Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 03-10 PCP II PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 10, 2011 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes—February 17, 2011 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Discussion Item: Review of 2011 Community Development Projects April 6, 2011 Joint City Council and Commission Meeting 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment II I it To: Planning Commission Members From: Gary Eitel, Planning Commission Secretary Date: March 8,2011 Subject: Items on the March 10, 2011 Planning Commission agenda Agenda Item No. 5— 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. Following the February 28th Meeting, the applicant indicated that they were considering the option of submitting a request to City Council for a lot width variance from 75' to meet the minimum 10 foot side yard setback from the existing house. (0.5' SE corner and 1.72' SW corner). This adjustment could be made on the final plat if approved by the City Council Recommended Motion: It is the staff's recommendation that a motion be made to approve this application by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-01, A Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011-002, A Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 6536 Willow Lane (Storla Addition) subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution. Attached is a copy of the proposed resolution. i Agenda Item No. 6. 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. Following the February 28th Meeting, we did meet with the City Attorney on the draft resolution. The language on condition No. 7 has been amended to include (underlined areas added): The applicant shall enter into a PUD development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to City ordinances, the PUD requirements for site plan review, the framework of the PUD (Development Plans and Exhibits), cross parking and access agreements responsibilities for private infrastructure and roadways, and conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. Additionally, we reviewed what changes to the Planned Unit Development Plan should be considered as a major change to the PUD (i.e. require a formal public hearing review process) and what type of changes could be considered as a minor amendment and processed in conjunction with the Planning Commission's review and City Council's approval of a site plan the is consistent with the overall PUD theme and development concept. Also it was recommended that the Cit Council's execution of the PUD development agreement be deferred until either the March 28t or April 11th City Council meeting. This will allow the Planning Commission to complete its review on the architectural guidelines and provide recommendations on the final architectural guidelines and standards. Recommended Motion: It is the staff's recommendation that a motion be made to approve this application by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-02, A Resolution Regarding Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003, A Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment approval, Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik(For Gatlin Development Company) subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution. I Attached is a copy of the proposed resolution i Agenda Item No. 7 Discussion Items: Review of 2011 Community Development Projects Brief review of the Draft 2011 Community Development Projects Map. April 6, 2011 Joint City Council and Commission Meeting At the March 5th the City Council reconfirmed its commitment to the attached Mission, Values and Goals at its annual meeting with the City Manager and Department Heads. The annual meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission, Housing Commission, Parks and Recreation meeting, is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6th at 7:00 . This annual meeting will also include a review of the City's Mission, Values and Goals and provides a opportunity to discuss opportunities on how the roles and responsibilities of the various Commissions can contribute towards achieving the Strategic and On Going Goals of the City. A review of 2010 Commission items, discussion on 2011 development activity projected, and discussion on the role of the Commission relating to the Council Goals will be scheduled for the March 17th Meeting. i i From this discussion, I believe that we can put together a brief power point presentation for the Commission's review on March 31St before its presentation on April 6th. i 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 BACKGROUND On February 17, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow the following changes to the Brookdale PUD development 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. After conducting the public hearing,the Commission moved to table the application to staff to meet with the City Attorney and draft a resolution outlining the conditions of approval. Since the meeting,the developer has made the following revisions to address concerns and issues included in the staff and engineering memorandum, and comments reviewed at the public hearing: 1. 56th Avenue/Xerxes Entrance Aesthetic improvements to the western entrance, continuation of streetscaping and street lighting, and enhancements to pedestrian walkways. Reconfiguration of the parking areas adjoining Applebee's restaurant and the northern portion of the existing mall. Boulevard drive to the outer service drive to Building A and Midis site. 3-10-11 Page 1 'I 2. Building B Boulevard drive adjacent to Building J. An enlarged building pad with drive thru to represent a proposed bank site. 3. Buildings D A reduction in size of Building D to meet the parking ratio of 4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail and ten per 1,000 for restaurants. 4. Building Q Relocation of the loading deck for Building Q. 5. Sanitary Sewer Plan The force main from the left station serving Buildings M and Q has been relocated to flow into the existing sewer truck line. 6. Shingle Creek Daylighting Additional details on the aesthetic treatment of elements of the creek and day-lighting concepts have been included. 7. The parking calculations and parking stalls for retail and restaurant uses have been organized into serviceable areas with excess parking stalls identified for each area. 8. Additional details on the signage package for freestanding and wall mounted signs. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS (PLAN AMENDMENTS) Section 35-355 Planned Unit Development, Subd. 5 Application and Review, Para. a Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Para c. of this section identifies that the following criteria is considered in the initial creation of the PUD and consequently should be considered in subsequent changes to the PUD: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section;2 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. Para. i. of this section identifies the process of amending the PUD/Development Plan: Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be 3-10-11 Page 2 considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by Subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Attached for your reference is a copy of the November 10, 2010 Planning Commission memorandum which reviewed the PUD ordinance and its application to the Shingle Creek Crossing Project and proposed amendment to the Brookdale PUD. STAFF COMMENT Staff continues to work with the development team on adjustments and refinements to various components of the development plans including: ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Further review and refinement of the design guidelines is recommended with specific focus on the following items: • Construction materials and a standard on the amount of concrete block that can be used on a wall area. (use as design feature for base or accent treatment) • Front wall treatments and attention to detail on all sides of the buildings that are visible from public view. • Accent lighting to show case the building and enhance the overall character of the PUD. • The consideration to building height and architectural design of the retail buildings to promote a main street entry image and enhance the Town Center look. • Building treatments along Highway 100 (screening of loading & delivery areas, architectural treatment of walls and roof details, and ascent lighting). These elements will be complimented by a large pond, landscaping, and fountain to showcase the overall PUD. It is recommended that this review occur at the March meetings and added to the PUD final documents. DETAILS TO THE ENTRANCES AND INTERNAL STREETSCAPING COMPONENTS Further review and definition of the internal streetscaping (lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian movement) which are part of the EDA's public participation to enhance the project and will promote the Town Center image, identity, and ease of internal circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. • An overall plan which highlights the Bass Lake and Xerxes Avenue streetscape improvements (street lighting, boulevard treatment and trail & transit improvements) with the design considerations for the entrances and main internal drives. 3-10-11 Page 3 • The possible enhances to the street lighting poles to accommodate banners, flags, and flower baskets to enhance the overall PUD and attractiveness of this Town Center. It is also recommended that this review occur at the March meeting and added to the PUD final documents and where appropriate added to the phase I improvements. ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 1, 2011 Attached is a copy of the City Engineer's memorandum which identifies concerns and issues which will be addressed with future plan submittals: 1. The future platting of the development into individual lots, possible outlots for common ownership and dedication of easements will be considered with the phased development. 2. Hennepin County has contracted with the planning consultant that prepared the initial Shingle Creek Day-lighting study, SRF Consultants, to undertake a feasibility study and design option that would provide for a full day-lighting of Shingle Creek. The applicant has indicated a willingness to consider the option as an alternative providing the economics of the concept are workable. 3. Should Kohl's remain part of this PUD amendment, a condition of approval will be the closure of this driveway onto Bass Lake Road. 4. Final details will either be part of the future site plan review or within the Phase I improvements which include the relocation of the Shingle Creek Regional Trail. 5 & 6—will be addressed with the site plan reviews of the Walmart site and Building P site. SHINGLE CREEK DAY-LIGHTING An option that would provide a full day-lighting of Shingle Creek and the removal of the two 12'x12' concrete box culverts has been discussed and is now in the feasibility study stage. The concept involves the City, Hennepin County and Watershed and should also be completed during the month of March. The applicant has identified this area as part of the second phase of development and it does not interfere with proceeding with the scheduling of Phase I improvements. KOHL'S SITE The Kohl's site has been included in the overall plan documents for the PUD amendment and Platting. The staff reviews have identified issues and concerns relative to the Kohl's site such as: - removal of the access from Bass Lake Road, - apparent absence of storm water management - including the parking lot into the overall PUD design It is now our understanding that there are lease restrictions which prevent the applicant from the ability of addressing these issues. 3-10-11 Page 4 Rather than compromising on design features and safety recommendations, we will be recommending that if the Kohl's site cannot be brought into the overall design of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD at this time, that it be excluded from the PUD application and plat until such time as there is sufficient interest or control of the site to make the recommended changes. DEVELOPERS MEETING W ITH SEARS The City has been informed that the applicant will be meeting with Sears in Chicago this Wednesday, March 3rd Attached for your reference is a copy of a letter from Sear's Attorney which again requests the Planning Commission to postpone our decision. The letter includes the conditions of approval preliminarily requested by Sears. RECOMMENDATION It is the staff's recommendation that a motion be made to approve this application by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-02, A Resolution Regarding Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003, A Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment approval, Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik(For Gatlin Development Company) subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution. 3-10-11 Page 5 Section 15 -106. MINIMUM SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS. g. Lots. 1. Location. With the exception of lots in a condominium single - family attached dwelling unit subdivision, all lots shall abut by their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street or a street that has received the legal status as such. 2. Size. The minimum interior lot dimensions in subdivisions designed for single family detached dwelling developments in the R1 and R2 Districts established by the Zoning Ordinance shall be: aa. Rl District: 75 feet wide at the established building setback line; R2 District: 60 feet wide at the established building setback line; bb. not less than 60 feet in width at the front lot line; CC. not less than 30 feet in width at the rear lot line; dd. not less than 110 feet in average depth; and ee. R1 District: not less than 9,500 square feet in area; R2 District: not less than 7,600 square feet in area. Section 15 -112. VARIANCES. a. The council may authorize a variance from these regulations when in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In granting any variance the council shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its findings as required herein below, the council shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance, the council shall find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. City of Brooklyn Center 15 -1 City Ordinance 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. b. Application for any such variance shall be made in writing by the subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is filed for the consideration of the council, stating fully and clearly all facts relied upon by the petitioner and shall be supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the council in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such covenants, restrictions, or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan. City of Brooklyn Center 15 -2 City Ordinance i 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 1% 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 I% 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2011 TO: Gary Eitel, Community Development Director FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Drat Preliminary Plat Review— Storla Addition Public Works Department staff reviewed the following draft preliminary documents submitted for review for the proposed Storla Addition plat, draft preliminary plat dated December 7, 2010 and have the following comments: 1. Subject to a review by the West Mississippi Watershed. 2. Subject to DNR / Army Corps of Engineers approval. 3. Subject to final plat approval requirements. 4. Subject to review by the city attorney. 5. No negative impacts on adjacent properties. The grading must be revised on Lot 2. Add a slight drainage swale along the southerly property line to eliminate the potential for negative runoff impacts. The proposed swale along the northerly line must be revised to direct runoff around /away from the existing retaining wall. 6. Water and Sanitary connection fees need to be paid prior to home construction. 7. Existing building is less than the required 35 foot front setback 8. A 20 foot Drainage and Utility easement along the rear lot running form the 818 elevation on the south lot line to the 818 elevation on the north lot line. 9. Northerly lot line needs to be verified and legally determined. a. Lot 4, Block 2 existing house is 2.43 feet from lot line per the preliminary plat. The distance is 7.5 per the Lot Survey, surveyors signed certificate dated April 2005. b. Lot 4, block 2 lot width as shown is 5.10 feet less than plat distance recorded. c. Found %" pipe 5.06 feet south of northwest corner and lines of occupation conflict with shown property. If found'' /:" pipe is used this would also make Lot 4, Block 2 the correct width. 10. No filling below 100 year flood elevation. 11. Proposed low floor elevation must be 1 foot above 100 year flood elevation. 