HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC90023 - 6511-6521 Humboldt AvePLANNING CONBUSSION FILE CHECKLIST
7
File Purge Date:
FILE INFORMATION
Planning Commission Application No.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Zoning:
t
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 Tvoe Date Range Location
Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book
Minutes: Planning Commission City Vault
Minutes: City Council City Vault
Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault
Resolutions: City Council City Vault
Ordinances: City Council City Vault
Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve
CO
4-J
CL
N
U
r�
(13
r-I
F4
ra
rl
co
rl
.H
�4
0
z
C:)
Lr)
00
t.0
I:zv
Ln
O
QO
Ln
Ln
CN
CD
ri
ro
r-i
4-3
rd $:i
N ri
>1
(d (d
u
Ln
m rd
Ln r-4
4-)
-a u
cl
cl
<C
Ln
00
M
ro
M
�10
0
U")
S-
CL
rri
cu
CL
0
0
0
co
>
H
U)
V)
LO
CD
a:
U)
r-i
04
CD
�D
Q)
4-3
>1
Ln
M
Ln
Ln
-P
4--)
rd
E
Cu
p
U)
-P
U
.r-
ON
i
ai
cli
ro
CL
>-
V)
1>1
O
CT*
aj
Cam'
4-
O
4J
CL
k
4--)
M
4-) (D 4- -o
(M
4- m tA - 0 (Ij
O -P a C: S-
N
to
a) o S.-
CL-r =
m rC1 =
4-)
u
Ln
u
0) CL 4-) -P
4-) 10 (11 CL -r Ln
-j ft :r- 0
rd
cL
0 cli I u
4--) C =
>)
M 4- M.
CL 0 CM 4- ai
= 0 S.- 0
0 >) r CD +-)
0
4--) S- C 0)=
z
(Ii
>
CL 0 -0-1)
ai -r ro
u i 0)
(t3 CT 0 U
S.- (A
0 0. (D -0
a: S- -0
ro o) (V a)
ei = a) W
C C 4-) W -C
4- -P
4--) (0 C: 0 r- 4-
c0 E Lu 4- o o
u
a) 0 4-1 ro
CL 4--) 4- u r0
CL 4- C-) U
co (o >) -r-
+., (Ij CLr
>, U 4- flO 0-
ro m
4-) -0 (V ai
-C (D
4- —4--) +j -a
0 LO "a .1
� >, ai 0
4-3 ai
>
Ln a) Oj (7" 0
(A (D S.- W
Q) -P S- i 4--) W
U 4- =
0
,$SO.,-0 4- C "0 4-3
Ca. -r CO 0
00
4--)
m
v) 4-3 o o
Rt
CU 0 a) (D (0
00
= u -0 = (0
u
cr (A B:
(0 a S-
C:)
C)
4--) 4-) 4-)C _C--0C0
L) (o Ln -P
C�
Ln
u L-) >., Ln U
(D 4--)
r = = v)
CL >, 4-J rO 0 C-
CL� C: u CL
GJ
(D
u
m -�Z S-
0 (o
ai
(Ii
o En -c- 0
OJ 0 C: ro U (Ij
ai ci = -C
Cc E S.- Lo 4-) C1
CD
C--)
LU
CD
Lo
4-
LO
0
ri
>)
C)
R)
In
-9--
0
0
4-
4-)
4-J
k�
C:)
L)
4-
I CD
0
M5
F-
Hs
L
II
0
4-3
4--1
11
a)
L)
O
-
>
E
0
-0
CL
C2.
(V
E
-Cc
ro
.O
c
CD
c+
0
0
N
Ln
O-
O
a.
Cr
CD
J•
(D
n
C+
CD
a.
C+
O
m
J
w
c
O
0
(a
w
Q
O
m
n
C+
0
O
ro
w
C+
a
m
C+
O
J.
m
N
0
fi
(+
CD
IV
O
0
"s
a_
o•
w
O
n
(D
3
ru
ro
O
O'
w
m
-h
'S
O
3
C+
s
ro
a
a.
3
c,
N'
In)
C+
m
O
-h
-h
n�
(D
Z
C)
m
O n J• (D 'O
rD w -h O
-0-0 O O
rD C+ n -1-0)
Q �
'S (D n O
a La w -h c m w
O -�• w a -•�
() O ^S (a
(D w w -s 0
O O rD -h
Cr n C+ rD
O (D 3 -o
=5 w (D (D
a_ y = w
O O w
N (n O'
(+ w <<
i C+•
C O C+
3 w =r
ro 3 w m
c 0 'O
C+ c'O C)
C+ O c
--�• G O
rr m C)
n 0 a.
C cr N J
0- (D J•w
m C+ O
a. rD a.
n m
J.
(n m 3 ^5
J•
3 'S 0
(D 0 -s
(n O <
nmm(+
1 a. 3 O
O m
J.
• rp+ (n
(n N
n C+ c
mo1ww
-5ro o 0
C+ a. n
J. n ro
n (< (n -h
w y c
C+ fl O
mw-pm
1 0 "5
Om-s3
C+ Jy.
.� J. C-.�+.
GL m = 0
(D
-o c
O -J• w
J. (D
C+ 0.
(Aw:K
c O c
i w to
< -1 rr
m a.
<< Cr
O O rD
N -h'O
V m m
O C°. w
Q �
w w
J• r+ Cr
a J.(<
O
n_ o w
0 (D
J. 5 (a
J.
(a a (n
V) -5
\ n (D
J. (D
w C+ a.
O m
N n w
C+ 'S
N (n (�
=r. O
w
-gym C+
�o m
(a n
J. C+
m O
m O
(n m 'T
O 'i
(n -p
() V ro
CD "5
-s r va
J•
m n m
a. w (a
m (n
DCD
n m
=r Cl-
C+
(D J.
.n c+
_ .0
C+
w ?
o m
a.
(n
r C+
w w
O Ct
a. m
9
a
a.
a.
r+
0
w
J
Q
wCC
G•
Ln
V
w
O
(n
O
J '
O
3
Di
C+
0'
O
a.
m
m
3
m
0
ro
n
m
N
w
Q�
r+
m
N
m
n
CD
c+
w
t�
T
w
a_
r_
O
0
Ln
IJ)
m
n
C+
O
O
(n
w
O
Q.
y
m
C')
J.
J•
n
w
C_+
0
N
u
C')
c
_II.
(.a
W
N y
�y7�{,'
J•
J N J•
w N
O -s m w
U) (D o
C a. n
to -z w
c+ rD
0- -0 (D
(D J• n
N m w
O w In O
p _:i O N
O --h p"
J
C+
rD w rF i
a- = -5 J•
— O. rD O
• 0 (D (a
C) (n
w w
-0 w ^S
(D m
a_ n w
(n
a (n
=- rF
m-s0
Di c
(n Or CT
0- m
J. m
c -5 N
(< 0
a.
O a.
rD
3 ^ a.
ro z
-S O O
n C+ -s
w (n
-+ (D
(D
O O (D
C3. a d
_ m
to a
a. 'S c
c O w
N c O
r+• O rt
Q J.
w J•
J � y
d J. J
J.ca O
N w C)
C+ CF w
J. C) J•
n o 0
C+
N
-h ro 0-
V)
N
-h
O
O
1
w
m
w
'II
m
O
-h
C)
O
O
+n
C+
n
r+
.
O
0
c
E.
E.
Ca
Q)
N
n
w
a.
to
c
C+
rf•
(D
N
'S
m
5.
-T
m
0.
n�
w
rh
m
w
Q
(n
3
m
w
N
rD
3
rD
:3
C+
w O
rt c
J.
O i1
-0 (D
m
•. J
C-+. J•
(< (a
J C+
J. J•
c O
(D (a
(n 0
Ct <
J•
cr (n
(D J♦
O
n O
w (n
J y
n
c r+
J C.�
w a
c-+• m
m
0-0)
o
v• a.
O
0
r+
S
ro
mm
W a_
(D (D
r+• (n
0--.
w co
n O
7rw
J J.
m cn
N
O
a.
w
0
0
V)
N �7
O-
O n
:F- ro
Cl+
J•
.p J.
ro m
'S a
J.
(D c+
c (D
r+
(D c
X 'S
N (D
C+ �G
O• Q
w
Cl) :E
p J.
O O
a.CQ
J•
r+ O•
O
o w
V
w rD
n (a
n J.
C: to
w m
(+ -S
m m
a.
rD
Q.
J.(a
3 J.
ro o
N m
J•
O
O O
(D -5
a+
0
V)
C:
tm
O
'S
o- w -rn
CD -O -Pb O
-h -0 c
C J a. i
J• w
(D n C< ^
w N
w C+
O S n
0) 0
rD
- ((DD C+ (1))
n ..a O
w c o
rh J. C+ h
0 (D (D C-+
O a. c"
_ o. m
w O C+ -h
�G n m O
c
cr 3 0 -'
(D (D -h 0
w r+ C+
n
n (D (a
m
ak-
C+ (n (D O
(D c+ 10 n
L) C i
•. m w (D
-s o
n C+
O C") to
cOn 0 w
C+ N
(D V) J.
C+ O -h
O 0
c+ (3D w
m r+
C+ J.
0 -.0
-1 o 0
a. Qm
J• V (n
O S
w n w
O O -'
() O J
m n
r_ cr
w-sro
a_ m (n
c
"O,•rh O'
0 3
J• J• C+
n C+ Cl+•
o m
a.
0 w
<. :5. r+
J
(n (a -
J. (D
0 C+ w
V)
0 m c+
O (D 'O J•
< J J 0
J. J• J. '+s
(n n
J• J. w C+
w C+
w c N
(n a_ -+•
0
w w o
O �
C.+.
O La w
ro O
Cr
(D w w
O �
J. J
(D O J.
-•h n
-+, O w
w -1 C+
3 J.
J. w O
J C-+.
