HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 06-29 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JUNE 29, 1995
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - June 15, 1995
4. Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's function is to
hold public hearing. 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. Robert L. Adelman 95010
Request for Special Use Permit to install and operate a propane tank at Duke's Mobil,
• 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
6. City of Brooklyn Center 95009
Request for proposed rezoning from I-1 and C2 to PUD/I-1 and approval for Planned
Unit Development to accommodate appropriate common parking areas for the properties
located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway
Boulevard.
7. 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Information Meeting
Representatives from BRW will be present to review plans for widening of Brooklyn
Boulevard between I-94 and just north of 70th Avenue North and to also discuss and
review a draft Request for Development Proposals for the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard
area.
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
l
•
•
•
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 95010
Applicant: Robert L. Adelmann
Location: Duke's Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant is seeking a Special Use Permit to install and operate a propane tank at Duke's
Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C-2 (Commerce)
and is bounded on the north and west by R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) zoned property
containing the 102 unit Pines Apartment complex; on the east by Humboldt Avenue with the
Brooklyn Center High School on the opposite side; and on the south by Freeway Boulevard
with the Days Inn on the opposite side. A gas station, repair garage, car wash and
convenience store such as Duke's Mobil is a Special Use in the C-2 zoning district.
The applicant's proposal is to install and operate a propane tank and construct an opaque
enclosure for screening purposes. He proposes to locate the approximate 22 ft. by 10 ft.
enclosure on the green strip between the two drive ways along Humboldt Avenue. The plan
shows the edge of this green strip to be approximately 37 ft. from the property line. The
enclosure will be set back 25 ft. from the property line and be approximately 4 ft. 2 in. high.
Some shrubs will need to be relocated so that the enclosure can be located on the island.
Reinforced steel poles will need to be placed around the perimeter of the tank (but inside the
enclosure) to protect the tank from being struck by vehicles. The structure cannot be totally
enclosed, meaning there should be no top on the structure and some space around the lower
portions to allow proper ventilation of the propane.
The applicant has not indicated the material to be used for screening, however, it should be
compatible with the site. The location of the tank is such that attendants can see it from
inside the station. Personnel will need to be trained in all safety aspects of dispensing and
handling propane, which is highly volatile. Attendants will fill smaller propane tanks used
for barbecues, campers, etc. The applicant has met with the Fire Chief and further review
and approval of the plan by the Fire Chief is necessary prior to issuance of permits for the
location of the propane tank. The facility is similar to one located at Neil's Conoco on 69th
and Humboldt Avenues North.
Attached is a copy of the standards for Special Use Permit, Section 35-220 Subdivision 2 of
the zoning ordinance. The granting of a Special Use Permit is to be consistent with these
standards. We do not believe that this proposal conflicts with these standards provided
proper screening and safety measures are provided by the applicant.
A public hearing has been scheduled for this application and notices have been sent.
6-29-95 1
RECOMMENDATION
The requested Special Use Permit appears to be in order and approval is recommended
q P PP PP
subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The Special Use Permit is granted to the applicant to install and operate a propane
tank and dispensing facility with an opaque enclosure at 6501 Humboldt Avenue
North as provided in the plans submitted Any expansion or alteration of this
proposal shall require an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
2. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations. Any violation, thereof, could be grounds for revocation.
3. Final building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official
with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The plans for the location and various safety items are subject to the review and
approval of the Fire Chief prior to the issuance of permits.
5. The enclosure is for the purpose of screening the propane tank and shall not have
signs affixed to it other than directional or warning signs specifically approved by
the Building Official or Fire Chief.
•
6-29-95 2
WIN
m son M MW
m am
■■■■■■■■■■ mm ■ an
III men
MEN III Ems P.VA
=E M
am Z
wool
MM
'�eeeeee�i ■ MINNOW
�� ■ Application >I eeeeeeeeee� ■■ `.
No. 95010 eeeeeejee�e:
mm
As
�e�eeeeee� ' �♦
♦eeeei♦i♦iei♦i ► MOQ' yS
i
RO MM
Ellum
i
,I
New tAobfL
�lyT. UAN'f
11=0
LA C- of I�x��(�-
416�10�Y I i �i tyvl r�u
um
t
d-
Sol
ICA
gHbNPI� 'g��^P
o �
ICI \0,01-r.AF05' 6A NGo f
� 1 �2
' t
VI — ei 14
su r {
e, '`
Pro p et�i
��LOv�f G1�N P J
' Aoie
�{t!M�i o l.'( Av N�l I�o FrH AIN
t7 � 0A I° IG '( f�o�T�
N /
001, pr-hGf.1 PTl W4 Pf
;�cl�t. Nr:W j S.
p-� iaN oLly Y5 — 10.6
i
1
^J(A0
1.0
!
