Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011 02-17 PCP
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 17, 2011 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2011 4. Administer Oath of Office: Stan Leino 5. Election of 2011 Chair Pro Tern 6. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 7. Mark Kemper, PLS 2011 -002 Preliminary Plat/Subdivision approval of Storla Addition, a lot division to create a new residential lot at 6536 Willow Lane. 8. Loren Van Der Slik 2011 -003 Planned Unit Development Amendment to the Brookdale C- 2/PUD, the redevelopment of this regional shopping mall to a 65 acre Town Center commercial development to be known as Shingle Creek Crossings. 9. Discussion Item: Continued discussion on expanding the parking lot for a manufacturing use at 1700 Freeway Boulevard. 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment Application Filed on 1 -11 -11 City Council Action Should Be 3 -12 -11 Taken By (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2011 -002 Applicant: Mark Kemper, PLS Location: 6536 Willow Lane Request: Preliminary Plat- Subdivision Approval The applicant, Mark Kemper, PLS, is requesting preliminary plat approval of Storla Addition, the subdivision of a 0.55 acre (24,150 sq. ft.) homestead to create a 12,870 sq. ft. lot for the existing residence and a 12,546 sq. ft. lot for a new residential lot. The property is located south of the intersection of 66 Avenue North and Willow Lane and has 155 ft. of frontage along the Mississippi River. UTILITIES Municipal water and sanitary sewer improvements are available within Willow Lane. The city's 2007 Riverwood Area Improvement Project provided utility stubs to serve this future /proposed lot. The property was assessed as two units. ZONING The property is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residence) and is within the following overlay zones: - Critical Rivers Boundaries -Flood Fringe The R -1 zoning district has the following minimum lot standards: -Lot Width 75 ft. -Lot Area 10,500 sq. ft. This zoning district also has a minimum front lot setback requirement of 35 ft. and a side yard setback of 10 ft. Exceptions to the side yard setback are: -An accessory structure must be setback 3 ft. from an interior lot line. -The primary structure may be located less than 10 ft., but not less than 5 ft., from not more than one interior lot line provided: 1. All other setbacks are met 2. The remaining minimum ten (10) foot interior side yard, between the dwellings and the lot line, shall not be used for any accessory building. Page 1 2 -17 -11 3. The exterior wall of the dwelling, facing the interior side yard of less than ten (10) feet, shall contain no openings including doors, or windows, or provision for mechanical equipment. The Flood Fringe provisions, Section 35 -2150, permits structures providing that the lowest floor is elevated on fill and is above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Structures that are not elevated on fill or flood - proofed in accordance with the ordinance are only allowed as Special Uses in the district. Attached for reference is a copy of the Flood Fringe District and the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which identifies this area as being in Zone X "Other Flood Areas ". These areas are of a 0.2% annual chance of flood; areas of a I% annual chance of flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 % annual chance of flood. Attached for your reference is a copy of a portion of this map relating to this property. The property is also subject to the DNR regulations of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area regulations. STAFF COMMENT The proposed lot split has been laid out to meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R -1 (Single Family Residence) zoning district. However, there are several issues relating to the existing residence which need to be acknowledged. 1. The existing structure as shown on the tax records was built in 1956. It is considered a non- conforming structure in that it does not meet the 35 ft. minimum front setback for the southwest corner of the residence. The preliminary plat identifies a 2.3 ft. encroachment into the minimum front yard area. (Note: The Torrens proceeding, dedicated this right of way for Willow Lane.) 2. The preliminary plat identifies the Base Flood Elevation at 818.3 ft. with the rear elevation of the residence at 817.27. As noted, structures that are not elevated on fill or flood - proofed are only allowed as a special use in the Flood Fringe District 3. To meet the 75 ft. minimum lot width for the new lot, the setback to the existing residence is less than 10 ft. (1.62 ft. southwest and .5ft southeast). This would require that the current openings (windows) would need to be closed to meet the ordinance requirements. 4. The plat identifies a jurisdictional land market that was set as part of a previous Torrens proceeding which adjusted the northern lot line. This adjusted lot line increased the lot width of this parcel and affected the setback to the adjoining garage, Page 2 2 -17 -11 shown at 2.43 ft. This structure would also be considered a non - conforming structure. These matters relate to the actions and conditions which existed prior to this subdivision/lot split application. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plat provides for the creation of a new residential lot which illustrates that a 50 ft. wide building pad can meet all of the required setbacks and has ground elevations that are approximately 5 ft. above the base flood elevation. Also based on staff review of the ordinances, it appears that the lot with the existing residence can become a conforming lot with the following actions: 1. The minor encroachment to the front yard is allowed. 2. Approval of a special use permit within a flood fringe. 3. Alterations to the south wall of the existing residence are made to accommodate city ordinance requirements. Staff is requesting that after the public hearing is held, this item be tabled until the March 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff the opportunity to work with the City Attorney to draft a Planning Commission resolution for preliminary plat approval that also addresses corrective actions for the existing non - conforming structures. Page 3 2 -17 -11 t a � oi3 f�fa � Mu ........._ " "" - — ..__, .- 6520 Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -002 '4 667H AVE iu iZ l 11t l a� ry 4 � r� r >t v t y3_ 9 P __........_._ � ' X12 . 6 t V 663 p s� 6> 1, 652+1 a E3{ / r 3ya 6,,:Ss 6513 iE 6512 �` 6542 S1 3 4q — 7 1 {�� ao - A M7, i f Y s E I 650? SSW d 6504 SSW c 7 65TH AVEN N / s,? 3 aas x�ns.c9c�csc 6ATH w Planning Commission -002 Application No. 2011 s , 7 r: 6dt �6EiS 57t{AVE• : M+ a�sara .atrsrr� ' KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. - — — — — — — — — —�� PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS "".« ' n n" Of w, — — — — — — — x �ypoe c , e%>° `�""i AI/ r w ro n��...,e... STORLA ADDITION 9� 6536 WILLOW LANE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, tot y �1 (SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BELOW) 9, �P ' 1 lt✓,,.�.'"" _ Nib ` 1 \ 4 *+ � c � FOR BEARINGS N 852536' BASIS FOR ELEVA710N w '1` �. or "w��,w ���� \ V VICI MAP a AREA SUMMARY w . LOT IN 31T, k� 1 w _ 9 • w°"",+>eP $ 1 . «°v /� m /� N1 �� n \ \ 1 \` °° .,n.,w, axreu.s so swvEr u"- nfare .s " T) T i aw we \ .�":_. Zl• /-Fl.. 1✓ q .— FLOOD ZONE DESIONA71ON iE z ,- •••,> i 1 \ i I 1 \ \\ n us w,wn aDDO zaxe BB _ \ _ 1 ` ` I v LEGEND �� m xhrt xs @"a :� "asxo' saeE w -o ' az; aTAw,eA,��"T� 1 0 w°°..°. »ww � , - ��� � "" �� ' 1 `,1 ,' I � ; ✓\ �■ w�.,w . au.rEx �`ao°'..�� ... uv i em a ELECTRIC EASEMENT ^k 1� ➢ s e� n»> — _ � _ - \ \��j{ w o,°,..°, EMS7IN6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION e..a"r"r - 1 - — _� T ne V==. v m.nvw vu � •� uwxw _ 1 tuNnvv wt , w rv.w„ c® w. tssn. O – - ,.wt P - e —. m w wo �� 1 ZONING REQUIREMENTS tin• .D,s Lo� D— rtn rtn w nd> a e n wua, we xa x \ '` a g 1 1 1 M "ux o'g' i • CMC vueLY DwLnu wr BE lCGrm 1Ess _ – w"r""'D LL ; o"O �. a, `"mow', \ w • 4 x s �S �� -- \I 1 1 u wrw`s uxu 8519 w^^ia, nu Fors s.ui wve • \I �� ^S BD19� 1 .7 aw"�°w'°�`''w CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY STORLA ADDITION R.T. DOC. NO, t35 85 E �11 125,68 --- - - -- -- — — — — — — 8575 25.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LOT 1 A-1 PIZ Ul BLOCK 1 338 O — — — — — — — — — --- S 85 w 127.42' LOT 2 DRNNAX AND MW EAMMMM ARE Is Is *39 12872 7 w 10 S 8519 OB *168 KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. 85 , 9 05 W 25.73 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS HC 4 012 (6183) No, 20359 BTATE OF MINNESOTA, DISTRICT COURT COUNT'S OF HENNEPrN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT W W In the Matter of the Application of }•� Ned R. Storla THIS �O�'��� ORDER AND DECREE N ` IS R EGISTERED OF REGISTRATI ono {Leave Decree with Examiner no later than Thursday prior to the hearing -- District Court Rules, part II, Rule 8) To Register the T%tle to Certain Land The above entitled matter came on for hearing at the Government Center in the City of &Imneapolis, said County and State, before theDeputy Examinerof titles who has fled his repottherein,and to whomsaidmattahasbeen dulyre&nedtohearthe evidenceinsaid cause and report his conclusions therefrom; and the Court having duly considered the Application, the Reports of the Examiner, the evidence adduced by the Applicants) and being fully advised in the premises, finds: L That the estimated market value of the premises hereinafter described, exclusive of improvements, according to the last official assessment thereof is $ 77M40,00 2 That all the requirements of the law in respect to the Application and any amendments thereto have been complied with and that all of the defendants in this proceedinghave been duly served with process as required by law or have consented to the registration herein and it further appears that no Answer or Notice of Appearance has been filed in this proceecFing, 3. That, except as hereinafter provided, none of the defendants named in the Summons and any amendanents or supplements thereto, have any right, title, estate, lieu or interest in the real estate hereinafter described; 4. That the premises hereinafter described)= is occupied by ..Ned .R ';:tCr3 A pursuant to (add any additional findings and number thvv, beginnvig with numher 5) (STAMP FOR FEE PAID REGISTRAR OF TITLES) (FILING STAMP CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT) SEE PAID ! ;�, f ►,1 1AfrlHt����y AUG tl 2 3�+2�f4�n - ��� � i ��vU llnlLiCiri • W ? li p �i _ FEG j � "�7 .. p,! BY� A0 4!' ,S7RF Clt "ASK i. 3 � � 4 �' (ADDITIONAL FINDINGS) 5. That William F. Young was recommended as a defendant; that his address is unknown and he has been served by publication. 6. That Armas R. Lustig is deceased, and his estate has been probated in Hennepin County, and Probate Court File No. PO -97 -2279 wherein decedents heirs were determined to be James D. Lustig, Don E. Lustig, Sheila Tromblay, Arlene Pekkala, Jacquelyn L. Carlson, and Herbert Jarvis. All of them have been made parties to this proceeding. 7. That is was the intent of William F. Young, who appears as grantor in that certain Warranty Deed filed for record in Boom 2451 of Deeds, page 112, and that Warranty Deed filed for record in Book 2520 of Deeds, page 52, to convey the land described in this Order, including the fee underlying the East half of Willow Lane, but subject to the easement of the public road. That it was the intent of James Lustig, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Armas R. Lustig, who appears as grantor in that Personal Representative's Deed filed for record as Doc. No. 6898123, to convey the land described in this Order including the fee underlying the East half of Willow Lane, but subject to the easement of the public road. 8. That there exists an executed unfiled grant of easement running in favor of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation. 9. That the telephone lines maintained by defendant, U.S. West, which. encroach along the Westerly line of the within land, subsists at sufferance. 10. That the occupants of the adjoining land to the North are Raymond A. Jefferson and Carla Jefferson. That the chain link ;fence located along the Easterly portion of the Northerly line of the within land and encroaches upon the within land, subsists at sufferance. 11. That applicant and respondent, City of Brooklyn Center, by and through their respective attorneys, have stipulated that the City of Brooklyn Center is the owner and holder of an easement for public right of way over and across the Westerly 25 feet of the land within. That said stipulation is now on file with the court, and that the easement granted the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby made a part of this Order. 12. That the Petition and Order for Summons contained an error, in that list of defendant, Jacqueline L. Carlson, as a resident of the State of Minnesota, whereas, in fact on the date of issuance of the Land Title Summons her address was unknown and she has been given notice of this proceeding by publication. WS 14to NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREEA as follows: L That a default as to each defendant named in the Summons and any amendments or supplements thereto and all heirs and devisees of any of the persons named therein who= deceased and, "all other persons or parties unlmown claiming any right, tide, estate, lien or interest in the zeal estate hereinafter described," is hereby entered in the above entitled action. 2 That Ned R. Storla whose post.offiex address is 6535 Willow Lane No City of Brooklyn Cent Ler=fttyof klffl= in , State of Minnesota is (are) the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple and appurtenant easement (strike out one if not applicable) in land in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described ag follows: That part of Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision W nber 310, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Fast of the center line of Willow Lane.. The North line of the above land has been determined by judicial lardnarksset pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19581. according to the recorded plat thereof (strike out the one w)dch is not applicable) Uonly an easement is registered, the easement description must be followed by the description and Certificate of Title number of the fee simple estate to which it is appurtenant) � ♦ f � � � f � U h'�L L'�_'.. 4 � ✓ ~4- •/ f r 39 24i -- - -- 129.38 OPT he6d P �i-i gq �ve ° y etephone mines and a t'' J Ln sa- s- N O Ct a. f (AD 4. The North line of Lof 15, Aud 90A 3l , F ound Metal Post -- 125.68 ;'Nigh Chaim Gr`nc __ ,„ • r�� _ ,. _ CDncrete Blom h �n�g W`a1 . t Ctr it 1.,, in F ern a N.99 5114 i � The South line of t cat , Block, o..o' ISLAN(1 'VIEW ',71 PRA E / NOTE: Pj AT 01' 01,50N'S 1 #AND VIEW TFRRAC.F TOM1 Y SbltH LINE Qk° IOT Q R htF A* FI;N !31#: t j jj ktji Fjj }fltjt t..il : LOT 1 °�,`' AUOCTQR !� FR :yis Nt }jt ill ^,fi €( till �iY-fOUSk(tOHUMNTE�` . . SrOUH f* j mj N(E fj ja j f. Storage of Materials and Equipment 1) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a -plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. g. Structural Works for Flood Control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions.of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G. Community-wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway. h. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. i. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. Section 35 -2150. FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF). 1. Permitted Uses Permitted Uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the underlying zoning use district(s). If no pre- existing, underlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential or nonresidential structure or use of a structure or land shall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such use does not constitute a public nuisance. All Permitted Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe "Permitted Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.2 and the standards for all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Special Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.5. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -125 December 3, 2005 2. Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, including basement floor, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. b. As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood - proofed in accordance with Section 2140.4e2c. C. The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time in excess of one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a Special Use, unless said fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 35- 2150.2a. d. The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. e. The provisions of Section 35- 21,50.5 of this Ordinance shall apply. 