The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 12-15 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DECEMBER 15, 2011 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes —November 11, 2011 Meeting 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. Paul Hyde (Real Estate Recycling) Planning App. No. 2011 -021 PUBLIC HEARING — Proposed rezoning of the property located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North, from C -2 (Commerce) to I -1 (Industrial Park), along with a proposed land use amendment to the City's 2010 Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the current land use designation on the subject site from "Office /Service Business" to "Industrial." 6. Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study — Central Portion a. Discussion and Update from City Planning Staff 7. Other Business a. Review of the City's Landscape Policy and Chapter 20 (Tree Ordinance) 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 NOVEMBER 17, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair 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 and Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino and Carlos Morgan were absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —November 17, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the minutes of the November 17, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Chair Rahn abstained since he was absent at the meeting. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair 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 -019 — THOMAS J WEBER (T J WEBER PROPERTIES) Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -019 a request for Preliminary Plat approval of Evans Nordby Addition, located at 6000 Brooklyn Boulevard, to replat three existing legal parcels into one large individual platted lot for the Evans Nordby Funeral Home property. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. He explained that the in 2002 the owners of Evans - Nordby installed an asphalt parking lot on the two lots to the north of the funeral home, without approval from the City and proper permits being issued. He added that there was a misunderstanding as to what could be constructed on these lots after the site was used as a staging area by a separate contractor retained by the City to construct street improvements in the neighboring area. The City, at that time did not object to a base being laid for an eventual parking lot as part of restoring the site following its discontinuance as a staging area. However, it was expected that plans for drainage, grading, storm sewer, landscaping and screening would be submitted for approval before construction of the lot. Mr. Benetti further explained that in July 2003, Thomas Weber, acting on behalf of Nor -Web LLP, received approval of a Special Use Permit to construct, what was technically considered an 11 -17 -11 Page 1 off -site accessory parking lot for the Evans - Nordby Funeral Home. He added that the parking lot was (and still is) located on the two vacant parcels immediately north of the funeral home site and that one of the key requirements or conditions of approval of this special use permit approval was the owners had to replat the three parcels into one single parcel of land or platted lot. The approval and completion of this plat request shall fulfill the requirements made under the special use permit approvals. Chair Rahn asked about the recommendation by Staff to close off two of the access points along Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Benetti replied that it is only a recommendation at this time by the City Engineer, not a condition of approval. Benetti also pointed out the precarious location of the driveway located near the intersection of 60 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard and stated this driveway may need to be closed sometime in the future. Mr. Benetti further stated that in his conversations with Mr. Weber, City staff is willing to work with and assist Mr. Weber on completing the access closings; and that Mr. Weber indicated to him that this driveway is rarely used and serves primarily as a special parking area for relatives of the departed during funeral services. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-019 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -019, at 7:12 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. The applicant, Mr. Thomas Weber, 6000 Brooklyn Boulevard, introduced himself to the Commission. Chair Rahn asked if they had plans to close any of the access points as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Weber replied that they use the 60 Avenue entrance less than others and have considered closing or making it an exit only by posting `Do Not Enter'. He added that they use the Brooklyn Boulevard entrances to back up vehicles and would prefer to keep them open. Councilmember Carol Kleven, 5835 Zenith Avenue N, stated that she knows the whole family and asked if they have any plans to enlarge the building. Mr. Weber responded that the only plans they have at this point is to update the interior of the building. No additions to the building are planned. Ms. Pat LaBelle, 3319 61 Ave N, asked if they will close off entrances on the Boulevard, would traffic be coming out onto 60 Avenue? If so, she stated that she feels it would be a lot of traffic in the residential neighborhood. Mr. Weber replied that they have considered that and realize it would be a problem using accesses off the residential streets when there is a large crowd at the funeral home. Ms. LaBelle stated that she would like to keep traffic kept off the residential streets. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -019. 11 -17 -11 Page 2 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Parks,, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -019, at 7:18 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-014 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -014. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its November 28, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NO. 2011 -020 — ISD 286 BROOKLYN CENTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -020 a request for Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of a new youth recreation gymnasium building and future outdoor basketball court to be located on the Brooklyn Center High School campus. Mr. Benetti explained that Independent School District No. 286 (Brooklyn Center) is seeking a special use permit and site and building plan approval to construct a new 62' x 112' (6,944 sf.) recreation center /gymnasium, along with a planned (future) 50' x 84' outdoor basketball court to be installed by others. The new building would be situated on the Brooklyn Center Junior /Senior High School campus grounds, generally between the high school and the football stadium. Mr. Benetti added that the special use permit amendment is required due to schools being permitted by special use in the R -1 (One Family Residence) Districts. Although undetermined if the school ever received an original special use permit, the City has acknowledged and approved other similar site and building plan improvements on the school grounds by means of special use amendments. The site and building plan review is necessary for any institutional use (such as schools, churches, etc.) which comprehends any new building or major improvements in the R -1 District as well. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-020 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -020, at 7:36 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 11 -17 -11 Page 3 Superintendent Keith Lester, 6500 Humboldt Ave N, stated that the Brooklyn Center School District was notified a year ago that they were given a federal grant in the amount of $304,000 to be used for teen related activities. He added that this will be a Brooklyn Center recreation center and they anticipate this to be a multi - purpose use for the community and the general public geared towards youth activities. Commissioner Morey asked how the facility going to work as a community piece. Mr. Lester replied that the school district will be responsible for managing and coordinating the space but other organizations will be allowed to use the facility free of charge. Commissioner Morey stated that based on the way the grant was structured, what percentage of usage is required to be for sports related activities? Mr. Lester replied that the school district applied three times for this grant and they were told that it must be used for youth recreation as the main purpose in order to receive the grant. