receipt No.
Applicant
December 21, 1970
Date
Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Approved t/ Denied this 7_ day of
subject to the following conditions
Ch irman
COUNCIL ACTION
Approved I-- Denied this _� day of
19_.7j , with the following amendment
Clerk
PLANNING COMISSSIO INFOR-TIA 'IOIN SHEET
Application No. 70070
ApplIcal'itz Sheehy Construction Co.
Locations 1701--1707 69th Avenue North
Request: Amend original site/parking plan
The applicant is proposing the addition of 12 parking sta:??s
southerly of the Phase I building, in front of the garages.
The alleged "need" is for convenionce; there is not a parking
deficiency.
The applicant contends the "close in" parking is "needed"
because tenants, living in the wings of the building furthest
from the parking facility, are complaining about walking
distance. It is our opinion that the situation is the result
of managements failure to effectively use the existing facilities,
and that there is no basis for granting the request.
There are 80 spaces in the garages and 60 outside ,paces around
the building. There are in addition to over 1.20 spaces in the
main lot easterly of the building, which has 120 units.
There are no controls, such as assignment of spaces -- tither than
the garages. Consequently the "first come, first served" filling
of vacant spaces has resulted in tenants and visitors parking on
the lawn and property to the west., as well as in tenants com-
plaining about walking distance.
The 60 garages are all rented combined with the 60 spaces "near"
the building, there is more than 1 space per unit already. This
does not account for the first two rows of parking spaces in the
main lot which are as close as the garages.
The problem could be alleviated using existing spaces, and
effective control. procedures.
There :is definitely a potential for an undesirable precedent,
namely, intruding on green space for convenience parking. This
is p6rt icularly, significant here, since there are Wo yore buildings
approved on -;-.his site.
Rec4-?n n,-- 3C u.3 ran is for denial-, noting that t33e ".need" can be `^-
solved using existing facilities* and than there are undesirable
precedent ramifications.
721-0 r- L
PUB, 7o : Lr S \ ,
rtrn St►urntA 2N�
L_
Ap � •
3- GL.
CI
I :j
rA,
,l,"tNa �1> � \\