Planning Commission Information Sheet
• Application No. 95009
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center
Location: Northwest Quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard
Request: Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Approval
The City, along with various property owners, is seeking rezoning from I-1 (Industrial Park)
and C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/I-1 and approval for a Planned Unit Development to
accommodate and acknowledge appropriate common area parking for various developments
in the area located northwesterly of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The
properties in question include 6601 and 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway (Parkway Place-Tract
G, RLS 1572 and Shingle Creek 11-Tract A, RLS 1564 respectively); 6601 and 6701
Parkway Circle (General Litho site - Tract A, RLS 1572 and RCM Plaza-Tract B, RLS 1564
respectively); 2000, 2100 and 2200 Freeway Boulevard (vacant land-Tract B, RLS 1619,
Minnesota State High School League Office-Tract A, RLS 1619 and the Holiday Inn,
formerly Ramada Hotel-Tract B, RLS 1572 respectively); and the north and south portions of
the central parking lot-Tract C, RLS 1564 and Tract C, RLS 1572 respectively.
The area under consideration has operated under a Special Use Permit granted by the City
Council, which comprehended off-site accessory parking in a central parking lot to allow
flexibility in developing various office/industrial sites in this area. The plan also provided
for a private, non-public access road to be created to provide access to various development
• parcels that were otherwise landlocked around the central parking lot . The first easement
agreement was executed and filed with the Register of Titles on February 5, 1982 creating
certain parking, driveway and access rights over the properties in this area. The easement
agreement is a complex document that has been amended numerous times over the years with
the most recent amendment being the 5th Amendment to Easement Agreement and
Declaration dated December 1, 1988. These amendments have reflected changing parking
allocations from the central parking lot to various properties as well as other elements related
to the central parking and access road.
The 6th Amendment will reflect new ownership of the central parking lot as well as new and
existing ownerships of the various properties in the area. Currently the site designated in the
agreement as proposed building No. 12 (Tract A, RLS 1572) has an incumbrance on it to
provide up to 153 parking spaces in a "proof of parking" for the sole use of the RCM Plaza
property (Tract B, RLS 1564). This incumbrance makes it impossible for the General Litho
development to go forward. General Litho was granted approval for an industrial building
under Planning Commission Application No. 95004 subject to a modification of the parking
agreement to lift that restriction. Their plan still calls for 20 parking stalls to be retained on
the General Litho site for the sole use of the RCM Plaza building.
At the time the Special Use Permit was originally granted for off-site parking allocations, the
City did not have provisions in its ordinances for a Planned Unit Development. The use of a
Planned Unit Development would have been the best way to acknowledge a development
i6-29-95 1
The new proposed agreement, in addition to making new central parking allocations, would
also have First Industrial, L. P. take over ownership of and the responsibility to administer,
operate, maintain and regulate the central parking area. First Industrial has also acquired the
ownership of: RCM Plaza, or proposed building No. 10 (Tract B, RLS 1564);
Shingle Creek 11, proposed building No. 11 (Tract A, RLS 1564); and Parkway Place
proposed building No. 14 (Tract G, RLS 1572). The agreement would, based on experience
and a new allocation of parking, eliminate the requirement for a ramp agreement; would
allow, if necessary, the construction of at least 25 parking spaces in the landscape area;
would acknowledge that the Holiday Inn Property, Tract B RLS 1572, no longer needs an
allocation of 65 parking stalls in the central parking lot; would provide an additional 47
parking spaces on the outer perimeter of Parkway Circle; and would eliminate traffic control
signal agreements on Shingle Creek Parkway because they are no longer needed.
Attached for the Commission's review are an area map, an old area plan showing the
affected properties in the central parking lots, Exhibit B from previous easement agreements
and declarations showing the existing parking allocation, a drawing showing proposed
parking for 47 cars on the perimeter of Parkway Circle adding to the number of parking
spaces to be allocated and also showing 20 parking spaces on the General Litho site for RCM
Plaza's use. Also a copy of the 6th Amendment to Easement Agreement and Modification of
the Declaration for Parking. Particular attention should be made of that agreement's Exhibit
B showing new ownership and allocations to. the central parking lot.
The new ownership listed in Exhibit B are as follows: RCM Plaza or proposed building No.
10 (Tract B, RLS 1564) - First Industrial; Shingle Creek 11 or proposed building No. 11
(Tract A, RLS 1564) - First Industrial; the General Litho site or proposed building No. 12
(Tract A, RLS 1572) - currently Shingle Creek Land Company; Parkway Place or proposed
building No. 14 (Tract G, RLS 1572) - First Industrial; The Holiday Inn, formerly Ramada
Hotel (Tract B, RLS 1572) - Plaza Real Estate Partners; and the central parking lot (Tract
C, RLS 1564 and Tract C, RLS 1572) - First Industrial.