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she appreciates the explanation of where the money came from. She also asked about the color chosen for the building since it doesn't seem to coordinate with other buildings. Mr. Dan Krekelberg, 6500 Humboldt Ave N, responded that the school district wanted a less intrusive color, one that does not stand out so much. Mr. Lester added that their plan was to make it look less like the bus garage. Commissioner Morey asked about the layout of the interior of the building, besides bathrooms and storage. Mr. Lester replied that it is just a big open space and the thought in planning involved creating a building more like a practice facility not a tournament facility. Mr. Jeff Joles, 6618 Dupont Ave N, asked if there were any plans for exterior lighting on the building. He stated that there is a lot of vandalism in the area particularly to the concession stand and he would like to see some lighting around the new building. Mr. Krekelberg responded that there is none on plans at this time but they would consider putting up some lighting. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -020. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -020, at 7:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. 11 -17 -11 Page 4 Commissioner Parks stated that he had concerns about Condition No. 18 that stated "Any other future expansion or alterations deemed by City Planning Staff to be minor in nature or considered accessory or ancillary to the general, typical and overall operations of the Brooklyn Center Junior /Senior High School campus, shall not be subject to any future special use amendment, but may be subject to additional site and building plan application and consideration." He feels that it is dangerous to slide on the special use permit requirements since they may not do what they are supposed to do without city approval or knowledge and no input from the neighbors. Chair Rahn asked if there had been any issues in the past where a special use permit requirement was waived. He stated that agrees with Commissioner Parks. Mr. Eitel responded that with a school that has been around for over 50 years, and used almost every piece of available land, they were not able to find that the school was originally allowed under a special use permit. He explained that when you look at a special use permit as a master plan for the site, do we need to hold public hearings for minor amendments when there was no special use permit originally? Mr. Eitel stated that it in certain cases where the overall development or use of a site is consistent with its intended or previously approved use, the need for additional special use amendments or permits become unnecessary. Commissioner Parks stated that he feels it is a slippery slope since there is no guarantee that the conditions will be followed. He added that in principal it is a good idea to follow the special use process so the neighbors can be informed and considered in the process through the public hearing process. Commissioner Kuykendall pointed out that the statement in the conditions of approval was only referring to a minor amendment and anything major would require city approval. Mr. Benetti confirmed that that was correct; if any future improvement or plans called for major changes or impacts to the surrounding properties, then a special use amendment would be warranted and justified, and a public hearing called to allow neighboring property owners the ability to support or object to such improvements or changes. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011-015 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -015. I 11 -17 -11 Page 5 I I Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its November 28, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS: DEMOLITION PROCESS UPDATE Mr. Eitel and Mr. Benetti reviewed the process of the demolition taking place at Brookdale. CHANGING DECEMBER MEETING DATE Mr. Benetti explained that an application has been received for the old Lifetime Fitness site, 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue, which includes a Site and Building Plan review and a Rezoning request, which requires additional notification period for the legal publication. He further explained that deadlines for the December 1 St meeting could not be met and he would like to Commission to consider changing the date of the December meeting to the 15 th . It was the consensus of the Commission to meet on December 15, 2011 in lieu of the December 1, 2011 meeting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary 11 -17 -11 Page 6 Application Filed on 11 -10 -11 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 01 -09 -12 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Meeting Date: December 15, 2011 Application No. 2011 -021 Applicant: Paul Hyde Location: 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Request: Rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to I -1 (Industrial Park) and Comprehnsive Plan Land Use Amendment from "Office /Service Buisness" to "Industrial" INTRODUCTION The applicant, Paul Hyde, President /Owner of Real Estate Recycling (RER) is seeking rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to 1 -1 (Industrial Park) of the old Northwest Athletic Club (Lifetime Fitness) site, located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North. To enable this rezoning, the City must amend the current land use designation on this site, which is identified in the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan as Office /Service Business to a new designation of Industrial. The land use amendment and rezoning approval will facilitate the redevelopment plans proposed by Mr. Hyde /RER of a new 123,758 sq. ft. office /warehouse facility on this site. These plans have been included as part of this report, but are referenced as a "conceptual" at this point, in order for the land use change and rezoning to take place first, along with the transfer of a MnDOT excess right -of -way parcel at the northeast corner. This is a public hearing, and notice has been published in the local newspaper and mailed to the surrounding property owners. BACKGROUND RER has a purchase agreement with Lifetime Fitness Corporation to acquire and develop this site should the city authorize this rezoning, along with a future site/building plan and platting application. The site was formerly home of the Northwest Athletic Club, which was acquired by Lifetime in 2006 to renovate or redevelop the club /site into a new Lifetime Fitness center. Shortly after purchasing, Lifetime demolished and cleared the property, and instead of building chose to market and sell -off the site. This parcel is approximately 7.4 acres in size. The parcel located immediately east of the Lifetime site is the former Denny's Restaurant property, which was acquired by MnDOT as part of the reconstruction of the TH 100 project in 2003. This remnant parcel is approximately 1.27 acres in size. The total combined area of these two parcels would equate to approximately 8.67 acres total. The subject site is surrounded by I -2 Heavy Industry zoning to the north; R -4 Multiple Family Residence to the northwest; R -2 Two Family Residence to the west; and R -5 Multiple Family Residence to the southwest. The I -2 zone is virtually filled -in with existing office /warehouse developments. The R -4 area consists of a number of 4 -plex apartment buildings interspersed with single - family homes. The R -2 zone to the west consists of a number of single - family PC 12 -15 -11 Page 1 homes with two - family (duplex) homes; while the R -5 zone contains the Twin Lake Apartment complex. This R -5 and part of the adjacent R -2 zoned areas are separated or buffered from this redevelopment site by a large natural berm and mature tree line along this boundary line. The remaining portion of the R -2 zone is separated by the dead -ended road