12. Existing building is within the 100 year flood zone. A decision needs to be made as to whether the existing dwelling would need to comply with the City code listed below. Compliance i No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this ordinance. Within the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Flood Plain Districts, all uses not listed as permitted uses or special uses in Sections 35 -2140, 2150, and 2160 that follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. t y Gbs2 t _ _ —J- --- Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -002 66TH AVE Gana MAO .. y Y _.___..._........... ____' j V.A2 6536 6531 6636 ti �-- ----- 1_..� —� � 9&30 � M. _.S �� 6 t 5 1 ^ 1 l 6631 , rtZ t *� .. Gaya Gail# _....- 6513 � � � G.r'43 ewl eux 6501 fis(k N 85TH AVE N N E ............ KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FE PROSSIONAL LAMB SDRYEYORS °'" - - - - x v+'sv °s 6 'mw 9 I STORLA ADDITION 1 y i 1 6536 WILLOW LANE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTON BELOW) SE 1-�y3T6 -r 9N R2W y "w sm v �• S FOR B EA RI NGS _ BAS FOR 14l I .m ' 'Y'� `.. .1 E.N BSRs'38t 11 •E � :�i ��M ° \. BASIS FOR ELEVATION Hawes "AP -2 42 '" mm ,. m. a.a a _ -- 1 a ' �- I � r o f `w• 1 �� \ 1 _ _, � �1� � ��� � 11 ,w NE. �E�, =.,,�Ee r� AREA SUMMARY 1 xv II � FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION LEGEND UK E r -° a. �g � A m ov,w,cz "-%" VP ELECTRIC EASEMENT a; �it'ES nox ,x ,muu a EASEMENT z � W n /,\ ___- ..�..p '•� _,az4 +z. __ o,... -.'� _ �- / _ � � ,.. `\. ` \ +1 `, `I \ d •r•a• EI61M LEGAL DESCRIPTION s s I -r , ,o , esn. �u m.e,M N ut°mi b ` g W /� a 41� _ _ _ _ _ _ - - / . x,n. - : 1� . 1 , 1 `,` y _ noam a, ro¢ Isa. :. w.•u se. m m m- e. w 9ve as r.�aa a...uo+ x r x n vm I4 ,w n�cau�Re oe< ew.� a mn - I ���p rea® u, ruc I Kamo .oa ..ox. m. r•+ >rm °, ne, en m° wm.ar = PR e oee�man, m ew2-� O i l ZONING REOUIREMENTS _��`'+� °aA ` f x x+ m. ' `�`D'P5� \ n (•+ $\ 1 1 t I m. m.e 6 m $ , w., %rINaa �. , Y % m r 6 — _a * o i • E @ x� / am _ t_ No, ,R.„EEn,�... oR�o , u a w ,6 �. E e - - a . wNe ,R RR, T .,w 1 3 �• - y r N _!j = nE a, xE N - -- E. L :E, x,E a , . M,N� W s� rwo a ,EU ,x.E ,.. � �a „N m 1 e "• .,, ,,,„. — — .�,,. -..,. - - � I ` oar, �. s Bsw ��# CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY STORLA ADDITION N. N M�5'36' E ± 66 85 36' 25.15 S—E LOT 1 U') -n BLOCK 1 t35 W *165 �77 �2' LOT 2 OR— AW MTY A. 13 71 s 85 �168 25 KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. 'k, S 85 OB PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 25.73 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS HC 4612 (6/ into, 20359 DISTRICT COURT �'A.TE OF MINNESOTA, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN in the Matter of the Application of }"' Ned R. Storla IOCMENT. ORDER. AND DECREE I REGISTE OF REGISTRATION (Leave Decree with Examiner no later than Thursday prior to the hearing — District Court Rotes, Part II, Rule 8) To Register the Title to Certain Land The above entitled matter came on for hearing at the Government Center in the City of Minneapolis, said County and State, before the Deputy Examiner of Titles who has fled his report herein, and to whom saidmatterhas been duly referred to hear the evidence in said cause and report his conclusions therefrom; and the Court having duly considered the Application, the Reports of the Examiner. the evidence adduced by the Applicant(s) and being fully advised in the premises, finds: 1. That the estimated market value of the premises hereinafter described, exclusive of improvements, according to the last official assessment thereof is 77OE, OG - 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 proceeding have 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 proceeding; 3. That, except as hereinafter provided, none of the defendants named in the Sammons and any amendments or supplements thereto, have any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real estate hereinafter described; 4. That the premises hereinafter described=K is occupied by pursuant to ( ary addit:anct findings and nwnber them, beginning with number 5) (STAMP FOR FEE pgM REGISTRAR OF TITLES) (r IL NG STAMP CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT) FEE PWAVIj t j } r I T F FE U 2 9 2007 2 00 U {fCldA L`l} t F F-m. r Tn—Es r rr° r / V 3Y D RQr A .ifs ibT I a�ry � 67- -P UT`r c— I t (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 Arenas 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 Book 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 Arenas 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. wslthtotfaadd y NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, as follows: 1. 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 are deceased and, "all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real estate hereinafter desmbed," is hereby entered in the above entitled action. 2 That Ned R. Storla whose post�office address is 6536 Willow L ane No City of Bro Hen oklVn Cente 7County of = in _ State of Mika 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 as follows: That part of Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision Nunber 310, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of Willow Lane. The North line of the above land has been determined by judicial landmarksset pursuant to Torrens Case No. 19581. according to the recorded plat Cher -L (strike the one which is not applicable) Czf only 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) -7- -4� w Z d) Lo- a Overhead S.4 DoWel, and re lOp ' h0n e E _31 � I � a .0 Q) Ln N �� 0 C, Bl:i 000 it �' Io � � Gg r,9 p 7 e North; e oP Lot 15, Aud d; No. 31 -Fourld Me P05f 7- Y) i Irma Chain Fco(p erice N Bcj SV14.�, W,?// Ye vood F The South line 0f t 4, Block ISLAND VIEW 'FE)YNACE 1AU 't NOTE: i(Al (it 01 I'll AND VILW TFRRACf' TDI NI 1 y T SOUTH LINE. 01 LOT 4, W i l l i M, r j , m I l l I I M C LOT AtIDITOR li+0 iliAl P-o 11,1 4 AS R01OU,LY HONLIMENTED w io �o iv s INE 01 � SAID L0 . ..... 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. I 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- 2150.5 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 BJ that has a I% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1 /o 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. X ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); p 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 o chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1 /o annual chance or greater flood. ZONE A99 Area to be protected from 1 % annual chance flood by a Federal 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 F.' FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be f, kept free of encroachment so that the 1 % annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. AN/E.. 66TH c, OTHER FLOOD AREAS 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 a� *, k t• flood. & � OTHER AREAS��� ZONE X Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. 002470 rf` ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. BH ZONE __ X I f° COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS o � X ' \\ \ OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs) � CBRS areas and OPAs are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. dG d a I � n Floodplain boundary ¢t Floodway boundary 000543 F ; - - Zone D boundary 00000000 •••••••• CBRS and OPA boundary 0 Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Areas of different Q00545 X Base Flood Elevations, flood depths or flood velocities. Q00546 Q02429 - 513- Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet* Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within zone; ZONE (EL 987) elevation in feet* VIDEN X *Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 CT. A A Cross section line Transect line LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I — I i A ................ .................... . . . ........ ...... ...... . ....... ...... . - . . . .. . . .................... . . .......... 67TH AVE . .. . .................. .. ... . . ..... . — .............. ...... .... ...... ... . . . . ..... .... . ..... . . . ... ... ........ i I . ..... .... ...... I L z044E X . . ....... . . ........... . . .. ........ ........................... 05TH AVE N TJ 1 �kl Ks INTERSTATE 694 INTERSTATE 694 N8 H VW�VY2 5. E81694 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS 2/15/2011 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -01 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -002, A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 6536 WILLOW LANE (STORLA ADDITION) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Applicat 2012 -002 submitted by Mark Kemper, PLS, requests Preliminary Plat approval of a sulu� ion, to e known as Storla Addition, a replat to split an existing residential lot (6536 WillowArne),''t�creat second buildable lot; and WHEREAS, this property has 155.15 feet of Montage inn Willow Lane and a lot area of 24,150 sq. ft. which would allow the creation of two lots which eed the minimum N dimensional standard of 75 feet of lot width and minimum lot area requirent of 10,500 sq.ft.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called publi wring on February 17, 2011 at which time a staff report and public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of 6536 Willow Lane ( Storla Addition) were received; and WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat identified that the existing residence is located within the 100 year flood plain and lies 2,39 feet within the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the review of this application bJ - determined that the existing residence was constructed in 1956 and that this subdivision application does not expand or intensify the nonconforming conditions of the structure.` y ` NOW, THWFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City ofrooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -002 submitted by Mark Kemper, PLS be approved based upon the following considerations: 1 The, final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer Depar-tmenty.,i��, 2. The final"plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. That the plat is subject to review by the West Mississippi Watershed, the DNR, and Army Corps of Engineers. 4. The dedication of a 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the rear lot line from the 818 elevation on the south lot line to the 818 elevation on the north lot line. 5. That no fill is placed below the 100 year flood elevation. 6. That a final grading plan is approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. That the property owner make the necessary alterations to the south wall of the residence to meet the side yard building setback or obtain a 1+ foot variance in lot width for Lot 2. Date G Chair ¢ ATTEST Secretary R The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by rrt� and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykeri 1; o, Morgan, Parks and Schonning. and the following voted against the same Nor,. whereupon said resolution was declared „ y pass d adopted. .ate. 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 BACKGROUND On February 17, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow the following changes to the Brookdale PUD development 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. After conducting the public hearing, the Commission moved to table the application to staff to meet with the City Attorney and draft a resolution outlining the conditions of approval. Since the meeting, the developer has made the following revisions to address concerns and issues included in the staff and engineering memorandum, and comments reviewed at the public hearing: 1. 56 Avenue/Xerxes Entrance Aesthetic improvements to the western entrance, continuation of streetscaping and street lighting, and enhancements to pedestrian walkways. Reconfiguration of the parking areas adjoining Applebee's restaurant and the northern portion of the existing mall. Boulevard drive to the outer service drive to Building A and Midis site. 3 -3 -11 Page 1 2. Building B Boulevard drive adjacent to Building J. An enlarged building pad with drive thru to represent a proposed bank site. 3. Buildings D A reduction in size of Building D to meet the parking ratio of 4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail and ten per 1,000 for restaurants. 4. Building Q Relocation of the loading deck for Building Q. 5. Sanitary Sewer Plan The force main from the left station serving Buildings M and Q has been relocated to flow into the existing sewer truck line. 6. Shingle Creek Daylighting Additional details on the aesthetic treatment of elements of the creek and day- lighting concepts have been included. 7. The parking calculations and parking stalls for retail and restaurant uses have been organized into serviceable areas with excess parking stalls identified for each area. 8. Additional details on the signage package for freestanding and wall mounted signs. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS ( PLAN AMENDMENTS) Section 35 -355 Planned Unit Development, Subd. 5 Application and Review, Para. a Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Para c. of this section identifies that the following criteria is considered in the initial creation of the PUD and consequently should be considered in subsequent changes to the PUD: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section;2 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. Para. i. of this section identifies the process of amending the PUD/Development Plan: Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be 3 -3 -11 Page 2 considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by Subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Attached for your reference is a copy of the November 10, 2010 Planning Commission memorandum which reviewed the PUD ordinance and its application to the Shingle Creek Crossing Project and proposed amendment to the Brookdale PUD. STAFF COMMENT Staff continues to work with the development team on adjustments and refinements to various components of the development plans including: ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES Further review and refinement of the design guidelines is recommended with specific focus on the following items: • Construction materials and a standard on the amount of concrete block that can be used on a wall area. ( use as design feature for base or accent treatment) • Front wall treatments and attention to detail on all sides of the buildings that are visible from public view. • Accent lighting to show case the building and enhance the overall character of the PUD. • The consideration to building height and architectural design of the retail buildings to promote a main street entry image and enhance the Town Center look. • Building treatments along Highway 100 (screening of loading & delivery areas, architectural treatment of walls and roof details, and ascent lighting). These elements will be complimented by a large pond, landscaping, and fountain to showcase the overall PUD. It is recommended that this review occur at the March meetings and added to the PUD final documents. DETAILS TO THE ENTRANCES AND INTERNAL STREETSCAPING COMPONENTS Further review and definition of the internal streetscaping (lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian movement) which are part of the EDA's public participation to enhance the project and will promote the Town Center image, identity, and ease of internal circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. • An overall plan which highlights the Bass Lake and Xerxes Avenue streetscape improvements (street lighting, boulevard treatment and trail & transit improvements) with the design considerations for the entrances and main internal drives. 3 -3 -11 Page 3 • The possible enhances to the street lighting poles to accommodate banners, flags, and flower baskets to enhance the overall PUD and attractiveness of this Town Center. It is also recommended that this review occur at the March meeting and added to the PUD final documents and where appropriate added to the phase I improvements. ENGINEER'S MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 1, 2011 Attached is a copy of the City Engineer's memorandum which identifies concerns and issues which will be addressed with future plan submittals: 1. The future platting of the development into individual lots, possible outlots for common ownership and dedication of easements will be considered with the phased development. 2. Hennepin County has contracted with the planning consultant that prepared the initial Shingle Creek Day - lighting study, SRF Consultants, to undertake a feasibility study and design option that would provide for a full day - lighting of Shingle Creek. The applicant has indicated a willingness to consider the option as an alternative providing the economics of the concept are workable. 3. Should Kohl's remain part of this PUD amendment, a condition of approval will be the closure of this driveway onto Bass Lake Road. 4. Final details will either be part of the future site plan review or within the Phase I improvements which include the relocation of the Shingle Creek Regional Trail. 