HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 07-16 PCP M
l r
i
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
July 16, 1998
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 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 approval through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process for a 20 screen theater at the northwest quadrant of I-694
and T.H. 252. This application was tabled on June 25, 1998, and referred to the
Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The matter is
before the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
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 T.H. 252. This application
was tabled on June 25, 1998, and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment. The matter is before the Planning Commission for
reconsideration.
7. Other Business
8. Discussion Items
9 Adjournment
•
i
•
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 T. H. 252 (Except For the Super America
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 85,240 sq. ft., 4,592 seat, 20 screen
theater on a 570,313 sq. ft. (13.09 acres) site located northwesterly of Interstate 694 and T. H.
252. The proposal also comprehends the creation of two other sites, one 71,693 sq. ft. (1.65
acres) and the other 88,186 sq. ft. (2.02 acres) for future commercial development,most likely
restaurant uses.
The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is 730,192 sq. ft. in area(16.76
acres). It is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue and the Super America site; on the east by
• T. H. 252; 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 southwest 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 Drive as well as portions of North Lilac Drive controlled by the
City between Camden Avenue and 65th Avenue. They have also made inquiries of MNDOT
regarding the ability to acquire surplus highway right-of-way for inclusion in their project. At
this point, no MNDOT controlled property is being comprehended in either the site plan or the
preliminary plat for the property in question. If the applicant is able to obtain surplus highway
right-of-way, they will need to replat the property to incorporate it into their plan. In the
meantime, the southerly and easterly property lines are somewhat irregular and jagged reflecting
the location of MNDOT controlled right-of-way.
The reason for the requested PUD zoning is the extent of the applicant's proposal and also their
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 as 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, there will be no prohibited abutment between the theater site and the adjacent
residential property. The theater is, therefore, an allowable use under the underlying C-2 zone.
7-16-98
Page 1
Because of the need for a,different parking formula, the applicant is proposing to pursue this •
request through the Planned Unit Development process and 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.
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 flelxibility 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 restricted basis than currently required in the
zoning ordinance. Attached for the Planning Commission's review is a copy of Section 35-355
of the city's zoning ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments.
This application was originally considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting on June
25, 1998, at which time the applicant's request, his written proposal relating to the city's
rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines, and his plans were all considered. The
Commission opened the public hearing and took comments from persons in attendance at that
meeting. After reviewing the matter further,the Commission took action to continue the public
hearing, table further consideration of the matter and referred it to the Northeast Neighborhood
Advisory Group for review and comment.
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter at the Brooklyn Center
City Hall on July 7, 1998. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the Neighborhood
Advisory Group minutes from that meeting.
After review, discussion and input from persons in attendance,the advisory group recommended
approval of the proposal to the Planning Commission on a vote of 2 in favor, 0 oppossed, and 3
abstentions.
Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the information sheet for Planning
Commission Application No. 98015, which was presented on June 25, 1998, and the Planning
Commission minutes from that meeting relating to this application..
The applicant has submitted a revised plan based on the creation of a large lot for the 20 screen
multi-plex theater and two,rather than three, sites for future commercial development, most
likely restaurant uses. Also, as indicated previously,the site no longer comprehends surplus
MNDOT right-of-way. Changes to the site plan reflect the new configuration. The
7-16-98
Page 2
Commission's attention is directed to the informatin sheet for application No. 98016
• (Preliminary Plat) for more detailed information regarding the land areas in question.
The Commission's attention is again directed to the Planning Commission Information Sheet
presented to the Commission on June 25, 1998, relating to the applicant's written comments and
statements regarding their proposal and how they believe their proposal addresses the rezoning
evaluation policy and review guidelines. The report also provides comments relating to each
specific rezoning evaluation policy and review guideline. We will not repeat the point by point
review of the guidelines as we believe the matter is well addressed in the previous report.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
The applicant's proposal calls for the eventual demolition of the Lynbrook Bowl, Schwalenberg
Interiors, the Lynbrook Autobody Shop, the Beacon Bowl, and three single family homes located
at the northeast corner of 65th and Camden Avenue North. Nine parcels will be consolidated
along with the requested right-of-way that the applicant is seeking to be vacated, which has been
previously mentioned and the city owned property at the southwest corner of 65th and North
Lilac Drive. It should be noted that the City Council has not yet committed to the conveyence of
either the city property or the right-of-way vacations being requested by the applicant. These
matters are subject to final negotiations and approval along with necessary ordinance vacations,
which will have to be approved ultimately by the City Council. The assumption being made in
this plan review is that this will be successfully resolved,however, it is still subject to City
Council approval.
