HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 11-17 PCP t
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
November 17, 1994
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - October 27, 1994
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. COUNTRY HARVEST BUFFET MANAGEMENT, INC 94014
Request for rezoning and site and building plan approval for a commerce Planned Unit
Development proposal involving a 10,000 square foot, 400 seat restaurant at the
Northwest quadrant of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway.
• 6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 94014
Applicant: Country Harvest Buffet Management, Inc.
Location: Northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/C2
The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval for a commerce planned
unit development proposal for the property at the northwest quadrant of Freeway Boulevard and
Shingle Creek Parkway. The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a site for an
approximate 10,000 square foot Country Harvest Buffet restaurant with seating for 400 patrons.
The plan would also provide an area of 1.03 acres, 100 feet in width, on the west side of this
site for future restaurant development.
The property in question is currently zoned I-1 (industrial park) and is 4.15 acres in area. It is
bounded on the north by Parkway Circle, a private access drive serving various businesses in
the area with the Parkway Place office/industrial building on the opposite side; on the east by
Shingle Creek Parkway with a building containing various industrial uses and the Spiritual Life
Ministries on the opposite side of Shingle Creek Parkway; on the south by Freeway Boulevard
with Chi Chi's restaurant on the opposite side; and on the west by the Minnesota State High
School League building.
The proposed rezoning is to planned unit development/commerce (PUD/C2). Restaurant uses,
. as are contemplated for this site, are not acknowledged uses in the I-1 zoning district. Up until
1990, restaurants were acknowledged special uses in the I-1 zone and could be authorized
through the granting of a special use permit. In 1990 the city rezoned property in this area to
C2 and removed the special use provisions from the I-1 zoning district uses. The city also
amended its comprehensive plan to acknowledge this area, and the area around it, as appropriate
for light industrial, commercial and service/office uses. Also about this same time the city
established the PUD process to, among other things, promote flexibility in land development and
redevelopment. A concern on the part of the city at that time was that convenience food
restaurants and some other uses were inappropriate for development on this particular site. The
city was not necessarily opposed to a restaurant at this location, but was concerned that the
special use permit process would not protect the interests and concerns of the city. The PUD
process was considered appropriate for considering anything other than light industrial or
service/office land uses for this property.
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 in structures within the Planned Unit
Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C2) 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
11-17-94 1
Planning Commission Information Sheet
uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on
the development plans. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355
which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached).
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 rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's zoning ordinance. The
policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well.
The applicant has submitted a brief narrative describing the Country Harvest Buffet restaurant,
its philosophy and the proposal. Meals are served buffet style in a family oriented restaurant
that serves no alcoholic beverages. The Country Harvest Buffet Management, Inc. owns and
operates over 30 such restaurants in the western United States and is planning expansion in the
midwest. This Brooklyn Center location would be one of the first Country Harvest Buffets in
the Twin City metro area.
Their narrative notes their request to change the zoning classification of the land that they
propose to occupy from I-1 to PUD/C2. They believe their addition will make a positive
contribution to this area and they note other restaurants in the immediate area as well as office
buildings and light industrial buildings in the immediate area. They note Shingle Creek Parkway
is a major arterial bordering the east side of the property with light industrial and office uses on
other sides. They note specifically that there are no residences bordering the property which .
may cause conflicts between the land uses.
They indicate their proposal is to build a restaurant of approximately 10,000 square feet with
seating for 400 and parking for approximately 207 vehicles. The Country Harvest Buffet site
would occupy 3.12 acres of this 4.15 acre site. The remaining 1.03 acres westerly of the
Country Harvest Buffet restaurant would be undeveloped and set aside for future development
such as a smaller restaurant. Primary access to the site will be on Freeway Boulevard with
secondary access from Parkway Circle. The access will be a shared access serving both of the
restaurant sites. It is possible that the remaining undeveloped site might be subdivided off from
this property and sold for future development. However, such development would be subject
to development restrictions and further Planned Unit Development review and approval prior to
its construction.
The applicants have not provided specific information as to how they believe they meet the
rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. The following is a staff review of the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City
ordinances.
11-17-94 2
Planning Commission Information Sheet
a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
The staff assumes that the public benefit of such development is the utilization of this land in
a manner consistent with the development criteria established by the city. It is not anticipated
that this development will be a detriment to the community but, on the other hand, be a positive
factor providing restaurant services to the businesses and people in the immediate Brooklyn
Center area.
b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land
use classifications?