5 & 6 — will be addressed with the site plan reviews of the Walmart site and Building P site. SHINGLE CREEK DAY - LIGHTING An option that would provide a full day - lighting of Shingle Creek and the removal of the two 12'x12' concrete box culverts has been discussed and is now in the feasibility study stage. The concept involves the City, Hennepin County and Watershed and should also be completed during the month of March. The applicant has identified this area as part of the second phase of development and it does not interfere with proceeding with the scheduling of Phase I improvements. KOHL'S SITE The Kohl's site has been included in the overall plan documents for the PUD amendment and Platting. The staff reviews have identified issues and concerns relative to the Kohl's site such as: - removal of the access from Bass Lake Road, - apparent absence of storm water management - including the parking lot into the overall PUD design It is now our understanding that there are lease restrictions which prevent the applicant from the ability of addressing these issues. 3 -3 -11 Page 4 Rather than compromising on design features and safety recommendations, we will be recommending that if the Kohl's site cannot be brought into the overall design of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD at this time, that it be excluded from the PUD application and plat until such time as there is sufficient interest or control of the site to make the recommended changes. DEVELOPERS MEETING WITH SEARS The City has been informed that the applicant will be meeting with Sears in Chicago this Wednesday, March 3` Attached for your reference is a copy of a letter from Sear's Attorney which again requests the Planning Commission to postpone our decision. The letter includes the conditions of approval preliminarily requested by Sears. RECOMMENDATION It is the staff s recommendation that a motion be made to approve this application by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -02, A Resolution Regarding Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -003, A Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment approval, Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (For Gatlin Development Company) subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the resolution. 3 -3 -11 Page 5 z Lu , � Lu M. w Lu (9 - .-- z Lu Lu w — S H AVE N x Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003 J 58TH AVE N =MMORTHWAY.011. Lu COUNTY ROAD 10 S 5 , 7TH AVE N -7 A ERICON .. .... .... ............... . ..... 0 0 ... .... ..... .. Lion's Park Canter Golfq rGe 4TH AVE N w Al Ot`� fY ..................... ............. .... . .......... . ....... Lu-- EL w LILAC DR N w U) Wo 1. J- 0 Z —.5 RD AVE N 53RD'-..., \I+F vaned »v!i mfM • Cmrr� {CF tOtY4 G1S 3705 4 �� L MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2011 TO: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Bruce Johnson, Engineering Department Supervisor SUBJECT: Revised 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 February 28, 2011 The following are comments and conditions of approval for the referenced PUD documents: 1. Property boundaries must be typical and straight, minimizing property boundary irregularities for sole purposes of parking boundaries. Additionally, property lines for Sites N, K and P should be revised to maintain an adequate setback (10') between the building and property line. Final property lines will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. 2. The "full" daylighting of Shingle Creek is desired through the entire site including the removal of the existing twin box culverts. Should these remain, the box culverts will remain the full responsibility and under the ownership of the property owner. Daylighting of Shingle Creek elements are recommended to be revised to incorporate the creek as more of a feature that is fully 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, Site Q). 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. Daylighting of the creek as proposed is only a partial "daylighting" and is recommended to be done for the entire length, including the portion along Highway 100. 3. The easterly Kohls entrance from County Road 10 must be closed. 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. 4. The internal trail/sidewalk crosswalks located on the north side of the existing building retail shops and on the southeast side of Site Q must be enhanced to improve pedestrian safety (raised crosswalk with special surface treatment and pavement marking delineation). Final Revised Shingle Creek Crossing Page 2 of 2 PUD Review Memo, March 1, 2011 5. All loading dock and truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas and not encroach on main drive aisles. Site P, specifically does not meet this condition and must be revised. 6. Public parking lot ingress /egress routes must not be directed through loading dock areas and turningibacking areas. The Wal -Mart drive -thru exit area must be revised to minimize and deter this issue. 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 & planning\active development projects\shingle creek crossing 2010 \communication \project review & conditions \110301_final rev pud review memo.doc HINSHAW & C U L B E R T S O N L L P ATTORNEYS AT LAW 333 South Seventh Street Suite 2000 March 1, 2011 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2431 612 - 333 -3434 612-334-8888 VIA E -MAIL AND www.hinshaw (fax) www.hinshawlaw.com HAND- DELIVERY FILE NO. 64444 - 879479 Mr. Curt Boganey Charles L. Lefevere, Esq. City Manager City Attorney City of Brooklyn Center City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway c/o Kennedy & Graven Chartered Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 200 S. Sixth Street, Suite #470 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -1458 ✓Mr. Gary Eitel Director of Business and Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Re: Application for PUD Amendment for Property at 1108 Brookdale Center (the "Application'), submitted by Loren K Van Der Slik of Gatlin Development Company, Inc. (the "Applicant') Gentlemen: This letter supplements and incorporates by reference our letter to you of February 17, 2011. Our client Sears Roebuck & Co. ( "Sears ") has been working with City staff and the Applicant to obtain documents submitted by the Applicant in support of the Application, as well as documents prepared by City staff or its consultants in response to the Application. Sears acknowledges it has received some documents from the Applicant and the City. Sears is seeking to confirm whether it has received all documents submitted in connection with the Application or prepared by the City staff or its consultants in analyzing the Application. 121277138v1 64444 Arizona California Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Minnesnta Miccn—i NI—Y- n.e , Ok 4 iii -...a Mr. Curt Boganey Mr. Gary Eitel Charles L. Lefevere, Esq. March 1, 2011 Page 2 A meeting between Sears and the Applicant is scheduled for March 2, 2011, which is one day before the Planning Commission meeting on March 3,2011. As you are aware, Sears has repeatedly requested a postponement of the Planning Commission review and action on the Application, beginning with the February 17, 2011, Public Hearing on the Application, which was denied. Our letter to you, dated February 17, 2011, detailed the reasons and benefits of postponing the Public Hearing on the Application. Those stated reasons and benefits are equally applicable to our request to postpone the Planning Commission action on the Application, now scheduled for March 3, 2011. We are hereby again requesting that the Planning Commission's review and action on the Application on March 3, 2011, be postponed on the same grounds as originally stated. Namely, not all of the documents and information may have been provided to Sears and such a postponement would allow Sears an opportunity to carefully review the Application and its supporting documents, as well as to hold serious and meaningful discussions with the Applicant. It is our understanding that the City did not object to Sears' requested postponement of this matter from the Planning Commission March 3, 2011, meeting to its March 17, 2011, meeting, but that the Applicant objected to the postponement. The City acquiesced to that objection and the matter will be heard on March 3, 2011. In conversations with the City Attorney, he asked that Sears submit proposed conditions for inclusion in the resolution approving the Application, if that is the determination of the Planning Commission. Attached is a document outlining the Conditions of Approval Preliminarily Requested By Sears (the "Conditions of Approval "). Sears' requested Conditions of Approval are preliminarily requested and subject to modification by Sears upon further review of documents submitted or to be submitted by Applicant or prepared or to be prepared by the City. Subject to that review, Sears reserves the right to supplement or modify these requested Conditions of Approval. 121277138vl 64444 Mr. Curt Boganey Mr. Gary Eitel Charles L. Lefevere, Esq. March 1, 2011 Page 3 We ask you to reconsider the decision on postponing the Planning Commission's consideration of the Application on March 3, 2011, and, if the consideration is allowed to occur, to include the requested Conditions of Approval. Very truly yours, H NS AW CULBERTSON LLP Thomas J. dio 612 - 334 -2653 tradio@hinshawlaw.com TJR/rep Enclosures cc: (via e- mail): Robyn Alexander, Esq. L. J. Rotman, Esq. Thomas P. Kane, Esq. 121277138v1 64444 Conditions Of Approval Preliminarily Requested By Sears' 1. Satisfaction by Applicant of all conditions recommended by City staff in their reports, including those by Business and Development Director Gary Eitel, dated February 16, 2011, and by Director of Public Works /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, and Bruce Johnson, Engineering Supervisor, dated February 3, 2011. 2. Compliance by the Applicant with the City's parking ratio requirement of 4.5 spaces per one thousand square feet of gross leaseable area on Applicant's own property. 3. The Amendment and related plat and site plan shall provide Sears with full and complete access to all driveways, ring roads, sidewalks, parking, and all other public amenities in the new development. 4. Applicant shall construct, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, improvements to the two Xerxes Avenue entrances consistent in quantity and quality as that which is proposed to be installed on Applicant's property along County Road 10. 5. Applicant to construct, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, a new exterior entrance and related improvements from the Sears Department Store to the proposed Walmart parking lot to replace the existing entrance from the Sears Department Store to the Mall. 6. Applicant to provide new landscaping, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, on the Sears parcel consistent in quantity and quality as that installed on Applicant's property. 7. Applicant to construct, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, a new facade for the Sears buildings consistent with the style and design of the facade for the buildings proposed to be constructed on Applicant's property. 8. Applicant shall construct, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, an improved site access point to Sears parcel. 9. Applicant shall demolish the connection/corridor between the Sears building and Applicant's property, which includes the food court, and shall rebuild and improve, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, the areas consistent with the development's other improvements and shall, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds and expense, add a vehicular drive, improved entrance and a pedestrian walkway between the Sears parcel and the Applicant's property. 10. Applicant shall resurface the pavement on the Sears Parcel, as a TIF eligible expense out of TIF funds consistent in quality to that of the Applicant's property along County Road 10. 1 Sears' requested Conditions of Approval are preliminarily requested and subject to modification by Sears upon further review of documents submitted or to be submitted by Applicant or prepared or to be prepared by the City. Subject to that review, Sears reserves the right to supplement or modify these requested Conditions of Approval. 121276886v5 0879479 64444 11. Applicant shall demolish, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, the remaining portion of the Mall that is shown to be attached to the East side of the Sears Department Store Building shown on the Site Plan, and shall add a vestibule with Sears signage. 12. Applicant shall eliminate the proposed "N" building and, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, and replace it with parking and green space. 13. Applicant and City shall grant Sears an equal right with user of the Walmart parcel to use all pylon signs on Applicant's property. 14. Applicant shall provide, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, replacement signage on Sears property consistent with Applicant's proposed development. 15. Applicant shall provide, as a TIF eligible cost out of TIF funds, signage on its property providing directions to the Sears buildings. 16. The City and Applicant shall obtain the consent of Sears to the P.U.D. amendment, the preliminary plat, the site plan, and all other required governmental approvals. 17. Applicant shall indemnify the City from all claims arising out of the review and approval of the Applicant's requested government approvals, including, but not limited to, claims for not having obtained Sears' consent to the Applicant's various applications and for any takings by the City's action, and to require the Applicant to post an irrevocable letter of credit or other suitable collateral in an amount not less than 1.5 times the stated amount of any such claim. 2 121276886v5 0879479 64444 To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Gary Eitel, Planning Commission Secretary Date: November 9, 2010 Subject: Discussion Items for November 10, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Item No. 5a - Review of the PUD 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. (I believe this review will also be a helpful exercise and assist in processing a future application by Max Sun Foods to divide off the former Hollywood Video store at 63r Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard.) Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. 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. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99 -37 which changed the C-2 commercially zoned properties ( Brookdale) to PUDIC -2. b. 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 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 1 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. ofgross 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. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: The property size /area included in the amendment is 68.65 acres. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. The building and parking setbacks for a C -2 zoning district are Building Front 35 ft /25 ft corner lot Building Side ]Oft. Building Rear 40 ft. Parking 15 ft. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance 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 City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 2 by the City. Parking setbacks along Xerxes Avenue and a portion of Bass Lake Road were reduced to 5 ft. with the provision of a screening wall. The parking standards for this PUD were established at 4.5 per 1, 000 sq. ft. vs. the 5.5 per 1, 000 sq. ft. of gross floor area of the zoning ordinance. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. The property included in the amendment is under control of Gatlin Development Company and the balance of the 1999 PUD properties are under the legal restrictions (covenants and declarations) of the 1999 PUD. e. 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. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 3 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; S. 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. 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. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 3 5-2 10 of this ordinance. A public hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2010 and notices will be sent to property owners within 350 ft. of the development. The zoning ordinance provides the Planning Commission up to 60 days from the submittal date to complete their review and forward a recommendation to the City Council (15.99, 2010 MN Statutes). Note: The State law has established a time limit deadline of 60 days and includes the provision for an extension of this period providing a written notice, with reasons for the extension and anticipated length, is provided to the applicant. This extension may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 4 The zoning ordinance provides the City Council 48 days from the date of the Planning Commission recommendation to make a final decision. The total time period from the date of referral to the Planning Commission is a maximum of 108 days. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. 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 will be included in both Planning Commission and City Council resolutions in addition to special conditions of approval for the general development plan. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 5 e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. The City has used the recording of a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which includes the Council approval resolution, the general development plan, and when available, the site plan drawings and exhibits, as the PUD development agreement. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. This application is being processed in the following manner: I" — PUD — general development plan 2nd — Preliminary Plat 3' — Site Plan review g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by Subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. The removal of 750,000 sq. ft. of the mall and replacement with approximately 3 70, 000 sq. ft. of a multiple building /open air community shopping center is a major plan amendment to the 1999 PUD. 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 6 Item No. 5 b. — Review of the PUD amendment application and discussion on scheduling the preliminary plat and 1" phase site plan review. I would like to discuss the attached schedule with the Planning Commission, which includes a second Planning Commission meeting in December (December 16, 2010) to hold a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat and approve a resolution forwarding your recommendations on the PUD to the City Council for their January 10, 2011 meeting. The review of the site plans for first phase development would occur on January 13, 2011 after the City Council's acceptance of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. 11 -10 -10 Planning Commission Memo Page 7 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 '/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. 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 I . 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 temporM 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 parking areas. 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: 1. 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 z ............ ............. ............. ............ Z w LU w . . . ......... uj ......... . ....... ....... ...................... > ........... ........ In - z -::: . ........... tP,2 z ........... ..... . .... ; ........... C .. ......... �� 1 0! < ....... ........ w ED w LU . ... ......... .... "' —" . ............. ....... ............. 59TH A I VE - N x Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003 LU 58TH AVE N DR NORTHWAY w ---------- COUNTY ROAD 10 BASS LAKE RD LU jAY R -- F T T i. AV N ___ 1 f f t✓ � `� ..•,.�-'� i � tti J - lk". A p V ............. T.1 -------------- A, y 1, Y \ r 1 J- L— n A ERICON DR 1 ..-..55TH AVE N, 55SH.AYE b -, � - 0 Lion's Park V> z F Centertn�k Golfc ou 54TH AVE N z� w LU— CL LILAC LU ..N— 1w w T Lu— =3 63 RD AVE N w 53RD AY E 0 179817 METRO TRANSIT STATION ------ ------- ROW DEDICATION ----------------------- ----------------- -------- -- LAKE ROAD N ------------ - - - — - - - - - - - - - - C< D NO , TA --- ---------------- --------------- --- ---- 77frl 14.49M j �/ 1 r / Q ` 1 � •� �, EXISTING ,/ A 7 15.020.f -Z/ 7�1 EBE 1 0,11 If I 36.680d 31.20W / W a r EXISTING BUILDING: RETAI SHOPS Walmart,*, STORE X5625-00 C-1 50-SGL-NO mi 0 1 �,I ; / l�/� 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) z PRO of 1 :N PERTY LINE E DO L LEGEND 53,11ulm 0 1 w x m s� of w rr ff U) EXISTING SEARS �CPATW OF sm D PN (MDT N CONTRACT) \k SITE DATA TABLE Zz n !n 0 X STORMWATER xw It z uj w w LLI Ix Z V, L) ut C) T o —A co tti. 1 % -•1 A .:.II��S ` /?' wso ®ten u�a�v Fl�:r reruni�Fmtoaa�e.o�. DAM 01/20/11 1�33000 —T El 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. 1.1. 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 1.00. 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 storm 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 gAengineering\development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010 \project review & conditions \110202_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 g: \engineering \development & planning \active development projectAshingle creek crossing 2010\communication \project review & conditionAl 10202_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 & plzmning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010\communication\project review & conditions \I 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 geometries 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 geometries 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. g: \engineering \development & planning\active development projects \shingle creek crossing 2010\communication \project review & conditions\I 10202_pud review memo.doc Page Shingle Creek Crossing Pa g 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 56 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 gAengineeringWevelopment & planning\active development projectAshingle creek crossing 201McommunicatioMproject review & conditions1110202_pud review memo.doc I 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. 8.5. 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. gAengineering\ development & planning\active development projects\shingle creek crossing 2010\communication \project review & conditions\1 10202_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 Tasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 99-37 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMNIISSION APPLICATION NO. 99001 SUBN=ED BY TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC. WHEREAS, Planning 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 bauaded 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 Ifz 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 per 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 the shared parking analysis provided and oa Urban Land Institute Methodology indicating a maximum of 5,133 parking spaces as being needed for the Brookdale Mall given the mix of uses and square footages proposed in order to meet the maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand, which is also in keeping with at least two major regional malls is 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 oa 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 oa 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. 5. 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. I 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 Ciry'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 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 signery, 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 paricing for the Brookdale Shopping Center based on providing 5,700 parking spaces on site. RESOLUTION NO, 99 -37 The applicants e pp art allowed to retain the existing 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 storage 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 l fz 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 v May ATTEST: I City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ed Nelson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness; Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Robert Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Iliiu 11 i IMi il;;. 11Wi 11Iii I1 i;.I .lrIE1 1 111 Vili II - I I cz � lit (�1► !i c�il.� � 1t;� }fit � It �•lt'.' ; iirl� �► s� ��i 1 , �:�1 `� ' �; �� i�`t ,.f'� • ► r ! ► !('�i fl� � { } � � !„�� �i +� � Ijf• (IJ I 1 I y ,E! ti�•. 1�1 �:( •� ,.1 j� . tt , il l. � .t it . ; t..� j� , ,.�,, I,, 1 '1 .1.!'!(1{ Irl ! „ r 1 r ! ! ! ! -(• + rf 1. r J •' ('� �Il y b9 (• 1!' it: If�l�� '1� {�'.!�(�I� {�i��'rljji., I "''� I�� (:{Li :�!!! r it ".Mil, . ,�. ►��.�111,1 f., jr' n (,(111.t�11��.... � f�l�rs,.lit ... .. 1, i - E 1 1 ✓ �i( )r ' `( N ♦ , ... 111 .1 .1 .r. [[ 1111 r III •• 1+++4h+++�H;ri+4+,�4 ,• y,� 111 � � � � � rU i I� I�� r �� 11 � •. ` ,' ! �• Pill' uul Tl _r I""TTiPTT1 � • r 1 �1 a ,. �, u� 11u1 Ii � Rf it !7 11x1• r '' �. ". 11 1 �rl I 1 I 1 11 .r 11 11..,.1.1' tl r+ 1 1 i w 1.ai r, L 0 � I D 111111 n 1 nun RII IIIIIII 7 —T —II• � ❑ 11 1 yj t " •� � - J ! l�ii 1'1'.1.'1' ' 1i1�1 �J ���JJJ ) ! �_lurrlwmine1ln nl -� • r11 11 ' ..r1�� \` . ■ � � �O I ' I• �..r '1 1.1 11 I'� 1 I •� �.; 11111.1 1rf• • • . . . 111111' 1r1.i r � 1 I1.111111L 11(L t - • • • • �— ti M 1 1 r '� Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 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 I 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. i Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 2 C' 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 C .. 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 complementority 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 1=1 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 150 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 C 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. Employees 1.6 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Bank Patrons 3.0 5 5 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. /per seat Family Employees 1.5 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per 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. Employees 1.6 Per 1,000 sq. ft. Bank Patrons 3.0 5 5 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 1 2.25 1 0.5 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per employee Restaurant Patrons 1 12.75 1 0.5 1 Per 1,000 sq. ft. /per seat 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. C .. Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 6 and Associates, Inc. Table 3 — Parking Demand (Single Use Methodology) Weekday Land Use User ULI City Retail Employees 442 3,037 Patrons 1,712 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 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 ULI. 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 Family Employees 66 2 64 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 Employees 100 4 96 Family 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. Kimley -Horn 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 F 77t Patrons 383 38 345 Totall 2,548 49 2,499 Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 10 C 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 Employees 477 0 477 Retail patrons 1,855 0 1,855 Employees 12 12 0 Bank 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 C Kimley -Horn Shingle Creek Crossing, January 20, 2011, Pg. 11 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 64 61 3 Family D Restaurant 7,105 61 72 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 1 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, I, 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. y ftllTfTTm�m .fir lrr•i�c_\ r� .i� �,. -�- � ,.rte, -�- • -_ -`,, •.►. 1 W ARK XV � r ',i1T11unnillt � -fi` '-1-� �``�� �' �uniiiriiiiii =• _ � +iJ.�,.•3� {$$� - �,IIII I I �� IIIIIIIIF �""` ,� � ,• _— "` ' "�3 � IIIIIIIVIIIIIII i t _ �— IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , y _ •+o ! a+.�+. 1111111 1111111 � !�- - — " IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � " IIIIIIIIII�' "' , ., � amour. /l T f; = F •'3--. t l•n -, •• r �� -� BROOKDAI_E -- MA Brooklyn Center Zonin RZ �, C ZON4NG GSTRICTS WDence f • +t.rrwr•nmcc C1 /RbtR4 -U D'C2 RA I / n r.<mcrwxr,ncaKa CIA — -UD'It R6 ujl1'�•. II ' 1 I Inll11111 5 „ „',°, ,,,,, w >.a<.ncnrw- r000•m.c<ect.vc — C2 - -UD +Rt - Re Illlllllllm @inM� . �11IIIIH'lllll � c,c..>t "`"�"' W° °ta "`' Y ° � - .pI1, LMi RVG SlCV' tj ..,,.......•... h - 2VD'R3 RT III! ^111';'111 �, d:'I, � �a arw '^••°•n"'m'a " -°.. r.n�P»s..n "_ .1111N rarewcuooEe :Anor<sn�seLECTfc:.oCATIOW II�II fll I? - atlnulxi: ry: =1�i + II , ` III�KIII' .2 o-cw.ea,•c' ,, rcwr L= T nrrwra tr-aw, M 01 21 s Critical Raer boundary Central Commerce Disrict 6 F � City Parks Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-02 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-003 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK(FOR GATLIN DEVELOMPENT COMPANY) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011-003 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik(For Gatlin Development Company)proposes 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 Penny'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. of new retail space laid out in a Town Center theme that includes a major anchor retailer with groceries, three junior box retailers, four restaurant pad sites, and six smaller retail sites for retail/service multi- tenant buildings. 4. The day-lighting of Shingle Creek and enhancements to on-site storm water management, landscaping and lighting; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-37, established a PUD/C-2 zoning classification for the Brookdale properties on March 8, 1999 and included the following modifications to the development standards for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Planned Unit Development: - Allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 1/2 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; and, WHEREAS, Exhibit A, attached to this resolution identifies the commercial uses and intensity of development included in the 1999 PUD application and references the 2004 PUD amendment for a Dairy Queen Chill & Grill, and the 2007 PUD amendment involving the demolition of the Mervyn's site and construction of a 184,000 sq. ft. Super Walmart; and 1 WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following PUD plans and exhibits which provide the framework for this Town Center redevelopment to be known as Shingle Creek Crossing: Master Plan, Site Plan, Phasing Plan, Existing Grading Exhibit, Proposed Grading Plan, Storm Sewer Plan, Water Utility Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, Lighting Plan, Landscaping Plan, Circulation Exhibit, Shared Parking Exhibit, Exterior Elevations, Shingle Creek Exhibits for DayLighting / Water Features / Bridge Elevation, rendering of the development, Roadway Cross Sections, and Signage Program; and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Unit Development has been reviewed and found to meet the following PUD criteria for approval of a PUD amendment: 1. The plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the PUD ordinance; 2. The plan is consistent of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The plan will positively influence/impact the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The plans and exhibits demonstrates the adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 17, 2011, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development Amendment were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011-003 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik(for Gatlin Development Company) be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal is 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 of a significant portion of the Brookdale Regional Mall site which is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 2. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, 2 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 Planned Unit Development Amendment 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. green strips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 %2 ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects along Xerxes Avenue. • Allows a reduction in the 15 foot parking setback and 35 foot building setback along Bass Lake Road to offset the dedication of additional right of way for the trail improvements to replace the current trail easements. • Allow 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable retail area and 10 per 1,000 sq.ft. of restaurant area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and one per two seats and employee on a major shift for restaurants. • Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. and a 52.5 ft wide parking dimension for 60 degree parking rather than the 57 ft. • Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 and two Town Center identification signs (one additional) along Bass Lake Road and one Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. • 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 Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal is considered compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development Amendment appears to be a good utilization of the property under consideration and the Shingle Creek Crossing redevelopment and is considered to be an asset to the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 2011-003 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 3 1. Final site plan review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 35-230 Plan Approval of the Zoning Ordinance to include but not necessarily limited to parking, building placement, access, internal circulation, pedestrian walkways, site lighting, landscaping, utility connections, architectural treatment, and building signage. 