It is believed that the elimination of the ramp agreement, the credit for proof of parking for
25 stalls over the landscaped area, the perimeter parking on Parkway Circle and the
relinquishment of 65 parking spaces allocated to the hotel are justified based on the
experience up to this time. The hotel's parking formula does not acknowledge some double
counting of parking. For instance, part of the formula is based on dining and drinking seats
and employees for these operations. Some 20 seats are breakfast room seats, which are
never used while the restaurant and night club are in use. Also, a number of guests in rooms
utilize dining and nightclub facilities. Parking for guests are counted in the 172 parking
spaces for rooms (one space per room). The ballroom and meeting rooms also will, to a
great extent, be utilized by guests already there. Finally, the hotel has never had to utilize
any of the 65 parking spaces from the central parking lot allocation.
The 47 spaces on the perimeter of the road should not create problems as there is enough
room to accommodate parallel parking on the outer perimeter. The drive lane is 40 ft. wide,
6-29-95 2 •
while parallel parking requirements are 8 ft. wide with a 24 ft. wide drive lane.
• Planned Unit Developments are Rezoning Applications. Attached is a copy of Section
35-208 of the city ordinances relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review
guidelines. It is the policy of the city that zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning" defined as a
zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner, and does not relate
to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. Rezoning proposals should be
considered on their merits and measured against the above policy and various guidelines
listed should be weighed collectively or individually as deemed appropriate by the city.
The first guideline questions if there is a clear public need or benefit. It is believed that
there is a public need or benefit with the approval of the PUD designation and the revised
development agreement. It simplifies to a great extent a very complex set of agreements and
understandings. It also will free up a 153 car parking lot incumbrance on the General Litho
site, which will allow this development to go ahead consistent with the zoning ordinance
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classification.
In fact, a parcel of land at the very northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle
Creek Parkway was rezoned to PUD/I-1 for development of a County Harvest Buffet. That
proposal has not gone forward, however, the PUD/I-1 Zoning designation has been
• established. Also, the existing developments which include office/industrial buildings,
straight office buildings and a hotel are all consistent with and compatible with surrounding
land use classifications.
It appears that all permitted uses in the new.proposed PUD/I-1 zoning classification can be
contemplated for development of the subject properties. These buildings have been in
existence for a number of years and the new development agreement will adequately reflect
the needed parking allocations for these uses.
It appears that with this City initiated rezoning proposal, there is a broad public purpose, that
being the allowing of the development of a substantial vacant parcel of land consistent with
the city zoning regulations. Also, it should be noted that based on previous plan approvals,
such as the General Litho approval, we can safely say that the subject property will bare
fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts. With respect
to these comments, it is believed that this Planned Unit Development proposal is consistent
with Section 35-208, the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guideline.
Also attached for the Commission's review is a copy of Section 35-355 regarding Planned
Unit Development. It is believed that this proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent
with the development standards contained in Subdivision 3. Particular notice should be taken
of Subdivision 3d relating to parking. Parking is to be consistent with the parking
requirements contained in Section 35-704 unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser standard
• 6-29-95 3
should be permitted on the grounds of complimentary peak parking demands by the uses
within the PUD. The agreement would relieve the hotel of its requirement for an allocation
of 65 parking spaces in the central parking lot. As indicated previously, it can be stated that
there is some double counting of parking spaces already calculated in the parking
requirement and experience has shown that there has been no need for the hotel to utilize off-
site parking in the central parking lot. Existing uses of the land under their current
categories are all that is acknowledged by the approval of this Planned Unit Development.
Any changes to previously approved plans or new development such as on the Country
Harvest site will require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development prior to the
development or redevelopment of these properties.
As previously mentioned, this PUD/I-1 proposal is a rezoning with a specific development
agreement in hand. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally,
rezonings are referred to neighborhood advisory groups. 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 development agreement to be 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 Commissions consideration of this matter and also
site recommended considerations for recommending approval of this PUD rezoning.
A public hearing has been scheduled and a notice of this consideration has appeared in the
Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. Notice was mailed to affected properties and neighboring
properties within 350 ft.
6-29-95 4
I
u �x -
Application
' \ � ■_�� �111111��
•
fee
•� ����Illy
►,H
$4q
j �1 H1111/111 • ���.�, �,�:� . ..
■ �low 111111 1111/ ♦♦ /il���- Wy� �`/
III MIN W
�Mlle�o'
NINE
11111 /��♦��,��i�i/%'r ��
MEN �
Mm
mm
am MM MM Mai
Al
M®
\ I / t • � -__ •I. /.rim �� ��
MEMNON
MM m
IBM
mm
,F11fVl9Lt.titlCC.l\.rr�n��..r.�
6801
MTC. — ----- - —
ry .
w , ;RCM PLAZA; : I
'SHINGLE CREEK
i f ' ELEVEN
�_..TTffi.} I I r
RTJTZ((t�[(f]„ (f II IP 1(111 1,111 fll1••: �� i i ,�j�iri1111u111 -
i r r �~
<•a ?w ` �E=. ;- / , t.t _ R ING 'PLACE MAE
f g:"FUTURE
'a SPEC 12.BUILDING'
OMBARD PLAZ _
nnTtrrntrrENTAAL
i/ VAQR(KING--
�\ ��7—
Rv
?�
�!"s e
lJ r
F.UFIe E �r��rE"-�
.- ✓ I UILDING „ o
-1;:
' flSo
S -
0
Nm •
t f Tl-
ss*ods f »sods q
o
^J
1�
1
a
°o
i
r
� 1
� V
A e
n
r
m
v
R
r
r
s•
N
N
>9
A
x
i
N •
zr •I
9 1.
v 1
i
�l
1
i
11 V H 6 4 m r r S 3Sr s 3 b y^ r0
m v S o w ►. O .r w
v .4 '..