The staff believes, as will be noted later in this report, that the development of the Country
Harvest Buffet restaurant can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use
classifications. The area does have other food service businesses and restaurants and there is
a large employment base surrounding this area that can make use of such facilities. We believe
the site layout, landscaping, parking and other physical features, given some minor
modifications, can be compatible.
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
The staff believes that all permitted uses and proposed uses can be contemplated for development
in the proposed Planned Unit Development zoning district if this proposal is accepted. It should
also be noted that the development of this site as proposed uses will not have an adverse affect
on developing the remaining parcels in the industrial park zone.
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes
in the area since the subject property was zoned?
We have reviewed the history of rezoning, comprehensive plan amendments and zoning
ordinance amendments relating to this specific area. Zoning classification changes were made
in order to rule out some land uses that the city believed were inappropriate for the industrial
park area and this site in particular. The ones being proposed are not considered inappropriate
and therefore, can be considered. The PUD process is believed to be an appropriate vehicle for
considering such uses.
e. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public
purpose evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable.
11-17-94 3
J
Planning Commission Information Sheet
f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions
for the proposed zoning districts?
The staff believes the subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions
for this PUD/C2 proposal based on findings which will need to be made by the city and a
development agreement between the city and the developer which will address any, and all,
issues raised and acknowledge an approved site plan as part of this development agreement
g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present
zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The site in question is not unsuited for development as an I-1 (industrial park) use. The City
has long believed that this particular site should be used for a more intense development than
a light industrial manufacturing type use. We have, over the years, reviewed proposals for
office developments, office/industrial uses and high-rise office development uses in this area.
The proposed Country Harvest Buffet restaurant is believed to be an appropriate use of the
property as well. The likelihood of service office and/or light industrial development in the next
few years on this particular parcel is remote.
h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by:
1) comprehensive planning; 2) lack of developable land in a proposed zoning
district; 3) the best interest of the community?
We believe the creation of a PUD/C2 zoning district in this area provides for the necessary
flexibility in dealing with development issues for this site. The proposed development, in our
opinion, is in the best interests of the community.
i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or
owners of an individual parcel?
The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interest of the particular property owner and
will lead to an upgrading in the site and the physical characteristics in this area as well.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
The proposed plan calls for an approximate 10,000 square foot, 400 seat Country Harvest Buffet
restaurant to be located on 3.12 acres of this 4.15 acre site. The building will lie easterly of an
area that will remain undeveloped for future development. The building will be surrounded by
a parking lot containing 207 parking spaces which will meet the ordinance required parking for
a 400 seat restaurant with 14 employees at the maximum planned shift. Access to the site will
11-17-94 4 0
Planning Commission Information Sheet
be via a curb cut on Freeway Boulevard almost directly across from the access to Chi Chi's
restaurant. This will be a shared access with any proposed development to the west. Access
from Shingle Creek Parkway will be via Parkway Circle to also serve the Country Harvest and
the future restaurant site. No other access to this site will be allowed. The parking requirement
for restaurants is 1 space for every 2 seats and 1 space for every two employees at the maximum
shift. Six handicapped parking spaces are provided at the southeast corner of the building close
to the main entrance.
DRAINAGE/GRADING/UTILITIES
This aspect of the proposal is being reviewed by the Engineering Department. The proposal will
not have to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission as an area
drainage plan was prepared for this site and surrounding sites at the time this property was
subdivided. There is a drainage pond located at the southeast corner of the site to service this
area. A walkway, connecting the sidewalks along Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek
Parkway, is proposed around the west and north sides of the pond. A decorative fence (split
rail, similar to that at the Earle Brown Heritage Center) will be placed around the ponding area.
Drainage from the site will be carried via storm sewer through catch basins located westerly of
the restaurant and at the northeast corner of the site. Catch basins are proposed on either side
of the south driveway. The storm sewer conveys drainage to the pond at the southeast corner
of this site.
In reviewing the grading plan for this site, it is noted that there is no berming of the green strips
to provide screening of car headlights in the parking lot. The parking lot along Shingle Creek
Parkway and Parkway Circle is about 4 feet higher than the streets. We recommend screening,
if not through berming then with a dense hedge row to shield the headlights from cars parked
in these areas.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system. The
plan indicates a variety of plantings including shade trees, decorative trees, coniferous trees,
shrubs and flowers with a point value of 233 landscape points. The point requirement for this
3.12 acre site is 227 landscape points (Note: landscaping for the undeveloped area will be
required for that site at the time such a plan is submitted. In the meantime the area should be
seeded in a manner that can be maintained).
