The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996 09-26 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - September 12, 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. Landform Engineering Company 96015 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into two lots the property located at the northeast quadrant of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. 6. Douglas Sheet Metals, Inc. 96016 Site and Building Plan approval for an 1,800 sq. ft. expansion to the Douglas Metals operations at 4912 France Avenue North. 7. Other Business 8. Adj ournment s • • Planning Commission Information Sheet +r0 Application No. 96015 Applicant: Landform Engineering Company Location: Northeast Corner of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the property located at the northeast quadrant of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is the site of the proposed Rainbow Food store redevelopment project including a Rainbow and two other freestanding buildings on the site. The property currently contains an existing 141,900 sq. ft. building which most recently housed Builder's Square and a Red Owl Country store. This building is planned for demolition. The property under consideration is bounded on the north by R-1 zoned property occupied by Garden City Elementary School and R-5 zoned property containing the Garden City Court Apartments; on the east by Beard Avenue North with single family homes on the opposite side; on the south by 63rd Avenue North with single family homes and the City's fire station/liquor store on the opposite side; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard with single family homes on the opposite side. The current legal description of the property is Tracts A and B,Registered Land Survey No. 1553. The new legal description is proposed to be Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Rainbow's Garden City Addition. Lot 1 is proposed to be 70,316 sq. ft. (or 1.614 acres)and will be the site of the proposed Walgreen's pharmacy contemplated under the Rainbow redevelopment proposal approved under Planning Commission Application No. 96008 earlier this year. Lot 2 is proposed to be 540,798 sq. ft. (or 12.415 acres) and would contain the proposed 78,500 sq. ft. Rainbow and other retail outlet and a 9,600 sq. ft. freestanding building proposed for a possible Hollywood Video/Great Clips occupancy. Lot 1 will be an irregularly shaped parcel containing 281.95 ft. of frontage along Brooklyn Boulevard. The south property line of this proposed lot will run along the center line of the proposed southerly access to the site. The north property line is somewhat south of the northerly access to the development site. Lot 2 (or the Rainbow site)will contain approximately 400 ft. of frontage along Brooklyn Boulevard. The location of the east property line for the proposed Lot 1 would dissect the west end of the existing building on the site. This will require the need to demolish the existing building prior to final plat approval for this proposal and filing of the plat with Hennepin County. The proposed Lot 1 when superimposed over the site plan approved for the Rainbow development project, leaves this site 19 parking spaces short of the minimum requirement for the 13,905 sq. ft. drug/pharmacy building. This fact has been pointed out to the applicant and must be addressed before the final plat is approved. They have two options, one being to alter the 9-26-96 Page 1 property line to include 19 more parking spaces on the proposed Lot 1, or the other to file a Planning Commission application for a Special Use Permit to allow for off-site accessory parking to be on Lot 2 and encumbered for the sole use of Lot 1. This would necessitate the need to file another application and establish a public hearing for this proposal. The proposed plat will require a need for cross access agreements between the two lots allowing free access over the site and some cross parking agreements as well. The existing Tract B which is 30.07 ft. wide contains a 30 ft. roadway easement for Beard Avenue North. It may be simpler to just dedicate the 30 ft. as street right-of-way with this plat. Other than the items mentioned above,the plat appears to be in order. A public hearing has been scheduled and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Sun/Post. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plat can be in order and could be recommended for approval subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing building on the site shall be demolished prior to final plat approval. 4. The proposed Lot 1 shall be expanded to include at least 19 additional parking spaces and the final plat shall reflect this expansion. 5. Appropriate cross access and parking agreements, as determined by the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to final plat approval and be filed with Hennepin i County as part of this plat. 9-26-96 am Page 2 t:tz: ! ( I S1R8M1. SIT N '/�,•',"',;; "',`.'� c�•�� /;,j;ar,�•;�� ;� "/i;�' gal � I � '�;,;'% ,� �'%�:„ ��r ,/,'i•'=. I rat ,Tie� P`;I °ter ofT1 — I �rws' �-� 7> '" ��--•.�..I �� \ �I'y,'�F Ctr/ / 68TH. 1 - �4 •„ l\ trf 66TH. AVE. Ns / �t� `,'•� '�i• ,W i I N 1 . CIE APPLICATION NO. 96015 1 0 �-••�- � 6STT1. AVE /At� 01 IPCeI I ,ao H 91 IV, LLLH �'�---i i '`�! 1 �'J' •= I 0�rE.VRT I I ( 02; '�'� %.�My�, A L` _ I I I 51ST AVE N' I lla4t / . ocvt•. 46 so 1 I rt I I I �_�,__, � III, r..�.,� �u�I. � ►.�ZI C Z� ! _' z` �: �2f AVM t 97 �� • I}�.. , �,I -r,r ��-�� i �j I I 1►Ifl AIIL 1 ,T. I R5 h III 11 �� • • • I I � I � �" � •t $ rte`\ t1I i V t:� i qtr � `• 1� �� ,i' C`\�.i�r crt 9/ �° J`, •fir / �`>� y__\ _=— i cn jj ol ar s _. .: i U v a#I Y# �r s �i �I I N if idsf1' I Z J ,i• ' �� r 4I 3 c � • N� t i W"• ...I � T�'k r• 3 rl •. �i I� r � = 41 1:7 O sal c yl -• v rr;; t t t r r Ott it O if c , s � , jl i ,i €€i _ r •�� 1 ( rsi � t � ,i:� � i �JI �tS�� •t �� rF co rn �=j.1 tl i It a G � O itl � i Planning Commission Information Sheet . Application No. 96016 Applicant: Douglas Metal Specialties Location: 4912 France Avenue N Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant John Hunerberg of Hunerberg Construction Company, on behalf of Douglas Metal Specialties, is seeking site and building plan approval for an 1,800 sq. ft. addition to the two buildings making up the Douglas Metal operation at 4912 France Avenue North. The property in question is zoned I-2 (General Industry) and the Douglas Metal operation is considered a permitted use in this zoning district. The property in question is located along the east side of France Avenue approximately midway between the Soo Line Railroad tracks and 50th Avenue North. It is bounded on the west by France Avenue with the NSP substation on the opposite side; on the east by T. H. 100; and on the north and south by other general industry businesses in this area. The proposal calls for a 1,250 sq. ft. addition to the rear of Building A, which is the westerly of the two buildings fronting on France Avenue North. A 550 sq. ft. addition would be made to the southwest corner of Building B. This addition would enclose the loading area and provide an overhead door along the east side of the building. Generally, the City takes the opportunity to insure compliance with current zoning and site requirements when additions are made to existing properties. This site is .8 of an acre and does not meet the five acre threshold for Watershed Management Commission review. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site is unchanged and is located on France Avenue, southerly of the existing buildings. This is a shared access with the industrial site to the south. The 1,800 sq. ft. addition of general industry space requires two additional parking spaces above and beyond the minimum parking required for this site. The complex has approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of office space and with the proposed addition, approximately 11,770 sq. ft. of industrial space. Twenty-three parking spaces are,therefore, required for this site. Parking would be provided in parallel parking spaces along the south side of the existing Building A with 45' angled parking along the south side of Building B. The reason for the angled parking along the south side of Building B is to provide appropriate drive way width space in this area. The remaining ten required parking spaces would be on the east end of the site adjacent to T. H. 100 right-of-way. There should be appropriate turn around space at the east end of the existing Building B. The parking for this site is somewhat unorthodox,but should provide an adequate parking and circulation plan. 9-26-96 Page 1 GRADING/DRAINAGE The City Engineer has reviewed the site and the proposed site plan. Drainage for this site is unchanged and would be surface drainage. Drainage is to the east and west of the site with the break point being at approximately the front of Building B. Paving on the site is in poor shape and major repair or an overlay will be necessary. The City Engineer has recommended that B-612 curb and gutter be provided along the east end of the site adjacent to the T. H. 100 right- of-way. A break in the curb and gutter at the approximate mid point will allow surface drainage to be conveyed into the T. H. 100 right-of-way. This is the established drainage pattern for this site. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission for evaluating landscape plans. This .8 acre site requires 48 landscape points. The applicant's proposal comprehends 49 landscape points seeking credit for four Coniferous trees along the east side of Building B and three Arborvitae type shrubs inter- mingled with the existing Spruce and Pine. New plantings are proposed for the west side of Building A along the France Avenue frontage. Two new shade trees would be planted in this green strip area between the building and the street right-of-way. Also proposed are four Arborvitae type shrubs and three Dogwoods. This would account for the 49 landscape points proposed. It is recommended that underground irrigation be provided in these landscape areas if it is not already provided. BUILDING The applicant is proposing a major face lift to Building A by providing colored metal wall panels around all four sides of the existing building and new building addition. They also propose to provide a new 3:12 pitched roof for this building and a canopy over the front building entrance. The addition to Building B would also contain colored metal wall panels and a shed roof. I RECOMMENDATION Altogether I believe the plans appear to be in order. Approval is,therefore, recommended I g P PP PP subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. i 9-26-96 Page 2 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be • determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided at the east end of the parking lot to assist site drainage in this area. 9-26-96 Page 3 FRANCE N BUROUE T LA. A Ve'. X A 56TH.1 X, AAW X EMBER D�R. AW?AftMr I 3•, som SSW :55TH. AVE. 1 54TH. AVE Me i- 440 AVE. N. ,Ai ST: Ri APPLICATION NO. 96016 X X ..i51sl 1,VE'1 % X L t5pTH 50 112 ITH 49 AV E MIDDLE TWIN LAKE I I` / rn LLI-�KEWEEZE AVE. N 02 D 48TH AVE. N. 47TW AVE. RYAN LAKE "'x"Y "K 46TH A % .. ............................ % 467H AVE. Y 0/1:�� Li U CIT, • i m ' FRANC A1fEN Ex,S'-To'K►Su. SE+E- >. ♦ w ♦ ♦� � •••Y II °eo ti• •' Ye • _o 0 / 92.9' i 90 . ,. •o ...r• 9G n t �+, 2�• • 7n it { r I � �j• a i a•I r r. r'. i..4.. .r, r •I N. Ui � _ I ar •.:s:'i:. r " � °' � • � I ( I [ : R M. w J-� tit � N w 5 Yt ppp ^v m N� { t a • c ` x 1N € � N N H FRANCE AVENUE NORTK_ 90' (D �°.:., .s n � p Qy N o o e ^. nn d �5 � N � 4 8 4 @� V, N•1 49 Q, "7 C � z I g Oy o I a gw /V. :I\: -RA6CL > 7R/V£ N s /o T O ;n7 q �rol N 7Cp A ' PY' poi L'1 !!Yxd °c �I° T C n N n y ?v ;Z v ` Q m H I I I I i IV 17- ° Qr Kil Nr cr IL • j1 c 3 I c I Zd� R I a I � ' :o•o.. 1�-� to_o I •• Q i I I II t "t' I i Z I DI ICE I T zt v - 1 Z h T o 14 Ell l i a O ; � 71 —1K Z i IL. i a 1 s r Q � � i� j I ! � � ! I I I I I I � j �I !�i �• \ i r �J ,f. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 17, 1996 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - September 26, 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. Landform Engineering Company 96015 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into two lots the property located at the northeast quadrant of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. (This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on 9/26/96 pending the submission of a Special Use Permit.) 6. Landform Engineering Company 96018 Special Use Permit approval for accessory off-site parking in the proposed Rainbow Garden • City Addition comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 96015. 7. Brookdale Mitsubishi 96017 Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval from C2 and C 1 to PUD/C2 for the development of an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership on a 7.035 acre site on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, northerly of Shingle Creek. 8. Landform Engineering Company 96019 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into three lots the 13.09 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Freeway Boulevard, westerly of the Schmitt Music site. 9. Discussion Item: A. Preliminary site plan submitted for Dakota Hospitality Company for an Americinn Motel and Suites at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. (Representatives of Dakota Hospitality Company will present preliminary site plan for their proposal. Included with the commission's agenda packet is a folder of information on the company). 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 96015 • Applicant: Landform Engineering Company Location: Northeast Comer of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 26, 1996 meeting and was tabled pending the submission of a special use permit application by the applicant requesting approval of an off-site accessory parking arrangement. This application has been submitted and the Commission's attention is directed to the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 96018. Following review of the special use permit application, the Commission should again review the preliminary plat application for this same property. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plat is in order with the recommended approval of Application No. 96018 subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. • 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing building on the site shall be demolished prior to final plat approval. 4. Preliminary plat approval is subject to the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 96018 for off-site accessory parking. An appropriate document legally encumbering a minimum of 20 off-site parking spaces on the proposed Lot 2 for the sole use of the proposed Lot 1 shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the final plat for this property. 5. Appropriate cross access and parking agreements, as determined by the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to final plat approval and be filed with Hennepin County as part of this plat. • 10-17-96 Page 1 .I ._,<� _- _ _fir ;�'. T 'i.'.�'%r,f' •ii• "/,i. Lf ---------- Qc \ u � '--�'��x;:x 1,;-.,, +vim ' � l l /�i �- � `�• "� III v, l �'"�.`� ,`_ ,•i,, II `C Vii- � T � � III Tf, 1a CI I / fo �R•`� PLANNING COMMISSION ; 17 . I 4 ; APPLICATION NO. ; ,� 11 1 & 96013 . z _ �- �- •ivy' ' RS — t i. �„ CI �, X `r � I I,KI I �, •y I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 �%��, � ' '`;� r :a.l { I!:� '� ij I i ,�I /� 1 ► I I I t ► III 1 I 11 .� ,?�`'��` �i C`�.'��' ` �, �� / �� z I i 'a'£tiR"—'I ` ! .i�� i {.I ('I I I I I I I I I'�1 1 1 1 or% •✓�f :,�,�t'X;`�, I ► ! ' l l l l j 1 1 /� �` I °-%�`-".—=1 � { iiilil ! � II � � ! I ! IIII III11 � � ,1� �''"f��,1`• I-----•r�. .?,�i U� � � �_`i i 'I ; I ! I I ::�!,,,�� / III v� I I ( gin! �, �',�'�;:�'�;��"'.'��.'< >vt !r'��.1 ! ! l I I I ' rv,csrao C/ I i I 'c.�ti;� � ` I I IIII ,'>,•; 1 ��;r� ''"'' "i I } I I I I � I ! ':uCCCRE '^,R.I `• ' ' ' i-•-� C_�� `�✓///j �: �11—11 Ix 1 e" • • i s; 2s ji i ai �3 � t� t ig�t�. jl! i! �`{;' • �`f'i $:i�gr t fill 7' g.... i io grit ll i �• � ` t` i � - ' � III I N 9. LU cc CO Cl LLJ PT _ < Q //�)� iii ,• __ 6 'I C.T.i 1 i1 (, 0„ � 1= �_;� _i_�-_—_ 1: �' it ' •: a- i i i I i Uj 1 i tI i 11i 1}, ,. CL 2 CP 1 i 10 F __j T, i� �y ''Y 1%.•.tom �� ! ; � i � � � f � i L� � ; ljg ,day3t : a . ;li �811119iE occ d zo 01 Z O ce I I ` U O [ r4c4 ulTM — ..aa Z .� —�—iwi.