section of Azelia Avenue North, which is planned to be reconstructed to accommodate truck traffic and improved with a new cul -de -sac. During preliminary testing and soil investigations of the subject site, RER discovered some potential volatile organic compounds and petroleum which may require soil clean up and remediation work. Mr. Hyde has applied for two separate grants through the Department of Employment and Economic Development and Met Council's Tax Base Revitalization programs to assist in funding a Phase I1 Site Investigation Work Plan. Some of this contamination may have been a direct result of the former Joslyn Pole Yard Manufacturing (wood treatment) site to the north. It should be noted that RER has undertaken a number of similar clean-up and redevelopment projects, most notably the clean -up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn properties. These properties now consist of similar office /warehouse facilities, which house the Caribou Coffee headquarters; Toro; Baker Furniture; and Wagner Spray companies. Once the clean -up plan is approved, RER plans to redevelop this site with the new 124,000 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse facility mentioned previously. The site and building plan and replat of the two parcels will be considered under separate planning applications at a future Planning Commission meeting. Attached as part of this report is Zoning Ordinance Section 35 -208 — Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines,. REZONING The redevelopment of this site hinges upon the successful rezoning of the parcels, and is therefore subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review, along with Section 35 -330 I -1 Industrial Park District standards. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and shall not constitute "spot zoning ", which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal: PC 12 -15 -11 Page 2 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? It is staff's opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The redevelopment proposed by Mr. Hyde will provide a nice and attractive balance to the overall business needs of the community and the other needs of adjoining properties. The redevelopment will provide an increase to the tax base in the community and may provide full -time employment opportunities to the residents. Addressing the clean-up of polluted soils that can pose a risk to health and the environment is an obvious public benefit and creating jobs on a site that is vastly underutilized. The proposal addresses the public needs and benefits in a way that makes it possible for the developer to do so in an economically feasible manner. The proposal they have is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which is basically silent as to the future development of this site or this area of the city. The property is currently zoned C -2 Commerce in an area that is heavily influenced by other industrial and similar uses, and surrounded by single family and multiple - family housing. Good planning practice usually dictates that industrial and residential uses should not be side -by -side with each other; however, this area of the community has been developed and zoned this way for a number of years, and all uses appear to function and co -exist together nicely. The proposed 1 -1 zoning will provide for an effective and legal means of allowing this "clean" and less intensive industrial use in this area. The difference between this and the adjacent 1 -2 Zone is that I -2 allows for more intense industrial uses, along with outdoor storage areas. This will not be the case in this zone or properties. The redevelopment of this site under C -2 standards could potentially create a more intensive commercial or retail user(s) in this neighborhood, with heavier vehicle traffic and noise impacts than this proposed office /warehouse use. The Applicant intends to correct and clean -up the polluted soils are currently affecting or impacting this site, which represents a significant risk to human health and the environment. The site currently vacant brings zero jobs and minimal tax base to the site. Redevelopment will remove the pollution, clean up the blighted site and bring jobs and higher tax base to the neighborhood. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The Applicant notes that the proposed I -1 Zoning will be a less intensive classification rather than the current C -2 zoning designation, or the 1 -2 Zoning to the north. The applicant's proposal certainly is consistent with the uses north of Lakebreeze Avenue in the Twin Lakes Business Park, which coincidentally, has been developed by the applicant. The proposed office /warehouse use would essentially mimic the Caribou Coffee facilities located to the north, which has been found to be very compatible with the surrounding residential uses. PC 12 -15 -11 Page 3 Staff would comment that the proposal should be consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications from the standpoint that the proposed I -1 underlying zone is less intensive than the existing zoning and the use can co -exist with abutting properties provided appropriate screening and buffering is maintained and other requirements of the district are maintained as well. c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant comments that the proposed zoning district will result in a less intensive use at the site. They point out that office /warehouse use is consistent with surrounding uses and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. They believe the addition of an attractive new building will clean up the vacant site and remove pollution. We would concur with the applicant's comments that the proposed 1 -1 underlying zone is a less intensive use for the site. Of note should be that outside storage of inventory, work in process or other materials would not be allowed in this site. The less intense nature of the industrial uses and commercial uses allowed in the underlying 1 -1 zone are seen as a good "down- zoning" and use of the property. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? From all accounts of previous zoning records and land use maps, the zoning and land use in this area has remained virtually unchanged throughout the years. The nearest zone change took place a few years ago on the former Howe Fertilizer site (4821 Xerxes Avenue) to the east, which was modified from I -2 to PUD /I -1 in February 2008. The down zoning of this property to an underlying 1 -1 can be considered an appropriate change. If appropriate screening and buffering can be provided to the residential areas, the intended use of this property for light industrial purposes is an allowable use. Making the site consistent with the development to the north can be considered a positive for the City. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. L Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The Applicant has indicated to Staff that the redevelopment proposal with an underlying 1 -1 zoning classification will adhere to the guidelines and general standards set forth in the 1 -1 District. Although Staff have not fully analyzed or determined the appropriateness of this proposed use and redevelopment of the subject site, we have not seen or raised any serious issues or concerns that would prevent this development from taking place. PC 12 -15 -11 Page 4 Staff will ensure that an appropriate buffer between the single family residences to the west and this site will be provided, and that traffic issues will be addressed as part of any future considerations or conditions of approvals. The proposed I -1 use seems to provide an appropriate development consistent with the general principles and policies established under the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two areas. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? In our initial discussions with the Applicant, it was the original intentions of the Applicant to change the site from C -2 to 1 -2, which was consistent with the I -2 zoning to the north. Although this 1 -2 area that encompasses Twin Lake Business Park is a nicely developed and clean area, the concept or allowances of outdoor storage under a similar I- 2 zone for this site did not sit well with Planning Staff. We encouraged, and Mr. Hyde agreed to limit the overall allowances or permitted activities on this site by requesting a change to I- I Zoning. The development plans in general seem to provide a good layout and site plan for this area. The applicant's proposal to use this site for the office /warehouse use more than fits and utilizes the land respectfully by incorporating parking along the front edges of the site; loading to the rear; and appropriate landscaping and screening/buffering along the westerly boundaries to the residential areas. Some of the allowable 1 -2 uses may be inappropriate for this area given the relatively close proximity to residential uses. Residential and industrial uses can co -exist given proper screening and development considerations. Some of the uses allowed in the I -2 zone such as outside storage, could be considered unsuited for this use because of the abutting residential. The proposed 1 -1 rezoning addresses many of these concerns. h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? This rezoning application under consideration will indeed create an expansion not necessarily called for under the current Comprehensive Plan, but can be accommodated by the City requesting a land use amendment to the Metropolitan Council. At this time, the City is prepared to forward a separate land use change application subject to the outcome of the Planning Commission's determination of this item. Should the Planning Commission determine this rezoning is acceptable, the land use will need to be changed in order to meet the consistency (land use to zoning) requirements established under Met Council guidelines. The redevelopment will not "greatly" expand an already existing and successful industrial based area,; moreover, it will upgrade the current C -2 to a more reasonable and better fitting I -1 Zoning for this area. This rezoning will result in higher quality jobs and increase in tax base and a less intensive use of the site. In general we would concur with these comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a PC 12 -15 -11 Page 5 redevelopment that should be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. As mentioned previously, the proposal can be considered in the best interests of the community noting particularly the clean-up of a polluted site and a relatively clean development. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? As indicated previously, the Applicant is currently seeking grant money and funds to remediate possible polluted soils on this site, which may pose a risk to human health and environment. The site in its current condition is vacant and clearly underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. The Applicant's redevelopment of this site will provide an opportunity to clean up the pollution and add high quality jobs and tax base to the site which results in merit beyond the interests of only the current owner. We also believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal would provide a quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update identifies or guides this site as Office /Service Business. Under this land use, the current C -2 Commerce zoning is consistent with this land use, and typical commercial business, retail and office /service uses would be allowed in this area. A large commercial parcel of this subject site could undoubtedly create or allow large, commercial single user or multiple retail users on this site, which is generally not what the city would encourage, due to its proximity to the neighborhood and impacts to the neighborhoods. As indicated previously, this rezoning application creates an additional layer of review and consideration by the Met Council. All zoned areas of a community must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plans of said community. Subject to outcome of the Planning Commission's determination of this rezoning item, Planning Staff will submit a land use amendment application before the Met Council, whom will determine if the change is consistent with Met Council's land use planning of the area and does not harm or negatively affect the surrounding neighborhoods or communities. All abutting communities, including Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Fridley and Minneapolis will be notified and allowed to register comments or concerns. In most cases, this type of land use request generates little, if any interests from these surrounding cities. And for all intents and purposes, since this land use amendment does not involve a large area (40 acres or more), or creates or expand any housing needs, or conversely take away any housing opportunities, the Met Council should approve and allow this change to take place without little if any comments. Any rezoning approvals will be made contingent upon Met Council authorizations. PROCEDURE As the Commission is aware, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications PC 12 -15 -11 Page 6 within a 60 -day time limit from the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on November 10, 2011. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted four weeks prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. The review clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than January 9, 2012, which is when the 60 -day review period ends. Should the Council elect to table or postpone this decision that night, an additional 60 -day review period would be necessary. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the request to change the current zoning on the subject site from C -2 Commerce to I -1 Industrial Park, with certain conditions noted therein and in the following recommendation heading. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -021, which comprehends the rezoning of the subject site noted herein from C -2 Commerce District to I -1 Industrial Park, subject to the following conditions: 1) The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from its current Office /Service Business to the proposed Industrial designation. 2) The submittal and approval of the platting and combining of the former Northwest Athletic Club (Lifetime Fitness) parcel and the former Denny's Restaurant (now excess MnDOT right -of -way parcel), to a yet unnamed or identified subdivision plat. 3) No part of the land may be used or developed under the site plan labeled "conceptual" until such time as the Applicant submits a separate site and building plan application and plat application as noted in Condition No. 2 above. Please note these same conditions are memorialized in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -16, and may be modified as deemed necessary. PC 12 -15 -11 Page 7 Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? e. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Section 35 -210. REZONING APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND RECONSIDERATION. The following rules shall govern applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance hereinafter referred to as "Rezoning Applications ": 1. Procedures a. A rezoning application may be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or by the owner of the subject property. Any such application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing, study, and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Commission, or until seventy -eight (78) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without a report by the Planning Commission. The date of referral is defined as the date of the public hearing. b. The applicant or his authorized agent shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "zoning application ", copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission at least seventeen (17) days before the date of the public hearing. C. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission by placing the application upon the agenda of the Commission's next regular meeting; provided, however, that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Planning Commission. d. Not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners within 350 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings hereunder. e. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing the Secretary shall publish a notice of hearing in the official newspaper. f. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendations to the City City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Commission. g. The application and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, or in the event the Commission has failed to make a recommendation within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Commission. h. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission or in the event the Commission has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of the date of referral to the Commission. i. The Secretary of the Planning Commission, following the Commission's action upon the application, and the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. j. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Commission and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Commission or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Commission or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. 2. Review of Rezoning Where property within the municipality has been rezoned for a less restrictive land use upon petition of the owner or his agent pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, and where no structural work thereon has commenced within two (2) years of the date of the rezoning action by the City Council, the Planning Commission may review the zoning classification of the property in the light of the Comprehensive Plan and make appropriate recommendations to the City Council which may include the recommendation that the subject property be rezoned to permit a more restrictive use in conformance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK. 1. Permitted Uses a. The following manufacturing activities: 1) Food and kindred products as illustrated by: Dairy products Bakery products Confectionery and related products Beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled alcohol Macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles 2) Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather, and similar materials. 3) Lumber and wood products, except saw mills and planning mills producing a dimensioned lumber. 4) Furniture and fixtures. 5) Converted paper and paperboard products (as opposed to paper and paperboard manufacturing). 6) Printing and publishing and allied industries. 7) Chemicals and allied products as follows: Drugs Soaps, detergents and cleaning preparations Perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations (compounding and packaging only) 8) Miscellaneous plastic products. 9) Fabricated metal products as illustrated by: Office computing and accounting machines Household appliances Electrical lighting and wiring equipment Communication equipment, including radio and television receiving sets Electronic components and accessories Screw machine products City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 10) Professional, scientific, electronic and controlling instruments, photographic and optical goods, watches and clocks. 11) Miscellaneous manufacturing such as jewelry and silverware, musical instruments and parts, toys, amusement, sporting and athletic goods and pens, pencils and other office and artistic material 12) Assembly of electric powered vehicles. 13) Adult establishments. b. The following wholesale trade activities: 1) Automotive equipment 2) Drugs, chemicals and allied products 3) Dry goods and apparel 4) Groceries and related products 5) Electrical goods 6) Hardware, plumbing, heating equipment and supplies 7) Machinery, equipment and supplies 8) Other wholesale trade similar in nature to the aforementioned uses such as paper and paper products, furniture, and home furnishings, and beer, wine and distilled alcoholic beverages, but expressly excluding petroleum bulk stations and scrap and waste materials and similar uses. C. The following service activities: 1) Laundrying, dry cleaning and dyeing 2) Contract construction 3) Kennels 4) Veterinarian and animal hospitals d. Public transportation terminals (excluding truck terminals). e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance include without being restricted to the following: 1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2) Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 3) Storage of raw materials, work in process and inventory, provided such storage is within completely enclosed buildings. f. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -413 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Foundries, provided that the foundry operation is a necessary incident to a principal use permitted in the I -1 district. b. Textile mills. C. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the use site. d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. e. Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2) Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 3) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4) Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community. and, which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1 d, e (subparts 1- City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 6), f, (subparts 2 and 3), g through j; 3 in and 3 p. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35- 400 and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed development represents. g. Warehousing and storage uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. provided such uses shall adhere to applicable requirements in the I -1 district and shall not involve maintenance or servicing of vehicles on the site. h. Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare as determined by the Council, including accessory outside storage of materials when screened from public view by an opaque wall. City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance LOGISMap Output Page Toro / Baker Furniture Caribou Coffee HQ. A r K _SAVE LAE BREEZE AVE -O.. 1 1,:. r - 3 excess MnDOT R -O -W (to be added) LAKESIDE AVE fmr. Lifetime Fitness site .F �t . A /�cr�Wr..:ihcl \fSC 4'SC-GGlS Gl52J]5 ,.. http:// gis. logis. org /LOGIS_ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =bc logismap _ovsde &ClientVersion =4.0& Form = True &Encode= False[7/27/2011 10:12:50 AM] Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? e. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Section 35 -210. REZONING APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND RECONSIDERATION. The following rules shall govern applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance hereinafter referred to as "Rezoning Applications ": 1. Procedures a. A rezoning application may be initiated b the City Council the Planning g Pp Y Y Y � g Commission, or by the owner of the subject property. Any such application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing, study, and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Commission, or until seventy -eight (78) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without a report by the Planning Commission. The date of referral is defined as the date of the public hearing. b. The applicant or his authorized agent shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "zoning application ", copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission at least seventeen (17) days before the date of the public hearing. C. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission by placing the application upon the agenda of the Commission's next regular meeting; provided, however, that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Planning Commission. d. Not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners within 350 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings hereunder. e. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing the Secretary shall publish a notice of hearing in the official newspaper. f. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendations to the City City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Commission. g. The application and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, or in the event the Commission has failed to make a recommendation within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Commission. h. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission or in the event the Commission has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of the date of referral to the Commission. i. The Secretary of the Planning Commission, following the Commission's action upon the application, and the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. j. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Commission and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Commission or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Commission or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. 2. Review of Rezoning Where property within the municipality has been rezoned for a less restrictive land use upon petition of the owner or his agent pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, and where no structural work thereon has commenced within two (2) years of the date of the rezoning action by the City Council, the Planning Commission may review the zoning classification of the property in the light of the Comprehensive Plan and make appropriate recommendations to the City Council which may include the recommendation that the subject property be rezoned to permit a more restrictive use in conformance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 35 -330. I -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK. 1. Permitted Uses a. The following manufacturing activities: 1) Food and kindred products as illustrated by: Dairy products Bakery products Confectionery and related products Beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled alcohol Macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles 2) Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather, and similar materials. 3) Lumber and wood products, except saw mills and planning mills producing a dimensioned lumber. 4) Furniture and fixtures. 5) Converted paper and paperboard products (as opposed to paper and paperboard manufacturing). 6) Printing and publishing and allied industries. 7) Chemicals and allied products as follows: Drugs Soaps, detergents and cleaning preparations Perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations (compounding and packaging only) 8) Miscellaneous plastic products. 9) Fabricated metal products as illustrated by: Office computing and accounting machines Household appliances Electrical lighting and wiring equipment Communication equipment, including radio and television receiving sets Electronic components and accessories Screw machine products City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 10) Professional, scientific, electronic and controlling instruments, photographic and optical goods, watches and clocks. 11) Miscellaneous manufacturing such as jewelry and silverware, musical instruments and parts, toys, amusement, sporting and athletic goods and pens, pencils and other office and artistic material 12) Assembly of electric powered vehicles. 13) Adult establishments. b. The following wholesale trade activities: 1) Automotive equipment 2) Drugs, chemicals and allied products 3) Dry goods and apparel 4) Groceries and related products 5) Electrical goods 6) Hardware, plumbing, heating equipment and supplies 7) Machinery, equipment and supplies 8) Other wholesale trade similar in nature to the aforementioned uses such as paper and paper products, furniture, and home furnishings, and beer, wine and distilled alcoholic beverages, but expressly excluding petroleum bulk stations and scrap and waste materials and similar uses. C. The following service activities: 1) Laundrying, dry cleaning and dyeing 2) Contract construction 3) Kennels 4) Veterinarian and animal hospitals d. Public transportation terminals (excluding truck terminals). e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance include without being restricted to the following: 1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2) Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 3) Storage of raw materials, work in process and inventory, provided such storage is within completely enclosed buildings. f. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council. 2. Special Requirements a. See Section 35 -413 of these ordinances. 3. Special Uses a. Foundries, provided that the foundry operation is a necessary incident to a principal use permitted in the I -1 district. b. Textile mills. C. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the use site. d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701. e. Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2) Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 3) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. 4) Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the community. and, which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1 d, a (subparts 1- City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 6), f, (subparts 2 and 3), g through j; 3 m and 3 p. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35- 400 and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed development represents. g. Warehousing and storage uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the I -1 district generally. 2) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to activity levels. provided such uses shall adhere to applicable requirements in the I -1 district and shall not involve maintenance or servicing of vehicles on the site. h. Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare as determined by the Council, including accessory outside storage of materials when screened from public view by an opaque wall. City of Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -16 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -021 SUBMITTED BY PAUL HYDE OF REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -021 submitted by Paul Hyde, on behalf of Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to I -1 (Industrial Park) the 7.39 acre site located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North, along with the approximate 1.27 acre MnDOT excess right -of -way parcel located adjacent to and immediately east of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property to facilitate the planned and future redevelopment of the site with a proposed 123,758 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse facility on said properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on December 15, 2011, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezoning contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the I -1 Zoning District standards contained in Section 35 -330 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -021 submitted by Paul Hyde of Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The planned rezoning is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The rezoning, which will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 3. The rezoning and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, in particular the incorporation of the 100 ft. and 1 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut residential zoned property at a property line and a street line respectively; 4. The rezoning and land use amendment proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5. The rezoning proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezoning's as contained in Section 35 -208 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 -021 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from its current Office /Service Business to the proposed Industrial designation. 2. The submittal and approval of the platting and combining of the former Northwest Athletic Club (Lifetime Fitness) parcel and the former Denny's Restaurant (now excess MnDOT right -of -way parcel), to a yet unnamed or identified subdivision plat. 3. No part of the land may be used or developed under the site plan labeled "conceptual" until such time as the Applicant submits a separate site and building plan application and plat application as noted in Condition No. 2 above. Date Chair ATTEST Secretary 2 i 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: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3 CONCEPTUAL PLAN r - _�� OPUS. LAKE BREEZE AVE. N Opus AE Group, Inc. - NOT FOR APPROVAL or mwmis m,'�' � ¢ I I �� irtrz svawx Kc�u ormr IR*) e mu 1 wx i1 9 PROPOSED OFFICE /WAREHOUSE vRt InvKals K ' I 123,758 sq. R GROSS AREA • t \ F __�__ oRrvEw 000RS / C ' I - T -- TRACK COMT 1� i1 PU[e ]Om17 Pu[ ll -to-mtl N L M. , SITE PLAN u wa S c. HtWKRS / J. lV1id50N SITE DATA NOTE •�� +.