Perimeter green strip plantings include 2 radiant crab, 2 white pine, 2 red sunset maple and a
Colorado green spruce along the north green strip. Ten existing shade trees are located already
along the Shingle Creek Parkway green strip. Four Colorado green spruce and 1 white pine
would also be located in this area. Two radiant crab and a red sunset maple are proposed for
the south green strip along Freeway Boulevard. Parking lot island plantings include 2 spring
11-17-94 5
Planning Commission Information Sheet
snow crab and 2 skyline honey locust trees as well as Mugho pine and crimson pygmy barberry.
Around the perimeter of the building are 3 spring snow crab, 1 Amur maple and 3 Techny
arborvitae. Also Montgomery spruce, Mugho pine, white potentilla, crimson pygmy barberry,
gold drop potentilla, compact American cranberry, rosy glow barberry, Blaauw juniper, Welch
juniper, Nikko blue hydrangea, variegated dogwood, mockorange, nest spruce, dwarf Korean
lilac, snowmound spirea, Northern Lights rhododendron and seasonal flowers. The large island
area and corner islands will be grass. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped
areas. The plan also shows sidewalk around the entire building area.
BUILDING
The building elevations indicate the exterior to be Dryvit with face brick along the lower portion
of the building. Wood trim would be located around the doors and windows with a red metal
roofing material. Columns are located along the south and east elevations near the main
entrance to the restaurant.
LIGHTING/TRASH
Four hundred watt high pressure sodium lamps on 30 foot high poles are located at various
points on the site plan. They will be a box type fixture to direct light downward rather than to
cause glare off of the site. Also roof lights are located on the building near the main entrance.
The trash enclosure is at the northwest corner of the building. No detail is provided but this
area must be completely screened, including gates. Recommend the screening be masonry, the
same as the building.
The plans with some modification with respect to parking lot screening appear to be in order.
PROCEDURE
This PUD/C2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan.
As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally, rezonings are referred to
a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission is the advisory group
for this industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
The Planning Commission should determine whether or not they are prepared to make
recommendations with respect to this Planned Unit Development proposal at this meeting or if
additional time and consideration is needed.
All-in-all we believe the plans are in order and I will prepare a draft Planning Commission
resolution for the Commission's consideration at Thursday evening's meeting. This resolution
will outline the Planning Commission's consideration of this matter and also site recommended
considerations for recommending approval of the PUD rezoning as well as a set of conditions
which should be included with the approval. Recommended conditions of approval would be
11-17-94 6
Planning Commission Information Sheet
at least the following:
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, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the
City engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount
to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance
of permits.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to
meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the
City ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
9. The applicant shall submit an "as-built" survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance
and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to issuance of permits.
11. The plans shall be modified to indicate parking lot screening along the green strip
areas.
12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform
to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details.
13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn
Center, to be reviewed and approved by the City attorney, prior to the issuance
of building permits.
11-17-94 7
Planning Commission Information Sheet
14. The area identified on the site plan as undeveloped shall be seeded in a manner
to allow appropriate maintenance. Further development of this area is subject to
amendment.to this Planned Unit Development.
11-17-94 8
7=01
NORM
Y `••, -,'ice � .■■ .
r
♦ Iii losing����� • ., `►
glass
11111"I W,
11 mt
�I some
1 11 in
all
�s'►"Iii i '',._- �. �•��
rx
a
i
naeuswn w n rw w rn. rw:n.�+�rxw ew
rir�ww `
y g
x w I 1
r I 1
� 7
i .......... ... ,
m , {
I
c I� 3
0
a all `'. I o onoaaoaa '
b b
TFTTV
o
eRat K
F A R K W A Y
sire nw
GOlWW NARMY mLMTT MMTAUPUW
—M?UD2 ►r xvo.AT GW*4Ln CPWK nour.