3. Special Uses Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood- proofed in accordance with Section 35- 2150.2a -b or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in Section 35- 2150.5 shall only be allowable as a Special Use. An application for a Special Use Permit shall be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation procedures specified in Sections 35- 2150.4 and 35- 2190.4 of this Ordinance. 4. Standards for Flood Fringe Special Uses a. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings, parallel walls, etc., or above - grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if. 1) the enclosed area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 3) is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above -noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: City of Brooklyn Center 35 -126 December 3, 2005 1) Design and Certification - The structure's design and as -built condition must be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. 2) Specific Standards for Above - Grade, Enclosed Areas - Above - grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: a) A minimum area of "automatic" openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood - proofing technique. There shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above - grade. The automatic openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The automatic openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters without any form of human intervention; and b) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP -3 or FP -4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. b. Basements, as defined by Section 35 -900 of this Ordinance, shall be subject to the following: 1) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 2) Nonresidential basements may be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement is structurally dry flood- proofed in accordance with Section 35- 2150.4c of this Ordinance. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -127 December 3, 2005 C. All areas of nonresidential structures including basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood- proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood - proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry flood- proofing must meet the FP -1 or FP -2 flood - proofing classification in the State Building Code and this shall require making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. Structures flood - proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted. d. When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as on -site storage, landscaping, sand and gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal or construction of flood control works, an erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted. The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists. e. Storage of Materials and Equipment: 1) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. f. The provisions of Section 35- 2150.5 of this Ordinance shall also apply. 5. Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses a. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local flood emergency response procedures exist. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -128 December 3, 2005 b. Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per second) the product number exceeds four (4) upon occurrence of the regional flood. C. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses, such as yards and parking lots, may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in Section 35- 2150.5b above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. d. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi- structure or multi -lot. developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. e. Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. f. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over - the -top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. g. If fill is placed or there is encroachment of any kind in the flood fringe, compensatory storage of equal or greater volume than the encroachment upon the flood fringe must be provided within the flood plain. This encroachment shall not create any surcharge, nor shall it create hazardous velocities. City of Brooklyn Center 35 -129 December 3, 2005 LEGEND ZONE - SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION X BY THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD The 1 % annual chance flood (100 -year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood e� that has a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1 % annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, and VE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water- surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. m ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. 472 ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood ZONE elevations determined. y X G ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE AR Area of Special Flood Hazard formerly protected from the 1 % annual Ao chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is i being restored to provide protection from the 1 % annual chance or greater flood. ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1 % annual chance flood by a Federal v flood protection system under construction; no base flood elevations m 252 determined. ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. BI - FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE The foodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. PNE. 66TH OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood 0O2471 X with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 % annual chance flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2 % annual chance floodplain. QO2470 ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. OH ZONE X ® COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS \\ \ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) x CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. eG Floodplain boundary Floodway boundary 000543 694 Zone D boundary •������������������• CBRS and OPA boundary Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Q00545 X Base Flood Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities. 000546 QO2429 - 513 Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; Z ONE *µ (EL 987) elevation in feet* M--D *Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 CT. A A Cross section line BF Transect line 1 . 4 3 "A ` ` V ZONE V Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood ER elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. - FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE The Foodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be '( kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without ' substantial increases in flood heights. OTHER FLOOD AREAS l P" ZONE X Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 % annual chance flood. ; 0 ZONE OTHER AREAS 1 AE BK ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. 819 ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. y{ , ZONE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS X \\ \ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas., Floodplain boundary Floodway boundary �- - Zone D boundary P.' •���'��'���'�������• CBRS and OPA boundary i al -� Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different v Base Flood Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities. ,..........- Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* (EL 987) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; 'r elevation in feet* 4992 m *Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; A A Cross section line 23 - - - - - 23 Transect line 1' A� ( ✓ ry^� " n ' 97 30 " Geog coordina 32 30" g P referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 4276 1000 -meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid values, zone 15 600000 FT 5000 -foot grid ticks: Minnesota State Plane coordinate system, south zone (FIPSZONE 2203) Lambert Conformal Conic projection o 0 DX5510 X Bench mark (see explanation in Notes to Users section of y'' LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 r ..._...__� . ........ ... .. .. .... . ....... l ___ .............. ...................... ____------------ 97TH AVE N � E) .. ... ...._ ...............___ d :. .._._... .. 5 .0 �i . . .............. ... 66TNA4E� �/ Y \ � 4 s _............____ a � , h t..... __._` rn � t 1 E I * 0 J � ...,..,_ ... .. ..... . --+_� E E ' l .i� r ' .�� mod,. ' •.... .-�,- -_.. e � A D 5 g Q 32 INTERSTATE 694 — INTERSTATE 694 NB HWY 5 E 0, 94 http:// gis. logis. org/ L ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= be _logismap_ovsde &ClientVersio... 2/15/2011 Application Filed on 1 -20 -11 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3 -21 -11 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2011 -003 Applicant: Loren Van Der Slik Location: 1108 Brookdale Center Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment, Shingle Creek Crossing The applicant, Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company, is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow the following changes to the Brookdale redevelopment plan: 1. The demolition of approximately 750,000 sq. ft. of the mall including the former J C Penney's, Mervyn's and Macy's stores. 2. The renovation of approximately 122,000 sq. ft. of the mall located north of Sears with architectural changes to provide exterior identity and access while maintaining an indoor mall component. 3. The planned development of a 398,794 sq. ft. community shopping center that includes a major anchor retailer with groceries, three junior box retailers, four restaurant pad sites, and six retail buildings providing for retail /service multi -tenant buildings. 4. The day- lighting of Shingle Creek and enhancements to on -site storm water management, landscaping and lighting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On March 8, 1999, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 99 -37 which approved the Planned Unit Development/Rezoning application to change the zoning of the Brookdale Mall properties from C -2 (Commerce) District to PUD /C -2. The PUD development plans provided for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Center and included the following components: - The reconfiguration of the west end of the mall to include an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat movie theater; - a 13, 200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for two restaurant sites and a new food court; - 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised entry way along the southerly side of the complex; - a 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant; and - conceptual approval for three other buildings shown on the plan as buildings No. 3 (west of the Northway entrance onto Bass Lake Road) and 4 and 5 ( adjacent to the eastern entrance service road), subject to review and approval in the form of a PUD amendment by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2 -17 -11 Page 1 The Applebee's restaurant and most of the interior improvements were completed by Brookdale Center, with the exception of the second story theater. Attached for your reference is a copy of the site plan and resolution which included the following PUD adjustments to the development standards: - Allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 '/2 ft. decorative masonry wall. - Allowed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. - Allowed 60 ft. wide parking dimensions for standard 90 degrees parking and aisle width. - Allowed two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along Hwy 100. - Allowed an increase of 15 percent to 20 percent restaurant use without requiring additional parking. On July 26, 2004 the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation on a PUD amendment for a 4,195 sq.ft. Dairy Queen Grill and Chill restaurant on the site referenced as Building 3 (west of the Northway entrance onto Bass Lake Road.) That proposed development did not proceed and site remained an overflow parking area. On August 27, 2007, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 2007- 112, which approved an amendment to the PUD involving the demolition of the former Mervyn's (Donaldson's) Department Store to facilitate the construction of an 184,600 sq.ft. Wal -Mart Super Center. The proposal involved the creation of a 14.27 acre lot and involved the closure of the Northway intersection ( Mall entrance). The proposed development was legally challenged by Sears under the terms and conditions of the Master Operating Agreement for the Brookdale Center and subsequently the application was withdrawn. In 2008 -09, the Brookdale Mall properties were turned back to the lender, formal foreclosure proceedings occurred, the General Operations Agreement for the Mall expired, and the new property owner, Capmark Financial, retained a commercial real estate company to market the property. In 2010, Gatlin Development Company acquired the Macy's Site (former Dayton's lot) and entered into agreements with Capmark Financial to acquire the balance of the Mall, excluding the Sear's and Midas lots. ZONING The property is zoned PUD /C2 and is within the Central Commerce Overlay District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Mall properties are identified as Retail Business with the Central Commerce Overlay District identified as a multi use area that could support future opportunities for housing, 1 -13 -11 Page 2 office /service, retail business, and public & Semi Public uses. PUD PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE The following identifies the sections of the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to commercial developments and highlights the relative information that will be considered with the proposed amendment to the Brookdale PUD /Shingle Creek Crossing Development plans. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. a. The regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. The Resolution establishing this PUD modified the following regulations for this PUD: - Allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 % ft. decorative masonry wall. - Allowed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. - Allowed 60 ft. wide parking dimensions for standard 90 degrees parking and aisle width. - Allowed two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along Hwy 100. - Allowed an increase of 15 percent to 20 percent restaurant use without requiring additional parking. The PUD development standards recognize the uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City, except that these subdivisions and plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. The implementation of a PUD is controlled by the City Council's approved development plan. This development plan provides the framework of a Planned Unit Development and includes the following components: 1 -13 -11 Page 3 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. (NOTE: Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City.) The following information has been provided by the applicant and evaluated in review of this request a PUD amendment: 1. Street and Utility Locations The applicant has provided the following exhibits which illustrate the use of existing street intersections, internal traffic circulation, and public and private sanitary sewer and municipal water service. • Overall site plan • Water Utility Exhibit • Sanitary Sewer Exhibit • Circulation Exhibit 2. A drainage plan including location and size of pipes and water storage areas. The storm sewer exhibit illustrates the use of the existing 42 inch storm sewer and new storm water ponding before it enters the storm water improvements that were previously developed on the east side of Highway 100. The western portion of the site continues with its existing storm sewer system with all storm water treatment occurring on the east side of Highway 100. The 5.6 acre storm water ponding outlot is also used as a landscape feature and provides separation from 1 -13 -11 Page 4 the truck service /docking areas and the bike trail and outer service road along the Highway 100 R.O.W. The plan provides for a partial day- lighting of Shingle Creek, with normal flows directed to a landscape creek/water amenity and high flows continuing the use of the existing storm sewer ( two 12 ft by 10 ft box culverts). 3. A rg ading plan including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions. The grading exhibit illustrates the general concept of site grading and drainage features with details of site grading plans, erosion control and storm water management plans being provided with the Preliminary Plat. The Preliminary Plat is scheduled for the March 17 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is a copy of the City Engineer's review on the proposed redevelopment of the Brookdale properties and comments relating to the PUD, platting and site plan review. 4. Landscaping Plan The landscape exhibit illustrates a landscape theme which complements the city's Bass Lake Road streetscape improvements, promotes the internal Town Center look, and defines internal circulation movement for both vehicles and pedestrians. Also landscape features include the Shingle Creek Day - lighting, the 5.6 acre storm water ponding area and views from Highway 100 and the two Bass Lake Road entrances into the site. 5. A Lighting Plan The lighting exhibit provides photometric information on the lighting of the parking areas. Additional plans on the streetscape and pedestrian lighting will be developed as part of the site planning and Phase I site improvement plans. 