Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 12-12 PCP . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DECEMBER 12, 1996 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes -November 14, 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. Brookdale Mitsubishi 96017 Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval from C2 to 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. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment I • i � i 1 1 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 consists of the property addressed as 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center and a small triangular parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park which is adjacent to this property. The rezoning proposal is for a PUD/C-2 designation for this site. The property 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 a small triangular shaped parcel of land, 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 ReMax 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. This property is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and C-1 (Service/Office) and contains the site of the former 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; the site of the Community Emergency Assistance Program(CEAP), which contains a 6,081 sq. ft. building and an access road leading from the building to Brooklyn Boulevard and is addressed as 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard; and a vacant 1.409 acre parcel of land addressed as 7233 Brooklyn Boulevard, which is located between the Red Lobster off-site parking lot and Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of the access road leading to CEAP. All of the parcels listed above have been acquired and Brookdale Mitsubishi plans, if the PUD proposal is approved, to demolish the Red Lobster building to be replaced by a new automobile showroom, office and service center. They also 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 in Brooklyn Park. Brookdale Mitsubishi has acquired the CEAP building and has an agreement with them to lease back their former building for up to one year in order to allow CEAP the time to find a new site to relocate. Once the building is vacant, Brookdale Mitsubishi would convert it for its use. Automobile sales and service are special uses in the City's C-2 (Commerce) zoning district. These uses are not comprehended under the C-1 (Service/Office) 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 has proposed to pursue their request for the automobile dealership 12-12-96 Page 1 through the Planned Unit Development process and is seeking rezoning based on a site development plan to a PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) zoning designation. Such a zoning designation would allow the proposed use through a development agreement between the City and Brookdale Mitsubishi outlining the conditions, development restrictions and limitations involved with their proposal. A Planned Unit Development proposal involves rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides 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 a Planned Unit Development 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 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 which are contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the commission's review. The applicant, Mr. Ted Terp, 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 applicant.has also submitted a set of site and building plans, which were reviewed by the Planning , Commission at the October 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. A modification has been made to the site plan during review of the plans with the neighborhood affected by the rezoning proposal. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to the Planning Commission Information Sheet of October 17, 1996 which is attached and which contains the review and analysis of the applicant's proposal and the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in the ordinance. HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION This application was considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 17, 1996 at which time the applicant's proposal, their comments regarding how they believe their proposal meets the City's rezoning evaluation review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 and how they believe their proposal is consistent with Section 35-355 regarding Planned Unit 1 Developments were reviewed. The Planning Commission reviewed the application,the applicant's comments, and opened a public hearing at which time public input was taken. A number of people appeared and spoke with respect to the application. The majority of people in attendance resided in the Creek Villa townhomes, which are to the south of this site. Concerns were expressed regarding undesirable noise associated with the proposed use, lighting and its 12-12-96 Page 2 cM a potential adverse affects, traffic and the problems experienced by neighbors of cars being test driven on the Creek Villa private streets from existing automobile dealerships in the area and the general concern with respect to aesthetics of an automobile dealership. (See copy of the Planning Commission minutes from October 17, 1996 relating to this Planning Commission application, attached.) The Planning Commission took action to table consideration of this application and to continue the public hearing and directed the matter for further review and comment from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met on two occasions, November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996 to review this matter. Copies of the minutes from these Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings are attached for the Commission's review. At the November 7 meeting the proposal was reviewed and public comment was taken. Because no members of the Northwest Neighborhood Group were able to attend that meeting, it was suggested that another meeting of the group be scheduled and was finally established for November 26, 1996. One Neighborhood Advisory Group member was able to attend the November 26 meeting at which time a somewhat revised plan to provide additional screening on the south portion of the proposed dealership site was presented and discussed. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the minutes from the November 26, 1996 Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. Because only one member was present, no recommendation was developed by the advisory group. Therefore, the comments of the neighborhood are presented to the Planning Commission without a recommendation from the advisory group. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which eliminates 56 parking spaces along the southeasterly side of the site so that an additional landscaped area and an approximate 8 ft. high earthen berm can be established. They propose to plant 8 ft. high Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine trees along the top of this berm to provide additional screening of this site for the townhouses on the south side of the creek. They have also provided a cross sectional diagrammatic plan showing site lines from the townhouses to the proposed dealership location and the affect of such a berm and plantings. As indicated, this revised plan would eliminate 56 parking spaces from the previous plan. Given the proposed 24,928 sq. ft. of building on the site (18,000 sq. ft. automotive sale and service building and a 6,000 plus sq. ft. CEAP building which would be converted to Mitsubishi use) a parking requirement of 110 parking spaces would be needed to accommodate the uses on the site. Even looking at this site in a conservative manner and requiring parking based on the retail parking formula, a total of 137 parking spaces would need to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide a total of 294 parking spaces, which breaks down to his perceived need for 36 customer parking spaces, 34 employee parking spaces and 91 service parking spaces with the balance of 133 parking spaces for display/inventory parking. The site, as proposed, should accommodate the minimum parking requirements given our zoning ordinance requirements. 12-12-96 Page 3 GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES This site is affected by both wetland and floodplain areas adjacent to Shingle Creek. The drainage and ponding plans have been submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for review, and, it is my understanding, that they have been approved subject to some standard conditions imposed by the Watershed District. Their drainage plans show 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. LANDSCAPIN G The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the City's landscape point system. Approximately 30 Austrian Pine and Scotch Pine are provided on the 8 ft. high berm now proposed for the south portion of the site. Four-hundred and sixty two landscape points are required for this seven plus acre site. The landscape plan submitted indicates 616 landscape points based on the landscape point system. Twelve Green Ash are provided in various places around the perimeter of the site. Decorative trees such as Amur Maple, Serviceberry and two Hawthorn are located in the greenstrip areas and around the building. Numerous shrubs (over 270) such as Cotoneaster, Spirea, Yew and Viburnum are located primarily around the buildings. The commission may wish to review further the south portion of the site to see if any additional screening should be required where this property abuts with R-3 zoned property to the southwest. ' The screening provided with the berm and coniferous tree screening appears to do a good job with respect to the homes in the Creek Villa townhome complex immediately to the south. Other 1 townhomes in the Unity Place Co-op in particular are a long way away from this property, but may still need some screening from parking lots and activity areas. A screened fence in this location might be appropriate. PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDATION The public hearing for this PUD/C-2 rezoning and site and building plan has been continued until Thursday, December 12, 1996. As indicated previously, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group has made no recommendation with respect to this application but has forwarded its record of the review to the Planning Commission.- We have sent notices to those required to receive notice of this zoning proposal, in addition to persons in the Creek Villa homeowners association, which have requested to be so notified. The Planning Commission should take action to request additional input and comment regarding the proposal and then close the public hearing for 1 deliberation. The key to the Planning Commission's consideration of this matter is the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions and procedures in Section 35-355 regarding Planned Unit Developments also 12-12-96 Page 4 4+ contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant contends that his development proposal is in the best interest of the community as a whole given their ability to redevelop and to fully utilize this site which has been abandoned, and in one case never developed. They believe this proposal would provide an appropriate development use of the property that could be in the best interest of the community. The Commission's attention is again directed to the Planning Commission Information Sheet from October 17, 1996 relating to the applicant's arguments and the staff comments with respect to this proposal. This proposal could be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is properly developed in a manner that the Planning Commission believes is appropriate. The reason this proposal is being pursued under the PUD process is because it allows the City Council ultimately the flexibility to approve an automobile service operation to abut an R-3 zoned property given what must be determined to be appropriate screening and separation. The points of contention raised by persons, particularly in the Creek Villa homeowner's association, regarding noise, light, traffic and aesthetics are important. The applicant believes he has responded to all of these concerns and has submitted a revised plan to provide what is believed to be better screening and an appropriate layout. Again, the Commission's attention is directed to the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. All rezoning requests must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and not constitute"spot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. A matter that needs to be considered and resolved, and can be resolved if the Commission believes the proposal is appropriate and in the best interest of the community, is of the current inconsistency of this proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The land use revisions map contained in the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1980 designates this area for the split zoning designation that it currently has. That allows