HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC82020 4-5-82 811 and 821 70Th AveIN., Nklw
PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST
File Purge Date: 1212°1-g5
FILE INFORMATION
Planning Commission Application No. 8202o
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
Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book
Minutes: Planning Commission
Minutes: City Council
Resolutions: Planning Commission
Resolutions: City Council
Ordinances: City Council
412gl82, 7A/82, City Vault
a/►z/82
8/29/8Z, 6/x,/gz City Vault
82-3 (811#82) City Vault
82.-1(-`+ ( 9/30/SZ) City Vault
City Vault
Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve
c
T p licat:ion 140. 82020
Please F'^fix. 7fiTor
stxe£'t Location QC C,I-C)rieX'::y�d' 70
Legal Description of. P'ropeyty,?he , wrgj, Yx �ArI alc 4-� £usf�%_ a1� Lod S.l.i.�__.
� 0 Su io,✓ Vo. 30 AN 74 a4 or+ _-qk S I + o'� 51 4Ud1- Ors
jVW SS'I �
Address 31g0 �o,�� �A,vs Sri- I0I►�,oM� Phone No.
SS9�a�00
Applicant_ U SS M &y = g754 MENfi COM N
�,NAV ,�S}9►1
?� dress �. +C r � oN e N St, i4 101 PH Phtoo.
Type of Request: k_ ;R.ezcnin7
Variance
_ Spztcial Use Permit
J)c=.scr i.ption of R.egizc.s•1-.:
Subdivis-ion Approval
Site & Bldg. Plan Approval
Other:
..._._.. _..! L� __r.___w...�.....�__._.__. o._.,._.__ ��.AC✓:�'r*tid'.,�, ,�,.�,r�� wows � f �"",. _ __._,.
Pee S
Rece ir.)t :.•;To . 58142._
Appi :an k. , DG j .9na-t U_ e
0006
Date
PLNNINING C01,1MISSIuN RECOMMENDATION /
Dates of. P.C. Consideration:-29-8'Z ��� l�9 � S��(�) � `�ie ho•-� � _ 7,�sj�.
Approved _ Denied this ��ay of 19 Subject t-0
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
!"sates of Council Consideration:
Approved �_+ Denied this �36 day of 19 FQ with the
: of lov.d.ng amen:1r, on t :
Clerk
tt�� T ! n �T't`,� p T7. �f �1` tl
...I'l- 01' z�t�\.�l�T\ Xr 41 CI N`1": t, .t 1li�' !-:.7O A
P�zrkwav 55-130
PRCCEDURES AND REQUIRI2•t'I;tIT' S FOR Fir,ING E+''T�'Li��1`t'IOii FOR S.LTE AND BUILDINC
Pl-UM4 APPROVAL
Prior to submission of an application for plan review and �,,-�proval, prospective
C:I�?�llCinLs should arranue aI7. informational meeting with t iE'_a L�l.�t.?I'..1nC{ Sl�if.l' to
CiJ.S^;'SS preliminaryplans and tO become faIni.l zarr e, with applicableordinance
u<tC: policy provisions.
Tree (3) ccpies of the following documents and information shall be submitted,
at least 14 days prior to the date of the regular Commiss.4.1on meeting, concurrent
wl :n :Ciling the application (requi?-ed. documents >.o, c on:; ..iL, i;t with ordi-
T:aTlt:c^ :nr1p�Uv ;-I _ .i.L-ions before an application may be accepted) :
1. A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor
showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned.
.* An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating:_
:a) parking layouts including access provisions;-
b) designations and locations of accessory- buildings;
c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material;
d) outside lighting provisions, type and location;
e) curbing.
:3.* A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded; location, size and
species of trees and shrubbery.
4.* Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including
materials Proposed.
5.* 'E'xisting and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility
Provisions.
G. Additional drawings; plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary,
"t,`.ust be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State
Board of: Registration for Architects, Engineers and Lard Surveyors, and said
, ra,rinc s/p lans shall be so certified.
NOTE'. Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits,
a Performance Agreement as to approved site .improvements and a supporting finan-
cial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by the City, are required. Accept-
able financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and
pe.xfor_ma: ce bond.
Copies of the Zoning Ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative Office.
Questions should be directed to the Planning and Inspection Department.
P/I Form No. 19
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82020
Applicant: Hussman Investment Company
Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning
This application was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1982
and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The
neighborhood group met on June 3rd without a quorum and again on June 16th and made
a favorable recommendation of the rezoning to R3. The application was then returned
to the Planning Commission on July 1, 1982, at which time the Commission gave the
applicant a favorable indication regarding the rezoning and asked that a site plan
and plat be prepared and submitted prior to taking action on the rezoning. Those
applications have now been submitted and are recommended for approval along with
the rezoning.
The Planning Commission is also advised that another letter from Mr. Paul Dan Rosso
(representing Melba Evanson of 800 - 69th Avenue North) has been submitted to the
Commission and is attached for your review. The letter basically discusses the role
of the Comprehensive Plan in deciding land use changes.
As was indicated in the staff report of July 1, 1982, staff feel the rezoning need
not be construed as spot zoning and can be justified within the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-209 of the Zoning Ordinance. A draft
resolution approving the rezoning is attached for the Planning Commission's
consideration.
The public hearing for this application was closed
Nevertheless, an informational notice has been sent
350 feet of the land in question.
8-12-82
at the July 1, 1982 meeting.
to all owners of property within
Planning Commission Ioformation Sheet
Application No. 82020
Applicant: Hussman Investment
Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning from R1 to R3
As the Planning Commission probably recalls, the rezoning request from R1 to R3
involves two lots and a remnant parcel of City -owned land south of 70th Avenue
North extended, east of the City's Maintenance Annex at 69th and Dupont Avenues
(see map attached).
This application was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1982
and was referred at that time to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The
Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met on June 3, 1982 without a quorum of its
members present, and on June 16 when it recommended approval of the rezoning by a
unanimous vote of the members present (see minutes submitted by Chairman Ron Boman
attached). Of note is the fact that only one abutting property owner (Melba Evanson)
now solidly opposes the proposed rezoning to R3.
Commissioners are urged to consider past communications on this matter in making
their decisions on the application (past minutes, letters, site sketches, and staff
reports are attached for your reference).