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the developme The phasing exhibit illustrates the initial development of the major anchor site (Walmart), the Day - lighting storm water ponding, site utilities and the internal access and streetscaping. The balance of the out parcels and junior box sites will occur in later phases as market conditions permit. 7. Covenants and other restrictions proposed to regulate the development. The applicant has provided the attached architectural guidelines. In addition, the PUD will include a development agreement with cross easements for access, parking and private utilities, as part of the PUD agreement and subsequent platting of the property. Staff is reviewing the architectural guidelines to ensure that the Town Center image will be enhanced with the development of the out parcels with particular 1 -13 -11 Page 5 attention to building profiles, building height and streetscape appearance. 8. A site plan showing the location of all buildings and parkins_ The Shingle Creek Crossing development plan and rendering illustrates the overall building placements, site layouts and development features. The Shared Parking exhibit further identifies the allocation of site parking as it relates to the current proposed development. Attached for reference is a coy of the Shared Parking Analysis prepared by the project engineer. Table 2 of this report compares the city's standards with parking demand ratios from the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual, Second Addition. The table identifies a recommended standard of 4.4 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail, 4.6 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for banks, 14 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for fast food restaurants and 15 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. for family restaurants. While Staff understands that the development continues to evolve based on market conditions and that the individual site plans will address the specific uses and parking needs and allocations of parking stalls as part of the overall site development and management of this PUD, however, it has been a concern that the proposed restaurant pad sites not be under parked. Consequently, it is our recommendation that the development plan be revised to an earlier version which illustrated two uses in the commercial area along Bass Lake Road (between the Northway entry and the Shingle Creek parking entry). This would remove a conceptually shown 7,700 sq. ft. retail building and expand the parking area for the proposed or larger restaurant pad site overlooking the Shingle Creek ponding/water feature. Additionally, the City Engineer's memo, dated 2- 16 -11, identified issues and concerns with the proposed allocation of parking stalls of other areas within the development. Further review of the distribution of parking will be addressed and resolved as part of the site development plans. 9. Proposed underlying zoning oning classifications. The underlying zoning classification is C -2 (Commerce) District and the site is a significant component of the City's Central Commerce Overlay District. As previously noted, the current zoning is PUD /C -2 and this is a plan amendment to portions of the 1999 PUD plans. The new PUD provisions would apply to the new Shingle Creek Crossing Development and the existing PUD provisions would continue to apply to the Sears and Midas sites. A public hearing on the proposed Shingle Creek Crossing/Brookdale PUD was initially 1 -13 -11 Page 6 advertised and notices were sent to surrounding property owners for a December 3, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. That meeting was canceled to enable the applicant additional time to coordinate potential economic assistance to complete features associated with the Town Center and Day - lighting components. The meeting has been re- advertised and notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 ft. of the development for the February 17, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of the PUD provisions provide that the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: I . Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The findings and the special conditions of approval for the general development plan will be included in both Planning Commission and City Council resolutions. In addition, the City Council may attach such other conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. RECOMMENDATION Upon completing the public hearing and Planning Commission discussion on this application, Staff would recommend that the Commission direct the preparation of a resolution recommending approval of this PUD application with the necessary findings and conditions to be placed on the March 3, 2011 Planning Commission agenda. This application would then be forwarded to the City Council for their March 14, 2011 meeting for Council consideration and action. 1 -13 -11 Page 7 .... . ........ ....... ...... ..... LLj .- .......... .............. ...... . .... ............. > f f :z W w w > - W w ........ .... C . .... .. �#-- z ........... ......... . ... ............ ... ............ z ............ w .......... .... I . ....... ........ ............. ......... 1 < C5 go ........... ............ ........... ........ w CO LU CO - C ............. ......... ............. 59TH AVE M x Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003 ......... ............. 58TH AVE N NOFRFFHWAY J COUNTY ROAD 10 W-5. LAKE,RD.I.." AVE L ....... ..... . . A RTI'hAYDI 57TH A E N, 0 "A 6 X ........ ..... A 0 > HAVE N . .... ' 0 ".,,,0 l ion'* Park " I .......... . !pv, Oenterb 491ft rAs 54TH AVE _ LU W— >4 — M, z ...... . ...... -j WE ILAGDRN u ....... . ............. . U, =3 In WW > fq ............. :3 W 53RD AVE N W— 53RDIIAVE N ............ % w � E N to a s -csp gliadcttones �� 0 ?Nft MEMORANDUM DATE: February 3, 2011 TO: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Bruce Johnson, Engineering Supervisor SUBJECT: Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Review, City of Brooklyn Center Public Works Department staff reviewed the following PUD documents submitted for review for the proposed Shingle Creek Crossing Development: • PUD plans dated January 20, 2011 • Preliminary Drainage Analysis dated January 20, 2011 • Shingle Creek Daylighting Preliminary Drainage Analysis dated January 19, 2011 • Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis dated January 10, 2011 • Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 20, 2011 • Shared -Use Parking Analysis dated January 20, 2011 The following are comments and conditions of approval for the referenced PUD documents: Easements and Agreements: 1. A development agreement is required that will include all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final review and approval by the City. This will be part of and subject to the final approval conditions of the Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. 2. All existing easements must be vacated and adequate easements dedicated for all public items including but not limited to utilities, sidewalks, trails, streetscaping, traffic signals, pedestrian bridge and other elements determined by the City during site plan and plat review. 3. An overall easement agreement is required that will provide the City accessibility to all utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper utility service and maintenance. 4. All easements must be of adequate width and centered on the existing utilities. Specific dimensions and widths of easements will further be determined upon review of the site plan and preliminary plat. 5. Show and dedicate easements for all existing and proposed trails and streetscape improvements as necessary, with a minimum width 16' for the regional trail (trail centered on easement). 6. Cross access, cross parking, shared parking and cross utility easements and agreements are required for all elements and between all property owners, both existing and future, as determined by the City. 7. The existing County Ditch 13 easement must be maintained (do not vacate this easement). 8. The relocation of the regional trail from the east to the west side of the main site ring road south of Shingle Creek Parkway must include the vacation of the existing trail easements Shingle Creek Crossing Page 2 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 and rededication of the new trail easement including a direct easement dedication to the Three Rivers Park District for this trail. Permitting. 9. The property is located adjacent to Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) highway right -of -way and Hennepin County right -of -way. All Mn/DOT and Hennepin County comments will be conditions of approval. 10. Department of Health permit is required for watermain installation. 11. MPCA sanitary sewer permit is required. 1.2. MPCA NPDES is required. 13. Minnesota Department of Health permit is required. 14. Hennepin County access permit is required. 15. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) permit is required. 16. Department of Natural Resources, Army Corp of Engineers and other permits may be required as necessary. Storm Sewer System and Drainage: 17. All hydrology and hydraulic calculations must be presented to and approved by the SCWMC. This review will be performed during the final site plan review by the City. 18. Daylighting of Shingle Creek needs to be more of a feature and integrated into the development (e.g. more building pads orientated adjacent to the creek and use the creek as an amenity in lieu of just running along the side of a big box building wall). The private road along the east side of the creek could be relocated further east on the Kohls site where there will be unused excess parking, creating another building pad on the east side of the creek to enhance and use the creek as a feature. 19. Daylighting of the creek as proposed is only a partial "daylighting" and should be done for the entire length, including the portion along Highway 100. 20. Provide details for the connection points of the daylighted portion of the creek to Shingle Creek at the termini of the diverted portion at the north and south ends. Details must include outlet details, wall details, riffle details, weir details and details for the aesthetics throughout. 21. The exact location of the twin 12'x12' box culverts must be identified and shown to a distinct survey quality level. All easement locations and widths will be determined and shown based upon this survey quality location. Actual exposure of the culverts may be necessary in multiple locations to ensure adequate location of the culverts. 22. All permanent stormwater ponds must be constructed in Phase 1. 23. No stonn water detention basins that retain water for a duration greater than 48 -hrs will be allowed over or directly adjacent to City public utilities (e.g. watermain, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer). This element is required due to the proper protection of underground utilities and the need to ensure proper maintenance and emergency repairs can be made without having adjacent high groundwater issues. Pond 4 is in direct conflict to this element and is not acceptable. 24. The property owner must enroll the twin box culverts into the state's annual bridge inspection program and provide the required inspection and reporting. These are private roadways that carry public traffic over these significant culverts and safety of the box gAengineedug\development & planning\active development projects\shingle creek crossing 2010bommunication \project review & conditions \I 10202_pud review memo.doc Shingle Creek Crossing Page 3 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 culverts must be ensured and properly inspected on an annual basis. The box culverts are not a City maintained utility on this property. 25. Provide sediment pretreatment facilities for all existing and proposed ponds and infiltration basins. 26. Provide sediment pretreatment facilities for all existing and proposed storm sewer piping prior to discharging directly into Shingle Creek (e.g. the Kohls storm sewer). 27. All SWPPP elements and strategies must be installed prior to any demolition. 28. Floodplain mitigation is required. Provide an analysis, report and plans showing proper floodplain impacts are being mitigated. 29. Provide and demonstrate that the required infiltration rate requirements and calculations per the SCWMC standards are being met. 30. Verify that there is no impact to the Sears storm sewer system and/or is being properly accommodated. 31. The existing storm sewer is shown underneath the easterly corner of building P. This must be revised. Watermain System: 32. The required regional water distribution evaluation remains outstanding and must be provided. Any impacts must be properly addressed and included with any approval of this project. 33. Hydrant locations are subject to review by the Fire Chief. 34. New watermain gate valves must be installed at all City watermain service locations. 35. Currently the watermain to the existing Sears site is provided by a service connected to a looped portion of watermain. The proposed plans eliminate this loop. Revise plans to eliminate the proposed "dead -end" water service and appropriately loop the watermain with the remainder of the site watermain. Sanitary Sewer System: 36. Further sanitary sewer capacity /flow calculations are required to verify that the existing gravity 8" VCP pipe can accommodate the capacity for the proposed 6" sanitary force main at the sewer connection point in the northwest corner by Northway Drive. 37. Further sanitary sewer capacity /flow calculations are required to verify that the existing gravity 8" VCP pipe can accommodate the capacity for the proposed 6" sanitary force main at the sewer connection point in the northeast for sites F, M and Q that are adjacent to Kohls. 38. Further sanitary sewer capacity /flow calculations are required to verify that the proposed gravity 18" sewer pipe can accommodate the capacity for the proposed new connections in the central portion of the site for buildings C, D, E, L and P and the existing 12" forcemain. 39. The current sanitary sewer study does not provide groupings of buildings that can be used for anything other than a SAC comparison of the existing to the proposed use. Provide a sanitary sewer study that breaks down the sewer flow capacity by areas and buildings going into the different segments of sanitary sewer. 40. The City sanitary sewer through the site has been televised. The results indicate that significant segments of piping are in very poor condition and need to be replaced. Further gAengineering \development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010\communication\project review & conditions\110202_pud review memo.doc Shingle Creek Crossing Page 4 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 development of a strategy and plan for the necessary sanitary sewer replacement will be coordinated with the developer. Site Plan: 41. Provide a drawing showing main site circulation routes. The main internal circulation route is disconnected and needs to be better defined between buildings J and K. This pertains to the main internal circulation route on the northwest portion of the development. 42. The Phase 1 completion needs to include the main site circulation route as indicated in item 9 above as well as the portion adjacent to and that is used for access to Midas. Curb and gutter and sidewalk must be installed for all main routes under Phase 1. 43. Construct raised medians in parking areas to separate and channelize the parking from the main drive aisles throughout the entire site. 44. Pylon sign locations need to compliment city streetscape improvements and not impair visibility. Pylon sign locations as shown along Bass Lake Road conflict with the park district kiosk in one location and with the Shingle Creek overlook area in the southwest quadrant of the Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. Specific sign locations and plans are required and must be specifically approved by the City. 45. The current and existing internal T- intersection just east of Xerxes Avenue at 56 Avenue (just south of Applebees) is a poor existing design with minimal distance from the public intersection. This is typical in older developments but is very substandard. As part of this project it must be redesigned to better accommodate operations, increased storage, better safety and better flow to and from the overall site. 46. As shown in the current PUD plans, the far southerly exit from the Applebee's site must be closed. 47. As shown in the current PUD plans, the intersection in southwest corner the of Kohls site (Ring Road intersection) was revised from a T- intersection to a radius so the primary route is well defined. Further revision and relocation of this intersection could allow implementation of another building site along the east side of the day lighted creek. 