2. Final review and approval of architectural review guidelines and standards of the Planned Unit Development Plans and Exhibits. 3. The removal of the Kohl's site from this PUD application with understanding that the site remains under the provisions of the 1999 PUD standards until such time as a PUD amendment is processed to include the site into the overall Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. 4. Review and approval of storm water management and drainage conceptual improvements by Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with final approval before the issuance of demolition and building permits. 5. Review and approval of the proposed intersection improvements at Shingle Creek Parkway and Bass Lake Road by Hennepin County. 6. Review and approval of the necessary grading plans, water and sanitary sewer utility plans, storm water management and erosion control plans, and intersection designs by the City Engineer as a condition to the issuance of permits for construction, grading, or demolition. 7. The applicant shall enter into a PUD development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to City ordinances, the PUD requirements for site plan review, the framework of the PUD (Development Plans and Exhibits), cross parking and access agreements, responsibilities for private infrastructure and roadways., and conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Leino, Morey, Morgan, Parks and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-02 Exhibit A 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 1999 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; and - the following PUD adjustments to the C-2 development standards were part of the 1999 PUD Development Plan: - 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. 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. Walmart Super Center. The proposal involved the creation of a 14.27 acre lot and involved the closure of the Northway intersection(Mall entrance). 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-02 Exhibit A 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. Walmart 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. 6 r m N . _ _EXIS EXISTING TING FULL y - _ -AXIS - - -- - - °- - - - %% tFFIC - - - - - - FIC - - ACCESS COUNTY RD NO 10 /BASS LAKE RD C ' U L '- - rc - " _ A1- 2' =PARKING - - - -ACCESS N L r R @L$Ci(YT SIGNAL �+ o TRAFFIC SIGN 0' UTILITY E SIGNAL __ -- S €fiTBACK5161TF# - �' NTY ROAD" i�RM LOCATION - °-•- u - - - -- DECORATIVE - 20' BUILDING Nb. 10 R.O.W. $ RXkQN - ROW DEDICATION _ - - -- BUILDING SETBACK 15' ROW DEDICATION FENCING __ _ SETBACK - DEDICATION J SIGN (TYP.) r10' ROW DEDICATION - -7 -- - -- - - -- - x1anNG_91DEN_ In -- - - - -- _- - -- - -- a -- - - - o 6- ' ------------ --- - - - O _ - Ir - - LOTI L1_ � UT - ' // 10 UTILITY - O ;5 ; > 9,800sf -- - O \ r EASEMENT \ " A \� ISTING - - _ HAIRY 1` 7sa55f L 10.905sf �y l u o E u -- J / KOHL Z a 35' BUILDING �y� LOT 4, = MIDAS 0 % E XISTI NG \ _ < SETBAC K � / / O� �/ '� \V � ,; c ' ;� -' � � - _ � - � �° BLOCK Z �\ - c 0 J _ \ 20 "WATER 6 880sf ° s ` , .I 1 TELEPHONE r ' j SEMENT . % SHEET. O EASE ME14 +' O 10 735s O yj y ` ohm , H r 10,920 f r ' SHINGLE LOT 2, Y < a m o , Lt 45,020sf - �l OC $L K 2 y t - 1 NG '�/ DAYLIG HTI � j q O 1 Ls' t S 20' SANITARY 5T WATE i t (1Q� it Y- % '� SEWER EASEMENT 11 _ _ DRAINAGE \ 'PROPOSED J UTILITY \ \a 1 / OUTLOT B EASEMENT TRAIL L N l n. QR 1 18'TRAIL EASEMENT 5TA E HIGHWAY "NO. 100 R.O.W. EXISTING 1S it __ 1 , = DRAINAGE & ' DEDICATION N '_ APPLEBEES �\ AT GRADE UTILITY EA$ ¢ 6 , i vti `� afvARIABLE ¢41D DOORS N Q 1' w EXISTING ! 1 AR P 35sf / o - FULL O R EXISTING BOX s t ® N \ ` 31,205sf ACCE L \ \\30'SANITARY CULVERTS 0 3, LOT 1, SEWER / E �: ^ BLOCK 1 + \ r s t ee ' ' lSX(STING > EXISTING = OVERHEAD BUILDING: t PHARMACY Walmarti o �' = TRANSMISSION r RETAIL L i� \ DRIVE -THRU STORE #5625 -00 (c I POLE SITE DATA SHOPS t ♦ C- 150- SGL -NO _ ADDRESS: EXISTING: M ' 1108 BROOKDALE LL 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) j. ! BROOKLYN CENTER, MN PROPOSED: TED ' -_: LINE PERTY ZONING DISTRICT: PUD w " O +u+ - % - LAND USE CATEGORY: COMMERCIAL N ( 00 N o '`, (� � O J.y' ( � BUILDING HEIGHT: WAL MART, 30 FEET O t Q \ \ t, 1 S3,8505f a '� r ��P S \P LOT COVERAGE. EXISTILC+, PROPOSED J o \ ` ,� • ' 0 , ) 'G+j. (EXCLUDING Row DEDICATIONS) Q. UCK /' y� .?$ BUILDING AREA 914,593 SFi 604,150 sFi IMPERVIOUS AREA: 64.39 AC 55.32 Ac EL ♦ - _ lP �'� PERVIOUS AREA: 2.91 AC 11.98 AC f - J , /'� / - p.� y P. f / NORTH BUILDING SETBACKS FROM ROW: REQUIRED 0 EXISTING %' �� FRONT 35' : SEARS = _ - - - _ " GyG�' PGA T sloE CORNER is `�, �, '� ` � � =� (NOT IN -- ] �� �'C� D 100 200 FLOOD ZONE - m= CONTRACT) ` T � ' Gy _ COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER: 2701510212 E / DATE OF FIRM SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 SCALE FEET ZONE' • X • AND • 'AE' STORMWATER % i �� Z TREATMENT o �� e� SITE DATA TABLE ? AREA A pG� BUILDING DESIGNATION PLAT LOT AREA ACRE BUILDING PARKING PROVIDED ADA PARKING RATIO Z_ c 8 4 ', ( ��� n t • / 11A wy WALMART LOT 2. BLOCK 1 8]9,]95 B.F. 15.81 ACRE 152,036 SO. FT. 760 SPACER 18 SPACES 5.00 O w i •9 1 ` I II `,\ EXISTING BUILDING LOT I, BLOCKI 123,242 SD. FT. 550SPACES EXISTING 446 APPLEBEES LOT 1, BLOCK 1 4,869 SO. FT. 53 SPACES EXISTING 1 L W KOHL5 LOT 2. BL.00N 2 308.343 S.F. ?W ACRE 75,000 50. Fi. 454 SPACES EXISTING 6.05 f 1 r OUTLOTA .'/ _' A LOT I. BLOCK 6,880 SO Fr. 70 SPACES 2SPACES 10A7 V / Z p 4Z 71 ' I T I - I 1 \ t B LOT 1. BLOCK 1 9.800 SO. FF- 45 SPACES 3 SPACES 4.59 S W yj '!( I IJ \ / •"` �V ,t _ SYMBOL LEGEND: C OUTLOTB t1,d90 SD. Ff. 64 SPACES 35PACES 4.62 W U D OUTLOTB 5.600 SO. FF 25 SPACES 2SPACES 4.68 W 1t f - - - - -- PROPERTY LINE 7.885 SO. FT ]9 SPACES 2 SPACES 10.02 w .. W f' I �)• I `� t\ J `° - l . PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (SEE LIGHTING E OUTLOTB ) - F LOT 1, BLOCK2 53.148 S.F. 1.22 ACRE 10.905 BD. Ff. 50 SPACES 2 SPACES 4.59 PLAN FOR FIXTURE LEGEND V 1 G, H, I, &J LOT 1. BLOCK 1 45.020 SO. FT, 199 SPACES 7 SPACES 4.42 J PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN -LEVEL LIGHTING (SE LIGHTING PLAN FOR FIXUTRE LEGEND) K LOTI.BLOCKI 10,735 SO, FT. 50 SPACES 3SPACES 4.66 Lu Y L OUTLOT B 10,920 S0. F7. 50 SPACES J SPACES 4.58 J O STANDARD PARKING STALL M OUTLOTB N LOT 1, BLOCK 1 53.850 SO 1.475 S0. FT 70 SPACES 2SPACES 9.36 O , \I I Bl = E - -- N IN 45' NSP . FT. 241 SPACES ]SPACER a48 a f�' "Y,' < .!_. F �' O PROPOSED PARKING SPACES P OUTLOTB 31,205 SO. FT. 131 SPACES 65P 4.39 ACE5 W w o - _ L .�, i � I a ��', EASEMENT ,`# PROPOSED ASSOCIATE PARKING G OUTLOTB 35.eeD SO - FT 155 SPACES 65PACE5 4.3a = m Z SPACES LOTI,BLOCKI 1,097,1305E 25.19 ACRE W 29 CART CORRAL TYPICAL. SEE DETAIL = - OUTIOTA 2.615 s.F- ACRE OUTLOTS 493.324 SF. 111 3 .33 ACRE DATE FIRE HYDRANT (DEDICATEDT00.OW) COUNTY RD N0, 10 25.3605.F. 0.58 ACRE 02/28/2011 Ir IDEDICATEDTOROW) STATE HWY NO. 100 520.5425F. 11.95 ACRE PROJECT N0. e ;� PROPOSED CONCRETE TOTAL 79.66 ACRE 605,59250. FT. 3,052 SPACES 5.04 160633001 E c 1 I F - 'THE CITY OWNED PARCEL (BUILDING F) IS TO BE REPLAT7ED AS INDICATED ON GRAPHIC ABOVE u, SHEET NUMBER 'J PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL PROPOSED SITE ACREAGE WILLBE 122ACRES. 0 0 v D € _ m COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD - -• - o COUNTY COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE R0. - -- - � MIDAS PROP ERTY: OO I NOT A PART OF THIS OU y PROJECT /„ I 5 ' w t - I F BLOC / \ > E W w ` a Lf3�B LOT 2, O / BLOCK 2 / Y v O FUTURE LOT LINE (TYP.) x� 0 - l LOT 2, Z „ �r w _ m BLOC w o w O Walm art :;: LOT 1, 0 STORE #5625 -00 �I O BLOCK 1 C- 150-SGL -NO \ s� 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) a� \ / ✓ 0 100 200 - } SCALE FEET 1 O �' m a a \ I j !�� �` PHASING HATCH LEGEND: W r, Z PHASE I — COMPLETE SITE BUILD —OUT Q / \ C N \ PHASE II (AS LEASING PROGRESSES) � [UTILITIES STUBBED, SWPPP PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED, GRADE SET TO BASE ELEVATION] Or AREA NOT TO BE DISTURBED DURING Q I w .� I 0 \ OUTLOT A ��' u I ��. \ /� CONSTRUCTION Z Z o W I w 1 l H U `, o X •' I I d, ; -�'TI '' ''y \ _ '+ — - THE PRESENCE OE 131111 WATER SHOULD BE Z y I, K•' _ -_ 1 ANTICIPATED ON THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR'S m Yv. ` ' -; r' BID SHALL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR W O Y / ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. W U SEARS PROPERM' r LC W " NQT A PART PROJECT THIS 7 r Z a e - PROJECT =L_ ALL CONTRACTORS MUST CONTACT } ° N a' I , A ' GOPHER STATE CALL ONE U J 1 \ - -- - A MN TOLL FREE 1- 800 -252 -1166 W Y o BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS J O J TWIN CITY AREA 651- 454 -0002 0 Z w i > 5 z ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: m w ALL WM GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, = FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. OUTLOT AREA TO BE KEPT FREE OF JOB 0228�2011 TRAILERS AND STORAGE AFTER THE CONTRACT MILESTONE DATE FOR THE OUTLOT. WM GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE CLEAR ACCESS PROJECT NO. FOR OUTLOT CONTRACTOR TO THE SPECIFIC PARCEL AT ALL TIMES 160633001 E AFTER MILESTONE DATE. PURCHASER OF OUTLOT TO PROVIDE PERMIT DOCUMENTS AND SWPPP REQUIRED BY STATE /LOCAL REQUIREMENTS SHEET NUMBER FOR SPECIFIC OUTLOE //� ;' 02 m -•-- -� ' ° SF CE SF t ° C� CF �� ° EXISTING ss R MIDAS s \ � o C <U EXISTING s DD r a KOHL'S co ODA CF \\ /APPLEBEE'S ISTING • $< <T9 ❑ j / o , ✓ EXISTING t SITE FEATURES BUILDING: / r^ Lsoa � E F �•� DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW SHOPS / A DD ✓� j / - LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN m - 1 I ' PROPERTY LINE _ / �% . r . • . a e . PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE F 7 EXISTING BUILDING J • ^ ��/ 1 -` PROPOSED BUILDING F= \ / t' P � 1 1 /'• '\ //¢ � EXISTING CURB o Z FLOOD ZONE X (PANEL N0. 2701510212E) FLOOD ZONE AS (PANEL N0. 2701510212E) tI/II \ SHINGLE CREEK �`''° j• .t. _ i'" ,r=, �AREA)- IMPAIRED WATER (ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITf EXISTING STORM SEWER. To BE REMOVED V y EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO REMAIN !11 EXISTING a SEARS \ y 6% / WETLANDS Z w �l (NOT IN '� T7 ii` . CONTRACT) I \ �� / it. PROPOSED / � PROPOSED STORM SEWER EROSION DETAILS X - ' W SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN (SEE DETAIL SHEET) INLET PROTECTON SEDIMENT CONTROL (SEE DET/ 1 NORTH j u . DD �. '• (� O TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) f 11 O SOIL TYPE: URBAN LAND, MEN T COMPLEX WET Z o SUBSTRATUM AND UDIPSAMMENTS COMPLEX `^ C Z 1 1 0 100 200 COVERING 1009, OF SITE ACREAGE A// G z_ Z ? / / % - O CONSTRUCTION EXIT (SEE DETAIL) O q SCALE FEET DIVERSION DIKE (SEE DETAIL) LJ.. w SF U Z DIVERSION SWALE (SEE DETAIL) o TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP (SEE DETAIL) W ° =r "' W ------ -� O ROCK CHECK DAM N Z U 0 1 � PROPOSED REINFORCED SILT FENCE J i wo 0 'NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC" SIGN W Y J O ACREAGE SUMMARY o O CONSTRUCTION FENCE Z z - (IN ACRES) W / TOTAL PROJECT AREA 53.3 SC FLOATING SILT CURTAIN T m Z ` Z JI D vJ ON SITE DISTURBED AREA 51.9 PERMANENT SEEDING /SODDING w 3 OFF -SITE DISTURBED AREA 14 DATE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (MUST MATCH NOI) 53.3 �', EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 02 28 12011 IMPERVIOUS AREA AT COMPLETION 43.2 PROJECT NO - / PERVIOUS /SEEDED AREA AT COMPLETION 10.1 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN 160633001 SHEET NUMBER RIP -RAP PAD O/1 3 D SF CE SF CF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE —\ BASS LAKE ROAD a o_ ...... < 5 /may ' r F.F.E. =849.5 I � { O - O + r L . .�. ` 1 J' F.F.E. =848.5 FFE "6' '± CRETE \ O / 'TIS�T\ \ =? �� 848.0 ..�\ \ o Ul s L CF ' �� P _ tr AD A; 4't RETAINING LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 1\ EXISTING 1,. WALL A � cF z y✓ / - T, L KOHL'S v STI ^ �j` \ ° Kl�­ 6 \_ a .�? 1 v v TEE175 O / 5 - CF `S 852 F F E l `CD) �/ ETE / , C 846 5 F.F.E.= Z z S, F.F.E. =852.0 �c �,!' ' O .849.5 1= 1 HE ADWALL . Ea„ % G x O / . l!" DRAINAGE U T a',. BOUNDARY \'n , ' - /�° EROSION CON TR C L - BLANKET ON ALL E OP p ro K / (✓� '6 '. EOF 848 3 REEK /./ \ _ 0 ` S 4't RETAIN s3m WALL o o ° l EXISTING O / a� ` APPLEBEE'S ' �:. -. _ -_ _ 1 O s f -- �. ' ', :, _ - /N /1 � _ ..,. ; � _ CONCRETE 8 0 HEADWALL o E 1 0 E .:`"• ,� r � \1 p, \ a O !.� N "�- � F. CsB2 / V 11't CONCRETE � b HEADWALL o v - -. F.F.E. = 8505 W - � L o p O NC S \ i m +' t<_, RETAI w ° m\ ` EXISTING �� �� .�/ SITE FEATURES BUILDING: Q Walmart I'� j 1 .50 r. DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW RETAIL - - LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN SHOPS m ° I STORE #5625 -00 \''. /' , PSG - -- ---- a p I / O,• \ 2r C-150-SGL-NO PROPERTY LINE �J 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) y % l \5� . • • • • • . • • PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE F EE = 852.0 ,( —'7� EXISTING BUILDING ° i \ PROPOSED BUILDING �� O �/ •� /✓ ,/� SF EXISTING CURB 0 T a O L /� / / %� Z i \ RUCKWELL 4 v / I7, GRAIN FLOOD ZONE X (PANEL NO. 2701510212E) PROTECTION F.F.E. = 852.5 PROTE Q SC F �� FLOOD ZONE AE (PANEL NO. 2701510212E) f ll i 11 SHINGLE C REEK EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO BE REMOVED 0 T y 50 / SENSETNEAREA EXISTING STORM SEWER, TO REMAIN Lu IMPAIRE a ° EXISTING r WATER) X SEARS ( ;• p �� \ SIOfU1WA WETLANDS Lu W V ' ": TER ......... /-� - e5o _ \ I.A_ ° (NOT IN \ �J O FO�v Nr NORTH ��. PROPOSED STORM SEWER i V CONTRACT) �� A ST / j' --Farnn -FILTRATION 0 BASIN BA4N EROSION DETAILS D 100 200 m $$ SWPPP INFORMATION SIGN (SEE DETAIL SHEET) a l � • � � SCALE FEET � s IP INLET PROTECTION SEDIMENT CONTROL (SEE DETAIL; x / CF ! > TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) ' L / J / L SOIL TYPE. URBAN LAND, UDORTHENT5, WET STORMWATER �\ UA SUDSTRATUM AND UDIPSAMMENTS COMPLEX VJ G -, NT COVERING 100% OF SITE ACREAGE U) POND VJ CONSTRUCTION EXIT (SEE DETAIL) L w DIVERSION DIKE (SEE DETAIL) f 1 r o ° NCT Z o -. / A' '\ - -� / J/ � DS DIVERSION SWALE (SEE DETAIL) W W CF / ®T TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP (SEE DETAIL) 11 1 U w v J �.. L ROCK CHECK DAM PROPOSED REINFORCED SILT FENCE W Y ° c .\ Q "NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SIGN J 0 ( ACREAGE SUMMARY ? (IN ACRES) �o—O CONSTRUCTION FENCE Z w w FLOATING SILT CURTAIN / TOTAL PROJECT AREA 53.3 Z o z ON -SITE DISTURBED AREA 51.9 U) W / OFF -SITE DISTURBED AREA 1.4 PERMANENT SEEDING /SODDING DATE �I TOTAL DISTURBED AREA (MUST MATCH NOI) 53.3 02/28/2011 IMPERVIOUS AREA AT COMPLETION 43.3 ® EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PROJECT NO. E PERVIOUS /SEEDED AREA AT COMPLETION 10.0 160633001 o TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN SHEET NUMBER °' RR RIP -RAP PAD 04 0 0 L S _ m E E 42" E 42 " COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD / `L COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS l -- �. X1 2 _ � • �:� x �l O F.F.E. = 849.5 ,1 p1 =3.0 15 " ' O , O ` 2'X4' BOX F.F.E. 85 O EXISTING 18" F F.E. = CULVERT F.F.E. - 849.5 - EXISTING 6" - _ _848.0 MIDAS \\ O 15„ °-15"— 0 15 1 5 a -15" 15 „ -15 EKOF - �� - � A A, �5 ��� , .; F.F.E. _ ` Z 654.0 ps J 15 O� Alb O 8„ Q O s O O F.eF.E. F.F.E. 520 E. = O PROPOSED L y = 8486 — DAY - LIGHTED E m E F7` A 18,; __ s= SHINGLE CREEK = `b } ( V ` 5._ O F.F.E =852.0 1a 15 ��. - r N 0 k 15 \ OUTLOT B E ��2 Y cc LL - -- 15" ❑ x EXISTING 2� 24" / 361 w I �SEDIMENT 1' O EXISTING 15'��a� 1 �` 15' 15" �� j TRAP APPLEBEE'S � � � U 1511 U Y \ 0 1 r� fl L ( 7 .., � O m N_ F.F.E. 847.0 E a m a E 15.. N �j F.F.E = 850.5 x G�� EXISTING 15" / pRP\ N 6 w R� ,.a w \ � �.` 0 36" ® - ROOF DRAINS J — 15" EXISTING `�� m 1 BUILDING: ma Walrt.�% x - EXISTING 21" RETAIL ® SHOPS ® S ri' STORE 95625-00 w u O C- 150SOL -NO 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) n� I F.F.E. = 852.0 Lu 2 F.F.E. = 852.5 0 / / NORTH a - 2x15" // X LLI b X / O EXISTING o foo zoo o SEARS 4 �_ 4� - / / SCALE FEET (NOT IN �j ��L RUNOFF RATES o ° CONTRACT) �J /� \\ / �'' -2X15" v Q OVERALL RATES 2 -YR (CF S) 10 -YR (CFS) 100 -YR (CFS) EXISTING 166.58 249.24 342.64 a PROPOSED 85.76 1 138.77 178.12 CD x - P RUNOFF VOLUME Z_ Z uJ \ / EXISTING 31.09 (Af) C Z PROPOSED 28.63 (Af) U) C Z ? w / //� W H Z LLJ PROPOSED STORM SEWER L — — — — — — — — PROPOSED 6 PERFORATED PVC PIPE L Lu Z POND DATA TABLE ER PROPOSED STORM SEW INLET U } NORMAL WATER J P TREATMENT 100 YR FLOOD ELEVATION ,„ LLI Y o a VOLUME (AF) ELEV.(FT) (FT) /BOTTOM PROPOSED STORM SEWER MANHOLE J O z a ELEVATION (FT) PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION 0 O POND 1 0.206 848.02 845.50 (BTM) Z a POND 2 0.080 847.42 845.00 (BTM)� PROPOSED RIP RAP I m z o POND 3 0.220 847.39 845,00 (BTM) (/) 3 POND 4 2.999 846.76 839.00 (NWL) X" PROPOSED X -INCH STORM SEWER 02/28/2011 i c PROJECT NO. 160633001 E - SHEET NUMBER 05 o€ n. . IF \TWC naV \GDP IN DFVFI DPAAFNT \Ra DnKDAI F f.FNTFR \CARD \FYHIRITS \PUO SIMPLIFIED PLANS \06 - UTILITY -WATER LAYOUT.dwq 06 Feb 28, 2011 5: 24pm by brondon.elegert TMs eocum.nt, together .111 the conceyt. designs Rre..nt.a her­. I. on Inetrvmmt If ...vice. 111 inbne.d only for the eP.ci6. Ruryose and .11— - .