It should be pointed out that the rezoning application is not accompanied at this
time by a plat or site and building plan application. Action on the rezoning should
be based mainly on the location of the property relative to the level of public
access and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Discussion of the particular
type of development would best be deferred until a specific development plan is
brought forward. Staff would agree that rezoning of the .91 acre of land to R3
need not be considered spot zoning as it is part of a larger area recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan for mid -density residential development. We would also agree
that the proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and
with access off a collector street having traffic projected at up to 7,000 cars
per day.
As the Commission is aware, zoning of property does not control the form of ownership.
Whatever representations have been made regarding a prospective project, merely
rezoning the land does not assure that a development will be owner -occupied as
opposed to rental. For that reason, it is essential to evaluate the proposal based
on the circumstances affecting the bare parcel of land,not on potential structures
or improvements which, of themselves, have no zoning designation.
As with all rezonings, approval must be consistent with Section 35-208 of the City
Ordinances, the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (copy attached).
The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1982 and
surrounding property owners have been notified of the meeting. Also attached for
the Commission's review is a 13 page submission regarding the rezoning from Mr.
Paul Dan Rosso dated April 30, 1982 and received by the Planning and Inspection
Department on June 17, 1982. Mr. Rosso seems to take issue with the rezoning
on the basis that the proposed Comprehensive Plan does not authorize the R3 use
of the land in question. The Commission's attention is directed to the attached
Table 14 (Land Use Plan Revisions) and Figure 15 (Land Use Plan Revisions map) of
the Comprehensive Plan which designates this property and the property to the east
for a future mid -density residential use.
7-1-82
April 30, 1982
Brooklyn C-.nter Planning Commission
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
From: Paul Dan Rosso
PREFACE
As a Preface to my lengthy communication, on Rezoning a
Parcel of about 1-� acres in a R1 Zone to R3, this writer
wishes the reader to keep in mind a CONSTANT QUESTION, Why
is the City spending such a huge sum of money TO REZONE
SUCH A SMALL PARCEL?
WHEN, the Planning Commission's Secretary in the Packet
dated April 29, 1982 wrote, the applicant has stated . . .
"In addition to the SMALL SIZE OF THE PARCEL ONE DIFFICULTY
IN DEVELOPING A SITE IS THE UNCERTAIN PROSPECT OF ADDITIONAL
LAND TO THE EAST AND SOUTH BEING SOMEDAY REZONED R3 AND
JOINED TO THE PROJECT."
AND, where the Developer's Consulting Engineer in a let-
ter dated April 26, 1982 wrote to the Planning Commission's
Secretary, on Page 3,
"D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning
classification changes in the area since the sub-
ject property was zoned?
No.
E. In the case of City initiated zoning proposals, is
there a broad Public Purpose evident?
Not applicable."
IN SUMMATION: The Developer's Agent is concerned that
the surrounding land someday being rezoned from R1 to R3,
and the Developer's Consulting Engineer's answer, "No" to
the question on have there been changes in the area.
The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1966; the
City's resubmitted Comprehensive Plan for the period to 1990
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 2 - April 30, 1982
was approved by the Metropolitan Council on December 17, 1981,
the Consulting Engineer's answer, "No" to the question on have
there been changes in the area is "Correct," the CONSTANT
QUESTION surfaces, Why is the City spending such a HUGE SUM
OF MONEY TO REZONE SUCH A SMALL PARCEL?
The Writer would like the Reader to have in mind the
QUESTIONS that linger when the City DECLARES WARFARE AND AT-
TACKS the Homestead Owners in quiet, exclusive, peaceable
possession of the Premises under Registered Title, the fol-
lowing:
QUESTION 1. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982, made in accordance to the
City's adopted Comprehensive Plan on proper
planning and land use, supported with a PUB-
LIC NEED and COMPELLING REASONS to SPOT -ZONE
from R1 to R3 classification, because the
site is not suited for SINGLE FAMILY DE-
TACHED HOUSING?
QUESTION 2. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
made in the character of a BURLESQUE SIDE-
SHOW, supported by a ludicrous treatment of
the State Statute 162.02 that provides spec-
ific procedures on the rerouting of'a portion
of the C. S. A. H. System AND the City's Com-
prehensive Plan, the Law of the City since
1966, that specifically spells out the N. E.
Neighborhood Plan Recommendations to, 111.
Make single family detached housing the pre-
dominant character of the N. E. Neighborhood"
AND, the Court rulings on ZONING?
QUESTION 3. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982 made in almanner that is to
say the least "DEGRADING and OBSCENE" to the
Professional Engineers, related Professions
and Civil Servants in Government?
UESTION 4. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982 made in a manner that would
in a legal proceeding be considered a FRAUD
UPON THE CITY'S PLANNING COMMISSION, AND, up-
on the travelers using the C. S. A. H. 130
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 3 - April 30, 1982
Road to and from the T.H. 252 on grade con-
nection at 69th Avenue, AND, upon the Peti-
tioning Occupants of the Property within the
content of the proposed ZONE CHANGE?
UESTION 5. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZON-
ING on April 29, 1982 made to IMPAIR, OBST-
RUCT and DEFEAT Federally Protected Consti-
tutional RIGHTS to own and improve Private
Property by CHOICE, AND, to the Protection
of the City's Comprehensive Plan, providing
for -single family detached housing?
QUESTION 6. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982, made to show open DEFIANCE
and CONTEMPT for the State's seven County
Twin City Area Metropolitan Council and re-
lated statutes that require the City's Com-
prehensive Plan?
QUESTION 7. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982 made to show open DEFIANCE
and CONTEMPT for the State's Constitutional
Amendment on Highways, and the statutes, rules
and regulations enacted thereby that provide
for the County State -Aid Highway System to be
under the JURISDICTION of the several County
Boards with the concurrence of the Commission-
er of MN/DOT?
QUESTION 8. Was the Hussman presentation for SPOT -ZONING
on April 29, 1982 made to show open DEFIANCE
and CONTEMPT for the Constitutional SAFEGUARDS
of the Landowners having an interest in per-
petuation of existing zoning classification
within the appropriate distance of the pro-
posed zone change, by the several erroneous
statements that the zone change was in accord-
ance to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the
zoning was a necessary BUFFER from the City's
pretended rerouting of the C. S. A. H. system
by the "S" connection, and the high water level
statement that implied single family detached
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. 4 - April 30, 1982
housing was not feasible because of the pos-
sible water problems in the basement at the
proposed zone change?
