Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011 08-25 PCP
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 25, 2011 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes — July 14, 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. Carlein Cloutier — 5731 Camden Ave N Planning App. No. 2011 -017 PUBLIC HEARING - Variance application to allow more than two accessory structures in the R -1 One family Residence Zone 6. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Planning App. No. 2011 -015 This application was tabled from the July 14, 2011 meeting. PUD Amendment submitted by Sears, Roebuck and Company for an amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development, by incorporating similar development standards approved under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. 7. Loren Van Der Slick (Gatlin Development Co) Planning App. No. 2011 -016 This application was tabled from the July 14, 2011 meeting. PUD Amendment to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development submitted by Loren Van Der Slik on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, Inc. 8. Discussion Items Planning Commission attendance — discussion w/ City Planning Staff 9. Other Business 8. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 14, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Morey, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused. Carlos Morgan was absent and unexcused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 16.2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks , seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Sean Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as 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. APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 — SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -015, a request from Sears Roebuck and Co. for a minor amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD). Sears is requesting the City consider and approve the similar development standards granted to Gatlin Development Company under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (SCC -PUD) applications. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report and commented on the standards memorialized in City Council Resolution 2011 -85 and in the final Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions agreement between the City and Gatlin Development Company. He also pointed out some additional adjustments requested by the applicant that were not approved under the 1999 PUD /Rezoning as follows: • Allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback and 35 ft. 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. 9 Allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. • Allow a 52.5 ft wide parking dimension for 60 degree parking. 7 -14 -11 Page 1 • Allow two Town Center identification signs (one additional) along Bass Lake Road and one additional Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. • Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears building and adjacent to the patio /plaza space. Mr. Benetti presented photos to the Commission which demonstrated the layout of the Sears property indicating where trails, landscaping, buffers and parking areas are located. He pointed out that staff has asked Sears to connect the sidewalk along Xerxes to the Regional Trail that will will involve a 15 ft. dedication similar to that granted to Gatlin. By doing so, the city would allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback. Mr. Benetti also stated that the City would allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as granted to Gatlin and that the City would prefer that Sears utilize the 56 ft. standard and allow a 52.5 ft. dimension for 60 degree parking provided the applicant provide a viable parking layout as part of a major plan amendment. Mr. Benetti further explained that the city acknowledges this zero line setback could be allowed if proper dedication of right -of -ways and easements are executed. Mr. Benetti further explained that on May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD for the Brookdale properties with the exception of the Sears property and Holiday store, and accepted the modifications and variations to certain zoning standards noted previously. Sears was not part of this 2011 PUD application, and its property is not subject to the Declarations and Covenants of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011 -015 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Tom Radio, representing Sears, stated that his concerns are indicated in his memo and he explained to the Commission requested changes to the proposed Planning Commission Resolution. He described the changes that he requested regarding the city's recommendations. Commissioner Kuykendall asked Staff why the application, if approved, constitutes a major plan amendment rather than a minor amendment. Mr. Benetti explained that based on the requests made by the applicant, the proposed plan is a departure from the zoning standards typically allowed which constitutes a major plan amendment requiring a public hearing. Commissioner Parks asked the applicant what their major concern is regarding the zero line setback. Mr. Radio stated that they are trying to reserve the options available to Sears for future expansion or remodeling. Mr. Benetti explained that Sears currently has a zero lot line setback with the connection to the mall. Mr. Benetti stated that once the mall is demolished, a plan amendment would -be required 7 -14 -11 Page 2 to allow Sears to increase the amount of zero lot line setback along the full- length of the easterly side of their building. Mr. Benetti further stated that once the separation takes place between the Sears and Food Court building, the zero lot line setback is no longer present along the northerly section of the Sears store. He added that the zoning ordinance requires a 10 ft. setback from property lines. Mr. Benetti explained that Sears currently has a zero lot line setback with the connection to the mall. Mr. Benetti stated that once the mall is demolished, a plan amendment would -be required to allow Sears to increase the amount of zero lot line setback along the full - length of the easterly side of their building. Mr. Benetti further stated that once the separation takes place between the Sears and Food Court building, the zero lot line setback is no longer present along the northerly section of the Sears store. He added that the zoning ordinance requires a 10 ft. setback from property lines. Mr. Radio explained that Sears would like to hold on to some flexibility to be able to expand their building to the property line should the need arise. Commissioner Parks asked why Sears is not willing to continue with the trails. Mr. Radio responded that Sears is not willing to pay the cost for construction of the trails. Mr. Eitel stated that staff would prefer to see the dedication of right -of -ways for the trails take place now with this application rather than later to enable the trails to be completed. He added that if Sears were willing to allow the dedication of right -of -ways the City may be able to provide some funding for completion of the trail on the Sears property. Mr. Radio stated that by allowing the right -of -way dedication, which would actually be a conveyance of property, they would hope to be granted reduced setbacks. Mr. Benetti explained that with a right -of -way dedication, the Sear's lot line would change and setbacks would be measured from this readjusted property line. Mr. Radio stated that by allowing the right -of -way dedication, which would actually be a conveyance of property, they would hope to be granted reduced setbacks. Mr. Benetti explained that with a right -of -way dedication, the Sear's lot line would change and setbacks would be measured from this readjusted property line. Chair Rahn asked for clarification regarding the language in the resolution being requested by the applicant. Mr. Eitel explained that the City would like all these matters to be cleared up now by adopting the resolution proposed by staff as part of the development of Shingle Creek Crossing. Mr. Parks asked the applicant how they feel about the current parking on the site. Mr. Radio responded that he has no background information regarding how Sears feels about that and he would need to do some research to respond to the question. Chair Rahn asked Staff how they feel regarding the conditions on the resolution referenced by the City Engineer. Mr. Eitel responded the conditions were added to the resolution at the request 7 -14 -11 Page 3 of the City Engineer. Chair Rahn stated that he thought the Engineer's conditions seems rather excessive. Mark Allen, 6036 Halifax Place, business owner and resident in Brooklyn Center, asked about clarification of the parking standards. He stated that he is in the landscaping and snow removal business and has a concern with smaller parking spaces when it comes time to remove snow since it creates a problem with snow removal and storage on site. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at 7:59 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding the application. Commissioner Kuykendall and Morey asked if a recommendation would be made tonight or if the application should be tabled to allow staff adequate time to incorporate changes to the resolution. Mr. Benetti explained that the Commission could make a recommendation tonight following review of the Resolution, or the application could be tabled and brought before the Planning Commission again on July 28, 2011 for review and recommendation. Mr. Radio stated that he is in agreement with the Application being tabled and reviewed at the next meeting. It was the consensus of Staff and the Commission to bring the Application and Resolution for approval before the Commission at the July 28, 2011 meeting. Commissioner Schonning stated that he loves Sears but is disappointed that Sears has not been a better member of the community and not stepped forward to be part of this proposed development. ACTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to table Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -015. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission will reconsider this application at its July 28, 2011 meeting. 7 -14 -11 Page 4 APPLICATION NO. 2011-016 — LOREN VAN DER SLIK (GATLIN DEVELOPMENT CO) Chair Rahn introduced Application No 2011 -016, a request from Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company, Inc., for PUD Amendment approval to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report and explained that the proposed amendment consists of the following: • The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; • The renovation/conversion of the interior mall (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; • The elimination of Creek Crossing PUD ro osed Building N from the 2011 Shingle P p g g plan; • The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; • The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. Mr. Benetti stated that as part of ongoing negotiations with Sears, Gatlin has submitted this amendment to reflect changes to the approved Shingle Creek Crossing plan, which exceeds the threshold of a minor amendment. He pointed out the changes proposed to the previously approved PUD. Mr. Benetti further stated that following the scheduled public hearing, it is staff's recommendation that this item be tabled until July 28 or August 11, 2011. This will allow for further review by staff with the applicant regarding concerns and issues raised in this report. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Frank Gatlin, stated that he is happy to be here and is excited to see work on the site. He shared that the latest change to the plan is a result of negotiations with Sears to address the loading docks and other areas. He also shared that he has many potential tenants that are excited to be part of the development. He added that he understands that the application will be tabled and that they will meet back with staff to redefine more of the details taking place on the plans. 7 -14 -11 Page 5 Mr. Gatlin explained that they are dealing with some tenants that will potentially occupy the former Barnes and Noble space and pointed out how they are proposing to allow access and visibility for those tenants in that space. He added that they are leaving the loading dock where it is currently located until they have those tenants locked in. Mr. Gatlin explained the separation being created between Sears and the existing Barnes and Noble building will create a driveway, sidewalk landscaped area that will encourage consumers to arrive to the main entrance of the development while also allowing access to the storefront facing Xerxes Avenue. He stated that they will continue to work with staff on the design of this area since it is an important feature to relieve parking on the Walmart side of the development. Commissioner Kuykendall asked what happened to the trees that were on the previous plan. Mr. Will Matzek stated that they had to realign that side of the building and as tenants are identified, they will take a close look at how the landscaping will be laid out. Mr. Matzek further stated that they reverted back to the existing layout on that side of the site since the loading docks will not be moved and the parking spaces were needed. He added that until tenants are identified, they are not exactly sure how the final layout will be. Chair Rahn stated that he feels the one -way drive between Sears and the existing Barnes and Noble seems awkward. He added that he would prefer to see a two way drive area which would give more flexibility to the area. Councilmember Kleven stated that she would rather see a two way drive area between the buildings. She added that she will access the site off Xerxes Avenue and if the drive area between the buildings were a one way, she would be inclined to go the wrong way down a one way to get to her destination. Commissioner Parks stated that the entrance to Barnes and Noble is a good entrance and whoever occupies that building will have good visibility and should be successful. Mr. Gatlin stated that the location of the entrance will be tenant driven based on who occupies that site and what their preference is. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -015, at 9:09 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-016 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to table Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -016. 7 -14 -11 Page 6 Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission will consider the application at its July 28, 201 lmeeting. OTHER BUSINESS: - Government Training Services (GTS) Event Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of the opportunity to attend a workshop sponsored by the City of Brooklyn Park on July 27, 2011 titled, "Your Role as Planning Commission Member ". He encouraged Commission members to attend and asked the Commission to notify staff by July 15, 2011 if they would like to be registered for the workshop. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary 7 -14 -11 Page 7 Application Filed on July 25, 2011 City Council Action Should Be Taken By September 23, 2011 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2011 -017 Applicant: Carlein Cloutier Owner: Debra New Location: 5731 Camden Avenue N. Request: Variance to City Zoning Code Section 35 -530 to Allow More Than Two (2) Accessory Structures in the R1 Zone INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ms. Carlein Cloutier is requesting a variance from Section 35 -530 of the city's zoning ordinance to allow the continuation of two accessory structures in the rear yard of a single - family residential dwelling, located in the R -1 One Family Dwelling district. Subpara. 5 of said section states: "No more than two accessory buildings shall be permitted on any one residential premises." The two structures measure 10' x 14' (140 sf.) and 12' x 20' (240 sf.) respectively. An aerial map attached to this report illustrates the sizes and approximate location of the two sheds. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. The Applicant has submitted for review and consideration a petition signed by a number of neighboring and community property owners supporting their variance request. BACKGROUND The subject property in question is located in the R -1 Zone and is surrounded by other single family homes. The above cited section of the Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings, such as garages and/or carports, along with utility or storage sheds provided the total ground coverage of all accessory building(s) does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal dwelling; and that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise. In this case, the footprint (ground coverage) of the dwelling is 975 sf. The existing attached garage is 528 sf., which leaves up to 447 sf. for additional accessory space. As a result of a site investigation, the property owner was given notice ' s Code g b the City's p p Y g Y tY Enforcement Division a number of weeks ago indicating her property was in violation of City Code 35 -530 due to the excess number of sheds on the property. The investigation and requested action stated they needed to remove one of the accessory buildings to be compliant with Code. The owner /applicant appeared before the City Council at the May 23, 2011 meeting (open forum) requesting a stay on the code enforcement action and a "grandfathered right" determination by the Council. The Council directed city staff to look into the matter, whereby a letter was prepared by staff and mailed to Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New, dated July 5, 2011 (included herein), indicating the grandfathered right is not applicable. The Applicant appeared Cloutier Variance Page 1 of 5 8 -11 -11 again before the City Council at the July 11, 2001 meeting, informing them of the recent letter and grandfathering determination, and about the variance process. Upon advisement of the City Attorney, Ms. Cloutier was directed to contact city staff and make application for variance. City planning staff met with Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New and advised them of the variance process and this application was filed shortly thereafter. At this time, the Applicant /Owner has not submitted a narrative justifying their need or hardship in this case, only the petition. They have communicated to planning staff that their need for two extra sheds is strictly personal; especially their desire to store excess equipment, furniture and personal belongings of other family members. The Applicants further indicate in their application that the smaller shed was built in 1978 and the larger shed was built in 1996 (note: city records indicate the shed was actually finalized in 1995). Ms. New purchased the property in 1998 — after the two sheds were built. Residential homeowners installing more than the allowable sheds in their yards is an occasional occurrence and common mistake the City is called to investigate and remediate by means of code enforcement action. State Building Code allows homeowners to install utility sheds up to 120 sf. (10 x 12') without any permit. The City does its best to police or inform the general public of these rules; but at times, as in this case, occurrences do slip past our review or inspections. It appears the previous homeowner neglected to indicate the smaller, existing shed on his property when he applied for the building permit to construct the larger 12' x 20 building (refer to the attached 1994 building permit application and site plan). This permit was issued on the understanding only one shed would occupy this rear yard. Staff was unable to ascertain if [in 1995] the city inspector noticed the smaller shed at time of final inspection, or made any effort to notify the owner of any potential violation. Nevertheless, the action (or inaction) of the inspector in 1995 is moot and not relevant in this particular case. ANALYSIS City Code Section 35 -240 - Variances, provides the governing rules and standards in the review of variances. The section states the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, recommends and the City Council grants variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration, by evidence that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in the Zoning Ordinances are met,' which include the following: a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Cloutier Variance Page 2 of 5 8 -11 -11 c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The Planning Commission may or may not be aware, the Minnesota State Legislature recently passed a bill that significantly revamped the parameters or standards in which municipal governments can review and grant variances. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments the standards noted above have now been revised by eliminating the need to justify or prove a hardship in variances. The overarching standard or principle in the granting of variances is now based on a "reasonable" test or justification. The new law (abbreviated below) provides the following standards: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a) that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In consultation with the City Attorney, he advised planning staff that in order to be consistent with and compliant with State Law, the city should analyze or discern this variance case under these new rules and standards. The following is city planning staff's findings based on these above - referenced standards: ❖ that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; The "reasonable" nature of this particular variance case is somewhat subjective. The most common need or request for accessory buildings is to store vehicles, bicycles, lawn and yard equipment, patio furniture, and other miscellaneous and personal belongings, while other needs range from workshops, garden sheds, greenhouses, or play houses; all of which are reasonable uses. Zoning Code does not distinguish what a homeowner can and cannot store, or how to use these accessory buildings provided any activity in these buildings is not illegal or does not conflict with Code. The Applicant has indicated to staff that their need is personal -- due in part to limited storage space in their existing Cloutier Variance Page 3 of 5 8 -11 -11 two -car garage and desire to keep and store personal property indoors. Staff will stipulate the need or desire to store equipment inside these two shed appears reasonable. However, the removal of one of the two sheds will not take away the overall use and enjoyment of the property, or removes the homeowner's right to have some additional storage area. The City's current ordinance is very specific in how many [buildings] and how much accessory space is allotted to all residential dwellings in single family and two - family zoned properties. In Staff's view, the current ordinance is reasonable and allows for fair and equal provisions to all homeowners wishing additional accessory storage space. ❖ the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner This variance request is clearly due to circumstances created by the previous landowner, and to some degree the City by not noticing or preventing the development of this site with two sheds during the building and inspection process back in 1995. Staff however, believes that the one additional shed does not provide enough special circumstances unique to the property; or the sheds are screened or difficult to view from adjacent properties (they are highly visible from adjacent properties), or supports any other special allowances under this variance case. Before completing the purchase of the home in 1998, the property owner should have investigated, been told or determined if the subject property was legal and conforming to current city codes. ❖ the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff does not believe that granting of this variance to allow the two sheds would (or will) alter the character of the locality. The sheds have been in place since 1978 and 1995 respectively, and they do not appear to affect any desired view sheds, watersheds, easements or pathways that would cause planning staff concerns. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION According to city records, the original accessory building provisions (Section 35 -310, Subdiv. lb.3 and Section 35 -530) were adopted in 1981. They were created after review and denial of a variance to allow construction of a garage that would exceed 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building on a particular site. The City at that time determined that it was essential that no individual accessory building, or combination of accessory buildings, should exceed the ground coverage of the principal building or 1,000 sq. ft. in total area; and limited to two accessory buildings per lot. Since that time, this section has been amended by eliminating the 1,000 sf. limit, but all other provisions remain the same. Although staff would agree that in some cases it seems reasonable to have more storage space than normally allowed, the ordinance is specific in this regards and city staff would recommend the City holds to this standard for now. Cloutier Variance Page 4 of 5 8 -11 -11 In consultation with property owners contemplating variances, one consistent theme planners investigate or suggest before accepting a variance application are alternatives. In this case, the only logical alternative would be to remove one of the two sheds, and enlarge one of them to increase storage space. For instance, the 12' x 20' shed could be enlarged by an additional 207 sf. if the owner so chooses, which would easily make up for the loss of the smaller 140 sf, shed. The other alternative is to remove one of the two sheds, and eliminate the need for a variance. In summary, this application does not appear to meet the other (current) standards in review of variances, except however for the hardship to the current owners created by the previous homeowner. We do however believe the plight of the landowner or its circumstances were created by others or by inattentive action, which in turn forced the landowners to apply for this variance. As noted previously, the applicant's situation is not necessarily unique to his parcel of land. The new statute states "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." To allow a homeowner additional sheds (even by means of a variance) is in direct conflict with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and could potentially disrupt the overall harmony of the neighborhood. Other property owners throughout the City (and even in this neighborhood) have been subject to similar code enforcement action as well, and to allow this application to proceed under a variance potentially sets or establishes a wrong precedent. Planning Staff recommends denial be based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under Mn SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have not been met; and the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the Commission wishes to explore other alternatives to the applicant's case, an ordinance amendment, rather than a variance, could be pursued in order to allow equal application of the ordinance on a city -wide basis. ATTACHMENTS • Aerial/Location Map • Photos of Sheds • Mn State Statute — 2010, Sect. 462.357 • 1995 -96 City of BC Building Permit • Code Enforcement Action Notice Letter (04/22/2011) • City's Response Letter (07/05/2011) • Neighborhood Petition w/ Map Cloutier Variance Page 5 of 5 8 -11 -11 LOGISMap Output Page � Y SM AVE N 727 k Si u 12'x20 ° G i shed a i 713 3730 n� f 5724 10' x 14 - 5925 Application No. 2011 -017 Applicant: Carlein Cloutier Owner: Debra New Location: 5731 Camden Avenue N. Request: Variance to City Zoning Code Section 35 -530 to allow more than two (2) accessory structures in the R1 Zone http://gis-iogis.org/LOGIS—Arcims/ims?serviceName=bc—logi . smap_-Qvsde&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True&Encode=False[8/5/2011 10:23:23 AM] N �t tyy� : s • {• 1 dd..yy W p YW X r'. r 4 �� r5 44 N 410. �112'x 20 shed • w -. � aMIMrM�+ 'v s a a • , l &Aw _ . fk a� a t r ► 1 ,_. .' x1r, � , �ax�� " I �, + ._ a+► j is -w. t - &r• r W �� • a . .