48. Close the easterly Kohls entrance from County Road 10. Closure of the access supports the City's and County's roadway access management goals and also eliminates the trail safety conflict with this skewed access driveway. Adequate access is provided at the Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. 49. As shown in the current PUD plans, the south leg (southbound) lane configuration at Shingle Creek Pkwy /CR 10 must include a thru lane and a thru-right lane. Both lanes must be carried through the first exit intersection to the west, then drop the second lane with standard tapers and channelization. This is needed due to the dual approach from the north as well as the dual left turn approach from the east and the need to eliminate the trap right turn lane. The median nose must remain pulled back and out of the crosswalk. 50. Truck turning movements at the Shingle Creek Parkway intersection with Bass Lake Road must demonstrate adequacy for a WB -67 vehicle for the westbound dual left turn lane and northbound right turn lane. This will further be reviewed during the final site plan review. 51. As currently shown in the PUD plans, eliminate the free right turn, converting the right turn movement to a stop -right turn condition at the Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. g: \engineering \development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010\communication \project review & conditions\l 10202_pud review memo.doc Shingle Creek Crossing Page 5 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 Geometric roadway, trail and streetscape impacts must be addressed and match the existing streetscape elements. Traffic signal system revisions are also required with these revisions. 52. Eliminate all trap thru lanes that turn immediately into turn lanes on the far side of intersections throughout the site. Provide proper geometrics of turn lanes and delineation of them. 53. As shown in the current PUD plans, revise the lane configuration at Northway Drive and Bass Lake Road on the north leg to a southbound right turn lane and a thru -left lane, the southbound lane of the south leg will be a single thru lane that lines up with the north leg's southbound thru -left lane. Geometric roadway, trail and streetscape impacts must be addressed and match the existing streetscape elements. The southwest quadrant of this intersection will need to be revised. Traffic signal system revisions are also required with these improvements. 54. Truck turning movements at the Northway Drive intersection with Bass Lake Road must demonstrate adequacy for a WB -67 vehicle for the eastbound right turning and the westbound left turning movements. The southwest quadrant will need to be revised so the throat of the south leg of the southbound lane is only one lane (20 -ft minimum opening). This will eliminate the trap right turn lane south of this intersection. 55. Alignments in the main drive aisle at the first intersection south of Northway Drive/Bass Lake Road are kinked. A skew of less than 20 degrees is acceptable but the alignments through the intersection must be smooth. The roadway radii between the two intersections must be a minimum of 300 -ft radius. 56. All internal intersections must be aligned properly through the intersections to eliminate any kinks and provide proper, smooth channelization and alignment. 57. Revise the sidewalk west of the site D to provide connectivity to the internal sidewalk system and to site C. 58. The pharmacy drive aisle geometrics will be further reviewed during the site plan review of the Walmart site. 59. As shown in the current PUD plans, the turning movements for major routes are shown and will be further reviewed during site plan review. 60. The loading zone for site Q must be fully and totally separate from the main ring road with no backing, sitting or stopping occurring on the main private road, which must be separated by curb and gutter. 61. The loading zone and truck turning movements for the Walmart site appears to be very difficult to maneuver for the northerly truck loading position. The parking immediately in front of the loading docks may need to be eliminated. This will be further evaluated during the site plan review. 62. The access to the loading zone for site N should be accessed from the southwest of the site and not through the Walmart site as shown. 63. Provide an assigned truck route for the entire site to each building pad. This must be a documented truck route that will be implemented and enforced by all property owners. 64. Provide better ring road transition at the southwest of the site between the proposed section and the existing ring road on the Sears property. gAengineering \development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 201 N-ommunicatioMproject review & conditionAl 10202_pud review memo.doc Shingle Creek Crossing Page 6 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 65. The curb around the west, south and east sides of Walmart are not shown. Revise the site plan to show these with proper channelization for the drive aisles and separation of the building from the parking lot. 66. As shown in the current PUD plans, the northbound lane at the south leg of the intersection with the main Kohls entrance must be channelized so the thru lane does not line up with the southbound left turn lane into Kohls. 67. Provide boulevards (4 -ft minimum) for all sidewalks adjacent to the main internal site circulation roadways. 68. The site's northerly circulation route from Xerxes Avenue at 56 Avenue to the middle part of the site is not very well defined. (e.g. If you enter from 50 enroute to Walmart, there is not a well defined route. The route would take you past Applebees, up to the northeast of site J, then south, dumping you into the parking lot on the east side of site J through a one way parking area and you are still not in the main parking lot of Walmart.) This needs to be revised and better defined. 69. As shown in the current PUD plans, the roadway south of Outlot A (northerly Outlot A) must be one way traffic only, westbound. (There are two outlots as shown.) 70. Revise plan to show sidewalk and curb around the entire site P building. 71. Provide an elevation rendering showing an example of the main roadway entrance point with plantings, decorative lighting, sidewalks, and other streetscape elements. 72. As shown in the current PUD plan, the Shingle Creek Parkway entrance has been revised to provide proper alignment through the intersection across Bass Lake Road and better channelization. These improvements must be included as part of this project. 73. As shown in the current PUD plan, the raised median on the south leg of the Shingle Creek Parkway intersection is extended through the first intersection and to the main Kohls entrance. Turn lanes must be fully channelized with well defined turn lane tapers. 74. A better plan showing more detailed plantings of understory plantings as part of the general site and streetscaping is required. 75. Public improvement plans will be required separately from the on -site improvements. The public improvements include modification to the intersections along Bass Lake Road including but not limited to roadway and curb line geometric changes, trial/sidewalk, streetscape elements, irrigation system and traffic signal system. Traffic Study and Parking Study: 76. The shared parking evaluation and presentation is not adequate. Generally the evaluation needs to show available parking, required parking and proposed shared parking locations per each individual building, defined in a table and specifically shown and detailed on a plan. Holistically grouping areas that are almost a 1 /a mile apart as is currently the case is not realistic. The evaluation should take into consideration different realistic peak times for the individual areas and buildings (e.g. sites C, D and E might have a significantly different peak than a 2 pm weekend timeframe). 77. Provide and add an Executive Summary in the Traffic Impact Analysis. 78. The travel demand trip reduction is based on a comparison to a "mixed -use" redevelopment in the City of Bloomington, but may not be comparable to this project if there was a residential element of mixed use in that project. The report identifies that there is limited options in this retail center to employ travel demand strategies, yet uses gAengineering\development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010\oommunication \project review & conditions \l 10202_pud review memo.doc Shingle Creek Crossing Page 7 of 7 PUD Review Memo, February 3, 2011 and assumes a four percent reduction. This may be too generous of a trip reduction factor, simply by assuming the transit station is the sole trip reduction generator during the peak hour periods. Although the traffic numbers would not be significantly affected by this factor either way, this assumed reduction percentage is seemingly baseless relative to this development and must not set a precedent. 79. Table 1 — Provide daily trip generation data in addition to the peak hour data for comparison and future use. 80. Any assumed signal retiming used in the analysis must be approved by the County. 81. The 2012 Build operations appear to have better operations than the signal optimization that was proposed for the 2012 No -Build scenario. This does not seem intuitive and must be reevaluated /verified for accuracy. 82. The 2030 Build operation results show a southbound thru delay at the Northway Drive intersection. This does not seem intuitive when compared to the other scenarios and must be reevaluated /verified for accuracy. 83. Figure 12 — The regional trail at the intersection of 55 Avenue and Xerxes is located on the south side and must be revised. 84. Figure 12 — The Metro Transit bus stops along Bass Lake Road are shown incorrectly and must be revised. 85. Recommendations section — Although the report indicates that no off -site mitigation measures are recommended to be installed as a part of the Shingle Creek Crossing, there are multiple off -site improvements that are required including the lane reconfiguration and intersections modifications at both the Northway Drive/Bass Lake Road intersection and the Shingle Creek Parkway/Bass Lake Road intersections. Both improvements require signal modifications and roadway /sidewalk/streetscape modifications. All items, recommendations and conditions are preliminary planned unit development review comments and are meant to represent and guide the future planning and development of site plans and the corresponding property plat and easements. All conditions are subject to further review, revision and approval as part of any future platting and site plan review. g: \engineering \development & ptanning\active development projects\shingle creek crossing 2010\communication \project review & conditions \110202_pud review memo.doc MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2011 TO: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Addendum to Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Review, City of Brooklyn Center Public Works Department staff reviewed the following additional PUD documents submitted for review for the proposed Shingle Creek Crossing Development: ■ Shared -Use Parking Weekend Peak Parking Demand dated February 7, 2011 The following are additional comments and conditions of approval for the referenced PUD documents: Parking Study: 1. The irregular property boundaries shown on the shared parking layout will not be acceptable. Revise property boundaries that are more typical and straight, minimizing property boundary irregularities seemingly drawn only to demonstrate a parking balance. Must use shared parking agreements to balance the needed parking in lieu of the very irregular property boundaries. 2. Each site must demonstrate an acceptable number of stalls based on ULI projections at each individual use peak time, based on City requirements or based on the identified shared parking for this individual's property peak parking time (not necessarily occurring at the weekend peak). Then, a collective shared parking exercise must be performed to determine the 2 pm weekend peak parking demand for the overall site. 3. Proposed parking deficiencies and issues that are not acceptable and need to be revised for each site: A. Existing building and retail shop — This building will have access to the parking on the east side of the building in the Site N parking area and must be taken into consideration. The proposed parking and shared parking for this site is scattered and not realistic (e.g. on the north side of the site and omission of any parking for customers on the east side of the building). B. Site B — Must identify the required parking for the individual site and show accordingly. C. Site D — Must identify the required parking for the site and show accordingly. D. Site E — This site relies too heavily on shared parking, and the proposed parking for this site is scattered and not realistic. E. Site N — The required parking layout of the parking for this site is not realistic due to the required parking encroachment by Walmart into the realistic property boundary area north of Site N and the need to show parking on the east side of the existing building/retail shops in this same area. Proposed parking for Site N must be revised. F. Sites G, H, I and J — The proposed parking layout for these sites is not realistic and must be revised. All items, recommendations and conditions are preliminary planned unit development review comments and are meant to represent and guide the future planning and development of site plans and the corresponding property plat and easements. All conditions are subject to further review, revision and approval as part of any future platting and site plan review. Member Kay Lasmari introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 99 -37 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMNIISSION APPLICATION NO. 99001 SUBMITTED BY TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC. WHEREAS, Pl anning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC proposes a rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center which is bounded on the north'by County Road 10, on the east and south by T. H. 100 and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center to include the following; 1. The reconfiguration of the west end of the mall including an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater; 2. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for two restaurant sites; 3. An approximate 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised mall entry way along the southerly side of the complex adjacent to Dayton's; 4. A 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant building along Xerxes Avenue North, northerly of the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Center; 5. Conceptual approval, subject to further Planning Commission and City - Council review and approval, of four additional freestanding restaurant and/or retail buildings to be located around the perimeter of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 25, 1999, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 99001 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 -02 on February 25, 1999; and RESOLUTION NO. 99 -37 WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 99001 at its March 8, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance and will allow for the redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Mall which is a unique development within the City of Brooklyn Center and whose viability is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 2. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform with city ordinance standards for the most part with the exception of the following allowed variations from the zoning ordinance which are considered reasonable standards to apply to this proposal: • Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. greeenstrips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 1 /2 ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects (this standard has been allowed in other areas within the city). RESOLUTION NO. 99 -37 • Allow a 35 ft., or non -major thoroughfare setback for certain out building locations based on variances that have been allowed for other commercial buildings along major thoroughfares and seem appropriate in this location as well. • Allow a 4.5 parking spaces pe; 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area required based on tie shared parking analysis provided and on Urban Land Institute Methodology indicating a maximum of 5,133 parking spaces as being needed for the Broakdale Mall given the mix of uses and square footages proposed in order to meet the maxim weekday and weekend hourly demand, which is also in keeping with at least two major regional malls in the area. • Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. required separation based on the fact that Brookdale has previously been allowed to have the 60 ft. parking standard and it appears that it would work in this situation. • Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale: . Mall. • Allow an increase from 15 percent to 20 percent of the allowable restaurant use without requiring additional parking at Brookdale based on the uniqueness of Brookdale, the mix of uses and dynamics of multiple stops per person at the Center. 