HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 09-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - August 14, 2003
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. 1501 Freeway, LLC 2003 -017
Request for Rezoning and Development Plan approval through the Planned Unit
• Development (PUD) process to convert the existing Best Western Hotel at 1501 Freeway
Boulevard into a senior condominium complex.
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
Application Filed on 8 -14 -03
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 10 -13 -03 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2003 -017
Applicant: 1501 Freeway, LLC
Location: 1501 Freeway Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Development Plan A UD /C -2
q Approval - P
The applicant, Daniel S. Schleck, an attorney representing 1501 Freeway, LLC, is seeking
rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and
development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process to convert the
existing 227 unit Best Western Hotel located at 1501 Freeway Boulevard into an 80 to 110 unit
upscale senior condominium development. The property in question is zoned C -2 and is located
at the southwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue North It is bounded on the
north by Freeway Boulevard with I -1, R -5 and C -2 zoned property containing an industrial
building, a portion of The Pines apartment complex and a gasoline service station/convenience
store /car wash on the opposite side of the street; on the east by Humboldt Avenue and the
Humboldt Avenue overpass with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; on the
south by C -2 zoned property containing the Cracker Barrel Restaurant; and on the west by the
east leg of James Circle with C -2 zoned property containing the Comfort Inn and an Asian Food
Market on the opposite side of the street.
The applicant's plan is to convert what they have described as "an economically challenged hotel
facility" and replace it with an upscale, revitalized senior market rate housing alternative. They
also offer to provide residents of Brooklyn Center access to the community spaces within the
hotel for use as a senior center or for other activities without any cost to the city.
The applicant is seeking the PUD /C -2 rezoning to accommodate the above proposed conversion
even though the multi - residential use of the pioperty is not an acknowledged use in the underlying
C -2 zone. The PUD designation, which allows flexibility in land development and redevelopment,
can authorize regulations governing uses and structures to be modified expressly by conditions
imposed by the City Council at the time of the rezoning. Allowing conversion of the hotel to a
market rate senior condominium multi - residential use of the property while retaining the C -2
(Commerce) underlying zoning designation is appropriate because it allows the zoning designation
to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which acknowledges a general commerce
zoning designation for this area. Generally, the C -2 district requirements will be applied to the
conversion proposal for the market rate senior condominium. Any other multi - residential use of
the property is not considered acceptable and if the market rate senior condominium use is
abandoned, only a use consistent with C -2 zoning will be allowed. Other factors that need to be
determined are the allowable density for the proposal and possibly some modifications to site plan
requirements.
9 -11 -03
Page 1
w�
As the Planning Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the
rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha - numeric designation of the
underlying zoning district. This underlying district provides the regulations governing uses and
structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district
(in this case C -2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD
district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and
redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by
conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned, in
this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to the district requirements to allow a multi-
family residential use, for a market rate senior condominium and possibly some other site
modifications depending upon the final agreed upon conversion plan.
Their proposal for offsetting these modifications is to provide a use of the property that is
perceived to be needed in the community. They believe the changes and modifications to the site
will be an asset to the community and compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached).
RF.ZONTNC`T
The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures
outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. The Policy and
Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has submitted a
written narrative (attached) describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines.
As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The
policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and must not constitute "spot zoning ", which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted
planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured
against the city's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for
rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning
ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal.
a. Is there a clear public need or benefit?
The applicant contends that their proposal will meet a public need and provide a
significant public benefit associated with the conversion of what they describe "an
economically challenged hotel facility" and replace it with an upscale revitalized senior
market rate housing alternative in the City of Brooklyn Center. They also note that
9 -11 -03
Page 2
1
they propose to make the community spaces within the complex available for public
utilization. The applicant also indicates that their development would be a compatible
and complimentary use within the constraints of the Planned Unit Development in the
C -2 zone. They indicate further their belief that there. is a need for this type of market
rate senior housing. The conversion allows the economically challenged hotel facility
to be put to a viable use.
The public benefit of this development can be considered the utilization of this
property in a manner consistent with the development criteria of the city. It is not
anticipated that this development will be a detriment to the community but, on the
other hand, be a positive factor for the community. It does seem to make good use of
a building that is being under utilized and can be considered compatible with
surrounding land uses.
b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use
classifications?