•� �+. ..� s sr 't ui.'`i,#�R •ta*T. . '� •, „ �\ `-"L . y I y / , - a Jk_ 40 JJ ' w� Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the liteFa' P FGY i S i GHS of the 9F i 4 ^^P-' ^ stanees deFFIE)n5tFated that sweh aetiens will be in I(eepiRg with the SpiF and intent ef the 9FdiRanee. C-81`14 requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties." as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone &W4 do not constitute an undue haFdShip if s practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, buts are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not wed allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances te iRSUFe eemplianee and te PFeteet adjarzelit PFGpeFties.. _ A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, MN 55430 -2199 PHONE (612) 569 -3344 FAX (612) 569 -3494 .b f�q Ems;; } .: '� �:.-: iitt � �� '` • j • %?r! %`�% f�j f .a:�`f. BUILDING (BL) PERMIT APPLICATION SITE LOCATION lUd ZJ k - 0 `j7 /t/ NUMBER STREET SUITE/UNIT NO. ZIP CODE . :rr . r .,.y..:;t ...Iraa :•g% %•:ii` !,: : %;. ,. ..: :. .fir. • r .... :. /.;:....,:....::: :;:., f1- i2Y?;.. !. {1...:.... r - <::: >:;: r :•. f : ; ,.. ....� .. .,!� : ... fJi�4:Li .:�. a� «- :.:,.::•.:: ...,p?�. :� : :.,.,.,,... :FFi`ffi':"iRN fiiL '.'. /ff. -l /`e'!." /.r /.;f!f { /F�`.. - f ` PROPERTY MANAGER OR PROPERTY OWNER NAME: fin: •5 .. flfr PYZL7P'C % PHONE Q I: 0% 0WNER/C0MPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON ��: {� >:•., >:<-: r ~' r %r', ADDRESS ' 0 _ STAT ZIP CODE V ' CITY -- — t %?' LEASEHOLDING TENANT NAME: 'TN �(3RfvtA'LIQI COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON PHONE INF012,MA1`C1I)I< %` COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON LICENSE NO. ADDRESS PHONE >F'z:•::: r:::::'r:',:s STATE ZIP CODE CITY LICENSE NO. AI;]IfG1 <'f, COMPANY NAME CONTACT PERSON ADDRESS PHONE CHECK ONE ONLY 101 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4 37 IND MANU /FACTORIES 434 DECKS, PORCHES, HOME ADDITIONS 4 37 IND /COMM OFFICES COMM RETAIL IlSE�0I3 X 438 GARAGES, CARPORTS SHED 4 37 � VALUATION OF WORK $ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE Not including land DESCRIPTION OF WORK: f CAS) L.J sly ct) DOES THE WORK INCLUDE EQUIPMENT OR AREAS USED FOR FOOD HANDLING, STORAGE, AND /OR DISPENSING? TYPE OF USE: L�7iL� ry STRUCTUR` =: DIItIENSl 1V5 :;::;: Width f� Depth C Hcight Square fo G� G GOVERAC,E - ,: . ,. Dwelling Accessory Building 2nd Accessory Building .....: : n-::: iiiF. 4: }:::: fi:' f.:t:!h:}: ?- ; }:a�:iS :�.f is -'-: i:vi :' ::'>:::in.; ice:':: yy ry }... ��jj'�'11,, �....� '- ' : ii ::iei$i��:fii :. f/� ::vF:i:!ie:;.v %:,:. �...e. I���!.r....(�:r : : . : .....::!i• :-- :::..... G-7 U L13 l CO E LOT . SURVEYS -COMPANY ' .. 4 RA7MClND � PR'/1SC1{ 3ro AVE. _. -...__ C� UNSw!CY• S. GOLDEN! P.4 , � I:I:I• LAND St111 + 6911 ID AVE. rJ. LL'PNl. CE -. tJ��, 4ia L�ofcs OFOOKLYN PARK. MINN. rhl:1!1TRR &0 UNDICH W'r-4 Op BUTS 0► P1'MN1ib'OTA MINN. REG. NC. Gltl LICENFILD 1'4 080INANCE : oV (;IIT 0/ MINNEAVOL19 147 W. Broad «ay Wei'vC rp "!, • Minrcm!n 65�Za . :: SlJ•95.2 INVOICE NO. __ I'Jr`IJ',1 ?IAL -• ;UI!I'JAI- � , r F, B. NO, !!'iri C.4AE'NICAI. •v 4lrt�� �s. �i��4lT4TrGi�r SCALE 1" i ... � U .— IJEI•i01f:5 IPC:1.1 _0 i ! Q X C 'tom In 3 v ` 1 r s } -4-- c 7 , c w � r ,( r rti •\ / , ��1'i t 1 ' ` l' •.! p n L t _ r •� ....... .. d., — ..._..__ _.--- ._....__ __. •......_ !9 -_ —.__ �. I,O'C cil- )1,1'!:S - � (:011!':�frY s..- .._..__._._ .. —.. ...: ..... .. _.•�... ,rr r : r,•v. -.... .r.e... r:v.cn.+c r•--r. . u�.. �.r,- ..,„.•,r. r. , •..ir - xT••9 .' .::.e o -s- •..+- .•,,.., rr.�,. . - .T.•� -... .-..- ._.- ,.�..�.._. -- ._ ... _ 1 City of Building and Community Standards Brooklyn www . c it yo lbrooklyncenter.or g 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Phone 763.569.3330 TTYNoice 711 Fax 763.569.3360 4/22/2011 M � 1 1 — 0 ra 3 Debra A New 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: 5731 Camden Ave N Dear Property Owner: The Brooklyn Center City Council has adopted certain ordinances in an effort to keep our city clean and maintain good relations between neighbors. The following items covered by City ordinances have recently been noted at the address listed above. Your cooperation in taking care of the items would be appreciated and avoid the additional time and expense of formal actions by the City if the conditions are not corrected within the times set below. You have 30 days from the date of this letter to do the following: City code allowes for two accessory structures at residential property, including the detached/attached garage. Please remove one of your three accessory buildings. Section 12 - 707, 35 - 530 Accessory Buildings Doing your part to keep the City of Brooklyn Center a great place to live will be appreciated. If you have questions, please contact me at (763) 569 -3420. Sincerely, Jesse Anderson Code Enforcement Inspector atyof Administration Department w ro . Oju II Coln. www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 July 5, 2011 Carlein Coultier & Debra New 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sir /Madam: Re: 5731 Camden Ave N, Brooklyn Center, MN , This letter is in response to your recent visit to the City Council open forum. It has been determine that the current ordinance does restrict your property from having the third accessory building at your property. Even if the Council decided to make changes to the ordinance in the future, you are still obligated to meet the requirements of the current ordinances. The following information is the City Attorney's response to your situation: 1. Grandfathering. " Grandfathering" is a term applied to the right of a landowner to maintain a use or structure that was lawful when created despite the fact that it becomes unlawful by later adoption of a regulation by the government. Since the third accessory structure was not lawful when constructed, it is not a grandfathered structure. 2. Permit Association with Shed. The other question is whether the landowner is entitled to keep the second shed because the inspector did not notice the violation or did not enforce the code. The plan sheet accompanying the application for the second shed that would have been reviewed at City Hall did not show the first shed. Therefore, the permit was probably issued without knowledge on the part of the City that there was already a shed on the lot in addition to the garage. it is not known what happened when the inspector inspected the second shed. It may be that the inspector was only looking for building code complained and assuming that zoning code issues were considered when the permit was issued at city hall. It may be that the landowner was informed about the rules and told the inspector that the first shed was going to be removed. However, even if the city inspector simply missed the violation, that would not excuse the violation. City inspectors are not authorized to change the requirement of city code, either intentionally or by accident. When a building official misses a violation it sometimes results in a burden on the landowner that could have been avoided if the official had promptly caught the violation and enforced the provisions of city code. While that may be an unfortunate result, city inspection is intended to protect the public at large and, is not a guarantee to an individual landowner that everything about a use or structure is lawful. Compliance with city code is the obligation of the landowner, even if the landowner is ignorant of the law. If a third accessory structure on a property was not lawful when constructed, it is not made lawful by the approval of a building permit or approval of the structure by city staff. 5731 Camden Ave N July 5, 2011 Page 2 I I After further review of your property, there are some additional options that you may wish to consider in order to increase your storage options. Although you may only have two accessory structures including the attached garage, City ordinance allows the total footprint of your accessory building(s) to not exceed the footprint of your principal structure. The footprint of your house is 975 square feet; the attached garage is 528 square feet, leaving 447 square feet for the second accessory building. If you were to remove both sheds at the property, you could install a larger accessory building, with a footprint j up to 447 square feet. Since the structure would be more than 200 square feet, a building permit would be required. Please . note that these dimensions must be verified through field measurements and other codes may apply. If you would like to explore this option further, I would suggest scheduling a meeting with the Planning Specialist and Building Official. e A City inspector will be inspecting Thank you for your time m addressing this matter. y our property p p Y on or after July 25, 2011 to verify compliance with City ordinances. Failure to comply with the City ordinance may result in enforcement actions such as an administrative penalty, county citation, or a formal complaint. I We appreciate the frustration of thinking the shed was legal when you purchased the property. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have questions, please call Jesse Anderson, Housing & Community Standards Supervisor, at 763- 569 -3420 or me at 763- 569 -3309. Sincerely, v Vickie Schleuning Assistant City Manager /Director of Building & Community Standards Cc: Curt Boganey, City Manager Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney Jesse Anderson, Housing & Community Standards Supervisor Petition for Approv of a Va riance Petitronmg City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission and City Council: Pefi�t�onmg What V ariance from Section 12 -707, 35 -530 Action'petitioned for: ;' We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our city leaders to act now to issue a variance for the property described. The property at 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 4 55 3 0 was build i n17 in 9 6 2 a sto f it am ho me with r a attache � � r d a a e. That Y 9 9 same year the original owners placed a standard size shed on the property. In 1996 the owners applied for a city permit to build a larger shed on the property and that was approved. In July of 1998 the property was purchased by Debra New. At the time of purchase, the property had the existing home /attached garage and 2 outside sheds located in the back yard. On April 22, 2011 the city of Brooklyn Center Code Enforcement Inspector sighted the property as being in violation of city code: J Section 12-707..35-530 Accessory Buildings which states: City code allows for two accessory structures at residential property, including the detached/ attached garage. This violation came after the home was owned for almost 13 years. The property has not been changed in any way since the purchase date. We would ask that we be allowed to keep the extra shed. If you feel that the city of Brooklyn Center should approve this Variance, please sign the petition below acknowledging your approval. printed Name Signature Address Corttment: Date ::: ��' X725 Q Nb Y r le �Sl ; .�� u� 7 25. j I Q Cba Ufa k 'boa L `) __ � 57 02� eve. " w' �tv ?/ dd �oa w !aa 57l I t a.�� -�^- � A Jjo PrO blew&s 0"_ %ssues 26 j r i u � � �J r�1 f ��, �� 6' Gam/ , /vv w�1..� -� Z,�(•� // a ' ; i c to r 51 e wsK ' ti 7 2 /a .a, c�e� JY �' e . �►/o j s j v @ ��i �i x,� 1t d c rs 71 ► POW, G Pi�`iht��djN�me° '.. Sign. furs.. A T. Ad�Fress D�ite oon IcLn 3 f 59th Ave N. ! <eer Shy 7 -3HI ,r 5f' ' I r. 1 I 1 I f 1 i r 7 c. LOGISMap Output Page se41 sale sass sa34 sass __' sax, SB35 .. Sa34 {i pp �SaIO 5829 �7t -�' 7 Z - 58t5 i. .5819 5843 U ; 5624 z U 98t0 5815 5812 Sao ) 5800 710 Ttl0 630 s.AOt.t 1 v e� r. ...5M AVE a 4 � 5rs9 ars4 ' 5737 621 ' 5744: 5744 22 )+• t�„ o 4 909 5,3• ir36 q 5741 5) . ,"' 5734 { �ydl.Y yy tj ' {� •. 5 15 A S I 22 low . 918 5707 6706 570, L 5706 i -4 � f �r 1 51C� 57TH yg �� 5646 �� 5637 1 5678 .. .