•Tf I w W cc a c L t C7 co c: t � : r r 21 1- 7 �pp Z y( e Ac t its IA mm ¢o � • �� ♦ �T, rQi u O � Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 96018 Applicant: Landform Engineering Company Location: Northeast corner of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant is seeking special use permit approval for accessory off-site parking not located on the same property with the principal use. This is a companion application to the tabled Planning Commission Application No. 96015 which proposes to divide an approximate 14 acre site at the northeast comer of 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard into two lots, one lot which does not contain enough parking to meet the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. Thus the request for this special use permit. The property under consideration is zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by R-1 zoned property occupied by Garden City Elementary School and R-5 zoned property containing the Garden City Court Apartments; on the east by Beard Avenue North with single family homes on the opposite side; on the south by 63rd Avenue North with single family homes and the City's fire station/liquor store on the opposite side; and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard with single family homes on the opposite side. Accessory off-site parking is authorized as a special use under Section 35-701, Subdivision 3 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The proposed subdivision comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 96015 • would create two lots; Lot 1 which would contain a 13,905 sq. ft. Walgreen's Drug/Pharmacy building and Lot 2 which would contain a 78,500 sq. ft. building for a Rainbow grocery store and a 9,600 sq. ft. building for another general commerce use. The proposed Lot 1 includes 57 parking spaces, which is not enough on-site parking spaces to meet the minimum number of parking spaces required for a site containing 13, 900 sq. ft. of retail space (76 spaces). The proposed Lot 2, however, has a surplus of 29 parking spaces based on the ordinance requirements for its proposed 88,100 sq. ft. of retail space in the two buildings. It is, therefore, possible to encumber the required minimum of 20 parking spaces on Lot 2, to be dedicated for the sole use of Lot 1 through a deed restriction, which would have to be filed with the proposed plat for this property. Even with such a restriction, there would still be a surplus of nine parking spaces on the proposed Lot 2 (Rainbow site). The applicant has submitted a drawing showing,24 parking spaces lying easterly of the lot line separating the proposed Lots 1 and 2. These would be the parking spaces that are to be encumbered. He has also provided a letter requesting the special use permit and explaining the arrangements. The applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the five general standards for special use permits and the specific requirements laid out in Section 35-701, Subdivision 3a through 3g. Off-site accessory parking is a special use in the C-1, C-2, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts and is • 10-17-96 Page 1 permitted on institutional R-1 property as well. The off-site parking must generally be on property of comparable or more intense zoning (in this case, both sites are zoned C-2). • Accessory off-site parking is limited to one site per business and the distance from the furthermost point of the accessory off-site parking to the site of the principal use may not exceed 300 ft. These provisions are both met with the applicant's proposal. The zoning ordinance also requires that a minimum of 20 parking spaces be provided on the off- site parking property. In this case, the applicant is proposing to encumber up to 24 parking spaces where only 19 would be required. Accessory off-site parking shall be located such that pedestrian traffic will not be required to cross major thoroughfares or specifically designated roadways within the city. This will not be the case with this particular application. The ordinance also requires a legal encumbrance be filed acknowledging the dedication of the required parking from the accessory off-site lot to the principal lot. We find no conflicts between the off-site accessory parking proposal and the various requirements in city ordinances including the general standards for special use permits. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices of the Planning Commission's consideration have been sent to surrounding property owners. RECOMMENDATION The special use permit appears to be in order and is recommended for approval subject to at least • the following conditions. I. The special use permit is granted to allow a minimum of 20 parking spaces on the proposed Lot 2, Block 1 Rainbow's Garden City Addition to be legally encumbered for the sole use of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1 Rainbow's Garden City Addition. 2. A legal encumbrance, in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the final plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 96015. 10-17-96 Page 2 _.si � , ; , (�I � III ! ' �: r;•'.•-:• ,�,�(�,y!•.•,•• • •ti;:•'::,;,: MAO 15d {vg—v 11 Ll Ro It I L I I 1 667)4. AVE, N1 1__, ( �j�/ i \ •♦ /! r--r--o' III , , , ,�`' .� �� r f� ♦J ��;: -ail PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96015 { & 96018 ' ' N I C ! " ililll / _ I � IIr AV'F-, ,, ' �--�`•,' tF�' CL�1 � /. r'C��!Z 110':-�.>�Y .�� III-1 { III I I I I I J / I o�': ,i�� •;,�'�, I • =� , , ` �-� , / 1111 ! 11 l 11 1I I I ( �Ifflll� L� � l �..�! , , III ' y�� I I RASH I ( m.( { . � � I � 1 �, ,r- � IIII / .p� I III '�� '� •,� �� LIQ A y. I 1 / :adz / _ ' I�--- � , �� ( ► III 'RZ. ! I fc. N J I I I ( Il If t ,G I ► I S>S. 14S.', 1 N. IIII ► / % - `��" II XR-- I . r i i a/�-•' �, r=y I I I I.I� �: u '�-r1 I I AvC, "f N f (�� I / / // 1 1 1 I f 1 � � �^ / /• I wl ............ ! �` ��+v/ ,� I � � j ��; L��( HI I�I �' I t' :V,�/' r•% y"+�f'," J � ��, �__i Imo" 1 � :�_�I �I !i�f I I x �r7S I F—�, �•�. r'J r �•�` ��•. �`e�,/ � � i`--y � I ?+Ind _ Av ! � j r �'�'^ r'--- F / � iL%— 77 ' r Ins,—�•i �---n� ( , .;�—�_ W TIM 20. • QO u»vo a8 8 � uv� �' t•`� qA All, Jill 00 ta r4 Ila ..... .... .... • M1 x "'i ZI -41 1 4 2-! ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -# ................ .... ...... ............ .................................. .......................... .......................... ..... ............. ....... • _ ...... . ;Z ........... ......................... .............. ...... 18 N3AV an EN - 4. Access • Each loading berth shall be located so as to provide convenient access to a public street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic. 5. Accessory Uses Any area designated as a required loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the terms of this ordinance shall not be used for storage of goods or inoperable vehicles nor shall such area be included as a part of the area necessary to meet the off-street parking area. Section 35-700. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. There shall be no off-street parking,storage of vehicles nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right-of-way and this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of C 1 and C 1 A districts, there shall be no off-street parking nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right-of-way and this 35 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. Section 3;-701. LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING. All accessory off-street parking facilities required herein shall be located as follows: - • I. Spaces accessory to one and two family dwellings shall be on the same lot as the principal use served. 