The applicant contends that the development is consistent with the surrounding area as
it is located directly adjacent to both a single family neighborhood on one side and
very close to a multi- family development on the other. They indicate that this
development would provide excellent transitional land use between the commercial
and residential parts of the city.
We would concur with the comments that are made with respect to this guideline.
We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that the proposal can be
considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. The
residential use of the facility does mix with the multi - residential to the north and the
single family residential areas separated from the site by Humboldt Avenue. The
Brooklyn Center Junior /Senior High School is on the opposite corner from this site.
The proposed multi- residential use of the property for a single condominium is
compatible with this use also. Th6 real question is the long range use of the property
as anything other than a senior condominium. The applicant has indicated throughout
his proposal that he believes this to be a viable use of the property. Staff would
comment that we do not see a general multiple residential use of the property as a
benefit to the community. It is for this reason that we have recommended that the
underlying zoning district remain C -2 and if the market rate senior condominium multi-
family use of the property ceases, that the reuse of the property be as General
Commerce. This is consistent with the long range Comprehensive Plan for this area.
9 -11 -03
Page 3
c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
The applicant makes no direct comment with respect to this guideline.
The staff comments are as indicated in Point B above. The long -range uses under the
C -2 underlying zoning district can be contemplated for development if there is a
change in the proposed land use. As indicated previously, only a market rate senior
condominium use of the property is considered acceptable.
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area
since the subject property was zoned?
The applicant comments that there have not been significant changes in the land use of
the property since it was originally zoned and notes that given the senior nature of the
development, utilization of the property for housing as a contemplated use would be
allowed if completed pursuant to a PUD. He also notes that the contemplated
development will bear completely the requirements of city ordinances with no request
for a variance.
The applicant's comments are correct. There have been no substantial physical or
zoning classification changes in the immediate area. The C -2 underlying zoning
designation with this proposed PUD is believed to be an appropriate zoning
designation for the land in question. The departure to allow a multi - residential use is
seen as a reasonable request with accompanying public benefits. To some extent the
transient lodging use of the motel could be considered consistent with multi- residential
use of the property, therefore, the proposed use is not a total departure from the use
already taking place on the site.
e. In the case of City initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose
evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because it is not a City initiated
rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
E Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for
the proposed zoning district?
The applicants have commented that they believe the contemplated redevelopment will
bear completely the requirements of city ordinances with no request for variances.
We believe the subject property under this proposal can bear fully the development
restrictions for this Planned Unit Development possibly with some minor needed
deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. As we will review further under
9 -11 -03
Page 4
the development plan aspect of this proposal, there are such things as the location of a
bank of garages along James Circle, which should be set back further than what is
contemplated. For the most part, with some additional modifications to the plans, it
can be determined that the property will meet the restrictions required.
g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present
zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
Although the applicant doesn't state this directly, they have indicated that the
continued use of the property as a motel is marginal at best. There are a number of
hotel rooms in this immediate area as well as along the 94/694 corridor. Significant
modification to this site would have to be undertaken to make this facility more
competitive. The owner of the property has indicated that a number of hotel in the
area welcome the conversion to a senior condominium as being proposed. This
lessens the number of units within this category of hotel in the area.
We would point out that we want to see viable uses of property within the city. To
see sights abandoned, under utilized or boarded up is not in the overall interest of the
city. It is difficult to say that the site is unsuitable for general commercial uses but the
proposal does seem to be a viable way of keeping the site usable. The applicant has
indicated that there is a need for the market rate senior rate condominium they are
proposing and their proposal does seem to be a viable way to reuse the buildings in
question. It, therefore, seems to be an appropriate redevelopment of this site.
h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1.
Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning
district, or, 3. The best interest of the community?
The applicant argues that the redevelopment in this case is warranted by the use
contemplated in the last Comprehensive Plan update, the lack of developable land in
this area and the needs of seniors in the community. Given this property's size and
configuration, the change asked for is necessary to meet these important community
needs.
The creation of this PUD zoning district in this area provides for the necessary
flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for this site. The proposed
redevelopment, in our opinion, does have positive factors and does not appear to be in
conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan if the C -2 underlying zoning district is
retained and future uses other than the senior condominium would be consistent with
the plan. The overall proposal seems to be in the best interest of the community.