� ss7s 567, a 5690' 5671 r• 5872 9877 5830 5625 `" 5624 5825 5624. Mmcaneiair�kd115 Cm ingefC; LOGt.i G182766 �� i6f9_ 5648 5621 �"� Q � _„_ �- Highlighted properties indicate those neighboring homeowners who support the Applicant's variance request. htLp:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_ logismap _ovsde &CIientVersion =4.0& Form = True &Encode= False[8 /5/2011 1:26:05 PM] Cloutier /New Variance The property at 5731 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 was build in 1976, including a 2 story single family home with a 2 car attached garage. That same year the original owners placed a standard size shed on the property. In 1995 the owners applied for a city permit to build a larger shed on the property and that was approved. In July of 1998 the property was purchased by Debra New. At the time of purchase, the property had the existing home /attached garage and 2 outside sheds located in the back yard. The property has not been changed in any way since the purchase date in 1998. We would ask that we be approved for a variance and allowed to keep the extra shed. A) That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance: This is somewhat subjective as the main purpose of a shed is to store belongings or use as some type of work station. Our larger shed is used for storage of bikes, lawn care items, camping supplies, as well as for a wood working area and work shop. The smaller shed is used to store a snow blower and house hold items /furniture for one of our adult daughters who had to move back home with her child because of financial reasons, as well as for another daughter who is moving home from college. We occasionally also store furniture for an adult son who because of a medical condition sometimes has to be hospitalized, which sometimes jeopardizes his housing. If we were forced to remove one of the sheds, then the larger shed would end up having to be turned into just a shed. We would lose our work bench area and not have a space for the wood working equipment. B) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: We feel that this is a unique situation to this parcel of land. First the home was purchased with both sheds already in place. Both sheds have running underground electricity. The parcel had both sheds on it since 1995 (smaller one since 1976 not 1978) and it has only recently become on issue. Secondly, even though the original owner did not include the first shed on the plan sheet when they applied for a permit, the city did come out to inspect the larger shed in 1995 after having issued a permit and the property did pass the inspection. I was informed by City Hall staff that there would have been a note attached to the inspection saying that the first shed had to be removed when the property was inspected. The smaller shed is in plain sight and no such note was made on the final inspection. The current owner should not be faulted that when the city inspected in 1995 that the inspector made no such notes on the inspection paperwork as to the smaller shed. This situation is not common, as the current owner was only recently made aware that the home was in violation of city code, after living in the home for nearly 13 years. The city code says that we may have one large shed equal to 447 square feet. Even with the two existing sheds we are under the square footage allotted (380 sq. ft.) Adding on to one of the existing sheds or removing both and building one large one would cause great hardship, not just financially but to the appearance of the property and the size of the yard. If we were to have to remove one of the sheds, it would make the most sense to remove the smaller less expensive shed. Because there is nothing wrong with this shed, we would try to remove it intact. In order to remove it would cause unreasonable hardship because of the contents talked about in part (A) and the location of the shed. The only way to access the shed with a trailer would be to back a trailer into our backyard from the south side of our house. This would be a very difficult task as we would have to squeeze between our deck and a large tree in our backyard. If a trailer would be successful in passing the tree /deck it would only be navigated nearly to the shed, as to get any closer would alter our landscaping. Our neighbors at the 713 58` Ave N have a fence that is about 8 feet behind the west side of our shed on the property line. The neighbors at 5725 Camden Ave N property is located about 6 feet to the south side of the shed. To the North of the shed we have concord grapes, mulberries and another shrub. To the immediate east of the front of the shed we have many Choke Cherry trees. Because it would be impossible to put a trailer directly next to the shed in order to lift it onto a flat bed trailer the shed would need to be demolished or we would need to cut down our trees /shrubs. Also, because the shed has underground electrical running to it, it would mean having an electrician come out to dig our yard up and remove all electrical wiring. C) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The sheds have been in place since 1976 and 1995. Many of the surrounding neighbors have signed a petition stating that they are fine with the sheds remaining in place and that they have no problem with the city issuing a Variance for the owners to keep their shed. The sheds do not affect any paths or property lines. They are in good condition and do not pose to be an "eye sore" to the surrounding neighbors. Application Filed on 06/02/2011 60 -Day Review expires 08/02/2011 (Extension granted by Applicant's attorney) Planning Commission Information Sheet (Follow -Up Report) Application No. 2011 -015 Applicant: Sears, Roebuck and Co. Location: 1297 Brookdale Center Request: Minor Amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Tabled from the July 14, 2011 regular meeting) Meeting Date: August 25, 2011 Introduction Sears has submitted under Planning Application No. 2011 -015 a request to amend the original 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD). This item was introduced and presented at the July 14, 2011 regular meeting, which was tabled to allow city staff additional time to prepare a revised resolution of approval. A public hearing was conducted and closed at the July 14, 2011 meeting. If requested by the general public or Applicant, the Commission may (at your discretion) take or consider additional comments without the need of a new hearing. Shortly after that meeting, city staff met separately with Sears' attorney and later with City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, which resulted in a number of revisions to the zoning standards and variations originally requested by Sears. The updated resolution of approval is attached for final consideration. Background As noted previously, the 1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment plan established a PUD /C -2 zoning for most of the Brookdale properties (including Sears'), which included the following development standards for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Planned Unit Development: a) Allow a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 '/2 ft. decorative masonry wall. b) Allow 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. c) Allow 60 ft. wide parking dimensions for standard 90 degrees parking and aisle width. d) Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along Hwy 100. e) Allow an increase of 15 percent to 20 percent restaurant use without requiring additional parking; and, App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 1 On May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD (with the exception of the Sears lot), which carried over some of the 1999 PUD standards and provided for the following additional variations and standards: A. 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. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. At the July 14 meeting, Planning Staff presented a planning report indicating Sears' request to have the same or similar adjustments approved to Gatlin Development Company under their approved Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, which were noted as follows: A. Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3- t /2 ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects along Xerxes Avenue. B. Allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback and 35 ft. building setback along Bass Lake Road to offset the dedication of additional right of way for the trail improvements. C. Allow 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area and 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. D. 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. E. 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 additional Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. F. 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. App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 2 G. Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears building and adjacent to the patio /plaza space. As a result of the July 14 meeting and consultation with the applicant's attorney and City Attorney, staff re- formulated these standards and variations, which are presented as follows: A. Allow parking for retail uses to be reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area; B. Allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area of the restaurant use; C. Allow a reduction from 63 -feet to 60 -feet for 90- degree parking and reduction from 57 to a 52.5 foot wide for 60- degree parking; and D. Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the existing northeast corner to the Sears building (measured as 163.6 feet), and allow the zero lot line for the 140 feet of screening wall to remain, along with an allowance of additional screening wall to be placed along the property line in certain areas. Some noticeable changes from the July 14 meeting and presentation include the following: • Due to the fact the 1999 Brookdale Mall PUD remains in effect on the Sears property, we have prepared a separate Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions (DCR) agreement which provides language and attached exhibits of certain plans sheets from this 1999 PUD. These same exhibits are attached and made part of this report. The City wants to hold Sears to these basic PUD plans until such time that Sears elects to expand its own facilities, or redevelops the site under a new PUD or redevelopment plan. Staff will stipulate it is not our intent to force Sears into 100% compliance of these plans; moreover, they are being made part of the conditions of approval and the DCR to hold them to those basic layout and improvement standards for the time being, since no plans were submitted as part of this PUD Amendment request. • In lieu of staff's original recommendation to dedicate 15 -feet of right -of -way along Xerxes Avenue, staff instead requests a 15 foot wide trail easement. The additional request to dedicate a 17 -foot easement area along Hwy. 100 (to the south) remains. Staff also included a provision that any future trail easement transfer or closing to complete said easement shall be borne by Sears. • After determination was made by staff that a 15 -foot right -of -way dedication along Xerxes Avenue was no longer needed, the request of reducing setbacks (as was afforded to Gatlin Development along Bass Lake Road) was no longer warranted. The right -of- way line would remain as the starting point in measuring setbacks; therefore, there is no need to have reduced setbacks along this roadway. Any new parking area would be held to the required 15 -foot setback standards, which would allow parking to abut the outer App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 3 easement line along Xerxes. Reduced building setbacks are also no longer necessary due to this easement dedication. • The signs noted herein are being installed as part of the Shingle Creek Crossing development plans. City staff believes the SCC Plans included Sears as part of this overall sign program and will provide Sears with "second standing" on all six signs. If Sears chooses not to be part of the SCC -PUD sign program and forfeits all rights to placement of signs on these structures, the City would consider a separate sign program/plan, consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance. Under the C -2 zone, Sears is permitted two freestanding signs up to 250 sq. ft. in area and up to 32 ft. in height. • Staff is acknowledging the existing zero -lot line setback to the 163.6 -feet of the northeasterly portion of the Sears building to remain. Staff is also allowing the continuation of a zero -lot line situation with the 10 -foot high screen wall along the east side of the Sears store, and further allows Sears to expand or install additional screen wall along this easterly property line only at certain locations. In the event Sears wished to expand their own store or have a future re- development plan considered on this property, Sears' representative expressed a desire to have the zero -lot line extended to the remaining easterly portion of the Sears building along this easterly property line. Staff believes the 10 -foot setback provided under the C -2 Zone is adequate for buildings. Should Sears wish to expand or provide this zero -lot line to the other portion of their buildings, they should demonstrate a real need and how the site works by means of a separate PUD Plan Amendment and/or site plan application. At this time, no plans have been submitted by Sears or any future development, and we feel the screening wall (which is a structure), is appropriate in allowing a zero -lot line standard. • To ensure that the existing Sears site and Shingle Creek Crossing development maintain consistency and symmetry in architectural designs, staff has included in the DCR a standard that Sears' property is subject to these same architectural guidelines approved under the SCC -PUD. It is not our intent to make Sears adhere to these standards immediately or "re- skin" their store building to match those in the SCC site; moreover, it provides a provision and understanding that any major improvements or additions to the subject site will conform (as much as possible) to the SCC -PUD architectural standards. • City planning staff removed from the attached resolution those conditions or comments listed under the City Engineer's Review Memorandum dated July 6, 2011. These conditions are more relevant or appropriate when Sears or others decide to redevelop the Sears site, or should Sears (or others) propose a new PUD Amendment on the subject site. App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2011 -11, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2011 -015, an amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Regional Shopping Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to the following conditions: 1. The utilization of the subject property shall conform to the approved 1999 Planned Unit Development plan, with the exception of the additional variations from the 1999 PUD Agreement noted in the 2011 Sears Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement contained herein. A. Allow parking for retail uses to be reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area; B. Allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area of the restaurant use; C. Allow a reduction from 63 -feet to 60 -feet for 90- degree parking and reduction from 57 to a 52.5 foot wide for 60- degree parking; and D. Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the existing northeast corner to the Sears building (measured as 163.6 feet), and allow the zero lot line for the 140 feet of screening wall to remain, along with an allowance of additional screening wall to be placed along the property line in certain areas. 