S n w 0 w 00 F m 0o m to m fop W 000 7 0.(e0
\ R Vf m A O. 0 f+ E m A r 7 S OO m f.. •O M i...
7CG O A w A N m y O O �D ►. r O " N r+ " 0 O
rp IV w w w O O '~ A w A w 00 m w ~ A N 0 e•n
6+• ,y 1••. p
n ;7 00 n R w m I••' 00 7 f~O ~'A K m
\ m e m m w m G m w w m w A ..
p m 00 F n 7 + F 0 A m 0 F
. O m •t W m m m 0 n F m
pf
ca m vi K 'n
w b ov m w
Oi m 3 c
b
m h+ gj N
�
�-1 m R m m m O w O
co M m m 0 CL
R F► m 1-w 9
° m m t•d
A a a ° x z
m .y v y A
�n rn n m �+n rn n + w x
V rt vR m o.tt aR 1r �* s
�
NJ N C7 N > S r> 400 b 0 T
1 0 o
7
" no
0 b
E w m 1 w rt
0 •y •1 y R T 7 R
m R ,+. F► S R
~ O 7 fRC 7 R > n
m I r H 7 Q' O ;J 7
A A F a T n
y
P. 0
S �
m m
A o 3
A A p co w
t
m d r •w1 ^�f 1+ m
F 33
N I•,-. r m A 0 tot
00 T m `•
mR00A c i �
a
A C 7 m R 0 m O
Q w .S rt .w In
3 b _ d
O
w
w O S m m w
R R
•t
0
y m r 3
z
m 7 u•R
m 1 O
O
R f-i
b
• DO U1 10 N "•' J
J O N µ w m R
m r I. O
t m
t F m Y m
m m r. 0 m z7 1
^t
w 3 0 n w
b R .• w m :n
R m m
R O 0
0 r rt 1
~
m O 1:1
e� O ry ' "� >
O E 3
b r W J O
, rt m mom.
v m .t 1 m t3j
a R �
Z R
b
'1 0
O
O Qf b
O O A m 0 �-'• H —jm
•'19 r0 � 3
I 1 O p m m
m 100
m
R
A
r
O N w X 0
O l,i N % O S q w
ae ,.e ec O cM Q a
O n K 1 •t
m w m w
m a o R •• �
• 0
• SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT 6/9/95
AND MODIFICATION OF DECLARATIONS FOR PARKING
THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION
OF DECLARATIONS FOR PARKING (sometimes hereinafter called the "Sixth Amendment to
Easement Agreement") entered into this _ day of . 1995, by and among the City of
Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (hereinafter called the
"City"); Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota general partnership (hereinafter called "Land
Company"); First Industrial, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (hereinafter called "First");
Plaza Real Estate Partners, A Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (hereinafter
called "PREP"), and Minnesota State High School League, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
(hereinafter called "League").
RECITALS :
A. Land Company, First, PREP, and League (hereinafter collectively sometimes referred to
as the "Owners" and individually as an "Owner") or their predecessors in interest in
ownership or control of the land legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof have heretofore entered into that certain Easement Agreement dated
February 5, 1981, filed as Document No. 1414568, Files of the Registrar of Titles, that
certain Amendment to Easement Agreement and Declaration, dated March 9, 1984, filed
• as Document No. 1572021, Files of the Registrar of Titles, that certain Second
Amendment to Easement Agreement and Declaration (herein sometimes referred to as the
"Second Amendment"), dated August 13, 1984, filed as Document No. 1597790, Files of
the Registrar of Titles, that certain Third Amendment to Easement Agreement (herein
sometimes referred to as the "Third Amendment"), dated July 21, 1986, filed as
Document No. 1748866, Files of the Registrar of Titles, that certain Fourth Amendment
to Easement Agreement and Declaration (herein sometimes referred to as the "Fourth
Amendment"), dated May 1, 1987, filed as Document No. 1830199, Files of the Registrar
of Titles, and that certain Fifth Amendment to Easement Agreement and Declaration
(herein sometimes referred to as the "Fifth Amendment"), dated December 1, 1988, filed
as Document No. 2036563, Files of the Registrar of Titles (all of said documents being
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Easement Agreement"), all for the purpose of
creating certain parking, driveway and access rights upon certain lands situated in the
County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, more fully described therein.