C-1, or service/office uses, south of the more intense C-2 use to the north. This provision in the Comprehensive Plan must be revised if the proposal is to go forward. If the Commission believes the plan is appropriate, it must direct that the Comprehensive Plan be revised during the updating process that is currently underway. If this proposal is to go forward, clear direction to amend the revised Comprehensive Plan should be undertaken so that the revisions would be consistent with a newly adopted Comprehensive Plan by the City. If, on the other hand, the Commission believes this proposal to be inappropriate, a recommendation should be made to the City Council that the proposal is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and should site the rationale for it and base any recommended denial on the fact of this inconsistency. Planned Unit Development proposals are an appropriate way to carry forward changes and to recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The key issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not this rezoning proposal, under the Planned Unit Development process and the development plans and subsequent development agreement, protect all interests in a manner that 12-12-96 Page 5 is in the best interest of the community. The Commission should be prepared to discuss and deliberate this matter for purposes of making a recommendation to the City Council. I have prepared two draft resolutions regarding the disposition of this application for the Planning Commission's consideration. One draft resolution recommends a favorable disposition of this application to the City Council and outlines the reasons and rationale for such a recommendation. This resolution is dependent on a strong indication to revise the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with respect to the updating of the plan. The second draft resolution recommends against this proposal and is also offered for the Commission's consideration. The basis for the recommended denial is the inconsistency of this proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the fact that the Planning Commission strongly recommends the continued use of this property to provide a buffer from the more intense commercial uses to the north. 12-12-96 Page 6 Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 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. 3 uid lines 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 V 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: I 35-355 r 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. I 35-355 e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires quires 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: I. 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 1 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. ".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; 1 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 an site zoned PUD the developer shall Y � p 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. • s 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 7223 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 I 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 71st 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 Page 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 PERMITTED 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. WELL 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. ACCESS/PARKING 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 zoning i 10-17-96 Page 6 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/UTILITIE 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. 1 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. PROCEDURE 10-17-96 Page 8 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. 1 10-17-96 Page 9 • • � s Z < p cm 0 U' PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96017 ; C. E. � I r 3, PERRY PL. E. / \ t. BROCKLYW PL. I S TINGARD PL. 6. QUAIL CIR. 7. OWL CI Y. I TW AVE S OR. _ / : • �D LA. M 1 1 {yI r 72N0 1 ° IS rri A% TISTJ 1 (/ AVE 1 r 1 AVC, N, z Ilium Al SO+CY>r > 1 OH 1 I I m' R5 42 I , AVE 1 ' i ? 70TH N 70TH' 'r1VE. N. I 70TH. AVE, x - „- CA rn 7� t m i M? I A i<< 1 W ; 65TH. A . N. 1 1 65TH N. � 65tH. AVE. N, 8 o I. m —. -� - T• 11 j C Ls rh t r 11 ^ 11 1 I N HO I T- --�--T-� ti'E LA. - 1 I ill 1T? � ' '� VIII Itl ' I I 16TH. AYi. N. I ' ~_ r -_ 661}1.- AVE. N. _ 1 I I I I , i� rIOfS-T ER I ( l . � I 1 1 i I I WINO ST.R_LA. ! V I i OI I I I I t 651}1. AVF• N. I_ �� �_ I i 657H I AVE •era`S3M/d�• +.. � s p' +` hot 'ilk !grip, Af 1 \ Inv o W + � E• ! isl , ! ♦ t 1 Or it gg �4 - 1 11I1J1 eolct y � � � � f ♦ � � ��G♦ %ii%d; drl�n I j 1 W i ♦ , ,/, , .14.40.0 N ri c7,Jay,, :131 d� :tl ♦ c \� �x+f A1 J R� � ml j , a ♦ _f, it It , •.!d � � E I t fill i 133! •j 1�i/ruj y�i .•}ear.....�i� • • s � , ! �lzf� Ile r Cl:3 3 ;f � `�•:•.� x e r 1 / 1 • a0r' I 1 ' r G 3 I a i i ' r Y I • \ �! � 3F : v C 1 I ; + I � + r E' / e�E r tI + T - / Ar �4 I Vo 1 ff I I t Z � W u I I li i I v. I � ; r .' o r i Cl ' o .ROI, I I � � i. I � I � I ' i �. • s � Z(� I ��' d gip: �`�: :: <W i_��� _ • ' .11 fil E Ott � •• , �z�t• r c { r' I X •j . -Sid I i t E I sill T r i Ott� � ft Al r s I I I , ah All ski A• f a � , zol La . 0. �r 5 �z: l ' Ii �W Is -0 53 =� k3 ! }� 1�'j1 I <m 0 y , • . .r v i r.. j.ar'•N• t r a •'r• Och: r + a +► ! � � , j rIS , I e i 7qr •/,I,, `r:r:rl• • � _ .;,, ,'i: a::{ice �`��: %.r. i a if oil all li lltrAf, �i1.4 /i �i•t�� i i i j11 if rte_ ifi i e \\�y�' � /j�'7s tit%/I/• Y Al • s ' y3 L J I 7 = r Z assaae§a3�= . �.rEilS�K:•SI i t1 y I ' i� I 1 __ 3 Its, i o �� �R��� v s � f� — P ' E o � I m a • I O l i i 1 I f ' •�o --"arc—�`t . 1 1 � 1 1 zl UA . - I • a 1 Gin • ,' -, �; s� Is W 1 I i � 1 It a I II 0 1 i I ! ! 1 I , , ��IIIIIIIIIII� cc- �t ! { II � ! I n ! I a I Y I v 1 �;„' r 1 ,ti„ !� �_� j l 1`i 1 j � ♦ I jl: 1111 ♦ O � , � �'S1 a I r IL � iits j g ! << ® . 4 0 4 � o W a Y �i :!l�:r• S kD S o 1 I ! I I I I I I I ' I I I I 1 I t luq i aai u � E I i ® a rim r_y3 8 r* j E I ( L ter» t i �. Z 7 d �F� ;l� t`f ' 1 ; fit U d Y Nw I m j I j 1 ' 1 �1 - 1 ' I ------ -- --- ' n ' s � I I I t I I IJI Ei 7jg !j fI� U Z li c S! � a a W q ;■/ t CL. U , a yr }I ■ to _ at 0. m `" �fill� cc CL a , //� /.,; ti � I � • may / // i •�� I , 1 / 1 1 A 1 1 'f ��► \0 i I � 1 i �` I err •� � ' ' Revise p 4 * (( W V fID a ox �\\Mm F i , 1 it i i J{9 i t r i 9 .X N l� $yy it p C 3 N � V P tarL 4 J • i 1 r _ w mill V r �Y y..yy. nCIID�iiiijj. fig s i fit s C i s g b tFf9S ''>Y • �' * � g�g i�� � �Q 3Y s lie 11 HIS if P 4 6 � fill ' ill $ j d J Jill rill! a it r — Y — � Ta i �- 1 e Rullsa la n • • s Brookdale Mitsubishi 5353 Wayzata Blvd. #505 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 . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96017 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of 7.035 acres of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi dealership and the use of an existing 6,081 sq. ft. building for associated uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October 17, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received and reviewed with the Planning Commission continuing the public hearing and referring the application to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group because of a lack of a quorum made no recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding this application but offered instead minutes relating to the comments received from interested persons and the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on December 12, 1996 received an additional staff report and took further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. That the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is currently being updated, be revised , during this process so that the land use designation map designate the area under consideration as being appropriate for a general commerce use rather than the split commerce and service/office designation that it currently has. 2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered to be compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance, given the revision to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to, and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 4. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will, with the exception of allowing automobile repair adjacent to R-3 zoned property, conform with City ordinance standards and is justified on the basis of the development plan submitted containing extraordinary screening of the site including a large earthen berm and coniferous trees which should diminish any impact on surrounding land uses. 5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal appear to be a good utilization of the property under consideration in that it allows for a reasonable redevelopment of the property in a unified manner containing appropriate buffering and screening. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 96017 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans area subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. • 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing s stem to meet the NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 10. The applicant is subject to the requirements and regulations of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to this site. The storm drainage system shall be acceptable to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the applicant shall comply with any conditions imposed by the body prior to the issuance of permits. • 11. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and files with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 12. The plans submitted shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to be consistent with the revised plan showing and 8 ft. high earthen berm and landscape treatment. Said plans, which must be modified, include the drainage and utility plan, the site lighting plan, and any other plan showing the site and building proposed with this project. 13. The applicant has agreed to not use any outdoor public address system for paging employees on the site. 14. The property should be replatted into a single parcel with the triangular piece of property located in Brooklyn Park being dedicated to this site through a legal encumbrance. Said plat should receive final approval by the City Council and be filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge the use of this site as an automobile sales and service dealership as proposed under the development plans and shall acknowledge all previously stated conditions of approval and assure compliance with development • plans submitted by the applicant. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96017 SUBMITTED BY BROOKI) MITSUBISHI WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of 7.035 acres of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. Mitsubishi dealership and the use of an existing 6,081 sq. ft. building for associated uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October 17, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received and reviewed with the Planning Commission continuing the public hearing and • referring the application to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on November 7, 1996 and November 26, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group because of a lack of a quorum made no recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding this application but offered instead minutes relating to the comments received from interested persons and the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on December 12, 1996 received an additional staff report and took further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning • Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 96017 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi be denied in light of the following considerations: 1. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. 2. Because of this inconsistency, the proposal is contrary to the City's rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which requires that all zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Because of the inconsistency mentioned in No. 1 above, the proposal is also contrary to the general standards for Planned Unit Developments contained in Section 35-355, Subdivision 4c of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4, The Planning Commission believes the existing land use designation of G1 and C-2 is the appropriate use of the land in question and is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications. 5. The subject property is best suited for uses permitted in the existing zoning classifications. 6. The applicant has not demonstrated with his development plan that the Planned Unit Development proposal is in the best interest of the community. 7. The Planning Commission does not recommend any changes with respect to land use designations in the City's Comprehensive Plan during the updating of the Comprehensive Plan which is currently underway. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.