� zom: WNSIRUCIION - oauP.wcr clASS m == " " KmA° • mow. .. P,1m0lG REWIRFNENIS u 10.tu ir. � �x[t p.�a � �� o I,l um ss vm[e IE�Estme Rtt�yding PARIfNG PR%1pER smvs ry4 v Ifo'T PE EXCHANGE MM. lk lam[ sNls FRANCE AVENUE MLDM SOMM REOLWIMNM' BUSINESS x CENTER 4 _ axaarwmmRR,w wm. u mEm... a SITE PLAN PARItNG SETfl1CK no ROM. DRAFT SIRC Y YR. Y W f PV Im R StmS L \ Ali iZ Af It CA zl Mir CP 1 1 y i , Y � i r S :1 j C � , V f I • R' 2` i T P fTi � A j 1 I i M T ♦. _ _ 1 - t XB ty of City of Brooklyn Center TE R ROOKLYN Landscape Point System 1. Landscape Plantings will be provided on the site based on the point system indicated below: Planting Type Minimum Size Points /Planting Max. % of Points Shade trees (Deciduous, Maple, Linden, Ash, Oak, 2 diameter 10 50 Locust, etc) Coniferous Trees (Pine, Spruce, Cedar) 5' height 6 40 Decorative Trees (Russian Olives, Radiant Crab, 1" diameter 1.5 35 Canada Red Cherry, etc) Shrubs (Dogwood, Spirea, Mockorange, Juniper, 12" diameter .5 25 Arborvitae, etc) Points Required Per Acre The following schedule will be used to determine the required number of points for a given site. The schedule is cumulative so that the first two acres of any site will require points on the basis of the column headed "0 -2 ": the next eight acres will be computed on the basis of the column headed "2 -10 ": and, area over ten acres will be computed on the basis of the column headed "10 + " . Land Area of Site in Acres Type of Development 0 -2 2 -10 10+ Office 100 80 60 Restaurant / Retail /Service /Entertainment /Hotels 80 60 40 Light Industrial 75 60 50 Heavy Industrial 60 50 40 Office /Industrial (Over 25% office) 90 70 50 Multi- Family Residential 90 75 60 Examples Six acre office site = 2 acres 0100 plus 4 acres @ 80 = 520 points Fifteen acre retail /restaurant = 2 acres @ 80 plus 8 acres @ 60 plus 5 acres @ 40 = 840 points 2. The above point system in no way substitutes for the screening and buffer requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Plantings used for screening purposes will be accorded points, but fulfilling the point requirements will not obviate the requirements for screening. 3. Mature existing trees will be accorded points on the basis of the above point schedule. A bonus equal up to the full value of a given planting may be granted by the Commission for the preservation of large existing plantings. 4. All green areas on a site will be sodded except in areas where viable turf exists and is totally undisturbed by construction. The burden will be on the developer to prove at the time of a site inspection that such viable turf, in fact, exists and has been properly maintained. 5. All greenstrips adjacent to an interior property line will be a minimum of 5 ft. in width except in cases where special buffer provisions apply. City of Brooklyn Center - Business and Development - 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy - Brooklyn Center MN 55430 763 - 569 -3300 Landscape Point System 12 -09 CHAPTER 20 - TREES Section 20 -100. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish policies to protect and enhance the City of Brooklyn Center's urban forest, to the extent found by the City Council to be practical within available financial and staff resources. Section 20 -101. MANAGEMENT. The director of public works or designee shall be responsible for developing policies regarding the care, preservation, planting, replanting, removal, or disposition of trees and shrubs in parks, in the public right of way, along trails, and in other public areas, and for developing an annual tree planting and maintenance plan. Section 20 -102. DEFINITIONS. The language set forth in this ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following definitions. Boulevard. The area between the edge of the street or the back of the curb where curb and gutter exist and the property line. Public tree. Any tree or shrub located in any park, public right of way, trail, or other public space. Public space. Includes but is not limited to the grounds of public buildings; designated open space; city owned property; street, alley, and trail rights of way. CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES Section 20 -200. PUBLIC TREE CARE IN GENERAL. Subdivision 1. Care of Trees in Public Areas. The City shall have the right to plant, prune, maintain, and remove trees, plants, and shrubs in parks, in the public right of way, along trails, and in other public areas, as may be necessary or desirable to protect public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds. Subdivision 2. Removal of Unsafe Trees. The City may remove or cause or order to be removed any tree or part thereof which is in an unsafe condition or which by reason of its nature or location is injurious to sewers, electric power lines, gas lines, water lines or other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungus, insect, or other pest. Subdivision 3. Planting Boulevard Trees. No tree may be planted on the boulevard except by permit obtained from the director of public works or designee. The City may remove or cause or order. to be moved or removed any boulevard tree not planted by permit, or any boulevard tree which is not in compliance with this code. This section does not prohibit the planting of boulevard trees by adjacent property owners providing the selection, location, and care of said trees are in accordance with the provisions of this code. 20 -1 8/20/97 Section 20 -201. TREE TRIMMING. The City shall have the authority to trim trees in parks and other public spaces. The City shall have the authority to trim boulevard trees, as needed, to allow the movement of the tallest pieces of street maintenance equipment along the streets. The property owner shall be responsible for aesthetic trimming; for trimming on any comer lot which is necessary to allow visibility at intersections in the sight triangle bounded by the property lines of said lot and a straight line joining points on such property lines 25 feet from their intersection of the property lines, pursuant to Section 35 -560 of this code; for trimming of any boulevard tree or shrub which is necessary to maintain adequate sightlines for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; and for any other trimming not specifically assigned to the City in this section. Section 20 -202. PRUNING AND REMOVAL OF DEAD BRANCHES AND TREES. Every owner of any tree within the City shall prune the branches so as to remove all dead, diseased, dangerous, or broken or decayed limbs. Any standing dead or fallen tree is hereby declared a public nuisance for purposes of sections 19 -101 through 19 -106 of this code. Any such tree shall be removed and disposed of promptly by the owner, or in the case of boulevard trees by the adjacent property owner. Standing and fallen dead trees located in public -owned nature areas or open spaces shall be removed at the discretion of the director of public works or designee. Section 20 -203. STORM DAMAGE. The City shall be responsible for cleanup of downed or broken limbs or otherwise storm damaged boulevard trees. The adjacent property owner is responsible for stump removal. f Section 20 -204. STUMP REMOVAL. All boulevard stumps shall be removed four inches below the surface of the ground so that the top of the stump shall not project above the surface of the ground. Section 20 -205. ABUSE OR MUTILATION OF TREES. No person shall intentionally damage, cut, carve, transplant, or remove any public tree; attach any rope, wire nails, advertising posters, or other contrivances to any public tree; allow any gaseous, liquid, or solid substance which is harmful to such trees to come into contact with them; or set any fire or permit any fire to burn when such fire or the heat thereof will injure any portion of the tree; or to direct or authorize such activity or circumstance. Section 20 -206. PRESERVATION STANDARDS. No Excavation Permit, Building Permit, Plat Approval, Site Plan Approval, or other relevant Permit or Approval may be granted until the director of public works or designee determines that the existing trees are adequately protected and preserved. Only adequately protected and preserved