B. Pursuant to the Easement Agreement, there was created a Central Parking Area consisting
of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1564 and Tract C, Registered Land Survey No.
1572, all in Hennepin County (herein and in the Easement Agreement referred to as the
"Central Parking Area"), allocated and assessed to Tracts A and B, Registered Land
Survey No. 1564, and Tracts A, B and G, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, all in
Hennepin County. As set forth on Exhibit B to the Fifth Amendment, currently the
Central Parking Area is allocated to Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1564, and
. Tracts B and G. Registered Land Survey No. 1572, all in Hennepin County, with 65
parking spaces in the Central Parking Area allocated to Tract B. Registered Land Survey
No. 1572. Also, currently under the Easement Agreement, Land Company, which, as set
forth on Exhibit A to the Fifth Amendment, previously owned the real property upon •
which the Central Parking Area is located, has the responsibility for administering and
operating and maintaining the Central Parking Area and assessing to the benefitted parties
the costs and expenses of the Central Parking Area.
C. The Fourth Amendment, as amended by the Fifth Amendment, created a landscape
easement (herein and in the Fourth Amendment referred as the "Landscape Easement")
over, under, and across a portion of the Central Parking Area in favor of the City for
landscaping purposes.
D. The Third Amendment created a driveway easement(herein and in the Third Amendment
referred to as the "New Driveway" and also known as "Parkway Circle") over and across
portions of Tracts A, B, C, D, F, and G, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, and Tract C,
Registered Land Survey No. 1564,Registered Land Survey,Hennepin County, as set forth
more fully in the Third Amendment, for the use and the benefit of the owners of all or
portions of what are now Tracts A, B, C, and G, Registered Land Survey No. 1572,
Tracts A, B, and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1564, and Tracts A and B, Registered
Land Survey No. 1619, Registered Land Survey, Hennepin County. Currently under the
Easement Agreement, Land Company has the responsibility for administering and
maintaining the New Driveway and assessing to the benefitted parties the costs and
expenses of the New Driveway. Currently, the Fire Department of the City has posted
"No Parking" signs on the New Driveway.
E. Land Company and the City have made and entered into that certain Declaration and •
Contract for the Construction of a Parking Facility (herein and in the Easement
Agreement referred to as the "Ramp Agreement"), dated August 6, 1984, filed as
Document No. 1597791, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The Ramp Agreement permits the City to require Land Company to construct 185
additional parking spaces (a net of 157 spaces after loss of stalls used in construction) in
a parking ramp facility on the Central Parking Area.
F. Land Company, the City, and First, or their predecessors in interest in ownership or
control, have made and entered into that certain Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions
and Easement for Parking Purposes (herein referred to as the "Parking Declaration"),
dated December 16, 1987, filed as Document No. 1896176, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Parking Declaration permits the City to require
Land Company to construct 153 parking spaces on a portion of Tract A, Registered Land
Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, owned by Land Company, for the benefit of Tract
B, Registered Land Survey No. 1564, now owned by First.
G. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, owned by PREP, is no
longer in need of any of the 65 parking spaces allocated to it under the Central Parking
Area pursuant to Exhibit B to the Fifth Amendment.
H. upon PREP relinquishing its rights to use the Central Parking Area, First will be the i
owner of all property benefitted and sharing the cost of the parking located on the Central
Parking Area. In addition, Land Company has no further interest in the parking located
on the Central Parking Area. Therefore, Land Company desires to relinquish
administration of the Central Parking Area and convey the Central Parking Area to First
and First is willing to assume administration of the Central Parking Area and accept
conveyance of the Central Parking Area. In connection therewith, separately Land
Company shall conveyA the Central Parking Area to First.
I. In view of the relinquishment of the 65 parking spaces referred to above and the
additional approximately 47 street parking spaces to be located on the New Driveway as
set forth below, the City is willing to release (i) the obligation to construct a parking ramp
on the Central Parking Area under the Ramp Agreement and (ii) the obligation to
construct additional parking on a portion of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1572,
Hennepin County, under the Easement Declaration, provided that (a) Land Company
grants a perpetual, exclusive, parking easement for 20 parking spaces over a portion of
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1572 in favor of Tract B, Registered Land Survey
No. 1564, now owned by First, and (b) First provides proof of parking for approximately
25 parking spaces in the area now set aside as the Landscape Easement. In view of the
combination of the Central Parking Area, the 20 space parking easement, and the new
substitute proof of parking, upon First providing the 25 parking spaces in the area now
set aside as the Landscape Easement, the City will release the Landscape Easement.
J. In view of the above, First desires to provide for a new allocation of the parking spaces
and the costs associated with the Central Parking Area which will be set forth on a new
Exhibit B attached hereto.
•
K. In view of the conveyance by Land Company to First of the Central Parking Area, Land
Company desires to relinquish administration of the New Driveway and First is willing
to assume administration of the New Driveway. In view of the revisions to the proof of
parking, the City is willing to allow parking on the outer portion of the New Driveway,
also known as Parkway Circle, which will permit parking for approximately 47 vehicles.