4.' The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. S. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the property under consideration and the redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Regional Mall are an important long range use for the existing property and are considered to be an asset to the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99 -37 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Cquncil of the City of Brooklyn Center that approval of Application No. 99001 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical equipment,shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The buildings and building additions are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be 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 new landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all sinery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100. 8. Plan approval acknowledges a proof of parking for the Brookdale Shopping Center based on providing 5,700 parking spaces on site. RESOLUTION NO. 99 -37 The applicants are allowed to retain the existin parking configuration except where required modifications are to be made based on building expansions or additions. New parking lot construction or reconfiguration shall require concrete parking delineators as approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit as built surveys of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an easement agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. 12. Approval of the application is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to storm drainage systems. Effective compensating stora shall be approved prior to the construction and filling for the proposed building No. 5 on the site plan. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior ` to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to city ordinances and the rationale for allowing such deviations by the City Council and the conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. 14. Plan approval is granted for the Applebee's Restaurant building as presented (Building No. 2 on the site plan). 15. Conceptual approval only is granted for three other out buildings shown on the site plan as Building No 3, Building No. 4 and Building No. 5. Planning Commission review and City Council approval in the form of a Planned Unit Development amendment shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for these buildings. RESOLUTION NO. 99-37 16. The costs for traffic signals at the 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue intersections with Xerxes Avenue shall be the responsibility of the,, applicant. 17. The plans shall be modified to show: a. A 3 ft. to 3 'h ft. high decorative masonry wall in locations other than along T. H. 100 where greenstrips are less than 15 ft. b. The elimination of the access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building No. 3. C. The location of the Shingle Creek Regional Corridor Trail through the Brookdale parking lot. d. The removal of Building No. 1 which is not part of the conceptual approval granted at this time. 18. Applicant shall enter into a development agreement, in a form approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, that assures that adequate provision will be made to accommodate public mass transit circulating through the parking lot of the center and to allow for passengers to be dropped off and picked up at the center. The applicant shall not be required to provide space or accommodations for mass transit vehicles parking, stacking, or laying over; for parking of privately owned vehicles of mass transit patrons; or for the transfer of passengers between mass transit vehicles. March 8. 1999 Date May ATTEST: 1 , City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ed Nelson and upon voce being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness; Kay Tasman, Ed Nelson, and Robert Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I 1liiii (Iiih (lilt ilia. (tdf IIIii I fi H:1.l,IlII1 ►:►1 l(11,11 lit I �•" ".— 11H cw � 1t i � } i r is � (;,�� (, lj�- .ii' 1� W • = t' : � � ��1�� 11 !�' ;ti: { t ; l:,iritt { �I tl�l� 1 11; fl • � '..1 (,;: ,�;�� f ,.in �r' ( ( (�y( f ; !'� # 1 1�, ' � , � :{ {!IHt•��i ii'� .• i�� / ' { �f� i =� 11 l i� r � t7 i � r� ' t i j t i; 1 1 �_j �� "�' r tl � t + :l�i!� t(ttt .Ii�ll H i1�l 4K`.. t ! n 11�t 11t1 { :t,� f 1�,71i11 { {� {�J:�l�l ; t; , � {t(! �' I �itt� Y,I II � I e �� �• 1111 t .. •. �., ✓/ .1111 �. r.. �,•I. a ' ` 1 T , I • 1 ' • 1 1 ' y 1 1111 11 _ • 11111 ,• II I 1 . . . . . . . ' 'll�ll 11 �� '' ' ... •' .. NI .1'11 ,•, i • 1 1 1 11 1 1 A Lill 1 . , •••1.11111. 1 1 1 1111 `� 11 .111 111. • 111. ' 1 ` •-• , 11,1 1 11 111 ' • •. 1 111 U( 1!II • r l — 11171 ■e■ 1rt! P � 111 li 1 • • � 1 1 1 ' ., 1 1111 „ 11 111 ••, i t (i 11 1 111. nl•1'1 ' , yy 1 1 11 . ........ .. 11 1 ( �1 P• ., �•0� U IPNu. 1/111111 1 /• 1 111 111 11 11111 1 1.1 1 I N III 111 O of ` 11 1111111 •• ► (_ 1 111 1111.1 1 • _ , �1�T7fIi 1i1T171I•n 1•..11 ` �� 1011111 N' '. — • J t ql unull l l 11 ` • t. 1 1 1 1 • � � 1 n .10 .Iw N 11 1 " ` ' .' O 1 1 � '•111 1 II. 11• N 111111• 1 ' ti .111 11 .11 111 I• - � • • • • • • � 1 H I,IN,I NIII 1111111 11•• / . 1 1 111111. 1 • 11 1111.1 11 IIIN • . 1 .1.1 111111 1. Hi i� fit/( i ; ,. „• - � — -- = -H T � s' . � Memorandum To: Loren Van Der Slik, Gatlin Development Company Inc. From: Brandon Bourdon, P.E. Brett Wood Chris Iser Date: January 20, 2011 Subject: Shingle Creek Crossing Shared -Use Parking Analysis Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Kimley -Horn and Associates was retained by the Gatlin Development Company to analyze projected parking demands for the proposed redevelopment opportunity at Brookdale Center. Shingle Creek Crossing is the name of the proposed project. The impetus behind the analysis was a comparison of parking demands from nationally accepted shared use methodologies and the off - street parking requirements of the City of Brooklyn Center code of ordinances. The shared parking demand for Shingle Creek Crossing was analyzed using shared -use methodology and national parking accumulation rates as outlined by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The parking demand calculated in this analysis represents the minimum number of parking spaces that should be accommodated within the site — assuming consistent parking supply policies. This technical memorandum documents the general framework for the parking demand analysis and summarizes the assumptions, calculations and results. Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 2 and Associates, Inc. Project Understanding The proposed redevelopment of the Brookdale Center is a Town Center style shopping development bounded by Trunk Highway 100, Bass Lake Road (CSAH 10), and Xerxes Avenue N. The proposed redevelopment plan for Shingle Creek Crossing includes retail, bank, fast -food restaurant and family restaurant land uses. The proposed land use intensities for the Shingle Creek Crossing are provided in Table 1. Table 1— Land Use Intensity Land Use Intensity Units Retail 552,178 Square feet Bank 7,700 Square feet Family Restaurant 44,272 Square feet This analysis is a cumulative analysis, reviewing these proposed land use conditions to measure the overall parking demands for the site. The shared -use methodology assumes that one parking space may be available for two or more land uses without conflict or encroachment; especially in more mixed -use development areas where land uses typically generate off - setting demand peaking conditions. The result is often demand for parking spaces that is generally less than the demand generated by separate freestanding developments of similar size and character. This analysis is based on the Site Plan Exhibit dated January 20, 2011, in which a total of 3,034 parking spaces are provided. Exhibit 1 that provides pertinent site plan information is included in the Appendix. This exhibit also shows the most current day- lighting configuration for Shingle Creek through the northeast corner of the site between Building Q and the existing Kohl's Tract. In addition to the land uses identified in Table 1 above, there are also two existing businesses (Sears and Midas) on site. The Sears has 180,669 s.f. and 1,069 available parking spaces. City code requires 994 parking spaces (5.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f.), so this use is adequately parked. The Midas has 8,254 s.f. and 45 available parking spaces. According to city code, an auto service station requires three spaces for each enclosed bay, i Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 3 and Associates, Inc. plus one space for each day shift employee, plus a minimum of two spaces for service vehicles, and one additional space for each service vehicle over two in number. There are eight service bays, plus an enclosed lobby /cashier area at the Midas. If we assume that there are two employees for every bay plus two employees inside the lobby, there would be 18 employees. The required parking would be 24 spaces related to the service bays, 18 spaces related to the employees, and 2 spaces for service vehicles. This total is 44 spaces, which indicates that the site is adequately parked. Parking Accumulation Rates The peak parking accumulation rates used in the shared parking assessment were taken from national average rates typically used in shared use parking studies for each specific land use. These rates were also compared with local parking requirements to determine the difference in required parking on -site. Local off - street parking requirements were obtained from the City of Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Chapter 35 (Zoning), Section 35 -704 (Minimum Parking Spaces Required). The actual zoning for the Shingle Creek Crossing site is PUD -C2, which indicates that the site is a planned unit development area with commercial intentions. The requirements for parking for a PUD zoned development are stated as follows: Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements in section 35 -704 of the City of Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The parking requirements outlined by the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances (Section 35 -704) are as follows: 1. Eating and drinking places: One space for every two seats, and one space for every two employees on the average maximum shift. 2. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions: Eleven spaces for the first 2,000 square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof; 5.5 spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet of gross Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 4 and Associates, Inc. floor area exceeding 2,000 square feet. In multi- tenant retail centers no additional parking. spaces beyond those required by the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which altogether occupy not more than 15% of the gross floor area of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and employees occupying space in the center over and above 15% of the gross floor area. In the case of the Shingle Creek Crossing development, while restaurant uses do not account for more than 15% of the retail uses, we are accounting for them separately because most of the on -site restaurants are free- standing. This analysis also evaluated parking demands based on nationally accepted parking accumulation rates, which have been used in similar studies and sites throughout the country. National average rates are developed based on actual field measurements of parking accumulation, and more closely resemble the actual parking conditions found in mixed -use developments. The main source for national average rates used in this analysis was the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking Manual, Second Edition. The ULI parking accumulation rates were used for the purposes of this analysis, as they most accurately reflect parking accumulation conditions for shared parking conditions, as prescribed by ULI. These rates differentiate between guest and employee parking. This is beneficial when analyzing shared use parking due to the variation in peaking patterns between the two types of users. This concept was taken into account when analyzing peak demand on the site. Local development ordinances typically require parking to sustain a single land use, which is not indicative of a shared use parking strategy. The sole use of these rate sources often times results in overdevelopment of parking facilities in mixed -use developments, which leads to large areas of unused parking. Over sized parking facilities result in several negative impacts including increased storm water impacts, additional construction costs associated with building underutilized facilities, reduced areas for storm water treatment and landscaping, and a reduction in the potential area available for development. Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 5 and Associates, inc. The parking demand ratios compared in this analysis include those from ULI, as well as the requirements per the City of Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances. These ratios are shown in Table 2. Table 2 — Parking Demand Ratios (Weekday) Weekday Accumulation Rates Land Use User ULI city Units Retail Employees 0.8 5.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Patrons 3.1 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Bank Employees 1.6 5.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Patrons 3.0 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Fast -Food Employees 2.25 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per employee Restaurant Patrons 12.75 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft.lperseat Family Employees 1.5 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft.lper employee Restaurant Patrons 9.0 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per seat Weekend Accumulation Rates Land Use User ULI City Units Retail Employees 0.9 5.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Patrons 3.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Bank Employees 1.6 5.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Patrons 3.0 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Fast -Food Employees 2.0 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per employee Restaurant Patrons 12.0 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per seat Family Employees 2.25 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft.lper employee Restaurant Patrons 12.75 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft.lperseat The corresponding parking demand on the Shingle Creek Crossing site is shown in Table 3. These values are based on a "Single Use Methodology ", which does not account for shared parking between land uses. Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 6 Ell and Associates, Inc. Table 3 — Parking Demand (Single Use Methodology) Weekday Land Use User ULI city Retail Patrons Em p loy ees 1471 3,037 2 Bank Employees 12 42 Patrons 23 Family Employees 66 53 Restaurant Patrons 398 642 Total 2,653 3,774 Weekend Land Use User ULI City Retail Employees 497 3,037 Patrons 1,933 Bank Employees 12 42 Patrons 23 Family Employees 100 53 Restaurant Patrons 564 642 Total 3,129 3,774 From the table, the parking demand calculated from the national average rate is several hundred spaces lower than that required by the local governing code of ordinances for both the weekday and weekend conditions. This is without accounting for the effects of shared parking or any type of trip reduction factors. In the previous parking analysis conducted for the Brookdale Center site, a regional shopping center site was analyzed to determine actual parking demands for peak holiday parking accumulation. The actual parking demand ratio from physically collected data on the site was 4.3 parking spaces per 1,000 s.f., which is much closer to the national average rates prescribed by the Urban Land Institute. That study went on to document how the similar site lobbied for an even lower rate (3.97 spaces per 1,000 i n Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 7 and Associates, Inc. square feet) to account for the fact that holiday peak conditions only account for approximately two percent of conditions during the year. Given this comparison and the actual data presented in that study, we feel it is acceptable to use the lower parking accumulation ratios prescribed by ULL The following sections describe the process of analyzing shared parking on the site, which aims to reduce the overall parking footprint further to account for offsetting peak conditions between differing land uses. Trip Reductions The rates presented in the previous section are developed under the assumption that each trip is generated by a vehicle with a single driver, making one stop at one destination, and driving a personal automobile. There is potential that some of the trips generated by the Shingle Creek Crossing will come from alternative modes of transportation (such as transit, walking, and cycling). The City's comprehensive plan states that over 40% of the transit trips to Brooklyn Center were traveling to or from the Brookdale Mall site. The existing pedestrian volumes that were observed when the Brookdale Mall was in operation as documented in the, "Brookdale Mall Expansion Traffic Impact Study" completed by Spack Consulting in 2007 were reviewed. Based upon a review of the pedestrian volumes and heavy use of transit in the area, a four percent reduction in parking demand was assumed to account for multi -modal trips. The corresponding parking demand on the Shingle Creek Crossing site adjusted to account for multi -modal trips is shown in Table 4. These values are based on a "Single Use Methodology", which does not account for shared parking between land uses. Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 8 C and Associates, Inc. Table 4 — Parking Demand Adjusted For Multi -Modal Trips — Single Use Methodology Weekday ULI Transit Reduced Land Use User Required Reduction Total Retail Employees 442 18 424 Patrons 1,712 69 1,643 Bank Employees 12 0 12 Patrons 23 1 22 Employees 66 2 64 Family Patrons 398 15 383 Total 2,653 105 2,548 Weekend ULI Transit Reduced Land Use User Required Reduction Total Retail Employees 497 20 477 Patrons 1,933 78 1,855 Bank Employees 12 0 12 Patrons 23 1 22 Family Employees 100 4 96 Patrons 564 22 542 Total 3,129 125 3,004 Time -of -Day Adjustment Factors A shared parking analysis relies on time -of -day adjustment factors which represent the variations in parking accumulation at each land use type. This variation in parking demand allows for the sharing of a single parking space between multiple uses. For example, a restaurant whose peak period is in the evening can share its spaces with a retail store that does most of its business during the day. The ULI Shared Parking Manual provides time -of- day adjustment factors for each type land use utilized in this analysis. The time -of -day adjustment factors can be found in the Appendix of this memorandum. Based on the land uses in the Shingle Creek Crossing, the peak hour is expected to occur in the early afternoon during the weekday and weekend peak conditions. KimleyHom Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 9 and Associates, Inc. Peak Parking Demands - Shared Parking Peak parking demand represents the total number of parking spaces required to meet peak parking accumulation with an effective parking supply. The effective parking supply allows a small cushion of spaces (15%) over the peak parking accumulation to provide for operation fluctuations, incorrectly parked vehicles, vehicle maneuvers, and vacancies created by reserving spaces for specific users, such as disabled parking. The small cushion also reduces the need to search the entire system for the last few parking spaces, thus reducing patron frustration. Based on guidance by ULI, this effective supply cushion is already factored into their prescribed rates, which are shown in Table 2. Peak parking demand calculations were performed based on the land use mix, development intensities, and preferred travel modes as outlined in this report. As discussed previously, parking generation rates from ULI Shared Parking were used and then applied by time -of -day. Based on this shared parking analysis, the results in Table 5 were determined for the Shingle Creek Crossing. Table 5 — Shared -Use Results based on ULI rates Weekday ULI Sharing Reduced Land Use User (w/ Transit) Reduction Total Retail Employees 424 0 424 Patrons 1,643 0 1,643 Bank Employees 12 0 12 Patrons 22 11 11 Family Employees 64 0 64 Restaurant Patrons 1 383 38 345 Total 2,548 49 2,499 Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 10 and Associates, Inc. Table 5 (cont'd) — Shared -Use Results based on ULI rates Weekend ULI Sharing Reduced Land Use User (w/ Transit) Reduction Total Retail Employees 477 0 477 Patrons 1,855 0 1,855 Bank Employees 12 12 0 Patrons 22 22 0 Family Employees 96 0 96 Restaurant Patrons 542 190 352 Total 3,004 224 2,780 The results of the shared -use methodology (based on ULI rates and time of day adjustment factors) show that the reduced parking demand for weekdays is 2,499 spaces (a 1.9% reduction in supply) and for weekends is 2,780 spaces (a 7.5% reduction in supply). These results indicate that the uses on site (retail and restaurant primarily) do not have drastically off- setting peaks, and therefore the reduction in supply for shared parking is only one to seven percent of the total required parking supply. To provide additional detail regarding projected parking demand on an individual parking area basis, the weekend shared ULI parking demand was calculated by building. The individual parking demand was then compared to the number of stalls supplied for each building. This information is presented in Table 6. This information shows that there are very few parking areas where the parking demand is anticipated to exceed supply during the weekend peak hour. During these periods adjacent underutilized parking areas will be utilized without a significant negative impact on operations. We also looked at each portion of the site to determine how shared parking might reasonably operate on the site. We can't expect the entire site to operate as one shared system, given the size of the site and walking barriers like the north -south interior spine roads. Exhibit 1, included in the Appendix, shows the anticipated location of the shared parking as well as the anticipate parking surplus or deficit during the weekend peak hour of Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 11 C and Associates, Inc. Table 6 - Parking Comparison By Tract Excess ULI Parking Building Parking Provided Required Spaces by Tract Land Use (sq. ft.) (spaces) Parking' Tract Wal -Mart Retail 152,036 761 642 1 119 Existing Building Retail 123,242 519 520 -1 Family A Restaurant 6,033 55 61 -6 B Bank 7,700 55 0 55 C Retail 14,490 1 64 61 3 Family D Restaurant 7,105 61 72 1 -11 Family E Restaurant 7,885 69 80 -11 Family F (City Owned) Restaurant 10,905 50 110 -60 G, H, I, & J Retail 45,020 203 190 13 K Retail 10,735 48 45 3 L Retail 10,920 49 46 3 Family M Restaurant 7,475 60 33 27 N Retail 53,850 242 227 15 P Retail 31,205 132 132 0 Q Retail 35,680 150 151 -1 Family Applebee's Restaurant 4,869 62 49 13 Kohl's Retail 75,000 454 317 137 Based on peak weekend parking period (2 pm) parking demand for each of the parking subareas located on the site. The surplus or deficit information is based on the projected shared parking requirements from this study and the proposed parking provided from the most recent site plan. • The existing retail building, Wal -Mart, and building N will operate together — these three uses have a 133 space surplus. • The existing Applebee's and buildings A, B, G, H, 1, J, and K will operate together —these eight uses have a 78 space surplus. • The existing Kohl's and building F will operate together — these two uses have a surplus of 77 spaces. • Buildings L, M, P, and Qwill operate together —these four uses have a surplus of 29 spaces. ❑-� Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 12 and Associates, Inc. ■ Buildings C, D, and E will operate together— these three uses have a deficit of 19 spaces. Buildings C, D, E, L, M, P, and Q will share spaces during the peak parking periods since there is a deficit in one area and a surplus in the other. Shared parking in this area is reasonable because the parking that would be shared is located close to buildings C, D, and E, a pedestrian crossing is provided across the east -west aligned internal roadway, and traffic volumes are anticipated to be relatively low on the internal roadway. Exhibit 1 shows the anticipated area where spaces will be shared. Conclusion The comparison of ULI parking accumulation rates and City of Brooklyn Center off - street parking requirements indicate that the site will need approximately 994 less parking spaces than required by city zoning codes. The parking demand on -site is driven by weekend usage, as that is the highest point of the demand projections. There is not a drastic reduction in parking spaces when applying shared use parking methodologies, with weekend parking reductions around 7.0 percent of total supply. Given proposed land use mixture, this site should only require 2,780 spaces to accommodate peak demand conditions. This equates to a parking ratio of 4.6 stalls per 1000 s.f. for the described land uses. f 6880 /330J.li ,.-�t �t1.�T 6812 I 8r89 6751 67TH L14 N 6618 I srrrt I 16761 s snot - ............ -sms ra t F e u� H� arxi +sr 673r _ HUMBO N 67tl0 1A00 1300 t t�s �87iis 6801 �` \, - 1608 t".wWS„1543l' 1 0 i 8712 1343: l7w 97TH AVE N ' 67W . �+ I 6 4d ��. ttoa 11401 1301 �tt21� 87TH AYE N 16€31 6635 --- (� 6645 22 I I� 22 66Qit 6681 'C 3 -- ._.._ _ 6640 212 z: 6531! F� } > E C:. ftiS08 W- 6611 2200 t �{ q' 2100 - ... 11 low 8 *t f 16oa SFainpla Greetk Trail 2101 FREEWAY BLVD 85TH AVE N 6 tld31 60T1 Oil 12DY 6643 --r f � 6445 t t t ) 16101 ,- �843T'�W36 6636 64J7 3 i �� 8431 � 6030 :� 6438 6d11 .. nn 1301 1436 70 60.21 6121 8428 1 F 6416 6419 C 3 , 6418 8410 8118 6A19 6415 1$00 6412 6413 c0. 6112 (1413 <16412 8019 Y ....M l J /JJ 6486 6406 6W ;z 6086 64oY E e , p, � ! j rqh 4 a f 6608 6481 6,00 6401 { 6600 648 8 r RSA jW _ — - -� — r° / r -.• _�� $y � p e9,4 +(r�' `-•-., lry 1 t ( i7tit 7` l f� +v T 6362 1;343 1 86TH AVE N, t 2.,.63.$ a4 t f re&31 — ...•.•.••••.••..... � q g � 63ty........� I r�r - ,..,v...,, 1581 f � x 6836 6136 s333i S8 6337 � is?"`�..__ ' 63x9 6311 6a'4D 6331 am 63's 6324 SB HWY252 TO WB 194 P .t 1� Gantonnia( Par OG►O 1CW- E0 1694 t pY 19 r ' °�.. gHINOLE CREEK pY t{16 PKNY TO E8 1894 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 7056194 $HINGLE CREEK _EARLEBROWNDR `" -- -�'�"� aM C.OrigftjCpLOMG1S l .� ,,,.._.. _ 0 63811 _ . .- J _ �.�.,,,, �" 6380 LN N M* A ° � Vk- _ R�•4,1� I I I I I I I iT x �— � i�llnlu p � , rJr ; �t _ _ I f �.r..u. z i ° iiiiiiiiii °� — IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' T If :71 ROOI{dAiE tit �, ur t •r..ar. _,' 5 -„�,,, ,�TIrL—_ � — _ __ � �+rwrrt — � � u.� '�-� _� if .u�n- a,rw 'o� IIf ^ —i _� _ — _ — � c � • T Tff � ta.}�rw■ ,`�,� _ g r�� 'L , c. 6 I � � 1 - ' , %�� ;'' Brooklyn Center Zoning C - ZONING CIsTRICTS R' — � • - USSIDENCE INXMY - ' -JD'c2 R4 .• �xrwr•csacc n.rwcrorra•[ a�•co +arr•cam.cr °.taoru rrp.ar °UDII RE _I.J - �� , u- rc,nxrarnresexrx o1 °m< =see s+ceRrrsrrm __. _— r,.: II_ Illlllltl w16."° „' o: ° ° °. orww- EOPM ®°cceetR� Illllll�llllllnln�, ___ IIIIIFAIIII !E xia.[a nwrc"vu cavci.u'wa NprI1.PJW1[tUMtOlVGSKV iiiiiiiif -UD'R3 Rv IIvp111;� III,. d "1 _ � �cu ••. �arw � • *r[•xrxrpr 1.w•Rf . (ry. rrrw R•M[P �}~ �� K;; xrEViRroEe:nirrtst- cra_orwn IIIIIIIIIIi l' -- unvi)(m lI IIIIaI ` i �r -c°wr �x.•nox orvnm .r cw, = C1 1 •� «..,. - - - -- Crtic3lRfer5eurdary IM Central Commerce ❑istict 5 3 � City Parks Y I - - -- TOT --- - - - - -- - -- _° 7 I r COUNT AD D NO 16 BASS LAKE ROAD 10 _- ____ - -- — -� ______ ____ ___ __ 2 SHARED STALLS 27 SHARED STALLS _ _ __ � _ -- C OUNTY RD N0L_ BA�� LAKE- f201kB _ - _ — _____ w SHARED STALLS i � 1 \ 1 ♦ tA4' I / �� I I I ITI I I�TrI I� - _ �- __ _� � � ` xl�j� 7 O f I ♦♦ ti ill �� / J 7105sf I rl O \ "z,:.' f, Il ISTING 7SHARELqI , \V axnx , 14,490sf ® 7,885sf , 10,905sf } STAI a r f MIDAS ` \ s f:::. ` 1 'rrrosatx'ean xs"i.asx \ 9SHARED - � ��✓ + er � \ \ \\� / _ REDS � "i -_/ 0 ''/ j c R r 0 (A) 6,033sf , a•: � M ♦ y � v / / 2 r \ LO' 7.475sf 6 SHARED STALLS / - N � � �' � � r 10.920sfA 45 0�20sf G \ 3T" LS n 0 i 4 1 00, �nj /d!� T / m / S , �� / � C ♦ 9 \ \\\���\ / �� / may/ ❑ o 0 4 , t ^ i s fi PPLE ffES ' 1;11 L s ♦ \�. ( is N 1 SHARED STALL 5 '��- e• - C /. \ 35,680sf \ s .. �\ � , �. \ �s � 1, _ � y� � NORTH � a f V! t ® 31,205sf `� / . o 1 t � P \, , ♦ O — / / 1 i 0 100 200 2J a _ i 'i> ♦ 1 el• /�, ' SCALE FEET ° EXISTING i 1 BUILDING Walmart:;: -,� / ` / / '' LEGEND RETAIL 1 ` STORE #5625 -170 /> Q ( l / SHOPS ♦ \ CUSTOMER PARKING SEE BUILDING Y z L \ C- 150- SG-NU \ '� \ / �\ \ o \ \ 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) \ -/ ) FOR COLOR Q Q ASSOCIATE PARKING / DESIGNATION w W i EXCESS PARKING Q Q u % ��� \ /� / - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY W 0 Z - ��� �� v 53,850sf / i� `` �( Y Z SHARED PARKING AREA (COLOR VARIES) Y W W TaMe 6• Parking Comparison BY Tract Q / -� Excess ---- W a \ EXISTING / — - / / / / Parking Employee Patron W Parking SEARS Building Provoed Parkirg UU Parking UU Reauirco Spaces by m 5 ' (NOT IN / — \` J / : ( raft Lard Use (so. ft.) (spaces) Reouired' Reauired• Parking' Tract s \ CONTRACT) \ / / / OO Wal-Mart Retail 152,M6 760 131 511 642 116 rrnn E14stin Bu )din Retail v 8 8 12A 242 519 105 414 520 -1 0 Family Z_ e Z c z �k� A Restaurant 6,033 55 13 48 61 -6 G z_ I e // \ / ,'�•�p' B Bank 7,700 55 0 0 0 55 \ \\ �/� / C Retail 14,490 64 13 49 62 2 0 W a r D Retail 7.106 61 6 24 30 31 U 1 � v� \\ �r �` \\ �i / / ' S Family Y LL] E Restaurant 7885 69 17 63 80 -u LIB U w g t 4 1' �� ss ✓ i ��' \ / \� i Family LLI F(City Owned) Restawant 10,905 71 23 87 110 -39 of z o p ..� -/ \\ s s✓ �°' �% '"} ` // G,H, I, &J Retail 45,020 203 39 151 M 13 U J K Retail 10,735 48 9 36 45 3 w o �,; \mom _� — ♦ /? L Retail 10,92D 49 9 37 46 3 J O ♦ / Family 0 O Restaurant 7.475 60 16 60 76 -16 z a f `\I Retail 53,850 242 47 781 228 14 m z Retai 31,205 133 27 105 132 1 = w s 1 ; Ih� /// Q Retail 35,680 153 31 720 151 I ( DATE 3 1 1 ' Family Restaurant 4,869 62 1D 39 49 19 02/07/11 PROJECT NO. 160633000 Kohl's Retail 75,000 454 65 252 317 137 o h1 j �1 It ' /, Total 319 SHEET NUMBER E , �4 \ i � % ` s. � I ® � . , I INI I ' . % � ' Based art peak wreken d parking pniod (2 pm) E2 o€ E 0] DE ' c METRO TRANSIT STATION ROW ICATIO °-� - - - -- - -___ ____________ = _- � -- -- TOT 0. ------- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- --- - -- 6 j `y. � s -o _o�.....�.� - �rs�_���� :s ��T �»�_....«Yf������� » >,.�r__ - '-v0 ��s :�� "' _�• iI I s - ------ - - - - --- __ -- are- _- --------- COUNT NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD I I _--- _________- ___ - ____- _--- ____- __� N - _ _ I11177 T7TT t /i 7, 1 05sf 3 EXI I 7.885sf 1 \ ST - / � 14,490sf r 10,905sf \ // / // ✓ t \ r y p EXISTING _ / z 7 KOHL'S O O L ti t O r, t 10,735 t ti / T / r 7,475sf 10,920sf C� _ >/ / P 3 d / t t l ^v / v� $ !' 45,020sf r C - -3m s q L EX1 TI k1l XAP(� EB 35,680sf 1 /,' 0 1 EXISTING •� O / / / / o BUILDING: r 0 �/ � RETAIL t • /' :/ � � ° SHOPS i t Walmart:;: t \ STORE #5625 -00 I ' o loo 200 Ur CA 50- SCL -NO /�/ / / �\ SIMMON 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) / / / \ SCALE FEET Y PROPERTY LINE Q W 53,850Bf r; LEGEND p 2 ui 1 g °)` \ 1 �/ ' CO ' / / ,> i I , J' I ' ±29 FOR SUBAR SURPLUS ( +) OR DEFICIT ( LxLI T, SUBAREA BOUNDARY = l EXISTING ,` • / / /' �/ / f N ANTICIPATED AREA OF SHARED PARKING m & \ SEARS x (NOT IN CONTRACT) R� I ,V 1�� \ `, \ �� �• / j� �' / , ' `� SITE DATA TABLE U' �J 0 U • '', '`` I.l ( _ \ ' I y I( ! ,.T` \\ IL. \rte / i / / A � / /. / / / '.' ' •' � BUILDING DESIGNATION PLAT LOT AREA ACRE BUN,DN(i PARKING PRONGED ADA PARWf RATIO ` Z WALAINtT LOT 2. BLOCK fi]I.Ne SF. 1&46 ACRE 152.0]e 80. FT. IBi SPACES 153PA[ES 5.01 U) Z STING BUILDING LOT I, BL00(1 123.242 50. FT. 513 SPACES EXISTING 4.21 W r 1 \\ \ STORMWATER /' `, VZV APPLEBffs LOT I. BIDO(1 4,eSY SO. Fr. 628PACES ExISTNC 1z.TS O U D Lt / ✓' `\ KOHL'S LOT 2,BLOCK2 311.9/58F. 7.16 ACRE 75.000SO.FT. 4%SPACES EXISTING 6.06 W / / ' ! A LOT 1, BLOCK 1 6,033 30. FT. SS SPACES 2 SPACES 9.12 B LOT1,awacl 7.7os so- FT. nsPACI�s 3sPAOES 7.14 V Z o C OLRLOTB 14,49050. - FT. "SPACES 3SPACES 4 .42 W Y o ovrLO7e W TA053O.FT. 61 SPACES 2SPACES 5.s9 (' E OUTLOTB 7,u5 so. FT. 60 SPACES 2SPACES 5.75 W �+ w Y f �N I . _:� \ / ` \ / / 'F LOT 1, BIOLI(2 59.200 SF. 1.24 ACE f0,90S So. FT. 50 SPACES 2 SPACES 4.59 N 7 LL L Y , i t �\ ;� �I ✓ '�� \ ` / c. K I. a LOT 1, BLOCK 4s.o20 so. FT. M srACES 7 SPACES 4.51 z d o o i t \ 1 ✓ � I - � ``'�` I � / � _, / / / / K LOT 1. BLOCK I 1o.ns So. FT. u SPACES ] SPACES 4 .4T U J L OUTLOTB IS.= So. FT. 499PACE8 ]SPACES 4.49 W Y M OUILOT B 7.475 SO. FT. 90 SPACES 2 SPACES 6.03 1 - . S OO(1 9,850 SO-M 242 SPACES] SPACES 4.49 J O N LOT 1 / P OUTLOTB 31,235 SO. FT. 132 SPACES 6 SPACES A n � O OUTLOTB O Z 8� I (� / / a 3 ;8 &0 SO. FT. ISO SPACES 65P= 4.20 T_ 71/ W > 11 ` 1 // LOT I, BLOLI(1 1,103.3&0SF. 25.33 ACE R 2 W Z OUTLOTA 292,Tes 3F. 6.72 ACNE r /L W OUTLOTB 509,310 SF. 11.69ACRE V� DEOICATEO TO i 1 ��I � , �� � � 1 �' � I {{ •_ 1 � , � ' / ( R+aw') couNr RD ND. &0 5,310 sF- au ACRE DATE - i , / (pE01G,TEO TO Rp1� STATE 1N/Y NO. 100 47,876 SF. 1.10ACRE 01/20/11 y , 11 �� / - \� / �, / /X / roTA� ee.es AcrE es4.lso so. Fr. 3.osfi SPACES s.o2 160 33000 PROJECT NO. 'THE CITY OWNED PARCEL (BUILDING F) IS TO BE REPIATTEDAS N.TR),I ORAP/ICI. • 1 ]I - I r,11 I // PROPOSED SITE ACREAGE WLL BE I2 ACRES SHEET NUMBER 6 o _ 0 f ° •�♦ '11\q •.ItM r,•n t\t.� � I OOO 00 ° Z,hl,f�I .9, fjfs + 000 000 C1�0 °00 O � PROPOSED � - � O� O : ��Qvod 0000c� o00 0 000 •fit o�o� i COUNTY ROAD NO, 10 PROPOSED MONUMENT �� /. • PYLON SIGN i �� °<•• ♦ •.•x•11♦ .