Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 03-29 PCP I PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 29, 2001 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - March 15, 2001 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. Eagle Crest Northwest 2001 -005 • Request for Rezoning and Site and Building approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of 21 single family detached townhomes at the southeast quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66 Avenue North. 6. Eagle Crest Northwest 2001 -006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 5.25 acres of land located at the southeast quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66' Avenue North into 21 single family detached townhome lots with necessary right of way. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment II, Application Filed on 3 -05 -01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5 -04 -01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001 -005 Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: Southeast Corner of 66th Avenue North and T. H. 252 Request: Rezoning /Site and Building Plan - PUD/R -3 The applicant, Eagle Crest Northwest, is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of 21 single family detached townhomes on a 5.25 acre site (228,856 sq. ft.) located at the southeast quadrant of T. H. 252 and 66 Avenue North. The property in question is currently zoned C -1 (Service /Office Commercial) and has been acquired by the City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) over the past eight years. It was formerly occupied by the Atkins Mechanical operation, the Brookdale Motel and an 18 unit apartment complex. Also, land that currently contains a frontage road along T. H. 252 and what had been a vacant parcel of land at the corner of 66' Avenue and Willow Lane are included in the land being considered under this PUD. The property is bounded on the north by 66 Avenue; on the east by Willow Lane with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; on the south by 65" Avenue with an R -5 zoned property containing the Riverwood Estates • Apartments on the opposite site of the street; and on the west by T. H. 252 right of way. The applicant is seeking a PUD/R -3 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned 21 single family detached townhomes. The R -3 (Townhouse) underlying zoning designation is being sought because the applicant is proposing a detached townhome concept on smaller lots with reduced front yard setbacks and a somewhat greater density than what is allowed in a typical R -1 zone. The land in question is designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as mid - density residential, which basically is our R -3 zone. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case R -3) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow 25 ft. front yard setbacks rather than 35 ft. setbacks; a 20 ft. side corner setback rather than a 25 ft. side corner setback and a street right of way width of 50 ft. rather than a 60 ft. right of way required by the Subdivision Ordinance. • 3 -29 -01 Page 1 In many respects, the applicant is proposing a hybrid of the R -1 and R -3 zoning districts with this proposal. The plan is for detached single family residential buildings where our R -3 district normally contemplates single family attached dwelling units. The density sought in this development is much less than what is allowed under the R -3 zoning district and in some + respects is closer in density to an R -1 development. Lot widths, which are proposed to be approximately 50 ft. in width for interior lots and at least 65 ft. in width for corner lots, are less than the 75 ft. wide and 90 ft. wide interior and corner lots required in an R -1 zone. The proposed lot areas are between 6,935 sq. ft. in area and 14, 496 sq. ft. in area. Under the R -3 zoning designation, lot widths and lot areas are a function of the townhome development plan. The plans, as being proposed by the developer, fit into this R -3 concept. Another reason why the R -3 underlying zoning designation is being sought is the applicant's intention to have an owner's association to take care of common maintenance concerns. Another reason for the R -3 underlying zoning designation is consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for a mid- density, or R -3, zoning designation for this property. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as 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 as well. The applicant's representative has submitted a written statement regarding his proposal along with comments as to how he believes their proposal addresses the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The written submission indicates that their proposed Riverwood Estates development will consist of 21 detached townhome units in a Planned Unit Development. The PUD combines the various parcels previously described into the 21 lots through a preliminary plat, which is the subject of companion Application No. 2001 -006. They note that they believe the detached townhome project will provide a transition from existing single family homes located easterly of Willow Lane and the apartment buildings that are located south of 65' Avenue. They note that their proposed Planned Unit Development requires some deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. They propose 25 ft. front yard setbacks, 20 ft. side comer setbacks, 50 ft. minimum lot widths (this is an R -1 rather than an R -3 district requirement) and 50 ft. wide right of way, all of which are less than city standards. They note that the reduced setback allows for the preservation of trees which otherwise would be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the greatest degree possible. The modifications to the setback and right of width also allows for access away from Willow Lane and onto the proposed Riverwood Lane within the project. Further review of the details of the site plan will be presented later in this report. 3 -29 -01 Page 2 As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the S Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be. consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute sot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates P g g in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and his proposal. A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant indicates that the proposed PUD combines four separate properties into a zoning district that would better compliment the neighborhood. They also add that the development of the parcels involved would provide a use for properties that have been vacant for some time. It is the staff's opinion that this redevelopment could be considered a public benefit if the development is consistent with the development criteria established by the City and also the City's Comprehensive Plan. For a number of years the City has strived to see a development that can be considered a benefit to the community and meet the interests of neighboring properties. Residential development, of a mid - density nature, has been • considered to be the best use for this area. Single - family residential development, of an owner occupied nature, has been pointed out by the neighborhood to be most desirable. The location of this property and the City's R -1 requirements has lead to the conclusion that a single family residential development under current City zoning standards would not be economically feasible. The applicant believes the plans they are putting forth with the modifications suggested provide a desirable product that is economically viable and a saleable commodity. This proposal, we have concluded, seems to meet the concerns previously expressed. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that they believe the project is compatible with both the single family and the apartment land uses that are adjacent to the subject property. They note that the addition of the detached townhomes provides a transition between these two land uses. The staff would concur with the applicant's comments. