The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 06-25 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER June 25, 1998 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1998 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Centres Group Brooklyn Center, LTD 98015 • Request for rezoning and site and building plan a pproval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 20 screen theater at the northwest quadrant of I-694 and TH252 6. Centres Group Brooklyn Center, LTD 98016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval to combine nine privately owned properties plus a City owned parcel of land, vacated street right-of-way and excess MN/DOT right-of- way into four lots at the northwest quadrant of I-694 and TH252. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment _ _ r • • Application Filed On 5/28/98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7/27/98 (60 days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98015 Applicant: Centres Group Brooklyn Center,LTD Location: Property Located South of 66th Avenue North, East of Camden Avenue North, and North and West of Interstate 694 and TH252 (Except for the SuperAmerica property) 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 85,000 sq. ft., 4,696 seat, 20 screen theater on a 584,933 sq. ft. (13.43 acre) site located northwesterly of Interstate 694 and TH252. The proposal also comprehends the creation of three other sites,ranging in size from approximately 53,000 sq. ft. to 72,000 sq. ft., for future commercial development, most likely restaurant uses. The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce)and is 778,467 sq. ft. in area(17.87 acres). It is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue and the SuperAmerica site; on the east by • TH252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the west by Camden Avenue. The applicant has acquired or has obtained options on all of the properties in question and is seeking to acquire a parcel owned by the City which is located at the southeast corner of 65th Avenue and North Lilac Drive. He is also seeking to acquire and has requested the vacation of 65th Avenue North from Camden to North Lilac as well as North Lilac between Camden and 65th Avenue which is owned in part by the City of Brooklyn Center and MN/DOT. Also, a portion of the south end of Camden Avenue is being sought to be incorporated into this project. The reason for the requested PUD zoning is the extent of the applicants proposal and also the request to seek parking for the theater on the basis of one parking space for every four seats as opposed to the one parking space for every three seats required in the City's zoning ordinance. The requested rezoning is to PUD/C-2.(Planned Unit Development/Commerce). Motion picture theaters are special uses in the C-2 zoning district, provided they do not abut R-1,R-2 or R-3 zoned districts including abutment at a street line. The way the theater and adjacent lots are proposed (see preliminary plat under Application No. 98016)there will not be any prohibited abutment between the theater site and the adjacent residential property. The theater is,therefore, an allowable use under the underlying C-2 zone. Because of the need for a different parking formula, the applicant is proposing to pursue this request through the Planned Unit Development process and is seeking rezoning based on a site and development plan to a PUD/C-2 zoning designation. Such a zoning designation could allow the proposed parking ratio through a finding and a development agreement. • 6-25-98 Page 1 As the Commission is aware, 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 the 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 on site parking on a less restrictive basis than currently required in the zoning ordinance. 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. The applicant has submitted a written statement regarding their proposal along with comments as to how they believe their proposal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. Their written submission indicates that Regal Cinemas and its regional developer, Centres Group, LTD of Minneapolis are involved in a joint development with TOLD • Development Company of Minneapolis to redevelop this approximate 17 acre site. Centres would use approximately 14 acres of the property to construct the theater and off street parking needed with TOLD being responsible for the development of the remaining three properties in the immediate area. The theater proposed would be a state of the art mega-plex with full stadium seating in all auditoriums. They indicate that their project will meet all of the City's requirements for zoning, set backs, green spaces, etc. but that they need the PUD proposal in order to provide theater parking on a one parking space per four seat ratio rather than the required one parking space for three seats and to also qualify as a special use which theaters are under the underlying C-2 zoning district. The applicant goes on to note that their proposed redevelopment would be a consolidation of nine privately owned properties and would require purchasing a small City owned lot, plus seeking reconveyance by the City of all those parts of street rights-of-way for 65th Avenue, North Lilac Drive and the southerly end of Camden Avenue. Also they are seeking City cooperation in obtaining turnback of excess right-of-way along the east and south sides of the site from MN/DOT. Negotiations with the State are underway as well as negotiations with the City to acquire the properties mentioned above. They also note that the current site is used as a mixture of older, under performing businesses, several small businesses of varying types and some older single family homes all of which would be consolidated into the theater proposal and surrounding commercial development. • 6-25-98 Page 2 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 principles. 