♦ ¢ ,.. tip- _ -SIGN • 1 + : � PROPOSED MONUMENT`_°' _ PROPOSEDPYLON� • • +••� J — O SIGN SIGN _ PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN EXIST MtI A r t I + J t RIFFLESAND WALL ,^ r r M IMPROVEMENTS ` t •. . , WO 41 0200�sl t PROPOSED SHINGLE t\ t\ or • \ \ {/� ♦ CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL > f �' �'•AA +, ,r�: {�tr�y' — � 1 t _ 1 'v � ' ( - t !1 • t PROPOSED DAYLIGHTED �2 E \ t t( SHINGLE CREEK vv PROPOSED G' t cf + aI PROPOSED FREEWAY y �` MONUMENT f' PYLON SIGN SIGN '•;�` EXISTING \ E t: TRAIL CONNECTION 1 + 3 RETAIL \ - y RETAIL o % / TO EXISTING BRIDGE � Walma '•' t STORE 05625 - 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) �. > l EXISTING SHINGLE CREEK BOX CULVERT t _ l EXISTING SEARS (NOT IN CONTRACI z, ) , } PROPOSED FREEWAY ~' PYL SIGN SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING JANUARY 2011 PROPOSED MONUMENT g py ' SIGN 9 G - , r � �, � 0 60 120 240 FT i i' Kimley -Horn ' ' '' " +ut '�► CATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and Associates, Inc. • . y j^' 101 South Main Street Dickson, Tennessee 37055 t Tel: 615446 -7104 ' Fax: 615446 -7105 Drawing name: K: \TWC— LDEV \GATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOKDALE CENTER \CADD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \06 — UTILITY —WATER LAYOUT.dwg 06 Feb 15, 2011 6:08pm by brandon.eiegert fib de-1. 11 will :n. w capb dnd d -bl. pre.ented heron, a. an ,nzt —.1 at vM 1s bte— 11 1.1 N. sp.a purpose and tlfent for wlba It w s prepw R... o! and MaP 1- - -lli. dowm .1-1 written aullWZOtian ontl ad—t- Or Kiml. Hbl, and Aaot 1A Ile. Mall W .1— IbpYnr W RI .Y- am en0 A..oc.ls. I I XES AVENUE NORTH = w r „z TIT ;u i — > mz O wa \ s � I i � 03 m F m Z fn;0 cX �, — m M { Ill \� O D r �� fTl ,� i� U) � z \ (n00 2 N G) I I 9 n o m i O „ p j x z E:1 z i 1 10 1 � CID X, t _ D �n z _I m z � \�� I z I 1 I I n � �� tl 1 1 � � 1 � O 0 Q � o. M - I S n �V fTl d r� � I _ v i II \ O l rn' O O 5 \ I \ u I � i r� 4 - I - I I n o0 \ z v n^ I o v I � I 0 m �l o ITT z �� a — m X � TI (n = W 0 E� o N O d 0 A - -1 0 yam 3 n DAN T _ C' O o �zu�_ \/_ I,-- CF) O G / D x I 'I = f- - o I , Mo —I -I v _ � Cb n I A _ ..�'' '✓ 1 ' I X X � X � ,> a X �' h I I o cn o� m a p N Z y� ( I I rn ! p m o z o Z = �< o Z v D / cl ly 1 =i„ 0 o c� < V) - J M ox x n D m o n c m :\ { C7 9 I ° i n z m Z r M z z ° Z X m \ CPA z 0 v X O O Z i I I x > M _ n A z >< O O Z O �•� y M 2 r D Z \\i - �. I < �< I M Ili C Z Z ° � D I z _ �) z rn � i .� � RI o m i 0 7 25 � ro 7CX Oy z N rr: q SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: o IGmle Ham m a, SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WATER DESIGNED BY W ILLIAM MATZEK and As Inc. ~ U n N y MINNESOTA REG N NU ISTRARCMBER: ❑ ❑ a p� o Nrn BROOKLYN CENTER, MN UTILITY EXHIBIT aR AwNeY © 9009 N1 " "` - " aR " " ° A6 " ° CgES.i "` I O z O 256° UNIVFHSItt A NUE NEST, SUIlE —N Sr. PAUL, 11N 66114 D . CHECKED BY RnONf: 6W1T.M]MLEY 97 FFN6`� -616 -5116 R HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: No. REVISIONS DATE BY Drawing name: K: \TWC -LDEV \GATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOKDALE CENTER \CADD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \07 - UTILITY - SANITARY LAYOUT.awg 07 Feb 15, 2011 8:18pm by branaon.elegert T,N J--. t[g.th, with Me mneeple pntl — Oree - d heron, pa pn meb-- of - a !,!cooed my ror Me epeufic P-- one diem for — h it woe p spored. Reax n1 one Imp op, rellonce m I- --t »R— »ritlen wtbgri —and ga9Cta— by Kbv1eY — and Am —% In[, anal) be »Ithwt I—ity ep NinlerHOm and Ace t., Inc. � 1 Z -0 m VF x �r m� �.. DO z C) \ 0 z W m mr- C') 0 3 X A (nFG)z \ / O ;� DZ\ If, z -cox 0 O O O ^ z I I ?< z v I d I co �z OO G1 z \� I ( X z G1 I, rn 0 > r I n In rn r - I f7 0 0 X \ 0 0 m �/ C O z z - -m 0 0 2 Cm „ \ m m, HOm 3 m 0 /� D \ \ n om . ®. r ` y ' ul -1 U) > n U) \ v mm ar 0) pr 0 �m -z - i V O r ` VZen �I m DT. S� ` pip �i i m K ��/ II I O O � I 0\ Z n � \ / G) 0 - N In In O O m mD 0 `y\ / mmz D \\\ I x •� - - - _ �- �. r G7 IT � 0 x � � X IT \ \ Oo 1 0 A O Z p N O O N Z z O O z Q m O CO m O V /� VIII I 0 x 1A X N N D A A I Z Z ➢ = cn D D D Z1 ZJ - m i ,(� n I u O. t \ �� I,�� z 0<� � �� � m n f I cl m m �� m �x O izi I x A m m b / Z �I < z Z7 m > / m m z D O m 7 ml �X >I� r f D I, SCALE OESIG4 ENGINEER: oo SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING DESIGNED BY WLLIAM MATZEK Kimley -Hom C) o W� SANITARY SEWER ❑m and Associates, Inc. CII D MINNESOTA REGISTRATION NUMBER: BROOKLYN CENTER, MN DRAM BY riSgaNlOS 2E3M PAU MN 551„ EXHIBIT p PHONE: 851 -6 -1107 FAX, 851-60-511a HENNEPIN MINNESOTA CHECKED BY DATE: wx .MLn- NORN.[w N. REVISIONS DATE BY Drawing name: K: \TWC —LDEV \GAILIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOKDALE CENTER \CADD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \10 — CIRCULATION LAYOUT.Dwg 10 Feb 15, 2011 6:19pm by. trish.rothe d.--. mu m« .Rh u4 pp ^p w1. pie —g— p--- ne.4r�, o, 6p 1me.p -t or x.��«. 1..1—d pmy m, <n4 —i � —p— me 0-t 1a —1, N .p. —p—d. B— p1 ma mp pp. .4up�« m t- epp -1 .R— wane wlnpr:mipp em pepplpnm by Kin,1 y 14— ma A—i,t— m<. —11 es w1 h— Imbmry 1p K. 1 — — me A — ickm Inp. Z -a — - DES x m lI i �7y \ V � — ° � L �►�e -P Y � � fn :0 C x r/ � �i �r xm� ��Ct �� ( A / � / �_ � � J "/ \ ✓� \ � \\ ^ ' 'Y � � 111 o m �''v nzVJZ V ` �� A ? ✓ i ii I I 0 ,✓I r ✓ III I I �\ r ✓ ������ ���� � � II � i� � \ ✓ � ^ \ I� I I I I I I i � A � r ✓ � �- . A �� 7 + I i 4 V A 0 1 . , (A z 0 1 V i \ \ -.. �� \ \ N � ✓ " I �Y� i 1 I� ail V A V to T�� ✓ .� ��� (n 1 II Ili \ ` \ \ �•. 9 Zt71 \ \ \ �Oe i� \ ^^ " I m In II (� �II 9 V A �`� X ^� ✓ 1 III I I � I Ii O ill N 'l I�0 r i' 1 � \ \♦ \ \ � ` \�r�� � \� I III 111 0 I I I � I I 1 III II II r O ^ ii 4 III ICU I A \ ' ri D IT _ .I 0 I 2 0 + m r 8 \V �� �� �� i s I it z Li � m 2 X I �s Y1 I z \ - 0 - 0 D � � � � V "'� s ^ �� - �V � 1 1 � • `'V A " I I I I� ;0 m m > o 0 X \ 0 o Z ° N D ��\ \\ ��� �, \ �� iili of l Ln C/3 0 o r' X z � IT m m z c n D n A �i �'- � I 'n I w ph < < IT zl �\ \ ' < \� v falll J a II O O ZJ \ \ `� Cl \`>` \ II,IjL,! r• C 1 d , O O Q m m m n Via\ ♦; \ . G1 �i e a.� ^ G v 11 ;I w A D \` �� m I CO 111 i i l i -� - 1 I I I II I III (n Z G) I I I I I I J I I I SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: mA ° WILLIAM MA7ZEK ❑� Kimley -Hom mm o SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING DescNEDaY and Ass ociates,lnc. O o N BROOKLYN CENTER, MN CIRCULATION EXHIBIT DRAW BBY MINNESOTA REGISTRATION NUMBER: ©2000 KIENEY- NDRN AND A5.ATCS, NC. 2550 UNIWnTY A4FTA)E NEST. SATE 2WN $T. —1- NN 55114 w 0 O PHONE: 851 - 845-4187 FAX 651- 045 -5118 A HENNEPIN MINNESOTA CHECKED BY DATE wA1IJLEY- N0RN.aaM No REVISIONS DATE BY m - -_ — E51 E42 42'> ---- , -__ - -- -- -- - -- - - <� -<- - -. - - - - - CQ NTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD E —� ` _ 10 J - - -- _ -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - -- NO 1 BASS l - -- 1 E`L COUNTY R -. r - F.F.E. = 853.0 <: O ' ,.. /' , o � C E 2X4 BOX F - O 5 O / n 1 � 1 S F.F.E. - CULVERT I TIN o = 1 IS TING XISTIN 6° F.F.E. 849.5 I sa3.0 c MIDA 15" U 15,. 15" 15" �� EXIS 7 A 15' -? f KOh " N5 F ,�y �5 CS 15 Z� / �// "/ ® 78r, X15 O v 1 y y V UK O J /\ &5 U O V I I F.F.E. = i% J PROPOSED r N Q O s4ss DAY- LIGHTED E E 5" 1$" „ F.F. SHINGLE CREEK _ A - ` F.F.E. =852.0 C7 15 6'r - e.Q \�!� a> 4 \ \ F J , F/ — OUTLOT B S I O 6 ,� E� E 1 `aa= B u m� , A 15 15 I �I �� EXISTING �o n/ v a �� / 24 "1- 36„ WI G �� �\ SEDIMENT,- '1 Od s /7" / / EXIST IN S d 5„ 1a 1�. 15" 15" > 7 6 E12 . TRAP u 1 >L /` �� m l ® a E y O AQ /p E F.F.E. = 847.0'( L d \ 1� m cv I - E15" ���5 F.F.E. = 850.5 SC .p GJ� o a k EXISTING 15" �o 6 o 36" ® ROOF DRAINS DE � ( ® z 1 EXISTING IF-I l 12" ~ \\ BUILDING: ® Walmart;': IN �^ - o I li E XISTING 21" SHOPS STORk VApg5 -00 I xl� O C- 150SGL -NO 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) 1$ .4^ LLI LIJ z 0 5 852 � c o F.F.E. ... =. �r� X 2x15" ? W 0 100 200 0 EXISTING j.� _N�2 d 8 SEARS \ ., / A % ' SCALE FEET cl) s (NOT IN RUNOFF RATES CONTRACT) �J -// \ 2x15" QI OVERALL RATES 2 -YR (CFS) 10 -YR (CFS) 100 -YR (CFS) 1 OQ EXISTING 166.58 249.24 342.64 PROPOSED 85.76 1 138.77 1 178.12 m E F i c S - p U' o RUNOFF VOLUME z Z n � \ W E XISTING 31.094 (Af) C z PR P 29.446 Af 0 OSED - a ( ) Q \ co w x� v v� `� ' w 5 Or 1 G U Z \ 5'C�Q �� ' PROPOSED STORM SEWER w U -- - - - - - - - PROPOSED 6 PERFORATED PVC PIPE O w K � POND DATA TABLE NORMAL WATER PROPOSED STORM SEWER INLET U J TREATMENT 100 YR FLOOD ELEVATION O W Y - - - -- t h i ' VOLUME (AF) ELEV.(FT) (FT) /BOTTOM PROPOSED STORM SEWER MANHOLE J Q J v �: • -- - ELEVATION (FT) 0 \� PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION O z POND 1 0.206 848.02 845.50 (BTM) z ()f w POND 2 0.080 847.42 845.00 (BTM) ® PROPOSED RIP RAP POND 3 0147 847.39 845.00 (BTM) (n _ POND 4 2.999 1 846.76 1 839.00 (NWL) X. DATE PROPOSED X -INCH STORM SEWER 02/15/2011 PROJECT NO. E 1 j 160633000 \}\ I SHEET NUMBER E 05 a 6 _ m r z � � ■� �`6. 1 / - � ti � III � 0 e , W 0 EXISTING KOHL'S IOU z PSI PL S n� z ✓i <1 / l DD 11 Off" D / 6 E C ,// oo / /�„ f E S! ��. EXISTING /� �� /�� SITE FEATURES / BUILDING: OF I , i RA SHOPS 7D D) LI / ,'/ �+ i DIRECTION OF INA ND FLOW RETAIL i 1 j/ MITS DINAGE SUB -BASIN PROPERTY LINE a PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE / CC / /� / /// •, J �' U ' /� j 0� P/� EXISTING BUILDING Z ^ \• 1 // �,` / r > y PROPOSED NG - - - - - — EXISTING CURB L,J FLOOD ZONE x (PANEL NO. 2701510212E) FLOOD ZONE AE (PANEL N0. 2]01510212E) Q / . "1 .a SHINGLE CREEK _- m (ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITI' EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO DE REMOVED AREA) IMPAIRED WATER EXISTING _. ,. EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO REMAIN . �l s y / i DD k f� z X e / SEARS (NOT IN � • \ -_ � -�� r "� .,,/ �;� �-a � WETLANDS — W CONTRACT) /, - j % - / I o --�� PROPOSED STORM SEWER EROSION DETAILS X SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN (SEE DETAIL SHEET) W INLET PROTECTION SEDIMENT CONTROL (SEE OETf in .e '' TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) f 11 0 SOIL TYPE URBAN LAND, CREAGE TS, WET Z Z W 0 100 zoo UA COVERWG 100fO U OF S ITE ACREAG COMPLEX E '^ C Z v! G z E 1�� CONSTRUCTION EXIT (SEE DETAIL) 0 Of j c j / SCALE FEET DIVERSION DIKE (SEE DETAIL) LU DIVERSION SCALE (SEE DETAIL) U Z IS ® W / \ TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP (SEE DETAIL) W / 1 ROCK CHECK DAM N `ZJ o j/ �� ✓ \// � D � PROPOSED REINFORCED SILT FENCE J -- : > ,; Q •NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SIGN J O ACREAGE SUMMARY O CONSTRUCTION FENCE ON ACRES) Z LL d o / ✓/� }1 �\ TOTAL PROJECT AREA 52.5 ® = W Z FLOATING SILT CURTAIN Z ON -SITE DISTURBED AREA 50.2 '^ vJ W PERMANENT SEEDING/SODDING OFF -SITE DISTURBED AREA 1 DATE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (MUST MATCH N01) 52.5 ® EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 02/15/2011 IMPERVIOUS AREA AT COMPLETION 42.E PROJECT N0. 1 ® TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN 1606 33000 E PERVIOUS /SEEDED AREA AT COMPLETION 10. J4 SHEET NUMBER RIP -RAP PAD o€ 03 # - m -___ SF CE SF LIMIT CF S OF DISTURBANCE BA$ RO D SF - 0 �2 � - O r F.F.E. 849-5 F � F.F.E. =853.0 \ © O O / as y (� TIN -- F.F.E. =8495 F.F.E.= t ETE S 0 MI 0 UR F ST TING is � KOHL'S Sr < 8 8850 CE f O OI mi F.F.E. - 7 o� S ° 852.0 °�] � "•\\ _ O F.F.E.= �..� °fr I H CON RETE �� a o F.F.E. =852.0 T 849.5 CF D E m 5 DRAINAGE ( T/ -• a F•... m n^ ^ ' 4I BLANKET CON T$L m F w EOF -848.3 ° ' 9 _ 4 REE 4't RETAIN ?p a PL E S 1o s f � O CONCRETE �.:.......:: e sz � � � HEADWALL E 4 .. �,,! ��� 1 I o OP F.F.E. =547.0 SB � , - 1 11'f CONCRETE 6 F.F.E. a50.5 HEADWALL m E ( \ " '`� �... = / ¢ F p �' rt. RETAINING _WALL o� 1 EXISTING q� SITE FEATURES E _ BUILDING: STTORE ORE # #5 6225 -0 1.50% DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW r RETAIL 5 0 `_ \ -' 50 � � GF' LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN � o x+• SHOPS C- 150- SGL -NO *p RO PROPERTY LINE g < r ��•r \\ a 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) (J ......... PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ❑ Y 11.N. F.F.E. =852.0 CJ O F O w g •( EXISTING BUILDING o n u PROPOSED BUILDING 7 � EXISTING CURB ` TRIJIGIOIR I I. Q o ,\ F.F.E. =552.5 / FLOOD ZONE X (PANEL N0. 2 701 51 021 2E) I \ 4 \ • FSC FLOOD ZONE AE (PANEL NO. 2701510212E) a \` INIVI�RONMRTTN.Ly -- -- -- _- - EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO BE REMOVED Q .✓1 a ° --,^�� - , es, IM RED ��` —s—�- EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO REMAIN w x a EXISTING = p' WA WETLANDS o w SEARS A \ Y - 1 (NOT IN �\ °s � .•'` 85p FO E'er NORTH PROPOSED STORM SEWER LL CONTRACT) - ° eTOR�nvAmt STORMWATER Fw REBAY eaAV ❑ T \ \ j >' TNATION FILTR EROSION DETAILS BAS b 1 � 0 100 200 m O SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN (SEE DETAIL SHEET) LL m E T SCALE FEET IP INLET PROTECTION SEDIMENT CONTROL (SEE DETAIL, N, CF P A TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) Z • -__ - ` t �• ` t SOIL TYPE: URBAN LAND, UDORTHENTS, WET c SUBSTRATUM AND U AE l/, COMPLEX ;^ G \\ \ COVERING 100% OF SITE ITE ACREAGE V' w D : PoNO z E O Of CONSTRUCTION EXIT (SEE DETAIL) < . Lu DIVERSION DIKE (SEE DETAIL) / 1 Lu O _ \ DIVERSION SWALE (SEE DETAIL) o l � / w LU K CF 0 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP (SEE DETAIL) w ROCK CHECK DAM 5 444 , - / - -. —.—® PROPOSED REINFORCED SILT FENCE W Y Z � 111 " \ °•� � ©C "NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SIGN ACREAGE SUMMARY ? (IN ACRES) ��O CONSTRUCTION FENCE Z W o E / - TOTAL PROJECT AREA 52.5 ® = m FLOATING SILT CURTAIN Z ON -SITE DISTURBED AREA 5D.2 (n Z U y \ = ?� 4 `` i... / \ /- OFF -SITE DISTURBED AREA 1 -1 / o j ) ( /r PERMANENT SEEDING /SODDING PATE £ I v TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (MUST MATCH N01) 52.5 D2/15/2D11 Y n ,/ o - IMPERVIOUS AREA AT COMPLETON 42.4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PROJECT NO. f(` 160633000 E PERVIOUS /SEEDED AREA AT COMPLETION 10.1 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN SHEET NUMBER RIP -RAP PAD OT 0 coUN_ri [y NO 10 BASS ROAD -- ---- - ---- -- T �A — - --- - ----- �4 7 71777 ^ CNIIIIIII I II If) EXISTING KOHL'S f JK OUTILOT 11I j!! 4 E - u wlg Y PPLE E'S • OWN, D4 I 9v d� ® • 1 Q 5 EXISTING BUILDING: Wal mart LEGEND RETAIL STORE #5625-00 SHOPS C-1 50-SGL-NO 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) EXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN) NATIVE I WET SEED MIX w ! 1 1 ;_ e– V T_ X Lu Lu EXISTING a- SEARS NOT IN Z PRELIMINARY PLANT SCHEDULE < CONTRACT) U) SYMBOL QTY COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT Q SWAMP WHITE OAK "CAL. B&B z COMMON HACKBERRY 2.5" CAL. B&B < Zz ACCOLADE ELM 2.5" CAL. B&B AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 2.5" CAL. B&B OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS v 0 (n • Z QUAKINGASPEN #20 CONT. Z Z BIRCH (SINGLE STEM & CLUMP) #20 CONT. z I W � oo t�� �, \ yy - - IVORY SILK LILAC #20 CONT. 0 2 ORNAMENTAL CRABAPPLE #20 CONT. UJ DECIDUOUS Z Q BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6' HT B&B 0 Uj Lij VHT B&B w 1 HT B&B AUSTRIAN PINE 6 Z EVERGREEN X j VIBURNUM #3 CONT, NORTH I f; DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE #3 CONT. J 0 0 0 100 200 0 LILAC #3 CONT. z z A , DOGWOOD #3 CONT. Z SPIREA #3 CONT. SCALE FEET U) DAYLILY #1 CONT. DATE KARL FOERSTER #1 CONT BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT. 02/15/2011 PROJECT NO. SHRUB/ PERENNIAL 160633000 E MASSING SHEET NUMBER KOBOLD LIATRIS . . . . . . . 09 I's PROPOSED — PYLON SIGN RIFFLES & WALL IMPROVEMENTS TRAIL MAIN CHANNEL STONE PYLONS & V FENCE CREEK AT BUILDING SECTION ® 0 5 10 20 I' t PATIO BLDG SPECIAL PAVEMENT WITH BRIDGE ELEMENTS PROPOSED SHINGLE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL n � f a .-Zi BLDG r� TRAIL MAIN CHANNEL CREEK SECTION 0 5 10 20 Q EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SHINGLE CREEK DAYLIGHT CONCEPT JANUARY 2011 CD KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 101 South Main Street Dickson, Tennessee 37055 0 15 30 60 Tel: 615-446-7104 Fax 615446 -7105 Drawing name: K: \TWC -LDEV \OATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOKDALE CENTER \CARD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \08 - PHOTOMETRICS LAYOUT.dwg 08 Feb 15, 2011 6:16pm by trish.rothe W. document. to thv with the co t, one eeeiVm P deemed herem, m on F,.- nt of der !c ° inlmeee only ror the a 6r.c Rureose ontl d'enl for wh'mN ll I- eocommt wRh.t wHHm outhorixation entl oeaptallon by KYnley -Horn °,a A..tn. Inc. shall ee witb— R-Iliity In K-Rl HO and A.—t— c ; �x mG) \Z§ 00 f N.Z7C T1 VA + O X 0 O Z � i pt i oy I I I I � \. � ! \✓ � ! ® � 1 I II J ® 0\ < v 4 i zi �t co 1\ 1 1 fJl � tr I I I r l � ®� Q o I A Z fJl D I I I " - I l ,. �j i 0 it i i 1 0 "� i f; II I D III x �C�` I N 1 C � \ V A A\ 1 § I II 1 n T 0 8 r- 0 �im o O I �A ,A \ , _ 9 fit; t r_ i � � ,. 111 � � � � � ✓/ F i 0 ME O ............. oil f��msmvl - o iZ' E � Z p D V t� 11 �m�'R�� O a � -� a s a � : _ z 0 (1 li ill y z An mr2 s N m�=Yp=T V4 �e _ m ` 2 1 'I I 1 mOm z�o"� A $ ? ?. 