2 Spaces accessory to multiple family dwellings shall be on the same lot as the use served, within 400 feet of the main entrance to the principal building served. J. Ordinance required parking spaces accessory to uses located in a business or industrial district shall be on the same lot as the uses served unless a special use permit authorizes accessory off-site parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Special use permits authorizing such parking may be issued subject to the following conditions: a. Accessory off-site parking shall be permitted only on properties located in districts zoned Commercial (C1. CIA, C2) and Industrial (I-1, I-2), and on properties which are institutional uses in residential zones. Accessory off-site parking shall be permitted on land having the same or less restrictive zoning classification as the principal use and may be permitted in more restrictive zones if the buffer and setback provisions required of the principal use are met on the property containing the off-site accessory parking. For the purpose of this section of the ordinance, institutional uses in residential zones shall have the same status as C1 zoned property. • 33-69 b. :accessory off site parking shall be limited to one site per each business or industrial use issued a special use permit. • C. The distance from the furthest point of the accessory off-site parking property to the site of the principal use shall not exceed 800 feet. d. A minimum of 20 parking spaces must be provided on the off-site parking property. e. Accessory off--site parking shall be located such that pedestrian traffic will not be required to cross the following roadways to reach the principal use: 1. Major thoroughfares as defined in Section 35-900. 2. 55th and 56th Avenues North between Xerxes Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard., 3. Summit Drive. 4. 66th Avenue North between Lyndale Avenue North and Camden Avenue North. f. Accessory off-site parking spaces may be credited to the parking requirements of the principal use if the off-site parking property is legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing parking accessory to the principal use. • Accessory off-site parkin,site improvements shall be provided as required by the City Council. Section 35-702. PARKING SPACE STANDARDS. The following minimum parking standards are hereby established for all districts other than R1 and R2: Space 2 Space Lengths Plus One Center Aisle Auk Width Curb to Curb With Curb Overlap 90° (Two-way) 818" 19.5-19.5+24.0 =63'0" 13.013.0=24.0 = 60'0" 60° (One-way) 910" 20.0+20.0-=-20.0 = 60'0" 13.5-I3.5=20.0 = 57'0" 45* (One-way) 9'2" 13.0+13.0+16.5 = 52'6" 17.0+17.0+16.5 = 50'6" 30° (One-,vay) 916" 15.0+15.0+16.5 ==16'6" 14.0+14.0-16.5 =44'6" 0° (Parallel) 8'0" wide by 2=1'0" long, with 24'0" aisle An accurate, dimensioned parking layout which complies with the foregoing shall be submitted for approval with a site plan, and parking arrangements shall thereafter comply with such layout. Parking spaces shall be clearly designated by lines painted upon the surface of the parking area. • 35-70 September?6, 1996 City of Brooklyn Center ♦ J Planning Commission, and City Council 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Attn. Mr. Ron Warren Rainbow Foods Development Rainbow's Garden City Addition Brooklvn Center, Minnesota Landform Project Number WB96013 Mr. Warren; Landform Engineering Company, as an agent of the owners and developers of the Rainbow Foods project, and the applicants representing the owners filing Rainbow's Garden City Addition, are requesting a Special Use Permit for Off-Site Accessory Parking on the above mentioned project. Landform Engineering Company ha's reviewed with our client the five standards for Special Use permits as outlined in your Zoning Ordinance and believe we do, in fact, meet these five criteria. We have also reviewed the application requirements for this request and refer you to the approved Building and Site plan documents previously submitted as exhibits for this application. The Qwners, developers, and committed tenants of this development have entered into numerous agreements for the purchase and lease of parcels and spaces within this development and feel, for reasons of timeliness to commencement of construction, as well as individual needs of the evolved tenants that the proposed platting best meets the needs of the parties evolved and are requesting the Special Use Permit to facilitate the platting as submitted. • Landform Engineering Company,905 Twelve Oaks Center,13300 Wayzata Blvd.,Wayzata,%linnesota 3=391.(612)473-32,2,Fax/Data(612)4—,3-3139 Rainbow Foods Development Brooklvn Center.Minnesota Page 2 September 261h, 1996 In this request we are asking that the proposed Lot 1 of this development be allowed to be platted as shown, with less than the required parking falling within its boundaries. The owners a currently drafting several perpetual cross access and parking agreements for all tenants in the' project and are willing to submit, for your approval, a separate agreement dedicating 20 stalls immediately adjacent to the subject parcel for the sole use of Lot 1. Or, if you prefer, the owners of this development are willing to execute an agreement prepared by your attorney dedicating these same stalls as required. Attached is an exhibit outlining the proposed site, and the stalls to be dedicated. As mentioned, we believe this request meets the standards outlined, and will result in the normal and safe operation of the proposed use on this site, as well as any subsequent uses. This request does not interfere with the normal orderly development of the adjacent property, and adequate measures have been taken to ensure safe and orderly ingress/egress to the property. If you have any question feel free to contact me. Sincerely, LANDFORM ENGINEERING COMPANY • l Darren B. Lazan Principal /DBL CC: Jenna Sellers, Joe Rvan,Dennis Crowe,File Attachment: Exhibit • Landform Engineering Company,903 Tweive Oaks Center,13500 Wayzata Blvd..1�'avzata,\linnesota 33391,(612)473-3271.,Fax/Data(612)473-3139 v 89.5a'31- E 0 1062.50 - c -- DR:G--/ PROPOSED /J�,T6 OF _ - P4ARMAG�' � Lvr 1 °_ P�Pot� rnn�N`r i SL MAIZ 'L1Q •If 1 ilk log N56'56'42"W 50.27 6 4`• �_ ._• ........'... ....................................................... ............... S 89'58'31" w y. b• 63RD AVENI Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 96017 Applicant: Brookdale Mitsubishi Location: 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard • Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan-PUD-C-2 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi dealership on a 7.035 acre site located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, northerly of Shingle Creek. The property under consideration includes four parcels in Brooklyn Center and a small triangular shaped parcel of land in Brooklyn Park. Three of the parcels, totaling 3.088 acres, were most recently the site of the Red Lobster Restaurant(the triangular parcel in Brooklyn Park; the main site for the Red Lobster Restaurant which is addressed 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard; and an off-site parking lot dedicated for the sole use of the Red Lobster Restaurant which is addressed as 7227 Brooklyn Boulevard). Another parcel which is a part of the proposal is a 2.537 acre site addressed as 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard, which includes a 6,081 sq. ft. building housing the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) and contains an access road leading from the building to Brooklyn Boulevard. The final parcel under consideration in this proposal is a vacant 1.409 acre parcel addressed as 722') Brooklyn Boulevard (located between the Red Lobster off-site parking lot and Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of the access road leading to CEAP). Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired all of the parcels listed above and plans to demolish the old Red Lobster Restaurant building to be replaced by a new automobile showroom, office and • service center. They propose to eventually convert the CEAP building to dealership use for automotive parts storage and car clean up functions related to their use and the adjacent Toyota City dealership which is located in Brooklyn Park and is under a related ownership. As mentioned, Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired the CEAP building but has an agreement to lease them their former building for up to one year in order to allow them to find a new site and to relocate. Once the building is vacant, Brookdale Mitsubishi would convert it for their use as will be shown on the proposed plans accompanying this PUD rezoning request. The property in question is zoned C-2 (7235 Brooklyn Boulevard) and C-1 (7223, 7227 and 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard) and is bounded on the north by the common boundary line between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park with the Toyota City dealership and the small triangular shaped parcel which is bound to the Brooklyn Center site through deed restriction on the opposite side of the boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard with C-1 zoned land containing the Re/Max Real Estate Office Building on the opposite side; on the south by R-3 zoned land containing the Creek Villa Townhomes; and on the southwest by Shingle Creek and R-3 zoned land containing the Unity Place Co-op on the opposite side of the creek. Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C-2 zoning district. These uses are not 10-17-96 Page 1 • comprehended under the C-1 zoning district. Automotive repair is not allowed to abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property at a property line or at a street line. Because of this, the applicant is • proposing to pursue their request through the Planned Unit Development process and is seeking rezoning based on a site and development plan to a PUD/C-2 (Planned*Unit Development/Commerce) zoning designation. Such a zoning designation could allow the proposed use through a development agreement. A Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district(in this case C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking modification to allow automobile service on property abutting R-3 zoned property based on special modifications they would make to their plan. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well. Mr. Ted Terp, on behalf of Brookdale Mitsubishi, has submitted a letter and written statement regarding their proposal along with comments as to how they believe their proposal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. The letter(attached) indicates that they have acquired the four parcels in Brooklyn Center,which they believe would be appropriate for an automobile sales and service operation involving a Mitsubishi dealership. They note that they need to rezone three of the four parcels to accommodate this request. They have chosen the PUD process in order to accommodate a need to limit the type of development permitted on the property in order to protect the neighboring residentially zoned properties from incompatible future redevelopment. Their letter goes on to comment how they believe their development proposal meets the guidelines and how they believe it offers the city benefits through their development. To summarize their comments,the applicant believes their redevelopment is beneficial to the city by redeveloping an abandoned restaurant site and a vacant site which has not been able to be marketed for development. They believe the assembly of these four small parcels into a larger parcel is beneficial to the community. Their plan would eliminate the private CEAP access road, 10-17-96 • Page 2 which currently divides the parcels and they would be able to realign the access curb cut with the • curb cut on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard which the Hennepin County transportation division deems to be desirable. They note their plan includes ponding areas that will be required by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, which will improve water quality and also assist in controlling the rate of run off from the site. The believe their proposed plan will provide an attractive, modern and well landscaped site in place of the existing odd combination of small, inefficient and disconnected parcels. They go on to state that they believe their proposed development offers other advantages, that being the fact that Shingle Creek offers a physical separation between the business district and residential district to the south. The creek is a natural physical buffer between the proposed development and the neighboring residential districts. The creek, they note, also provides a minimum 100 ft. natural buffer between the active portions of their site and the neighboring residential zoning to the south. They believe their proposed redevelopment is consistent and logical with respect to other current uses from the subject site to Regent Avenue North in Brooklyn Park, which are all similar businesses. This, they point out, adds to the critical mass and, they believe, generates greater success for the businesses in that area. They conclude by indicating their proposal, in their opinion, represents a beneficial and appropriate development, combining and utilizing four disparate parcels in an attractive, efficient and logical way. As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposals based on the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and- must not constitute `spot zoning' which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a staff review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal. A. IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT? The applicant has noted that they believe their proposal is a benefit to the public by redeveloping a site which is abandoned and under utilized into one which is consistent with surrounding land uses. It is the staffs opinion that such a redevelopment may be considered a public benefit it indeed balances the business needs of the community and can still accommodate the residential uses that are somewhat separated, but should not be impacted by the development. B. IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? The proposal is certainly consistent with the land uses to the north in Brooklyn Park • 10-17-96 Page 3 which is another automobile dealerships. And, it is my understanding, that Toyota City is under the same or related ownership. Their proposal would provide some cross uses between the car dealership to the north. It should also be noted that Shingle Creek, with its dense foliage, does create a barrier between the townhouses to the south and southwest of this site. Some of the applicant's property is on the south side of Shingle Creek, however, no development will be undertaken on the south side of the creek and this area, too, will provide some buffer and relief between the active portions of the site and the residential property to the south. We do not find conflict with this commercial use and the commercial use on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard. The most critical point is how this site, through its development plan, can be buffered and relate to the property on the opposite side of Shingle Creek. C. CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? No other uses or development, other than that which is permitted under the development agreement which would have to be executed would be allowed. Other uses which might be comprehended can only be allowed through an amendment to the Planned Unit Development process that is being undertaken. Only uses specifically acknowledged by the City Council under a Planned Unit Development are allowed. If a determination can be made that the use proposed is appropriate, this guideline can be met. D. HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? The subject property was rezoned to its current C-1/C-2 zoning designation in the late 1970's. The establishment of the C-2 zoning district was considered an extension of the zoning and uses that were allowed to the north in Brooklyn Park. The C-1 use was viewed as an additional buffer to the townhouses that were developed or were being developed to the south and west. There have been no other zoning changes in the immediate area, with the exception of the establishment of service/office zoning designations for properties on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of 71 st Avenue. The basic question in this situation, is can a development plan be put together which will be compatible with the surrounding uses and provide appropriate buffering between the sites? E. IN THE CASE OF CITY INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS,IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case. 10-17-96 • PaQe 4 F. WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BARE FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING • DISTRICTS? We believe the subject property can bare fully the ordinance development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development proposal based on findings which would need to be made by the City and a development agreement between the City and the developer which would address any issues and would acknowledge the site plan as part of the development agreement. The applicant's proposal will have to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to flood plain regulations as well. It appears, as will be reviewed later, that parking, setbacks, access, circulation and landscaping will be appropriate. One of the most critical points is how the proposed use can be screened along the south and southwest portions of the site. G. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PER VIITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT,WITH RESPECT TO SIZE CONFIGURATION,TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? It might be argued that the site is generally unsuited for uses permitted and one might point to the vacant parcel along Brooklyn Boulevard which has remained undeveloped over the years. The use of the property for CEAP might be considered an under utilization of the property and, in some respects, a more intense commercial use such as that in Brooklyn Park might be appropriate. The applicants believe the property is unsuited for uses permitted under the zoning district and should be intensified as they have proposed. H. WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING DISTRICT,WARRANTED BY: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; 2. THE LACK OF DEVELOP ABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT; OR 3. THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY? It is believed that the creation of the PUD/C-2 zoning district in this area provides for flexibility in dealing with redevelopment issues for this site. The proposed development, could be considered in the best interests of the community if it is properly developed. Another matter that needs to be considered is the fact that this proposal is inconsistent with the current City Comprehensive Plan. The land use revisions map contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 1980 and is currently being revised in accordance with requirements in state statute, designated this area for the split zoning designation that it has. That allows C-1, or service/office uses, south of the more intense C-2 uses to the north. This provision in the Comprehensive Plan should be revised if the proposal is to go forward. As indicated, • 10-17-96 Page 5 the Comprehensive Plan is required to be updated and that process is underway. If this proposal is to go forward, clear direction to amend the revised Comprehensive • Plan should be undertaken so that these revisions would be consistent with a newly adopted Comprehensive Plan by the City. I. DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL? The applicants certainly believe their proposal has merits beyond only their interest and the redevelopment of this site may be considered important. The Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council have to make a determination that this proposal does demonstrate merit beyond only the owners interests and that the redevelopment is in the best interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposal calls for the demolition of the old Red Lobster Restaurant building and the building of a new 18,847 sq. ft. building. Fifteen thousand, eight hundred eighty-one (15,881) sq. ft. of the building will be on the main floor and would include two showroom areas at the front of the building, one for new cars and the smaller one for used cars. General office area, customer waiting, parts and rest rooms would also be on the first floor. To the rear of the building is the service area containing a service write-up/reception area and 11 service bays plus one wash bay. • Access to the service bays would be primarily from the north. We have requested that the wash bay with an overhead service door be switched to the north side of the building to keep most of the activity to the north side of the site. The second floor would contain 2,966 sq. ft. and would be for parts storage and a lunch room. Modifications to the CEAP building would allow for four overhead doors on the northerly side of the building which would be used for parts storage, detailing and car clean-up. The site plan shows a connection at this point to the Toyota City dealership to the north. A ES /PARKNG Access to the site would be gained via two accesses off Brooklyn Boulevard. One access to the site would be at the same location that it currently is in the City of Brooklyn Park. The existing southerly access would be moved further to the south to align directly across from the access serving the office building on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard. This would allow the building location to shift further to the south from that where the existing Red Lobster building is now located. Parking for the site is based on a combination of the uses undertaken at the dealership. The 10-17-96 • Page 6 zoning ordinance requires three parking spaces for service bays and one parking space for each . service bay employee. As indicated, there are 11 service bays within the main building and four service bays within the converted CEAP building which would mean 15 service bays plus one wash bay. The applicant has indicated that there would be approximately ten employees on any one shift in the service operation. This would, therefore, require a minimum of 58 parking spaces. The service operation would take up over half of the square footage of the main floor of the new building. Based on a retail parking formula, 44 parking spaces would be required for this use. The second story storage area would require a need for four parking spaces and figuring half of the 6,000 sq. ft. building once it is converted would also be used for storage, would also require four parking spaces. This would require a need for o 110 parking spaces to accommodate the use on the site. Even looking at this site in a conservative manner and requiring parking based on the retail parking formula for the entire 24,928 sq. ft. of building on the site, the parking requirement would be 137. The applicant's plan shows 350 parking spaces on the site and breaks down their perceived need to be 38 customer parking spaces, 35 employee parking spaces, 83 service parking spaces (a total of 156) and 194 display/inventory parking spaces. The site as proposed should accommodate the minimum parking requirements for such a site given our zoning ordinance requirements. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES This site is affected by both wetland and flood plain areas adjacent to Shingle Creek. The wetland has been identified and is delineated at the westerly portion of the site. Their plan shows • the location of two holding ponds. One to the west end of the site and another at the very southeast portion of the site, northerly of Shingle Creek. Their land on the south side of Shingle Creek would be left undisturbed. As indicated, a storm drainage and water management plan will need to be submitted for the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission because this site is a commercial site of more than five acres and also because the property is adjacent to Shingle Creek. The site is already served by existing sewer and water and will be tied into the existing utilities. New storm sewer will need to be installed connecting to the drainage ponds on the site. The City Engineer will be reviewing the drainage and utility plans and may have additional comments for the Commission's review. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan,however, no analysis of the landscape point system has yet been provided. This 7.035 acre site will require 462 landscape points. The applicant's plan seems to provide adequate landscaping but further analysis will need to bo conducted to verify this. They are also proposing to retain, as much as possible, some existing landscaping on the site. • 10-17-96 Page 7 BUILDING The building elevations indicate the exterior to be a combination of rockface concrete block on the lower portion of the building elevations and a scored concrete block for the upper elevations. The showroom areas will have a synthetic fascia and soffit above the glass areas, which will be a combination of one inch thick clear insulating glass and black spandrel glass. Overhead door would be located on the south and north sides of the building leading to the service write-up area and at the rear of the building to exit the service bays. As indicated previously, we have requested that the wash bay and overhead door proposed for the south side of the building be relocated to the north side. The CEAP building would remain the same exterior, which is a concrete block. No indications are provided on the building elevations with respect to the color scheme proposed by the applicant. LIGHTING/TRASH The site plan at this time does not indicate site lighting for the development nor locations for trash dumpsters. Our main concern, as always, is that lighting comply with the provisions of Section 35-712 of the Zoning Ordinance which require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the.property. This section of the ordinance also requries that no glare shall emanate from, or be visible beyond, the boundaries of the premises. No trash enclosure areas are indicated on the site. Any outside trash disposal areas should be . screened from view with a solid screening device compatible with the building. Also any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view either with parapet walls or screening devices on the roof. Another point which should be mentioned is the requirement for screening along the south and southwesterly portions of the site. The City's Zoning Ordinance relating to abutment between C-2 and R-1, R-2 or R-3 property requires a minimum of a 35 ft. buffer area which cannot be used for any purpose other than landscaping and screening. The Shingle Creek greenstrip area provides over 100 ft. of buffering between the proposed parking areas and the property line. Also, the creek area is dense with vegetation. Currently on the site of the off-site parking lot is an 8 ft. high opaque fence which was installed at the time the Red Lobster off-site parking lot was approved for the purpose of screening the parking lot from the residential area. I believe it would be appropriate to consider, even in addition to the buffer and heavy landscaping in the Shingle Creek area, that an 8 ft. high opaque fence or wall be installed all along the proposed parking lot for this site. This should provide adequate screening to shield headlights in the evening and other activities in this automobile dealership that may have an adverse affect on the abutting residential property, even when the heavy landscaping becomes more sparse during the winter months. 10-17-96 • Page 8 PROCEDURE • This PUD/C-2 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 comments. In this case, it would be referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. We have invited advisory group members to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group within the next few weeks for the purpose of a formal review. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350 ft. of the site) and anyone else who desires to be notified, will be informed of the date, time, etc. of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. It should also be noted that State Statutes only give the City 60 days in which to review and make a decision on zoning matters. The Planning Commission has traditionally referred matters to the neighborhood advisory group when appropriate to give input, comment and reaction to rezoning proposals. It has been pointed out to the applicant that they can insist that this matter be acted on by the City Council within 60 days of the date of their filing, however, this would not give the Planning Commission an appropriate time to make a recommendation. We have, therefore, requested and the Planning Commission should assure; that the applicant acknowledge that they are willing to waive this 60 day time frame in lieu of the Planning Commission's • review process. This matter will be expedited and should be back before the Planning Commission within 30 to 60 days so that the matter can be before the City Council in an appropriate time. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have also been sent to neighboring property owners within 350 ft. of the site. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing, and then table the application with the consent and acknowledgment of the applicant and refer it to the Northwest 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 feel is appropriate for their review. • 10-17-96 PaQe 9 z < > > < < O < C < < o < 8 Q >N W ^ v S < W !C J <O < O C N .< Y V1 PLANNING COMMISSION g " APPLICATION NO. 96017 CT. 3. . / ! PERRY Pl. E E. � 4. Bt00KLYN PL. S. VINGARD PL. I 6. OUAIL CIR. 7. QUAIL Cl W. ILk ( '73RD All z; r r r z r72N r �Am, f -_ Mj r 1� j f"AYE. 1S! � AVE. I j Tist.l G/ ' ANE t ' � o' AVE. N. I ' C • � Z 70tH AVE N 70TH: yWE. N. < I _ �,? o 7 70tH. AVE, CD rA r„ t ros> l > .> 'Kyf Lai 4TH. AVE. N. T �_-c ►: - RZ kb 67TH. AVE. N. r�i1 � �: �zl :I v' _. �1 --- 67T8. AvE• __`- � 1 771 \ I \.x. Cet Q 1 I ; ! I I 1 r� I -�--, l i 1 65TH. A . N. 66TH. AVE. N t yINC}�STER LA. 1 1 i ; \v"• �{ a ;1 � I 1 1 � ! yINNESTER U. 65TH. Avg' �" o R.`. Z - H. _ 1 T 1 1 r 65TH AVE ( N . I T—', r—!--r-r- ' I �Y•� r—r-1 I 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, conser•re 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 or 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 flood-way or flood fringe overlav districts and excluding existing rights-of-way, unless tie City fi-ds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 35-355 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser • standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal rastrictions or covenants as may be recessarIy 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 Citv. 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 Diractor 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; c. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; S. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; °. 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 Cit-r. • .5-355 b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent- property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3 . The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be • located; and '�. 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. I 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 des:.,-n or use, and lot coverage of an-, i.^.d1V_C:dl build.—ng has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 perce nt 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. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. CT. 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. 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 i= approved by the Planning Commission after suc . notice and hearing as. may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. • • • I Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1 . Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use • classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning", defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? • C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses 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 • Brookdale Mitsubishi 5353 Wayzata Blvd. 9505 Minneapolis, MN 55416 September 19, 1996 Mr. Ronald A. Warren Planning and Zoning Specialist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 RE: Brooklyn Center Mitsubishi - PUD Submittal Dear Mr. Warren: With this letter we transmit our design package submittal for Planned Unit Development approval to construct an approximately 18,000 square foot automobile dealership on the subject property. We have acquired all four of • the parcels shown on the attached survey and have an agreement with CEAP to lease them their former building for a short period of time in order to facilitate their relocation, after which time the building will be converted to accommodate automotive parts storage and car clean-up functions related to the neighboring Toyota City dealership which is under related ownership. We have chosen the PUD process in lieu of rezoning three of the four parcels to C-2 from C-1 to accommodate the City's need to limit the type of development permitted on the property in order to protect the neighboring R zoning