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 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 indicates that their proposal would create multiple benefits to the City including placing tax exempt City owned vacant land and under used street right-of-way property back on the tax rolls; replacement of existing low tax base real estate with higher base new facilities, creating additional increment to the existing TIF district; generating additional patronage to existing local businesses and creating sales tax revenues far in excess of those now generated on the site; creating a landmark property on the site which currently appears under used and deteriorating. They claim the vitality of the theater facade and view lines from all roadways introduces a prominent new feature to the City streetscape at the main gateway to the City. It is the staff's opinion that such a redevelopment could be considered a public benefit as • the applicant has indicated if it indeed balances the business needs of the community and it is not anticipated to be a detriment to the community but, on the other hand,be a positive factor providing the benefits that the applicant has outlined. B. IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? We believe, as will be noted later in the report, that the proposed development can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. Commercial development will be taking place on the north side of 66th Avenue with a relocated dental office and a Holiday Station Store being proposed. Townhomes are located also on the opposite side of 66th Avenue and we believe the proposed development can be considered compatible with that utilization of property. Melrose Gates is located to the west of Camden and will share frontage on Camden Avenue with the proposed developments. A traffic study, by Short-Elliot-Hendrickson(SEH), had been conducted last summer contemplating major redevelopment in this area and also the Holiday development. We have requested SEH to update its traffic analysis given the proposed theater development and potential accompanying restaurant uses. They will be analyzing the traffic impact of the development proposal and potential roadway, traffic signal and other traffic related needs. All in all we believe the site layout, landscape plan, 6-25-98 Page 3 parking and other physical features can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses as will be shown later in the report. C. CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? We believe that all permitted uses and proposed uses can be contemplated for development in the proposed Planned Unit Development district if this proposal is accepted. The underlying zoning district is C-2 which allows the biggest variety of commercial uses within the City Zoning Ordinance. There may be some uses which the City might determine to be inappropriate and a listing of those uses could be provided in the development agreement. Uses such as a fast food restaurant or a gasoline service station/convenience store have been prohibited in other Planned Unit Developments within the City and maybe it would be appropriate to restrict these developments in this PUD as well.: There may be other uses which would be considered inappropriate which could also be sited. Although the applicant has indicated the likely development on the other parcels of a restaurant use, no approval of those uses is part of this Planned Unit Development. Any other uses which might be comprehended can only be allowed through an amendment to the Planned Unit Development process and those plans will have to be submitted for review at a future date. D. HAVE THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING • CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? There have been no physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area. The City, however, has sought to have a major redevelopment in this area which would provide a major focal point at this very visible portion of the City which has been called at times a"gateway" not only to the City of Brooklyn Center but to the entire northwest suburban area. This proposal seems to meet that objective. ' 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. F. WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT? We believe the subject property can fully bear the ordinance development restrictions for the Planned Unit Development based on findings which would need to be made by the 6-25-98 Page 4 City in 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 need to be reviewed by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission and is subject to other regulations as well. They are seeking a different parking formula for theaters and the applicant has provided information to make a case for a different parking formula given the size of the theater and their experiences with such theaters at other locations. It should be noted that the City does have an alternate parking formula for places of public assembly that are located in commercial shopping centers over 50,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area. The parking requirement for a motion picture theater in such a situation would be one parking space for every four seats, the same as being requested by the applicant. As the plan review will show, the applicant can meet all of the other requirements of the City's zoning regulations for development and those matters should be expected as well. G. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT,WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION,TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? We don't believe that it can be argued that the site is generally unsuited for uses permitted in the C-2 (Commerce) zoning district. That is why the C-2 designation is the underlying zoning designation in this planned unit development. But given the potential impacts of this major redevelopment and future commercial uses of the additional properties, we believe the best way for controlling such a redevelopment is through this • Planned Unit Development process. Again, any modifications,new development proposals or the anticipated use of the other sites as restaurants will require a Planned Unit Development amendment and a development agreement as a basis for such development to proceed. This does give the City some additional control over potential developments that may not be appropriate in this area. 