33 i" 3. •d G/ I I � ' T'm A m pp m (11 3 v D� N m co 2�C O ; i 4 A ^ 9. ; `� `� •\ \ \ 1 / f - I ` l l 1 N 11 1 L I IDI' I imi AI In '\ 1 SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: O SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING IMLLIAM MATZEK Kimley Hom m oo \ DESIGNED BY ❑_ and Associates Inc. co o N' BROOKLYN CENTER, MN MI W -1 \ r�r LIGHTING EXHIBIT DRANK BY ©2008 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES NC. m O p � O ]550 UNNERSVY AVENUE NEST. SUITE ATE 235N ST. PAUE, MR 55114 m O RtONE: 851- 645 - {19] 05 1 - 643 -5116 A HENNEPIN MINNESOTA CHECKED BY DATE: www.KlMtEwnoRH.Gw No. REVIS10NS DATE d-Y m COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD � - - - -_ ___- ____a� - - __ BASS LAKE COUNTY t - - - - -- . - __ - -- C OUNTY R - -- _ _� AU A ,7 7. MIDAS PRCIP PAR OtiJ r, RODE �� A 1 �� i o ' € 'c. \�\ \\ G /� ♦ O TLOTB 01� CD i� j l ♦ i Q O �\ FUTURE LOT o W Y ;/ �- �� (®. � i i� cam✓ 6� v s �� o - LOT 2 r Q \ 0 M . , O BLOCK 1 \ W 1z I, Walmart:;: r' NORTH _ LL \` LOT 1, O STORE #5625 -00 BLOCK II \ C- 150- SGL -NO 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) X I , � 0 100 200 5 ' i ♦ ,i ' 1 i 0� / � I SCALE FEET 1 •/� m PHASING HATCH LEGEND: PHASE I - COMPLETE SITE BUILD -OUT (n ' D PHASE II (AS LEASING PROGRESSES) �� � [UTILITIES STUBBED, SWPPP PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED, GRADE SET TO BASE ELEVATION] p Z �� AREA NOT TO BE DISTURBED DURING a OUTLOTA UI WI I CONSTRUCTION Z o i Z U j i t 01 W lilt THE PFESENCE OF GROUNDWATER SHOULD BE , `'� r ANTICIPATED ON THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR'S Y O v - 14 \��m \i \' 1 � BID SHALL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR W ' ��,- A E ` - ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. W U F DC w i w - R IS C / _ - ' Z ALL CONTRACTORS MUST CONTACT U } / . � - •� 11 I GOPHER STATE CALL ONE -I MN TOLL FREE 1 -800- 252 -1166 LLI Y BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS J O TWIN CITY AREA 651 - 454 -0002 'n ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: ' WO m w ALL WM .GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO' BE COMPLETED EARTHWORK, VJ _ FINAL UTIUTIES. AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. OUTLOT AREA TO BE KEPT FREE OF JOB DATE TRAILERS AND STORAGE AFTER THE CONTRACT MILESTONE DATE FOR 02/15/2011 THE 0 TLOT. WM GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CLEAR ACCESS PROJECT N0. FOR OU7LOT CONTRACTOR TO THE SPECIFIC PARCEL AT ALL TMES 1 6 06330 01 AFTER MILESTONE DATE. PURCHASER OF OUTLOT TO PROVIDE PERMIT DOCUMENTS AND SWPPP REQUIRED BY STATE /LOCAL REQUIREMENTS SHEET NUMBER FOR SPECIFIC OUTLOT. O � A 0 I ----- ----- -- - ------------ ---------------------- . - - __ __ - ------ --------------------- --- -------- --- — - - ----------------- G Fb ---- — -- ----------------- METRO TRANSIT STATION & L ....... r A U EXISTING — -------------- - - NG '*W4AL g LA-CCE 3 5 T WFIC ----------------------------- ACCESS COUNTY RD NO 10 1 BASS LAKE RD . ........... . . ............. D SIGNAL - HtAFFIC SIGN TiVA004&1' 10 ----------- -10'UTlUTY EASEMENT 20'BUILDING NO. OW DEDICATION 20'BUILDING SETBACK 6EDIC�Tl N 10'ROW DEDICATI ---------------------------- IS ROVY DEDICATION SETBACK 0 SIGN (T --- -- ---------------- - ----- T o + ---------- J bUTLOT A, 1 ----- ----- 10'UTILITY EASEMENT 0 �1 I 35' BUILDING/ , 0 SETB WATEW A u / / 'TE J 7 4 ti — c - (5 E 1,VY/, 3 / ?,' \ `C/ - ' t v - 7(4T 2 /Av T T 4A_ HI HWAY I? 8YT w �� 100 R.O.W. A DEDICATION ts AT GRADE U ERVW 0 /S E DOO R uQ E XI T tXISTIN EXISTING BOX o CULVERTS )Aec 0 SAM IARY ti . - _ SEWER 13� TING OVERHEAD PHARMACY k Mimart*, —TRANSMISS' LOT 1, .'POLE SITE DATA STORE 45625-00 BLOCK DRIVE-THRU ADDRESS! EXISTING: C-150-SGL-NO 1108 BROOKDAUE co 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) BROOKLYN CENTER. MIN J 11 PROPOSED TED ORO LINE PF x ZONING DISTRICT: PUD w LAND USE CATEGORY- COMMERCIAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAX, BY CODE: N A FEET WAL-MART: 313 < -- o r k FASTING PROPOSED (EXCLUDING ROW DEDICATIONS) BUILDING AREA: 914,593 SF± 6D4.150 SF. UCK IMPERVIOUS AREA: 84.39 AC 55.32 AC V EL PEMRvlou AREA: Z91 AC 11.98 AC RE SETBACKS FROM ROW FRONT 35 0UIRLD ' C/) 40' REAR - -- --------- - SIDE CORNER lo o loo Zoo FLOOD ZONE EXISTING GOMMUNI PANEL NUMBER: 270I5IO212 E DATE OF FIRM: SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 SEARS SCALE FEET ZONE: 'X' AND 'AE' < (NOT IN STORMWATER CONTRACT) TREATMENT SITE DATA TABLE z o ff� , . AREA BUILDING DESIGNATION PLAT LOT AREA WALMART LOT2,6U00KI 674,436 S.F. BUILINNG PARKING PROVIDED ADA PARKING RATo z �OH � - >1' - \ 1 'Em 152,0M SO. ff. 7W SPACES 18 SPACES o - &N V ) - m j 3 EXISTING BUILDING LOT 1,8LOQ<I 123.2Q SQ, ff. 5M SPACES EXISTING 4.31 0 APPLEBEES 62 SPACES EXISTING 73 Ui "IS LOT I BLOCKI 4,889 SQ. LOT 2 BL� iA .7.M S.F. 7.N ACRE 75.� SQ. IFT. 433 SPACES EK`sTlN`G 5." KOHL. 2 OUTLOT A A LOTI,BLOCKI 6.033 SCI ff. 63 SPACES 2 SPACES lo.. z X o B LOT 1, BLOCK 1 77W SQ ff M SPACES 3 SPACES 7.27 W o "SYMBOL LEGEND: c OU110TB 14.450 SQ. 64 SP ACES 3 SPACES 4.42 W 11, D OUTLOTB 7105 SO.F. 348PACE 2 SPACES 4.n w PROPERTY LINE E OUTLOTB 7,685 SQ. F1'. 77 SPACES S.F. SPACES 9." o" Z I .1 LOT I, M,= S.F. ACRE lo,�SQ.FT. 71 SPACES 2 SPACES 6.51 NG PLAN FOR FIXTURE LEGEND) u {I ° y ,/,'�\,, Tg �I�� �_ �y�j \ �� \ f® o I - -_�— ,` ° PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (SEE LIGHn o PROPOSE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL LIGHTING (SE G, H. I, aj LOT 1. a— 45.02D SQ. M SPACES 7 SPACES 4.51 _j V K umlB�l 10,735 SQ. FT. 0 SPACES 3 SPACES 4-47 I k LIGHTING PLAN FOR FIXUTRE LEGEND) L OUTLOTB 113.92OSO.FT. 49SPAGES 3 SPACES 4.49 J 0 I STANDARD PARKING 5TSTALL m OUTLOTB 7.476 SQ. FT. 79 SPACES 2 SPACES 10.57 0 o �TIBLOCKI 53,850 so. ff. 242 SPACES 4.49 N P OU TLOTB 31,2D5 SO- IM SPACES 6 SPACES 4.�3 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES Z AST NSP ----------- :E co SPACES OUTLOTB m,m ff. 155 SPACES 6 SPACES 4.34 EASEMENT PROPO ASSOCIATE PARKING Q OUTLOTB 1, B I 1,098,879 S.F. 25.n ACRE CART CORRAL TYPICAL OUTLOTA M,M S.F. _ 6.68 ACRE DATE SHEET. SEE DETAIL OUTLOTB 499.521 S.F. il.47ACRE (DEDICATED COUNTY AD W. 10 m,ms.l oulACRE 02/15/2011 FIRE HYDRANT ME PROJECT NO. PROPOSED CONCRETE 5= 160633001 _7� ll�q (DEWCATEDTORO.) STATE HWY NO IM 520,542 3,M9 SFACES 79w SHEET NUMBER E I i I PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL 01 Is 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 16 19 2C_ - -- 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 21 29 30 31 32 i 33 � 34 Ig 36 37 38 39 40 A p m No aRVrt TRFwc �R 1 MA METIID TRANSIT i C `\;\_____{ - ` ---------- _ _�•' A4 _ __ :�� �_` �i�� / � - _____- ___ _ -.�:.J cc = _ mac_ _�_' ' � ' ����NR�LER � - C' _ __. OUMTf ' Rp' WO — BASS LAKt - 11MD - - — s [uR.c aar4r 'I 1 _ _ _ /'�' - V = �'_�" _ ' FRIPRO Potosi RE C-) 'T—"j.' - '?`, C_ s AM77 � /J lljjnT/j]'f y �' � 1 rsyN< `: , 1 I / N F 4 • / O f .R, Lr� �' ° \ /' 1't" ; 1 a ` :i �• EX18TMIG E A / �s 1 " � y C � ? i 7 LGf . V F KOFiE /d • � c \ c/! C V ✓ 1 Vj i 77 / \ ' I 1RL 7. J' ' . T ! � � � � A • _ / y / .'' I , g t: ♦ °Q \ ' \ ,♦ +♦ s NORTH � ��� N i ,K �Tr/y,(!� ' , � t, ' ♦ / `T rO . ♦' '+ � s O +L l • - +c' /• �\ 1 �1 ,� + ` �: � °� „ �� s,t RU ♦ r SCALE FEET i T IE S ° �.3� d ♦ \ - ' - ® i i ' ' + S . •" i 6 o 5 3 , s ' - • ♦ ++ P,O ♦ +♦ G' SYMBOL LEGEND: "Orm" Lot s : `a. kLJ � t / / � y '� h � /' ''" , ^•/ O + '' ♦ + + \ a O \�Vi %'' / S< S W PROP °{m LOFT Pw (R! Lp`FN(` �`�\ jj " VVV U ! \ �. \� \ I [fR•w PART am Li E� u ; . «` ; / �♦ + / I ' °aNtq } ® MOESD PARRNG SPACES L a `` ••A EXISTING / 1 r '1? o t Y ; ♦ .� ''' SPACES° ASSOCIATE PAIMAIL mAa3 �I n i :• Q; BUILDING. .,� ' ♦ S I / CART CORRAL 1YPIC& SEE DETAIL 1 I ' • .' . i '', ' RETAIL SHOPS AoA 51RFNC F i.E =552.9t zE M 1 1 +♦ ♦ ly D I , i ® 4 I' ,\ + • i. i f , /� PA® HATCH LEGEND. x o i / I 'at \ ` /' • /r 66 <: ' ' , ♦ PRO.os[u NEAP. wn A�+IKI ��5$ O PRDPOIM HEA- Dun C AiCIW E '� R o 11 L t ♦ // �� PPOg ° P 1 i; Poem= __N JFZ R,Lf /TRACE t C / % PROPOSED pu STANDARD n :' AmNALt i i S ;; 1 1 / .♦ Walmart // !/ ADASTNWG SY $ iY STORE 05625-00 0 1' ® C- 750- SOL•NO 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) THE PRESENCE a wwglrAlER sIg1D e[ Z EXISTNG ,';'� /�' 'f� / / i /, f j eo C T ui nuoi cw c; C0 FDA S s RE PLAN NOTES c 'es. J / / �./ CONTRACTOR IS EmOISNLr FOR PMECTON OR ALL PROPOT uPrRRS. �. ADDa[svNC FNS ISSa4 F.F.E!652.Pt CONTRACTOR SNAU MAIM PROPOSED CMIB AND GU IEIL CONCRETE. AND ( OATPACT) \\ / ' /� / ,' /�1�r.� ALL CONTRACTORS MUST CONTACT o [NSn+c N cRFD[ AND ALr,NNCrtt w NOT IM C . f L� ' {J , 4 IAKNCNT T GOPHER STATE CALL ONE J cwNAclm sHAL1 wo;aW reTlwc PAKLCNI • CONCRETE N ACCORDANCE P� ii 1 1 \\ 1 6•�' / ap MN TOLL FR g FOR EE 1 -500- 252 -1166 STN mEar,CATIwS a S '1 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS . „E [ARII r ALL SomoCo G FoRDw Alp ATs U.5 SHALL E N , 1 ,\ \\ v ' TMN (DTV AREA 651 -454 -0002 ACCORDANCE N1N v[arKAnwz J R i 1�: 1 \ \ ) ♦ % -0� ' COWDI A1KL REFER TO AROIRCTwK KM1S FOR ACTUAL IS LDNG AND 1 1 1 \ \ /%� \♦ + O ' / / /, ; ' BLRR•10 BLnAOI slol"KF DNENSIOMS. PMM AND RAMP LOCAIgNS T ! 1' , 1 1 \, \\ i� - '� Q / ' Z� ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: L CEWI ca mACTw K To cowaNAlc N 1w APPaaNRAT[ LmL c°rMRz /,/ 'Do TD CONSIRLI[IION. AOM511Rwi, w KLW110N a [OSTNG U1N.U1[S AS ALL W KNwAL Cp1TPA LRJIRL To K cD11PLCItD (E ARINROW. x9orATED w WARS W w \ / C P•RRIO K1BA01 rNAL URIYIES. MUD COAL w By TN[ MILESTONE DAM N OJTLOl ' ; ' y \„� / IRA.ERS�ORAGE MIER THE CONTRACT MLESIONE DATE FOR ] CIpPO AND MWAR�MICES . ORK WAS °f KOK O '' \ \\ INE ONTOT IN, GENERAL CONTRA P NAiOE EAR ACEESS TOR T° CL < U 3 - ( \-••. '• / SA P AMR am CONTRACTOR TO M Y CRIC PARQL Al ALL TRLS T B CONTRACTOR SNKI REFER TO ARCNTECTTRAL PUNS ANC SPECFICAT1011S FOR NLCSIAK DATE woNE ORS lO 10 PROMOE -IS LATUK L v ALL IRE [MTRANCS TO NO" USANITARY AN < OOCIMNS AHO SRPPP EOUK[° Rv SIARhOCA. PE-- -IS -- -IS Q% ti Fw mCCR1 Qlllm N S UCH [ ° ANWR CONTRA D C ONFLICTS NALL AOAND ASSURE " V - _ R PER P Ui ARE u V - ♦' 1 \ / ACrKKD ^AS RELL AS COORDINATE N VTL'iY COMPARES FOR R APPROKO ��rF�� W LOCATNNS AND SCKGRNO R E- NS/COMECT1w5 R lIRP1 IACLES (D ON SITE DATA TABLE • T ONSRCCIION SN KL C i` MM ALL —NNNC CODES AND K CbS1RK E0 �Z Z _z y 2 � \ _ 1RKi RIRIfiR3 RIYE1ATpF ryAT 101A1RA AORE Wlwli PMINND AoAPN•ND MTO AJ/ �I/J Ulf U i X3 \ - i /� 1YMW111 WKMIRF L°r 1.ROOt. lq.p•ar Np.Agf I.—. IY rNCFb NRPCsR AE 10 c-mclw 5 R[mONSBIl Fw EPMIN4 IM DANAFI DOE W AN. ELSTNC (n U W w 11LACr1 INORi lR1,iPEE) D•fIPN R1LON0 LOT a RETORT •ilM if 1]11110! ,TJ3AI ton grAgS e1J I¢N 041.4 COAVA__ SFKN E. BN 101 — 'rD N. ORANAN, URr1R:. O 0 - PAKKNt, SNIPING. CORE. IN IM.- 9W 1 E FDA. III w or MW. O Lm i. RIGORI NIEif TMAOR SANSO n. NrAORS avAQa Tao EXF IRO CONDITIONS CONTRACTOR R RESPONSOU 10 DOCU II ALL [ETIN� N Z " F�/ Lm L. RL00t1 [S]N Sr. IAJACR t &=w I{rALES AiACES FE DAMAGE AND NOTIFY VK-MMT CONS1111KTIw NANAOR PRIOR TO COISTNCM /L✓ \ l� �E 1RACre P.NYAI lm 6.ROQL1 14123/tf. F AE q.tltp R. alos"Col 1vRm A.n S \-/ J EV X � ; �•` 1 / fy SITE DATA 1RLCIa Dio Lm {aoo11 war{, 1.I$AORE nTroiO n RrAVi aRPACR. AN 1 , Cwinkcim SHALL T ANI PANT at "I POE MSS /Rlr NYORAPTS PRD. nNE Y Y CO 1RMIR MM R1REI ARE ..1' SAND COST 9NLL E NCL. N THE MS Z S `1 3 %/ ADDRESS I IDe WoDF ovom iTUMPMTRRAIRAI L QIII m � tl NA�1a erAOIR I.AORan. N rAesi arse • x RD LLI O y So LTF. CEN W Lu oLlnme iTOE1WNM AAU LJ111l q.1ru Fs AOR Ia I NKI FOR R 91ALL Marl m EJm TINE '—ml s,wiic o, PROPDSED TR0 IRIAI• u Lm•. K-1 Rr1v. I41AOR 3.413 BOn 111 r.Fas 3vAtES Nn miarN:Anws•. IPREa sP[tFRn [t>tRCRL � W T ' LA- USE 20ANG DISTRICT. `,.,E E IRACTN v Lm•ILUULI tl."SV. IAIAOR )L3 BCE FI. 1,— JrAMA i31 13 CONTRACIOR 10 EMDY[ w RELOrAX TERN APPIICARLT, ALL (VS?%NC \-/ [Q O /j aunmD nOMw11TRw MFA OERmD 1g/1[RF. I2•ACK -_. �. 0.0si S. FONDI11Or15, BASPeNTS, D Nl I4 MN°KLRNIS. MAIN PIPES \/ i � ` ��__ / . CATECORr o . COL TRACT Fa 8 Lm N.9 1 E.EI{f. 1nA0R {maa KrACEE avA¢6 f3) r. S ANI TARY 4ER PIPES. P° NEA PRLS, AND N1Y 1rRE5. RATER LIFTERS AND W _ ' RR Lw(T. ELLS SOF . VALFS. DON POfS. 11141[IIIiIOW OAT. SEPM TANKS J /\ BJNbNG NEN:HI. IIAa BY CEO[: N/A IRACI FS D Lm 11. ROOLt ". 1fi A7R SANprT "SPACES arACR3 631 AND ASPNALT, SNOW AND NOT 94OW NININ CONSTRUCINN, LMTS AID NRR[ U) CI < Z ls� VAL -MAUI. TD FEES a IIIACIN r Lm O. BLOw1 K2T {f Rtl AOE )ESCn NrArti I—S rfl NFEOED.TD AL10V FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AS SNOW (3 L U \`�'l•� TRLCT 16 I Lm0 ROIX1 Nll , LMAOP6 •1t11SO.n Nr RM1Qi 1r 1A WAITRKIw SHALL FOLLOR ALL LOCAL STATE. Alp FTOUPAK K.LAI -S IN L 7 BVRDING AREA TRARN I Lm N. ROO,t NFJN {f. aTAOR NIMMPI WrAFl3 DIARa SSS »11 FY DTPESNG O DEMOLISHED YAl[RIAS P[3gLm rROY MS LR E Q LANDSCAPE AREA TINr.T EPRDIC Tm T°LO.w.I - WAN if. 1fJIOR Ln 15 ALL PANT VSD FM PMRNG TTRNNG SMALL E PER VK A11 SMIXICATON; EQ 0L = i 1 �, 1TUnmc s1DRMRNICRARU. ounmc a•AN Sr. •A1 AOR oP a, o BRODNLYN CDFNR sP[or<wIDNS 2 3 S 1'.. - - �wi' 6L4e1[D AAPL�E•E A1NNw[ci Lm 1r, RA011 tltM Bf. 1JIe AG1K AIEp R. fLrARb 941 16 sooNSIONT 9RN1 AM TO FACE OF Cw6 U1LEI3 NOTM OW—ST _ S - RE. erN u, O kOIE Lm 1i. ROOR, ASYt {f >)1 ACE ..r. AN SPACES iN 1] CO W A PETER lD lMAl5C11PRD Np NNGAINN µ FOR RCLOCAllwS /04/2010 DAIF f[ SIX CORNER 10' LIEDCIO®IORO.M Lm N, ROOL1 OIN{f. 12]AOR LmNR. EYAQi arAaa NE C TRACTORS 11 Finn[ "Notts, •ILA RI BB J ' CORRMTY PAMII NLRIEF IT01510a1] [ lmK _ — ENAOE fI•.1N t0.R TND3MCla IR CMl COP iD K PROIRED RY RKMART ASYMEY AND NTTALl11NW 10 �O�CT NO. } DATE O , SEPTEMBER 1. Mb 'RIECIFF PAR¢LRTOEIRPLAIMASSOC FlowBR o— K DO'E Br Cw1RKT01 160633000 iRP 'Y AND 'K' NvEEn NTE AORARE•RL E ZONE 13r AORJ1 SHEET NUMBER C • 19 A RISCRIC omT [N FE�l i.1 M 11ME oTYS COOLS AND Au o E 6040 It ,. tow V t ---� r i 0 - -. SIM& Ali _- - �i i - i SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. !Dl Nosh Tr&d Wee[, SWIS 210 612-436-4M MNheepolls, MN 66101 F=6124624160 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Key Plan C K1115TIN5 NORTH ELEVATION 51+tA.ATED BACKLIT STOWC - 61--as PREFIN ME -AL O/ ��� CORNICE PREPIN METAL n ,,.,� COR1uCE I TENANT NORTH � TENANT TENANT TENANT _ Mark Revis(on /)ssus Dale i _ CM BA5C EIRICK PRErIA. META: rTwNC E MY7D. AL:M. DECORATIVE CANOPY TO MA4 LI$IIT STORE7• LDNT \ PROP05ED NORTH ELEVATION 1/16" • "-O' SHINGLE CREEK F] CROSSING E_% 7?f�z EKISiVK EX 5TMA5 DN9SZ •�YICE caac- `1F.e65 3 EXI5TIN& AE5•' ELEVATION BROOKDALE CENTER PREF N. NETA_ ...6 • 1' -0• REDEVELOPMENT BACXUT COQ�CE FROSTED TENANT euro EIFS BRICK Ism � TET �,r.. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN � n,� I i r�w.Nr 1 TENANT TENANT EXTERIOR TENANT rENnNr ELEVATIONS �REFIN. MET.I MUM OEGORATIVE CANVAS MR -N --TAI ANOJ ALL CW eASE EX!STM CANOPY ,'JwSL_Gaw— LI T Ak# INrS CANOPY STOREFRONT ,• .Aft C \ PROPOSED NES ELEVATION i Al Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 ARCHITECTURAL - - -- CONSORTIUM L.L.C. — - 901 N«m Third SbvM, suN.229 e1s436- M = = MMnrrspoft, MN 55401 F 812492 M - EXISTING OVERALL EAST ELEVATION CD N.TS. !!LL GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TENANT ' SW I TENANT - - .- TENANT — -- NT i` an R �: - 1 Key P 2 PROPOSED OVERALL EAST ELEVATION .�`��\ \ ^, 2 EXISTING CURVED I ENTRY BEYOND NORTH Mark Revision / issue Date 11 I u I� n II EXISTING EAST ELEVATION cuRVED MALL ENTRY BEYOND CORNER TOYER :TENANT TEw =7 TENANT EIF5 DECORATIVE L16HT 4 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION Ab" - I' -0" SHINGLE CREEK I CROSSING BROOKDALE CENTER ' `i--------- - - - -A, PORTION OF EXISTING '..EARS BEYOND VED REDEVELOPMENT J I � I ' MALL TO BE RB�fO ` -- $ ---- -- - - - -' `--- ---- - - - --' __________ _-____ ____________ __= ____________________— _______ " - -- ------------------------`-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- BROOKLYN CENTER, MN - -, - ---- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 EXISTING ATRIUM ii ii TO BE REMOVED l I J 11 ii it I_ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION CONTINUED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS r PREFIN. METAL 51MULATED _ BACKLIT -- - -_ 5EAR5 BEYOND CORNICE 5iONE <ArrKC«o FROSTEb . J ILLUMINATED ._I � EIFS �I -20 -II a T PRENN. METAL CANVA5 ENTRANCE ANOD. ALUM, DRIGK CMU BASE -EIFS A2 CANOPY AMIN65 TO 5EAR5 STOREFRONT I� PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION CONTINUED Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. EIFS DECORATIVE ILLUMINATED PREFIN. METAL LIGHT 916NAbE GOIFNIGE I TTW� 901 North Third Sheet, Suite 220 812-d38 -4030 5/0 BACKLIT — Minneapolis, MN 81 Fax 612.02 -9980 61 TENANT TENANT TENANT ASS CD —.k C' G INI RASE - CANVAS . METAL STO ALA. GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AWNINFf CANOPY STOREFRONT FRONT 51DE Key Plan DECORATIVE EIFS ILLUMINATED L16HT 516NA6E PREFIN METAL ,�• COI¢WGE[� TENANT TENANT � TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT � � � T1 I I F] I I I I I I BRICK . IN. METAL W CANVAS GMI, i PREF MET PAINTED HO CANOPY ME7AL DOOR ANNIN65 - NORTH 551M REAR TYPICAL ELEVA -PAD BU LDIN6 Mark Revision Issue Date BACKLIT PREFIN. METAL FR05TED 6LA55 CORNICE -. -. ,_ ILLUMINATED EIFS T -- - TENANT` y YL DECORATIVE ANOD. ALCM. PREFIN. METAL 5RICK cm LIGHT 5TOREFRONT CANOPY FRONT SHINGLE CREEK PREFIN. METAL CROSSING 5I&NA6E CORNICE ILLUMINATED EIPS TENANT BROOKDALE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT T BROOKLYN CENTER, MN PAINTED HOLLOW DECORATIVE PRY-IN. METAL BRICK Cm METAL DOOR LIGHT CANOPY 51PF EXTERIOR F RON T R,A PET PA ELEVATIONS EEYOND BF-- ILLUMINATED 516NA6E J TENANT LOADING DOCK CMl BRICK SCREEN WALL REAR Q 2 TYPICAL ELEVATIONS -MAJOR ANCHOR A3 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010