After the Planning Commission Public Meeting last night,
my Brother -in -Law took me to the bus -stop so I could go home.
When I left the bus, I thanked the bus driver, and I
would like to relate to your office the reason that I felt
that the bus driver sincerely deserved my thanks.
The driver arrived at.the bus -stop on time, he gave me a
transfer when I paid my fare, and safely brought me to my
transfer point.
Previous to the Planning Commissioner's Meeting last
night, I had prepared for my Sister a Communication on the
controlling factors, specifically the City's Comprehensive
Plan and applicable adjudications on spot -zoning.
On arriving at the Planning Commissioners Meeting, my Sis-
ter had delivered A PROTEST PETITION signed by 100% of the
qualified Landowners within the appropriate distance of the
zone change, that the present R1 ZONING is in accordance to
the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be retained.
The Planning Commissioner's Secretary disputed my Sis-
ter's request that the Hussman application be summarily dis-
missed as improvident in view that ALL of the adjoining neigh-
bors OBJECTED.
The Planning Commissioner's Secretary made part of the
Hussman spresentation, and, Hussman's Consulting Engineer made
the concluding part.
The presentation reflected that neither the Secretary nor
the Consulting Engineer were particularly concerned with being
accurate, but instead, alleged that this should be looked at
from an overall view, the good for the City, that there wasn't
that much difference from detached single family housing and
multiple dwelling housing, that the City's Comprehensive Plan
supported the rezoning, the area had a high water table, this
rezoning would be a buffer from the Municipal Property, and
the 'IS" connection from C. S. A. H. 130 to 70th Avenue would
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 5 - April 30, 1982
require the taking of a small amount of private property from
Hussman and Evanson, etc.
Slides and drawings were shown, and alleged the 'IS" con-
nection was authorized by a City Resolution and the presenta-
tion seemed to spend more time and effort on the City's PRO-
POSED "S" Connection, than was spent on discussing the re-
zoning application.
The presentation also alleged that a Traffic Signal would
be installed at 70th.
When the presentation was completed, Homeowners spoke a-
gainst rezoning because that would create a concrete wall in
the City and change the character of the neighborhood.
This Writer was recognized to speak and stated the rezon-
ing theory was based upon one word, FRAUD. Because:
1. The "S" connection on C. S. A. H. 130 to 70th Avenue
was not authorized by the City's Comprehensive Plan
that was approved by the Metro Council on December
17, 1981, NOR, by the State's Statute 162.02, NOR,
by the County Board.
2. The Traffic Light on 70th Avenue and T.H. 252 was
not authorized by the City's Comprehensive Plan,
INSTEAD, the City's Comprehensive Plan shows traf-
fic lights were requested at 66th, 69th and 73rd,
and this was approved by the Metro Council on Dec-
ember 17, 1981. (A copy of Figure 17 was then
given to the Planning Commission.)
This Writer expected the Planning Secretary to make a fav-
orable presentation for the Hussman proposal, but it hurt, it
was a disappointment to hear that the Secretary alleged that
this wasn't SPOT -ZONING, that this should be looked at from an
overall view, the good of the City, that there wasn't that
much difference from detached single family housing and mult-
iple dwelling housing, that the City's Comprehensive Plan
supported the rezoning application, and that the City had by
Resolution authorized the "S" Connection on C. S. A. H. 130 to
70th Avenue North.
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 6 - April 30, 1982
This Writer expected the Consulting Engineer to make a
favorable presentation for the Hussman proposal, but it hurt,
it was a disappointment to hear the Consulting Engineer al-
lege that the R3 rezoning would be in conformity with the
area, while showing the Evanson R1 zoned Parcel on a slide
occupied with several multiple dwellings and a CUL-DE-SAC
Road.
This Writer states the Members of the Planning Commis-
sion may have been misled by this slide that showed multiple
dwellings on the Evanson R1 zoned Parcel, that only contains
a single family detached house.
Now, going back to the Bus Driver that took me safely
to the transfer point in a satisfactory manner, I compared
his SATISFACTORY service with the service the Planning Com-
mission Secretary and the service the Consulting Engineer
rendered at the Planning Commission hearing.
The Planning Commission Secretary, an employee of the
City holding a sensitive position in the City's Planning De-
partment, certainly should have been sufficiently informed
that the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically contained
N. E. Neighborhood recommendations, item 111, Make single fam-
ily detached housing the predominant.character of the N. E.
Neighborhood."
The Secretary should also have known that the parcel
could easily contain t*o single family detached houses. In
connection, the Secretary had available the information that
70th Avenue contains a storm sewer about six feet in diamet-
er sufficiently deep that is already PAID FOR, so'that the
houses would have dry basements and that water and sanitary
sewer are already installed and PAID FOR on 70th Avenue, so
that there would be no problem to the Developer in this area.
The Secretary should have brought these substantial ma-
terial facts to the attention of the Hussman Developer BE-
FORE accepting the fee for the Rezoning Application.
This Writer respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission credit the Developer this fee for the Rezoning
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 7 - April 30, 1982
Application, to be applied on the Building Permit, or to be
refunded by Check.
The Consulting Engineer holding a sensitive position,
probably licensed, bonded, and engaged in private business,
certainly should have been sufficiently informed that the
Developer's land on 7Oth Avenue DID NOT have a high water
table because of the six foot in diameter storm sewer, that
the City's Comprehensive Plan recommended, 111. Make single
family detached housing the predominant character of the N.
E. Neighborhood," that the Developer's parcel could contain
two single family detached houses, that the City does not
have the legal capacity to reroute the C. S. A. H. System
and install an "S" connection on C. S. A. H. 130 to 7Oth
Avenue, and that the Developer's Rezoning Application con-
flicted with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
It APPEARS to this Writer that the presentations made
by the Planning Commission Secretary, AND, the Consulting
Engineer were NOT made to the best of their knowledge and
ability as REQUIRED in the sensitive positions they are hold-
ing but INSTEAD, were made with the view to MISLEAD the Alan-
ning Commission, the Landowners within the content of the
proposed zone change, and in all likelyhood, the Hussman
Development Company.
In comparison to the M. T. C. Bus Driver, that safely
took me to my transfer point, I feel that the Planning Com-
mission Secretary and the Consulting Engineer took ALL OF US
on a ONE-WAY trip to the grave!