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? 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. We believe the proposed development could be considered to be in the best interests of the community if it is properly developed. The proposal is certainly not inconsistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan which recommends an intense commercial development in this area. The PUD rezoning is not considered a major change in the zoning of the property as the C-2 district is the underlying zoning district for uses and development restrictions. This does give the City what is considered the needed flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment of this entire area. And again, We believe this proposal can be considered • 6-25-98 Page 5 to be in the best interests of the City if properly developed along with appropriate traffic • analysis and findings that the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the development needs. I. DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL? The proposal does appear to have merit beyond only the interests of a particular property owner and will lead to an upgrading of the site in this area. The applicants note that the project allows the City a redevelopment completely administered by the private sector creating revenues and tax generation far in excess of the existing uses,with a cornerstone project visible to all freeway users and yet convenient to community residents. We do not argue with that characterization. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The applicant's proposal calls for the eventual demolition of the Lynbrook Bowl, Schwalenberg Interiors, the Lynbrook Auto Body Shop, the Beacon Bowl and three single family homes located at the northeast corner of 65th and Camden Avenues North. Nine parcels will be consolidated along with the right-of-way that the applicant is seeking to be vacated which has been previously been mentioned(65th Avenue North,North Lilac Drive and a small portion of • Camden Avenue)and the City owned property at the southeast corner of 65th and North Lilac. The proposal again calls for the development of an 85,240 sq. ft. Regal Cinema theater seating 4,696 persons in 20 theaters containing stadium seating. The theater itself would be located in the westerly portion of the 13.43 acre site proposed for the theater use. The building would be located approximately midway between the I694 right-of-way on the south and 66th Avenue on the north. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site would be gained via two access points off of Camden Avenue North, one to the north of the building and the other to the south end of the building where a cul-de-sac would be provided, terminating the Camden Avenue right-of-way northerly of its present connection with North Lilac Drive. The applicant is seeking agreement with the owner of the Melrose Gates apartment complex to allow access over the applicants property to the proposed cul-de-sac from the southerly most access point to Melrose Gates. It is our understanding that this entrance is not utilized to any great extent but the cross access will never the less be pursued keeping open the option to access the site at that point. The northerly access to the theater site is divided by a median at the entrance from Camden Avenue,while the southerly access will be off the proposed cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will also serve as access to a proposed future site located south of the theater building. • 6-25-98 Page 6 The plan seems to provide for 1,199 parking spaces based on a review of the parking count while the site plan indicates a total of 1,174 stalls. This again is based on a projected one parking space for every four seats. The applicant has submitted a parking analysis entitled Multi-Theater Parking Brooklyn Center, Minnesota submitted by Parsons Brinkerhoff dated May 28, 1998 for the purpose of providing information that may be used in evaluating the adequacy of local parking standards for multi-theater complexes. They note that smaller theater complexes generally maintain their profitability by running top grossing films for a short period of time in order to assure that their theaters are kept near full occupancy at peak periods. They claim that in contrast large multi-screen theaters generally maintain their profitability by utilizing staff more efficiently. They say this is possible because multi-theater complexes continue to show films for a much longer period, even when they are not drawing the crowds of the new releases. By staggering start times and balancing new releases with aging films, the flow of customers can be more efficiently managed, although overall theater occupancy is reduced. The net affect of these operational differences on parking demand is that the probability of achieving full seating capacity at all screens decreases as the number of screens increases. They go on to evaluate national norm, local norms,parking generation, local parking studies and conclude that the standard of one parking space for every four seats is a reasonable standard to apply to the proposed theater. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of this study submitted by the applicants. As previously noted the City's current parking formula requires one parking space for every three seats for places of public assembly such as churches,theaters, auditoriums, mortuaries, • stadiums, arenas and dance halls. An exception is made for places of public assembly such as a motion picture theater located in a retail shopping center complex of 50,000 sq. ft. or more. In such a case the requirement is for one parking space for every four seats,the same as being proposed by the applicant in this case. The reason for this reduction had to do with the potential for common parking by patrons of a theater and a commercial shopping center. The one parking space for every four seats has worked in theses situations and we are not aware of parking problems at the Brookdale Square theater complexes. As a comparison, a retail shopping complex with a comparable square footage as being proposed for the theater(85,240 sq. ft.) would only be required to provide 469 parking spaces based on the retail parking formula of 5.5 ; parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The theater proposal would require a little more than 2.5 times the amount of parking for a comparable retail shopping area. Given the report submitted and the analysis conducted it does appear to be a reasonable proposal to provide parking for the multi-plex theater on the basis of one parking space for every four seats and we would recommend this for the Planning Commission's consideration. The fact that the theater can control starting times and having the ability to provide popular motion pictures on numerous screens should lead to less demand for parking and also the ability to control traffic in and out of the site. Traffic congestion and a shortgage of on-site parking are not in the interests of the theater operators either. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has submitted a grading, drainage and utility plan which is being reviewed by the • 6-25-98 Page 7 City Engineer. The total site in this Planned Unit Development is 17.87 acres and is therefore, • subject to watershed management commission review. The applicant has submitted an application for watershed review through the City Engineer and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission will be reviewing this plan at their July 9th meeting. It is my understanding that the applicants are proposing a subsurface holding area which will be located in the easterly portion of the parking lot. They are trying to determine the best location for this facility which may be where the Beacon Bowl is currently located. The applicants have an agreement with Beacon Bowl which would allow the bowling alley to continue operation through next winter and would mean they would have to locate a pond on an interim basis, possibly at the northwest corner of the site. They are also exploring the possibility, if permissible to have the underground storage facility somewhere other than the Beacon Bowl location. Discussions are taking place and plans are being proposed with the City Engineer and, again, are subject to review by the Watershed Management Commission. The drainage and grading plan is therefore not finalized. Utilities are in place in Camden Avenue and in 66th Avenue North and providing services for sewer and water to the proposed buildings should not be a problem. The City Engineer is reviewing the drainage, grading and utility plans and hopefully will have additional comments for the commission review. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized • by the Planning Commission for evaluating such plans. This 14 acre site requires 800 landscape points. The landscape plan submitted to this point shows 798.5 points being provided,however, this plan is based on a site plan not including the proposed cul-de-sac on Camden Avenue. The applicant will be providing a revised landscape plan based on the revised site plan. Generally, however,they are proposing a mixture of plantings including 390 points for shade trees which would include Hackberry, Little Leaf Linden, Swamp White Oak, Patmore Ash, Marshall's Seedless Ash, Pin Oak or Autumn Blaze Maple. These trees would be located along the westerly side of the theater building, along the island area separating the in and out driveway to the site and on greenstrips adjacent to other building sites, with a few along the easterly side of the building and some in island areas. They propose 192 landscape points with coniferous trees which would be either White Spruce, Colorado Green Spruce, Black Hills Spruce or Arborvitae. These would be used for screening purposes to screen the parking lot areas from the adjacent residential complex to the west. They are also proposed around the foundation of the building. 63 points are to be provided by making use of ornamental trees such as Serviceberry, Amur Maple, Flowering Crabapples and Japanese Tree Lilac. Ornamental and coniferous shrubs amounting to 153.5 points are also shown around the perimeter of the building. Such shrubs would include Bush Honeysuckle, Dwarf Winged Euonymous, Red Twigged Dogwood, Annabelle Hydrangea, Emerald Mound Honeysuckle,Alpine Currant, Dwarf Korean Lilac, Shrub Roses, Engleman Ivy, Seagreen Juniper, Savin Juniper and Taunton Spreading Yew. The west wall of the proposed theater building is to be planted with ivy to soften the impact on the adjacent residential complex. • 6-25-98 Page 8 No parking will be permitted between the west property line and the building as this area will be sodded and contain walkways leading from some of the emergency exits out of the theater. Sod is indicated in a number of the island areas as well as around the perimeter of the site. Underground irrigation is to be provided in all landscaped areas to facility site maintenance and such a note is on the landscape plan. We have requested the applicants to provide additional trees along the TH252/I694 right-of-way area to soften the parking lot impact on the surrounding roadways. We anticipate a revised landscape plan which should be available by Thursday evening's meeting. BUILDING At the time of writing this report the building elevations have not yet been submitted but the applicant has indicated that the exterior material will be a combination of brick and other materials. We hope to have the building elevations and exterior treatment schedule by Thursday evening's meeting. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing the location of 17 light poles most of which are located in the parking lot to the east of the building. The plan provides photometric information showing that the proposal will meet the foot candle limitations contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. No light fixture types are indicated. The main concern is that parking lot lighting be shielded and directed downward onto the site to avoid glare. The site plan shows the location of the trash enclosure at the northwest corner of the building. Outside trash disposal areas are to be screened from public view with a solid screening device compatible with the building. We would recommend that the screening device be of the same exterior material as that of the building. Any rooftop mechanical equipment, or other on ground mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. PROCEDURE This PUD/C-2 proposal as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan accompanying it. 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 their review and comments. In this case it would be referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. We have invited the advisory group members to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and would like to have that meeting conducted between July 6th and July 9th so that this matter can be back onto the Planning Commission's agenda, hopefully, by July 16. It should also be noted that State Statutes only give the City 60 days in which to review and make 6-25-98 Page 9 r.l, a decision on zoning matters. This 60 day period starts with the filing of the application, which in this case was on May 28, 1998. City Council action should be taken by July 27th. 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 feet of the site. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing, and then table the application and refer the matter to the Northeast 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. 6-25-98 Page 10 �: �� ■ •C �.. �►'�� 111/1d///� � : � �•t �� ■ice■■ �— �� -- - •. � . , � � � Rosin Sm Emil moll E---. -E - - ��♦ O mac fug ca"A�, am mm w MIMI MOM �� ■1■11111 ' ' ' r � �i�y mamma= NNE man ENNIN _ i - . .� - • • i J iI t � `' -"� to l ...,L'>�To 11 1• I 1� � � •1�\\�• r j`_ ter— --� �_ j It 1M.A Or o: It NFL is � i . t �.; •, t '� 1 'a I� ,. .� { ; . 2 �) jai t3 Pq f� Ffilltu�u,�tsr!��tslll 1'` t1t�}{q►ttt�+s►1 p \ }{}µRTIi111 i f a fl, tlll'l.>,i �. �.. Ilittlliatt 11 !,jJ, j 1 •'�\•� 0 j !ti 11111• lttl't• � ' //� '{ � l�,iti'1�`j•rjl+�r�!�=3t(�t t , tls s t i f u 1 l +t•'*1� �,t t s t i l t s 1 i C/ � „ I, ` r'�•��'` 'b n t f�}}r� j�.+}�� ii•F i tl tl 11 !Iltt ! .• 1 %�� {�'11C{t ( S4 log 1 q 44i t 1 f l l s 1 l l : ��• ///'ryr/,/j { ��t��1 2 1-r i• .I ! i / .� � j i'`l{fit\\1T Iff I% �"ri •� i i,� tj�t]� t:ri`t� ��,/{ j �• f�i t i- f:.. � / S /!fr . ��`�`J�I111 ! Z ,!'f:i� +�rj r!•` i+it t�rt ' r \t' it !trt ij rr� irtj �:�rj� r y' `. ' >'•1 s' —� �� :'All its!: I '� 'd+' \\��`Ni �r\ r „ .,- �° rte r t �,��i.''i.�•t�tr�sl �C L�. l •�' ��i 1 r, sr ;r'Jl,tSt� :J ri . . . . .. . . . .. . . Ii ' i , ;' s , F '-EEFFFFEl � ' � �3 � S � 1•Pt;t + ` � � r , F , E , i .: rrstrlr + r z � t � IIIII � IIII it:j • f� SEE! � � c w 6 u � .ii € �„�� '.F G 71 off: ;t z_ _ IL_ eta I =------- R , Li -_ SO Lv 4p IP i z � 7j u 1 � t ;,� t J'• , t11 1 I t P A7 • _ • � i RUN: LMM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a t as a F i 111111111111111111V 10. Hill M41 111111111111111111111111 LMH U�� • uw pp fill .19 •� ' `ti', !qqt I I I I I I � I I I � l ��1 � lel , �! ! lti[s 3�Elil � l�3� � iii! fa . d l � / I 1 1 1 Y r w Y 1 y 1i 1 Y i %.:� � �_-� � � e � � R Y `- -w• -- -- - ._rte' 1 Y _r 1 i n 1 Y r � Y w ± !Y Y s Y • � � ! � Y r ,►_x�l w � `u n� 7J- is w Ills S c �a6 rfr'J'—ti Y'�r` w ".L u t.• r �I s-. r tl Y + L i �£ ! -3i Y R 3 Z w - -_' ` "'S Alik i- �� a "S' ''Bj�• :k 11,3: I t r n w i r r w ro u • „ v u y ., tl it 4 0 r e r i. I eI .I L =1 t a f Lit <El � 6g r � a F 4 t i c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off-street parkin;. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 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 "PTJ-D" 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- ,` ED." 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 PU-D. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PL-D. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD---,v1L'CED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. c. For u oses of determining applicable regulations for uses or structure P rP , , P son 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. 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 PU-D will be perceived as and function • as an extension of that previously approved development; or J. 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 3-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the . City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permmtted 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 complementa.nty of peak parking demands by the uses within the PL-D. 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. _ 3,-4b 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. 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 compfianee with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. • Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include.at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; • 35-47 , � � R • • 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning, Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to • PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization,uses,densities,circulation,parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PL-D,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 inform, ation as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. • i 35-48 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. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building • permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 35-49 J , City of Brooklyn Center 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. 