district from incompatible future redevelopment, Our proposed development offers the City of Brooklyn Center many benefits including the following: The proposed redevelopment of a long abandoned restaurant building and an adjacent parcel which has previously been unsuccessfully offered for development. Assembly and combination of four small relatively undevelopable parcels into one reasonable sized parcel . Elimination of the CE-AP property access road spur which currently divides the other three parcels. • Letter to R. Warren September 19, 1996 Page 2 Re-aligning the current CEAP access curb cut with the opposite curb cut across Brooklyn Boulevard as per the request of Hennepin County Transportation Division. Improved water quality by providing necessary water purification ponding as required by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. An attractive, modern, well landscaped building in place of an odd combination of small , inefficient, disconnected parcels. In addition to the aforementioned benefits, the proposed development site offers the following advantage: Shingle Creek is an obvious physical delineation between business districts and residential districts. The creek offers a natural physical buffer be- tween the proposed development and the neighboring R zoning district. The creek also provides a minimum 100' natural green buffer, thus greatly re- ducing the impact of the proposed development on the neighboring zoning district. The proposed development is consistent and logical as the current use from the subject parcel north to Regent Avenue are all similar businesses, thus • adding to the critical mass and generating greater success for all the businesses. In conclusion, our proposal represents a beneficial and appropriate development, combining and utilizing four disparate parcels in an attractive, efficient and logical way. We look forward to the cooperation of the City of Brooklyn Center and moving ahead with our project. Respectfully submitted, Ted Terp • e M '44 3 1 It . Vil IF ., s '� d',� / i♦ r i d�WWI W , i• t ,�i "',iii t t i n r r ry!!: ►r41 J ; ' ' �+ ,�1��1�,1 i' �! ff�� ` T l ► i ' w�llrl " J m 3 'a CC cn at 9911.0.0 N It ♦ N ♦ O � �� p •� \w r O = rl. t � r � if � � � r �l�fl(I! V• I l cc o mi f 1 N ♦ —f l/y/• 'u/lh iii 16 Ij Are up i / j\\ll\V\� tlllti�,stl�iff oil 1 • • • 'I Z:.l EI _ �.,oa C � I rk., I Ll � I I i r I 1 � � 1 I �■� � r r � _ t/4 14 tic 15 All E t l � t ,E • I 6 ! a • � � i`�� f ! o e 3 1 1 � ' , V p ,� 01 { . 2 CL �`o v �� tS 1:1 1 ► Iti . 0523 Ht!! C W it all. •. I '�• � I I s .00,� ,• , , fl t 1 � ® r 1[ i r --- `® ; i; I b : I / / 4 I /- � t Q� ++gig yN ; a ew C to • Ott / � . ,� ,- f i I I$; % §s L , ., Mali I tte C f moll o ' • 3 L ; �•� i t�lt � C�` I Ali . ft Al • ' • i C 6 , trlit ir i R t 6 Z lj fit; � i�� f ' r t t �� W O j c - _ = jog`'- ■s a 1a N:J :. ?� _ t Zff }tat <ac e 1•: 1 �. it Al \�\ z�1• .l �: '.r•!� air';'" I I R iii : :ii:� f":• i it Ail jjilo i P'n p I Z r � � • � I <zi B 0 i 3� 'rd's •.\'•'® —="==_== I ` r ii a CL. k+ c x•41 < �� J ( I7 € a . I � I 5 4` 1 1 r t r � � y 1 w 2 4 r T 1111• t i I I a uj el 1 I I I ! i I 1 I I N w ►i w w 1 o-: � C o- ! �Do i viol I ' Ol 0 o- i IIIIII � 11010: f IIII !! 1 • � .I 111 !I ( II �jl � �° i Jill Il !r� ��n1 << fills c Ammk a • G � L°' i C i I it I i i i ; I I I I i I ; I I I I !f I i I Ii:ll I 1 UI 11 � � F y a Illttll It U m .�, 3 �Y i • • • v = p • • i a I� �� , I c a r S at list .! 1 �e go < ii I ; s 1 O m W < j1 it .e a '1 fait # 1' i F ---------------------------------------- ----��- jI�t� s I I • I JIM i M _ 1' I is Ii • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No: 96019 Applicant: Landform Engineering Company Location: North Side of Freeway Boulevard, Westerly of Schmitt Music Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the 13.09 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Freeway Boulevard,westerly of the Schmitt Music site. The property is the site of the proposed T. G. I. Friday's Restaurant, an 85 unit Country Inn and Suites Hotel and a future, yet undetermined,250 seat restaurant all of which were approved recently under Planning Commission Application No. 96012. The property under consideration was recently rezoned to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) and is bounded on the north by Shingle Creek and the Shingle Creek greenstrip easement area; on the east by the Schmitt Music property; on the south by Freeway Boulevard with I-94 right-of-way on the opposite side; and on the west by the Shingle Creek Plaza II office/industrial building. The current legal description of the property is Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1377. The new legal description is proposed to be Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,Friday's Addition. The purpose of the subdivision is to create three legal lots based on the three separate uses of the site. The lot • lines would be irregularly shaped so as to contain adequate parking for each of the separate uses and to also divide the existing wetland and flood plain area proportionately between the three properties. Lot 1,which is the site of the T. G. I. Friday's Restaurant, is proposed to be 3.96 acres in area. Lot 2,which is the site of the 85 unit Country Inn and Suites is proposed to be 5.30 acres in area. Lot 3,which is the site of the 250 seat, yet undetermined restaurant, is proposed to be 3.82 acres in area. The proposed plat, based on the approved site plan and access to the site, will require the need for appropriate cross access and parking agreements. However,this proposal will not require the need for an off-site accessory parking special use permit like the Rainbow proposal,because there will be adequate parking provided on each of the three lots to meet their own parking requirements independent of each other. See the parking summary provided showing the breakdown of parking spaces for both of the sites. This site has received Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval based on the previous review of the site at the time of the planned unit development approval process. No further reviews are necessary with the plat. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat submitted and may offer additional written • 10-17-96 Page 1 comments for the Planning Commission's consideration. A public hearing has been scheduled and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 3. Appropriate cross access and parking agreements, as determined by the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to final plat approval and be filed with Hennepin County as part of the final plat. • 10-17-96 Page 2 •�� Il -yam "` � C Rs s 1 r=i iii �'•,c� CITY / 5 I i �• a - I ► i , , fti �``� A PLANNING COMMISSION - I APPLICATION NO. 96019 MAY sm AVIL X. ( 02 PC Y � I I I/ �.• .,� �."". are N� .;• � � Igo cm x3 II ( IIII11111 �( i • • I I `• � x Ell i ! 1 v / III I m . f i 11 i I I I I I I I �' ,� ,fix ` ` � • � :% r`r'' 1 / ,, of ► I I I I I I " c2 ,+ I�!c.' � � II iII ► X' i RT.,1 a CIA CIA W i I I I I sari I"vE: ►v: I i "" '�01 CL � i I { 1 •� / uaw�Y t W )Z WAVUE 4A X PIL 02 Ile I 3 .Y, = r X11 IA �� Lv:. 1 Rs C2 I , PUdMT=NAM 24 mum 1 • 0, sc \ J r'fl y > 6bT 4dL > > G I� 10 O IWi O O y 10 O a N iNaNa �iN ••j � INn � iNNINN INi/yWN I;�)VYW i�1 iN I/YNN r Nlq FF t t lal � � • s ri lit t lei � ! ! ° �1j ° ° ! r4 • 1 b Z / Q - / C+, CM uj ' r Ti 2 0 fix 8 � � _ _ 30 81 M $ it wd ; d � o €3 igm 0 i C7 fi as p :g 8e; _ �9 on ccG� ° Q i$ ig,n a. S �e o° c • �a�°a o� n7 Q v° •_ � o_° E m$ C) 0 n u °_ °" o _. ; ° u �. Z S = and pE r wa;o• W c Y r s: `n: '� wy 1 0= of 3T.^ g 10 u W = .5� a _ EZS .5e fi a..�io.v i �v "s W • Qil=< � •� pa. �.�'n .SO $ < wSo' T < $ Z C7 = $R °fin ° F5°5 °� ° — i7�R i �ci�� L;Nii rs�ij W cr.:a c °°c: •" ' oaE•O a° m• Y° Vi �j �`• .3..<.�2 � °e : a;C .S a iS if o.^ $^. Cj vt 1+ c i e o' �. • Loo eA v s�Is "a 3"i°` •v W� _ c ....n C_rtlO 4 �L p J O y 0 �� • • •.i 'cc "vJ 1 V° O O..C e GOO+ 0• •C J 1 w 7 -�� LL v w o u * T O -O..0 S .Sam v• Z - QZ4 w .�.o•� J O go • %�O�`a .QW J e. e3w a S"°' P�_' °eecv°a EE ea COS W s�sv ax.s s�aao� �—° as ci —$ a "o ;2:�" °°°_� c •$ ¢' =ovn moo ° <` ?8€8a (1C C � Y•0 w _ lV /1 � .f b n T o C Y.O= W Z O CO op r f �qll i Q �q fl pi�g A •,0 LL a. ` - �l, ! a. w A� !}/ c =� to Ik In oe eel e � 8• y S P• a .� _