WE PAY TAXES TO LIVE IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY.
We pay taxes for our Educational Institutions, to edu-
cate people to obtain Licenses, Degrees, etc., to serve the
Country in a Professional Capacity as Engineers, etc., AND,
We The -People look up to these educated Professional People
with respect.
In return, this Writer, a Taxpayer, EXPECTS to receive
the BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY, and when this is not
received, RESENTS being MIS -INFORMED by a Professional Person
that knowingly is ROBBING THE PEOPLE, the Taxpayers that made
possible the education he received.
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 8 -
April 30, 1982
In conclusion, the Planning Commission's motion to, "As a
matter of policy we turn these applications over to the Neigh-
borhood for their consideration" left this Writer with the
thought, "THANKS FOR NOTHING". The Planning Commission ex-
pects the stupid homeowners to cool off, watch television and
accept the inevitable SPOT -ZONING for multiple dwellings.
The City's Planning Commission then APPROVES the re-
zoning application on a technicality, that after 400 meetings
all the ISSUES were RESOLVED, there was not one oral or writ-
ten objection to the presentations made by the Planning Com-
mission's Secretary and the Consulting Engineer.
In the event that this Writer's conclusion is INCORRECT,
and the Planning Commission obtains the answers to my several
questions submitted in good faith, then submit these answers
and the Hussman application for Rezoning, the City's Packet,
the letter dated April 26, 1982 to the Secretary, the trans-
cript of the April 29th meeting, this letter, the slides and
other material to the N. E. Neighborhood for their consider-
ation, this Writer will submit a Written Apology to the City's
Planning Commission that I was in error and the Planning Com-
mission was NOT acting in concert together with Others under
"Color of state law" to approve the IMPROVIDENT Rezoning Ap-
plication. I SINCERELY hope that I am wrong.
Respectfully Submitted For
Constitutional Government,
eaAx,g AW 6?tr �
Paul Dan Rosso
7 Ortman Street, S.E.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55414
POST SCRIPT: The City's Packet dated April 29, 1982, contains
Hussman's Application No. 82020 that is entit-
led, "Planning Commission Informational Sheet "
that INSTEAD, contains a substantial amount of
MIS -INFORMATION. I
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH states in part, "This property and
land to the east was the subject of Application No. 81019
whichwwas WITHDRAWN because of opposition by surrounding
property owners and by Melba P. Evanson, A PORTION OF WHOSE
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 9 - April 30, 1982
PROPERTY WAS PROPOSED FOR REZONING AT THAT TIME."
CORRECTION. The City's Notice for Hearing Application
No. 81019 stated that 811 and 821 70th Avenue were to be re-
zoned from R1 to R3. The notices were mailed to the four
houses on 69th, Lanes, Roches, Evansons and the house now
occupied by Mary. The NOTICE FAILED to show that the four
houses are ALSO to be REZONED from R1 to R3, and that none
of the four homeowners were ever notified that their Home
site was to be REZONED. We learned of the REZONING of the
four homes when we picked up the agenda on the meeting night
to voice our objections.
COMMENT. It seems strange to this Writer that a devel-
oper would seek to REZONE four houses that he has no interest
in, and in connection, WHY would the Planning Secretary ac-
cept a zoning application that contained four additional par-
cels for REZONING? Were the four parcels added to obtain an
area of over five acres to avoid objections on SPOT -ZONING,
and if so, by WHOM?
The second paragraph states in part, Mr. Fierst states
(in a letter dated April 8, 1982) ". . . the proposed land use
is consistent with the propozed Comprehensive Plan."'
CORRECTION. The City's Comprehensive Plan to 1990, ap-
proved on December 17, 1981 by the Metropolitan Council at a
regular meeting, the City's Plan is a continuation of the
Comprehensive Plan approved and adopted in 1966, there is NO
CHANGE whatsoever in the N. E. Neighborhood Zoning Classif-
ication.
COMMENT. Mr. Fierst looks up to the Consulting Engin-
eer and the City's Planning Secretary with respect, because
they are professional people that should have knowledge of
the City's Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning, and could relate
this information to him.
The TRUTH is that the Rezoning Application for R3 con-
flicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that Mr. Fierst
has been MIS -INFORMED by Professional People.
Mr. Fierst's letter continues, ". . . The R3 use will
create a good buffer with the NEW ALIGNMENT of 69th Avenue
North."
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 10 - April 30, 1982
CORRECTION. The City's Comprehensive Plan DOES NOT SHOW
an "S" connection on C. S. A. H. 130 to connect to 70th Ave-
nue North, the County Board has not taken any proceeding to
reroute C. S. A. H. 130, the Statute 162.02 provides the
County Boards with the concurrence of the Commissioner, the.
Power to reroute the C. S. A. H. System.
COMMENT. The City of Brooklyn Center is NOT a party of
legal capacity to reroute C. S. A. H. 130, an inter -city col-
lector road.
The THIRD Paragraph states in part, "The proposed Com-
prehensive Plan does recommend an R3 use for the land south
of 70th Avenue . . .".
QUESTION. On what page did the Secretary find this
recommendation, R3 use; Also, WHY is the word "proposal"
used?
COMMENT. The City's Comprehensive Plan on Page 90.1.
1. Make singleffamily detached housing the predominant
character of the Northeast Neighborhood.
Also, WHY is (beyond the vacant Evanson property) writ-
ten? Evanson has a single family detached house and a garden
plot in the rear that is occupied as a HOMESTEAD, and is NOT
vacant.
The FOURTH Paragraph states, It. . . the Merila letter
states the project provides additional SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
and adds to the tax base."
QUESTION. Why did the Merila letter use the words ". .
Single Family Housing: WHEN the Application is for R3 Zoning
to contain Multiple Family Housing?
COMMENT. R1 Zoning, is for "Single Family DETACHED Hous-
ing". There are several zoning classifications that may con-
tain "Single Family Housing", including Commercial Zoned Dis-
tricts.
The FIFTH Paragraph states in part, "The realignment of
69th Avenue North will connect 70th Avenue North to 69th. . ."
and, ". . .there will likely be signals at 73rd, 70th and 66th
Avenues. ." and, "There will be NO ACCESS onto 252 from 69th,
which will be CUL-DE-SACED," and, "A higher density land use
may, therefore, be justified."