9 -11 -03
Page 5
i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners
of an individual parcel?
The applicant indicates that the proposed development demonstrates an amenity and a
benefit beyond the mere development itself. He claims the plan will create a
destination within Brooklyn Center for all residents to be proud of and contribute to
the housing needs of seniors in this area.
The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property
owner and should lead to an upgrading on the site and the physical characteristics in
this area as well.
STTF. AND BUILDING PT.AN PROPC)SAT.
As mentioned previously, the applicant's plan is to convert the existing Best Western Hotel into
an upscale, revitalized senior market rate condominium. This will include adding new fixtures in
the bathrooms, new kitchens within the units, new amenities in the rooms including floor and wall
coverings, revamped heating and air conditioning and changes to the common elements to
accommodate the new use of the property. He indicates in his proposal that depending on the
demand for larger units, the intention would be to convert the 227 motel units into approximately
80 to 110 new residential units. The plan is for a new building exterior and various floor plans
have been shown allowing up to two and three bedroom units, again depending on the demand.
The facility has an indoor swimming pool, exercise rooms, potential meeting rooms as well as
kitchen and restaurant/bar facilities. These apparently will be amenities that can be offered or
converted into other amenities for the residents.
AC'C'F Q, S/P A R KTNGr/DF.NSTTV
Access to the site will be slightly modified by closing the most easterly access closest to the
intersection of Freeway Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue. Continuation of the B -612 curb and
gutter will be required in this area. The only `access to the site will be the westerly access leading
into the facility. Required parking for a multi - residential use is two spaces per dwelling unit and,
depending on the number of units, the required parking will be between 160 and 220 parking
spaces. The plan shows seven garage buildings being constructed on the site around the
perimeter. This would accommodate 78 parking spaces. One hundred sixty one surface, or non-
garage, parking spaces would be left on the site utilizing the existing parking at the hotel. Some
modifications and elimination of a few parking spaces would be done. The total parking would,
therefore, be 239 parking spaces including surface and garage spaces. We would like to see more
parking spaces eliminated as the need for this much parking is not anticipated. Also, the three
banks of garages adjacent to the east leg of James Circle do not meet the required building
setback from street right of way. The garage adjacent to Humboldt Avenue is also too close to
the property line. Setbacks for the property are 35 ft. for buildings from the Freeway Boulevard
right of way and side comer setbacks of 25 ft. from James Circle and Humboldt Avenue and a
rear yard setback of 5 $. for accessory buildings. Green strip requirements are 15 feet ft. from
9 -11 -03
Page 6
• parking and driving lanes adjacent to street right of way and 5 ft. along rear property lines. The
existing green strip along James Circle is only 5 ft. because of existing conditions when James
Circle was constructed a number of years ago. The three banks of garages should be relocated to
meet at least a 25 ft. building setback. A 5 ft. green strip in this area could be acceptable it as in
other cases, a decorative treatment or fence were provided. Generally the standard has been
masonry piers and a wrought iron decorative fencing such as in between the piers. Such a
treatment might be acceptable under the PUD with this type of treatment.
As mentioned previously, it is possible to eliminate a number of parking spaces and provide
additional landscape. This too is recommended. Modification of the garage along Humboldt
Avenue to meet building setback requirements should also be accomplished.
Density on the site must also be determined. The site is 6.78 acres in area or 295,709 sq. ft. If a
density of 2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit, which is the allowable density in an R -5 zone,
were allowed, 109.5 or 110 dwelling units would be allowed under that the density. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission consider as acceptable a density requirement of
2,700 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. This should accommodate the 80 to 110 anticipated units
requested by the developer.
CTR AT)TNC-r/DR ATNACTF./T TTTT .TTTF.S
No significant changes to grading, drainage or utilities are proposed and, therefore, no such plan
has been submitted. It should be noted that the easterly access from Freeway Boulevard will be
closed and a continuation of B -612 curb and gutter will be provided in this area. The Director of
Public Works/City Engineer is reviewing the plans and may make written comments with respect
to his observations. No Watershed Management Commission review is required for this proposed
conversion and alteration to the site.