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 1 ti i I • BROOKLYN CENTER, MINN. Regal Cinemas Application for PUD/C2 - NWC Hwy 252 & I-694 General Project Description Regal Cinemas of Knoxville, Tennessee and its regional developer, Centres Group, LTD of Minneapolis are seeking the approval for an 85,000 square foot, 20 screen, 4,762 seat theatre at the northwest corner of the Interstate 694 and Minnesota Highway 252. Through a joint development agreement with TOLD Development of Minneapolis, the total redevelopment area would be approximately seventeen(17) acres. Centres would use approximately fourteen(14) acres to construct the theatre, off-street parking, and all appurtenances, and the remainder would be developed as outlots by TOLD. The theatre that is proposed for the site would be state-of-the-art mega-plex with full stadium seating in all auditoriums. The project will meet all requirements of city zoning, setbacks, green space, etc., • however a PUD proposal is required for the following reasons: (a) Regal will require a 4:1 on-site parking ratio (1 parking stall per 4 theatre seats), which is less than the current code, and (b) Brooklyn Center requires a special use permit for theatre usage in spite of the appropriate zoning and the fact that the development would remain consistent with the existing comprehensive plan. The following additional information and comments are intended to further describe the project and provide pertinent information regarding this redevelopment. Existing Land Uses The entire site is currently zoned C2. The property as it is currently used is a mixture of older under-performing businesses; several small businesses of varying types and some older single family houses. is 1 .t • �, • The proposed redevelopment site would be a consolidation of nine (9)privately owned • properties, and would require purchasing a small City owned lot, plus re-conveyance (turn back or vacation) by the City of all those parts of street rights-of-way for 65`h Street lying east of the east line of Camden Avenue to the MnDOT right-of-way, and North Lilac Drive lying south of 66`h Street and east of the east line of Camden Avenue. It would also require City cooperation in obtaining turn back of excess right-of-way along the east and south sides of the site, from the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT). The nine private properties are listed below. 1. 6357 and 6351 Lilac Drive North (Lynbrook Bowl and Schwalenberg) 2. Vacant land at southeast corner of Camden Avenue and 65`h Street 3. 6525 Lyndale Avenue North(Beacon Bowl) 4. 430 - 65'h Avenue North(auto body shop) 5. Vacant land between Beacon Bowl and the three houses on Camden Avenue 6. 6500 Camden Avenue North(single family house) 7. 6506 Camden Avenue North(single family house) 8. 6512 Camden Avenue North(single family house) 9. Vacant land at southeast corner of Camden Avenue North and 66'h Street(adjacent to Superamerica property). Negotiations are under way with the State to acquire the required excess right-of-way. Agreements with the City as a part of the approval process would be required,to re-convey the streets and excess right-of-way, as well as to purchase the City owned lot. Proiect Benefits Redevelopment of the site would create multiple benefits to the city of Brooklyn Center, including the following: (a) Placing tax exempt City owned vacant land and under-used street right-of-way property • 2 . �t �. x> • • a • back on the tax rolls. • (b) Replacement of existing low tax base real estate with higher basis new facilities, creating additional increment to the existing TIF district. (c) The use would generate additional patronage to existing local businesses and would create sales tax revenues far in excess of those now generated from the site. (d) The redevelopment would create a landmark property on a site which currently appears under-used and deteriorating. The vitality of the theatre facade and the view-lines from all roadways introduces a prominent new feature to the city streetscape, at the main gateway to the City. Traffic/Parkiniz The theatre on this site creates a very strong traffic draw. However, the benefit of this use is that the traffic would be primarily off-peak, which would have the effect of adding little or no additional traffic congestion. The concept of the new megaplex has evolved out of theatre operators' desires to create quality experiences for their patrons. The show times are staggered at • intervals to prevent congestion in the roadways, in the parking lot at the ticket booth and at the concession stand. Regal wants repeat customers who are happy with their experience and are comfortable with the theatre's functionality. Unlike the new theatre in Coon Rapids, the location of which requires all left turns to access a nearby highway, this site will have the more desirable traffic patterns involving right turns to access the adjacent major highways,when exiting the theatre. We are attaching several studies done regarding both traffic and parking for other municipalities in the Twin Cities. The studies basically support two elements critical to this development: (a) Off-peak traffic generation, and (b) 4:1 parking is more than sufficient for the theatre usage. 0 3 w� a� a t.. • • • • Project Schedule If approved by the city this project would commence construction within 30 days of final approval. A spring of 1999 opening is projected for the theatre based on the current submittal. Due to the fact that the owner of the Beacon Bowl would like to have a gradual retirement from his business, and leisurely say goodbye to his long-time customers and friends, we have agreed to close on the purchase of his property but let him remain in operation until April 30, 1999, the end of his bowling season. Therefore, the onsite storm water storage would be temporarily located on the northerly outlot site. The permanent storage facility would then be built, in the location shown on the site plan, as soon as the property is vacated, which should be approximately the time of the theatre's opening. The theatre is of primary concern at this time, however, development of the outlots is anticipated to follow very quickly. We have done no soliciting, but have already received strong interest from two sit-down restaurants. Summary This site allows Regal Cinemas exactly what it wants - a high visibility, easily accessible, commercially zoned property, in a community with impeccable demographics. The project allows the City a redevelopment completely administrated