J• J.
w O -h
^S O O
-�• w -s
N -+
n- 3
m w
(D O
C+ J
=r rD
to <
0) J•
-O m
J. :E:"
n �
w C+ d.
o- =
Jm w
m -o
-0 O
O - -5
S w 0
n. <
:3 J. J
w
n -v
m Cn "5
c+ O
w w (n
a -+, m
n
O C+ C+
O O -+•
J• Q (D
N
n
to
Ul
m
XD
c
m
3
m
Z
N
-Ti
C)
H
r
H
Z
D
-v
r_
C)
D
0
z
m
0
N
m
a_
c
r
z
C•)
cn b--I
w --i
C) --<
J
O
Ln T
J. W
La C)
J CD
(D 7"%
+—
C") -G
"5 Z
ro
(D C-)
7- m_
w m
I ;a
;xz- y
H
cr) m
-P (n
W CD
o�
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90023
Applicant: Alan Chazin
Location: 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a greater density of apartment units to land
area than permitted by ordinance at the North Lyn Apartments, 6511
and 6521 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned
R5 and is bounded on the north by the Berean Evangelical Free
Church, on the east by Humboldt Avenue North (Brooklyn Center High
School is across the street), by Duke Is Standard service station on
the southeast, by Freeway Boulevard on the south (Days Inn is
across the street), and by the Spec. I Industrial Building and
Hoffman Engineering on the west. The variance application arises
because the applicant, Mr. Alan Chazin, wishes to subdivide off an
arm of land adjacent to Freeway Boulevard from the apartment site
and develop it as an office site. The resulting land area left for
the North Lyn apartments would not meet the land area requirements
for the R5 zone (the site is already built to its maximum density
and there is virtually no excess for other development). Hence,
the request for a variance from the land area requirements
contained in Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Applicant's Submittal
The applicant's legal representative, Mr. David Sellergren of
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd., has submitted a lengthy
letter (attached) in which he describes the site, outlines the
proposal and addresses the issues of a density variance, a special
use permit for an office building in the R5 zone, and a proposal
for a shared parking arrangement with the apartment complex.
Although the special use permit and the shared parking questions
will have to be addressed in due course, the first item of
consideration must be the density variance since, without it, there
can be no office development at all. We will, therefore, address
first and foremost the variance request and the arguments made by
the applicant's legal representative in respect thereof. The
proposal is basically to take .7 acre of a 6.3 acre site and
develope it for an 11,700 sq. ft. office development, leaving 5.6
acres for the 102 apartment units, or approximately 18.2 units per
acre (the R5 maximum is 16 units/acre).
Variance Request
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City
Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and
distinctive to the individual property under consideration.
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
Application No. 90023 continued
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 topographical conditions of the specific parcels of
land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the
strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out."
Applicant: "The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts
existing land uses located within three different zoning districts.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with
all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the
original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial
remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial
uses. It is apparent that the Project Property is not
"functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located
across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational
facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the
twenty years since the apartment complex was constructed, despite
the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high -
quality commercial and residential development has occurred
rapidly."
Staff: These arguments seem more attuned to a request to rezone a
vacant parcel of land. It should be pointed out that "the Project
Property" is not at this time a separate parcel which has remained
vacant while adjacent parcels have been developed. It is an
underutilized part of the North Lyn Apartments site which was
developed over 20 years ago. It is questionable whether even an
economic hardship exists since the 6.3 acres of land supporting the
North Lyn Apartments is the same amount of land as would be
required in other parts of the City. There is a question, however,
of whether the underutilization of an otherwise valuable area of
land constitutes a practical hardship. Is it reasonable or prudent
for the City to insist on this arm of land belonging to the
apartment property when it has had no practical value as such and
would provide aesthetic and tax benefits if developed in an
appropriate manner? The original site plan for the apartments
showed no intended use of the .7 acre area in question.
b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Applicant: "As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As
the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern
created an open space between commercial and light industrial land
8-16-90 2
Application No. 90023 continued
uses that is not put to any practical of efficient use. We are
aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City."
Staff: The applicant argues that the surrounding land use pattern
makes this arm of land unique. This may be true and again raises
the issue of what is the most appropriate use of this land.
Standard (a) refers to "particular physical surroundings, shape..."
This is not the only instance of a multiple -family parcel wrapped
around a commercial site, leaving a narrow, possibly unusable
appendage. The Humboldt Courts Apartments has such an appendage
which reaches up to 69th Avenue North. There is also an 18 unit
complex with two arms of land which wrap around Wes's Amoco and
reach out to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Evergreen Apartments formerly
had some wider appendages reaching out to West River Road. These
were eliminated when Highway 252 was widened and relocated. In
retrospect, these appendages, while they help to meet literal land
area requirements, serve little, if any, functional purpose. They
should be avoided whenever possible in the future. While there are
other instances of unusable appendages, this "shape" is still
somewhat rare. It may be that this and the other instances
mentioned should be considered for variance action because of their
relative uniqueness and the surrounding development pattern which
may suggest a more practical use of the land.
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.
Applicant: "The hardship is brought about by the strict
application of the ordinance requirements."
Staff: The hardship of an underutilized area of land certainly had
its origin in the platting of the property in the 19601s. The .7
acre arm of land was created at that time by the owner with the
concurrence of the City. In hindsight, it appears that some better
division of the land could have been made with fewer apartment
units and more commercial use. The question is whether it is more
beneficial to the public welfare to make the landowner live with
this mistake or whether the public interest would be better served
by having the property developed. From a narrow legal perspective,
the former seems to be the proper course. From an economic
perspective, the latter may be more prudent.
d. The granting of the
the public welfare
improvements in the
land is located.
variance will not be detrimental to
or injurious to other land or
neighborhood in which the parcel of
8-16-90 3
Application No. 90023 continued
Applicant: "The granting of the variance to permit the development
of the Project Property with an office building would not be
detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding
properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts.
First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate
$40,000-$50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an
office structure of this size would create employment opportunities
for approximately 50 to 60 new employees. Third, the use would not
generate potential adverse off -site impacts such as noise, dust,
odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide
a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to
the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the
variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient
use of the land." The applicant adds in a separate section that a
variance can be contemplated here because open space is available
across Humboldt Avenue North at the High School.
Staff: We agree with m
regarding this last stan
City will not relax it. -
revenue. That should h
weight at all. The crux
the variance will res
Apartments site. The op
but is intended for use
not, strictly speaking,
acre area in question is
and the original approve
of the area. We are no
tenants. Again, in hinc
if this area were develo
fewer apartments had be
threat to the public wE
my of the points raised by the applicant
lard. However, it should be clear that the
standards simply to get additional tax
e a secondary consideration if given any
of the issue seems to be whether granting
alt in overcrowding on the North Lyn
Bn space across Humboldt is of some value,
primarily by high school students and is
a park for the apartment dwellers. The .7
not equipped with recreational facilities
l plans for the complex show no planned use
: aware of any regular use of the area by
sight, it probably would have been better
,)ed commercially from the beginning and if
-n built on a smaller parcel. The major
lfare presented by this variance is the
prospect that ordinance standards which have been applied uniformly
across the City would be compromised in this case and perhaps
weakened in the future. We see little practical detriment to the
public in this case. The detriment is mostly theoretical. It
should be pointed out that while ordinances should have some valid
theoretical basis, much, if not all, of their value lies in making
better practical results. The variance process is, therefore,
established to allow for some adjustments from the ordinance
requirements in large part to achieve better practical results. We
would agree that, in this case, the practical benefits outweigh the
costs and some adjustment may be considered to help bring this
about.
Shared Parking
The applicant has also proposed that the new office development
share parking and access with the existing apartment complex. The
8-16-90 4
Application No. 90023 continued
proposal is for an 11,700 sq. ft., two -storey office building on
the .7 acre parcel with 35 on -site parking spaces. The total
parking requirement for the building would be at least 59 parking
stalls. The applicant proposes to allow the office building to
have shared use of up to 77 parking stalls on the North Lyn
Apartments property and to have an access drive between the two
sites. The applicant's representative states that "the proposed
shared parking meets the parking demands of the two facilities
which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking
needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and
apartments." Mr. Sellergren notes that the City's joint parking
provisions in Section 35-720 and the definition of joint parking in
Section 35-900 state that joint parking is "for the convenience of
the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at
different times and cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking
requirements for the off -site use." (The applicant does propose to
meet two different parking requirements with the same stalls in
this case.) Mr. Sellergren goes on to point out that the City's
Comprehensive Plan contains a land use policy (#25) which
recommends that "new commercial development or redevelopment
complements or improves existing adjacent development through the
use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and
access (emphasis added), landscape, and appropriately scaled
signage." Mr. Sellergren then suggests that a variance could be
granted from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions
of the ordinance.
Our response to the shared parking proposal is that the Zoning
Ordinance does not allow shared parking and access between
commercial and residential uses at this time, unless it was part of
a Planned Unit Development, and we feel the recommendation of the
Comprehensive Plan applies more to adjacent commercial uses, not a
commingling of commercial and residential activities. We have
tried to achieve shared access in the development of the Target and
Brookview Plaza sites. We generally leave joint parking
arrangements that are for convenience, and are not related to
development rights, to the private sector.
Section 35-314 subsection le. of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
permitted accessory uses in the R5 district allows for: "Accessory
uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following
special uses when located on the same property with the use to
which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial
accessory use. (emphasis added) Such accessory uses to include,
but not be restricted to the following:
1. Off-street parking and off-street loading.
....'
8-16-90 5
Application No. 90023 continued
Since the proposed commercial parking is an accessory use which is
not permitted in the R5 district, we believe any variance to allow
such parking would be a use variance which is not permitted by
either City ordinance or state law. It should also be pointed out
that the City's joint parking provisions do not allow the same
parking stall to be counted toward two or more separate parking
requirements. The only way to acknowledge this sort of arrangement
might be through approval of a Planned Unit Development. Our
preliminary judgment is that the proposed development and the North
Lyn Apartments are not arranged and designed as a PUD. We are also
not sure that this arrangement meets the requirements for a PUD
outlined in Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance. We would
conclude that a variance on joint parking is not at all appropriate
and a PUD is questionable. Without shared parking, the .7 acre
site can support a 9,300 sq. ft. office building (see plan
attached). We feel this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the
property.
Conclusion/Recommendation
In conclusion, we feel that there is some merit to the land area
variance request, that the standards may be met in that case.
However, we believe that a variance to allow shared parking between
commercial and residential uses would be very inappropriate, though
this concept could be comprehended under a PUD. The Commission may
wish to give direction on this latter question as well as on the
variance application.