UESTION. This Writer has without success been seeking
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 11 - April 30, 1982
the City's LEGAL CAPACITY to engage in such an IDIOTIC fash-
ion, the City can grind out endless pages of paper pollution,
YET, they could not PREPARE ONE PAGE ON THE CITY'S JURISDIC-
TION to reroute a portion of the C. S. A. H. System, on the
City's JURISDICTION to SUPERSEDE the County Board and the
Commissioner of MN/DOT, and to SUPERSEDE the Metropolitan
Council's APPROVAL of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
COMMENT. This Writer NOTES that the City is exerting a
substantial effort to BRAIN -WASH us that this IDIOTIC scheme,
to reroute C. S. A. H. 130, to install traffic signals at
70th, to CUL-DE-SAC C. S. A. H. 130 at T H 252 is to occur.
The Application before the City's Planning Commission is to
REZONE Hussman's LAND. Why is the City DIVERTING our atten-
tion away from the matter on hand, REZONING Hussman's parcel?
The City's Comprehensive Plan on Figure 17, "Transport-
ation System Improvements" contains the following, "Traffic
Signals and Access Points at 66th, 69th and 73rd Avenues."
Just a thought, a child will say, "I wasn't in the kit-
chen," then when you go into the kitchen you FIND the cookie
jar broken. Could the City's Secretary and the Consulting
Engineer be telling us something INADVERTENTLY?
The SIXTH Paragraph refers to Section 35-208.
Section 35-208, Subd. 2 (POLICY). It is the policy of
the City that (a) zoning classifications must be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and (b) rezoning proporals shall
not constitute "spot -zoning" . . .
SPOT -ZONING, defined as a zoning decision which:
1. disciriminates in favor of a particular land-
owner,
2. does not relate to the comprehensive plan,
3. does not relate to accepted planning principles.
QUESTION. This Writer notices that this definition is
quite rigid in comparison to Court Rulings that permit SPOT -
ZONING on occasions where it is shown that, "there is a PUB-
LIC NEED for it, or a COMPELLING REASON for it." SEE, Shad -
lick v. Concord, 234 A2d 523 (N.H., 1967).
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm. - 12 - April 20, 1982
This Writer believes that a question, "whether the Huss-
man Application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,"
would be answered, NO!
And, "whether the Hussman Application shows a PUBLIC NEED
for it, or a COMPELLING REASON for it" has NOT been shown by
the IDIOTIC scheme to install an "S" connection on C. S. A. H.
130 to 70th Avenue.
The SEVENTH Paragraph states in part, ". . . it is only
part of a larger area designated in the proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan for mid -density residential (R3) development."
UESTION. Where did the Secretary find that.the City's
Comprehensive Plan contains, ". . .mid -density residential
(R3) development" in the Northeast Neighborhood?
COMMENT. The City's Comprehensive Plan at Page 90.1,
N. E. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS.
"1. Make single family detached housing the predom-
inant character of the N. E. Neighborhood."
The EIGHTH Paragraph states in part, "The applicant has
stated . . . In addition to the small size of the parcel one
difficulty in developing a site plan is the UNCERTAIN PROS-
PECT OF ADDITIONAL LAND to the east and south being someday
rezoned R3 and joined in the PROJECT.
QUESTION. Somehow, the question and comment escapes me
but doesn't it seem that the R1 ZONING is appropriate?
The NINTH Paragraph states in part, ". . .it is recom-
mended . . . refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment."
QUESTION. This Writer has attended no end of these meet-
ings, and to say the least, is disappointed.
The advisory group sometimes makes recommendations when
a party seeks their support on some matter of local interest.
In this case, Hussman did not seek an advisory group re-
commendation prior to the Committee's meeting, and the aff-
ected homeowners and this Writer had enough of a.broblem get-
Brooklyn
Center Planning Comm.
I
- 13 -
April 30, 1982
ting to
the Committee's meeting
on the
scheduled day.
The Planning Commission Agenda dated April 29, 1982,
on item 114. Chairman's Explanation," states in part, "In
the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission
makes RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL."
The only question that comes to mind now is if NOBODY
CAME to the Neighborhood Advisory Group Meeting on the
scheduled hearing date; would this be a LEGALLY sufficient
reason for the City's Committee to then "make recommenda-
tions to the City Council" that "all issues have been re-
solved on the Hussman Rezoning Application", and the COM-
MITTEE RECOMMENDS that the City's Common Council grant the
R3 SPOT -ZONING to Hussman?
COMMENT. Perhaps the Committee after reading this
Writer's pathetic paper would reconsider the April 29th "re-
commendation" and ask the City's Common Council afz INSIGNIF-
ICANT QUESTION, "If the Planning Co�imission made a recom-
mendation to the Council that was not to their satisfaction,
would the Planning Commissioners be SHOT at sunrise by, the
Secretary and the Consulting Engineer?"
C.C. MN/DOT Commissioner
Metropolitan Council Chairman
1
Planning CommissJ Information Sheet
Application No.,82020
Applicant: Hussman Investment Company
Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests rezoning from R1 to R3 of three lots on the south side of
70th Avenue North in the 800 block, and a third parcel to be a remnant from the re-
alignment of 69th Avenue North (see plan attached). The land in question is .91
acres in area and is bounded by single-family zoned land to the east and south, and
by the realigned 69th/70th Avenue North on the west and north. This property and
land to the east was the subject of Application No. 81019 which was withdrawn
because of opposition by surrounding property owners and by Melba Evanson, a portion
of whose property was proposed for rezoning at that time. Only land which is con-
trolled by Hussman Investment Company is involved in this rezoning proposal.
The applicant has submitted a brief letter (copy attached) regarding the rezoning
request. Mr. Fierst states that the rezoning is justified on three grounds:
- the proposed land use is consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
- the R3 use will create a good buffer with the new alignment of 69th
Avenue North.
the lots resulting from the street realignment will be odd shaped; an
R3 development will make better use of the land.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan does recommend an R3 use for the land south of 70th
Avenue North, west of the Columbus Village Apartments, which contains the land in
question. The proposed use is not so much a buffer as a use which is compatible
with the variety of surrounding land uses: single-family to the south, apartments
to the east (beyond the vacant Evanson property), park to the north, and City
Maintenance Annex to the west.
A letter has also been submitted by Mr. James Merila (attached) which responds to each
of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings (see Section 35-208 attached). In addition
to the arguments made by Mr. Fierst, the Merila letter states the project provides
additional single-family housing and adds to the tax base.