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that the proposed detached townhomes can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. The ability to provide a somewhat more dense single family development than normally allowed in an R -1 zone, but meeting many of the criteria and a less dense development than an R -3 • 3 -29 -01 Page 3 development makes this proposal consistent and compatible, both the single family developments and the multiple family development to the south. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? T'he applicant answers this question affirmatively noting that the permitted uses within the proposed zoning district would be limited to detached townhome residential units. We believe that all of the permitted uses can be contemplated for development in this proposed Planned Unit Development zoning district. As the applicant has pointed out, the plan is for detached townhome residential units. We would add that the R -3, or mid- density residential development proposal, could fit on this land and an attached townhouse complex could as well be contemplated for this area. However, we believe the detached townhome concept on smaller than normally allowed single family residential lots is a good development. This less dense proposed residential development is looked at as a better development given all factors to be considered. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that previous land uses on this property have included a motel, apartment buildings and a gas station. They also note that since the time of zoning (we . assume they mean the original zoning of the property which included C -2 and R -5 uses) that the area has changed considerably. The land in question has been the subject of much discussion, review and even rezoning actions over the past eight or so years. The City has acquired parcels in this area and has rezoned the property to C -1 (Service /Office Commercial) in an attempt to keep out what was considered to be undesirable land uses in this particular area. How the subject property should be used has been a much discussed and debated topic with respect to this land. This proposal seems to best fit all of the concerns expressed. The plan has been reviewed by the Riverwood Neighborhood Association and has been positively endorsed. (See November 13, 2000, address by Jerry Blamey to City Council, attached.) The proposed PUD/R -3 rezoning appears to be a good rezoning proposal. 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 is not a City initiated zoning proposal but rather a developer initiated proposal. 3 -29 -01 . Page 4 u F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant notes that the PUD requires minor deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. Their proposal provides a 25 ft. setback, 50 ft. minimum lot widths, 50 ft. wide right of way, all of which are less than city standards. The reduced setbacks allow for the preservation of trees which will otherwise be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the greatest degree possible. They note in designing this project, every effort was made to protect as many of the existing trees as possible. In addition, they are proposing new plantings within the project that far exceed the ordinance requirements. They note that particular emphasis has been paid to buffering the site from the highway and to provide trees in front yards of the homes. They note that additional trees will be added to those saved along Willow Lane to aid in further buffering the existing single family homes from their development. We believe the subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with the deviations from some of the standard ordinance requirements mentioned. These modifications are offset by providing a good buffer and development in this area. With respect to the R -3 underlying zoning, only the front, side corner and 50 ft. wide right of way are different than the district requirements for this particular zoning district. These again, we believe, are offset by the positives of • the development proposal. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant, in response to this policy and review guideline, notes their comments for "F" above. The staff would comment that subject property is generally unsuited for uses that are permitted in the present zoning district. The present zoning district is C -1 (Service /Office Commercial). We do not see some type of office development being proposed or developed in this area. At the time of the City's Comprehensive Plan review, in looking at this particular area, it was determined that the most appropriate use for this land, both from an economic and land use perspective was a medium density residential use of the property. Such a designation can include townhouse developments at a density of up to eight units per acre. Since that time, the City has been trying to pursue a redevelopment of this property, which would but it back on the tax rolls in a manner consistent with its Comprehensive Plan recommendations and be a development generally acceptable to the neighboring area. The proposed Planned Unit Development would allow these objectives to be accomplished. 3 -29 -01 Page 5 H. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of development land in the proposed zoning district or; 3. The best interests of the community? The applicant notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district, but rather the creation of a new district in this area. The staff would note again that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area and is warranted. We also believe the proposed development can be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is properly developed and the plan, as we shall show later, appears to be a good development proposal. The proposed PUD/R -3 zoning provides the necessary flexibility in dealing with development issues for this site. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant notes that the detached townhome project will provide a transition from both the existing single - family homes along Willow Lane and the apartment buildings south of 65`''. They add that the project also provides a single use for four separate parcels. The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of only a particular developer or property owner and will lead to the development of a plan that is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal appears to provide a quality development and it is our understanding that the units will be priced in the range of $180,000 to $220,000, should fit well in the neighborhood and be a positive impact on this area. Putting this property back on the tax rolls also demonstrates merit beyond the interests of just the developer in this case. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposed plan again calls for 21 detached townhome units. The 21 lots to be created under Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -006 will all face and have access to a new street to be called Riverwood Lane. This will be a public street with a 50 ft., rather than 60 ft., right of way. The lots will back up to Willow Lane, 66' Avenue North and Highway 252.. Access to the site from 252 will be gained by going east on 66' Avenue North, south on Willow Lane to its intersection with the proposed new Riverwood Lane. Parking for the new detached single family homes will be in double car garages on double wide drive ways. Off street parking for four automobiles is possible. Off street parking requirements in all residential zoning districts require the ability to park at least two vehicles on a residential lot. The plan exceeds these minimum requirements. 