.n.. pROGKLTN Cw-MM Mo EWTA
r...a4
Imo► ♦._ �� _:
Lot®II®1111®1111®II
RE
MEMME
MM
LUM
�•,v�l o
r 11�1111�1111�1111�11� ♦ .� � -'
�� ■ ® ��� ®�.®� ♦ ♦ ee ���
o
r
O IJ
EN Sam
IM
no
on
OWN
FA
77 �
ly
iji
j■''� D
' rL
�� C
SCI{I
r �I
I
- •..•oin.leu•ItR arc.ov w twt rn•ttcr�irrttu.y
111//M•11•
1 1
1 1
:i
11 r- j
11 ❑ I
11
----
11 II
11 ❑ 11
} 11
1 1 3 +a■
I 1 ��C9 �.:•�� 1 1
jjf � 1 1
11 '� i y3 11
11 •
pp R R iC � 11
f 1 1 • + � 1 1
11 11
11 ,1
1 fy
• II • y9
tl O 11
11
• 11 11
all11
ii ❑ ii
11 11
/1 11
tl 11
ii I 11
11
of ❑ f{----
11 It
11
11 11
11 11
11 11
I1 1I
It 11
I 1 LI----
11
11 I
11 I I
II
LJ---- j i j i j •
s e
cxrzR�oe l!Lrvnds
�+•PUD5 +• "WM"r xvc.AT 64MLII CPWK Hour.
tr.• BIWOKLTM C&MM P1nN AAA
t„wrrnitn
tn��
�8 g
S
1
I .
1
'O °
i
d
�\ SHIN r .. -
• �\ r w.nary
/'� �R� t r •• f �/
\ 4
\ PARKWAY wen
\
\ 1
a �
I
•t
M • !fill
Qs /p 1
t
il",•a*e'oo ��
-Lj;H.�P
I!�.w•r r.ey,M
PelNnen Oleal YIC.
..R COMM WA"GT ati PE&TAU I
geEEYL47 CrLVD.AT 041 CREEK PKWY. 'r"•'r
•IrM r1w N 6 M•rrr w�.rwr•
f C 2 go '
84ROOKLYN CENTER MMdE80TA i
�,rswr
v s ---
o
°
I
1I • y I III I I/' // ' / / a.�'e°' — ! %'/'1� I I
I ° I ' C3 � ..► , // �/ �/ I \ /T It
1 \IIf
I ► I I \ \ I r`t ,
I °i°
j o
1 \
/frz � \ I
77 \\
Sys / • \
R 1171y
L 490.11
PARKWAY / o
at
� e
�r w.... .•e Hansen Thorp
ow. --- ►rss i.tiuilo- PeMnen Olson lno. eo•r11L7f
�..: OOWTR7 MALI BURET MEDTA JRANT r '+' "^ ' •"^
s..1 w.. C ,� _ . FREEWAY BLVD.AT SNMGLE CREEK PKWY. rr...4.i:w
..r., BROOKLYN CENTER MINNE60TA Mnw.ti 1•we,
...rte
rRlRillRCr1 ! ! 9lcis II alI1I
• e US
s
Mill i !r5 i
j!t �f•i 1 s.i 4' i: i! ! i!!E
` t . . . . . . . . . ._
at ?y► n �� � 1
4 � i
■ ,
r • ,
a
awe
Qt I
♦ _ii _ I
_ I j �� IJ aId �! ' b pl I I • N ar I u. � � _ I
e _ #• — _
aL � .
P A R K El A y
1
R... Cc NTRY HARVEST SUPPET RESTAURANT
sn.w w.L1 M e FREEWAY BLVD.AT 614W-.E CREEK PKWY.
• .,,.. BROOKLYN CENTER MlhbaOOTA
CNRISTO�N ER FRESX LET rrww.�.r�
Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose.
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com-
prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through
• uniform and equitable evaulation 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 guidlines 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
comtemplated 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, con-
figuration, 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 -35-355.- 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:
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:
•
35-355
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.
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.
35-355
e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards
• for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land
subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances
generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve
streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are
not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements
where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the
residents or of the City.
Subdivision 5. Application and Review.
a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan.
The development plan -may be approved or disapproved by the City Council
after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the
development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and
Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and
documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall
include at a minimum the following:
1. Street and utility locations and sizes;
2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
3. A grading plan;
• 4. A landscape plan;
5. A lighting plan;
6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the
development;
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.
•
35-355
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.
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. •
35-355
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute
a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
• f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval
required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for
both simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by '
Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building
permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans.
h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the
development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within
12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has
commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council
may initiate rezoning of the property.
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.
•
•