HomeMy WebLinkAbout6799 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1981/04/06RESOLUTION NO. 6799
RESOLUTION OF FINDIfNGS REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS
FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND A SPECIAL PERMIT
OF NICKELS AND DIMES, INCORPORATED
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
1. On September 29, 1980, an application for a building permit was sub-
mitted to the City of St. Louis Park for construction of an electronic
and mechanical amusement center in Knollwood Mall, 8332 Highway 7,
which is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). On the same date, this
application was denied by the St. Louis Park Director of Inspectional
Services in his capacity as Zoning Administrator, on the basis that
the use is not allowed in the PUD District nor in any other zoning
classification within the City of St. Louis Park.
2. On September 30, 1980, a letter dated September 29, 1980 was received
from Herbert C. Davis on behalf of Nickels and Dimes, Incorporated,
requesting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of the re-
quested building permit. Although the property is zoned "PUD", the
letter stated as the basis for the appeal that the use is a permitted
use within the B-2, General Business District, because it is a use
similar to the uses listed in Section 14-155(3)(f) of the St. Louis
Park Zoning Ordinance governing B-2 zoning districts.
3. On October 3, 1980, the application for an interpretation of the rele-
vant portion of the Zoning Ordinance was considered by the Board of
Zoning Appeals. A motion to favor the interpretation advocated by
the applicant failed on a tie vote. A motion was adopted to recommend
a review of the Ordinance.
4. On November 3, 1980, the appeal was heard by the City Council, and
the Council did not concur in the appeal. Although the subject prop-
erty was not zoned B-2, the Council took the opportunity to address
the issue raised by Nickels and Dimes, Incorporated regarding the words
"and similar uses" in the Zoning Ordinance provisions governing uses
in the B-2 and certain other districts. The Council directed staff
to initiate steps to clarify the Zoning Ordinance by the elimination
of the words "and similar uses". It also authorized staff to study
the possibility of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding
electronic and mechanical amusement centers.
5. On November 10, 1980, Nickels and Dimes, Incorporated submitted an
application for a special permit to include authorization for an
amusement center.
6. On December 1, 1980, the City Council took the following action:
a. Passed first reading of Ordinance Number 1489 amending the
Zoning Ordinance by deleting the words "and similar uses",
wherever they occurred.
b. Accepted the recommendation of the study on electronics and
mechanical amusement devices, i.e., that amusement centers
not be permitted as a principal use nor as a special permit
use in any of the zoning districts but instead be treated
as an accessory use to a principal use.
c. Deferred consideration of the requested special permit.
7. On December 15, 1980, the City Council approved the final reading of
Ordinance No. 1489.
8. After receiving advice and recommendations from the Planning Com-
mission, City staff, citizens and representatives of the applicant,
the City Council denied the special permit on January 5, 1981 for the
following reasons:
a. A special permit would not be in conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance, because the use is not allowed in the "PUD" district
and thus the application was invalid and did not see it appropriate to
include electronic and mechanical games in the Knollwood PUD.
b. The Planning Commission had recommended that a special permit
for such use not be granted because the use is not allowed.
c. Allowance of a use not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance or in
the ordinance zoning the property PUD would violate Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462.
d. The Citv Council had determined that the Zoning Ordinance would
not be amended to allow an electronic and mechanical amusement
center as a Principal or special use in the Knollwood PUD. This
action was taken because a stable neighborhood exists to the
north of the property which is designated on the approved City
Comprehensive Plan to be continued as a low density residential
district. The desired use would impact on this property and/or
properties associated with the mall area in the following ways:
(1) Disruptive behavior, criminal activity and loitering on
the premises or on adjacent property.
(2) Adverse economic impact on abutting property affecting
nearby residential areas and the commercial viability
and/or curtailment of land use benefits.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Noise to abutting property or to nearby property.
Gambling which oftentimes is associated with such uses.
No limitation on the age of the players.
e. During the course of advocating its application, the applicant
argued that under the "PUD", any shop leased to a tenant is a
r
1
permitted use within the "PUD". The Council finds this point
to be inapplicable, since its acceptance would mean that the
lessor would have the authority to determine the content of
the Zoning Ordinance by its decision as to the parties to
which it would give a lease. Any shop going into the space
in question must satisfy the use provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Conclusion
The applications for special permit and a building permit are denied based
upon the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the City Council April 6, 1981
c,e , 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
Reviewed for administration:
Approved as to Form and legality:
ty Manager City Attney