3 -29 -01 • Page 6 The lots will run from a minimum area of 6,935 sq. ft. to 14, 496 sq. ft. The average lot size is i 9,424 sq. ft. and the proposed density for this project is four units per acre. It should be noted that the R -3 density allows up to eight units per acre as a permitted use. The density of this project is much closer to a single family development in an R -1 zone than it is to the density allowed in the R -3 district. Given R -1 requirements, this area might support approximately 15 single family homes on standard size lots with standard right of way. Again, the actual density of this Planned Unit Development is closer to R -1 than R -3. Interior lots would be 50 ft. in width measured at the front setback line. The lots are deeper than what is typically found in an R -1 zoning district, which is about 130 ft. The depth of these lots ` allows for generous rear yard setbacks both along T. H. 252 and Willow Lane. The proposal calls for 5 ft. interior setbacks and 20 ft. side corner setbacks. In the R -3 zoning district, interior setbacks are a function of the development plan, so the fact that only 5 ft. interior yard setbacks are being proposed is not a conflict with the requirements of the R -3 zone. A minimum separation of 10 ft. between the units will result. Doors, windows and openings can be allowed along this side interior lot line. The 25 ft. front yard setback and the 50 ft. right of way width also allows for the deeper and more generous rear yards. The corner lots have a minimum of 65 ft. of width. A 20 ft. side corner setback, rather than a 25 ft. side corner setback is proposed because the lots are much narrower. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTIITIES The applicant has provided grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicants have noted that there are no wetlands on the property and that the site generally drains from the west and the north to the south and east. This site will be serviced by existing city storm sewer and a sediment basin will be provided on the lot located northwest of 65`' Avenue North and Willow Lane. Storm water will be collected in the sediment basin before being discharged into the city storm sewer. The site is less than 15 acres in total area and, therefore, no Watershed Commission review is required. The standards for the pond will meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Public utilities include sanitary sewer and water with the main being constructed in the proposed Riverwood Lane. Riverwood Lane will also contain curb and gutter to assist in drainage requirements. It should be noted that an existing frontage road, which leads between 66th Avenue North and 65th Avenue, parallel to T. H. 252, will be removed and incorporated with this development. A process for vacating this street right of way is currently underway. The existing access to this frontage road along 60' Avenue will be removed and curb installed along 66' in its place. The existing access to 65` Avenue from the abandoned frontage road will be removed with a turn around installed at the west end of 65` Avenue. A 30 ft. wide roadway will be constructed within the 50 ft. right of way for Riverwood Lane. The 30 ft. wide pavement is the standard width for residential city streets. • 3 -29 -01 Page 7 LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for consideration with this Planned Unit Development. Normally we do not review landscape plans with respect to single family type developments, however, we do with a townhouse development. A development of this size would require 334 landscape points. The plan shown provides a total of 537 landscape points with 22 shade trees including 11 Greenspire Linden, and 11 Skyline Honeylocust. These trees will be planted in the front yards and alternated along Riverwood Lane. Twenty -nine coniferous trees, including ten Austrian Pine, nine Black Hills Spruce and ten Colorado Green Spruce are also proposed. These are to be located along and on top of an approximate six -foot high berm running parallel with T. H. 252 and wrapping around 66` Avenue North. Twenty -five decorative trees including twelve Amur Maple, seven Canada Red Cherry, and six Snowdrift Crabapple are also interspersed on the berm and along Willow Lane. Two hundred eleven shrubs, including Andorra Juniper, Scandia Juniper, Mint Julip Juniper, Taunton Yew, Abbotswood Pontenilla, Anthony Waterer Spirea, Goldflame Spirea, Dwarf European Cranberry Bush, Dwarf Winged Euonymus, and Variegated Dogwood will be used for foundation plantings around the homes. In addition, the developer proposes to retain as many existing trees as is possible and these are indicated on the plan as well. All in all, the landscape plan exceeds the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission for reviewing landscape plans by approximately 200 points. BUILDING The applicant has submitted only partial building plans. Additional plans hopefully will be before the Planning Commission by Thursday evening's meeting. The one floor plan provided shows a two bedroom, single story home with a porch and patio to the rear. A front porch is also included with the floor plan. Four different types of exterior treatments are provided with this particular floor plan with different roof lines and options for brick and stone. The applicant has indicated that full basements are an option with these homes as well. These detached townhomes may sound like a contradiction in terms but these types of units have recently been developed in a number of surrounding communities such as Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. It is my understanding that these units will be priced in the range of $180,000 to $220,000 depending upon options and floor plans that will be made available. PROCEDURE Normally rezoning applications that are considered by the Planning Commission are referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group, in this case the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time frame from the date a properly submitted application has been filed with the city. This application was filed on March 5, 2001. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, 3 -29 -01 • Page 8 this application needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning S Commission's public hearing. The clock, however, begins at the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than May 4, 2001. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission's public hearing is even held. This requirement makes it almost impossible for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission has instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the public hearing and are encouraging their comments and participation at this evening's meeting. A staff report will be delivered to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members at the same time that it is delivered to the Planning Commission members. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to review the matter and to make comment to the Commission at the March 27t meeting. It should also be noted that the developer has met with the Riverwood Neighborhood Association, which is a formally established group of neighbors living in the area north of 694 and easts of T. H. 252. The applicant met with this neighborhood group on November 6, 2000, to discuss their proposal. Attached is a copy of a letter presented to the Brooklyn Center Council on November 13, 2000, from Mr. Jerry Blamey, a member of the Riverwood Neighborhood Association indicating support for the proposed development. Required notices of the Planning Commission's consideration have been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site under consideration per the City's zoning requirements. Also, notice of the public hearing has appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. A public hearing has been scheduled and proper notices have been sent and published in the City's legal newspaper. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing, should consider a draft resolution which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The resolution is offered for the Planning Commission's consideration. 3 -29 -01 Page 9 --`' �."' r ■ 11111111111O 1111111/ :. . 1//■ 111111111 '' �1MI©111 /11lIIr■ .l -' 11•. 1111111• - 1� .-;,� ..., ■ ■1111111'! 0 ���� ■ ■����� • J ` � 11 1111111 • � � ■1t ' • 1� �d� /�1���i�� 11� � � 11111 1111 �� • .It ■1111111 �1111111� �� - 11 1111 1111 • '' 1111E �1 ■ ■1 � ' • 1/ ��JIIII■ �� ■ � /1� 11111 1111 .,1111 .. � „ �J1� ....�.�.. 1111/111 ■1//1 ,�� 11■ 1111111 11111111 111■ • • �,"11� /IIIi�i► 111 : 11 /� ■111111111 Ii /■ �� • ��v �� 11111" 1�� 11111111 �� /�� X11/ 111■ �,^ i i■ . �■� 11 H■ ■/11111 ■111111 ' ■11111■ NEW 1111 • i ii ■ ON i1 11■ ���I 'Q!�!1• 1111= i. � ,, II ,�,1, 11� ■� / '�111� ... .. i� �'' �I�IIii ��' ��■11 111/111 ""' 2� 5S4ra �aE $sue ,�� vaM� � c Ckr 4 >L '" i n��/ ;J ;d Y rii av tib•T u�- � �,,, ,� J S4 � �� ��� t'� �� � �T�� � � •r a y�F a �.d,4�. .Sg''���'"`�4 � � � r ��" �� �� ■ A^t 5r.. }" v a,tii.