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, revised landscape plan, a grading drainage and
utility plan, a lighting plan, building elevations and a floor plan.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the site is unchanged from the plan previously presented. Access will 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 will be provided terminating the Camden
Avenue right-of-way northerly of its present connection with North Lilac Drive. The applicant
has indicated that they have reached agreement with the owners of the Melrose Gates apartment
complex to allow access over the applicant's property from the proposed cul-de-sac back to the
southerly most access point to the Melrose Gates complex. The size of the driveway access will
accommodate fire vehicles and will accommodate vehicle traffic if needed from the Melrose
Gate access to the cul-de-sac on Camden Avenue. The plan calls for 1,148 parking stalls. The
parking is based on a projected one parking space for every four seats. The 1,148 parking stalls
would allow for 4,592 seats in the theater complex which is also indicated on the plan.
7-16-98
Page 3
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 their proposed parking formula for
this multi-plex theater. This report was submitted to the Planning Commission along with the
June 25, 1998, Information Sheets. We believe, in this particular case,the one parking space for
every four seat ratio would be appropriate given the nature of the multi-plex theater business.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has submitted a grading, drainage, and utility plan, which is being reviewed by the
City Engineer. The total site in this Planned Unit Development is 16.76 acres and is subject to
review by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. Utilities are located in the
Camden Avenue North right-of-way as well as 65th Avenue North, which will serve the
properties to be developed. Utilities will be extended to the other sites proposed under the
platting. If right-of-way is vacated, as is being requested by the applicant, it will be necessary to
develop the appropriate drainage and utility easements to protect the public utilities from
encroachment. This would be accomplished with the platting of the property and would include
easements needed over the 65th Avenue North right-of-way,portions of North Lilac Drive right-
of-way and the southerly portion of Camden Avenue which would be vacated with this proposal.
The biggest concern is the underground treatment facility being proposed by the applicant as part
of their drainage plan. Water from the site would be conveyed into this underground storage and
treatment facility prior to its being released into the MNDOT right-of-way. This will be the
subject of the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission review of this proposal.
The matter will not be on the Watershed Management Commission's agenda until their August
13, 1998, meeting. Any approval of the Planned Unit Development would be subject to
compliance with Watershed Management Commission recommendations and conditions.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan meeting the landscape point system utilized
by the Planning Commission for evaluating such plans. This 13.09 acre site requies 764 points.
The landscape plan submitted provides 926 landscape points based on a variety of shade trees,
coniferous trees, ornamental trees, deciduous shrubs, coniferous shrubs and perennials. The
landscape plan is essentially the same as that presented to the Planning Commission at its June
25, 1998 meeting but modified to meet the new configuration of the site, absent inclusion of
MNDOT surplus right-of-way. An expanded parking lot on the north side of the theater building
calls for coniferous trees to screen the parking lot from the residential area on the opposite side of
Camden Avenue. It should be noted that the building is set back 35 ft. from the Camden Avenue
right-of-way and this area, running the length of the building, will be sodded and bermed and the
applicant is proposing to grow ivy on the back wall to soften it's appearance and impact on the
residential area on the opposite side of Camden Avenue. No loading facilities will be located in
7-16-98
Page 4
this area. The trash enclosure is to be at the northwest corner of the building and not face
Camden Avenue. Emergency exits will be located on the west wall and walkways leading from
the emergency exit to other walkways around the building will be provided. The main entrance
will be on the east side of the building.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building elevations showing a very decorative building to be of a
variety of materials. The lower portion of the building will be a reddish brown brick with the
balance of the building exteriors being a drive-it material and standard painted block and face
block. The colors include bright red, yellow, purple, teal, aqua and beige. A canopy over the
front entrance is proposed and various architectural features are indicated on the front and north
and south sides of the building mainly where exit doors are located. Large columns are proposed
by the main entrance and these too will be colorfully decorated. The applicant proposes to use
neon lighting at various locations and intends to affix the letters for the word Regal on columns
that are enclosed and may be considered to be portions of the building wall. It appears the
proposal can meet the city's sign regulations limiting the amount of signery to 15 percent of the
building wall.
LIGHTING/TRASH
• The lighting plan has been modified to reflect the new boundaries of the property and continues
to show 17 light poles, most of which are located in the parking lot to the east of the building.
The photometric plan showing information on the proposed foot candle limitations meets the
city's zoning ordinance. Light fixtures will need to be shielded and direct light downward onto
the site. The main concern is that the parking lot lighting be shielded to avoid light glare.
As indicated previously, the 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 the same exterior materials as that of the building and believe that the applicant has
committed to this. Any rooftop mechanical equipment or on-ground mechanical equipment shall
be screened from view as well.
Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of a draft analysis conducted by Short Elliot
Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH)relating traffic impacts from this proposed development on 66th
Avenue operations. SEH, approximately one year ago, evaluated this area in terms of major
redevelopment and a proposed Holiday StationStore and dental clinic redevelopment on the north
side of 66th. Construction of a median, with median opening, was part of the recommended
improvements to 66th Avenue at that time.