The realignment of 69th Avenue North will connect 70th Avenue North to 69th in the
same fashion that 66th becomes 65th Avenue North, west of Bryant Avenue North. When
Highway 252 is widened to the west of its current alignment, there will likely be
signals at 73rd, 70th and 66th Avenues North. The realignment allows the traffic
which presently takes 69th to the west to turn off at 70th Avenue North. Placing
the signal at 70th Avenue North rather than 69th serves the neighborhood east of
Highway 252 very well and allows for a slightly smoother traffic flow along Highway
252 and better pedestrian access from the neighborhood east of 252 to the school,
park, etc. There will be no access onto 252 from 69th, which will be cul-de-saced.
Because of the realignment of 69th/70th, the property in question will experience
more traffic than otherwise. A higher density land use may, therefore, be justified.
As stated earlier, Application No. 81019 was opposed by other persons whose property
would have been rezoned. (Melba Evanson, Joseph Roche). Although their properties
are not included in the proposed rezoning, there will, no doubt, be objections that
the proposal constitutes "spot zoning" and is, therefore, contrary to the City's
stated policy against "spot zoning" (see Section 35-208 attached).
4-29-82 _l_
Application No. 82020 continued
Staff feel that this objection, while understandably is not valid. While the
proposed zoning district is quite small, it is only part of larger area designated
in the proposed Comprehensive Plan for mid -density residential (R3) development. So
long as the proposed zoning district can accommodate a viable townhouse development
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning application need not be
seen as "spot zoning", but as a step in the eventual effectuation of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The applicant has stated a desire to develop the property for owner -occupied townhouses
and is in the process of developing conceptual development plans for an eight unit
townhouse project. The structures will either be two four unit townhouses or four
two unit townhouses. In addition to the small size of the parcel one difficulty in
developing a site plan is the uncertain prospect of additional land to the east and
south being someday rezoned R3 and joined to the project. Staff recommend that the
project have no more than two accesses onto 69th/70th.
As with all rezoning requests, it is recommended that the Planning Commission table
the application following the public hearing and refer it to the Northeast Neighbor-
hood Advisory Group for review and comment. The previous application (No. 81019)
was referred to the neighborhood group, but was withdrawn before the meeting
took place.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
4-29-82
-2-
HUSSMAN INVESTMENT CO.
FOX MEADOWS OFFICE PARK • SUITE 101 • BUILDING 3
3140 HARBOR LANE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
REALTOR® TELEPHONE 559-2200
April 8, 1982
Mr. Ron Warren
Planning Department
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North
and the exchanged City property
Dear Mr. Warren:
I am asking that the above mentioned properties be rezoned
from its present zoning of R-1 to R-3 for the following reasons.
Rezoning the property to R-3 would coincide with the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
It would help create a good buffer with the new alignment of
69th Ave. N. to the residents who have R-1 zoning. With the
realignment of 69th Ave. N. to 70th Ave. N. coming through the
property, it creates some odd shaped lots. R-3 land would allow
us to utilize the property to its best land usage.
In view of the reasons stated above, I believe it is in the best
interest of the community and the City of Brooklyn Center to
rezone the property to R-3.
Sincerely,
0.�wa
Russell A. Fierst
RAF/bjo
MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS
1601 - 67th Avenue North — Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Telephone: (612) 560-2660
April 26, 1982
Mr. Ron Warren
Director of Planning
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Request for Rezoning of that part of the West 1/2 of Lot 51 and the
North 1/2 of the East 1/2 of Lot 51, Auditor's Subdivision Number 309.
Dear Mr. Warren:
On behalf of Hussman Investment Company, the property owner of the above
described property located in the area of 70th and Bryant Avenue North, we
are submitting the following additional information relative to rezoning the
property from R-1 to R-3.
The .91 acre piece of property is currently zoned R-1 and is abutted by the
City's Public Works Maintenance Annex on the west; Evergreen Park on the north;
R-1 property on the East, which is designated as R-3 in the Comprehensive Plan;
and, R-1 property on the south side. Our comments and responses relative to
Section 35-208 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy
and Review Guidelines are as follows:
Response to Policy Statement
The policy statement is as follows:
"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 "spot zoning" defined as a zoning decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive
Plan or to accepted planning principles."
Our response to the above policy statement is as follows:
The above request for rezoning from R-1 to R-3 is consistent with the new
Comprehensive Plan, which designated the property to be Medium Density (R-3).
It is our position that the requested rezoning does not constitute "spot zoning"
for the following reasons:
1. The application does not discriminate in favor of the landowner only
because the development of the property as Condominium Single Family
Attached Dwelling Units under the R-3 zoning classification provides
additional single family dwelling units to a limited availability of
such units in the City of Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Ron Warren
Re: Hussman Investment Company Property
Page 2
2. The requested rezoning is consistent with and relates to the new
Comprehensive Plan, which is in the process of adoption by the City.
3. It is our position that the rezoning of this property to R-3 is in
accordance with accepted "planning principles" for the following
reason:
a. The parcel is part of the area which provides transitional
zoning from the existing R-1 properties along 69th Avenue to
the R-4 high density residential properties on the east and
the City's Public Works Maintenance Annex on the west.
Responses and Comments Relative to Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
It is our understanding that there is a need for additional single family
units in the City of Brooklyn Center. The project proposes the construction
of eight (8) condominium single family attached dwelling units at an
estimated value of $60,000 to $70,000 per unit. This generates a tax base
of approximately $480,000 to $560,000 in comparison with having the property
developed into three (3) single family residential units at an estimated
value of $65,000 to $80,000 per unit for an estimated tax base of $195,000
to $240,000. Therefore, the proposed development benefits the community
by providing an additional $285,000 to $320,000 of tax base, as well as
providing five (5) additional single family dwelling units to the City of
Brooklyn Center.
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land
use classifications?
Yes, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zoning classification provides for a townhouse type
of development and the proposed project of condominium single
family attached dwelling units is a permitted use in that zoning
classification.
2. The proposed two unit attached single family buildings are consistent
with and compatible with the adjacent detached single family R-1
properties because the units are proposed to be owner occupied, and
the buildings can be architecturally compatible to the existing single
family homes.
Therefore, it is our contention that the R-3 zoning classification for this
parcel provides an excellent transitional zone between the existing land
uses.