� �k� yja �ro � � rf 4 �ti ` , y � 'sir r r �� �� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� �y �j ] S •� Y[A Q'1 �' 4 4 2 t } R i'� Y iFr � �� ��� �� � ■■ N n hl > S, � � � `ter �o � <: 4�k�1v .r, x. � 7 s r -P� ski tT � � �� fi, �y :'• -' �� .. -r. ,u, :. .• �. .Nln Nh.l..ee het...i.nU sari.... ..a Ca N Mauro 4.t.ro M9I'i OCPIIQt STAIE Ct1E CALL r.l. rrr Ar« ul - Ne -tpo7 IAa ra FY.. 1- e0D- :sl -ttN C DEVELOPMENT DATA 9t. A.ro 2211.9" a1. 2.F P,"—o C.U.O. �j I— W-0 r— W. =1 Rroe Riy.l- sl -aby i - L«M sU «t. aAen at. I P.U.0 sta e.a. ROW - Let ". • SIl.e. so tL - Front r.e Stb Y 25 N. 12 13 - $1 . — d S (Caro. let W M 20 ti SW v.. s.tlwq (.t. Ls) s' G..t. N ]V . sofl Let D.I. S,,i . (Mw »:) G «t..t DW . ]01i Lel orou 1 . 4 p ` 16 1 � I R 1 ' t ' TMCIOAL LR 1 9 j q r- -i 8 1 r -- - --- —� I r� 7 I 1 1 1 SIO.e. Lin. 10 I Let OLn.mlr. - -A L r � 08 i i Lsl Nang. 81 L-- _______J SD.e. ot Is lo ;- --4 —_— % 3 \ 1 LL 1 1 I ` ')R. rA11KN RAIN E L_ -T __- 00 INN ,sits ' I L__ _ -J y o sc 100' tsr NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION : a tA.. yas/m ... � Ri vemood I s S.rA—. Inc. I :wZ « I I e... W I Eagl Crest Northwest, Lrkc. Estates �ll�rr Sits I�R ". W» ro��NllA.fe /«:NMD -!QI �. Q Rs ORY tr. M RIYnq.sa IIirY l/s/ OIL. N-- L J • r - 1 r]aoI n..I.Y.Y rr.Iw■DYa frYYrr Yp. u b YwY e.IwY haA'F OOPIIER STALE 0(E CALL r.M DIr APa al- a. -aoo] Yn ra rM 1- aoo asi -rrN SAYWT A RY01E E■Sm10 MONTAGE 00Mr. WALL CONaET[ O Me • aTIER fElEJ(At NOlE4 ArI�� mIIDIP[ Aro ]rot DEYAn/a AY[ fIDrY m raaflm r1ArrAa/aYIM erAm uAE11 • OSgP[[ Imr[O. a ! A • IOU m M ra1M rUT P fa: MAY rP D-1 rrIaDGYTM aR OMVMWM1 AIr UrOVr. j I . M OPPK1011 !RAIL YEaY M WAIN AND M'Ara1 v [10 aIC V11a0 AAq mroPP1DAt rGllAllS rM M MTIPf AMl IIGD -Te1Pr .IYP m m15rwICnP. M �i , % ti ' Da ■A rP PAU AYYmAAT Yam M a r m v Aa aaLPPA Y a a PwA ru rP+ .�ml sAT[ • M MAACIP 4 m [PTKT OariP TAr[ bt 41' IP Yale1 WCATAYf N W-OR[. T�rO >•• ,IIIM � / • ALL RT ADEE AMP OMOr POIDr COrrll0. ,[A11rU !Wl R M- ,IAt(,111A m AMT amAY aMEf YE[T [wYATrY/mnamCml AIO PML R YAMTArm BE MA■E nAr a DIaPa LPP M0 f1AYU rM � - � alDl [arAaufm mSrm RT A[YR a fIALL R YMITAYIP AAO a IYMO.a Alm ] aTAaa � ' J '� 1YML K [PlOOO POa01TM m M PADXD DMmAtt. K 9 a UDDA[ varAP[ m rP aAl[ I t R AYDI[ v aA.orr ■DD aM01110M! 1 wm Sy A0EM /O M OaIIAOI R ft W I �,� r/I■aI/. OM[1 MA ETO. RD1E0 r ANIOU/OrlD1 M11 NIrFFYTM m M rr YAAPM � a : _ M PRMe [PPAeTa YYR R AY1■ v ATL vA31a10 Am rePOlm VDUm 1 -Y 1]fI[/ Yaa avA[rRD sa MN® mA1 0AI[ j _ � .. "` . ALL oDDYalcnP fIML aYrmM m TaOM AIm frAa PDa awloala M �p Ya* rRmlm PEI w" i l �, wrInYAL AOIAIITAYT aaaAER oAPArIaY ararP e■E[sl PoPr ■RIAasY1n ILL ma,D -M a1PYl YaMK NaMe YY]T K DINED AT M Ue V 4aI F' Y Yams wr. A IIOP I Pm .wn: m M ar[ wfr R rYOwm Aaao[ID m Rrwu m R - 1 + Ima lI1AOr1 w Ewr rIIMm mart AAIYP PIP y� ` R j fOCM Oa15111YC110N • IOfeK aAMAR TrIDI M >K YV/T R PfOlmm Ar ILL IaD1 M smYmlr / ` R •I �9Q- L... ,0 vIT■AYtt (M.) . Au Damp [au YDar K srAeuIID — I. OMC D- wm O aaYDI a AK aoYnaa/Y % A, 5.5, � uEm oYIOP: MECrm n M OrY+mL ALL mown war wK Aowunm amuon ' ,]_� •r r■MPYD ararYa MarMAa AYaAm naL A 10P mlDlaucrlrl DneAAa saAD R i`•., R i `•; , ]a . ra .Y R ralruP . - YmDYm YDR K AAPI1e ■nP M wYf w KIIfI 9 �• �� PA/Ala 4ELa YOIYt r m R A[waaEm wDP K wm V PAUm eeYr1[rrDL Y.ww " y v Aw DPTAM OWE tIIMt W[ 0e[► I J \� \�� p tib �'1' I e ��, �� ® �rt RllNtl / / } T ul.o i 1 KP r DP 'Aw* sc K iaY MOr TO vaiA�ar' 1 oril�awl Ymu r M1�iic flra A ro I R arIAK aw+o O WM W D P. uY ralm M woADYAIs a rDnxf .AR i I r nawR rrY nK amDa UPA allY]gM RIP rAar]D I . rlllq SI■Rlf IT.♦m 1'O■ MAWIO 11ML R YUT rYR P a0. Ala! 0U■i Sa■ET SYTDYIa 1M[ [ - Mr YAE YDI no■m .. . f1El R EWRroR rM fMD1aaM P 1rL 9 .•'o sT� 8 . YMAeN raun war R aMraMm DIM M an PAIDI m a[a1.m E/■L s9 Im rllfraa i m r .reY �N � �; ` .._ .. �'Y \ R i � . ML 0110MOa Am rAAalw AIrAa fIATL R auoP m A la• YDDOOP paI D[PaDIa J.. � t )) .r j i?• I \ � GWID Olir P M IWI[ lK[R OwAR PI[OIU 1r M PPm1. 'u ai /] 'e f t0) • "89 PAOU . [.]/ AG PAr.K [A;r■Y! rWIEYT PN1 D[YAlla rd Y�>%AOMa ■rrl/VI .. .. •'• } / J' • MfA . 1eD K moym r ry oYm [][osoa mNTaa� NerES+ Pal PADL pLPIa1 r MMMC aIOEAK riDPT ( ..._............ . ._ _ �,..� • � I RT 1DIK PD o aM1a WI11I0. TATYa — K M-r1AK arm a io P[aE■I , ;6 T Y +n wac nii 0=== mMll�fm us Ri ma I fC_ P-fI[ flNl R YAMTAYYD AYC P gpM9 YO KML K WYIpOIP on■rMr � D �T Y �r rR1 � ; � �\ r s / O y r � R4' - { :OOaITK m M DIMYi OP1rIrOL r R P Orr�4�E MPLYD[ m R AA■lol ADP mum eYR Pa aAwmlr H ,_�~ ; PK v DaaYrlr raD mama rP IYS[cr m om1al aDYr■aL NOP OLI1rI0Y E■ piPna. rY YM .._'i .. ' I W B E P E 1■TREE N K b OOYw [IC. KYIPU .r M an aWLL K Y(II• fraP rM ae m rrlaY w V m YOY; yY I m R POavm (M.) PA/U IP )1 fI10a4 PP aAmlr RD]Y L- rYr fOm1 rr YAL DI r`, rl li ( ) ! M - . V , ~ , R ,.� • M mare a]11Y1/U mPD YDYKO — LMT K WAIM ATM DID D[PmI m cPA[[ RaYO DEYATIaY aEPaal_ caY.ACIm r F w 6 R 1 ,r� v Aaao[ND ° nru m fmx[ IYAaPe v alr Pauc aPRn. OADOaL PAYE ,.,• �..._�i... I J• -.�,_ r. .I:KT AAO Ior r[YK Arra [AaI :e ; R(� RoenrrAtmY eAfY srDlal [vDlr Alo YtwlE orlon rIDI '. `, ' -'. -- -..._ • '�t 3 , \ I MI Y�n E I T� R� /] , IIfIDO. Ia[ "o'r'"MOina'sP'um R 1) �,i �e . 2 .. .... ....... LECDO S R q Ia a rr�DO[oO1mI�DDY:[ p ____.. DEMONS f[r raQ : 21 of R ._D+D. Ova=Imm OON=Mf 1 R r ) ) tt RNmes aesmlD STORM OEM j $TRWi • REP[ "Sim . _.... v_._.. .� DM1 Ph fT■Ri m.Al ' 4' .i... ..:�. °i _ \ [I --w-a DEMONS PROPOSED STORM DEW I M a '1 1 R�)) p' \ i� ' DOOM EM MO mE[ LIME TO K • 1 I/]' eIT■YIIWa 0[M CDRR .....A......A_.__._. r wTCD ■ 1 Y T ]]DI, TYPE 41 I Ov1oTES E■fma WK To R $ - TAO( ODAT;&* T =7 � 010 1 O Z m oms RIDV1 OOIKK C YoOT ]SDI. TTPE N M c - C omm PO RS NAC1' 1r1.0■ P GRACE E a 7ttrI0Y ~'ia (M.) ja TW CRUS V wuWl�or 8a-I r - h A � ,p oeTaTa Emm■o sm nevArmY .. -. f]I. �' P OEIlaE7 PeAOKp !►OT v(YAllal TYPICAL SECTION STREET SECTION MSTML eT aDADE 0 w I ISO 1PNMIOIIND [1aT■re sal No eeAlc YD aeAEi NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . r MrrM ]M r.eAru. yr 7/!x/01 w ! or S Ri vwwood w.� Prot/fA-1 sarvt«f )D[ I —�""�- I I ` _ " I $Ne Crest Northweat, Inc Estates Qsds n:.:e,wndlmw,wn,.+a] i. O 7P oJ7 L J •xal Wwbwe 11apaAlPnN s..Yw, Ye Call N Max. Nhw EOeNF OOPFIFR STALE ONE CALL hb ar A— 431- 0a-ODOx -e 25-140 .. OEIIERAL 11MIlY N07FS • TIE MMACTa WAla TERIFY "t ETxSTR10 C MN3 MOW TD CONSTRUenom AND NOn" ME 04TER a ANY owrvRvcm • ZEU OMNIM3E MOTED. ALL YAlENA13, MM. TEONOVES AND TESMIC WALL CONPDRY TO DE fees ED. a TIE 'STANOA11p UMNS 3PEOP1C lms PDR wAlm M YA AND gRNCE lR1E NSTMyAl1011 ANp SAMTARY SE4Q AND STORM gTER NSTAI1AlNM BY 111E Ott [MOIEERxq A330DAlNN Or Y4N.' AMD 10 111E 'STAMDARO SPECOICATNN FOR N AY COMSTRUCTINP YY111. DEPT. Or MANS, SII1E 9.13ee Na1gN0 1MC aRNENt AODENOYY. I4E C TRACT011 WN BE III It: REOWNED N f01aOTI KE PROQDURES AS a17UNED 0Y ME DOCK AQ71CY. ppTAT . ME CMTRACT011 SMALL REWYE THE NEDESSNIY PENYTS M ALL SOla1 OUTSa K ME PIcm', Wm 13 ... K ' 12 „- ., STW eo • 3042 C TRY LOC S ro SE D COW ON�TED UM MCMTECT OUT pYFI fld/i "`f" ........ • YOY7Y WA EDS n T TNO N4gT EOC. a aEV. PRg1 TO aE4TNNN6 CONSTRUC11011. 1 y� ^ = • E lD1 m0 SERMCE SN.LL a[ NSTAIxID MM A MM, ar 1.3 R, a . T E ry —4 ' I.00ADON ANp 4 RM TYPM NAC Ott AS -! CONS O111 MXX PEWS TO C71CCN I AE -4xi4A C—ECT TO Ew5ON0 w lF.e1]N L W/ NET TAV 4 VKM. . ALL ST SEWER PwE SHALL K CUSS 3 (MESS 0MUM3E NOTED. 4 • M ME CONTRACTW WALL =TACT'W N PIER STATE O CALL' R NIM STORY DR A30 FOR YIUtt LOCATIONS MW TO UTllltt NSTAWlpl1. By ALL SAPFTARY SEYEn SMALL K PVC 3DR 33 (lNJW OT ERMSE NOTM t YM- YOVE EwSTN NYORANT K - lx E M.a17.7T 41_5 E 3N110 AE.sxA.]3 E M -01107 . 8 E $-Nisi i f Aa' -r 3A11 •0— 7 7 � 8 8 xi ;"TO S/ AUX. VAL \\ l l�E.ula K-810.59 K-810.59 �3 \\ [ N. [ 5 -411.N � a 2 \\ X 2 34 2 t 70 TATNM a ABN _ - -1 I�DD M MM.N „4.� 1 1 RE -47117 K.exll qq [ N.a10.47 E S M -N0. \ \t 5-810.37 S1W- ' 0 70 10d 13O _ • -a LN .O.N AYE AVMH _ a4Ter e[ - L ►-- r r NIURE fASn110 COaE TO - $sd 3— -.• • .....- SWwl Saw —•— S..Wv Lxw— W/ M[T TN a VKK w _ -' , _ _ 1 NISIMO OR IM T75lllple TNIM TMw TPa1AE �T� Ri•uatx Mxa. W\VNw -...•y Myt • \TTIw — —•O NA • \V” �1��► � ca1F. 011RL R OdMCCT 10 [ -N0.N Nww Saw. .._...