Submitted
Gary Sha lcross
Planner
roved by,
c-, C
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
8-16-90 6
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Council Meeting Date 9/9/91
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Resolution Expressing the City Council's Position Regarding
Possible Additional Development at North Lyn Apartments
DEPT. APPROVAL: ,
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below/attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached g )
11
On the September 9, 1991 City Council agenda is a resolution
expressing the City Council's position regarding possible
additional development at the North Lyn Apartments.
The Council on July 8, 1991 had reviewed a request by Chazin
Properties to divide off a .7 acre portion of their 6.3 acre site
for a possible office development. Mr. David Sellergren, an
attorney representing Chazin Properties, had appeared before the
Council to discuss the proposal and offer a possible ordinance
amendment which, if adopted, would allow the division in spite of
the fact that the division would leave the North Lyn Apartments
with a density (unit to land area ratio) greater than that allowed
by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
It was reported at that time that the staff had been reviewing
several possibilities with the Chazins and their representatives
including a variance request from the density requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance (Planning Commission Application No. 90023), the
possible use of the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
also, an ordinance amendment proposed by the Chazins. The Planning
Commission Application had been tabled with the applicant's
consent, and it seemed to be the general belief that a variance was
not the appropriate way of addressing this matter in that the
standards for variance could not be met. The circumstances in this
case did not appear to be an appropriate use of the PUD provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance and the suggested text amendment seemed
contrived to only fit the Chazin's property.
Summary Explanation
Page 2
September 9, 1991
These matters were discussed quite extensively between the Chazins'
representative, the City Council and the City staff at the July 8
meeting. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that the City, both
before and after adopting the 1966 Comprehensive Plan, had
painstakingly studied the issue of multiple family residential
zoning and the related density issues before adopting the current
density standards.
One of the studies done which included allowable density was a 1965
publication entitled Plan Effectuation Devices. Also, a pamphlet
called The Comprehensive Rezoning of Brooklyn Center addressed the
density issues. Our current system of multiple family residential
zoning districts (R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7) became effective with the
adoption of the 1968 Zoning Ordinance which was a major Zoning
Ordinance revision and is today the basis and structure of our
existing Zoning Ordinance. Prior to 1968, the City had an RB
zoning district which allowed both business or commercial uses and
multiple family residential uses at a density of 2,700 sq. ft. of
land per dwelling unit (the current R5 zoning district density).
The 1968 ordinance established the current multiple family
residential districts which limit the height and density of
multiple family dwellings within each district. For instance, the
R5 zoning district limits buildings to 2 1/2 to 3 stories in height
at a density of 2,700 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (16 units per acre)
while an R4 zoning district limits buildings to 1 1/2 to 2 stories
in height at a density of 3,600 sq. ft. per unit (12 units per
acre). The R7 zoning district has no limit on the building height
and a density of 1,400 sq. ft. per unit (31 units per acre). This
has been the density scheme utilized for multiple development of
much of the City of Brooklyn Center.
Attached is a letter from City Attorney Charlie LeFevere responding
to the City Council's request for an opinion regarding the legal
implications of granting relief to Chazin Properties and the
options available to the City Council.
The City Council had also requested the staff to prepare a
resolution expressing the City Council's position regarding
additional development at the North Lyn Apartments. Such a
resolution has been drafted and is presented to the City Council
for their consideration.
The resolution expresses the opinion that a variance, use of the
PUD or the Chazin proposal for text amendment are not appropriate
ways of addressing the issue. The resolution goes on to reaffirm
the current density standards and the designations of multiple
family residential zoning districts as appropriate for development
and redevelopment in Brooklyn Center.
Summary Explanation
Page 3
September 9, 1991
The City Attorney's letter reviews some other options and
alternatives, including certain things the Chazins could undertake
under the current ordinance to utilize the land in a different
manner, or possible additional factors for density credits.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution.
iI0UNIES & GRAVEN
CHARTYRFO
. - AtlAr�eyy 1t I.,IM
ROIILRT A, AL.%or
rAVL D- SAENTSC'H)
RONALD H. BATTY
MAIN J. BRENDEN
STEPHEN J. QCOU
ROOERT C. CARLION
CHRISTINt M. CHALF
JOHN 2. DEAN
MARY G. 0011INS
JEFFREY ENO -
STCiANIL N. GALEY
DAvID L. CRAVEN
CORRINE A. HEINt
JAMES S. HOI.MES
DAvio J. ICENNEDY
JOHN R. LARSON
WELLJNGYON H. LAW
July 24, 1991
470 Pllhbwy Crwrt, Wt""t.. Htnncaa/a1 SSMj
14121337-930
F"Mik (412) 337-9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
337-9215
Mr. Gerald Splinter
City Manager
i City of Brooklyn Center
-6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, .MN 55430
I
Re:. Chazin Proposed Subdivision
Dear Jerry:
Chazin Properties is the owner of North Lyn Apartments, a 102 unit apartment
building. Chazin desires to subdivide the parcel by splitting off a 7/10 of an acre
lot from the 6.3 acre apartment site. The lot to be split off is not currently being .
used. The subdivision of the lot is not permitted under current city code provisions
unless a variance is granted, a planned unit development (PUD) is approved, or the
code is amended, because all of the land area of the lot is needed to satisfy the
density requirements of the code for 102 apartment units. The City Council has
asked for my opinion on the legal implications of granting such relief to Chazin
Properties and on the options available to the City Council should the Council wish
to do so.
JCLJE A. LAWLER
CHARLES L. LEFEv
JOHN N. LtFEVRF-
RoiERT J. L4%DAL1
LAI'RA K. SIOL1.ET
DANIEL it. sets"
•ARDARA L.Poam
MARY FRANCE%SK
JAMES K STROMN
STEVEN A TALLEN
JANESJ.THOMSD�
LARRY ,% WtRTHE
SONNIE L. WILKINS
CIF C"na
ROREl7 L. DAVIDS(
JOHN G. HOESCHLE
On the basis of the facts as I understand them, I do not believe that a variance is "-
appropriate. A variance is used when, due to unique characteristics of the land,
the strict enforcement of the ordinance would create a hardship. In this case.,
there is nothing about the size, shape, topography or soil conditions of the lot
which creates a hardship or unreasonable constraint on normal development in
compliance with the city code. In fact, the lot is already fully developed with the
maximum number of apartment units allowed. Given the area of the lot, no more
units would be allowed no matter what the characteristics of the lot were.
Therefore, I believe that granting a variance would create a precedent which could
undermine the enforeability of the density controls in the city code. If the Council
wishes to make some accommodation to Chazin Properties, I would not recommend
that it be by granting a variance.
Representatives of Chazin Properties and the staff have also discussed allowing the
proposed development under the City PUD Ordinance. I believe that several
members of the Planning. Commission were of the opinion that this is not an
A
Mr. Gerald Splinter
July 24, 1991
Page 2
appropriate case for the application of that ordinance. Based on my understanding
of the facts, I am included to agree. At least this is not the type of case in which a
PUD ordinance is typically used. This is not a redevelopment projebt; it is not a
large tract of land, and the various uses proposed are not in any way integrated or
developed in accordance with or part of a common unified plan for development.
The proposal is simply to create two lots of fairly regular shape, for different uses,
not necessarily under common ownership or control. One of the two lots, the
apartment lot, would simply be over the allowed density. There are cases in which
PUDs are used to develop land above the allowed density. A residential PUD might
provide for development of single family houses on undersized lots, for example.
However, PUDs allowing undersized lots are generally designed so as to accomplish
the same purposes as are accomplished ordinarily by requiring larger lots. For
example, lot size requirements, which are a type of density control, are intended to
prevent overcrowding by providing a certain feeling of openness and available open
space for recreation, landscaping, and the like. When undersized lots are allowed
by PUD, these same objectives might be met by such means as: providing common
areas, recreational facilities and open areas; limiting building sizes; limiting
construction of accessory buildings; or integrated landscaping plans.
In the case of the Chazin Properties proposal, the commercial lot is not different
than any other commercial lot in the City. The apartment lot, except for the fact
that it is attractive and well maintained, is not significantly different than other
apartment buildings in the City. Neither of these two lots alone would seem to be
appropriate for consideration of special treatment as a PTJD, and I see no reason to
reach a different conclusion by considering the two lots and proposed uses
together.
If neither a variance nor a PUD is appropriate, the only way to allow the
development proposed is by code amendment. Whether this is appropriate is
strictly a matter within the discretion of the City Council.
If the City Councilconcludes that current density controls are appropriate for all
development in the City, no change should be made to the ordinances. If the City
Council feels that the density controls are too restrictive in all cases, the density
controls could simply be relaxed by allowing a greater number of units per acre.
However, the Council might determine that the current density controls are too
restrictive in some cases and that in these cases the density controls might be
relaxed. The most straight forward means of allowing a higher density for parcels
in the City where higher density is appropriate would be to create a new zoning
category, such as R-5A in which development a higher density is allowed. Then, in
appropriate cases, the City Council could rezone land to 11-5A from any existing
zoning designation. When city councils act to rezone land, they act in a legislative
capacity. In such cases, the city's legislative decision is entitled to a good deal of
deference by a court reviewing the city's decision. A court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the city council in legislative matters. However, even if the
city council is not concerned about legal challenges, it may be assumed there will
be other cases around the city in which owners of property currently zoned R-5
would apply to the city council for rezoning to R-5A. This could occur in any cases
Mr. Gerald Splinter
July 24, 1991
Page 3
where R-5 property owners wish to develop unused parts of their land; but
applications might also be made for rezoning for any R-5 properties where owners
desire to create a higher number of units within the apartment complex or in cases
in which R-5 property owners wish to sell a part of their property to adjacent
property owners to allow for a more intensive development of adjacent sites.
A second way of relaxing density requirements in -certain cases is to" specify
circumstances under• which a higher density would be allowed. Discussion by some
of the council members suggested that this approach might be considered. This
approach, in a way, is what was suggested by the attorney for Chazin Properties.