7-16-98
Page 5
The theater proposal will generate a large volume of traffic with access to it being from Camden
Avenue. The report notes that this traffic will not be of its greatest during the peak hours when
66th Avenue is currently busiest. Concern is expressed regarding the need for roadway and
signal improvements on 66th Avenue and at Camden. Driveways on the north side will need to
coincide with median breaks proposed to serve commercial developments as well as at Camden
Avenue.
It appears that a traffic signal will be warranted at Camden and 66th Avenues as a result of p.m.
peak hour traffic generated from this site. A signal would provide a level of service"A"during
the p.m. peak hour for the adjacent roadways (66th and Camden)and a level of service `B"
during peak hour traffic generated by the proposed development.
The report suggests a dual left turn lane from west bound 66th Avenue to Camden and the
restriction of access points into 66th Avenue.
PROCEDURE
The public hearing for this PUD/C-2 rezoning and site and building plan application has been
continued until Thursday evening, July 16, 1998. As mentioned previously,the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group met to review this application on July 7, 1998. Attached for the
Commission's review is a copy of the minutes of the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group
meeting. The Commission should take any additional comments into consideration prior to
closing the public hearing on this matter.
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 60 day period started with the filing of the application, which
in this case was May 28, 1998. City Council action should be taken by July 27, 1998, without
any agreed to extension by the applicant. Notices to property owners within 350 ft. of this site of
the continued public hearing on this application have been sent.
RECOMMENDATION
We believe, given the revised plans submitted,that the Planning Commission can be in a
position to make a recommendation with respect to this application by their July 16 meeting.
Attached for the Commission's review is a draft Planning Commission Resolution outlining the
proposal and history of this application and making various recommended findings and
recommending approval subject to a number of conditions to be included as part of the Planned
Unit Development.
7-16-98 40
Page 6
■ ■111.
MEN glass MINIMUM ON
cow m go
mm mm
_
Olson
mm son on
AP
M
I R.mI'% own mrm mm
j
AS
s � j
as
•
a
•
i . .� i!11f!IIi11Ni1
�, ��� IIIIIIIIII!!!II
1�•�>,'y II III!! II111111!il ; 1
®I 1111111 'll IIII j ,
`' I!tlllllitll!I �III'
a.Ii11111;1iLlllil111 I
K
1
............. I !I I
:�, i�'•�rJ�I I I I I I I I 111111 I' � �e .
Et
. � �,�:`s. ,��;11111111111111111
11111111 11111 1
I �X� J`•�Y�`I�?��ti,l!I l l l i l l l f l i l l l l l I � p�
v
TWIN,tJ'/w`!II!II11!IIIII!!!I Illu
``t '% %�%'err���"��/�!"/�%/f ii`\,\�i�� `►�----••-..�
®I!lil!IIII ilt /W?.
plII111!!I!!!III�.1�1111111111 II !111111 IIIIIIIIII —'
®lil'ill!III �, III111111 ® IHIIII 1111111!IIII
> 1!!1!11111111 �!� I Ill III I lIll llill 1111!II111
r I ®IIi111111 1114-1144-4 1111111111 ® 11 I If !1111111111 ;
I 111111111111t1(IIII IIIIIIIIIII I Illllllllllllllilllll _
tlllllllll ZII III III
i IIIIIIII III II I
4 I IIIIIillll IIII I) I _ '
r ; illlllllllilll IIII IIII II III '� t�t
r E!
E co � >f
O o p o
t Milt III I i I iI I
Pt
1 P1 >�
it
11111111 CID
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
} i
lima
i
JV I
i' �t n
�I l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l l l I_(1_I_i_I_I_L�Li �� � ' •
I p MIR m_
l
l 'oil
f � ! H�-�I-I•H�-FH ,
�� �� � �'� � l�� � _ � ®Illllllllllllllll1111111111111
f •
/ w
--------- -
--
� i V i•
+5r-
•
IS
Yy Va•M 1
LrrLrTY PLAN
REOALTHEATERS
BROOKLYN CENTER.AYNNESOTA
s
s
•
{ •t � � Z Z ,
� •� it t > � `\
• 1 O r \.. r- ll
ycN 1
�► — s `e t ;`t ; �I ,litt �`{ N
}�t t •.
it I I it '
x r i j Iff sip, t r v-
,O
Or N l9•ir{y �0y♦-
1 i fir
v.
p �_ Sg; ,.. t•I: t /� ` �. —t , �'
i. lr" i r 1 1 :t•;
i i I t 1 i t'
> 1i ' :.