+....,... Nam„ Sww Shw Saw - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ., waNwna,wluwwM 4T 2/” 41r 4 a 3 I s `:r• 0gwa1 Ri vexwood ..r iM1 . rr.3Eevoea ►roias3bnal SarvlcWS, Inc " E!• SSe a I ` I ftee Crest Northwest, Inc Estates r am txHmfluEy utluti Plan I wie•e:3wenalNr..:Tevm.3m r. a L Rw N wN uM TMa1 u+w elr.rl. J ex0pt Ileebea° PnMNpa 3wY•K Ma. u N RwPy NI~ CK Plant List ooPIIEn sure oNE CAM fK TN M1p t- 1100- xlx -IIN REY or. coYYapnoTNac.L R.YE SZE Unit Foundation Plantings Planting Notes QL 11 ape1PN LMaen / Taa —ple •aawepre' 2 -1/2 • N t t•.lr Lal Yylet ayMye •Y bbeanMp Mwmr • SkMln: Y -I/x• se Ix ! N.I NenOnp le w Mea1N N lepl a MI hpn Nly rla�l- or -�eP ERC Y Cweb RN p`e^Y / Prwwe Wapws •ShAr1• 1 -] /•' M i p• c b aY+ • ewewa al: o Me an::°I«°,poNepnc.1 m M. ptM Nnnlw R4xwnwrl pool rmlrb. Nrall .lep paw a we X e Xawb, aebePW / YNae . 'sw.a+ n' t -] /• M M N I0 / 1— T. Tram« ew.�eF° Xew Nw 14E. 8 .N e• BB MS s / PYee pre NI I I N panb le N Ipecbnw rNa Wnepla -r.p wa /s waP se«ww a elseR Re se.aee /Piney a «. Meals s• -AP 1 -TY or MV rN. MN M~ la. Nt Y pl MNN M Me INM.p9 NaNS°R I ° N i pwte pay w N. gam ae.«., e. wa.•K «>.. Nn CGS 10 CeNryb Pew 5,—1 y M / PieN Mrgwe e' NT N pwte pM ee pee pare Mkeeble ep•. ppK w Mw.plee o I — • N Nwte epW ee pee p~ Yabw w NN bancpK 2i • N Nw le Is M pMnw veN.. Y4nepla -rew w1 /w M°R PIT umT PuRTRas (t PLallrmcs PER lMT maw tl¢ roLLOwyw usp 3 APO AWS or S ' N pwte pwa pew . pNMr awswe w° 4emy, MlJ Mbny tmbw / Junbw peRpnlaNe • Mon: 30• PI ! ® • CenNrwn bep MyT Nw w MN }MN maF Ip°w aM s pNEpl YJ eewNa tl^bw I Jw4wPe sab- 'Spne4' 30• pwt. Psl � fjQW I \ Is .NM wiN el p M Mw Rl YJJ YFI J°p JwXPw / Jwb«ye -1-1 • v.1 Julp' 3r PN / VU UEC M 0 Twla ly mM A l $twbr° Ir Rwew eleeM (JNSI N.1 - INO) ry fewtw vp / Tape . d Yawlwr 3p• PN rpebPnwty W t.. w° e4e p «pN An Aeeylepf .. . 3.. / / so. bankps 'NNla.eef +e• PN '� l 1 -ANJ or S up arTmem u• beat er w 4e.e oN w .pnwe (eY.. RYe MMwY ft' .. EPXp / eolrw . bw.a°. • MMwy Ralwe: le• PN — 1 \ i w! beltw el p.) 0 ° s• cos u°4 swp / S a bwneY. rbwRww te• PP.. n j i 6-GRL Ew «t> pw U fl—I Erpew ay—, / f seen / Y4yrwaR 'e Lwi N• Pet in I pwtp wrNy lepton. NM a NIYe. rM le MI.NNn N ORE Q.e/ -.9. Ewnyww WnPmre eNM • Cwrgxb' x °' PoI ry I. b Wrllwl oNyp° / c ele0entwMy 1wy Ray' N Pot i 1 — R et 01 Mel pt4 .. N NI pl enw we Tar. I / Y— M w.aeM -bree° .—W- I. M NRan pO1C g1N11RM3 M PIRN SIIP[RYOE UST WRNOOES M M [RENT OF A peEREPµCy. I d Op Iq N b 1 w N mpwMR rwN,Y Pyt w MIN pwlw plN —S!(H 1— R ° ws — 1 Peel Po. Dlewb Dy4G 4—CGS + w « ye.%aP"ax�a r - y w n.wwe mNewr r«Ilp .N b g 1 —S 3 —AM ' CenNMr sw raga. n «naY .pw«y N pool ma1Nd w11 t tl4 p— M MY MM4pN Oww W M P—1 ptw b C--- 1 .G 1 8 P4nte •s N mawaelpY —t. pen wa a el sa P eP y pN -M 3 —CGS mNPN. R n e••wwY t—" M 3 - AP N a4bne.e w..e le M ..sa.e w... sMw.Ne pl .ea la N j 7 It W tRYypla - raw wa h" wer.p miR yr I N pwb p.INR Nb eppl psw .eN Nnlw IoM°, °• sI •IrN1eI psMe° «...e.�.....w 3 —AM yy zz Mp r wip .mpin ° e„r,.. a I.pl i ° e. i ~ e ewryrew bps. lh to mybp eeMterE eerialha 6 \ 6 2 - N Iaww NMI, .rp, wt pro p.w ...° sw4. Iexae .,,° e• « r -e• WN , t I � . �.' MaN ~MN Pmetw a sNw rW mYN prow° by LenMpPe NarXM. /1 'I OMd — u � � e4 Mee N pve°M pwpeN M rrnXN M•X !e nee° erpn° NI Ueea 1'l i i 1 5 i �\ t � a.:e`,w :u e Iemu.ncpp. slN. •op ca• <a. -000xt m wmY NNPa 4sylbn ll peal m.lwla 4 llAlld la epa wel we •wMtiwX �•�T• — � ' Gn,rM^ app MwNe n•eewwY .NMny N penl iweleaa w11 W pw, w � r�; W +". 1 •� i. � � + \ p p�XY bNWe o MIT1M eMem Y Me1wa. Owo .Y nN - , � 1 r.w..pr Iw 1's 3 N MIeNN re« la N eNaN w,eee eMr.Yy wslp = snf \ "o Nlewnl b Pw eN MtwbN MbE 4,reliwp 2 1 Pro+°. ..I,.IM b r awFN .r..l w wa Na.Na .N N a.Nw MW � stow° Rem ewrr ewvpeprwm.nw .b.a YNr.,Ya wr «p.Rwy N BLIP S E ' E'N DA M ' l N Nwi mNMa rReNyrIM MI N eveplN arileee r R AW — ft 4 rewYelN N 1 1 \ RT p sN w w�+ M. ane.ep. ew4.e1. w b ISH M..eaa.Nw a alrncr nc i jo I - too TR RRL.amo LEGEND ooaTES rUaS it cam "s ,,•.- _�.tm. -_.. s anTRw ocNmuts cmin ma "m 0oNmm ewN �wNR,er LSCIlls c- - » -p oaoas EWTNO STM 3E.M j •�+ .��.. ...._. AI£ 0 M1H � jo oEn . PROPOSm sra. Km r.p::``.^:••� i-+ERC 1 -CRC t was E. m m EE �.._ � r :S.'•' - — - — - — ca, oaoTea am ow ommow ocvRTloN aoam um ma s Etr."m mm pm"D Ill" vzmrmm �.""'•..,b�.. `� o sr Ion tsa a� -••�- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I W ahstwaed NohNtanal DwTYkos utc I ' � :r'. gee Crest Northwest, Inc �Esta es Ilwnw PUnralNraY esm•xnx P. n 4R Al Leadom Pion I L r trr �tksr..w Me d. xVw J • Section 35 -341. 0-2 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. Public parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a noncommercial nature. b. Commercial recreational facilities of a semi -open nature such as golf courses and golf driving ranges. c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off - street parking. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: City of Brooklyn Center 35 -45 City Ordinance 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD - MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD - MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. City of y o Brooklyn Center 35 -46 City Ordinance • S c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City, except that these subdivisions and plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. • City of Brooklyn Center 35 -47 City Ordinance Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35 210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. City of Brooklyn o Center 35 -48 City Ordinance , • Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be • deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35- 230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. • City of Brooklyn Center 35-49 City Ordinance h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no • building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. • City of Brooklyn Center 35 -50 City Ordinance i City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Police It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning ", 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`p&mitted*in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3) The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an • individual parcel? Section 35 -208 Revised 3 -01 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. February 28, 2001 RIVERWOOD ESTATES PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Ref. No. 20011005 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Riverwood Estates LOCATION East of Highway 252, west of Willow Lane North, north of 65` Avenue North and south of 66` Avenue North. OWNER/DEVELOPER/APPLICANT Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. P.O. Box 47333 Minneapolis, MN 55447 SITE PLANNING, ENGINEERING Westwood Professional Service, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 -7399 Contact: Fran Hagen, II (952) 937 -5150 DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Guide Plan: Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning: C -1, Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Zoning: P.U.D. / RS Proposed Land Use: Residential — Detached Townhomes PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Total Site Area: 228,856 square feet (5.25 acres) Total Public R.O.W.: 30,954 square feet (0.71 acres) Total Lots Proposed: 21 single family Average Lot Area: 9,424 square feet • Density (Gross): 4.0 units /acre PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, E and H Properties Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 16 except that part thereof embraced in Farr's First Addition, "Auditor's Subdivision 310, Hennepin County, Minnesota," According to the recorded plat thereof, and, situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 1, Block 2, Farr's First Addition, according to the plat thereof on file of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Plus MnDot Right of Way Turnback Per Doc. No. 5705369. REQUESTED ACTION This application is made in request of review and approval for P.U.D./Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and eventual Final Plat. The property is currently guided appropriately for the proposed land use. PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS , Previous land uses for the 5.25 acre parcel have included a motel, apartment buildings and a gas station. All of the previous land uses have been removed, leaving generally open space with isolated stands of trees. This site includes several different parcels of land that will be combined and subdivided through the platting process if approval is granted. SOILS /SLOPES The site is gently rolling with no wetlands on the property. Soils consist of the Becker and Duelm series, which can vary from fine sandy loam to loamy sand. Soils are moderately to well drained. The site drains from the west and the north to the south and east into the existing city storm sewer system and ultimately into the Mississippi river. VEGETATION The parcel is predominantly open space with isolated trees and small clusters of trees generally located around the perimeter of the site. WETLANDS No wetlands were observed on the property and confirmation is pending. • PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES 2 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. • ABUTTING LAND USES Neighboring land uses include single family homes along the east side of Willow Lane and apartment units south of 65 Avenue North. Northwest of the site is the intersection of 66` Avenue North and Highway 252. ACCESS Access to the property is currently provided off of 65"' Avenue to the south, Willow Lane to the east, and 66` Avenue North to the north. The site is accessible from Highway 252 via the intersection at 66` Avenue North. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Riverwood Estates will consist of 21 detached townhome units in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Current zoning on the property includes be4h C -1 Commercial an4 The PUD combines the two different zoning districts and four separate properties into one zoning district that would better compliment the neighborhood. The detached townhome project would provide a transition from both the existing single family homes along Willow Lane and the apartment buildings south of 65` Avenue to Highway 252. The PUD requires minor deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. Riverview Estates proposes a 25 foot front setback, 50 foot minimum lot width, and 50 foot wide right -of -way, all of which are less than city standards. A reduced setback allows for the preservation of trees which otherwise would be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the greatest degree possible. The modification to the setback and right -of -way width also allows for access away from Willow Lane and onto Riverview Lane within the project. In designing this project an effort was made to protect as many of the existing trees as possible where street, building, and pond construction allow. In addition to these trees, new plantings within the project far exceed the number required by the ordinance. Particular emphasis has been paid to buffering the site from the highway through considerable plantings along the berms at the west and north sides of the project. Boulevard trees are also included in the front yards of the homes. Additional trees will be added to the trees to be saved along Willow Lane to aid in further buffering the existing single family homes from Riverwood Estates. A pond is proposed in the southeast corner of the project to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The pond meets storage and rate control requirements outlined in the permit while reducing drainage off site and into the existing city storm sewer system. • PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES 3 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Public utilities include sanitary sewer and water service to each home through main • construction in the street and connection to existing mains at Willow Lane and 66' Avenue. Connection to the city's storm sewer system is planned in two locations along Willow Lane for street drainage (north) and a pond outlet (south). An existing access (frontage road) along the west side of the property will be removed. The existing access at 66' Avenue North will be removed with curb installed along 66 Avenue in its place. The existing access to 65' Avenue North will be removed with a turn- around installed at the west end of 65` Avenue. A new 30 foot wide street with curb and gutter ( Riverwood Lane) will be constructed through Riverwood Estates to provide access to all of the new homes in the project. • PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES 4 c Riverwood Estates Landscape Points Westwood Professional Services 3 -1 -01 Project # 20011005 C) C Points Required Type of Development: Multi - Family Residential cc Area: 5.25 Acres Points Required = 90 + 3.25 x 75 = 334 points h Planting Type Points Per Maximum % Project Project Percent of Planting of Points Plantings Points Points Shade Trees 10 50% 22 220 41.0% Coniferous Trees 6 40% 29 174 32.4% Decorative Trees 1.5 35% 25 37.5 7.0% Shrubs 0.5 25% 1 211 105.5 19.6% Total 287 537 c n t� o 0 ro 03/20/01 13:35 FAX 662 937 5822 WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES 16 002 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. • Rezoning Evaluation Review Guidelines Submitted 3 -20 -01 A. Is there a clear public need or benefit? The PUD combines the two different zoning districts and four separate properties into one zoning district that would better compliment the neighborhood. Development of the parcels involved would provide a use for properties that have been vacant for some time. B. Is the proposed consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The project is compatible with both the single family and apartment land uses adjacent to the subject property. The addition of detached Townhomes provides a transition between the single family homes and the apartment buildings. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for the development of the subject property? Yes, permitted uses within the proposed zoning district would be limited to detached townhome residential units. • D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning lassification changes in the area g g since the subject property was zoned? Previous land uses for the project have included a motel, apartment buildings and a gas station. Since the time of zoning, the area has changed considerably, particularly on 66 Avenue, west of Highway 252. E. In the case of City - initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident. This is not a City - initiated zoning proposal. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? The PUD requires minor deviation from the standard subdivision ordinances to best develop the site. Riverview Estates proposes a 25 foot front setback, 50 foot minimum lot width, and 50 foot wide right -of -way, all of which are less than city standards. A reduced setback allows for the preservation of trees which otherwise would be lost and provides an opportunity to berm along Highway 252 to the • greatest degree possible. The modification to the setback and right -of -way width PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES 03/20/01 13:36 FAX 952 937 5822 WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES 11003 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. also allows for access away from Willow Lane and onto Riverview Lane within • the project. In designing this project an effort was made to protect as many of the existing trees as possible where street, building, and pond construction allow. In addition to these trees, new plantings within the project far exceed the number required by the ordinance. Particular emphasis has been paid to buffering the site from the highway through considerable plantings along the berms at the west and north sides of the project. Boulevard trees are also included in the front yards of the homes. Additional trees will be added to the trees to be saved alon g Willow Lane to aid in further buffering the existing single family homes from Riverwood Estates. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? See Section F answer above. H. Will the rezoning result in 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 interest of the community? • The rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district, but rather the creation of a new district in the area. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests on an owner or owners of an individual parcel? As stated above, the detached townhome project would provide a transition from both the existing single family homes along Willow Lane and the apartment buildings south of 65 Avenue to Highway 252. The project also provides a single use for four separate parcels that are currently in two different districts. i • PROJECT NARRATIVE RIVERWOOD ESTATES 2 COUNCIL ADDRESS - NOV. 13, 2000 I come before the council as a Brooklyn Center resident who lives in the Riverwood area of our City. I have talked other times on the issue which I believe is paramount to the preservation of our residential area of our City. That issue being the redevelopment of the property on the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Ave. No. I want to compliment the council and city staff on their patience and their perseverance is the proper development of the said property, over the many years of ifs vacancy. We have had many difficult meeting about this issue and we as residents have always felt our wishes have been respected by the elected officials and city staff. Although we did not always find agreement at these meetings, they were always carried out with proper respect and decorum. A few months ago, Mr. McCauley made me aware of a prospective developer for this property. I was invited to a proposal meeting at City hall and there met Mr. Bill Gleason and Laurie Karnes. The proposal they offered seemed not only workable but it would to be what we had always hoped the property would be used for, single family residential homes. After that meeting and the subsequent approval of the council in October to put the sale on the Agenda, Mr. McCauley suggested that Mr. Gleason could meet with our neighbors to detail the development to them. Mr. Gleason did agree, and on Nov 6, 2000 we did meet. On a night of rather nasty weather, 26 of our neighbors met with S Mr. Gleason and found him to be very forthright and accommodating in explaining his plan and any particulars we may have questions on. After this meeing I believe all who attended would agree that if Mr. Gleason does what he said he will do, this would be a very attractive development for our neighborhood and our City. I personally believe Mr. Gleason has been honest and straightforward and I would encourage the Council to favorably consider this sale. I support the plan. r Thank I u. G �y1 � d /v' OL � n 0e • i • Application Filed on 3 -05 -01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 5 -04 -01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001 -006 Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: Southeast Comer of 66th Avenue North and T. H. 252 Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant, Eagle Crest Northwest, is seeking Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 5.25 acres of land located at the southeast quadrant of 66"' Avenue and T. H. 252 into 21 single family detached townhome lots with the necessary right of way to service these lots. The property under consideration is the subject of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval from C -1 (Service /Office Commercial) to PUD/R -3 considered under Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -005. It is bounded on the north by 66' Avenue North; on the east by Willow Lane; on the south by 65`' Avenue North; and on the west by T. H. 252 right of way. This property is currently made up of four lots and a frontage road running parallel to T. H. 252. The City is in the process of vacating this street right of way so it • can be included in this plat. The plan is to combine the four lots and the vacated right of way into 21 single family detached townhome lots and public right of way to be known as Riverwood Lane. The lots in question have been acquired by the City of Brooklyn Center over the past eight years and formerly were the site of the Atkins Mechanical operation and a vacant parcel immediately to the east, which currently have a legal description of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, E & H Properties Addition. Another parcel was formerly occupied by the Brookdale Motel and has a cumbersome metes and bounds description and is adjacent to the T. H. 252 frontage road. The last parcel is known as Lot 1, Block 2, Farr's I' Addition and formerly contained an 18 unit apartment complex. The proposed plat would create the 21 above mentioned lots, 13 of which would be located along the west and north side of a proposed Riverwood Lane. The remaining lots would be located between Riverwood Lane and Willow Lane. The lots in question range in size from 6,935 sq. ft. in area to 14, 496 sq. ft. in area. The interior lots have at least a 50 ft. width at the building setback line with corner lots being at least 65 ft. in width at the building setback line. The proposed underlying zoning designation is R -3, which allows for townhouse lots with lot widths and areas being a function of the townhouse development plan. This proposed platting, with respect to lot widths and areas, is consistent with the proposed R -3 underlying zoning 3 -29 -01 Page 1 contemplated in the Planned Unit Development under Application No. 2001 -005. This same application comprehends building setbacks of 25 ft. for front yard setbacks and 20 ft. for side corner yard setbacks all of which are a part of the aforementioned Planned Unit Development. The Preliminary Plat comprehended under this application should not be approved unless the Planned Unit Development under the previous application is also approved. Without the approval of the Planned Unit Development there is no justification for the Preliminary Plat under consideration. The Preliminary Plat also proposes a 50 ft. wide, rather than 60 ft. wide right of way for the proposed Riverwood Lane_. This also is the subject of the Planned Unit Development and can only-be justified with that approval. The average size lot in this development is 9,424 sq. ft. in area and the overall density of the plat is 4.0 units per acre. The City Engineer is reviewing the Preliminary Plat and will be making written comments, which will be attached for the Commission's review. Because the plat is a residential plat and less than 15 acres, no Watershed Management Commission review is required. Sewer and water will be provided in Riverwood Lane for connection to the abutting residential lots. Easements around each of the lots include 10 ft. wide easements along Riverwood Lane, T. H. 252, 66 Avenue North, and Willow Lane. Five foot drainage and utility easements will be provided along the interior lots which basically establish the building setback lines for this development. "' • As mentioned above, the T. H. 252 frontage r oad will be vacated and its connection to 65 Avenue North will be terminated in a turnaround area. The City Engineer is reviewing the proposal for this turnaround area and will be specifying certain dimensions for its construction. The area where the former frontage road accessed 66" Avenue North, will be curbed and cut off from access to 66' Avenue. A public hearing has been scheduled for this Preliminary Plat and notices of the Planning Commission's consideration have been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. RECOMMENDATION As previously mentioned, this Preliminary Plat is dependent upon the approval of the Planned Unit Development under Application No. 2001 -005. If that application is not approved, this Preliminary Plat should also not be approved. All in all, we believe the Preliminary Plat is in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances, which will include a subdivision agreement and supporting financial guarantee to assure the completion of public improvements, contemplated within this plat. 3 -29 -01 Page 2 i • 3. Approval of this Preliminary Plat is contingent upon approval of Planning g Commission Application 2001 -005. 4. Building permits for the proposed single family detached townhomes shall not be issued until final plat is approved and filed with Hennepin County. • • 3 -29 -01 Page 3 --�'% � ■"" � :.. r � �� .11111111111, 111/111■ :. • 111■ �IIIIIIIII 1111 11 � ■ � _ /// � it , , - /�111■i roll IIIr■ 1 .:;,, ..., ■ /111111/! 