However, in that proposal, increased density would have been allowed on the basis
of the location of the site. (proximity to publicly owned open space and being
adjacent to land which is primarily non-residential) rather than the characteristics
of the development itself. The discussion of this issue at the Council suggested
that some members could be amenable to allowing higher density, but only if it was
_somehow offset by amenities for the residents of the multi -family residential
amenities. The best way of recognizing the benefit • from certain types of
development by allowing higher density would be by amending City Code Section
35-400, paragraph 1. Tinder this section of the Code, there are currently two ways
in which an apartment project may qualify for higher density development. The
first is under subparagraph b which allows the total minimum land area to be
reduced by 500 square feet for each required parking stall in or under a multiple
residence or otherwise completely underground. Therefore, one way which Chazin
Properties might qualify their project as proposed would be to construct the
required amount of underground parking and reducing the amount of above -ground
parking, accordingly. I would guess that the idea behind this code provision is that
when less of the parcel is devoted to above -ground parking, -more of the parcel may
be used for open space, landscaping, recreational facilities and the like. Therefore,
a higher number of units may be allowed on a given parcel with the same general
effect on the community, when parking is placed underground.
A second means of qualifying for a higher density of development is under
subparagraph d. of paragraph 1. YJnder this section, laird area requirements per
dwelling unit may be reduced by the City Council when certain standards are met.
The standards generally involve the conveyance by the developer to the City of
some of the parcel for public open space purposes. If the City Council concludes
that the development is in a section of the City which is in the need of public open
space facilities, and if the apartment building and the open space are so developed
and integrated as to reduce the overall. effect of the increased density, the City
Council may allow increased density.
Therefore, even under current city code requirements, the developer has a number
of options. The first option is to reduce the number of units in the apartment
complex to a number which would place the development in conformance with the
Code, even if the lot size were reduced by splitting 7/10 of an acre from the site.
The second option would be to construct underground parking.• The third possibility
would not allow for commercial development of the new lot, but it would allow the
developer to reduce the land area on which he is currently paying taxes and reduce
his maintenance costs. This third method would be to split the smaller lot off and
Mr. Gerald Splinter
July 24, 1991
page 4
Convey it to the City for public open space purposes. Obviously, this would only be
appropriate if the City Council makes the findings necessary to qualify it for
special treatment under Section 35-400, paragraph 1d. _
If none of these approaches is satisfactory in this case, or if the City Council
wishes to expand the ways in which an apartment owners may qualify for increased
density, it could amend this section of the code to give a similar kind of density
credit for other on -site amenities. For example, additional density on a specified
formula could be allowed for a swimming pool or improved recreational areas such
as tot lots or tennis courts which might arguably make a higher density
development more livable, just" as the council has concluded that underground
parking has this effect. If there are other on -site amenities which the City Council
deems to be deserving of special, density consideration, they could also be added to
this section of the Code.
Therefore, I would suggest that the City Council first decide whether the current
density controls in the ordinance ought to be relaxed under any circumstances. If
the City Council is satisfied with the current density controls throughout the City,
no change should be made. If, on the other hand, the Council feels there are other
circumstances where increased density should be allowed, these circumstances
should be identified so that city staff may prepare appropriate recommended code
amendments. However, I would recommend that if increased density is to be
allowed in certain cases, that these cases be carefully specified in the ordinance.
For example, under the current ordinance, there is a clear standard for reducing
density requirements of 500 square feet for each underground parking Mall. I
would not recommend that a more vague or subjective standard be included in the
ordinance as a basis for relaxing density controls. For example, I would not
recommend that the Council give itself the authority, by ordinance, to allow
increased density for unspecified recreational amenities or design characteristics
upon application to the City Council. It would be relatively simple to defend a
case in which the City Council denied approval to a development which wished to
reduce density by .more than the amount specified in the ordinance for each
required parking stall. I believe that it would be much more difficult to justify a
decision by the City Council to deny increased density to an applicant which
proposed some recreational improvements, such as a weight lifting room, simply
because the City Council felt, on a subjective basis, that such a facility was not
adequate to offset the increased density. If the City Council wishes to allow
Increased density for an exercise room, I would recommend that the ordinance
specify the amount of credit which is to be given for an exercise room, defines the
kinds of facilities which must be present to qualify the room as an exercise room,
and allow the increase in density in all cases throughout the city in which an
exercise room is provided.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to .give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:rsr
B R2 91-016
r' Member introduced the
{ following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION
REGARDING POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH LYN
APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Chazin Properties owns the North Lyn Apartments
which is a 102.unit apartment complex located on 6.3 acres of land
in an R5 zoning district at 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North in
Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, representatives of Chazin Properties appeared
before the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center on July 8,
1991 to discuss the feasibility of subdividing off a currently
unused .7 acre portion of their property to create a parcel of land
for an office development; and
WHEREAS, Section 35-400 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning
Ordinance relating to density requirements in an R5 Multiple Family
Residential zoning district requires a minimum of 2,700 sq. ft. of
land per dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the entire 6.3 acres of land in the North Lyn
Apartment.complex is needed to support the 102 apartment units on
the site to be consistent with the provisions of the Brooklyn
Center Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the following
possible ways of addressing -the Chazins' proposal:
1. A variance from the density provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. The use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. An ordinance amendment proposed by the Chazins'
which would allow a density reduction for
service/office development for certain developed R5
_properties based on their proximity to publicly
owned open space and nonresidential property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not believe the granting
of a variance would be appropriate in that the standards for
variance contained in the Zoning Ordinance cannot be met in this
situation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does not believe the proposal
is an appropriate case for the use of the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Ordinance which is designed for use in development or
redevelopment in an integrated manner as a part of a unified plan;
and
r
RESOLUTION NO.
l
WHEREAS, the City Council does not believe the ordinance
language proposed by the Chazins' is an appropriate way of
addressing or allowing the proposed division; and
WHEREAS, the City Council notes that the current method
of density control was established after much deliberation, study
and review at the time the City Council considered its first
Comprehensive Plan and a major Zoning Ordinance amendment in the
mid 19601s; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, the City Council believes the
current density controls and the designation of multiple family
residential zoning districts are appropriate for development and
redevelopment of multiple family dwellings within the City and no
changes should be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center to convey these findings and considerations
to Chazin Properties and their representatives as the City
councillIs position regarding possible additional development at the
North Lyn Apartments.
Date Todd Paulson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council Meeting Date 7/8/91
Agenda Item Number
*****************************************************************************************
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Discussion Item: Proposed office building at North Lyn Apartments
site
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Ronald A. Warren, Director of P anning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report
Comments below/attached
*****************************************************************************************
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x )
Mr. David Sellergren, an attorney representing Chazin Properties,
owner of the North Lyn Apartments, has requested an appearance
before the City Council to discuss a proposal whereby Chazin
Properties could subdivide off a portion of the North Lyn
Apartments to create a parcel capable of an office development.
In a letter dated May 16, 1991 to the City Manager requesting an
appearance before the City Council, Mr. Sellergren describes the
area they wish to subdivide from the North Lyn Apartments as a
vacant and nonfunctional .7 acre portion of the 6.3 acre apartment
site. He would propose to then develop this site with a 9,300 sq.
ft. office building. He characterizes this as infill development
of underutilized land.
This matter is the subject of a variance request (Planning
Commission Application No. 90023) submitted by Mr. Sellergren on
behalf of his client in August, 1990. This variance request was
from the density requirements of Section 35-400 to allow a greater
density of apartment units to land area so that the .7 acre could
be divided off and developed as an office building. Under the
present ordinance requirements, the entire 6.3 acres of land in the
North Lyn Apartment complex is needed to support the 102 apartment
units on the site. The density requirement in the R5 zoning
district is 16 units per acre (2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling
unit). The proposed .7 acre division would leave the complex with
a density of approximately 18.2 units per acre.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 2
Attached are copies of the Planning Commission minutes from October
1811 1990 and August 16, 1990 along with the Planning Commission
Information Sheet relating to Planning Commission No. 90023. As
the minutes note, there was extensive discussion among the Planning
Commission, the staff and the applicant regarding the proposed
variance, the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance,
eliminating dwelling units and adding recreational facilities to
meet density requirements. The Planning Commission had some
objections to using the PUD Ordinance and was concerned about the
adverse precedent of granting a variance. Some members believed
the proposal did not meet the standards for variance.
The matter was tabled and the staff was directed to further study
possible options. The staff, including the City Manager, the City
Attorney, the Director of Planning and Inspection and the Planner
reviewed various alternatives including the variance, use of the
PUD and providing open space in addition to Mr. SellergrenIs
submitted proposal to amend the ordinance by drafting a text
amendment which would give the North Lyn Apartments a 15% break for
being close to publicly owned recreational open space (Brooklyn
Center High School) as indicated in his October 29, 1990 letter.
These options were considered with the staff concluding that a
variance would not be appropriate because all four standards could
not be met especially standard (a) which requires that the
conditions for a variance are unique to the specific parcel of land
and standard (c) requiring that the hardship has not been created
by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel
of land. There are other parcels that have similar types of
appendages which would then be allowed the same consideration.
Also, the current owners were the ones that presented the present
configuration for development with the unused portion of land that
is now claimed to be a problem. Furthermore, allowing a lesser
density for such a land division might be used to successfully
argue the right of other apartment owners to add apartment units to
meet the same density standards rather than to just divide off
land.
The PUD Ordinance was discussed also and it was believed that this
should only be used if it involved further redevelopment in this
area, for instance, involving a consolidation of this land with the
I-1 or C-2 zoned land adjacent to it in some type of overall
redevelopment proposal.
The staff also reviewed the proposed ordinance text language and
believed it was being written to solely and exclusively allow a
greater density for this particular parcel and may, in the long
run, become a problem in trying to defend.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 3
The City Attorney conveyed all of these concerns to Mr. Sellergren
and, quite frankly, we could not come up with a proposal that would
seem to adequately address all of these concerns and allow the
proposal to go forth. We believe the proposal had basically died
until Mr. Sellergren's letter to Mayor Paulson on March 5, 1991.
Also attached with the information is the March 5, 1991 letter to
Mayor Paulson, Mayor Paulson's May 6, 1991 response to Mr.
Sellergren and Mr. Sellergren's May 16, 1991 letter to the City
Manager.
We will prepared to discuss this matter further with the City
Council at Monday evening's Council meeting.
connected to a central monitoring device in accordance
with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in
all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas.
9. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and
Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and
Storm Drainage Systems prior to the issuance of permits.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander,
Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Secretary then reminded the Planning Commission that the
variance application (Planning Commission Application No. 90023)
submitted by Alan Chazin had been tabled in August and the time for
action under the ordinance had arrived. He stated that there had
been discussions amongst the staff and with the applicant and that
they have not come to any conclusion on how to proceed. He stated
that he had received a letter from Mr. Sellergren, an attorney
representing the applicant, asking that the application be tabled.