L. League is willing to join in this instrument with respect to the changes to the
administration of the New Driveway.
A The City has determined that a certain traffic control signalA is not necessary or
convenient and is willing to release that certain hereinafter specified declarationA
regarding a traffic control signalA affecting a portionA of the property described on
Exhibit A attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto, the parties agree,
covenant and declare as follows:
•
Central Parking Area
1. Administration of Central Parking Area. From and after the Effective Date(as
hereinafter defined), First assumes and agrees to perform all obligations and undertakings
and shall exercise all the rights of Land Company which it had prior to the Effective Date
under the Easement Agreement to administer, operate, maintain, and regulate the Central
Parking Area (subject to the reimbursement of costs and expenses provided therein) and
Land Company shall have no further obligations and undertakings and rights with respect
to the Central Parking Area.
2. New Allocation of Parking. The parties agree that as of the Effective Date the allocation
of parking and pro rata share of costs and expenses upon the Central Parking Area shall
be as set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
From and after the Effective Date, neither Land Company nor any future owners of Tracts
A or B, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, shall have any rights to
allocation of any of the parking upon the Central Parking Area. Any future alteration or
change to the allocation of parking in the Central Parking Area from that set forth on
Exhibit B attached hereto or any other change to the Easement Agreement regarding the
Central Parking Area may be effectuated by an instrument executed solely by First, its
successors and assigns, owner(s) of Tracts A, B, and C. Registered Land Survey No. 1564
and Tracts C and G, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County and the City
and the joinder of any other owner of real property described on Exhibit A attached
hereto shall not be required. The Central Parking Area shall be expanded or modified as .
provided in Paragraph A7 of this Sixth Amendment and any additional parking spaces
added thereby shall be allocated as provided in this Paragraph and Exhibit B attached
hereto or by further amendment to the Easement Agreement as provided in this paragraph.
New Drivewav
3. Administration of New Driveway. From and after the Effective Date, First assumes and
agrees to perform all obligations and undertakings and shall exercise all rights of Land
Company under the Easement Agreement to administer, operate, maintain, and regulate
the New Driveway (subject to the reimbursement of costs and expenses provided therein)
and Land Company shall have no further obligations and undertakings and rights with
respect to the New Driveway Area (except as an Owner of a Benefitted Parcel (as defined
in the Third Amendment)).
4. City Permission for Parking in the New Driveway. The City hereby acknowledges
and agrees that it will permit parking on the outer portion of the New Driveway (also
known as Parkway Circle), subject to the limitations contained in the ordinances of the
City generally regarding on-street parking (but in no event shall there be less than X47
allowed parking spaces), and will cause the Fire Department to remove the "No Parking"
signs on the outer portion of the New Driveway.
4
New Proof of Parking
• 5. Termination of Parking Declarations.
(a) The City and Land Company hereby release and terminate the Ramp
Agreement and neither Land Company nor any future owner of the Central Parking Area
(including First) shall have any further obligation under the Ramp Agreement to construct
a parking ramp on the Central Parking Area.
(b) The City, Land Company, and First hereby release and terminate the
Parking Declaration and neither Land Company nor any future owner of Tract A,
Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, shall have any obligation under the
Parking Declaration to construct parking for the benefit of Tract B, Registered Land
Survey No. 1564, Hennepin County.
6. Parking Facilitv on Tract A. Registered Land Survev No. 1572. Land Company,
as owner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
hereby grants and conveys unto First, as owner of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No.
1564, Hennepin County, Minnesota,for the benefit of said owner, its tenants, and invitees,
an exclusive, perpetual easement for parking purposes over and across that portion of
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally
described on Exhibit C attached hereto. On or prior to June 1, 1996, the City, at its
expense, shall construct 20 parking spaces on said easement parcel (First hereby granting
• a temporary easement to the City for said construction). First, as owner of Tract B,
Registered Land Survey No. 1564, shall maintain said 20 parking spaces. At any,time.
hereinafter, upon the request and at the sole expense of First, Land -Corrtgany shall
execute-and deliver to First.a quitclaim deed to the real property.described on Exhibit C
attached hereto. Nothing ::contained herein shall deemed to-constitutea I consent -or
approval of the City to such conveyance.
7. Construction of Parking on Landscape Easement. First, as owner of the Central
Parking Area, including the Landscape Easement, at any time may remove the landscape
furniture, plantings, and appurtenances located in the Landscape Easement and construct
25 parking spaces upon the Landscape Easement... In addition, First shall do so within
three (3) months of notice of certification by the City that the then-current parking spaces
available to parcels benefitted by the Central Parking Area are inadequate to
accommodate parking of motor vehicles of all persons using the facilities which are
constructed upon Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1564 and Tract G,
Registered Land Survey No. 1572, Hennepin County. Said parking shall be constructed
in accordance with all applicable ordinances and regulations of the City. First shall bear
all costs and expenses for removal of the landscape furniture, plantings, and
appurtenances and for construction of said parking spaces. Upon completion of
construction of said parking spaces, said parking spaces upon the Landscape Easement
shall be deemed part of the Central Parking Area for all purposes and the City and the
• First shall execute a further amendment to the Easement Agreement terminating and
releasing the Landscape Easement.