LANDSC".APTNC'T
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by
the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. This 6.78 acre site requires a total of 538.5
landscape points not the 388.5 points indicated on the plan. Additional landscaping should be
provided, perhaps in the areas where parking can be eliminated.
The landscape plans acknowledges approximately 80 points in existing trees. They plan to
provide a total of 308.5 points with new landscaping including one Green Mountain Sugar Maple,
five Patmore Ash, nine Greenspire Linden, all shade trees. Fourteen Black Hills Spruce and three
Colorado Blue Spruce are proposed. Decorative trees include four Amur Maple, five Peegee
Hydrangea, six Prairiefire Crabapple, eight Spring Snow Crabapple, and 16 Ivory Silk Japanese
Tree Lilac. This accounts for 308.5 additional points. This added to the 80 existing points, brings
the total to 388.5 points. One hundred and fifty additional landscape points are required to be
consistent with the point system. It is recommended that the landscape plan be modified to
provide this additional landscaping.
• 9 -11 -03
Page 7
The applicant has submitted pictures of the existing Best Western Hotel depicting the building
materials and elevations. They have also provided a rendering with three options for the exterior
and proposed floor plans for the various units. The renderings show different architectural
features including balconies or decks on two of the options, a dormer type roof line, a mansurd
type roof line and a mansurd type treatment without decks as another option. The exterior
treatment and design should be decided upon and part of any PUD development plan approval.
LIGHTING AND TRASH
i
No lighting plan has been submitted, as the applicant proposes to make use of existing lighting
and to possibly intersperse some additional site lighting as needed. No trash disposal facilities are
shown on the site. Any outside trash disposal facilities should be appropriately screened from
view with a material compatible with the exterior treatment decided for the building.
PROC ED TRF.
This PUD /C -2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan
in hand. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally, rezonings have
been referred to Neighborhood Advisory Groups. In this case, the Planning Commission is the
Advisory Group for the Commercial/Industrial Park area. A public hearing has been scheduled
and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to neighboring
property owners. The Planning Commission following public hearing, should consider a draft
resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The
resolution is offered for the Planning Commission's consideration.
A point of concern, however, is the completeness of the development plans for the plan approval
portion of this PUD. As pointed out during the site and building plan review portion of this
report, we have made mention of garages that need to be relocated, additional landscaping that
should be provided to meet the landscape point system, a recommendation for eliminating
blacktop parking and adding landscaped areas, a need to finalize an acceptable exterior building
treatment and material matters that need to be addressed. The staff comments will be passed on
to the applicant recommending modifications to the plans. The Planning Commission must
determine if they believe the plans are sufficient enough to make a recommendation on the
development plan portion of the PUD or if the recommendation can contain a condition requiring
plan modifications before building permits are issued. Another possible way of dealing with this
PUD is to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development and conceptual approval of the
development plans, requiring a resubmittal of the developmental plans to the Planning
Commission and City Council before permits can be issued for the PUD development.
9 -11 -03 •
Page 8
n1a mm
rr a err rr rr ■�/ t� Mw
R1
■i,F2 =3020■
z Q� 1'l. �� �� r[?'_1 rte �� it• � ..
rti r� rF3 qtr
ww: rW9
Mm
MM
MIU =go
MIMI
ON
m1w ■ cur ii i �ii�iii�.�W /���/ MINI
Avon
a _
�- r t 11111 -t 1(I m- mm M
• 111111411111 ; , mm m MW �,•
• �1 rL� � >tr �f
=.,d ■� a■ 'lttlll ' w 1r~l rC� r� �� �tllia
'' ■r �■ �IIlllfti � t:i rCi �� �r
r r� r>k� its
< ri r
PLANNING C
4 APPLICATION NO 2003-017 ? „
HER
,
' � �r �LL1� PII� rE, >•E�
tfrr•� r�3 r>t-� >.ta rte
�, n r; \ 1♦ra rFn� �1 z 1♦tf r f�
>•m rlr MIMI
M41, Gu
,.F,• ' �� ��� 4 4Y,c ��" �� � brit - - - - _ '---- `--- � -
•!J .p i.D�C +l 1t r
. . a �>• �l>♦ •
?� rl•
mom
Um MILA
r r
ME U
M �� mwq
�N rte �f.4 rr
�C! sEc3 r�
. , M�
A
MM
s�
RZ
Y
e
s
x
a r
'j
Aw
�r i7w s
If I
TT
71 TIR
ci s
c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same
property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or
industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following:
1. Off -street parking.
2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields.