2. The use and development of Sears' property shall conform to those parts of the development plans described and illustrated under the 1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plans (full sized originals of said Development Plans are on file with the Business and Development Department of the City), and include the following: A. Site Survey (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet a0.1) as Attachment Two; B. General Site Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet al. l) as Attachment Three; C. Landscape Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet LI. l) as Attachment Four; D. Site Lighting Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet Li. l) as Attachment Five; E. Major Access Routes map as Attachment Six; F. Major Access Routes map for Regional Trails, Future Regional Trails and Pedestrian Connectors as Attachment Seven; and G. Architectural design guidelines as Attachment Eight. App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 5 3. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a 15 -foot easement for trail purposes along the westerly boundary adjacent to Xerxes Avenue and a 17 -foot wide trail easement along the southerly boundary adjacent to TH 100. Applicant shall provide all legal documents to complete the transfer of these easements, including but not limited to trail easement exhibits, legal descriptions, updated title, and closing costs. ' 4. All other allowances or variations granted under the 1999 PUD Agreement shall remain in effect. 5. The Applicant shall execute and enter into a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. App. 2011 -015 08/25/2011 Page 6 � i •. �' � :: is t ae! • ` ,� \ ►`� ` , .c•; f %� •�� ollMl WE, 111 Brookdale Ma Rede •' Attachment Three fil 1A IT— if IEB - -------- --- _ - _ _ of � -,,�• ti Tr J h N1,12"Pliti I, If 1 .1 1 31 HIP j ill I fit n 1! 1 11 - H'IM I I t i , I E. ►�I��;•�'� # #;�� +' ����# `'t j!� } :js� F" s ' 1 f I ! ;111 i I U Hill f l f!, 1 -6-1 str � � � I f Ef t � � . uununuuuwa r �IIi>�ns, W I..Iny I � Gl LM ►. �' to '4 r.w.. . • ..4r� Y11K �GG1/�1 li M1. w �• I.w 1 {A�p�.YS j�} h11n W f�a ro q v LL . YW 1:°1,4Tif'�•`'•}"/m''" 1[��yy]� 1!!'It' w.. r+r► .... L 1 W. va Iw y1 I:�,Yue I.II T waiO a '..... /_.. "' Is ° Iw '°'dq'f°""�'4W t / *T� " .1.4'p r ""' ty�i�.1�15• '"' '�1 ��1•Y `"� . i'/' Maas 41 /�r�� M.r Y Iw. lw Iw Rlil �J• •M. w . Mme... .....� r.. �+ � _ � _ I���S6 � � 7�C �Ip �1'Y'p Nr..l. M rr.?• IM. 1 .1 L. . M /u ►. `+ �+q...� arw. r .•.. H. . I r....� r..r � Q r.s'ara • \ r - IRRI6ATWHR80.IR8Ien �"�«• VV ow 1 k ' - �..`.. ....r ' 17 1• � -� ( /.l � � -'Ir' ". �' MIO n11111 M.M 1 \ rrr r T M.sl . y.L41yA h I�wl I ••\''\ .'!�— �= dl' �oi I .. H. aw �••� .w 1.IM11 c.Y. /H/.. 10 0 ED G wr,ry M r.wµ: Lr .— .,..... Cb SAN PM VAM" 1 M 00 ewnY T� t•..IIi +W �' IidruM� IfM I wY OIVMG W! FIMUM iTML dNl 1liME KIMH► �p[[l��y.�R�1y�vp� IV .rMKlli6 LOT 000LLNlVtD �RxC9 AVL'. N, IOffP1 fRCIOI WCTICH A, PMKMS 1999 Brookdale Mall fF1 MN Redevelopment Plan �.1 • 1 1 utmHn III un►tt j - �. • - r--- ....�_ _... E - E a i i r. LLa (a is r io �= _�„•,,,,,. i- •..tM. Crr Atlbn _:`.............. - »�EY may_-.--:t::::. !-"m ` --:- -. wR..o..o.. isPE ...... ....-••--._ f ' DIE LICH MG RAN `Q ^ - - - -' ► t SITE LIGHTING PLAN 1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan X11.1 K: \11C EV \GARIN DEVEEGRMENI\RRGGN— CENTER \CAOG \ENHI — \RUG — Road E -0.6x DI 21. 2911 Ny Nnon.xurdem°n Attachment Six o; I`!� �s Of ;6y 'lrB 1 ♦ �� `�A I I 1 �, I ! v � AV, 7cc rl 1 I iii. F \ ♦ I, r� y I \ a I \ Ir = I� I 11 Iml l \ t \ 1 4a I ♦ I s 1 . I I 1 >o 1 I 1 t I � 1 01 I I 9 \ I C I V po yylI I O I II I�1 L 1 I • \ \ :A ♦��� — I II ,I O yy CI ; $I i III � V ♦ � �� SS �i� 1 „I 1�1 \ ♦♦ \ `\ j ! 1 I! 3 I IM SI S m` < m p ♦ ` I SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING MATZEK �mUUM D. � MAJOR ACCESS �°" m,.RE�� °aM«ffR ❑�� and ASID0113198 hr. m BROOKLYN CENTER, MN ROUTES - PUD m go HENNEPIN MINNESOTA mn - M10 .Ng nmm K.. \T�M_IDEEl \G—N DE— EENY\BR m ALE CEN \ClDDD \E \PUD v R. .d E U. eg ax x. x l 27 .e g' 5: 2 . or b b,im x we... e. wx e�mm� w.w..mw wn m�b..x xw�•ue. er s nr .. ew .ve.a�.. x� ax e..niw� om xr m mwr -w...w �a�s ax. xw ma M x b x e a Attachment Seven I , , I EM , 0 1 I 1 I, °- S y s !; �♦ � I s ♦`� �. �� � e� � { WSJ c \♦ � ��\ � y , II I k �pc °\;` S ' m c m m I m Z a z G) � C? n \ o z Z n�` y > N mg �� i lamA I _9 o SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING m ° �mwnM o. MarzE MAJOR ACCESS con x O " & � e> m.. xlxx,x.xa € BROOKLYN CENTER, MN ROUTES - PUD " °` 8° HENNEPIN MINNESOTA m er ' x Dn2 Attachment Eight Shingle Creek Crossing - PUD (Submitted 5111/11) (Modified 5/23/11) Architectural Design Guidelines Architectural Consortium LLC The overall design concept is to create a cohesive master planned development combining potential uses that may include anchor tenants, small shop retail, restaurants, enclosed mall tenants, as well as open -air tenants. The architecture shall maintain a uniform character and reflect a style that provides for a harmonious retail development within the project. The aesthetics for key design elements shall be an abstraction of Shingle Creek, and be found in the pallet of materials such as masonry, stone, and metal accents that complement the established streetscape on Bass Lake Road /County Road 10. BUILDING ORIENTATION - Site planning concept of multiple buildings with a focus inward as well as exposure toward Highwayl00, Bass Lake Road, and Xerxes Avenue as generally depicted on the 05/11/2011 site plan submittal. - The orientation of buildings should take advantage of available view sheds of future development sites where possible. - Building entrances shall have a direct relationship to convenient parking fields. - Buildings along Bass Lake Road shall be located close to the road to create a pedestrian/ urban environment with signage on the street and principal entrances and signage facing internal communal parking and entry drives. - Anchor tenants along Highway 100 shall take advantage of the highway visibility by backing up to the property lines with loading docks and servicing and may incorporate architectural elements that reflect some components of the front facades such as signage features and raised parapets. - Buildings along the day lighted Shingle Creek, as available to restaurants, shall maximize opportunities for outdoor patios, pedestrian relationships and other recreational interactions. - Buildings containing restaurants adjacent to water features shall maximize opportunities for outdoor patios and internal views of the water. - Buildings along the major entry corridor shall locate in close proximity to the street to form a "main street," pedestrian friendly, environment. - Tenants in the enclosed mall shall take advantage of internal shopping traffic as well as external. BUILDING DESIGN Building Mass - Varying scale of buildings shall be encouraged. - Varying rooflines to create interest in design styles shall be encouraged. - Maximum building coverage of the overall site shall not exceed 40 %. - Large expanses of blank and featureless wall facing public street frontage shall incorporate architectural elements to mitigate the expanse. Facade Design - Colorful canopies, roofs, and accents are encouraged, however controlled to a palette of selected colors pursuant to the color and material board submitted and approved by the city. - Architectural character shall be consistently contemporary (non- traditional) with all buildings within master plan. - Masonry detailing such as soldier coursing, plane changes, or patterning shall be encouraged. - The use of cornices, ornamental lights, graphics, Tenant blade signs, and other architectural details shall be encouraged. - Buildings that front Bass Lake Road, Xerxes Avenue, or main entry drives must have four -sided architecture. The architecture shall reflect a two -story appearance with the use of upper windows, roof forms, and undulated skylines. Storefront glass shall dominate each fagade. Where true, clear storefront glass is not feasible due to tenant functions, the use of spandrel glass is acceptable. - Multi - tenant buildings shall break up the rhythm of the fagade for individuality of shops to reinforce a "main street" theme of architecture. - Elevations facing Highway 100 may incorporate signage features where visible from the highway or not screened from landscaping. Building Materials - Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. Building walls are to be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones and colors to be compatible with tones and colors of the approved palette. - Materials shall be of a durable quality. - All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed. - Colors and specifications of masonry and stucco colors should be a consistent range throughout the development - Rear of buildings shall be in a color to match predominant front masonry colors. - Existing buildings may be renovated to match new construction with the use of paint colors or other applied surface treatments. - Buildings A thru M shall have at least all four sides with at least 50% Class I and remaining 50% Class 11 materials. Building N shall have its northerly and easterly faces with at least 50% of Class I and remaining 50% Class 11; with rear and sides of 25% Class I and 75% Class 11 materials. Buildings P & Q shall have their front facades with 50% of Class I and 50% of Class 11, with all other faces with at least 25% of Class I and 75% Class II materials. - Class I materials shall include brick or acceptable brick -type material; marble, granite, other natural stone or acceptable natural looking stone; textured cement stucco; copper; porcelain; glass; architectural textured concrete pre -cast panels; and other materials including masonry units with enhanced detailing such as patterns, textures, color, dimension, banding, and brick inlay as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. - Class II materials shall include exposed aggregate concrete panels; burnished concrete block; integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block; cast -in -place concrete; artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit); artificial stone; fiber- reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of 1 /4 inch; canvas or vinyl awnings; prefinished metal; and other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Doors and Windows - Canopies shall be encouraged at entry ways. - Window frame, material, and color to complement architectural style and be consistent in color throughout development. - Window openings may be modulated to scale and proportion that is compatible with the architectural style. Maximize storefront and graphic opportunities to avoid long expanses of blank and featureless walls at street fronts. - A minimum of 8' clear space shall be provided from sidewalk elevation to the lowest point of a canopy and or suspended sign. - Window frames shall be constructed of prefinished metal. - Window and doors shall be glazed in clear glass for retail buildings. Mirrored windows shall be discouraged. - Where appropriate, the use of spandrel glass may be incorporated to mimic storefront glass. - Graphic elements may be incorporated into wall areas to mimic storefronts. SCREENING - Loading areas shall be screened from public view with walls similar to adjacent building material, fences, landscaping, or physical distance separation. - Service and utility doors to be painted to match, or be compatible with, surrounding colors. - Drive — thru or service lanes shall be screened with berming, landscaping or fencing. - Rooftop units may be screened by parapets or wall /fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right of way. FRANCHISE DESIGN - The requirements of regional and national franchises shall be allowed to maintain their corporate identity and design theme but shall be encouraged to utilize similar materials, scale and style of these architectural standards. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT Landscape design - Plant material is to be utilized within the master plan as an aid to provide continuity within the site and provide a recognized definition of its boundaries. - Thematic boulders and water elements shall be incorporated to reinforce the branding of Shingle Creek as a site amenity - Reference the 2010 Bass Lake Road landscaping as inspiration to both plant varieties and theme. - Overstory trees shall be utilized along external and internal roadways to reinforce roadway pattern but, placed so as to not block visibility of commercial signage. - Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties, planting patterns, and other streetscape materials and by correlation with the approved landscape plan. - Entry points into the site are to be specially landscaped and are to be designed with a common theme. - Plant materials are to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building utility areas. - Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands, grouped massing of landscape is encouraged in parking lots versus individual planting to maximize landscape impact and allow functional snow removal. Some islands may be paved as pedestrian walk areas. - Loading, service, utility and outdoor storage areas that are visible from public roadways shall be predominantly screened with fencing, walls, landscaping or berms. When natural materials are used as principal screening, 75% opacity must be achieved year round through the use of evergreen trees. - Plant materials shall be selected with regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal interest, climate zone durability and its ultimate growth characteristics. - Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters, pots, or within paved areas is encouraged. - Perennial /shrub planting beds, trees and turf areas shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system to provide optimal plant establishment and long -term plant health. Parking - When determined appropriate, commercial buildings are to accommodate bicycle /motorcycle parking areas and bike racks. - Cross parking between building areas shall be permitted. - Parking stalls to be a minimum of 9'x 18' and drive aisles to be 24' (60' bay spacing) for two -way traffic and drive aisles to be 20' (56' bay spacing) for one - way traffic. Parking stalls may be oriented at 60, 75, and 90 degree angles. - Major drive aisles or truck routes may have increased aisle widths. - Parking lot layout shall include clear, traffic movement for both pedestrian and automobile. - A minimum overall parking ratio of 4.5 /1000 shall be maintained - Site impervious surface should be minimized to help preserve green space, yet provide the necessary parking amount to support the development regardless of uses. Lighting - Lighting shall provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. All parking lot lights shall be metal halide or 2000 -4000 kelvin LED and be uniform in style, color, and height. Maximum pole height of 50' in parking areas and 28' in entry drive areas and along property edges. - Pedestrian lighting shall be of pedestrian scale height (12' -18') and be uniform in style and color. - Light poles, fixtures, and bases shall be a consistent dark color (i.e. bronze, black, or brown). - Exterior wall lighting shall be encouraged to enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. - Lighting styles and building fixtures shall be of a design and scale compatible with the building and adjacent areas. Shoe or hat box style fixtures are acceptable for taller parking lot lighting. More detailed ornamental style fixtures shall be encouraged for pedestrian impact. - Light levels that promote a safe environment are required. Excessive brightness shall be prohibited. - Dark sky and cutoff style fixtures shall be used for safety purposes. Pedestrian Connections - Pedestrian connectivity shall be incorporated to link all buildings within the site where feasible. - Pedestrian connections shall be made to the existing public sidewalk system. - Benches or seating shall be provided at appropriate areas for pedestrians. - Striping of crosswalks shall be required at appropriate crossings. - Outdoor seating areas and outdoor sales areas shall be incorporated where appropriate. Such areas shall utilize a unified theme and approach to the defining elements (structural elements, railings, shading, paving, lighting, landscaping) for the creation of these exterior spaces. Bicycle Connections - Trail connections shall be maintained and connected to the existing overpass system. - Bike parking and resting areas shall be incorporated as an element of the Shingle Creek waterway. - The trail shall be designed to allow continuous flow of bicycle traffic as well as areas of refuge. - Pedestrian shopping sidewalks shall connect to the trail at appropriate intersections. SEARS' SCREENING WALL # a EXHIBIT - SURVEY \ I / ApwRa�A�E S Ar R ARRo eucawo MI S ocr MO MWEAnCa) LOT LINE oe J ALLOWABLE SCREENING I WALL W/ ZERO LOT LINE Y 105± FEET Z I 41 � xi x 66 - euLOwc n 8 20 T 0 11v A i / Mao 9 G ' d Mai EXSnNC BR/CK &&D/NC G '.' 113 \ Ir SEARS STORE V _ ADDRESS • / /OB.BROaWALE CENTER AREA Cr tWr#W 8fALD1NO FOOTPRINT .x y \ rc w.. Ma• +•799,572 SQ. FT. o• Ma:: Max AREA W SEARS rwmR9/T a" =114,5J6 $0. FT:. •"a' r •r. 72..1 ��• .alert \ n LOT LINE SEARS' SCREENING WALL• ° (existing) 140+ FEET �� \ rat e5i- ris = = SEE SHEET 17 [ATTACHMENT NINE ,r. ,r ®, ALLOWABLE WALL 105+ FEET w n EXISTING W ". 140+ FEET x Wit,♦ *� j ffi w a t _ � a J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -11 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -015 SUBMITTED BY SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (City) has received and considered Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -015 submitted by Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears), which proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the existing 1999 Brookdale Regional Shopping Center Mall redevelopment plan; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 1999, the City adopted Resolution No. 99 -37, which approved Planning Commission Application No. 99001, submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC, and which comprehended and approved the rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center property, which is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east and south by T. H. 100 and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 1999, the City also considered and approved a new planned unit development proposal and plan of the subject property (1999 PUD Plan), which comprehended new site and building plan approvals for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center, and which included the following improvements: 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; and 5. Conceptual approval, subject to further Planning Commission and City Council review and approval, of four additional freestanding restaurant 1 and/or retail buildings to be located around the perimeter of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the City considered and approved the following allowed variations from the underlying zoning, which were considered reasonable standards to apply to the 1999 PUD Plan proposal: A. 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 (this standard has been allowed in other areas within the city). B. 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. C. 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 on 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 in the area. D. 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. E. Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale Mall. F. 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. WHEREAS, on December 9, 1999 the City approved and entered into a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions agreement (1999 PUD Agreement) with Talisman Brookdale LLC, which established the new 1999 Brookdale Regional Shopping Center Planned Unit Development and redevelopment plan on the subject site; and 2 WHEREAS, on June 13, 2011 the City adopted Resolution No. 2011 -85, which approved Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, and which approved the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development plan of Brookdale Mall, and which approval comprehended additional adjustments not approved under the 1999 PUD Agreement and included the following variations from the zoning ordinance: A. Allow a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 -'/z ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects along Xerxes Avenue. B. Allow 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. WHEREAS, Sears requested additional adjustments not approved under the 1999 PUD Agreement, and furthermore requested and desires to have extended to their own separate property the same or similar adjustments approved to Gatlin Development Company under their approved Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which variations were adjusted or re- worded accordingly by city staff to match Sears' own property, noted as follows: A. 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. B. Allow a reduction in the 15 ft. parking setback and 35 ft. building setback along Bass Lake Road to offset the dedication of additional right of way for the trail improvements. 3 C. Allow 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area and 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. D. 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. E. 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 additional Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. F. 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. G. Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears building and adjacent to the patio /plaza space. WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on July 14, 2011 whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development Amendment were received and considered by the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received, including the guidelines for evaluating such amendments as contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan; the public hearing was closed; and the matter was tabled to a later date; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission tabled this matter to the August 25, 2011 regular meeting, where a follow -up staff report was presented regarding this Planned Unit Development Amendment; the variations requested by Sears were revised and presented; and this matter was given further consideration by the Planning Commission. 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 -015 submitted by Sears Roebuck and Co. is approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development Amendment is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development Amendment 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 4 surrounding land. 3. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 4. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. 5. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating Planned Unit Development Amendment as contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. 6. The Planned Unit Development Amendment as comprehended by Sears, and the allowance of certain variations to the underlying zoning, will create a unified and harmonious development between the existing and future development site of Sears with the new and future development plans of the adjacent Shingle Creek Crossing development site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -015 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The utilization of the subject property shall conform to the approved 1999 Planned Unit Development plan, with the exception of the additional variations from the 1999 PUD Agreement noted in the 2011 Sears Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement contained herein. A. Allow parking for retail uses to be reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area; B. Allow 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area of the restaurant use; C. Allow a reduction from 63 -feet to 60 -feet for 90- degree parking and reduction from 57 to a 52.5 foot wide for 60- degree parking; and D. Allow a zero foot (0') lot line setback at the existing northeast corner to the Sears building (measured as 163.6 feet), and allow the zero lot line for the 140 feet of screening wall to remain, along with an allowance of additional screening wall to be placed along the property line in certain areas. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a 15 -foot easement for trail purposes along the westerly boundary adjacent to Xerxes Avenue and a 17 -foot wide trail 5 easement along the southerly boundary adjacent to TH 100. Applicant shall provide all legal documents to complete the transfer of these easements, including but not limited to trail easement exhibits, legal descriptions, updated title, and closing costs. 3. If Applicant chooses to remain a party to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Sign Program /Plan, they will be allowed to have secondary placement of tenant signs on the two freeway pylon and three major pylon signs being proposed and installed under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. If Applicant chooses not to be part of the SCC -PUD sign program and forfeits all rights to said signs, the City will consider a separate sign program/plan, similar to that submitted by Gatlin and only as part of any PUD amendment. 4. All other allowances or variations granted under the 1999 PUD Agreement shall remain in effect. 5. The Applicant shall execute and enter into a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 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 , Commissioners II and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I i 6 Application Filed on 06/22/2011 City Council Action Should Be Taken by 10/20/2011 (by means of extension) Planning Commission Information Sheet (Follow -Up Report) Application No. 2011 -016 Applicant: Loren Van Der Slik — Gatlin Development Location: 1108 Brookdale Center Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment — Shingle Creek Crossing Meeting Date: August 25, 2011 INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to the previously approved Shingle Creek Crossing PUD redevelopment plans. The updated master plans illustrating this amendment are referenced as Attachments A.1 and A.2 and consists of the following components: 1. The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; 2. The renovation/conversion of the Food Court mall building (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; 3. The elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 4. The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; 5. The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 Barking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56` Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. This item was presented for consideration under a public hearing at the July 14, 2011 regular meeting and said hearing was closed. During the hearing, the Applicant presented an updated master plan (not included in original agenda packet) to the PUD amendment. Upon discussion and comments with the Applicant, the Commission elected to- table this matter to a future date to allow city staff to work with the Applicant on site details, including (but not limited to) landscaping; design concepts of the drive -aisle and pedestrian walkway; and access connection between both properties. This PUD Amendment and the related improvements or revisions presented herein, including the separation of these buildings, is due in part to on -going negotiations between Sears corporate and Gatlin Development. App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS) 1. The physical separation of the existing retail mall/food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; The updated plans (see Attachments B.1 & B.2) provided by Gatlin illustrate an approximate 41 -foot wide area of