_uwe_ e 5
�t
Miscellaneous
•
8. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Sixth Amendment shall be ,
1995.
9. League. League, as owner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1619, Hennepin
County, hereby consents to and joins in this Sixth Amendment with respect to Paragraph
3 hereof only.
1.0. Consent of City. The City hereby consents and agrees to the terms of this Sixth
Amendment to Easement Agreement.
11. Stripping of Parkway Circle. First, at its expense, shall cause the stripping of the
parking spaces on Parkway Circle and a cross-walk on the North side of Parkway Circle.
12. Release and Indemnification of the First. Land Company hereby releases and shall
indemnify First and Travelers Insurance Company ("Travelers")from any claims or causes
of action of Land Company against First's predecessor in interest, ATravelersA, for or
relating to costs or expenses of the Central Parkins Area or the New Driveway for the
period prior to First acquiring an interest in the properties benefitted by the Central
Parking Area or the New Driveway;,.provided, however, that in the event hat:Travele s
commences litigation or other legal proceedings against Land Company,I;and::Company •
reserves the right to defend and raise any counterclaims against Travelers.
13. Termination of Declaration of Covenants Regarding Traffic Control Signals. The
City hereby releases and terminates the Declaration of Covenant, and Construction
Agreement for a Traffic Control Signal, dated October 3, 1983, filed April 12, 1984, as
Document No. 1572022A.
14. No Merger. This Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement shall not merge with any
deed or instrument of conveyance and shall survive the same.
15. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals contained in this Sixth Amendment to Easement
Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
16. Conveyance of Central Parking Area. Simultaneously with the execution and delivery
of this Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement, Land Company shall execute and
deliver a warranty deed to First conveying marketable title to the Central Parking Area.
17. Acknowledgement by City. The City hereby acknowledges and states that there are no
outstanding obligations to the City in the form of payment of monies or the construction
of improvements by First or Land Company by or because of ownership of any real
property described on Exhibit A attached hereto or the Central Parking Area, except as
specifically set forth in this Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement and except for •
taxes and special assessments now or hereinafter due. In addition, the City hereby
acknowledges that the properties owned by First described on Exhibit A attached hereto
-vW --, 6
are as of the Effective Date in compliance with the zoning and parking laws and
ordinances of the City.
18. Consent of Mortgagee. The First National Bank of Chicago, holder of a mortgage
on the properties described on Exhibit A attached hereto owned by First. hereby joins in
this Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement and agrees to be bound by all of the
terms, covenants, conditions and easements contained in this Sixth Amendment to
Easement Agreement, and consents thereto.
19. Pavment by Land Companv to First. Upon execution of this Sixth Amendment to
Easement Agreement, Land Company shall pay to First the sum of $47,000.00.
20. No Other Changes. Except as specifically provided in this Sixth Amendment to
Easement Agreement, the Easement Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.
21. Representation of Ownership. The parties hereto, except the City, hereby covenant
and represent to each of the parties hereto that they are the record owners of the real
property as set forth and described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof
by reference, and that said real property is not subject to any mortgages, deeds of trust,
or contracts for deed, except as set forth in Exhibit A.
• 22. Covenants Run With the Land. This Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement shall
run with the land as described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference, and shall be for the benefit of and binding upon the parties hereto,
their respective successors and assigns, including mortgagees of the property subject
hereto upon foreclosure, deed in lieu or foreclosure or other acquisition of ownership of
any such property, but the parties hereto, their respective successors or assigns, shall
accrue and bear personal liability for the performance of the obligations and covenants
set forth herein or in the Easement Agreement only during such times that they hold title
to the respective tracts of land described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and all such
liabilities and obligations incurred after any transfers thereof shall accrue solely to the
transferee.
23. Notices. Any notice, demand request or other communication which may or shall
be given or served by any party hereto to or on another party hereto shall be deemed to
have been given or served on the date the same is deposited with a nationally recognized
overnight courier or in the United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, in
either case addressed as follows:
If to City: City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
•
" ,= 7
With a Copy to:
•
Charles L. LeFevere, City Attorney
Holmes & Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
If to Land Company: Shingle Creek Land Company
c/o Brookstone Real Estate Services, Inc.
3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 207
Edina, MN 55435
With a Copy to:
James Richardson & Sons, Ltd.
Richardson Building
One Lombard Place
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3BOY 1
Canada
Attention: David Fraser
If to First: First Industrial, L. P.
c/o First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Suite N
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attention: General Manager.