Mr. Ron Warren
Re: Hussman Investment Company Property
Page 3
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated
toward development of the subject property?
Yes. It is the intent of the property owner to develop the property as a
Planned Unit Development with owner occupied single family attached dwelling
units. It is recognized that property within the R-3 zone can be developed
as rental properties. However, historically, in the City of Brooklyn Center,
those R-3 properties that have been developed as planned unit development
properties are currently approximately 91% owner occupied. A summary of
researching the Hennepin County assessment records indicated the following:
Unsold
Non- (Builder Partially
Project Homestead Homestead Owned) Built Total
Creek Villa
71st & Brooklyn Blvd.
98 5
The Ponds
71st & Unity
108 1
Riverbrooke
66th & Camden
20
York Place
69th & York
8
Moorwood
Major & Co. Rd. 10
22 2
Swanson
72nd & Lyndale 10 1
266 9
Percentage 90.8% 3.1%
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoni
the area since the subject property was zone
103
11 7 127
20
8
24
11
11 7 293
3.7% 2.4%
I classification changes in
No.
E. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public
purpose evident?
Not applicable.
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions
for the proposed zoning districts?
Yes.
Mr. Ron Warren
Re: Hussman Investment Company Property
Page 4
G. Is the subject property generally suited for uses permitted in the present
zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location?
It is our opinion that the subject property is more suitable for R-3 usage
than for R-1 usage for the following reasons:
a. Because of the location of the property in proximity to adjacent R-4
property and the City Public Works Maintenance Annex.
b. The configuration of the property limits its development as R-1.
c. Since the property on the opposite side of the street is city property,
the cost of providing public utilities to the subject property as R-1
makes the development costs extraordinary.
d. The high water table makes it difficult to develop as R-1.
H. Will the rezonin
by 1 comprehens
ion of zoning district, warranted
ick of developable land in the
It is our contention that the proposed rezoning will result in the expansion
of a zoning district, which is warranted by both the lack of developable
land in the proposed zoning district and the best interest of the community.
Our reasons for that are as follows:
There is only a small amount of developable land in both the R-3 and
R-1 zoning classifications within the City of Brooklyn Center.
Therefore, it is our contention that development of this property as
R-3 rather than R-1 provides five additional condominium single
family attached dwelling units. It is our contention that the additional
units provide a benefit to the City of Brooklyn Center. The benefit
is derived in the form of additional single family dwelling units and
in tax base.
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or
owners of an individual parcel?
Yes. It is our contention that the proposal demonstrates merit to the best
interests of the community and the City of Brooklyn Center, as well as to
the interests of the property owner for the following reasons:
1. Provides additional needed single family residential development for
the City.
2. Provides an increased tax base to the community.
Mr. Ron Warren
Re: Hussman Investment Company Property
Page 5
On behalf of Hussman Investment Company, we respectfully request a favorable
action by the City staff, Planning Commission and City Council relative to the
rezoning request.
If you have any questions or desire any further clarification on the above
information, please call me at 560-2660.
JRM:ml
cc: Hussman Investment Company
Sincerely yours,
tam'eR.Terila, P.E.
President
MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC.
il
. ,
That part of Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision Number 309, Hennepin
County, Minnesota described as commencing at the Southeast corner
of said Lot 50; thence North 1037'28" hest, assumed bearing, along
the East line thereof 238.21 feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence North 1037128" Nest 158.74 feet; thence Southerly 58.86
feet along a non -tangential curve, concave to the Southeast,
having a radius of 315.0 feet, central angle of 10042'26" and
the chord of said curve bears South 19031127" test; thence South
14010111" [west tangent to said curve 106.90 feet; thence North
89034'28" East 50.32 feet to the point of beginning.
� i■i
EMERS
Im I
.-
l' I Pl
-f 9:m_1•l4■
no
r
• =
k
SCHOOL
I
H. Lane J. Roche
ICL
CITY p * =
A—K
70 th AV E.% u:
7777- -7777 77-
U
M. Evanson
Village
Builders
4 1 E
R T H
CITY PROPERTY
AVAILABLE
FOR PURCHASE
...........................
'feLlIh ;,rt7 -f V'Oril, he or
00, Of Co! S/ V (-,60,tA orgo, or
7-
70 q ve- v fir NoRr.11
ve9l�--1
32 Oe
"?c
PARCEL NO-1A
PARCEL NO. 113
4"
ti
VANSOM �)POPFRTY
Q0
L
-3ti
01
I fli) rr, ` C
Sec 2s, 7 t/ 9 R.2;
i/
i
CL
�IV
--------------
H. Lane
J. Roche
M.
1 �_
/ _... �. moc he
[uI
CITY
OF
1OKLYN
ENTER
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561-5440
EMERGENCY -POLICE -FIRE
561-5720
To: Ron Warren Director of Planning & Inspection
Date: June 18, 1982
Subject Minutes of N. E. Neighborhood Advisory Group June 3 & June 16,82
Advisory Group Present June 3, 1982 East Fire Station Ron Boman
Ray Haroldson, Nancy Manson Others Present Melba Evenson, Paul Russo
Joe & Madeline Roche, Russ Pierce, Jim Merilia
Advisory Group present June 16, 1982 East Fire Station Ron Boman
Doug Peter, Nancy Manson Others present Melba Evenson, Paul Russo
Joe & Madeline Roche, Russ Pierce, Hazel Lane Jim Merilia.
During the June 3rd meeting Jim Merilia presented the concept plan
of the proposed townhouse developement if the change in zoning were
to go through. The discussion that followed lasted about 3 hours with
most of the residents feeling that the land should remain zone R-1,
Russo and Evenson feeling this was spot zoning, there was a lengthy
discussion between the homeowners and members of the advisory group
on the merits of the rezoning. The advisory group opinion and feeling
was that a quality developement of town houses with landscaping ect.
was better for our neighborhood than cheap single residential homes.
The meeting was adjorned at 10:30 with no decision being taken because
of the lack of Advisory Group members. A new meeting was set for June
16, at 7:30 at the east Fire Station.
During the June 16, meeting the chairman asked if anyone had anything
more to say about the proposed rezoning. Some discussion did take place
with Melba Evenson and Paul Russo being opposed once again Joe and
Madeling Roche said they had changed their minds about the townhouse
proposal and that if it would be a quality developement with landscaping
tres ect. it might be all right, Hazel Lane seemed to go along with
Madeline's opinion.