3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
Section-35-355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. is to promote flexibility in land .
developmentand 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. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying
zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD-
MIXED."
b. Regulations governing uses an& structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the
underlying zoning district subject to the following:
I. Regulations maybe 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.
3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD- MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations
applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district.
35-45
c. 'For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent
to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the
underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning
classification of the district. In the case of -a district zoned PUD - MIXED, the underlying
zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use
any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive
regulation of adjacent or nearby properties.
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:
1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood
such that development as a PUD will conserve ' a physical or terrain feature of
importance to the neighborhood or community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which
previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function
as an extension of that previously approved development, or .
3. The proper, ty is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the
development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section
35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these
standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards.
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.
r �
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 by the
City.
35-46
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
1!
+ ^ + l1
a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot
within a PUD.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted
provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section.
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
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.
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;
3. A grading plan;
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;
Il k
35-47
4�. 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.
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 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 35 -2'10 of this ordinance.
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. 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:
I. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section;
2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and
4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities,
public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping.
The 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.
*.,'.,
35-48
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.
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development
agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by
Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required,for both simultaneously.
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.
L 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
shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision
Sd 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.
35 -49
City of Brooklyn Center
Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1 Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes
to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City
Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Police
It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning ", deemed as a
zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the
Comprehensive Plan or -to accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure ,
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and
against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surroundin g land use
classifications?
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the
subject property?
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the
subject property was zoned?
E. In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed
zoning districts?
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses`p&mitted'in the present zoning district, with .
respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive
planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3) The best
interests of the community?
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an
individual parcel? •
Section 35 -208
Revised 3 -01
WINTHROP WEINSTINE
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
August 14, 2003 Daniel S. Schleck
(612) 604 -6617
dschleck@winthrop.com
Ronald A. Warren
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
RE: PUD Application for 1501 Freeway Boulevard
Dear Mr. Warren:
1501 Freeway, LLC would like to make the attached application to the City of Brooklyn
Center for a PUD rezoning determination necessary for the redevelopment of the Best Western
Hotel site located at 1501 Freeway Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. To this end, enclosed please
find a fully executed application with the application fee of $1,200.00; four copies of proposed
plans, including landscaping and drainage unit types and various facades, for the proposed
redevelopment; and this narrative discussing the proposed project.
The project is intended to meet a public need and provide a significant public benefit
associated with the conversion of an economically challenged hotel facility and replace it with an
upscale, revitalized senior market rate housing alternative in the City of Brooklyn Center.
Additionally, the 1501 Freeway, LLC is willing to provide the residents of the Brooklyn Center
access to the community spaces within the former hotel for use as a senior center or for other
activities without any cost to the City.
Suite 3500 I 22S South Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN S5402 -4629 I MAIN: (612)604-6400 1 FAx:(612)604 -6800 inthrop.eom 1 A Professional Association
Ronald A. Warren
August 14, 2003
Page 2
After consultation with Ron Warren regarding the appropriate land use designation for
this area, it seems that the most appropriate approach is utilize the flexibility consistent with the
City's Planned Unit Development tool. This redevelopment would constitute a compatible and
complimentary use with the constraints of a planned unit development in the C -2 zone of
Brooklyn Center.
The development is consistent with the surrounding area as it is located directly adjacent
to both a single family neighborhood on one site and very close to a multi family development
on the other side. This development would provide excellent transitional land use between the
commercial and residential parts of the city.
Further, there have not been significant changes in the land use of the property since it
was originally zoned and given the senior nature of the development, utilization of the property
for housing is a contemplated use would be allowed if completed pursuant to a PUD according to
Mr. Warren. Additionally, the contemplated redevelopment will bear completely the
requirements of the City's ordinances with no request for variance. In fact, some of the
variances required to operate the site as hotel will be unnecessary for the contemplated
redevelopment.
Furthermore, the redevelopment in this case is warranted by the use contemplated in the
last comprehensive plan update, the lack of developable land in this area and the needs of the
seniors in the community. Given this property's size and configuration, the change asked for is
necessary to meet these important community needs.