by the private sector, creating revenues and tax generation far in excess of the existing uses, with a cornerstone project visible to all freeway users, and yet convenient to community residents. • 4 _„ •. •"�^ I i I 'I I �I • Application File On 6-4-98 • City Council Action Should be Taken by 8-3-98 (60 days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98016 Applicant: Centres Group Brooklyn Center LTD Location: Property Located South of 66th Avenue North, East of Camden Avenue North, and North and West of Interstate 694 and TH252 (except for the SuperAmerica site) Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to combine nine privately owned properties plus a City owned parcel of land and vacated street right-of-way for 65th Avenue North, North Lilac Drive, a portion of Camden Avenue and excess MN/DOT right-of-way into four lots for development of a multi-plex theater and three additional commercial lots. The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North and the SuperAmerica site; on the east by TH252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the west by Camden Avenue. The subject property is the site of the proposed Planned Unit Development comprehended under application No. 98015. • The properties under consideration are the following: 1. 6357 and 6351 Lilac Drive North (Lynbrook Bowl and Schwalenberg Interior) 2. Vacant land at the southeast corner of Camden Avenue and 65th Avenue 3. 6525 Lyndale Avenue North (Beacon Bowl) 4. 430 65th Avenue North(Auto Body Shop) 5. Vacant land between Beacon Bowl and three homes fronting on Camden Avenue 6. 6500 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 7. 6506 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 8. 6512 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 9. Vacant land at southeast corner of Camden Avenue North and 66th Avenue North (adjacent to the SuperAmerica property) 10. City owned property at the southwest corner of 65th Avenue North and North Lilac Drive 11. Street right-of-ways for 65th Avenue North between Camden and North Lilac Drive; North Lilac Drive between Camden and 65th Avenue North; and the southerly portion of Camden Avenue North 12. Excess MN/DOT right-of-way adjacent to I694 and TH252 The proposal is to divide these properties into four lots to be known as the Regal Road Development Addition. Lot 1 of the proposed addition would be 596,139 sq. ft. (13.69 acres) and would be the site of the Regal Cinema 20 screen multi-plex theater. Lot 2 is a 55,057 sq. ft. • (1.26 acres) site proposed for future commercial development. Lot 3 is a 57,022 sq. ft. (1.31 acres) future commercial development site. And lot 4 is proposed to be 63,825 sq. ft. (1.47 acre • site) also for future commercial development. These properties again are part of the Planned Unit Development proposal under Application No. 98015. The applicant has indicated that they have acquired or have options on all of the privately owned property in the proposed plat. They are seeking of the City owned property at the southwest corner of 65th and North Lilac and also seeking right-of-way from 65th Avenue, North Lilac Drive and a portion of Camden Avenue and have requested vacation of these roadways. The City is in the process of negotiating such a conveyance to the applicant. If the conveyance is accomplished and the plat goes forward, easements for public utilities and the 65th, North Lilac and Camden Avenues will need to be drafted to protect utilities in these areas. A need for cross access easements between the proposed lot 2 and lot 1 and lot 3 and lot 1 seem highly likely. Also negotiations between the applicant and the owner of the apartment complex to the west of Camden Avenue include an access easement from the southerly access point on the existing Camden Avenue to the proposed cul-de-sac access to the site. The applicant has also requested the City to seek and convey surplus highway right-of-way from MN/DOT for inclusion in the plat as well. All of these matters will need to be negotiated and accomplished before the final plat for this property can proceed. The site is required to be reviewed by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission along with the Planned Unit Development proposal and it is anticipated that this will be before • that body on their July 9, 1998 meeting. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat that has been submitted and may have additional comments for the Commission's meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post. There are a number of things that need to be accomplished prior to final plat approval such as the negotiation and acquisition of public right-of-way and excess MN/DOT right-of-way. The final plat will need to be approved and filed prior to any building permits for the proposed theater project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission, following a public hearing on this matter, table the application so that it can be concurrently presented to the City Council at the time of the Planned Unit Development proposal under Application No. 98015. Any changes to the site plan may cause the need to alter the preliminary plat as well. • � X111. mill Sol �� ■ �� _= ►'��■ IIi■[�liiii �yC MM MM M N obi _ __ ON ■■■■■■■■■ m ■ __ _ MM MM MM NOW sun =a Do ME soon AND MM M :. a . ME ME M C.Lome NM MM son _ .1�1■111111 � ; � l ■ � �3 MM all __ M OP OPP ►�♦� : _�. M _ •E m M- _ Application File On 6-4-98 City Council Action Should be • Taken by 8-3-98 (60 days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98016 Applicant: Centres Group Brooklyn Center LTD Location: Property Located South of 66th Avenue North, East of Camden Avenue North, and North and West of Interstate 694 and TH252 (except for the SuperAmerica site) Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to combine nine privately owned properties plus a City owned parcel of land and vacated street right-of-way for 65th Avenue North,North Lilac Drive, a portion of Camden Avenue and excess MN/DOT right-of-way into four lots for development of a multi-plex theater and three additional commercial lots. The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North and the SuperAmerica site; on the east by TH252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the west by Camden Avenue. The subject property is the site of the proposed Planned Unit Development comprehended under application No. 98015. • The properties under consideration are the following: 1. 