Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 04-25 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 25, 1996 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order- 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1996 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. 5. North Memorial Health Care 96005 Rezoning from R-1 to PUD/R1 and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development process to provide residential hospice care for more than six clients at 4201 58th Avenue North. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment <s • h Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 96005 Applicant:North Memorial Health Care Location: 4201 58th Avenue North Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan-PUD/R-1 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval,through the Planned Unit Development process,to provide residential hospice care for more than six clients on the property currently addressed as 4201 58th Avenue North. The property in question is approximately 2.16 acres and is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residence). It is located at the north end of Upper Twin Lake adjacent to publicly owned open- space property along the south side of County Road 10 (58th Avenue North in this location). Access to the property is provided from County Road 10 by a drive-way easement across the publicly owned open-space property. The subject site is bounded on the north by this public open-space property,on the east by single family residentially zoned property abutting June and Indiana Avenues, and on the south and west by Upper Twin Lake. The property has recently been acquired by North Memorial Health Care from the former owners, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Thompson. North Memorial would like to provide hospice services for a limited number of dying patients. These are people who are unable to care for • themselves in their last days but do not require full hospital services. This type program is considered to be a residential program under the definitions of State Statutes. Section 35-310, Subdivision 1 c, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, acknowledges licensed residential programs with a licensed capacity of six or fewer persons required to be permitted by Minnesota Statutes as a permitted use of property in an R-1 zoning district. The hospice will be licensed by the Department of Health with respect to meeting their guidelines for a certified residential hospice facility. The City's Zoning Ordinance only allows six or fewer persons to be serviced in licensed residential programs within the R-1 zoning district. There are no provisions built into the Zonin P �' g P g Ordinance to allow more than six clients in such a facility. North Memorial needs to provide hospice services for at least eight clients to make it economical. They are,therefore,proposing to be allowed to have a facility that will service between 7 and 16 persons in the facility. In order to accommodate this number of clients,the property must be rezoned either to a higher residential zoning classification or to a Planned Unit Development. We have encouraged North Memorial to pursue their plan through a PUD Rezoning because it will allow flexibility in dealing with the number of clients and the redevelopment of the property for the proposed hospice facility. Also,under the PUD,there will be a development agreement between the City and North Memorial outlining the conditions, development restrictions, and limitations involved with the plan. To simply rezone the property to a more intense/dense Page 1 4-25-96 residential district that would allow more clients in a residential program as a permitted use may be short-sighted because all other uses allowed in the zoning district would be allowed as well. • Pursuing this proposal through a PUD/R-1 rezoning allows North Memorial to prooceed with its plans in a manner that sets no precedence for other properties, other than ones that can meet the same PUD standards. As will be reviewed later,a number of factors make this particular property more viable and acceptable as a residential program use. Such things as its location, its size, and access make it more acceptable,but at the same time these factors are not common to many properties. The PUD process of rezoning with site and building plan consideration was considered the most appropriate way to address this proposal. REZONING A Planned Unit Development proposal involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district then provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the PUD. The rules and regulations governing that district(in this case R-1)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. 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 letter and a written statement regarding how they believe their proposal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. A review of those guidelines and the applicant's comments and staff response follows: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Apnlica -The applicant indicates that there is a clear and public need or benefit in that residential hospice serves a clear need for dying patients who can no longer remain in their own homes. A residential hospice answers a long-voiced need by patients and families for a non- institutional,quiet home-like setting in which dying persons may live their remaining days. They add that the use of the property for residential hospice will be a significant benefit to the community and will not negatively impact neighboring properties. Page 2 4-25-96 f-We do not argue with these observations and note that all of the points mentioned can be considered public needs and the providing of a residential hospice facility is certainly a benefit to the community. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant-The applicant answers yes to this particular question and notes that a residential hospice facility is compatible with adjacent residential uses. They add that the facility is approximately 4,550 sq. ft. and will not negatively affect the density of the property or adjacent land uses. Slaff-The property in question is surrounded by land designated public open space and single family residential property along with lakeshore. The use and redevelopment of this property as a residential hospice facility can be considered compatible with the surrounding land use classifications. The size of the land(over two acres), its distance from surrounding single family residential property,along with its somewhat remote location should make this property a good neighbor to the surrounding land uses. Access to the site is from County Road 10 over the publicly-owned land and will continue to be in this location. Persons visiting the hospice will not have to enter into the adjoining residential neighborhoods to gain access to this site. Certainly its relatively quiet location surrounded by open space and the lake make it a quiet and ideal site for a hospice. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applic -The applicant's response to this point is yes. They point out that North Memorial Health Care is willing to enter into a Planned Unit Development agreement with the creation of a written development plan. - We believe all of the permitted uses within an R-1 underlying zoning designation could be contemplated for development on the subject property as the property is currently being used as a single family home. The proposed hospice by North Memorial, involving services for between 7 and 16 clients,can be comprehended given the size,.location,and access to the property. The site plan which is also being presented will show how other development considerations will be met. The site will have to comply with shore land setbacks of 50 feet and be located above the 100 ft. flood elevation for Twin Lake. North Memorial is proposing to have a larger one-story facility than is currently there but it appears that it can meet all of the development requirements of the City. The Planned Unit Development rezoning gives the City Page 3 4-25-96 the opportunity to allow more clients than what is normally comprehended under an R-1 zoning district because of the flexibility allowed in this particular zoning designation. Also,a development agreement will need to be drawn up establishing the allowed use of the property and the conditions, development restrictions,and limitations involved with their proposed plan. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant-N/A Staff-There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes made in this area since the property was zoned under its current zoning designation of R-1. For all practical purposes,the use of the property will continue to be an acknowledged residential use. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals,is there a broad public purpose evident? N/A f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed rezoning district? A-pplicant- Yes,based on the site plan. Sofa �-The subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this proposed PUD/R-1 proposal based on findings that will eventually have to be made by the City Council and a development agreement between the City and North Memorial. The proposal may have to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to flood and shore land regulations. We also will review the site for appropriate off-street parking for the use and assess screening and landscaping,as well. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size,configuration,topography,or location? 1'c t-The applicant indicates that the property is suited for residential use. They note that the property meets the State Department of Health guidelines for a certified residential hospice facility. They also indicate that they heard other interested buyers were interested in subdividing this property thereby increasing the possible property density and adversely affecting adjacent land owners. They note that their proposal maintains the residential character with only a modest change. Page 4 4-25-96 -The subject property is not unsuited for residential utilization as it is currently zoned. The applicant points out correctly that there have been proposals to subdivide the property or to utilize it in a more intense residential use. The former owner, in 1991, had proposed to rezone this property to R-3 in hopes of being able to develop eight townhouses on the property. Also, since the property has been on the market,we have had a number of inquiries about the potential of subdividing the land to create other residential lots, as well. Again,the location, size,and access to this property make it a good site for the proposed hospice use and with the number of clients requested by the applicants. 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 interest of the community? Applicant-The applicant indicates that the land designated for Planned Unit Development is not contrary to neighboring land uses. Staff-The applicant's comment is correct. We would also add that the comprehensive plan is silent with respect to the future use of this land which indicates that a residential use should continue. This residential program is considered a permitted residential use; it is only the number of clients served that is in question. We believe that it is in the best interest of the community to allow the hospice use of the property. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant-The applicant indicates that their proposal sets to rest the future use of this property as well as past concerns of neighboring property owners. They point out again that interested buyers have expressed interest in dividing the property and/or constructing multi-residential housing. Staff- We would concur that this does settle the question about the potential use of this property for an extended period of time. The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property owner by providing for community needs,and it does appear to have a positive impact on the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The applicants have submitted a preliminary conceptual plan for the hospice. They plan to remove the existing home and build a new 5,204 sq. ft. one-story residential facility with an attached garage in approximately the same location as the existing home. They had considered Page 5 4-25-96 I I using the existing facility by modifying and expanding it, but in order to make it accessible (ADA and handicapped) and usable for their purposes it becomes cost prohibitive. They propose to have eight resident rooms in two wings all facing the lake. Four would be located to one side of the main living room area and four would be to the other side. A deck would be located on the lake side of the house off from the living room area. They propose an outdoor walking path and outdoor seating also. Access to the site would be from County Road 10 over the existing driveway easement through the city owned open space property. A small parking facility showing nine parking spaces is indicated at the northeast comer of the site. We have not determined a set number of parking spaces for th e facility. A nursing home's parking requirement is ones ace for every four beds plus one space for every two employees,plus one space for each staff doctor. A hospital requires one space for every two beds,plus one space for every two employees,plus one space for each staff doctor. We will need to make a determination regarding appropriate parking based on staff, visitors, etc. The nine spaces might be appropriate. A drop off area and garage entrance are also provided adjacent to the parking area and front entrance. North Memorial proposes a one-story facility for accessibility purposes and also to keep the facility residential in character. The plan does not yet indicate building exterior and finish. There is a setback requirement of 50 ft. from the 853 ft. shoreline elevation. The 100 year flood elevation is also shown on the plan. Grading of the site would be minimal and plans may be subject to Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval because the site is adjacent to Twin Lake. The applicants propose to maintain as much of the existing landscaping as possible, and it appears that they propose to add additional landscaping between the facility and the residential properties to the east particularly where the parking lot is to be located: Site lighting has been mentioned but not yet shown. The concern is to meet the need for security lighting and to avoid light glare and shining on adjacent residential properties. PROCEDURE This PUD/R-1 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan..As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing,the rezoning proposal and the site and building plan should be referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. In this case, it would be referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. We have invited advisory group members to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group within the next few weeks for the purpose of a formal review. It should be noted that North Memorial has held an informal Page 6 4-25-96 meeting with many of the people living in the adjacent neighborhood to initially discuss their proposed hospice plans. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing(property owners within 350 ft. of the subject property) and anyone else who desires to be notified will be informed of the date,time, etc. of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal,open the public hearing,and then table the application and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Commission may wish to comment on the proposal and give any direction to the Neighborhood Advisory Group that they believe is appropriate for their review. Page 7 4-25-96 • • s -- ; V-A PLANNING COMMISSION g ---- APPLICATION NO: 96005 gQ. a 1 / ` ` `�'� x FRANCE 1 � P N .. VA . . r, �rrr rrf, r+ � �•� •'�`•)� f LA. N 7';,�� %yN ' irr rrr ,'/ii'�r i%rrrr. r fit 15�� ♦� r - �r%:':' %:f�� :'J:;!•',' , 56TH. AVE. N. "ti,' ApglfppgT •,`�'c PAW ECXBGER . , . :. ,�L .•. . ., � � , �,'r,rr•� r•r 'rrr ''rrr , . •. OR. x Y r• X' i 1 •r r,'i , 'rrrr� r irr '• '• ~ �•' ACYPJfPQ4T' 1 irrrrr'i .� rte•rrrrr rrrrrrrr ,, , 1 � r•.,r, ,r• .. .,rr..,�.- � ;55TH. AVE. ::;r•;;':' �;rr;; rrrr!:'. 'r, ' . ' rrrr rr •r r/r, ''r;,cr r.• 'rI ,,; `r 54TH. ' 'rrr �3- rrrr::'rr,'r-•• •, •••rr,.- rrrr• r•r r.'.'rrrr/rrrr;rrrrrrrr," ;rr :';'r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, ' _, Pl. N. r rr, •rr r r rrrr r rr r r rrr•:'rrr•.. .•rrr,• � . ... ••..., .... �rrr;;'ri•./..,rrrr ' %rrr:.rri r/:'rrrr rrrr rr rrrrr rrrr.'.:;,r. r rrrrrrrrrrr'r• 'rrrr rrrrr-••--•rr•;'rr � . i.i i i i,i., i i, ...iii. i i -• �. •i - r N' L � �,r rrrrrr �r'r••.•r•r,;:.'.'rrrrr• . ;. 