trees may be considered as providing credit toward site landscaping requirements for certain types of development detailed in Chapter 35 of this code. i 20 -2 8/20/97 , t DETECTION AND CONTROL OF TREE DISEASES Section 20 -3 01. NUISANCE DEFINED. Any living or standing tree or part thereof infected to any degree with an infectious disease or which harbors any insect, fungi, or virus known to contribute to the spread of such disease is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Any dead tree or part thereof known to contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, including logs, branches, stumps, or firewood, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Section 20 -302. NUISANCE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any parcel of land in the City of Brooklyn Center to permit or maintain on any such parcel of land or upon abutting street right of way any tree or dead wood which is a public nuisance as defined in Section 19 -1501. It shall be the duty of any such owner to promptly abate the nuisance by removing and destroying such tree or dead wood in a manner authorized by the city manager or his duly authorized representative. Section 20 -303. INSPECTIONS AUTHORIZED. In order to cant' out the purposes of this ordinance and to implement the enforcement thereof, the city manager or his duly authorized representative is hereby authorized and empowered to enter upon any parcel of land in the City of Brooklyn Center at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting any trees or dead wood situated thereon and removing specimens therefrom for laboratory or field analysis. It shall be unlawful for any person to prevent or interfere with the city manager or his duly authorized representative in the performance of any duties provided for in this ordinance. Section 20 -304. NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE. If it is determined that a public nuisance exists on a parcel of land or abutting street right of way, the city manager shall cause to be served upon the owner of the parcel of land a written notice requiring such owner to abate the - nuisance. Written notice shall be served by mail, addressed to the owner of the parcel at his last known address. If the owner upon whom such notice is served fails, neglects, or refuses to abate the nuisance within 20 days after mailing such notice the city manager or his duly authorized representatives shall serve official notice in person or by certified mail, proceed to abate the nuisance five (5) days after receipt of such notice, and charge the cost thereof against the owner to be paid by such owner to the City of Brooklyn Center. Section 20 -305. ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID CHARGES. Each year the city clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for each nuisance abatement attributable to respective parcels of land pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. The city council shall levy such unpaid charges as special assessments against respective parcels of land, certifying such special assessments to the county auditor. The special assessments of such unpaid charges shall be in addition to any penalties imposed against the owner of a parcel of land for violation of the provisions of this ordinance. 20 -3 8/20/97 ( Section 20 -306. CITY COST PARTICIPATION. The City shall pay 50 percent of the cost of removal of diseased boulevard trees, provided such removal is conducted under the City's annual Diseased Tree Removal contract. PLANTING OF TREES Section 20 -400. DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF STREET OR SIDEWALK. Where there is no sidewalk, no tree may be planted closer than eight feet from the edge of the street, or from the back of the curb where curb and gutter have been installed. Where there is a sidewalk and the boulevard is greater than twelve feet wide, boulevard trees are permitted provided they are planted no closer than six feet from the edge of the street or from the back of the curb, and no closer than three feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Where there is a sidewalk and the boulevard is between six and twelve feet wide, boulevard trees are permitted provided they are planted in the middle of the boulevard. Where there is a sidewalk and the boulevard is less than six feet wide, no boulevard trees may be planted. Any trees planted within sidewalks must be planted utilizing tree grates. Such sidewalk planting is subject to design details approved by the director of public works. No tree may be planted closer than four feet from the edge of the sidewalk on the side opposite the street. Section 20 -401. UTILITIES. No boulevard trees other than those which may attain a maximum height of 25 feet or less at maturity may be planted under or within 10 lateral feet of any overhead utility wire. No boulevard tree may be planted over or within 5 lateral feet of any underground water line, sewer line, transmission line, or other utility. Section 20 -402. RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES. The City promotes a diverse urban forest so as to minimiz the spread of tree disease. To assist in meeting this goal, the City Council shall annually adopt a resolution designating allowable boulevard tree species. REGISTRATION OF TREE TRIMMERS/REMOVERS Section 20 -501. REGISTRATION REQUIRED. It shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, or corporation to conduct as a business the cutting, trimming, pruning, removing, spraying, or otherwise treating of trees or shrubs in the City without first having secured a registration from the City to conduct such business. Application for the registration is made through the City Clerk or designee. Registration will be granted upon proof that the applicant meets the requirements of section 20 -502. The annual fee for registration is set by Council resolution from time to time. The registration expires annually on December 31. Registration is not transferable. The registration fee must be paid to the clerk at the time of application. The registration fee will not be prorated. 20 -4 8/20/97 Section 20 -502. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. The applicant must file with the clerk a certificate of insurance showing the applicant has purchased public liability and worker's compensation insurance which will remain in effect for the term of the registration, and that the insurance will not be canceled without 10 days notice to the City. The policy or policies of public liability insurance shall provide public liability coverage to the applicant in the amount of $100,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person per occurrence, $300,000 because of bodily injury to or death of more than one person or occurrence, and $100,000 property damage coverage per occurrence, and shall name the City as an additional insured. Section 20 -900. PENALTIES. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provision of this chapter, by failing, neglecting, or refusing to comply with the provisions thereof, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. City of Brooklyn Center 20 -5 April 20, 2001 Member Kay Leu man introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. .2011-53 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 2011 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center promotes a diverse. urban forest so as to minimize the spread of tree disease; and WHEREAS, Section 20 -402 of the ordinances provides for an annual listing of .allowable boulevard tree varieties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following trees are hereby designated as allowable boulevard tree species for 2011: Crabapple (Flowering) & cultivars Linden (American) Birch (River, Paper) Oak (Pin) Elm (Accolade) Oak (White, Bur, Swamp) Ginko (male tree only) Oak (Northern Red) Hackberry Maple. (Autumn Blaze) Honeylocust (Imperial, Shademaster, Maple (Red) & cultivars Skyline, Thornless) Maple (Sugar) & cultivars Kentucky Coffeetree Serviceberry Linden (Littleleaf) April 11, 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tim Roche and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Tim Willson, Carol Kleven, Kay;Lhsman, Tim Roche, and?Dan Ryan; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.