6357 and 6351 Lilac Drive North(Lynbrook Bowl and Schwalenberg Interior) 2. Vacant land at the southeast corner of Camden Avenue and 65th Avenue 3. 6525 Lyndale Avenue North(Beacon Bowl) 4. 430 65th Avenue North(Auto Body Shop) 5. Vacant land between Beacon Bowl and three homes fronting on Camden Avenue 6. 6500 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 7. 6506 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 8. 6512 Camden Avenue North(single family home) 9. Vacant land at southeast corner of Camden Avenue North and 66th Avenue North (adjacent to the SuperAmerica property) 10. City owned property at the southwest corner of 65th Avenue North and North Lilac Drive 11. Street right-of-ways for 65th Avenue North between Camden and North Lilac Drive; North Lilac Drive between Camden and 65th Avenue North; and the southerly portion of Camden Avenue North 12. Excess MN/DOT right-of-way adjacent to I694 and TH252 The proposal is to divide these properties into four lots to be known as the Regal Road Development Addition. Lot 1 of the proposed addition would be 584,933 sq. ft. (13.43 acres) • 6-25-98 PaQe 1 • I • and would be the site of the Regal Cinema 20 screen multi-plea theater. Lot 2 is a 72,004 sq. ft. (1.65 acres) site proposed for future commercial development. Lot 3 is a 53,436 sq. ft. (1.23 • acres) future commercial development site. And lot 4 is proposed to be 68,094 sq. ft. (1.56 acre site) also for future commercial development. These properties again are part of the Planned Unit Development proposal under Application No. 98015. The applicant has indicated that they have acquired or have options on all of the privately owned property in the proposed plat. They are seeking of the City owned property at the southwest corner of 65th and North Lilac and also seeking right-of-way from 65th Avenue,North Lilac Drive and a portion of Camden Avenue and have requested vacation of these roadways. The City is in the process of negotiating such a conveyance to the applicant. If the conveyance is accomplished and the plat goes forward, easements for public utilities and the 65th,North Lilac and Camden Avenues will need to be drafted to protect utilities in these areas. A need for cross access easements between the proposed lot 2 and lot 1 and lot 3 and lot 1 seem highly likely. Also negotiations between the applicant and the owner of the apartment complex to the west of Camden Avenue include an access easement from the southerly access point on the existing Camden Avenue to the proposed cul-de-sac access to the site. The applicant has also requested the City to seek and convey surplus highway right-of-way from MN/DOT for inclusion in the plat as well. All of these matters will need to be negotiated and accomplished before the final plat for this property can proceed. • The site is required to be reviewed by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission along with the Planned Unit Development proposal and it is anticipated that this will be before that body on their July 9, 1998 meeting. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat that has been submitted and may have additional comments for the Commission's meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post. There are a number of things that need to be accomplished prior to final plat approval such as the negotiation and acquisition of public right-of-way and excess MN/DOT right-of-way. The final plat will need to be approved and filed prior to any building permits for the proposed theater project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission, following a public hearing on this matter, table the application so that it can be concurrently presented to the City Council at the time of the Planned Unit Development proposal under Application No. 98015. Any changes to the site plan may cause the need to alter the preliminary plat as well. • 6-25-98 Page 2 i}i�'= fi',' �it�l J 1�i11 I ��y� _ �,•l,l-,� .�! { I �} — — —�- z E 1 „ t •1 t j r , t .lj!1� !� :i+i , Itltl ±.=t; 1►t -N ,!!t; ,:: 1 f 1 , ,�31 .. .. . +y g ilit}► t!p + fli;i , t• ! i •fi y. !'•1 :-=',�E.14 i r' t. c i ! � q$ . • • ,,i tl ,_ �=t =l `�.!_' at i:•-t 1!` ! r.: ! `.r i :: a� 1i '• _� +it. � 1�4c•• it l � !__-tq `t1 T ,� t `-t• : v. •1 r� 1 . + ! —�..i_�.�-� - � �ltj'J1 f llf'�T lTt i' �� t 1��If-1 i� �tlt.. , :1 il' 1 J /1� 1 1 i i i?' •i! i �i t 013_p `• 3 ) It {�' i IfpiJ. ! �} v, ,l_ !! 9! ;. !S ��, •- — r ! jlift, j 1 J �j •j' ,,,tts i;l �j ; • :.: '\.. E _ : Pill j�f!='!j i}l+•1f :t!; + 11...•.: J +; : !� ^.• = - (l 1+1j�� ' flip. �j+ j�'i:il�t i : ' i j� '�� i� •: -.; • � t :t )itl t 1�� i �•ejiT!fnl�I 1 !•,:-fi d+ 1} ,�•j1. fit',•.�! :t 1 �� t —..—.._ .J...? -< ii•�Cy.f:1:,1 =1 p+ilk• fit t!c 1+�� rs + - f .. �!•i t=113,:- .'1:+ t!{{ tl•;/.��.tt ! .!i! tt 1!llit, ,1 S,, tl,=,7 t'• 'iil �) ? z� 11}1,1.!11 i:ll tU:iiit�tl�ti',! IIJ;i�iLSt:21�1�litllliiii.l t,:t!,i ei St 5e1� ! �W y� fi g 4 C !; V n .. n . .: ••• _'.✓� �' ~. , '• Nil 0 jiil,`�:`�1?u. L._ 4,T,•,' • ,%.• " ..G `\..: - 11 `• �- ,��fJ ��1 x= I f i 11�f��\,.@ I�` //.v'y� �j�. ' I � D•F` f , � ��p •�*� � •4� =•W Ny li ;to \ � � � r �• t � t of . 1 � y z� • s �� = 114 o Ilt t • � •, I � h`;;1111� `� a� !� s ;Y 1I �1 1 1 � 3 O ;114; ,,��,,,lyN//! i�� , 1 ,rte•I t ' j I st �� \ I /�/ ;:r r. ' i, 11111:1 I „ / � Y, i �il i �� •e } < C� cl • aC�J �, /�` 11111 t, �,J 111; 1 �. ,s9r �' ` 1 R t ' Illi i!f !i ' �a �� I �•�1 11111 ' rllr II • 1 _ cY� � I e� `E N too '�i • `t tat 11' FI I ! ! r' L� , i l _ "• g � 1 \ ... � ' r 111'1{1111x1' LJC i 11 r II� �j { �; ^ 111 3`I, t � •: t\ � ! �• I ilk°� + � 1 — •iL 1 .✓� 111 j I', Y'I 4 `'I'1, e � 1 i -7�`ti. _ 41 /� 1 ` t „t•; 11 I `;.` r� of 19 i b ,i cp• -� lV•wf,r:• itr�OM IO 1 y� —� � � Rp 1io 1 iop• L -� - K,I --r J tB PT 31 1