­h it — P P ed. Reuse or .na . .er rabnce thi document wItnout written .0-1 -11— and . . tlom by KI— y —tt.rn .na A ... dc , mc. sn.0 XERXES AVENUE NORTH - 0 -0 x um n m� 7 rn - I O // � W r_ V m� G) 0 0 a 0 CO VIACX O�0 0 0 gX U)�ZZ ON 0G7 0 vDiZ �J O 0� z z � X O D n2cn D 0 0 0 yom 3 0 i aZ J V2tn V xO K , �� O 0 \\ o 0 0 O 0 � O O O O Z O D 0 Z O 0 co D m O D 0 SCALE DESIGN ENCINEER m m WILLIAM MATZEK Kimley -Ho IT1 O m w �, � SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WATER °ESIGNED6Y ❑E❑ and Associates, Inc. C � \m MINNESOTA REGISTRATION Nl1MRER: rn oz ti BROOKLYN CENTER, MN UTILITY EXHIBIT DR AwNev bbb N©= "' "`E °- "s.SUA =„„ "s.`p.ULMN55114 O p CHECKED BY P "ONE. 65t 6V6- 1 651-6a 116 z HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: W— IMEEY- HORN.GoM No. REVISIONS DATE d-y x O r O .. m Zu X 0 N Z1 O n X N ?1 Z7 m > (,� ;u D D m m 0 A O X CA ( T 11 I Z �:. 0 � CA n ° n < D ° m O4 m .71 m X p Z D< m p D .Z1 m = _ { I Z Z A _ m Z < O D W rn A 0 O D D y D D = Cu D r D m r m _0 m D m r�*T A 00 m m D >1 m Z O r z � Z O T7 = Z C � D C � U) m 0 m D m m n m �m o m TX O Z = = C3 rZ �G) O Z O D 0 Z O 0 co D m O D 0 SCALE DESIGN ENCINEER m m WILLIAM MATZEK Kimley -Ho IT1 O m w �, � SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WATER °ESIGNED6Y ❑E❑ and Associates, Inc. C � \m MINNESOTA REGISTRATION Nl1MRER: rn oz ti BROOKLYN CENTER, MN UTILITY EXHIBIT DR AwNev bbb N©= "' "`E °- "s.SUA =„„ "s.`p.ULMN55114 O p CHECKED BY P "ONE. 65t 6V6- 1 651-6a 116 z HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: W— IMEEY- HORN.GoM No. REVISIONS DATE d-y Drawing name: K: \TWC_LDEV \GATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOKD ALE CENTER \CADD \EXHIBITS \POD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \07 — UTILITY— SANITARY LAYOUT.dwg 07 Feb 28, 2011 5: 04pm by: bran don, elegert This document, together with the concept, rod designs p seemed herein, ps on instrument of ser i— is intended only for the apecifc purpose end client for which it was pep red. Reuse of and imp op retiunce — th'b document without written pulharizption o I C N CROSSING m SCALE DESI ° NED BY z Kimley -Hom __.,cc ASE NORTH by Ki Il H.,, and Ass -tee: O >0 \� kE RXFS 71 x E \ q VF 0 z G � �o E ll G � \Ty m \ z Cn�cX \ TE M F m \ ODOR �k (n r O pCn OO �' \ cnz ',X \ OZCnX 0 n z n c z D 0 M _ x o z I m ° o' o l o O x UZ I o, O i� na 0 0 y, z m �` Oz x z O n X O , -- j O m �= D z o I � f z Z \ O / - - - -� O 6 \\ r o fl O i i o m �1 m CD ' v v / , N �' � � � U) D ,' ,' j Ell m DrN pr m O r- � Z (A m zmx m 9�F , O � I X 1 m z \ �� �� X m i \ mtnry �� O �>m ° - z O mmD O \\ \ Kxz Ell D \ � I < v n Q _A < :0 C, O _I M 7 \ m Z l Co I� ` I T j _ 1 �L� / O � C n O s O j / / / � Z m z n z \ O -I I o O ' O / O O ED � 1 0 X D O Cn [n D m m o N CROSSING SCALE DESI ° NED BY I DESIGN ENCiNEER: 'MLLIAM MATZEK Kimley -Hom U, T M x x �0 ;;u m x m O O c z 0 0 C, m z o o z 0 c o M M Cl) Cn x m o m o � � N X Y DRAWN BY Z © 2009 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Z z n D z D z O n D > = D D N D Z7 50 HENNEPIN MINNESOTA N Z -< -< 1n " "' NLEY— HORN.cGM z REVISIONS DATE m N N m m m A M p M M m A � m r m C m � m D z 1 m z \ �� �� X m i \ mtnry �� O �>m ° - z O mmD O \\ \ Kxz Ell D \ � I < v n Q _A < :0 C, O _I M 7 \ m Z l Co I� ` I T j _ 1 �L� / O � C n O s O j / / / � Z m z n z \ O -I I o O ' O / O O ED � 1 0 X D O Cn [n D m m o N CROSSING SCALE DESI ° NED BY I DESIGN ENCiNEER: 'MLLIAM MATZEK Kimley -Hom I O ~ o� N O� SHINGLE CREEK SANITARY SEWER and Associates, Inc. C, m ~ MINNESOTA REGISiRAfON NUMBER -4 K C W , C � N CENTER, BROOKLYN CENTER MN Y DRAWN BY © 2009 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. m Z C O CHECKED BY 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NEST. SUITE 23SN ST. PAUL, NN 55114 PHONE: 651- 645 -4197 FAX: 651- 645 -5116 A HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: " "' NLEY— HORN.cGM No REVISIONS DATE BY } m Q ° ` U ____________ —__ 0 c -- 0 0 — — — — — — ------------------------------------ ------ - - - - -- e' _ ' __ ------- - - - - --- - -_ - -° -- - _ _ _ — _ Q = ------------ - - - - -- COUNTY RD ` NO 10 - -- BASS LAKE ROAD 1 I — - - - -- = = - - -- — - -- -- - -- ___ _ _ _ ° Z -- --------------- ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 7 7 - 7 - 7 — -- - - - - -- UN R s _ — ISTING _ MIDAS _ (/' /e v EXISTING /� / / // O /'\ -- - _ \ r 2t ✓� ( KOHL 1 / Eg 6 N f 7 F1 ` G ' s a / I ry ; �, � Y l i �/ l ♦t. -- _. - - -. f O r `� t/ C\ � / -/ j tea c l of % / c l E IF n / EYC TIN u ' P(� LEBE S �� — ---- - -- / i/ - t - - � Ewf! J o EXISTING ✓ BUILDING - Walmarti�� ' w r RETAIL STORE #5625 -00 C- 150- SGL -NO m - ' _ _ r SHOPS ( A( ,/ o � I a j II+ _ `�� 152,036 S.F. (APPROX.) w U ' 0 100 200 aJ SCALE FEET U • _\ EXISTING x -- SEARS �� n, (NOT IN ' _ — 1 .., /. __ = y� j / �� S b e ° I -=— oty L-1 Arr,n LLf v °tt. - - ipti — V e r — ' / /'� �� 11 Three —d Type V 3 P 120000 1.110 1— L 42 9 -h 3 of O GrreMrAr Mounte on a pde the = CONTRACT) 120 DEGREES MN pde fountlotlon nbove flnls— Bratle GFR 5- 1000 - F -F Z 7 / o ,� ♦ / / // / ' _� 42 Single yp V SINGLE 0000 90 I 0 LSI Greedrbr. MOw<etl S 42' on 3 ' l h f <he V z e Iz 0. 0v ale fF-1- nbove flask 4 Bratle GFR e 5 1000 PSMV F U Z E - / _\\ Q —� 20 Double yp e V BACK -BACK 120000 D.7 9D 1000V LSI GreeMmkr Mcuntetl of 42 on ° 3 ' pole rtM1 3 pf Me / ` \ \.i '' / / i'_1 MH pole fountln<on Above fin shrtl grrGe. GFR 5 lOW PSMV F U p d i / .� ' %� `� / P` ♦ 6 Snple edestr an SINGLE 0 0,79D W M.OV BEGA 9 gl 1. Sbr, Type V M°untetl ono 16' straight EGA 916H ole p, Li J c �\ \� % i' \ G�� r® 1 Irple etlestrlbn BACK ACK BB00 0.190 I V GA 97 2M able. Type V Mowtetl On ° 1 ' strnlght OEGA 91 pole. U !— D_. .... __ _ w U FIXTURES w ` / LIGHT POLE & Z If FIXTURES U} 5 FC (FOOT CANDLES) W Y �� 3 FC PHOTOMETRIC NOTES: J O 10 FC (FOOT CANDLE; C's u - I l FC 5 FC A. CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BASES WILL BE USED FOR \ 1 I LIGHT POLE BASE FOUNDATIONS. w w % I / " ` 3 FC POLE BASE DESIGNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT = m w o I ( ENGINEERING PERMITTING STAGE. (n = FC B. REFER TO ARCH. PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING 3 ,.� �.''� •.,\ �� ELECTRICAL PLAN. DATE C. LIGHT FD(TURES SHALL BE METAL HALIDE. 02/25/2011 Y /� � -� / -' PROJECT N0. ° �\ 160633001 % RA /.- PARKING LOT LIGHTING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL LIGHITNG S HEET " UMBER 08 o€ i Drawing name: K: \TWC_LDEV \GATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOK DALE CENTER \CARD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \09 — LANDSCAPE LAYOUT. d.9 09 Feb 28, 2011 5: 27pm by, Irish —the 1Fia dpcument, togetM1er with tM1< concepts ontl d-gns p esented here —ded o y or the specific pu pose and cilent for which it woa p p red. Reuse of and 'rcnprope reliance on this document without written opthonzot,on and otlpptalion by Ki,,I -H— and Asssciotes, Inc. sfiall be without liability to K, ey- orn and Associates. w ORj A- -" __e -- "° T(��� - (• a p / O l \�1, % 4 �\ cnW �{ Mm -cn cn r- Z z 0 �\ zz�x \•. G�b I " �f D� CJ Q�(D �� E-- OW 0 'I X 0 z ED O z m 0 El to m Z ED 2 r, (A m A SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SCALE Z C: 11 Kimley -Hom DESIGNED BY O m� N o X m oA o0 co CD DW DO m cnm m O nz O 3 nm O W °R^ RY W om cm c� W �z m O c- z i cX F- z z w� m< r D DATE: WWW.KINLEY- H°RN.caN M 0 X DDO O 0 r 0 0 G D m m 0< W 0 D D 0 DO Z 000 5 < Am 0 D C DO O D O 0 D S 0 m D D 0 c GO w O 0 S. m m 0< r D C p O° T DD z c 22 a m 7` s D v in z G) z o z mo N m G) w y 0 0 C m _ m v_ ED m m cmn m m I m O -0 n 0 z w O z c -i f ; 0 Z m v Z m (n D C7 m m :p 0 C r m N N N at xa 7t w 4 w w c#o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 y N D r- � r M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w 0 0 0 0 w w w w -� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q O O O z O z R. Q. C Q z -i z z z I. -' I. A z z � z � z -i z � w w w z - A z A -' � w w w w O N N Ong 0 CI .D• T ye d G'1 arlJ � �ZN�I MOO 1% a O �\ k r q p� Cam- (D r) o ' IO 0 0a C � C U t� O D../ ` O ^ � Z m m A SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: WILLIAM MATZEK C: 11 Kimley -Hom DESIGNED BY O m� N o and Associates, Inc. MINNES REGISTR N UMBER : co CD BROOKLYN CENTER, MN LANDSCAPE © 9. ° °a E °R^ RY W m m A SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: WILLIAM MATZEK C: 11 Kimley -Hom DESIGNED BY O m� N o and Associates, Inc. MINNES REGISTR N UMBER : co CD BROOKLYN CENTER, MN LANDSCAPE © 9. ° °a E °R^ RY W om 0 Nl S°�N5","�i „`I5;`;A� NN 55119 CHECKED BY , PHONE: 851 -645 -4197 FAX: 651- 665 -5116 ,G HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: WWW.KINLEY- H°RN.caN (l �\ a O C Z O z 0 0 m co OU) <° ';> to cn� m i ti Irn !x O � REVISIONS DATE Dr --,g name: K: \TWC_LDEV \GATLIN DEVELOPMENT \BROOK DALE CENTER \CADD \EXHIBITS \PUD SIMPLIFIED PLANS \10 — CIRCULATION LAYOUT.dwg 10 Feb 28, 2011 5:28pm by trish.rothe document, tpgeMer with the co la mtl designs p eaented M1rcn, ps pn —It--t of service, i. Intended ." for — specific pu pose pnd climt for which A wp p ­—d. Reuse e( pnd '­pper -16.— — t- document without written cep _ \ Aj� A � �\ m ACX o _ m \ 1 0 Q \ a \ k \\ I i II 2 fTl z 0 0 0 � m m A 0 i \ �� 0 0 C ` J N D \ 0 0 = r"-1 m C C \ \\ A o \\ n D R1 C \ �\ < < ,n z 0 \ \ < < o 0 O �d I l iohility to Kimley—H— pnd A-6.1,­ Inc.l \ I \ O 3 I I W III Ili I i D u I'iq (n II I I h , O i > IIII II I i0 1 m o r I L i O II 1 I I O 'II � Il I II I I i r , • I I I III m \ T m Ox IC ` IOn I0 rt- U D (n - 0 \ V K Y \ n \ \ \ n 0 \ \.. \ �� \•. Z N \I \ \ 6 9 T \\ ��. \\ u`` X o \\ \\ \ �o r _L ° \ < M D n �� 2 fTl z 0 0 0 � m m A 0 i \ �� 0 0 C ` J N D \ 0 0 = r"-1 m C C \ \\ A o \\ n D R1 C \ �\ < < ,n z 0 \ \ < < o 0 O �d I l iohility to Kimley—H— pnd A-6.1,­ Inc.l \ I \ O 3 I I W III Ili I i D u I'iq (n II I I h , O i > IIII II I i0 1 m o r I L i O II 1 I I O 'II � Il I II I I i r , • I I I �e III m .v m Ox IC ` IOn I0 �e - - - II m m m m Ox IC i IOn cf) z G) rt- U m m D r m m m 0 v " v \ n 0 z D (n - 0 \ n m m D r \ m m \ \ - o m .� mx DO z mG) A \? fr r n1�1 1, �. ✓' \\ N2 I c Ilia I . I � III Iii i nII I, I m I i t I � O SCALE DESIGN ENGINEER: 00 N 'MLLIAM MATZEK ❑� ❑ Kimley Hom m ��� SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING DESIGNED BY and Associates, Inc. mm co> MINNESOTA RECIS REGISTRATION "UMBER: O o� BROOKLYN CENTER, MN CIRCULATION EXHIBIT DRAWN BY © 2009 KIMLEY -HMN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AC O Z O 2550 UNIWFSTY AVENUE WEST. WITE 2MN ST. PAUL MN 55114 I C) 0 PHONEI 651 -645 -4197 FAX 651- 645 -5116 J CHECKED BY yiyny KlMlEr- HORN HENNEPIN MINNESOTA DATE: � Can No. REVISIONS DATE BY _ m P ` - ----- - -- - - - -- — == - __ -- — J < o _ o --- - - - - -- - - - - °_ s� _ COUNT D NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD - -- - ---v -- C OUNTY RD NOL1-0 BASS -LAKE -ROAD - T __ -_ - - - - - - __-- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - ------- - -- -- - �� r /' I - - -- - -- _s - -- - -- - -- - -? - -L - - ._ -- --- �JBSmiss ]�QC - -� '�.- - - -- -- -- �` T'._ --- ---- ---- -- m O �� v y7 - - � '�� 5 5,600sf� i� w C B ) 9 % % t -- I �E v� V 7885sf �/. ,• - 14,490sf \ 10,905sf i!= / ISTING � �---� v � I � MIDAS \' �� i' / / T + \ �A ✓ 2> z° EXISTING j �� "✓ 7 'S = c OA KOHL < 6880sf _ / to + �w / !�:'.. +2�p ` /' - - / / 59 .v 10,735sf • �L = �'. - -- ,s \�,� ^ q f k4i 74 75f i y�� v, A' v N _ H u , ' i [V�J (i / \. 45,020sf / k� \\ - • �- \ C� 1, ;\ Y m a L - ` Cp r�� i0 EX TIN pp 2 r� `, 35,680sf a 31,205sf �, ♦` ' vt ` t +33 0 EXISTING \ > m BUILDING: A Walmart �� RETAIL b �t \ STORE #562 \ 0 100 200 SHOPS C- 150- SGL -NO Ur I ( 152,036 S.F. APPROX. � \ SCALE FEET 1 / N �� = LEGEND p Ir,� 1 / I� �'` v0 /// V w 53,850sf // i I ,� W X 'I PARKING SURPLUS ( +) OR DEFICIT ( -) FOR W a ° 1 1 �I % /�� ''' // 1� // / / �• ' �" f ' ) 'JJ +36 SUBAREA Q / I, 2 / / r a ry� , � Iy�l �. ♦ ----, �'� / � i -., I I 1 EXISTING SUBAREA BOUNDARY � �-`� N a ( II ♦ 7`1 \ � SEARS \ ` \\ / E ' — - - PROPERTY BOUNDARY 1 till III �I I I,. Jn „ (NOT IN x CONTRACT i SITE DATA TABLE Z Z o n I BUILDING DESIGNATION PLAT LOT AREA ACRE BUILDING PAWING PRON RKIN DED ADA PAWING RATIO _z W F 1 � . Z t l � \ ` \ \\ ` �V WALMART LOT 2, BLOCIf i 8]9,795 S.F. 16.61 MAE RK 152,036 SO. FT. 780 SPACES iS SPACES 5.00 O U ,} 1 \ f \ / \�J , E%ISTING BU8D8JG LOT 1. BLOCK? 123,242 SO. FT. 550 SPACES EXISTING 4.48 W I t 1, LLI 11,(1 \ < // -( APPLESEES LOTI,9LOCK1 4,869 SO. FT. 63 SPACES EXISTING 10.89 W KOHL•S LOT 2, BlOCK2 308,313 S.F. ]GOB ACRE 75.000 W. FT. 454 SPACES EXISTING 6.05 U I i 1 \ \�� " ✓. / - I I I -G�� I ' \\ / / ® ®� / '�P A LOT 1, BLOCK 1 6,880 SO. Fr. 70 SPACES 2 SPACES 1017 z o N 1 1 ' � \ \ \\ \• y /� %. pll' I .`'\ I 'f I I ' \ / `- \ / / / B LOT 1, BLOCK 1 9,800 SO, FT. 45 SPACES 3 SPACES 4.59 W Tom\// � \ A[� \ \ \\ / �' /' ]�� \\ \ / / C OUTLOT B 14.490 30. FT. 64 SPACES 3 SPACES 4.12 W U I, \ III .1'� I I ' Vv�� ` // / D OUTLOT B 5,600 so, FT. 25 SPACES 2 SPACES 4.46 W <>� h �� \ ♦g�� / jY E OU � TLOTB 7,885 50. FT. ]95PACE5 25PACE5 10.02 Z O ° In / \ \ \ \✓ / I \ '` I }I \/� /ll , / / / /' x /y,/ —\ / � •F LOT I, BIDCK 2 53,146 S.F 1.22 ACRE 10.905 SO. FT. W SPACES 2 SPACES �0I '(I G, H. I, 8 J LOT 1, BLOCK 1 45.020 50. FT. 199 SPACES ]SPACES 4.42 V J I K LOT i, BLOCK 1 10,735 S0. FT. 50 SPACES 3 SPACES 4.66 W L OUTLOTB 10,920 SO, Ff. 50 SPACES 3SPACES 4.58 O , /,/ , /�/�/x/ /,' /j �- M OUTLOTB 7,475 SO. Ff. 70 SPACES 2SPACES 9.36 O a ) I 1 c \ \\ \ �' ._ '/ / T / ' N LOT 1. BLOCK 1 53,650 SO. FT. 241 SPACES 7 SPACES 4 48 Z a ? I ' j P OUTLOTB 31.205 SO FT 137 SPACES �- ' . BSPACES 4.39 1+1 O V �1 1 Il- �1 \ l l \\ ` \ / } 7 / ^r\ O OUTLOiB 35.88050. FT. 155 SPACES 65PACES 4.34 co W W A Y 4 � \/ X LOT 1, BLOCK 1 1.7.130 S F. 25.19 ACRE _ ,11 1 1 mil q �� ��?�',� \ /�l /. / %K'. v .•' / 09 ounoTA 292.615 SF, 6.72 ACRE OUn0T0 493,324 S.F. 11.33 ACRE DATE ,� � (DEDICATED TO ROW) COUNTY RD NO. 10 25,3805.F. O.SB ACRE 02/28/11 Y ` 1, 1l \ I ! ✓/ J (DEDICATED TO ROW) STATE HWY NO. 520,5/2 S.F. 11.95 ACRE ]9.86 ACRE 605,592 SO. FT 3.052 SPACES 5. PROJECT NO. y `` 1 �\ •1 �a' 160633000 K . 01 1 q ` ✓ i mi \\ \ I' j 'THE CITY OWNED PARCEL(BUILDINGF)ISTOBEREPLAT7E lNDIC ONGRAPHICABOVE SHEET NUMBER o `I h� 1 1' j �\ \ � � ' ".''��/ PROP OSEDSITEACREAGEWBLSEIMAORES. 0 0 E1 o€ ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. 901 North Third Street, Suite 220 612 - 436 -4030 Minneapolis, MN 554011 Fax 612 -692 -9%0 C D GAM DEMPMENT COMPANY -- -- - Key Plan 1 -- - -- - -- _ - _ -- - — — - o - Oil I EXISTIN6 NORTH ELEVATION �� , 504f ATED - - BACKLIT STONE — FROSTED - - -. FREFN. FETAL GL CORNICE PREFIN. METAL s.an:sns / CORNICE 7 ,_ a�dcmFC - - - -- 1 , ILLIMINATEO - - EIF5 - - .�.:. - -- 5I6NA✓E BRICK - TENANT - .: . � .'T'ENANT NORTH � '� = - -_ .. TENANT I- ___ M ark Revision Issue D ate SIPVLA D ., - 5.4�1C EkIGK -RUN, FECAL EMRAw-E ANOD. ALUM. pEI,ORA71yE STONE CANOPY TO MALL PECZ STOREFRONT 2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION — — — SHINGLE CREEK EXISTING o — _.— —_ - -- -- — �' 0 0 — CROSSING E%IST HE BAR1E5 4 592VICE COURT `F ° -x NOBLE EXISTIN6 WEST ELEVATION BROOKDALE CENTER -- .PREFIN -METAL 3 nb' = I' D' REDEVELOPMENT BACKLIT CORNICE FRO511 D PREFIN . 6LAY > TED CORNICE �� STS T1D U�BI ®C - BROOKLYN CENTER, MN TENANT -- - -- BRIGC G L ASS EIFS BRIC< ILLUMINATED fvtml T m 5I6NA5E IL! UMINATEL7 � - -- — — -- -- -- — - -- 51C+A&E CA TENANT ". - - -- - -- — TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT _ - _ - -- EXTERIOR pr > . I ELEVATIONS ... •_ sue �. —. _. .. F m T PREFIN. METAL EXISTN6 DECORATIVE CAWA5 FREFIN. PETAL ANOD, A:JM. CMJ 5A--E EAST;NG CANOPY 5ERVICE COURT L15W ANMNSS CANOPY STOREFRONT SEARS" 4 PROP05ED WE5T ELEVATION Inb" = r-O° .4 i Al Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 i ARCHITECTURAL -- CONSORTIUM L.L.C. 901 NoAh Third SVeet, Suite Y10 612- 436 -4030 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 -692 -9960 I I I EXISTIN6 OVERALL EAST ELEVATION � lL/ N.TS. -- - --- - - - - -_ GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - - - �- -._ TENMQ TENMff - - -- ie w - -- -- - y — fan 7�` e � PROPOSED OVERALL EAST ELEVATION � � O �j 4�' v EXISTIN6 OURVED ENTRY BEYOND NORTH Mark Revision / Issue Date II - II — — EXISTIN6 EAST ELEVATION CURVED MALL 3 VIb' = I' -0' ENTRY BEYOND CORNER To"M - TENANT 1ENW -- - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- -.. ___ _. TENANT E'. FS DECORATIVE -- LIGHTS � PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING BROOKDALE CENTER T. �-_ _______ ___ __ �__-- _- _---- - -pl., ._ TO BE EXISTING SEARS BEYOND - I REDEVELOPMENT y�_ _____i ----------- -_ ------- ---- -- --- ------------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------`------------------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------- - - - - -- BROOKLYN CENTER, MN r ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- T L----------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING ATRIUM - i� __ - - -- -- -- -- -- i i TO BE REMOVED TIM] EXTERIOR 5 EXISTIN6 EAST ELEVATION CONTINUED 1,ib• - I-O• ELEVATIONS F, PIPPIN. METAL 51KILATED _ 9 SEARS BEY01a CORNICE STONE ' GLA55 EIFS D 0: -20 - "I \ y _ ILLUMINATED 5� PREFIN. METAL CANVAS ENTRANCE AN=. ALUM. BRIO" CMU BASE EIFS NL CANOPY Y #MINOS TO WARS STOREFRONT b PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION CONTINUED Inb• = r - O . Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 --------------- - -- ARCHITECTURAL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. - EIF5 PGPRATIVIE : ILUIMINATED PREFIK METAL -1614T 516NA6E CORt1IG1 901 North Third Street, Suite 220 612 - 436 4030 BACKLIT - - - - -- Minneapolis, MN 554D1 Fax 612- 692 -9960 - FROSTED TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT 6 -456 - ERIGK r CMl BASE CANVAS PREFIN. METAL ANO E AUNT. AWNIN65 GAMJP GAU DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Y STOR FRONT 51DE Key Plan o• I ., p _ o Q� DECORATIVE EIFS - ILLUMINATED L16HT SIGNAGE - PREFIN. METAL CORNICE( z/ TENANT _ TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT _ f TF71 I F- F A BRICK; ' PREFIN. METAL PAINTED HOLL OW GANVA5 CMU CANOPY METAL DOOR AWNINCf -.. NORTH 51 DE REAR Mark Revision / Issue Date � TYPICAL ELEVATIONS -PAD SUILDIN6 _ - -__ 5AC4QLI7 PRENN. METAL FROSTED 6LAS6 CORNICE - ILLlM11NATED .. -. � 51GNA6E EIFS TENANT` DECORATIVE ANOD. AWN. PREFIN, METAL BRICK -.- L16!? STOREFRONT GANOPf - FRONT SHINGLE CREEK C',ZNI PRENN. METAL CROSSING GGRNI - - ILLUMINATED 515NAef EIFS _ -- TENANT BROOKDALE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT I I - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - } } BROOKLYN CENTER, MN PAINTED HOLLON DEC.ORATNE \ - PREFIN. METAL E ICK CM/ R - -- FETAL DOOR. L16HT - CANOPY 51 DE EXTERIOR rROW PARA PET ELEVATIONS PARA PET BEYOND - EIFS ILLUMNATED 516NAM TENANT i LOADING DOCK CH1 '- BRICK SCREEN WALL REAR Q 2 TYPICAL ELEVATIONS -MAJOR ANCHOR A3 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 jt (It .Q� `f "7 � O QO • Y t �M I �.: �I 1 it 11 ^�. 3� ` "� { O # I mo w.. : L' w � `� ;�r y y it wm 1 J 00 0 — i.,._ ' : y - it / ♦ �b►I�if'�f>>� ►e� iii r� + • M �At n: s ? , • COUNTX ROAD Nom- PROPOSED PROPOSED MONUMEN�� ` • a PYLON SIGN _ F PROPOSED PYLOJ� PROPOSED MONUMENT I L SIGN SIG 3 1 PROPOSED MONUMENT ` SIGN 7,703d td d90st # + 'f ♦�,. ..; .. ,Y, ' �'. 1 ilil i1STING ♦ \ RIFFLE$RND WALL, , ? IMPR6'vEMENTSf" /__ {: •. 45.02W . PROPOSED SHINGLE + r"r.' �. • ,�\ CREEK REGIONALTRAI �' „- • AN IA a PROPOSED DAYLIGHTED s y 1 F; Age Z' SHINGLE C{�EEK $� 7= _ �' ' � - `� I � ♦�. • w PROPOSED F • ,' �';, / PROPOSED FREEWAYj MONUMENT -, - ti - a ?� PYLON SIGN �w SIGN ��yyr, ♦i 3 - EXISTING BUILDING: 7/ �_ - - -- /\! / � \\ TRAIL CONNECTION RETAIL - /l - TO EXISTING BRIDGE ` 1f Y SHOPS O f., F.'F j� Walmart *' { STORE 115625 -00 �- � \ y - C- 150- SGt -NO IJ E 152,036 S.F. ( APPROX.) mom � t l X - -` - , '7 � � r 'EXISTING SHINGLE CREEK BOX CULVERT 53,850sf .' r;' _ EXISTING ' ;I / ���y � SEARS (NOT IN CONTRACT) �\ t'. / P � SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PYLON SIGN MASTER PLAN 1 , v - �- FEBRUARY 2011 PROPOSED MO MIST y ------ - - `''�- \ 0 60 120 240 FT • 't v � \ ��ti r �y. � � �, t r y Kimley -Horn GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and Associates, Inc. 101 South Main Street - - Dickson, Tennessee 37055 Tel: 615 -446 -7104 - ..,, t #_ er" - Fax: 615-446 -7105 , r v, _s, STONE PYLONS FENCE PATIO -_ BLDG PROPOSED PYLON SIGN RIFFLES & WALL IMPROVEMENTS r , CREEK SECTION EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IL —MAIN CHANNEL 0 5 10 20 TRAIL SPECIAL PAVEMENT WITH BRIDGE ELEMENTS PROPOSED SHINGLE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL 0 5 10 20 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SHINGLE CREEK DAYLIGHT CONCEPT JANUARY 2011 ❑O❑ Kimley -Horn COMPANY and Associates, Inc. GATLIN DEVELOPMENT 101 South Main Street Dickson, Tennessee 37055 0 15 30 60 1el: 615- 446 -7104 Fax: 615446 -7105 — e T y— ---� 11. � — AAL- - T Am MEMO C D u� t SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A�1 S WALL RAILING S WALL a IMPROVEMENTS BOULDERS ON WEIR FOR RIFFLES AND AERATION r OVERLOOK WITH EDUCATIONAL AN D INTERPRETIVE SIGNA E BLDG. 1+ �x - ti d�'a'tY�r? 'k•' BRIDGE HEAD- WALL &RAILING 0 7.5 15 30 { r 4 • 5 };• SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WATER FEATURE CONCEPT FEBRUARY 2011 KimleyHorn and Associates. Inc. GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 101 South Main Street Dickson, Tennessee 37055 Tel: 615- 446 -7104 Fax: 615 -446 -7105 r 4^ � M -man SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING BRIDGE HEADWALL & RAILING ELEVATION Kimley -Horn FEBRUARY 2011 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and Associates, Inc. 101 South Main Street - Dickson, Tennessee 37055 - - Tcl:615- 446 -7104 Fax: 615-446 -7105 3' +/- WALL/�° ___III r,• e � - b o a b 5' +/- MODIFIED EXISTING WALL WITH e' +/- EXISTING WALL WITH —0 ARCHITECTURAL CLADDING ARCHITECTURAL CLADDING SHINGLE CREEK OVERLOOK WITH REGIONALTRAIL EDUCATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WATER FEATURE CONCEPT SECTION FEBRUARY 2011 C�I1 Kimley -Horn and Associates. Inc. GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 101 South Main Street Dickson, Tennessee 37055 TO: 615-446-7104 Fax: 615446 -7105 4 .r • - r f fi -�f {{•[P,. ,! Y ,. t ��j���. ; y � w. .K - wry". -.. r f • ; • • -!1� "Y �• •t �/ ' � • t ♦' � �� � C• ,. ,.. ` F s :r' - " :+,, . -.. ,,` ! - tip' '', -4 I -• ` - • � "Y � ref j , �• ".' Ali .,'s A�; `w may '• � -� ` ['• ;� ,t� .. 1� r��a, rk, r�, 1• SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN PROGRAM A. INTRODUCTION B. GENERAL LANDLORD /TENANT REQUIREMENTS: The intent of this sign criteria is to provide the guidelines necessary to 1. Each Tenant shall submit to landlord for written approval, three (3) copies of the achieve a visually coordinated, balanced and appealing sign detailed shop drawings of the proposed sign, indicating conformance with the sign environment, harmonious with the architecture of the project, while criteria herein outlined. maintaining provisions for individual graphic expression. 2. The landlord shall determine and approve the availability and position of a Tenant name on any ground sign(s). Submittal drawing(s) to indicate accurately scaled signage on the elevation shall be required. 3. The Tenant shall pay for all signs, related materials and installation fees including final inspection costs. Performance of this sign criteria shall be rigorously enforced and any nonconforming sign shall be removed by the tenant or his sign 4. The Tenant shall obtain all necessary permits. contractor at their expense, upon demand by the landlord. 5. The Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all requirements of this sign Exceptions to these standards shall not be permitted without approval criteria. from the landlord and will require approval of a modification to the sign r- ,+ ++,,, -f +ho l"onnmVc, o;nn nmmmon„ +„ „orifi, nil n„nrll 6+ nnri V. IL 10 ll IG Ili 0PU1101U1111y VI L11% 1 lil ICAI It 0 Jll l 1 %1V111t. CAI ly lV '—'"Y un vv1 Iuawt awe / program application by the City. transformer locations and service access prior to fabrication. Accordingly, the landlord will retain full rights of approval for any sign 7. Should a sign be removed, it is the Tenant's responsibility to patch all holes, used in the center. paint surface to match the existing color, and restore surface to original condition. No sign shall be installed without the written landlord approval and the required City permits. PROJECT NUMBER'. 1D- 1014 -0'I ISSUED ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN CRITERIA DRAWN BATE 11 DRAWN BYB. ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. °RE °KEOBY xA 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATLINDBROPMEI\'TCOMPA TY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. SC -1 •1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN PROGRAM C. GENERAL SIGN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT: 1. All signs and their installation shall comply with all local building and electrical codes. 9. All lighting must match the exact specification of the approved working drawings. NO EXPOSED CONDUITS OR RACE WAYS WILL BE ALLOWED. 2. All electrical signs will be fabricated by a U.L. approved sign company, according to U.L. specifications and bear U.L. Label. 10. Signs must be made of durable rust - inhibited materials that are appropriate and complimentary to the building. 3. Sign company to be fully licensed with the City and State and shall provide proof of 11. Color coatings shall exactly match the colors specified on the approved plans. full Workman's Compensation and general liability insurance. 12. Joining of materials le.g., seams] shall be finished in such a way as to be 4. All penetrations of building exterior surfaces are to be sealed, waterproof, and in color unnoticeable. Visible welds shall be continuous and ground smooth. Rivets,screws, & finish to match existing exterior. and other fasteners that extend to visible surfaces shall be flush, filled, and finished so as to be unnoticeable. 5. Internal illumination to be 30 milliamp neon, fluorescent tube or LED for storefront elevations and #3500 white neon or LED halo for freeway elevations. Installed and 13. Finished surfaces of metal sholl be free from canning and warping. All sign labeled in accordance with the "National Board of Fire Underwriters Specifications ". finishes shall be free from dust, orange peel, drips, and runs and shall have auniform surface conforming to the highest standards of the industry. 6_ Painted ciirfareg mint have an aC.rvlir nnivl,irethsnP finish or baked -on finish. 14. In no case shall any manufacturer's label be visible from the street from normal 7. Logo and letter heights shall be as specified and shall be determined by measuring viewing angles. the normal capital letter of a type font exclusive of swashes,ascenders and descenders. 15. Exposed raceways and conduit are not permitted unless they are incorporated See diagram on following page. into the overall sign design. 8. All sign fabrication work shall be of excellent quality. All logo images and type - styles 16. Exposed junction boxes, lamps, tubing or neon crossovers of any type are not shall be accurately reproduced. permitted. PROJECT NUMBER: 1 G- 1019 -01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN CRITERIA I DRAWN BY SSUED DA DRAWN ES E 11 -10 � . CONSORTIUM L. L .C. L CHECKED BY KA 901 North 3rd Street 6121336 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE : N.T.S. SC-1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612- 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN PROGRAM D. SHOP TENANTS SIGNAGE SPECIFICATIONS: The intent of this criteria is to encourage creativity to ensure the individuality of In order to allow creativity and artistic designs, ascending and descending each tenant sign as opposed to similar sign design, construction, and colors shapes will be allowed to extend up to 25% beyond the envelope limits provided repeated throughout the project. Signs must be architecturally compatible with that the overall allocated square footage is not exceeded. In other words, these the entire center. areas have to be calculated individually. The following types of construction will be allowed: Ascender Acrylic face channel letters Through face and halo channel letters r —� Reverse pan channel letters T- e- - - - - - -- Skeleton neon behind flat cut out shapes and letters. � Open pan channel letters (Only in an artistic letter style / font) Push thru letters and logos in aluminum cabinets Flat cut out dimensional shapes and accents Descender Metal screen mesh accents Exposed skeleton neon accents Ascender: (The part of the lowercase letters, such as b, d, and h. that extends above the other lowercase letters). The idea of using dissimilar materials and creating signs with ' varying colors, layers and textures will create an exciting and Descender: (The part of the lowercase letters, such as g, p, and q, that extends appealing retail environment. below the other lowercase letters). PROJECT NUMBER. 10- 1019 -01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN CRITERIA ISSUED DATE 11-04 CONSORTIUM L.L.C. Q) DRAWN BY ES CHECKED BY KA 901 North 3rd Street 612 -436 -4030 GATUN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. SC -1.3 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN PROGRAM E. PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. Signs constituting a Traffic Hazard 8. Light Bulb Strings: No person shall install or maintain, or cause to be installed or maintained, any sign External displays, other than temporary decorative holiday lighting which which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal, consists of unshielded light bulbs are prohibited. An exception hereto may be granted or which makes use of the words "STOP ", "LOOK ", "DANGER" or any words, upon review and at the sole discretion of the Landlord. phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. 9. Banners, Pennants &Balloons Used for Advertising Purposes: Temporary flags, banners, or pennants, or a combination of same constituting an architectural feature which is an integra! part of the design character of a praiect may 2. Signs in Proximity to Utility lines: be permitted subject to Municipal Code requirements, landlord's, and City approval. Signs which have less horizontal or vertical clearance from authorized communication or energized electrical power lines that are prescribed by the IO.Biliboard Signs are not permitted. applciable laws and or code are prohibited. 11. The use of permanent "sale" sign is prohibited. The temporary use of these signs are limited to a thirty -day period and is restricted to signs affixed to the interior 01 3. Painted letters will not be permitted. windows which do not occupy more that 20% of the window area. Each business is permitted a total of not more than ninety (90) days of temporary window sale signs per 4. Wall signs may not proiect above the top of a parapet, the roof line at the wall, or calendar year. rnnf lino. 12. No cabinet construction only allowed. 5. There shall be no signs that are flashing, moving or audible. F. ABANDONMENT OF SIGNS: 6. No sign shall project above or below the sign -able area. The sign -able area is delined in the attached Exhibit for major and shop tenants. Any tenant sign left after thirty (30) days fram vacating premises shall become the property of Landlord. 7. vehicle Signs: G. INSPECTION: Signs on or affixed to trucks, automobiles, trailers, or other vehicles which are used to advertise, identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful Landlord reserves the right to hire an independent electrical engineer at the Tenant's activity are prohibited. sole expense to inspect the installation of all Tenant's signs. ARCHITECTURAL DFL TNUMBER t01019-01 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN CRITERIA AWN ISSUED DATE 11 -04 -10 OH BY'. ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. CHECKEDBY KA 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATUN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. SC-1 .4 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN PROGRAM a E7 uR Ns S JYTURNS J- 1•SrS' PEG OFFWAEL SECTION A f INSIATt WITH 3r1DSCREWS INSTALL l�a 3 - 19'SOREWS „ft� NEW SINGLE FACED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED LEXAN FACED CHANNEL LETTER DISPLAY aulMIN �!AN ND INTO EXPANSION SHIEEDS;EACH LITTER) Ux{NtI INTO dNtRS ALIIMINUM CHANNEL �r o--1lSX SIN70 fX P►NSION SHtfIDS 118X7 PA NSION SHIELDS USE STANDARD ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION WITH MATHEWS (OR EQUIVALENT) SEMI GLOSS i RI M -CAP — A.LUMINU RI RACf Wa`( — ALt1Mt4ON. 4ACF WAY ACRYLIC POLYURETHANE FINISH, FACES USE TRANSLUCENT LEXAN WITH 3/4" TRIM CAP. STA NDARD Gl 6TO- 15MIZE 1310 -Ts WIRI I — A55 STAND ,,r-- LExAN BP.LkUP - ILLUMINATE WITH 30 ma NEON OR LED LAMPING WHERE APPROPRIATE, PAINT RETURNS ACRYLL^_FACE TRANSf DIS{ ON NECi CI S YT11C H C LFRAN6ACKS TRANSFORMER NEON TURF DISC CI REN L' ECi STi7CH NEON TUBE CONDUIT W!GTOINSIDE ELEC7ROBI75 Pl EEPIi01 #S P - HOUSING WEEPHOLES ' I 3P4•CDNDU1I7HRUL°.AIL SECTION B FACIA FACIA NEW SINGLE FACED ILLUMINATED WALL DISPLAY USE FLAT CUT OUT 0.090 ALUMINUM SECTIDND SEC OR — SIGN 10 1 E UL E P C AND BEAR to IABE1 GRAPHICS WITH NEON OR LED AS APPROPRIATE BEHIND, PAINT ALUMINUM MATTHEWS ( TO BE UL APPROVED AND BEAR U1 UBFL REVERSE PAN CHANNELS EQUIVALENT) SEMI GLOSS ACRYLIC POLYURETHANE,USE NEON WITH PK TYPE HOUSINGS. L EXAN f*CED CHANNEL LETTERS THROUGH FACE AND HALO ILLUM1NA110N PK HIGUSINGS 1 RETURNS SECTION C r — LAGS1 EXPANSION SHIELDS / 13/8 PEG OTF - METALRACEWAY INSTALL VJFTH3- UB'X 3- 1 NEW SINGLE FACED INTERNALLY ILIUMINATED LEXAN FACED CHANNEL LETTER DISPLAY WITH 070.15WIRE INTO EXPANSION SHIELONFACH LETTER) THROUGH FACE AND HALO ILLUMINATION. USE STANDARD ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION WITH STOIJDARDGLASSSTAND TRANSFORMER ALUMI1,jl1MCHANNEL 1 /EX7"LA05 INTO EXPANSION SHIELDS ELATCOTOUT – UISCONNECTSWITCH tOWDUrT W +GTOR45t!)E ALUMINUM AA CEWAT MATTHEWS (OR EQUIVALENT) SEMI GLOSS ACRYLIC POLYURETHANE FINISH, FACES USE AtLIMINUM,OVER;ATS 1EXA LIP GTO•)SWIRE LEXAN WITH 3/4" TRIM CAP, ILLUMINATE WITH 30 ma NEON OR LED WHERE APPROPRIATE IlEOHTUBE )l2" � IEARPLEXPUSHHROUGH-- P -K HOUSING CIiAR LExAN BACKS 7RANSFORFAER THROUGH FACE AND HALO, PAINT RETURNS FASCIA _ ^SCREWS INIOPLASTICANCHORS NEONTUBE GlSCONNECTSL;ITCH - EIECTROBFT5 _ SECTIGNE _ _ WEEP HOLES- ti 371 "CO NpUH THRU WALL SECTION D SIGN TO BE UL APPROVED AND BEAR LIL LA6FL FACIA ExPOSED NEON VOTH ALUMINUM FACE OVERLAYS 5ECTton E NEW SINGLE FACED INTERNALLY ILLUMINAItD ALUMINUM FACED CHANNEL LETTER DISPLAY SIGN TO BE UL APPROVED AND BEAR V! LABEL WITH THROUGH FACE AND HALO ILLUMINATION. USE STANDARD ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION 4" RETURNS REVERSE PAN CHANNEL5 WITH MATTHEWS (OR EQUIVALENT) SEMi GLOSS ACRYLIC POLYURETHANE FINISH. ROUTE OUT THROUGH FACE ANO HALO ILLIUM INATION i -3r8' PEG OFF WAIL PUSH THROUGH GRAPHICS WHERE GRAPHICS OCCUR AND BACK UP WITH LEXAN, ILLUMINATE WITH 30 ma NEON OR LED 1NSTALLWTH 3118' X3-V2' SCREWS WHERE APPROPRIATE THROUGH FACE AND HALO. PAINT ALUMINUM FACE AND RETURNS. INTO PLASTIC ANOr+oas ANCHOR RA ! H ALUMINUM ALUMINUM M CHAN NTI � 76 X 2' 1AG51NT0 EXPANSION SHIEt DS � IS SUBMiTTEDTEO TO TO JIJkISDIC RI5DIC710 1 TVIM CAP / - ALLIMINlIM RACIWAY PAINTED.071 AtOM. FCR APPROYA: SECTION E wo.15�YIRE SIGN RETURN FLUORESCENT I LEXANfACES TRANSFORMER ONALUM WIIRNGTRACKIAL[ ED _ C.EARLEXAMBACKS ACRYLIC SIGN FACE - FN { LOSE D eYlelnr,? SAME AS "D " EXCEF 1 ROU I C OU I VVHERE GRAPHICS OCCUR AND " 06CON14FCTSWITCH NEONTUBE ELFCTROilITg FlU0RE5CENTlIGHTBALLA53 ( fIEXCONT?UITSUPPLHD PUSH THROUGH 1/2" CLEAR PLEX WITH APPLIED VINYL OVERLAYS. FURNISHEDBYSIGNSHOP. { INLE7TER, STU68fDTHROU6H WEIPHOLES 3f4• CONDUIT THRU WALL 1 aNOCAVLKED BYSIGNLNSTpLLER FACIA _--- s.