1 0 1 1MM E ///�������� „ • J 1111111 /1t 1 111 1 /�� 11 '� 1111 11// �n�1/1//11 E1111111::: r11/ E NIMBI -. 11 WJ / /11..■ ;!� 11 1111 t /11 � • ■ WIN � 11 • � • 111 111 ■ ■�r11�1 /; • ■ • ; /111111/ X111111 111 11. 11111'x` 11 /r�1 � 1111111 • • .. � � . � .. � 11111 111 1 111■ v ��/11� �.� . �� :11 /� 1 ♦ �. �� ■. r�� 1111111/ � X11 11 111■ �,� � � , .., �.■ 11 /10 ION ■11/11 � It �1� :,, X11/ Qz t� �' i1,►t rll ���1� 111111/ . �■. - 1 •I i ����' _ I. ■ r , � Y"3' »SW��., 11'Y � r� q»�s ' T'• %aid �5���. `�� i }�4`�� hr�� -r� � �� �� ,� � �� t�t k � T. �,� i,F�- v�`':r. �+ - � rr,����s`��r Ff�°' �� � ��� • . r�3 �,.� s �. ;„ f a�f F r�,o .: 1 «r,•cr }'w v... _ 'b�v.�� ,3, ,' rZl-gut �,_�a . ;irytst?r:yt. ' r } , A �4 'ms ' .,. �,b.. € ? :i ' : � � jh °,.,, ! �■ CA _ x y 1 7 �srr� OF uNry P �* k * S l y `� .� • �n';kr✓ rr ?: r rti } i '�" .� r 7 t" 3,>r' St � e.r � ✓a r'�, t r r °' � Z ��, .+P� r < i ��` k � �,. -� s r t i y r r„5•' - li � f .1001 IYee6 MrwNwi 3rMeM M. 0/I N Mean Mlere �eM'F OOPIIFI! ET UAL L-- - - - - -- — — — - - -, 1 nwcRreNUI -N. ao7 111 TN E /- e00- eN -1 /N 1 1 c) ✓r 1 (,� Tlln� n C:) , hnr ,) n the Yt aa:.:Nwe we anw w uw p ° 73 i • u r r ^nT • 1 ; ;� • rn ` L/ 1 O Iw.a.ww11 R.rr Is IM rleN M1 .r ::arlM viir r n i --% r r n ✓ �' � . •Y n v! � ,. 1 as rr ..wl be a.wvw:. r,c .w. e hj� /11 V yrn r i t I (i) Al Owl inr:ewne Mwnw Ne Pr u f � s � 1 saci er ov,a � •sYR, �! .� rR< . s N1 N< i� •' .... OCIELOi4F11T DATA Me ......::.. ........:... 3'N 311e Mw ID 6rwr • (, T ' r.0 w.tt �( _. ~: . G .,Ta1• 'IN ...._ ''1 2w1ny MRRem t—A 1. T R.UD. OIN dlaenw Te.N:er. LNe yl lle.7j M N r nynl el - w.y Lwd sk. t' 33.625 1T. { r nweee6 R.u.0. slwm.m (:nwReWReI s I e r : ( 'T LL L aa. 1 1 j 1: 1 1 )> - W wbm s.1e«w so IL 7rw1 YW blReeR 73 A. a- y >U U.— (C— ,N to At—) 20 n. 1 1.,.N pn.•� 1 ,,__J L'j' '6 I - 3W rre saera 0n11W LN) S' e p IDLE C,— N 3W r 301T L., DqW u— 737 Q (�Y ) 6wIM N !C r ]OR LM OwM 5' aw ■ R t X SMQ E ASEVIDItT z 8 (.: To VACATED 77 w '�• f tt p 1 j i - - - -7 - =- �; • S ;� '1 �.ee? 3`'� II 7 u Ew wt IV bl ORnwulan M a000 : LN NMr 1 t 1 ( seoo .cn„ \ I � � (- 4 � 4 ' ,• _�11 ` � 1 - s������ q t \\ i�� 11 a Ne o n :) m s z L E G A L A E OESCR A =O, .a.seM le ft - ear lnrwR Wrnpw cwarr<�.ewra ---- _ (or a o= Ner' j mr.er wwesm f I C) I ( k2 „mr: s,esmw Ala — r rw..wr.,• I ( I 6 �R I 1 9, pn. ` \ .«re.c a we rn«.aL ws reap. w Nemwh car,ul uw,».•s ro N. I j .... -� L 1 L = 2 '-'. 1- easNa< eceriYe re we pee A~ ., i -__ ene .RO<. o. rrH R.aYxrr w.a r - T - 1 - � __ -_ i __ _____, __ t A t tw'1. ✓w ewes MpN N Way `V w it 0— Ne. J1WNl. /1 N I 'J I � I I•N�N1` I I 11..]6 pn. V9g`1`I , - \ - - _________ -J \ GWH Al£ ACM _ �— w °Y • EM R'WM W. 5S344 �• I WI (631) 937 -5130 - - - -"" - - - - - -- — _ I .. I Marv: NaNk Rp Ns EryweN: hr, EC 10.3. Naew Rp NR. N ,20, 7,NNp: rIN NMr Rw. N1 1713 0 SG ,0p' I30' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION i 1:<y } 0(�� per.' m- �M sa- ) A `Y�,`YrrYWlr I R,r. tie,etm b! River 11 ". Weod Professional services, Inc � +� Y `m I r Eagl '�'" stwo Crest Northwest, Inc Estates I F6w M1 ellwe K t.0. Ma 0.17/ mb.-P-Ifi.lW— MO fair eBRR..r J • MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27, 2001 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Review of Riverwood Estates The Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary plat and preliminary site plan dated February 28, 2001, for the proposed development. Comments are as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT • The City has an existing water main adjacent to State Highway 252. The developer shall field verify the location of this main. An additional utility easement may be required on the final plan to accommodate the location and future maintenance of this main. • Internal easements exist which cross 14 of the 21 proposed lots. The developer shall submit easement descriptions and request that the City vacate these easements prior to construction. • The developer shall be required to dedicate a 10 -foot trail easement along Willow Lane for a future trail. • Copies of the preliminary plat have been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for comment. • Any recommendations or comments of the City Attorney will also need to be considered at the time of final platting. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1. The developer shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement. The agreement shall include utility connection fees, performance guarantees, and outline the Developers responsibilities for work on public infrastructure. The final plans and specification shall be included as part of the Subdivision Agreement. 2. The storm drainage plan shall be resubmitted prior final approval of the Subdivision Agreement. The "Future Storm Drain by Builder" shown in the rear lots of Block 1 and connecting to the City's storm drainage system is not acceptable. The side slope of the sedimentation basin shall not exceed a 1 -on -4 side slope. Drainage calculations have not been reviewed. 3. Final plans shall be signed and dated. 4. The bituminous turnaround noted on sheet 3 shall be detailed on the plan and include concrete curb and gutter. 5. The straw bale inlet sediment filter detail on sheet 3 should be deleted. 6. City standard street width is 30 feet face -to -face not B -to -B as shown. 7. Final plans shall include road and utility profiles. 8. The typical street section appears sufficient, however, boring logs shall be taken at two locations to insure adequate subgrade strength and suitable soils for utility placement. 9. The invert on sanitary manhole MH -3 is in error. 10. As -built drawings will be required. 11. Street lighting will be required as part of the improvement. 12. The project specifications shall be included with the final plans. • Member its adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -01 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2001 -005 SUBMITTED BY EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2001 -005 submitted by Eagle Crest Northwest, proposes rezoning from C -1 (Service/Office) to PUD/R -3 of a 5.25 acre site located at the southeast quadrant T. H. 252 and 66' Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for 21 single family detached townhomes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on March 29, 2001, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in • Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 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. 2001-005 submitted by Eagle Crest Northwest be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development 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 proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under this Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with City Ordinance standards except for allowing a front yard building setback of 25 ft. rather than 35 ft.; a side comer setback of 20 ft. rather than 25 ft.; and a street right of way width of 50 ft. rather than 60 ft. which is justified on the basis of this development being an appropriate development and transition between adjacent properties. • 1 4. This Planned Unit Development Proposal is considered consistent with the , recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests 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 approval of Application No. 2001 -005 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer subject to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. , 4. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided along streets in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall submit an as- built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 6. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. 7. The applicant ' shall obtain and NPDES permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and shall also provide adequate erosion control as approved by the City's Engineering Department. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said development agreement shall be filed with the title to the property. 2 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: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • 3