The meeting concluded with the following Advisory group member recommend-
ing approval of the R-3 zoning change on application No. 82020,
Ron Boman Ray Haroldson, Doug Peter, Nancy Manson
If you have any other questions regarding the meetings contact
Ron Boman.
„ 074 .s mom 4?P „
Honorable Ronald A. Warren, Secretary
Brooklyn Center Planning Commission
6301 SHingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
A P R O T E S T P E T I T I O N
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Hussman Investment Company has made Application to
the City's Planning Commission to Rezone Property located
at 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North from R1 to R3, hearing
scheduled for April 29, 1982.
The following Landowners and/or with interest in Land
within 350feet of the Applicants Parcels, Respectfully File
this PROTEST PETITION with the Brooklyn Center Planning Com-
mission.
The Present R1 ZONING is in accordance to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and, has a SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP to
the Public Welfare, specifically to'potential TRAFFIC and
HAZARDS to Children in the Evergreen Park, AND, R1 Zoning
should be retained.
ADDRESS
DATE
21
- q A � /r-
April 26, 1982
HOnorabl.e Ronald A. Warren, Secretary
Brooklyn Center Planning Commission
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Re: C_ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
FROM R1 TO R3.
Dear Sir:
AND REZONING HUSSMAN PROPERTY
The Brooklyn Center Planning Secretary should review
the City's Comprehensive Plan that was submitted to the ad-
jacent Cities for review at least six (6) months PRIOR to
submitting them to the Metro Council for review and appro-
val. The Metro Council on December 17, 1981 approved the
City's Comprehensive Plan as submitted.
The City's document, "The Comprehensive Plan," was
prepared in accordance to Statute 473.851 - 473.872.
Section 473.859, Subd. 1. "The Comprehensive Plan shall
contain objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND USE-, development,,redevelopment and
preservation for all lands and waters WITHIN THE JURISDIC-
TION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT through 1990. . .".
Subd. 2. A land use plan shall designate the existing
and proposed location, intensity and extent of use of land
and water for agriculture, residential, commercial, indust-
rial and other public and private purposes, or any combina-
tion of such purposes.
i
The City's Comprehensive Plan at Page 90.1.
Policy Plan by Neighborhood.
� � r
Brooklyn Center has been divided into six (6) clearly
definable neighborhoods.
Northeast Neighborhood, PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. Make single family detached housing the predominant
character of the Northeast'Neighborhood. t
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary -_2 - April 26,1982
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
The City's Planning Commission has scheduled a hearing
on April 29th to SPOT -ZONE the Hussman Property from R1 to
R3, even though the City's Zoning Ordinance PROHIBITS "spot -
zoning" and the City's Comprehensive Plan on Page 90.1
states, 111. Make single family detached housing the pre-
dominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood."
The Petitioner, Hussman Investment Company's applica-
tion for "rezoning" contains a SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE from
the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive
Plan that the Metro Council approved on December 17, 1981,
because the application for rezoning:
1..IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH PROPER PLANNING AND LAND USE;
2. IS NOT REQUIRED as a PUBLIC NEED for it, or a com-
pelling REASON for it,
3. DOES NOT SHOW substantial material facts in support
that no reasonable use can be made of the Property
in a R1 Zoning Classification as a SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED HOUSING SITE.
The City's Comprehensive Plan at Page 77.
Policies and plans contained within this document
represent an extension and continuation of those
set forth in the 1966 Brooklyn Center City Compre-
hensive Plan. Unless this document contains a direct
contra icition to the policies or plans of the 1966
Plan, those policies and plans remain in effect.
Explanation: The provision of health, safety, and
welfare are three legitimate objectives of municipal
government. While working to further these,
individual property rights and freedom of decision
must be respected.
At page 79. Measures.
. . . Measures should be taken to protect and main-
tain each neighborhood's identity. Encroachments
upon viable residential areas by incompatible land
uses should be discouraged.
. . . The City of Brooklyn Center can work to re-
serve and enhance the investment of the individual
in his/her land and buildings by insuring compatible
land use relationships and preventing encroachments
which create negative or blighting influences.
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary - 3 - April 26,1982
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
Placa v. Lehr, 538 NW2d 919 (1976 No.)
Implicit in this whole concept of comprehensive zoning
is the principle that one seeking a change or a rezoning for
the use of land must bear the burden of presenting -competent
and substantial evidence of a public as well as a private need
therefore, general welfare considerations cannot be disregarded.
Sun Oil Co. v. New Hope (1974) 220 N.W.2d 256
3rd Mason's Dunnell Digest. Mid Corp. 4525.
Mere physical proximity between existing and proposed land
uses does not of itself merit a rezoning of the subject property.
Even though there may be a significant change in the character
of the neighborhood of the subject property, such change in
itself does not compel a rezoning absent probative evidence
that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current
zoning classification.
Burns v. Des Feres, 534 F.2d 103 (CA 8 1976 No.) Cert.
den., 97 S. Ct. 164
Landowners have an interest in perpetuation of existing
zoning schemes. Accordingly, protests by landowners about a
zoning change request may be properly considered in denying
the request.
Disco v. Bd. of Selectmen, 347 A.2d 451 (1974 NE).
The filing of a protest petition is timely if it is done
prior to the vote on the protested amendment. A content of
property within the appropriate distance of a proposed zone
change is qualified to sign a protest petition.
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary - 4 - April 26, 1982
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
-Where a ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT is in ACCORD with
PROPER PLANNING AND LAND USE, the contention that the ZON-
ING ORDINANCE constitutes "SPOT -ZONING WILL BE REJECTED.
Morningside v. Board, 292 A2d 893 (Conn.; 39?Z).
The mere fact that an area is small and is ZONED at
the request of a single owner and is of greater benefit to
him than to others DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE OF SPOT -ZONING
if there is a PUBLIC NEED for it, or a Gompelling reason
for it. Shadlick v. Concord, 234 A2d 523 (N.H., 1967).
The present zoning of R1 has a SUBSTANTIAL RELATION-
SHIP to the PUBLIC WELFARE due to potential traffic prob-
lems and hazards to children across the street in the Ever-
green Park, AND, should be retained.
Respectfully Submitted For
Constitutional Government,
Me P. Evanson
800-69 Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 35430