separation between both buildings, along with various improvements. The detailed plans (see Attachments C.1 and C.2) illustrate a 13.5 -foot wide landscaped walkway along the northerly edge of the Sears building, plus a 24 -foot wide two -way drive - aisle. At each end of the drive will be two raised crosswalks to serve as a visible pedestrian path and traffic calming device (speed bump) for vehicles. Gatlin indicated that the proposed drive -thru or drive -aisle between the buildings serves two functions: (1) as an extension of the internal access drive lanes it allows the connection of the central parking area to the western/Xerxes Ave. parking area; and (2) as a utility drive to facilitate essential building services, including trash/recycling areas and mechanical and utility services. Gatlin expressed their belief that without the two -way drive connection, the main (central) parking area in their Shingle Creek site may become too congested and over - parked given the expected higher parking needs for Wal -Mart and Sears customers. Gatlin also states the connecting drive provides a more convenient and direct route in shuttling vehicles and customers back - and -forth between these two parking areas, which is critical in marketing and attracting potential tenants to the westerly portion of the Food Court building. Plans also illustrate two small sections of architectural fencing at the corners of the Food Court building adjacent to the drive aisle. This fencing is used to guide pedestrians to the raised walkway and prevent shoppers from short- cutting across or entering directly into the drive. Staff may recommend additional fencing in this area to provide extra safety measures for pedestrians during review and analysis of the future site plan. One plan reflects a proposal to keep the remodeled Food Court building's loading area alone, while the other shows it relocated to the southwest corner of the building. Because the future layout or tenant finishes of this building are unknown at this time, Staff is not providing any recommendation on these two layouts. The final layout or building design would need to be analyzed and evaluated under separate (and future) site plan consideration. The separation also requires Gatlin to install a separate 16' x 50' entry -way at the northeast corner of Sears (see Attachment —D). Since this structure is legally on Gatlin's property and due to the previous zero -lot line situation with the old mall structure attached to Sears at this location, the City is granting Gatlin [under this PUD Amendment agreement] a continuation of this zero -lot line setback. Gatlin has informed staff that this entryway will be covered under an easement agreement or license agreement between Gatlin and Sears. Any agreement will need to be approved by the City Attorney. Although two different plan sets were submitted for review, Staff is not recommending one plan over the other; moreover, Staff is recommending the Commission approve the separation of buildings to take place, with the understating that any final site and App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 2 improvements will be fully analyzed and evaluated under future site plan consideration. By approving this master plan update (amendment) the Commission is giving implicit approval to the Developer's concept in separating these two buildings, and which includes the Applicant's request to have two -way traffic drive aisle, and the pedestrian walkway and related improvements. 2. The renovation/conversion of the Food Court mall (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; The original Shingle Creek Crossing PUD proposed the original Food Court building would be re- skinned and remodeled to accommodate 123,242 sq. ft. of retail space. The plans originally called for leaving the existing central mall corridor in place and the separate tenant spaces /finishes would be completed later by Gatlin (see Attachment -E) Gatlin has submitted with this application an updated floor leasing plan (see Attachment -F) which eliminates this interior corridor and provides a new 150,000+ sq. ft. floor -plan, with a 70,285 sf. single tenant space, along with three mid -range level tenants (18,128 sf., 21,360 sf. & 24,762 sf.); plus two small level (4,057 & 5,549 sf, spaces) and a 5,064 sf. cafd space. All spaces (except the cafd) would have access to a much narrower service corridor, which connects all uses to a relocated service /loading dock and trash enclosure area. A concern raised at the July 14 meeting was the apparent elimination or missing landscaping in the adjacent parking areas shown on the submitted master plan. The new (updated) master plan now indicates landscaping in certain locations and interior islands. The final landscaping of these areas will also be reviewed and subject to approvals under future site plan review. Once again Staff is not providing a recommendation on this floor plan. Staff however, is providing a recommendation of approval in allowing the Developer to proceed with elimination of this central mall common area and expand their available retail space in said building. Staff is not providing any approvals or recommendation on this interior layout or loading area relocation until such time as the site plan review /consideration. 3. The elimination of proposed Building Nfrom the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; The elimination of Building N from the SCC site results in a number of adjustments. First, the 2.27 acre lot that accompanied this building is eliminated and residual lot area is added into the Food Court lot. The resulting parcel reconciles to 13.43 acres in size. Secondly, the resulting loss of Bldg. N creates a new landscaped median between the Shingle Creek Crossing area and the Sears loading dock area. This median provides a physical separation and screen between the Wal -Mart store /parking lot from the existing Sears' loading docks. The original plan presented at the July 14 meeting did not provide a break or drive -aisle in this median, which raised a number of concerns in providing cross - access movement (customer vehicles) between the Sears and SCC sites. Gatlin's new master plan now illustrates the break and cross - access arrangement Staff was advocating. App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 3 EXISTING PROPOSED t `l II 1 6 >4 ED F! N S)G4b The previously approved SCC -PUD plans provided for delivery trucks serving Sears and Bldg. N would be allowed to cross -over respective property boundaries. The Applicant has indicated that the new design parameters requested by Sears includes an additional 15 -foot easement space on Gatlin's property to accommodate Sears' truck movements and deliveries in this area. The City Engineer requested an updated truck traffic movement plan that shows how all loading areas function. The original SCC -PUD agreement contained such a plan and this will need to be updated (amended) as part of any approvals. Staff has relayed these concerns to the Developer, who should provide an updated plan sets that address these issues. 4. The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block I (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building. The additional parking is a direct result of the elimination of Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N) from the SCC -PUD plan. The loss provides 103 additional parking spaces within the site, which off -sets the additional parking needs of the proposed retail space expansion in the Food Court building, and the loss of parking due to the creation of Building R and its new lot with 30 parking spaces. The approved SCC -PUD site data table reflected the Food Court bldg. would be parked at a ratio of 4.53 spaces /1000 sf. of GLA (558 spaces for 123,242 GLA); while the new layout reflects a ratio of 4.5 spaces /1000 sf. GLA (678 spaces for 150,591 GLA). The new layout design meets the approved 4.5/1000 sf. GLA approved in the 2011 SCC -PUD Agreement. S. The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft commercial pad site to be labeled Building R along with a new platted lot. The new 0.71 acre building site is shown with a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building with 30 parking spaces. This 511,000 sf. ratio exceeds the 4.5 spaces /1,000 sf. allowed under the SCC -PUD standards for typical retail stores. This replat is not part of or approved under this App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 4 application process, and shall be completed under separate plat application. Because the area of this lot is inside the approved SCC -PUD perimeters, it will be subject to the 2011 PUD standards, including architectural and design material standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2011 -12, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2011 -016, which proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow changes to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions and allowances: 1. Allow the physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building as shown on the August 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (labeled with "Existing Dock "). 2. The Applicant shall submit detailed design elements of this separation area, including (but not limited to) roadway and pedestrian walkway materials and standards, decorative (architectural) fencing, lighting, landscaping, and other amenities under separate site plan review. 3. Architectural building elevation plans must show both walls between the separated buildings and must be equally designed and match the external wall architectural standards throughout the development, including the Sears wall. 4. Applicant shall provide a signed, executed easement agreement, license agreement or similar between Gatlin Development and Sears which provides for the construction, access and maintenance rights of the new 16' x 50' Sears entryway near the northeast corner of Sears' building. Said agreement must be reviewed by the City Attorney. 5. Allow the continuation of a zero -lot line setback only to the entryway described herein and as shown on the amendment plans. 6. Allow the renovation/conversion of the Food Court interior mall (common area) into retail space, and the expansion of the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft. Final building design changes, both interior and exterior, and which may be different from those originally submitted in the 2011 SCC -PUD plan sets, including the relocation of the loading area, utility and trash enclosure areas, shall be approved under separate and future site plan consideration. 7. Allow the elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 8. Provide an updated major access routes exhibit for the entire development that includes defined truck routes to Site R, elimination of Site N, and for any new loading dock proposed with the existing Food Court building. App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 5 9. Truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to City review and approval under final site plan consideration. 10. Allow the expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail area of the Food Court building; 11. Allow the addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot, subject to these related conditions: a) The creation and approval of this lot shall be made under separate plat application, with final plat approval by the City Engineer and City Council; and b) The proposed Building R is located within the previously approved SCC -PUD perimeters and shall be subject to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD standards, including architectural and design material standards. 12. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. 13. Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. Attachments - City Engineer's Review Memo — dated July 6, 2011 - 2011 PUD Amendment Plan Set A.1 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan — August 2011 (Existing Dock) A.2 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan — August 2011 (New Dock) B.1 Shingle Creek Crossing Site Plan (dated 08/04/2011) B.2 Shingle Creek Crossing Site Plan (dated 07/25/2011) C.1 Sheet EX -A2 (Sears/Food Court Separation Plan) C.2 Sheet EX -A (Sears /Food Court Separation Plan w/ new docks) D Sheet Al — Sears Entryway (East Elev.) E Existing Food Court Mall floor plan (w/ interior mal/common area) F Sheet Al -Q (Food Court Building Leasing Plan) App. No. 2011 -016 PC 08/25/2011 Page 6 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -12 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -016 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK (FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) WHEREAS, Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company (Applicant) submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -016, which proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow the following changes to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends additional adjustments not approved under the 2011 PUD Agreement, which are noted as follows: 1. The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; 2. The renovation/conversion of the interior mall (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; 3. The elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 4. The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; 5. The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on July 14, 2011 where a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development Amendment were received and considered by the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received, including the guidelines for evaluating such amendments as contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan; the public hearing was closed; and the matter was tabled to a later date; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission tabled this matter to the August 25, 2011 regular meeting, where a follow -up staff report was presented regarding this Planned Unit Development Amendment; the variations requested by Applicant were revised and presented; and this matter was given further consideration by the Planning Commission. 