1 rrrrr rrrrrrrr•r•rr::rrrr"rrr , i .r ----� , rr rrrr;';;'�!.,(,�('�rr/rrrrr!:.rr •• < ,/,''rrrr•;rr,;;;;f�';ii'rrr, � � [^ 1 '-''•','r•;rrr,f':r,rr;;;• • , + C; ''r•rrrr/r-rrrr••i'�''' 2 r . ____-� _ ,;:....rrr rrr r•,rr:/:r: -. . R5 j• ' ;'r% ;';:�;%:rrrrr r r �' ---N. sirio AVE. N. om Lt ST. = r' AY N. E. I Y ' del ♦� `, 'i i i�i i'i'i 1 '(R- ' E: rrrr, rrr -' _ 49TH AVE I MIDDLE i TWIN i i C y... eee'.IO��SYO .• 'uux« r i•".�••eev aoao'0 O C r u u e .. O w u • a AV-uewa . • 1e U i1•'. 20 C O0.." CO • "Y"•O V �C pap. C V� 42)li1 CY• • uNVi C a a c °�cl O W "aC:gZ 9�e�o t on Y �•c NYC • Ow�...r Q \ O Y • O • , i \ i B 0 "C`C Y P• Y Y•.•1 C !_•Z O } O eviZ:-= 3 Ae owOv�° e . p s 1 ,a � a� k j $ LLJ .v ae - •-.eaa. n E Y a 0 o V C~Y 0 C 1 "OQ. u • .� Y 0 • ,E u YC O Y .O.oe O O * ,," o �c g0 5a:)e oosi 3peiprv• •. U V YC CI'OC M•w�a : VO�i,n •i� 2-0� k Ft �)"uo O.i00. Y I' AlI .I a � �oo t ( � •I v N28S Y / 2 ,// r lit 3*9 0 fry- W 1 CD If-H ®r -W a CIS .. ........ vW \ jU ca --- --------------------- nil .............. Ix MI LZ WN t VIYO-33 i�a� I i 11 1 cz ioi A ie LO'� 19'>81 OiONc Him LS... ...... fv no 3.11.29x+ ........ __-__ ...... V t !J �.I SA 7_ VON ;Dt . . T 1 o"Cvl iC ,.. _� •,t I i a r^ o O (/1 O O QL RR U _ i Q O U �► ►!� ���►� 0°000 �►i �� �,,��►� o �1ili � O ►.�� O z _ V � O� z � = `r �,I I I '' I O a O N V O O U II YI �. U) IIII I I oil 0 �_ _ FTJ®i Z ,1 s O Z 2 r = • I 'i I North Memorial Health Care. March 22, 1996 Ron Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55430 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE-THOMPSON PROPERTY Dear Mr. Warren: Pursuant to our conversations, I am enclosing for you the Planning Commission Application for a re-zoning request of Lot #22, Auditor's Subdivision #216, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I am further enclosing check in the amount of$1,200 representing the application fees and the response to the guidelines pursuant to Section 35-208 of the City Ordinance. We look forward to working with you and your department toward providing a quality environment for our Residential Hospice patients. Please feel free to give me a call if there is additional information required for the Planning Commission meeting. Very truly yours, ' Gerald R Pedlar Director Facilities Management Services cc Ernie Engel David W. Cress Kaye Foley • jp3-224.doc I I i i I I North Memorial Health Care. An ftamwttoa ofHwM QmNgfkaion ds Section 35-208 REZONING REVIEW GUIDELINES A IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? YES, THE RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE SERVES A CLEAR NEED FOR DYING PATIENTS WHO CAN NO LONGER REMAIN IN THEIR OWN HOMES. A RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE ANSWERS A LONG-VOICED NEED BY PATIENTS AND FAMILIES FOR A NON-INSTITUTIONAL, QUIET, HOME-LACE SETTING IN WHICH DYING PERSONS MAY LIVE THEIR REMAINING DAYS. THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE WILL BE OF SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. B IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? YES, RESIDENTIAL HOSPITAL FACILITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FACILITY IS APPROXIMATELY . 4,550 SQUARE FEET. WILL NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY OR ADJACENT LAND USES. C CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? YES. NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE IS WILLING TO ENTER INTO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WITH THE CREATION OF A WRITTEN DEVELOPMENT PLAN. D HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? N/A. E IN THE CASE OF CITY-INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? N/A. F WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT • RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING DISTRICTS. YES, BASED ON SITE PLAN. jp3-25.doc Page Two G IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? THE PROPERTY IS SUITED TO RESIDENTIAL USE. THE PROPERTY MEETS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR A CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL HOSPICE FACILITY. ANY OTHER INTERESTED BUYERS ARE INTERESTED IN SUB-DIVIDING, THEREBY, INCREASING THE PROPERTY DENSITY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING ADJACENT LAND OWNERS. OUR PROPOSED USE MAINTAINS THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER WITH ONLY A MODEST CHANGE. H WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING DISTRICT, WARRANTED BY: I. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, 2. THE LACK OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT; OR, 3. THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY? • LAND DESIGNATED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NOT CONTRARY TO NEIGHBORING LAND USES. I DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL? YES, SETS TO REST THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE PAST CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS. INTERESTED BUYERS HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTING MULTI-RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THEREBY, INCREASING THE LAND'S DENSITY. • jp3-25.doc 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 prope4rty 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 deve lopment 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. i Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Puruose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the con- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced throug� uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to thi 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. 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 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?