He asked the Commission to acknowledge the letter and take an
action tabling Application No. 90023.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 90023 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST
Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to
table Application No. 90023 at the applicant's request. Voting in
favor: Chairman Pro tem Ainas, Commissioners Sander, Mann and
Lll Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
L
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Mann asked how many C1 uses existed on R5 parcels at
present and whether it was not appropriate to rezone those parcels
to C1. The Secretary answered that most of the office.uses on R5
property were located in the neighborhood of 70th and Brooklyn
Boulevard. Chairman Pro tem Ainas recommended that the City deal
with such rezoning applications as the need arises. The Secretary
related the history of the parcel at the southwest corner of
Brooklyn Boulevard and I-94, that it was formerly zoned R5 and that
an office development and a church development were proposed on the
property and that eventually it was rezoned to C1 to preclude
multiple family development. There followed a brief discussion of
office uses in the R5 zone. There was also a brief discussion of
the acquisition of land at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard for the 69th
Avenue widening project.
10-18-90 5
1. The special use permit is granted only for a home
beauty/barber shop with a single operator. The use may
not be altered or expanded in any way without first
securing an amendment to this special use permit.
2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable
codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation
thereof may be grounds for revocation.
3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be
on improved space provided by the applicant. On -street
parking is expressly prohibited.
4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her
property prior to issuance of the special use permit.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. , Tuesday through Thursday and from 9: 00 a.m. to 4: 00
p.m., Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on
an appointment -only basis.
6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one
time shall not exceed 10.
7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and
complete all required building improvements prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire
extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to
issuance of the special use permit.
9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license
shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use
permit.
Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander,
Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request
by Alan Chazin for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn
Apartments at 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing
102 unit complex on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide off
.7 acre of land for an office development. The Secretary reviewed
the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 90023 attached).
The Secretary added a number of other points during and after his
review of the staff report. He noted that he had talked with the
City Assessor and that the City Assessor questioned whether the tax
8-16-90
3
benefit from the proposed office development would be $40,000 to
$50,000 per year. He stated that he had also talked with the City
Attorney who has expressed some concern about whether the Standards
for a variance are met in this case. He stated that staff have not
evaluated the Planned Unit Development idea to any great extent.
He stated that the City Attorney had expressed concern that the
standards may not be met and that possibly a PUD should be
considered. The Secretary went on to state that he did not believe
anything larger than a 9,300 sq. ft. office building should be
allowed even if a variance is granted. Noting other comparable
situations around the City, the Secretary acknowledged that a
number of other variances might be granted. He asked what affect
this would have on the rights of other apartment owners who are
living within the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He
noted the three-plex at 4010 65th Avenue North which has been an
enforcement problem almost since it was built because they have
tried to add a fourth unit on land which is only large enough for
three dwelling units. He stated that he did not want to complicate
that situation by granting a variance here. He stated that he was
not sure how to look at this proposal as a PUD, but that perhaps
that needs further consideration.
Commissioner Mann asked how many excess units if the land were
subdivided off and the variance granted. The Planner responded
that it would be 10 or 11 units over the allowable maximum. In
response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary
stated that if a variance were granted, the apartment complex would
be allowed to continue without being a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Bernards asked what recreational facilities existed on
the site. The Secretary responded that he was not aware of any.
Mr. Alan Chazin pointed out that there is an outdoor pool on the
property. Chairperson Malecki noted the objective of consolidating
land along Brooklyn Boulevard and requiring a minimum of one acre
of land for office developments. She asked whether this would be
a requirement here. The Secretary acknowledged that the .7 acre
parcel would be less than the acre requirement, but that the one
acre area is required in the C1 zone, not the R5 zone. He
recommended that the Commission not take an acre of land from the
apartment site.
Commissioner Sander summarized some of the requests being sought,
namely a variance on density, a special use permit for offices, and
a special use for shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did
not recommend that shared parking be allowed. He stated that if
the variance were granted he would recommend no shared parking.
The Secretary stated that he did not believe that the apartment
complex was overcrowded on its main site. He stated that his
impression as he traveled by and through the property that the .7
acre area of land is not integral to the apartment complex.
8-16-90 4
The Planner reported to the Secretary and the Commission that
Section 35-314 of the Zoning Ordinance does in fact require office
developments within the R5 zone to meet the C1 district
requirements and that this means that 1 acre of land is in fact
required. He added, however, that he did not recommend taking more
land away from the apartment complex than is proposed by the
applicant.
Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had
anything to add. Mr. David Sellergren, representative for the
applicant, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated
that the office proposal has been discussed with the Secretary and
the Planner for about two years. He acknowledged that they had
felt that the proposal was for too much office space. He agreed
not to push for an 11,700 sq. ft. office building tonight, but
showed the Commission a layout for a 9,300 sq. ft. office building
which would fit on the property. Mr. Sellergren stated that the
owners, the Chazins, have looked at the land area left over by
their development for 20 years since it was originally built. He
stated that they wished to make use of it in some economical way.
He then showed the Commission a schematic drawing of an office
building which they would like to build on the site. He added that
the Chazins own about 500 apartment units within the City and they
have been a good citizen, keeping their properties well maintained.
Mr. Sellergren went on to state that he had ideas for an ordinance
amendment in the past, but that staff recommended a variance
request as a vehicle for getting the matter considered by the
Planning Commission. He stated that the land in question does not
really serve the apartment complex. He stated that there would be
practical benefits to developing the property. He also stated that
he had contacted Barton-Aschman to analyze whether shared parking
would work and that Barton-Aschman had concluded that it would work
in this case.
Mr. Sellergren stated that he felt that the Standards for a
Variance can be met in this case and that he would work with the
City Attorney on fashioning appropriate language if the Commission
was open to a variance action. Mr. Sellergren stated that an
office building would be an asset to the community and he urged
approval of the variance. He noted the concern regarding precedent
and that a PUD may be an option in this case.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he personally favored the concept of
an office building, but that he did not favor a PUD. He admitted
that the letter of the PUD ordinance might permit the type of
arrangement proposed by the applicant, but that he did not believe
it would meet the intent of the ordinance. He stated that while
the 9,300 sq. ft. building would generate less revenue, this would
be offset by lower costs.
8-16-90 5
The Secretary stated that the staff's discussions with the
applicant have not been adversarial, but that both parties have
been trying to look at a way to work something out if possible. He
asked the Planning Commission direction and added that more time
may be needed to arrive at some resolution of the issue. Mr.
Sellergren added that the variance request is simply -an avenue for
getting the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion
and need not be the vehicle for allowing the development.
Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. Chazin whether he had anything to
add. Mr. Alan Chazin, an owner of the property, pointed out that
he and his father owned other properties in the City. He stated
that they would build and manage the office building as they have
the apartment units in the City.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90023)
Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing
and noted that there was no one else present to comment regarding
the application. She called for a motion to close the public
hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close
the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel a PUD should be
considered, that it would be an abuse in this case. He also stated
that he opposed shared parking between the apartment complex and
the office building. He stated that he would be in favor of
whatever variances would be legal. Chairperson Malecki asked
Commissioner Ainas whether the Standards for a Variance are met.
Commissioner Ainas responded in the affirmative, but added that he
felt the development should be limited to 9,300 sq. ft. of office
space.
Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt that it was unfortunate
that when the building was built the site had the appendages. He
noted that creates problems for the property owner down the line,
but stated that he was not too sympathetic with the variance
request. He stated that he felt the property owner would have to
live with the previous decision and that he did not feel that the
Standards for a Variance were met. He stated that he did not know
whether a PUD was appropriate either, but that a variance was not
the way he preferred to go.
Commissioner Mann stated that she was concerned about setting a
precedent. She preferred to make the 5. 7 acre parcel conforming by
reducing the number of units and that perhaps recreational
facilities could be added within the building in place of the
units.
8-16-90 6
Commissioner Holmes stated that he tended to side with Commissioner
Ainas. He stated he could see the development possibilities for
the site, but he asked whether the City would be getting into a
pandora's box by setting a precedent that would be repeated
elsewhere. The Secretary stated that this could be a concern. He
added that the City could take another look at the request and
perhaps approach it from a different angle. He again stated that
the Planning Commission does not have to act at this meeting. He
stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney further if
a variance was to be granted. He pointed out that the situation up
on 69th Avenue North with the Humboldt Court Apartments would allow
for the arm of land to be added to another parcel and developed.
He stated that the City Attorney had asked him what the City would
do if the North Lyn Apartments were being proposed now. He stated
that he answered that he would discourage the creation of the arm
of land around the service station. He stated that the North Lyn
Apartments complex was a good complex and he did not feel that
there would be a real problem if the underutilized area in question
were developed. He stated that the staff can take another look at
the issue and bring something back. He stated that the vacant land
area in question has been an issue waiting to happen and that it
would have to be addressed someday. He added that he, too, did not
want to abuse the PUD ordinance.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not proposing to grant a
variance tonight. He acknowledged that there was work to be done,
but stated that he did not like using the PUD option in this case.
Mr. Sellergren stated that he was not trying to force an action by
the Planning Commission immediately, but asked whether the Planning
Commission wanted the applicant and the staff to explore the use of
land.
Commissioner Sander stated that if a variance is granted, it would
open up a can of worms for other properties in town. She stated
that she did not feel it met the Standards for a Variance at this
time and recommended that staff work on the matter some more.
Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the City could consider an
ordinance change on the density requirement. Chairperson Malecki
stated that that would be chipping away at the City's standards.
She added that she was afraid that developers would abuse the
situation if they know that a variance might be granted down the
road if unutilized areas are left on a site plan. She stated that
she was not opposed to the development, but did not want to chip
away at the ordinance. The Planner then reminded the Commission
that Brooklyn Center is a developed community facing many of the
same problems that Minneapolis faces with underutilized land. He
stated that there are very few vacant lots left in the City and
that the City has to make the best of what it has left at this
time. He noted that a recent lot variance in the R2 zone on Morgan
Avenue and stated that the City will be dealing with other infill
situations much more in the future than it has in the past.