1 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 -016 submitted by Gatlin Development Company be approved based upon the following considerations: A. The Planned Unit Development Amendment is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. B. The Planned Unit Development Amendment 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. C. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. D. The Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. E. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating Planned Unit Development Amendment as contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -016 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Allow the physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building as shown on the August 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (labeled with "Existing Dock "). 2. The Applicant shall submit detailed design elements of this separation area, including (but not limited to) roadway and pedestrian walkway materials and standards, decorative (architectural) fencing, lighting, landscaping, and other amenities under separate site plan review. Architectural fencing will be installed along the outer edge of the walkway from one crosswalk to the other crosswalk for added pedestrian safeguards. 3. Architectural building elevation plans must show both walls between the separated buildings and must be equally designed and match the external wall architectural standards throughout the development, including the Sears wall. 2 4. Applicant shall provide a signed, executed easement agreement, license agreement or similar between Gatlin Development and Sears which provides for the construction, access and maintenance rights of the new 16' x 50' Sears entryway near the northeast corner of Sears' building. Said agreement must be reviewed by the City Attorney. 5. Allow the continuation of a zero -lot line setback only to the entryway described herein and as shown on the amendment plans. 6. Allow the renovation/conversion of the Food Court interior mall (common area) into retail space, and the expansion of the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft. Final building design changes, both interior and exterior, and which may be different from those originally submitted in the 2011 SCC -PUD plan sets, including the relocation of the loading area, utility and trash enclosure areas, shall be approved under separate and future site plan consideration. 7. Allow the elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 8. Provide an updated major access routes exhibit for the entire development that includes defined truck routes to Site R, elimination of Site N, and for any new loading dock proposed with the existing Food Court building. 9. Truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary Plan. 10. Allow the expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail area of the Food Court building; 11. Allow the addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot, subject to these related conditions: a) The creation and approval of this lot shall be made under separate plat application, with final plat approval by the City Engineer and City Council; and b) The proposed Building R is located within the previously approved SCC- PUD perimeters and shall be subject to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD standards, including architectural and design material standards. 12. All other provisions, standards and variations created under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. 3 13. Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 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 , Commissioners and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2011 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor Steve Lillehaug, City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works Review for Planning Application No. 2011 -016 Planned Unit Development - Shingle Creek Crossing Public Works Department staff reviewed the documents submitted for review for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) dated June 24, 2011, and provides the following recommendations, comments and conditions for only those changes pertaining to the added Site R, the deleted Site N and the added separation on the north side of the Sears building: 1. Adding the proposed separation between the buildings as proposed detracts from the overall PUD development and introduces issues pertaining to the long narrow corridor including safety and security issues, functionality, imposing traffic restrictions to prohibit vehicles from accessing this area and other less than desirable issues that should not be an element of a new type of development if they can be avoided, especially as a PUD. If allowed, the following revisions should be included pertaining to this area: a. Prohibit all vehicle traffic between buildings. b. Raised curb and gutter should be carried through each end of the separated area. c. Traffic restricted to pedestrians only. d. Provide full -time security plan for this corridor. e. Provide landscape and sidewalk plans. f. Proper clearance must be provided between service doors and sidewalk. g. Trash pick -up and storage should be revised to a location that has direct access to areas with vehicular traffic. 2. Provide an updated major access routes exhibit for the entire development that includes defined truck routes to Site R, elimination of Site N, and for the new loading dock to the existing building and retail shops. 3. All newly proposed loading dock and truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas, must not direct or invite public parking ingress /egress routes through loading dock and turning/backing areas, and must not encroach on main drive aisles. Truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary Plan. 4. Architectural building elevation plans must show both walls between the separated buildings and must be equally designed and match the external wall architectural standards throughout the development, including the Sears wall. 5. The revised parking lot design on the east side of Sears (old Site N) is landlocked from access to the southerly ring road, with the exception of through the Walmart loading dock area. This is unacceptable and must be fully separated. 6. No other revisions to the layouts pertaining to any of the other sites have been reviewed and are not considered amendments to the PUD. All items, recommendations and conditions are preliminary planned unit development review comments only and are meant to represent and guide the future planning and development of site plans and the corresponding revisions to the property plat and easements that are necessary. All conditions are subject to further review, revision and approval as part of any future re- platting and site plan review. re (fR' a v(7w .. u a . Mxav Yt i t R2 �'tiW��� SV ,G1t1Pr;"I it �y � � -� f ''� ? � wr .:� w ^vI1T+sP•V :,n'ar ».w Y!!!a#1 � r ' _ �' w * • • ;. F COUNP ^ROAD- ' ` ; �' PROPOSED PYLON 8qN '-r -..— -.-.`" : o ►�,�yl . r- �E • • — �y' ✓ SED PYLON PROPOSED MDNUMENi 0PG ED v s • !' u ' t �'� :► �, R� °A �� ' • M i m . ,J; ` r „p ' , ��t, • y� PROPOSE Eme { y {'. �. CREEK. EOIDNAL j 4 dRECI ;� t: SIGN 4 PRO Pos k +1 RAIN GARDEN ' , ' � S _k j - a . r CONNECTION J ' f . mp � Z - ` EKRiT1ND SRKN3E pkopi SE NV N PYLO SIGN !1 + , M36 • '� � � - ry f=EK BDXC RT ED • t t y � < �� ; 21 � 3 ON BIDN r , FRTRATIONAR (TYPJ EXISTING DOCK F M" �' �",�< ' SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING BROOKLYN CENTER, MN t� PROP66ED PYON SIG MASTER PLAN ED FR A Y AuguSL 201 �y► ' > t 7 � iU(t t / /,1 } ✓, yr:,, } D 60® Ere CD �- Kimley -Horn GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and Associates, Inc. t �'�/ NOTE IOL 9oWh MM Strco1 MPROVEMENTS TO SEARS PARCELS NDT PARTOFTNS PUD AND 17055 T.161 T nee TeL 61S.94A.71R4 - a�'^ ARE SU8IECTTO CffT APPROVAL 1bx. 613 -0d6.71O5 A ' � a Oq� _ • tai , . to S UM PROPO6ED PYLON SKiN V .,. ♦ • .� }�, � : !• 1 =# /� r y - _. SED PYLID ROPOSED • to OPO ED1 . 4- Q r . , ' ^.' , QIGN. 'r , VVEW +fi LE � . CREEK REGIONA T MAP .. • �: '+' '- DIRECTIONAL r `. {•.. t 5 y ? 1 1 . SM3N S J ,t; 4 { { 'L 1 S'4 POS K �CiIITEO f •' Amp k h R - A COIRlECT10N RNN GARDEN ' ,� �j x , ` EXISTING 6RR)GE (TYP.1' = J PYLONSIGN A AA! w LE PEKBDXC LON SIGN REENMYi 1 FB ;NAR ITYP., NEW DOCK Aw 4 • --y �,� tr ° SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING # BROOKLYN CENTER, MN PROPO ,•'' - :`' MASTER PLAN AUGUST 2011 NWY w in 2t0 fT 'All cq) ' . +4jr" r n rPT� Kimley -Horn •M� = GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - and Associates, Inc . ;, � No11= m, Rou,M1 Meo Shse1 _ IMPROVEMENTS TO SEARS PARCEL ISNOTPARTOFTNSPUDAND Dkk—.Tm- -37055 T.1 6154�71M ARE SUBlECT10 CRY APPROVAL �— CO � !Ay j f 9 UIRY 0 IPXE ROAD q9 I L O �.. S .� �\ \' j / / VI-AY / �7,1/ , L ti ` s s ` � y NO.,ao /� / ✓� �_ e L e 1 �� _ � _ ev e , i � 1e .� r� � I V. \ r O v vt'�� �• NORTI ASALE 5 �0 ED p , AVFN � f���40GK1 / u Lora. EXISING BULDNG'. ,_. :'. , Ji �Y, , .•/ / / / / / �ng ; x t SH RETAIL OPS v .. w m Z OUTLOTq / /5 P � SITE DATA TABLE Vl W /. p z /� // i n 1 zy \ / APLEKEES m. 7 b 55tH A`IEN ? / 0 'r2AACRES 1-1 1B SPACES 79 SPACES 4B— 4 A—ES ISS 0 . I Z E 1- �a &ocKt w OH ° � �Z4 I ' 11 '. 1 / - sD 1!2 �r w V u�i f ; /r LU Z ` 0 0 0 331 4 LP BE ES S11ACEE 1.1 PAOPoSEa�TE«A��E' oN �`:�T BEREE�T,®.S—ATEDLl�K. N m S •r »ESE L.1—L EE R-- t iS CREE. K�RO.ECT Na > a 1 �P COUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAD COUNTY _ �OOUNTY RD NO 10 BASS LAKE ROAp q a � , °` .. • I r_ - - - �_— - - . �\` -. roc _ O _ - -_ �o w - -- = _ � 4b i BL \ LoT 1 E XISTIN G E yt KOHLS / : 17 t O i ] T. • ' , I Lx L L q i l \ • L 6. + \ \\ )Yj NO. 100 ■ �� B 1 I � a vv � // 4 �/ A LEBE � • • . I /� � ) ~ i SCALE / LOT 3. BLOCK \ jf E 0' n ? I ° z EKISTING •\ (((��\ 1 I / / /�' F A = Fn I S BUILDING' BL T SHOPS \\ • O` •.`i6N ) � Smi a Te1,11{] S.F. (A EKISTING PARIS 5 /� 5 l Z U' 1\ ' � \ 9roRAKRATER ti ��Lr W Z � OUTLOTA % / / SITE DATA TABLE Z 1111,OPROVi0E0 RATA Z O W 1 x �� / W U Q ` aPPLEBEES LOT a BLOC N K, BLOC 1 IBES — FT AB SPACES 54 SPACES 3 SPACES I EPA.. M. 11 SPACES 11 SPACES I.PACEE I S—ES / so Q [ 55TH AVEN , / Dal 2I ' Z BWCKZ Y E LOT,x STOCK, PIT A1111 SPACEE 11 SPACES 1AC. ISPACES LOT,] BLOCN, / 3 , • ' / P W TI BLOCK, A.. 0SPACES 63 SPACES IS— PACUS O F T, PT U / OFT U W F / •' 9O FT 0 0 A 1090 Fi U U (O LOT 15 BLOCK 1 PAC :VA 4 SPACES A SPACES i P LIT BLOCK, 2iSACRES RS,09.Fi —SPACES ° ,9A 9PaCF.3 89PACE9 BSPACES LOi,e BLOCK, ]88 ACRES � O 3588090 R. ,S, 9PaCE9 ,BA SPACES BBPACES BsPaCES <.� � J W LOT BLOCK, BI,aGRES 00039 FT II9PACE9 909PACE9 2 9PACES 9Pa E3 ao U Y It ONTLOTA •9TACRES w GNTw,A - Rowo 91CATION DUN RONO.,s B.T9A RE9 m g ° ROwp ®GATGN 9ATEHMNGIM ,,.8=ACRES Z m '" KoHLS 11Tx111K2 B99ACRSS 790009 33PAUa I9PAE3 BSPACES BSPA�E9 BS = w 9 = / 9009A RE9 99500090 PRGPGBEU STEARE�E ,1e '°' LONSFg [ i 7 9TOBEREPaTEOA9NUaT ® U oNPN. -THESE LOTS MUL BE REP D �0. -�� ►' I1�11111 i ii ° ■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �� ■ ■ ■ ■■, 1 1 Vin ■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■■� ATTACHME ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.:a • co �LJ ' Ill Irf 1 ■� I: . 1 ■1 1�1 .r� ■iii .':; • ■■1 • ., .. - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■Yri IT, cn ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� IIS ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■_ ■ ■ ■�;� ■ ■I J!! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■� ■A ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I -- — — - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■L'�'1'!J ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I - . co 00 XM �o' SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SEARS / FOOD COURT © t ♦ = =_ W BROOKLYN CENTER, MN BUILDING SEPARATION �m ,Illlllllliiii■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■�� .iii , � ���� ■_ ���� ■ ■��� ■■ ■�1 ATTACHMENT C.2 ■■ ■■ :: ■■ ' ' �■ ' ' ■ ■■ y� ;: OX oc Ic ■■ 0 COX it J 111' iLJ 1�1 1 ■:I C71 1�1 an I Iri, 11 cQ • m m I ob SH NGLE CREEK CROSSING SEARS'/ 1?J�1 1■I Rai i■�i� ,�� ■! ^ ■ ■� I�ri �. ■t ■■� ■!■iliirii7 ■1,, , IV ■ ■ ■ ■I ■�!� ■ ■n ■I■I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I `w► M B CENTER, WIN FOOD COURT BUILDING SEPARATION HENNEPIN MINNESOTA 0�m A z w PREFIN. MTL. COPING EXISTING SEAR5 EIF5 CORNICE ILLUMINATED xi BEYOND SI ONAOE H EIFS . d� BURNISHED GMU BANDS O - � � � m m PREFIN. METAL iv GANOPY BRICK GMU BASE ANOD. ALUM. STOREFRONT ENTRANCE TO SEARS I EAST �L�Y�TION -OPT. ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE CREEK PROJECT NUMBER 10- 1 ISSUED DATE: 07 -1311 3-11 DRAWN BY: BL CONSORTIUM L.L.C. CROSSING CHECKED BY: KA 901 North 3rd Street 61213364030 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BROOKLYN CENTER MN Al Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612-692-9960 1 , Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2011 11 16 / / A EBE °' 4 ♦. Common Mall Area to be Converted to Retail Space / 15 � � .•jam `• �. w DOCK 4 P 1 SHOPS w 1 10 SEARS C 1 ` `° / 1 1 4 b/ q �6 e► �� �, `fib ATTACHMENT -E 1 p 10 g ° .\ a , i .e ,.a A et i C ONSOR TIUM I y y . .......... ..... = 1 .■. r.. r.......... r�r... �■. e. n..... tl. tl■..... uli.. iY. n.■.. M.\ x�•.Y. ■x. ■. ■.VUi��l��l���l����. 111 ■■ 1111111 ■.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 . ■■ 0 iii.GG ■ ■ ■O ■1 i Gi GG.i .......... ..........r,n.w.l�. ■ ■ ■. ■::= 1...7 `- II] ■ ■1Y ■ ■1�1.f ■ ■11 ■ ,.... Y ... � ■11.:'1 ..u..o..... oo...no..unu. IIIIIIIIIIIIII .�........� ............®.n. ............• ..... CAFE • :.. .wwlr.w�..�_: _: ..... «.!� -��m� . R■■■■■ IA11Y111 ■ ■ ■H'..'�1.'. ■'N ■ ■ ■1 ®IIN .. ... 1 - v.r.uoor.ouu:.n © \I 5.064 SF III IT7 TENANT JENANT QE3 H: 24,762 SF 21.36 SF TENANT FNI 5,459 SF • ~ v d a _ w��• C • • ss 'u`r �� Y,• •v , ' *'. ••• 1' a E RE DEVEL OP MENT BROOKLYN CENTER, MN LEASING PLAN r 1 r i _ .. ... .e, iii .. 1 1