With a Copy to:
Barack, Ferrazzano,.; Kirschbagtn -:&
Perlman _ . _.
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, Ill. 60606
Attn: Howard A. Nagelberg and Suzanne
Bessette•Smith A
If to PREP: Plaza Real Estate Partners
Brookstone Real Estate Services, Inc:
3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 207
Edina, MN 55435
_X"::-; 8
With a Copy to:
• James Richardson & Sons, Ltd.
Richardson Building
One Lombard Place
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3BOY 1
Canada
Attention: David Fraser
or to such other address as the respective parties may from time to time designate by
notice given ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such change of address, in the
manner above provided.
•
•
F":" 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be duly
executed as of the date first written above. .
SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY, a MINNESOTA STATE HIGH SCHOOL
Minnesota general partnership LEAGUE, a Minnesota non-profit
corporation
By
Its General Partner By
Its
FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
By: First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., CHICAGO
a Maryland corporation and
its sole general partner
By
By Its
Its •
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
PLAZA REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, A
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota
limited partnership
By
Its
•
= Y. ,_ 10
STATE OF }
• )
COUNTY OF ) S S.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1995, by
the general partner of Shingle. Creek Land Company, a general
partnership under the laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said partnership.
Notary Public
STATE OF )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The.foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995,
by the of First Industrial Realty-Trust, Inc.:;:.
Maryland corporation, the sole general partner of First Industrial, L. P., a limited partnership
under the laws of Delaware, by and on behalf of said partnership.
•
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day flf: 1995;
by and , the Mayor and City Manager, respectively,
of The City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, by and
on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
LMWi -4t
STATE OF )
•
COUNTY OF ) SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1995, by
, the general partner of Plaza Real Estate Partners, a limited partnership under
the laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said partnership.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995,
by , the of Minnesota State High School League, a non-profit
corporation under the laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of `1995,
by , the of The First National Bank of Chicago, a corporation under
the laws of the United States, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
This document drafted by:
HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center •
Minneapolis, MN 55402 (LMW)
B R305-46
EXHIBIT A
• LANDS IN REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
NO. 1564. REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
NO. 1572, AND REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
NO. 1619 OWNED BY THE PARTIES AS OF THE
DATE OF THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT
AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION OF DECLARATIONS
OF PARKING
FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P. Tracts A, B, and C, Registered Land Survey
No. 1564; Tracts C and G, Registered Land
Survey No. 1572
SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY Tract A Registered Land Survey No.
1572; Tract B, Registered Land
Survey No. 1619
PLAZA REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, A
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1572
MINNESOTA STATE HIGH SCHOOL
• LEAGUE Tract A, Registered Land Survey No.
1619
MORTGAGEES
CITICORP REAL ESTATE, INC. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1572
COMMERCIAL STATE BANK IN ST. PAUL Tract A, Registered Land Survey No.
1619
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO Tracts A, B, and C, Registered Land
Survey No. 1564; Tracts C and G,
Registered Land Survey No. 1572
•
.„W:__
:. 13
Q
G _ � L v•
�: w -
n
G
cD w _, �^.•, r r r � � O ,xA,
n' Jw JCS J > T >
•• N N N A A � � "'
.+ r
cr. ... w
r.� LDD ° w
f >
�? v:• 5 =
N —+ .s `> rJ A
oC N 3� t'D .. r C fD
x c x m `t
N
J
J G.
eD
c �
o� �
ae C � cD
EXHIBIT C
. PARKLNG EASEMENT OVER A PORTION OF TRACT A,
REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 1572, HENNEPIN COUNTY, Mrk�NESOTA
•
K,;,;
_-.:._ 15
CONSENT AND JOD;DER
Commercial State Bank in St. Paul, holder of a moneage on a portion of the property
subject to the foregoing instrument, hereby consents and joins in the foregoing instrument so as
to subject it interest thereto.
COMMERCIAL STATE BANK IN
ST. PAUL
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1995, by , the of Commercial State Bank in SL Paul, a
banking corporation under the laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said corporation.
•
Notary Public
•
�;: 16
CONSENT AND JOD`DER
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., holder of a mortgage on a portion of the progeny subject to the
foregoing instrument, hereby consents and joins in the foregoing instrument so as to subject it
interest thereto.
CITICORP REAL ESTATE, INC.
By
Its
STATE OF )
SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1495. by the - of Citicorp..;.Real...Estate,._ Inc., a
corporation under the laws of , by and on behal€ of-said
corporation.
•
Notary Public
�;"-.. 17
Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
leThe City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
assifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed
Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, p P posed changes to this
p p by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has
established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policv
It is the policy of the City that: a. zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and b. rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning", defined as a zoning decision, which
discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to
accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and
against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. uidelines
a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications?
.c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the
subject property?
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject
property was zoned?
e. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed
zoning districts?
g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with
respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
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 2-95
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 complementarily 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
e. Prior to construction on an site d
y zonePUD, 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.
•