8-16-90 7
Chairperson Malecki stated that some people are concerned with the
PUD option. The Secretary responded that the staff have not looked
at that possibility closely. He stated that variances are intended
to deal with these kinds of situations as the report points out.
He noted a couple of other similar arms of land in the community
and stated that variances might be warranted in those situations
also. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was also concerned about
setting a precedent, but that he felt a variance was a lesser of
two evils. He stated that using a PUD in this situation might be
an abuse of the ordinance.
Commissioner Bernards stated that he had reservations about the
proposal. He stated that he was thinking of the residents near the
Garden City Court Apartments and their concern about recreational
facilities. He suggested that staff also look at the possibility
of utilizing the area for some recreational purpose that might
benefit the apartments. The Secretary agreed. He pointed out that
both apartment complexes were built at the same density, but that
the North Lyn Apartment complex seems to have a better layout even
without the .7 acre area of land that the applicants wish to divide
off.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazinj
Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to
table Application No. 90023 and direct staff to study further
possible options for the property in question.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether one of the options to be
considered was the option he had discussed of adding recreational
facilities to the area. The Secretary stated that that was his
understanding that that was an option to be considered.
Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki,
Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting
against: none.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:07
p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 90022 (City of Brooklyn Center)
The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request
by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I-1 to C1A six
parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle
Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents
of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 90022 attached). The Secretary added that the
concern of the City Council regarding the C2 zoning application
submitted last year was that it would allow a retail use in the
area in question. He stated that the City really does not want
retail on the vacant parcels south of the freeway. He stated that
8-16-90 8
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 90023
Applicant: Alan Chazin
Location: 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a greater density of apartment units to land
area than permitted by ordinance at the North Lyn Apartments, 6511
and 6521 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned
R5 and is bounded on the north by the Berean Evangelical Free
Church. on the pn-gi- hV Nllmhni ri - 21vornTo KTr�ri-}, In- 1,1 n i w TT-'-L
School is across the street) ,
the southeast, by Freeway B(
across the street), and by i
Hoffman Engineering on the we
because the applicant, Mr. Alz
arm of land adjacent to Freew
and develop it as an office si
the North Lyn apartments woulc
for the R5 zone (the site is
and there is virtually no exc
the request for a variance
contained in Section 35-400 o
)y Duke' s Standard service station on
ulevard on the south (Days Inn is
he Spec. I Industrial Building and
at. The variance application arises
n Chazin, wishes to subdivide off an
ty Boulevard from the apartment site
:e. The resulting land area left for
not meet the land area requirements
already built to its maximum density
ess for other development). Hence,
from the land area requirements
the Zonina Ordinance_
Applicant's Submittal
The applicant's legal representative, Mr. David Sellergren of
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd., has submitted a lengthy
letter (attached) in which he describes the site, outlines the
proposal and addresses the issues of a density variance, a special
use permit for an office building in the R5 zone, and a proposal
for a shared parking arrangement with the apartment complex.
Although the special use permit and the shared parking questions
will have to be addressed in due course, the first item of
consideration must be the density variance since, without it, there
can be no office development at all. We will, therefore, address
first and foremost the variance request and the arguments made by
the applicant's legal representative in respect thereof. The
proposal is basically to take .7 acre of a 6.3 acre site and
develope it for an 11,700 sq. ft. office development, leaving 5.6
acres for the 102 apartment units, or approximately 18.2 units per
acre (the R5 maximum is 16 units/acre).
Variance Request
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City
Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and
distinctive to the individual property under consideration.
However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall
in no case permit asa variance any use that is not permitted under
this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is
Application No. 90023 continued
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 topographical conditions of the specific parcels of
land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the
strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out."
Applicant: "The Project Property is a small parcel which abuts
existing land uses located within three different zoning districts.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, the development must be compatible with
all three districts and existing uses. The unique shape of the
original North Lyn Apartment parcel result in this "vestigial
remnant" of land sandwiched between commercial and light industrial
uses. It is apparent that the Project Property is not
"functionally necessary" to the apartment use because it is located
across a large parking area and is not utilized as a recreational
facility. The Project Property has not been developed in the
twenty years since the apartment complex was constructed, despite
the fact that it is located in a part of the City in which high -
quality commercial and residential development has occurred
rapidly."
Staff: These arguments seem more attuned to a request to rezone a
vacant parcel of land. It should be pointed out that "the Project
Property" is not at this time a separate parcel which has remained
vacant while adjacent parcels have been developed. It is an
underutilized part of the North Lyn Apartments site which was
developed over 20 years ago. It is questionable whether even an
economic hardship exists since the 6.3 acres of land supporting the
North Lyn Apartments is the same amount of land as would be
required in other parts of the City. There is a question, however,
of whether the underutilization of an otherwise valuable area of
land constitutes a practical hardship. Is it reasonable or prudent
for the City to insist on this arm of land belonging to the
apartment property when it has had no practical value as such and
would provide aesthetic and tax benefits if developed in an
appropriate manner? The original site plan for the apartments
showed no intended use of the .7 acre area in question.
b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance
is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Applicant: "As noted above, the Project Property is unique. As
the surrounding area developed, the resulting development pattern
created an open space between commercial and light industrial land
8-16-90 2
Application No. 90023 continued
uses that is not put to any practical of efficient use. We are
aware of no other similarly situated parcels within the City."
Staff: The applicant argues that the surrounding land use pattern
makes this arm of land unique. This may be true and again raises
the issue of what is the most appropriate use of this land.
Standard (a) refers to "particular physical surroundings, shape..."
This is not the only instance of a multiple -family parcel wrapped
around a commercial site, leaving a narrow, possibly unusable
appendage. The Humboldt Courts Apartments has such an appendage
which reaches up to 69th Avenue North. There is also an 18 unit
complex with two arms of land which wrap around Wes's Amoco and
reach out to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Evergreen Apartments formerly
had some wider appendages reaching out to West River Road. These
were eliminated when Highway 252 was widened and relocated. In
retrospect, these appendages, while they help to meet literal land
area requirements, serve little, if any, functional purpose. They
should be avoided whenever possible in the future. While there are
other instances of unusable appendages, this "shape" is still
somewhat rare. It may be that this and the other instances
mentioned should be considered for variance action because of their
relative uniqueness and the surrounding development pattern which
may suggest a more practical use of the land.
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.
Applicant: "The hardship is brought about by the strict
application of the ordinance requirements."
Staff: The hardship of an underutilized area of land certainly had
its origin in the platting of the property in the 19601s. The .7
acre arm of land was created at that time by the owner with the
concurrence of the City. In hindsight, it appears that some better
division of the land could have been made with fewer apartment
units and more commercial use. The question is whether it is more
beneficial to the public welfare to make the landowner live with
this mistake or whether the public interest would be better served
by having the property developed. From a narrow legal perspective,
the former seems to be the proper course. From an economic
perspective, the latter may be more prudent.
d. The granting of the
the public welfare
improvements in the
land is located.
variance will not be detrimental to
or injurious to other land or
neighborhood in which the parcel of
8-16-90 3
Application No. 90023 continued
Applicant: "The granting of the variance to permit the development
of the Project Property with an office building would not be
detrimental or injurious to the public welfare or surrounding
properties. In fact, there are significant positive impacts.
First, the 11,700 square foot office building would generate
$40,000-$50,000 each year in new real estate taxes. Second, an
office structure of this size would create employment opportunities
for approximately 50 to 60 new employees. Third, the use would not
generate potential adverse off -site impacts such as noise, dust,
odors, glare and smoke. Fourth, the office structure would provide
a visible and physical buffer between the highly traveled road to
the south and the residential area to the north. Finally, the
variance permitting this proposal would facilitate the efficient
use of the land." The applicant adds in a separate section that a
variance can be contemplated here because open space is available
across Humboldt Avenue North at the High School.
Staff: We agree with many of the points raised by the applicant
regarding this last standard. However, it should be clear that the
City will not relax its standards simply to get additional tax
revenue. That should be a secondary consideration if given any
weight at all. The crux of the issue seems to be whether granting
the variance will result in overcrowding on the North Lyn
Apartments site. The open space across Humboldt is of some value,
but is intended for use primarily by high school students and is
not, strictly speaking, a park for the apartment dwellers. The .7
acre area in question is not equipped with recreational facilities
and the original approved plans for the complex show no planned use
of the area. We are not aware of any regular use of the area by
tenants. Again, in hindsight, it probably would have been better
if this area were developed commercially from the beginning and if
fewer apartments had been built on a smaller parcel. The major
threat to the public welfare presented by this variance is the
prospect that ordinance standards which have been applied uniformly
across the City would be compromised in this case and perhaps
weakened in the future. We see little practical detriment to the
public in this case. The detriment is mostly theoretical. It
should be pointed out that while ordinances should have some valid
theoretical basis, much, if not all, of their value lies in making
better. practical results. The variance process is, therefore,
established to allow for some adjustments from the ordinance
requirements in large part to achieve better practical results. We
would agree that, in this case, the practical benefits outweigh the
costs and some adjustment may be considered to help bring this
about.
Shared Parking
The applicant has also proposed that the new office development
share parking and access with the existing apartment complex. The
Application No. 90023 continued
proposal is for an 11,700 sq. ft., two -storey office building on
the .7 acre parcel with 35 on -site parking spaces. The total
parking requirement for the building would be at least 59 parking
stalls. The applicant proposes to allow the office building to
have shared use of up to 77 parking stalls on the North Lyn
Apartments property and to have an access drive between the two
sites. The applicant's representative states that "the proposed
shared parking meets the parking demands of the two facilities
which are perfectly compatible because of the difference in parking
needs based on the peak operating hours of the office and
apartments." Mr. Sellergren notes that the City's joint parking
provisions in Section 35-720 and the definition of joint parking in
Section 35-900 state that joint parking is "for the convenience of
the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at
different times and _cannot be used to meet the ordinance's parking
requirements for the off -site use." (The applicant does propose to
meet two different parking requirements with the same stalls in
this case.) Mr. Sellergren goes on to point out that the City's
Comprehensive Plan contains a land use policy (#25) which
recommends that "new commercial development or redevelopment
complements or improves existing adjacent development through the
use of proper building design and orientation, shared parking and
access (emphasis added), landscape, and appropriately scaled
signage." Mr. Sellergren then suggests that a variance could be
granted from the strict enforcement of the joint parking provisions
of the ordinance.