The development team has been assembled from experienced and seasoned professionals
in the area. The lead developer is Bridgecreek Development Company doing business on this
Ronald A. Warren
August 14, 2003
Page 3
project as 1501 Freeway, LLC. Bridgecreek is experienced in this area and currently has two
similar projects under development in St. Paul. The architecture firm selected for this project is
Pope and Associates, with Skip Sorenson as lead architect. Additionally, as the project moves
forward, we will be selecting reputable local contractors, and as needed other professionals, to
complete the construction of this important project.
Included within the package are several different optional plans for the new facade of the
development. These options are intended to provide an idea of the varied opportunities the
developer is considering to change both the look and the impression a citizen or resident will
realize when they pass this new and changed location in the future.
The general intent of the project is to adapt the residential spaces of the hotel for upscale
senior living. This will include new fixtures in the bathrooms, new kitchens within the units,
new amenities in the rooms including floor and wall coverings, revamped heating and air
conditioning, and changes to the common elements to accommodate the new use of the property.
Depending upon the desirability of the market for larger units, the intention of the development
team is to convert the property into 80 -110 new residential units.
i
The proposed development demonstrates an amenity and a benefit beyond the mere
development itself. This plan will create a destination within Brooklyn Center for all residents to
Ronald A. Warren
August 14, 2003
Page 4
be proud of and contribute to the housing needs of seniors in the area. Thank you for your
receipt of this application.
Sincerely, '
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE,
1
Daniel S. Schleck
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Frank Tao
Mr. Cha Vang
2053325v2
A
i
I
p �aa�o¢aeyr'ae - mQ:o ie�nnr eG�r�r�mn�e��il�t h, ,,.�.
I m.
HOUR
If
IN
vo
I® m r 91
b %,9 ���aca� sae a'yv�asu��t:wsi. �exsseen�:�.a' h � i
t ee i w.ua.re.w. °.9
I�
gg INN
Er
sm
HMO a
_ F
I
l
PLANT UST: Site Plantings • - - A S S O C I A T E S
a ,,:.IQ?" 80Y N. CA RAIa 00131m NmIE SIZE/mar . * � , ' ARCNRECIS
_
TREES - INTERIOR DESIGNERS
.. . ' _
4 GMM Aar eaaahawn 'Gr •MmItaw Orton ML S gw Me* 2 -1/2 839 �•
ISM
3 dk Frardtw pemq/wtM 7ahnhn' Palmas AM 2 -1/2 Bdd! t - •. —�.� - Fw:mNwau
".. 3 . GL 91c aardeta '0re.npW' GII!Mtwks Lhden' 2 -1/2• I • ;' ..� Mx..arwnq ......
'14 ow Pbea ylwca d.l.at. eba HE. 3pna
Cabrada'SWe SP BROOKLYN
. 493 Ns - Wnpuu Glauaa- . +ua. . 3' -0 BaB'
17 O 6 rNIN. 102 11Nb
_ CENTER
,H
i AM Aar pbmdd AI— Mopt, m d -.Gn I- e33 ' ' • � 3 SENIOR"
' e PH ' Nlrtatpea Pa brat 'Aka dlera' Peps Nydra•pe., ern Earn , e3e t 7 r sev HOUSING
6' PFC Mlub 'PraM.lin' Pra«1•..�•wPl. ,. e� 1
8 SW: Mt. SRr6V 9-W Who 11— Grabwpl. , us 'r
_ 1e ISL.. Who. Mtul 'hwy S &' WY SER Jq-- Tn. Lfcc 1' Sae � e.? ' PA' S
30 Y Its - 5&s unit. b V B-- tdt 'txart ' .am] PnP♦.ea 150 150 + 102 + 6&6 J10A
SHRUB$ y♦e .
'F.q RIJEIS wuW r9 br added For .Wa.1-1, and. b-W an basenG. I—U_ ' ....._
♦.. . •1 Sov r
PLANTING NOTES:
1
' anbWr rr Meda W y.r .aaMd.. a a - Pmt mee.a. 1W ; �, .
.b.yi. ae W. roe a yl M S� L.abw aaa.ot•. emit. ... a�i °» nm
uam•Mp w.r FWit m.W1eY rue ab. haw o as ys yvmM � .� . • ,.. .