�— PAi EXTRUS ION Fr NRETURN RN EXTRUSION �•X4•;UNC71ON60xSURPLIID SECTION F SECTI SEAIANTAL151DES _HDINSTALIED6YGC'SELECTRCIAN. SECTION f NEW SINGLE FACED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ACRYLIC FACED CHANNEL LITTER DISPLAY Srf4 To GE u{ APPROVED AND AFAR u; LAM UxAN FACED CMANNEL LETTERS - aASCIA SIGN TO BE UL APPROVED dND BEAR UI LAW USE STANDARD ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION WITH MATTHEWS (OR EQUIVALENT) SEMI GLOSS rfFROUC+FaCE AND H ALO / ACRYLIC FACED CHANNELS ACRYLIC POLYURETHANE FINISH OR BAKED-ON RNISH, FACES USE TRANSLUCENT ACRYLIC FORMED LED E IMINA A £OeED OVERSIZEDNOIi FILLED WITH 3/4" TRIM CAP, ILLUMINATE WITH CWHO FLUORESCENT TUBES OR LED, PAINT RETURNS GRAPHICS T IV/ SILICONE ADHESIVE SECTION G TY P.3/16 THREADED STUD NEW SINGLE FACED NON - ILLUMINATED WALL DISPLAY USE PLASTIC FORMED GRAPHICS, FLUSH MOUNTED sEtTION� SIGN 10 BE UL APPROVED ANO BEAR UL tdBEt NON -ELL LIMINATE D PLASTIC FORMED GRAPHICS PROJECT NUMBER: 10.1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SIGN CRITERIA I DROWN BV: ES SSUED DATE ES CHECKED CONSORTIUM L. L CHECKEDBY KA 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. SC-1.5 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 TENAN TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT _ TENANT TENANT - - TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT . � TENANT TENANT �_ - - - -- -__- �LZ�Z - - ._ - - - - TENANT V" (Z, / NORTH TENANT . - TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT r� TENANT 1 .x TENANT v TENANT r �, - ' C �-F` !. �• SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING t TENANT TENANT TENANT Y TENANT TENANT TENANT - TENANT = TENANT TENANT PRDJECT NUMBER: 10- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL ., //� J SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SITE SIGNAGE EXHIBIT I DRAWN BV: ES SSUED DATE: ES U-10 II � CONSORTIUM L.L.C. I1 CHECKED BV: KA 901 North 3rd Street 612 -436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. S E 1 . Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 -692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 10' -0'1 INTERIOR ILLUMINATED 516N PANEL - 13' -0" TENANT TWO -51 DED - ❑ 15 SF 516N AREA 1- O SHINGLE TCREEK CROSSING TENANT PAD TENANT MONUMENT SIGN NOTE: CORPORATE BLUE PREFIN. LOCO / 6RAPHI05 TENANT MET FIN ALLOWED UPON REVIEW AND o TENANT APPROVAL FROM - INTERIOR ILLUMINATED LANDLORD o " TENANT SIGN PANELS - 10 -0 ' TW0-51DED - TENANT 512 SF SIGN AREA TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT INTERIOR ILLUMINATED _ SIGN PANELS - O O O TENANT TWO -SIDED - " �t TENANT 140 5F SIGN AREA TENANT TENANT , ' d) TENANT i- - O �t 1 151-011 MAJOR FREEWAY MAJOR PYLON 516N PYLON SIGN PROJECT NUMBER: 10- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SITE SIGNAGE EXHIBIT ISSUED DATE 11-09 -10 DRAWN BV: ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. Q ) CHECKED BV: KA 901 North 3rd Street 612 -436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" S E 1 .2 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 -692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 TENANT SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING TENANT PAD TENANT MONUMENT 51GN TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT TENANT kMAKIT TENANT a II TENANT TENANT TEN `° MAJOR FREEWAY MAJOR PYLON SIGN PYLON 516N PROJECT NUM 10- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SITE SIGNAGE ISSUED DA - ES DRANM BY: ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. Q) RENDERING CHECKED BY KA _ 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. S E 1 . 3 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612- 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 MAXIMUM 90% SIZE: 1.5 SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA PER LINEAR FOOT OF LEASED U) OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH PREMISES, MAXIMUM OF 750 SQUARE FEET TOTAL PER ELEVATION. Z w W (D X J - - - - - - - - - - MATERIALS: VARIETY OF TYPES PER SIGN CRITERIA, SINGLE TYPE OF C - Q r CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED _ - W O W I I ILLUMINATION: YES LL Q 00 W I O LL. j]f L_ COPY: TENANT NAME AND OR LOGO OU ---- - - - - -- - - ---- - - - - -J O HEIGHT: SEVENTY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE ti ANCHOR TENANTS (OVER 90,000 SQUARE FEET) MAXIMIUM 90% LENGTH: NINETY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE .-, OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH TYPEFACE: CUSTOM LOGO AND TYPE OK 7 LLJ W J X COLOR: CUSTOM COLORS OK UQ W Q _ r - - - - - - - - - - � _ I SECONDARY SIGNS: YES (NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF TOTAL <(.) O I S E C O NDARY ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA) ONLY MAJOR SERVICES / DEPARTMENTS LL a CV W I I ALLOWED. NO ADVERTISING OR SLOGANS L_� OL= L-------------------- - - - - -J U TYPE AND LOCATION: AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED ELEVATIONS � � 2 ANCHOR TENANT SIGN EXAMPLE 71� �-- SECONDARY SIGN EXAMPLE M CCIT O 00 00 777 PROJECT NUMBER. 70- 10t9-0t ARCHITECTURAL �• /� /J /�/ /j SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING ANCHOR TENANT ISSUED DATE 17-04 -70 I/ �/ DRAWN BY: ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. I1 BUILDING SIGNAGE CHECKED BY ,A 901 North 3rd Street 612 - 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY S E2 . 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 -692 -9960 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 Sign Qty Color Height Illumination Sq.Ft Total Sq.Ft A. Walmart 2 White/Yellow 5' - 6 " Internal 298.00 596.00 B. Market & Pharmacy 1 White 2' -0" N/A 65.65 65.65 C. Home & Living 1 White 2' -0" N/A 46.47 46.47 D. Outdoor Living 1 White 2' - 0" NIA 49.43 49.43 E. Pharmacy Drive -Thru 1 White 1' -6" N/A 39.88 39.88 F. Enter 1 White 1' -0" N/A 3.23 3.23 G. l Exit 1 White 1' - 0" N/A 2.34 2.34 Total Building Signage: 803.00 SIGN A �o 0 n M n 0 II SIGN D SIGN C SIGN A SIGN B SIGN E 0 T EA �� - SIGN F/G PROJECT NUMBER: 10- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING ANCHOR TENANT ISSUED DATE 11-04 -70 DFLAWN SO RTI U M L.L.C. CHECKS V ES CON BUILDING SIGNAGE CHECKED BY KA 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: N.T.S. SE2.2 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 MAXIMUM 70% SIZE: 1.5 SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA PER LINEAR FOOT OF U) OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH LEASED PREMISES, MAXIMUM OF 350 SQUARE FEET TOTAL Z ~ W PER ELEVATION. QQ W Q (n �' MATERIALS: VARIETY OF TYPES PER SIGN CRITERIA, SINGLE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED Q W ° MAJOR � -ffk" A 'Lff � j T Q W y ILLUMINATION: YES O LL W L U J COPY: TENANT NAME AND OR LOGO c MAJOR TENANTS (OVER 10,000 - 89,999 SQUARE FEET) HEIGHT: SEVENTY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE MAXIMIUM 70% LENGTH: SEVENTY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH = J U T YPEFACE: CUSTOM LOGO AND TYPE OK W X Q W Q - - COLOR: CUSTOM COLORS OK 0 U -I S E N DAR Y SECONDARY SIGNS: YES (NOT TO EXCEED 25 °/D OF TOTAL W Q W I ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA) SOU o C/) _ r` � MAJOR TENANT �- SECONDARY SIGN SIGN EXAMPLE I EXAMPLE I ___ ___ __ L__ r - - - --NA T � I I ___ ____ ____� -I L__ -__ _ ___ ____ TYPICAL MAJOR TENANT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" PROJECT NUMBER: 10.1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING MAJOR TENANT ISSUED DATE 11A4 -10 DRAWN BY: KA CONSORTIUM L.L.C. BUILDING SIGNAGE CHECKED BY 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER MN SCALE: AS NOTED S E3. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 , Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 MAXIMUM 70% OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH SIZE: Z ~ W FRONT ELEVATION: 1.5 SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA PER = LINEAR FOOT OF LEASED PREMISES, W - x J F MAXIMUM OF 150 SQUARE FEET TOTAL. Q W a IL N Q W O W REAR ELEVATION: 75% OF ALLOWABLE FRONT ELEVATION -I Q W SIGNAGE. O LL Cr L- - - - - - - - - - - - c ? � U MATERIALS: VARIETY OF TYPES PER SIGN CRITERIA U SHOP TENANTS (UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET) ILLUMINATION: YES * NOTE: ONE SIGN PER TENANT PER ELEVATION COPY: TENANT NAME AND OR LOGO HEIGHT: SIXTYFIVE PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH: SEVENTY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE TYPEFACE: CUSTOM LOGO AND TYPE OK COLOR: CUSTOM COLORS OK SECONDARY SIGNS: NO - - - -, - -- - -- �_TENANT ------ ' ------ L ---- ------- J L ------- L_-_-.- I FEE FF5;1 = TYPICAL SHOP TENANT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" PROJECT NUMBER: t0- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SHOP TENANT ISSUED DATE DRAWN BV: ES ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. Q ) BUILDING SIGNAGE CHECKED BY: KA 901 North 3rd Street 612- 436 -4030 CATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE: AS NOTED S E4. 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 -692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 MAXIMUM 70% Cf) OF ADJACENT SURFACE LENGTH SIZE: 1.5 SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA PER LINEAR FOOT OF Z F- W LEASED PREMISES, MAXIMUM OF 250 SQUARE FEET TOTAL (� (D X J r _ _ _ _ PER ELEVATION. Q = MATERIALS: VARIETY OF TYPES PER SIGN CRITERIA, SINGLE 0 W O W TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED. < > PAD TENANT I LL < W ILLUMINATION: YES o w0U _ -- LID Z = COPY: TENANT NAME AND OR LOGO * NOTE: TYP. ONE SIGN MAX. PER ELEVATION FOR SINGLE USER. HEIGHT: SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE OTHERS UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY LANDLORD LENGTH: SEVENTY PERCENT OF ADJACENT SURFACE TYPEFACE: CUSTOM LOGO AND TYPE OK COLOR: CUSTOM COLORS OK SECONDARY SIGNS: NO TYPICAL SIGN TYPICAL SIGN EXAMPLE EXAMPLE -- TENANT - - -- ------------ - -.J 2L L 21 PROJECT NUMBER: 10- 1019-01 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PAD TENANT ISSUED DATE ES W-10 KA : ES CONSORTIUM L.L.C. BUILDING SIGNAGE CHECKEDBY 901 North 3rd Street 612 - 436 -4030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SCALE - . AS NOTED S E5. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612 - 692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 8. Conceptual Planning h h h h 1. Redevelopment of 8+ acres o Former Racquet Club Site A B C D E F G EDA's 8.6 Acres, and excess MNDot R.O.W. Centro's 23.2 Acres Twin Lake Trail Goldmark's 8 Acres opportunities PALMER LAKE PARK Opportunity Site Update =t 2. Real Estate Recycling 9. Marketing of Phase 11 60,000 sq.ft multi-tenant EDA Site - Link to EBHC, Pond, Fountain office/warehouse building 0 0 00 2 3. 57th Avenue and Logan 10. FBI Development and - Northern .6 acres EDA marketing of Completion of remaining 5 acres MPCA vapor remediation - Southern 8 acres 3 CENTRAL Marketing for PARK EDA redevelopernent EM 1 1.Humboldt Ave Corridor Enhancement opportunities 4. Twin Lakes Trail Tart LOCAL ST extension to Mississippi INDEX TREE 4 12. Phase III Luther T-A =_ P Z Regional Park Auto, Honda, Toyota 5. Brookdale Redevelopment BROOKDALE Shingle Creek Crossing - MALL 13.Boulevard Market Town Center 5 ly V vz 6,700 sq ft Commercial Building =E 6. EDA's redevelopment of 1.06 Acres -1­TD 3 6 Former Boulevard 14.Northwest Family Service Bar and Grill site Community Development Center - 63,000 sq ft Office, Projects Ramp, and Intersection Improvements J C of it 't 7. Shingle Creek Enhancements 7 TBROOKLYN Trail and Daylighting CENTER 15.Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study / Reimaging Office of the City Manager City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: City Advisory Commission Chairs and Charter Commission Chair FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana* DATE: March 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with City Council At its February 14, 2011, meeting the City Council scheduled an informal reception and joint meeting with all City advisory commission members and the Charter Commission. The meeting will be held as follows: Wednesday,April 6,2011 6:00— 8:00 p.m. Constitution Hall Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creels Parkway Refreshments will be served Each commission will be provided ten minutes to briefly review activities of the past year. In addition the City Council is very interested in having the advisory commissions assist in achieving the Strategic Goals of the City. Your staff liaison will provide a copy of the updated strategic goals following the Council retreat on March 5th. As you look through the plan, I am certain you will find many important goals and needs where the talent and knowledge of your commission can be invaluable to the achievement of these important goals for our community. The Council and staff greatly appreciate your service and look forward to your continued contribution to the City. cc: Staff and Council Liaison 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone&TDD Number Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 (763)569-3400 City Hall&TDD Number(763)569-3300 FAX(763)569-3434 FAX(763)569-3494 www.cityo fbrooklyncenter.org Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 Our Mission To ensure an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Our Values Excellence and quality service delivery We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. Ethics and integrity We believe that ethics and integrity are foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all meaningful relationships are built on these values. Visionary Leadership and Planning We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future Fiscal Responsibility We believe that fiscal responsibility and prudent stewardship of public funds is essential for citizen confidence in government. Cooperation and Teamwork We believe that the public is best served when departments and employees work cooperatively as a team rather than at cross purposes. Open and Honest Communication We believe that open and honest communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry and to foster a positive working environment for employees Professionalism We believe that a commitment to ethical values and continuous improvement is the mark of professionalism. We are committed to applying this principle to the services we offer and to the development of our employees. 1 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 Strategic Goals 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community 2. We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans 3. We will stabilize and Improve residential neighborhoods 4. We will positively address the community demographic makeup and increasing cultural diversity 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements 6. We will respond to increased public awareness and interest in environmental sustainability and green community issues Ongoing Goals 1. We will continue to provide streamlined, cost effective quality services with limited resources 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City 3. We will move toward maintaining or lowering the level of the City's property taxes 4. We will ensure the city's influence at the legislature 5. We will Improve the image of the City with citizens and those outside of the City's borders 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high ug ality and that the storm water is properly managed strategic plan 2011 draftl.docx 2