Our response to the shared parking proposal is that the Zoning
Ordinance does not allow shared parking and access between
commercial and residential uses at this time, unless it was part of
a Planned Unit Development, and we feel the recommendation of the
Comprehensive Plan applies more to adjacent commercial uses, not a
commingling of commercial and residential activities. We have
tried to achieve shared access in the development of the Target and
Brookview Plaza sites. We generally leave joint parking
arrangements that are for convenience, and are not related to
development rights,,to the private sector.
Section 35-314 subsection le. of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
permitted accessory uses in the R5 district allows for: "Accessory
uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following
special uses when located on the same property with the use to
which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial
accessory use. (emphasis added) Such accessory uses to include,
but not be restricted to the following:
1. Off-street parking and off-street loading.
....'
8-16-90 5
Application No. 90023 continued
Since the proposed commercial parking is an accessory use which is
not permitted in the R5 district, we believe any variance to allow
such parking would be a use variance which is not permitted by
either City ordinance or state law. It should also be pointed out
that the City's joint parking provisions do not allow the same
parking stall to be counted toward two or more separate parking
requirements. The only way to acknowledge this sort of arrangement
might be through approval of a Planned Unit Development. Our
preliminary judgment is that the proposed development and the North
Lyn Apartments are not arranged and designed as a PUD. We are also
not sure that this arrangement meets the requirements for a PUD
outlined in Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance.` We would
conclude that a variance on joint parking is not at all appropriate
and a PUD is questionable. Without shared parking, the .7 acre
site can support a 9,300 sq. ft. office building (see plan.
attached). We feel this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the
property.
Conclusion/Recommendation
In conclusion, we feel that there is some merit to the land area
variance request, that the standards may be met in that case.
However, we believe that a variance to allow shared parking between
commercial and residential uses would be very inappropriate, though
this concept could be comprehended under a PUD. The Commission may
wish to give direction on this latter question as well as on the
variance application.
Submitted by,
Gary Shallcross
Planner
Approved by,
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
8-16-90 6
JAMES P. LARKIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
LARKIN, HOFFbIAN, DALY & LiNDGREN, LTD.
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KILDOW
JACK F. DALY
KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
O. KENNETH LINDGREN
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL B. LE BARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAO
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
AMY DARR GRADY
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON-
tOSERT J. HENNESSEY
JEFFREY C. ANDERSON
JAMES C. ERICKSON
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
DANIEL L. BOWLES
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
GENE N. FULLER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS
OAVID C. SELLERGREN
LISA A. GRAY
RI CHARDJ. KEENAN
JOHN D. FULLMER
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA S5431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
GARY A. RENNEKE
THOMAS H. WEAVER
ROBERT E. BOYLE
FRANKL HARVEY
TELEPHONE 16121 835.3800 TELEPHONE (6I21 338-6610
SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIOGE
GARY A. VAN CLEVE
CHA R LES S. MODELL
FAX (6I21 896-3333 FAX 1612) 336-9760
MICHAEL BRAMAN
CHRI STOPHER J. DIETZENGAYLEN
_
L..
JONN RSEATTIE
JULIE A. WRASE
LINDA H.. FISHER
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE
SHARON L. BRENNA
STEVEN G. LEVIN
MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 2SO
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
JOHN E. OIEHL
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
JON S. SW I ERZEWSKI
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433
THEODORE A. MONDALE
THOMAS J_ FLYNN
JOHN J. STEFFENHAOEN
JAMES P. QUINN
TELEPHONE 1612) 786-7117
DANIEL W. VOSS
TOOD I. FREEMAN
MARK A. RURIK
STEPH EN B. SOLOMON
FAX (6121 786-6711
JOHN R. HILL
PETER K. BECK
JAMES K. MARTIN
J EROME H. KAHNKE
STEVEN P. KATKOV
SHERRILL R. OMAN
THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
G ERALO L. SECGK
MICHAEL J. SMITH
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
RENAY W. LEONE
DAYLE NOLAN-
FREDERICK K. HAUSER III
THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR.
MARY E. VOS
MICHAEL T. MCKIM
CHARLES,R.W EAVER
Reply to Bloomington
LOREN A. SINGER
HERMAN L.TALLE
VINC ENT G. ELLA
AN DREW J. MITCHELL
OF COUNSEL
JOHN A.COTTER•
JOSEPH GITIS
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER
RICHARD A. NORDBYE
DAVID J. PEAT
'
-ALSO ADMITTED IN
WISCONSIN
May 16, 1991
Jerry Splinter
City Manager
Brooklyn Center City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429
RE: Proposed office building - North Lyn Apartments site
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Splinter:
On behalf of Chazin Properties, the owner of North Lyn Apartments, I
request an appearance before the City Council to discuss the attached
suggested text amendment for the Brooklyn Center Zoning Code. I
request that we be placed on the agenda of Tuesday, May 28, 1991,
assuming that is the next regularly -scheduled City Council meeting.
Chazin Properties wishes to subdivide a vacant and nonfunctional .7
acre parcel from a 6.3 acre site and develop it for a 9,300 square
foot office building. The remaining 5.6 acres contain a 102 unit
apartment complex. It can fairly be characterized as an "infill"
development of under utilized land. The proposed text amendment
allows this to happen by way of the Council's determination to approve
a service/office special use. If the Council issues the special use
permit, then the minimum land area requirement per unit for the
existing apartment building is reduced by 15%. In this way, the
apartment building does not become a nonconforming use. If this text
amendment is adopted, Chazin Properties is then in a position to apply
for a special use permit for the office building which it wishes to
build.
LARICIN, HOFFNIAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Terry Splinter
May 16, 1991
Pages 2
This matter has been discussed at length with Ron Warren, Director of
Planning and Inspections, Gary Shallcross,.Planner, and to some extent
with Charles LeFevere, your City Attorney. It has also been discussed
with Mayor Paulson, who indicated in correspondence dated May 6,1991,
his opinion that the excess parcel on the North Lyn Apartments site
ought to be developed. On August 16, 1990, the office building
proposal was presented to the Planning Commission, which considered
whether the granting of a variance to allow office development was
appropriate; no conclusion was reached.
The Planning staff report to the Planning Commission in August of 1990
expressed reservations about whether the proposal met variance
standards. Nevertheless, it stated, "...the .7 acre site can support
a 9,300 square foot office building. We feel this is a reasonable and
an-ropriate use of the -property." It also stated "Some adjustment may
be considered to help bring this about."
If there remain concerns about the granting of a variance, we think
the proposed text amendment is a reasonable "adjustment". The
proposed text amendment is attached to this letter.
In my letter of March 5, 1991, to the Mayor, I enclosed background
materials, including location map and proposed site plan. I assume
you have those materials. Additional information can be found in our
letter of August 1, 1990, regarding the variance request and the
previously mentioned staff report. If you wish additional materials
for the agenda packet, please call.
We believe it is appropriate to discuss this with the City Council,
since it is the practical equivalent of a property owner -initiated
zone change. Chazin Properties has been at this for some time and
wishes to bring discussions to a conclusion.
Sincerely yours,
David C. Sellergren, or
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
DCS:GO6SG
cc: Chazin Properties
Todd Paulson, Mayor of Brooklyn Center
Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections, Brooklyn Center
•:•T4_
Amend Section 35-314,3.B4
of the
Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance
In those situations where the service -office parcel is being
subdivided from a developed R5 parcel which is within 350 feet
of 20 or more acres of publicly owned open space and which
abuts nonresidential land for 50% or more of its perimeter, the
minimum land area requirement for the service -office use may be
reduced by 30% and the minimum land area requirement per unit
for the remainder R5 parcel shall be reduced by 15% if the City
Council approves the service -office special use.
.MAYOR 'ODD PAUL oN
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 19MALL004CA CRY
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429
k01IE`SO
PHONE: 569-3300 FAX: 569-3494 LAW OFFICE: 566-1358
May 6, 1991
David C. Sellergren
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Northwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431
Dear Dave:
Thank you for your letter and phone call regarding the property
owned by Norm Chazin and located on Freeway Boulevard in Brooklyn
Center. I have forwarded the materials you sent me to our City
Manager, Jerry Splinter, who is reviewing the situation with Ron
Warren our Director of Planning and Inspections.
I have been out to the site and can see it is currently serving no
worthwhile purpose. It is currently my feeling that it would be in
the City's best interest to find someway to develop this parcel.
Please give me a call shortly upon receipt of this letter as
hopefully we will have some kind of an initial response.
Sincerely,
"40pc'lt-� �,
Todd Paulson
Mayor
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
TP:PP
JAMES P. LARKIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
JACK F. DALY
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
-A ENDELL R. ANDERSON
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
ROBERT J. HENNESSEY
'JAMES C. ERICKSON
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
GENE N, FULLER
,-DAVID C. SELLERGREN
RI CHARD J. KEENAN
JOHN D. FULLMER
R08ERT E. BOYLE
FRANK I. HARVEY
CHARLES S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JOHN R. SEATTIE
LINDA H. FISHER
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
STEVEN G. LEVIN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
JOHN E. DIEHL
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. GUINN
TODD (.FREEMAN
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
PETER K. BECK
JEROME H. KAHNKE
SHERRILL R. OMAN
GERALD L. SECK
JOHN B. LUNDOUIST
DAYLIE NOLAN-
THOMAS B. HUM PHR -Y. JR.
MICHAEL T. MCKIM
CHARLES R. WEAVER
HERMAN L.TALLE
VINCENT G. ELLA
ANDREW J. MITCHELL
JOHN A. COTTER
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER
March 5, 1991
LARKIN, HOFF-�Ar1N, DALY
& LINDGREN, LTD
ATTORNEYS AT
LAW
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 16121 83S-3800
TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610
FAX 16121 896-3333
FAX 16121 336-9760
NORTH SUBURBAN
OFFICE
8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA S5433
TELEPHONE (612) 786-7117
FAX 16121 786-6711
Reply to Bloomington
Mayor Todd Paulson
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Chazin Properties - Medical Office Building Proposal
Dear Todd:
PAUL S. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KILOOW
KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
MICHAEL B. LE BARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
AMY DARR GRADY
CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON.