N . W ner8r.n -ae.n W had} ♦ ;•',.' I .
.. FWtb t W YreW a Fb'.Wrre AN Oft Macau.
i
.tM nidaun tY'bam Ptee3q M en Inu'md.P.0 WW �. J.' •_. ,i'
crnbeiter .hee tirl'. bulbs.aa. a ease. PW b h"." a a.A•
' N Mpsew.p era Wads ad bdpbe ..h a ar.veiele irNldr.. !
mass beu .Wm.-A M.al.r 8 W eb.nb'.er aw Mere
,. WtO.a .mstl♦ -beW/ t.u-MEU t4 W batwe R— by AM 1.
bu - h .. .
tl e lop v.l a wa rly m.
rob. w W ft r•rtaw I'm « ral.a 1A M. .W -.a .. a) Sob d
vA...t.m r a..r.y's► .tara.a .aety Fue1M
o.r rite M, nga••b ter mrrM'aru atr WrPWw A t. eM'by.11u Om ,
a.t as reaa�eaetry Aarbd wed .rba ri rte itwrdy Wr-b i
.c
awbrW N n.ryc 1•reaar eaP ..
. ate. b W Wed deer a3..N. TMM Abe M a naa•a va.e f _
LANDSCAPE
'W.Ma W aa:a atlr..rurh a.r.e. .
dF °b3 "a'' :/
.°a."a.�
PLAN.
' .M..aae WAwM. m" {• 0- as W W"" —i a hd#W uew . y
MM
. �.. R.pN�.rr .. na M rupwW.y a a.' ANeMt 0eriibet .r Fr.Met EnEMa i• � < � .s 't �
. ar era., I«etMa �rbM., W iF.reaeelsa b aE nleMip .rw c y
t isrwu.e..
P
�—
t
r1:fr 4 - REQUIRED PLANT MATERIALS
W 9' _
-•� e< - TS.tdd -td land.aw -Points m• 33 &a wt. Y
e
; w,�s.s.s . e.esrasr. .s ♦ T�M - E.btbq Irye'tnn 7 O 10 unit � 7a Wt. ...��
Fxblb p mea m bea + 2 a 5 unit 10 It. 81�F
landecape unit - .R.qutW 30&5: Prarded 310.3
_ - _. L1
;����
����,��,
�..�,� � �,�a��:r � .a,o �.
.,w,.... _ � r x , �., a. xr+F;�t�gs � pia* �„ w�aoa�r , ,. . � .� . .. „ - " - . i
s � . ' `:
etlu t%6 _.. -sh. w�t4'ti.+bwmY.twrymM -mrr •• � �i '°.l "".
..yr ;.. ,�.:.
�-veAm
� t
xa
� Q. ..�G
w
� C
•u
h
r _fir—
.�- �F e '�
n
;��
`� _ '
� �`� \c " a
� � r
i
� ��
...., , r
ti� r
��a ��
,..
s e�h R,. '�yca a x .. B
� z �,
e . , �.�
r �.
i
� � C��a�.iY�"' �t`� ..,.. � .
�o a a � e �, r � ���k �b 6 £ �4 � .. ,�;,�+ma. .. ... �
� ^..
F
�.� .:
_ : � g c _ 7 a[ ��� 1.
��?�`e � _ .,... ..._ . � ... . , b
1 �
E
� 4
i
y
6F �
yJ
9
i
\
.. .. .. �... ..... \: \..• a i. .. . .. , .. .F:. a ". ..ah.. a ..... t. •.., "�\ -.
..... .. ,.. a ... � � � • ., z c \ ... ... � Sffi ,\ � \ �:; \ .., .... •.1 \
... .... .., ._. \. ., .. F�. . \fin .e:. .,.�\ .,... a. ... \... ..•.
:� .... „\\.: _. .. n u :� ..• a... .., i.. n. ., �. Via..... .. .. \ ., `\ . ,h. •.,.•
:. .. .. <\ ::_ \,� -'n .,.\.< _ r �.. ..... �\i... .a. \ .. n �s . a\ s: ...• •. ,.,, . @„.. \\ �.� �. .. a�. ^.. ..\.. N a �,
,., i �\ ,\ c �\ \�•. , .. ., ,�. ,. ,. tia 4 � 'a .. � �? v �.a �. � •, \��� \ .�, :� � \., \ �.\\ , \fie a � r\a .o,.
n
F
4kJ �'
a
.r
•1i
e s
\ o
I
9
r
a Y ° � ° � �d` r �\ \� . �� ��
e
\ \ a x 111 v \ � \` � \ � t3� \ \.�r� \ \av"`w \i @¢ a� � \v a{ � � ak a �, \ �•} \ \k 3 ' $ � k {;s Y ..a
V": \ \ a � � � � \ �: v S v a M.�, a "Z � e \ y �, a \ `v'i a w�\e�a�\ • \�� ����" t'��` �� , - +.'m" •:.
P
W
::4N, \ a \ Ft•: \ \:: 7 � W � ;� y \ z �':�. \ c t \', \y k Ca �1 .\ � is � a t � �•\ y\ •8 �` \\ i \ k\ 4. $.a t �`, \hY # `�,
�• � \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ u ep s �\\r .aka <, \w .�� � ^`�'. \ ,.. \zr\ ,,. �, ��w �'`. \ \ a
•. ,.'•.: •., ..:� \ j `a., .. .. \..., „r... E \ �.\ \ a•� c.. \. i"a\...,...�Y� \:. .. .\w \ i ., ,. ^'.,..x�.\a�e 2 a �, • :a\.
a .. ,. ,. \7 " :.a a w�a.. �\*\ t1 .�� a\a\ �.v ,\ ¢� �\ . � .��.. �.. \ `: s\ • «.e. � -.,. \\.. ..a .w �\a . �:
. a`w ... �•.\.: ka,...\. .. Nwti ..t m\.... \ .•se �.�. a\., v \...aaaa.., ;�. ,. •. r``A�.w a.... .. @�. ...: .\\ <. �. ��\ `„
,a .\: et`,M y t\ \ . . � H..,e t al.l\., �`tuv.. \ \ .r. r. •ar .�,.'�. a� �\
� <.. ,. :. \ art:, \ \� ... .. ,.... \e ,: . �, , , u �.. .. :, \ �• �:
,,. � ,. \ \P �, � .::.r,. a � 'fir �� \ �\ \, .� .• :vso, : • a. � .,. �� \ \ o�
z
\
,,., :. .. �w wv \ .v. ��\. .��\� .: \��.\ a ,run a..� a � �. \\.� •, \� \, r \� . \r..\�
P: ~a wr � a�.<�.�: �``�t a a�� . ¢.\�` '�w�a• �. ^a �\� a u�:, ,�,: o v
...a,•. a .\\ \\\ \\yw�:Lt�4Z�Yw�� \\:a\a \ \\>; �u\\��t�\�3 \ �� .. ,\ ��.� \��,�,� .¢ 9�.,� �
A
M,
m
T: IF IlIllliiqiii��lf
MR
All
O O O O
O
1 EXISTINQ TYP. UNIT PLAN
BROOKLYN CENTER SENIOR HOUSING
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN A S S O C I A T E
•
INWYWADOWAT
to I < ua>H wAUwn
LIVING ROOM
0
1WHEN I BEDROOM
O '
O
O BATH O O BATH Q
O I i O O aosu O
NEW STAMNG
WASNERADRVER
d PROPOSED 2 BEDROOM UNIT PLAN
670 SQ. FT,
BROOKLYN CENTER SENIOR HOUSING �Tl BROOKLYN CENTER, MN A S S 0
?n
•
wrwWOwu rwNW#At kiWrWMWAT
Gam -WALLM fNkA%LW L4atwuwkLw
ILLJI
BEDROOM WING ROOM BEDROOM
r
V BATH O O MEN I O
WAWN fIOSET BATN
O O I O
NEW STAG NG
WASNERBDRM
s PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM UNIT PLAN
1,005 SQ. FT.
—� BROOKLYN CENTER SENIOR HOUSING POPF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN A s s o c I A T E
•
y-
f cl � / •
a •� r
OPTION A
OPTION B
I �
OPTION C
-, BROOKLYN CENTER SENIOR HOUSING PLUM
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN A S S O C I A T E •