JEFFREY C. ANDERSON
DANIEL L. BOWLES
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
TIMOTHY J. McMANUS
LISA A. GRAY
GARY A. RENNEKE
THOMAS H. WEAVER
SHANNON K. McCAMBRIDGE
GARY A.VAN CLEVE
MICHAEL 8. BRAMAN
GAYLEN L.KNACK
JULIE A. WRASE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
SHARON L.BRENNA
MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH. JR.
THEODORE A. MONOALE
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
DANIEL W. VOSS
MARK A. RURIK
JOHN R. HILL
JAMES K. MARTIN
STEVEN P. KATKOV
THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
MICHAEL J. SMITH
RENAY W. LEONE
FR EDERICK K. HAUSER III
MARY E. VOS
LOREN A. SINGER
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH GITIS
RICHARD A. NORDBYE
DAVID J. PEAT
n ALSO ADMITTED IN
WISCONSIN
Enclosed, as we discussed, is some background information regarding
our clients' interest in constructing an office building on a .7 acre
parcel located on Freeway Boulevard, approximately 200 west of
Humboldt Avenue North. I am providing a submission letter of
August 1, and a suggested text amendment letter of October 29, 1990,
along with a proposed site plan, location map, and an artist's
rendering of an office building owned, and operated by the Chazins
which is the prototype of the building they have in mind for this
site.
We have been looking for a way to make this vacant land productive for
the City and for the Chazins. Ron Warren, Gary Shallcross and
Charles LeFevere have been evenhanded in their dealings with our
suggestions. It is a problem to determine how best to get this done,
and yet not adversely affect the City's ability to deal with other
situations. We have advanced several suggestions, which are not
routine, but I think will work.
I am interested, on behalf of the Chazins, in getting your response to
whether our efforts to make this land productive are worthwhile.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGiREN, LTD.
Mayor Todd Paulson
March 5, 1991
Page 2
Please discuss it with your staff, as necessary, and give me a call.
I think both the City and Chazins are best served by figuring out a
way to get this done.
Since5p4y yours,
David C. ellergren r
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, D & LINDGREN, Ltd.
DCS:GGISG
cc w/encl: Alan Chazin
Ronald Warren
i S 5.24
�•$9=36 3;-E.
\
T
n =
+�
o
3o
p <
z
C
I
l 5. 9 33"w.
OA 5• �Ine o� +i e. Ney,
I 1
ry L ne porollelw iti+he +orii, Ilse o(+4, RE-Y r
N.ss� 33' 3o F 3
- 718.49
N.81039;3,.,E.
545.4'1
9
LOT 3 V
In
o —
:n
I15,22
0
fi5-h
C Su. 35
310
z
I N
I s
LOT 1et
� 4
w ,I
200
w LOT -2
corntr'ol 5ec.35,
(.4ennapin'Ccunty
y� `Monument
201.^,2
9.09` 39.37 " W.
10.4,03 0 32.9T
' looz.o i3
AVENUE 3 N. r —;2G2 �GSTMAVE.N.
-- o 71i ot20=0G"
:0
S�{e ���
�'�
N
-�•
41
w=
:p
JfW
751
0
(D
td
LQ
CL
I
G1.
Humboldt Avenue North-
R
�i'�
b �
�
•8
O
pfC
�
�
� •
2t
CL
k
06
JAMES P. LARKIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
JACK F. DALY
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
ROBERTJ.HENNESSEY
JAMES C. ERICKSON
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
GENE N. FULLER
DAVID C. SE LLERGREN
RICHARD J. KEENAN
JOHN D. FULLMER
ROBERT E. BOYLE
FRANK L HARVEY
C HARLES S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JOHN R. BEATTIE
LINDA H. FISHER
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
STEVEN G. LEVIN
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN
J OHN E. DIEHL
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. QUINN
TODD I. FREEMAN
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
PETER K. BECK
JEROME H. KAHNKE
SHERRILL R. OMAN
GERALO L. SECK
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
DAYLE NOLAN-
THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR.
MICHAEL T. MCKIM
CHARLES R. WEAVER
HERMAN L.TALLE
VINCENT G. ELLA
ANDREW J. MITCHELL
October 29, 1990
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 1612) 83S-3800
TELEPHONE 1612) 338-6610
FAX (6121 896-3333
FAX (6121 336-9760
NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE
8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA S5433
TELEPHONE (6121 786-7117
FAX (612) 786-6711
Reply to Bloomington
Charles LeFevere
Brooklyn Center City Attorney
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Brooklyn Center Office Proposal
Dear Charlie and Ron:
JOHN A. COTTER
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KILDOW
KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
MICHAEL B. LE BARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAO
AMY DARR GRADY
CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON "
JEFFREY C. ANDERSON
DANIEL L. BOWLES
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
TIMOTHY J, MCMANUS
LISA A. GRAY
GARY A. RENNEKE
THOMAS H. WEAVER
SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE
GARY A. VAN CLEVE
MICHAEL B. BRAMAN
GAYLEN L. KNACK
JULIE A. WRASE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
SHARON L. BRENNA
MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
THEODORE A. MONDALE
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
DANIEL W. VOSS
MARK A. RURIK
JOHN R. HILL
JAMES K. MARTIN
STEVEN P. KATKOV
THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH GITIS
RICHARD A. NORDBYE
DAVID J. PEAT
• ALSO ADMITTED IN
W ISCONSIN
After discussions with both of you, and upon further review of the
Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance and zoning district map, I have a
suggested text amendment approach for the Chazin proposal. It is a
suggestion, not a replacement for the variance approach earlier
requested by planning staff. I still believe we have made a case for
meeting the variance standards.
I have examined the zoning district map to identify all R5 parcels and
their relationship to the combination of adjacent recreational open
space and the use classification of adjacent parcels. It appears to
me that the CYlazin parcel is unique because it is proximate to a
combination of significant open space and no other lower -density
residentially zoned or used land. Thus, even if there were negatives
that flowed from a reduced land requirement per unit, it would not
affect other residential units, particularly homeowners. As Ron has
indicated, however, there really are no negative impacts on this
parcel from the reduction of land per unit requirements.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGIzEN, LTD.
Charles LeFevere/Ronald A. Warren
October 29, 1990
Paae 2
Let me know what you think of the following language, to be inserted
at the end of Section 35-314,3.B.4 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning
Ordinance:
In those situations where the service/office parcel is
being subdivided from a developed R5 parcel which is
within feet of acres of publically owned
recreational open.space and which abuts Il and C2
zoned land for 50% or more of its perimeter, the
minimum land area requirement per unit for the
remainder R5 parcel shall be reduced by 15% if the
City Council approves the service/office special use.
In this manner, the occupants of a R5 parcel will have a place to go
for green space and, at the same time, increased density is not
adjacent to other lower density residential property. I do not think
any other R5 parcel in Brooklyn Center qualifies under these criteria,
but even if it did, theoretical off -site negative effects can not
materialize. Finally, the density credit is triggered solely upon the
Council's favorable exercise of discretion under special use permit
standards on a case -by -case basis.
Back in March, 1990, we suggested a text amendment approach which was
much broader. Maybe this better addresses staff concerns.
Sincerely yours
David C. llergren, or
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA & LINDGREN, Ltd.
DCS:FR4SG
cc: Alan Chazin
JAMES P. LARKIN
L.HOFFMAN
CK
LARKIN, HoFF�iAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
BOHN ICE A. ROTHWEIIER
BEAT ICE A.A. OT
F.
JACK F. DA IY
J
O. KENN ETH LINOGREN
PAVL B. PLUNK ETT
WENDELL R.ANDERSON
ATTORNEYS AT
ALAN L. KILOOW
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
LAW
KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
MICHAEL B. LEBARON
ROSERTJ.HENNESSEY
GREGORY E. KORSTAO
JAMES C. ERICKSON
AMY DARR GRADY
EDWARD J. ORISCOLL
I500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER
CATHERINE BARNETT WILSONw
GENE N. FULLER
JEFFREY C. ANDERSON
DAVID C.SELLERGREN
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET
DANIEL L. BOWLES
RICHARD J. KEENAN
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
JOHN O. FULLMER
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TIMOTHY J. McMANUS
ROBERT E. BOYLE
LI SA A. GRAY
FRANK 1. HARVEY
TELEPHONE (6121 835-3800 TELEPHONE (6121 338-6610
GARY A. RENNEKE
CHAR LES S. MODELL
THOMAS H. WEAVER
CHR I STOPHER J. DIETZEN
FAX 1612) 896-3333 FAX (612) 336-9760 -
SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIOGE
JOHN R. BEATTIE
GARY A. VAN CLEVE
LINDA H. FISHER
MICHAEL B. BRAMAN
THOMAS P, STOLTMAN
GAYLEN L. KNACK
STEVEN G. LEVIN
NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE
JULIE A. WRASE
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
JOHN E. DIE
8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250
SHARON L. BRENNA
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
MARIKAY CANADA LITZAU
THOMAS J. FLYNN
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA SS433
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
JAMES P. QUINN
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH. JR.
TODD 1, FREEMAN
TELEPHONE (612) 786-7117
THEODORE A, MONDALE
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
PETER K. BECK
FAX (612) 786-6711
DANIEL W. VOSS
JEROME H. KAHNKE
MARK A. RURIK
S MERRILL R. OMAN
JOHN R, HILL
GERALD L. SECK
JAMES K. MARTIN
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
STEVEN P. KATKOV
DAYLE NOLAN-
THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
THOMAS MKIP T:HREY,JR.
MICHAEL T. MCMU
Reply to Bloomington
CHARLES R. WEAVER
MERMAN L.TALLE
OF COUNSEL
VI NCENT G. ELLA
JOSEPH GITIS
ANDREW J, MITCHELL
RICHARD A. NOROBYE
DAVID J. PEAT
w ALSO ADMITTED IN
October 12, 1990
WISCONSIN
Ronald A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Proposed Office Building
North Lyn Apartment Site
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Warren:
At your request, I write to confirm the continued interest of
Norman and Alan Chazin in the request embodied in our letters of
March 30 and August 1, 1990. Discussions continue between City staff
and the applicants.: As a consequence, it is not timely to bring this
matter back before either the Planning Commission or City Council.
We request that the item remain continued while further analysis and
discussion proceed.
SincePe'
yours,
DavidSllerg n, forLARKIOFFMAN, DALY & L EN, Ltd.
DCS:FQ2SG
cc: Alan Chazin