> t
I •I Iir Imo; t9 r• �1•:.
> { ��:' �" 't6,• 1 I.1 t .ay t'4. 1►1 /4.g:• �i !•1•\ _ ei 1 r��l! �I
t.......•. .. p.........
Yibi ;��� I 1 j� 5t, 'y �— ,.; •. _� : I rrl�€>:�i�E � ,t
a
L`i s;s p3 }c(� GRAnwa DRAINAGE.AND ,,..,.. —
( EROSaN CONTROL PLAN .. "
REGAL THEATERS
J #I�� BROOKLYN CENTER.MINNESOTA unolVarlowa
s
•
1
r a 1 iL _
�'a
M :
.r f ._��`i E F L i i r 3 `: ?-r---s-•`s=-rr-'= 'sJ"s $ �.
T .1 1 5 i i :1 i "F 3
sk
F 's-i i 's 's iii F •z ��
��=F � F �'i i E• E i'F • �i � 'j`
n't 1:4
—171
Fr
_ F .t_C_ L'— -L=fir=: n I
ED �KH' r
E.
t,=`t : F i t y 6 i F F, * E E• i �°'3 _ �: s � E
` }i. 's
L--T= V—� r 3�i:
�< �.� !_; :. r 3 x .' •s •y i, i i '! i_ i i i � � 's s : �� { -
- =r s �!`.' i' .r r e `E''i.:: °�. a .i 5 i• s 's •i� : f`srF � ��: 5.=-:�
?.,'s Ji rs- F AAAA .e 3 .! i •s.: 3 :-3 It L :F.5
'� ' s':s a s s : � � '-�' • a ii"�s`x L s.s 'sue
i s Y B (�
9. guy
Zoo
CD
t
s
s
err +' rr .•i •� •-e .r W-e
�r
O
D fll
Y
i a
i
T .
I
s
s
n �1,
7 �J'
N
m
e
� m
o � -
� n
Z
� z
m m �
Co
z fU
z p
D m
3�
'3>
3 T
l
•
s
•
l
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS Ol{ THE
NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JULY 7, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Chair Steve Boone
at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL/INTRODUCTIONS
Chair Steve Boone asked the members to introduce themselves. Present were Advisory Group
members Tom Kouri, Michael Snelson, Rod Snyder, and Charles Stutz. Representing the City of
Brooklyn Center were Planning Commissioner Edward Nelson,Commission Liaison to the Advisory
Group;Planning Commissioner Dianne Reem; Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren; and
Planning Commission Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk. City Councilmember Peppe attended
a portion of the meeting.
APPLICATION NO 98015 SUBMITTED BY CENTRES GROUP BROOKLYN CENTER,LTD
Chair Boone explained the purpose of the meeting and the role of the Advisory Group. The Group
considers, on a grass roots level, issues of concern regarding rezoning applications and
Comprehensive Plan amendments in its quadrant of Brooklyn Center as directed by the Planning
Commission, and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission on such issues.
Mr. Boone called on Mr. Warren to review the Application. Mr. Warren explained that the concept
of neighborhood advisory groups began in 1965 when the City's first Comprehensive Plan was
developed. Mr. Warren referred to his June 25, 1998 memorandum and Planning Commission
Information Sheet sent to the members regarding this Application. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing and preliminary discussion on the application at its 06-25-98 meeting,
referred the matter to the advisory group, and continued the public hearing. Mr. Warren indicated
the Commission specifically requests comments regarding the proposed rezoning and appreciates
any recommendations from the group.
The applicant, Centres Group, Brooklyn Center, LTD. is requesting rezoning approval from C-2
(commerce)to Planned Unit Development(PUD)/C-2 of a 17.72 acre site for development of a 20
screen theater and two restaurant sites. Using overhead transparencies, Mr. Warren showed the
location of the site which is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue and the SuperAmerica site; on
the east by T.H. 252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the west by Camden Avenue. Rezoning
to the PUD designation allows some deviation from ordinance standards based on guidelines and
requires that a development agreement be signed by the applicant and the City. Therefore PUD
zoning gives the City Council flexibility to address problems, governing regulations, and authority
to impose conditions on a development plan of this magnitude.
Mr. Warren explained the modification to the site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission which
reduces to two restaurant sites and adds parking spaces in the northwest corner of the property. The
reason for this revision relates to the applicant's desire to acquire specific vacation of certain portions
of the site from the City of Brooklyn Center and the MN State Department-of Transportation
(MNDOT). Those acquisitions may take more time than originally contemplated,therefore revisions
to the plans were made to meet ordinances without those acquisitions, to avoid delay in the
applicant's "fast track" schedule for the project. Parking for the 4,660 seat, 20 screen theater is
proposed at a ratio of 1 space to 4 seats.
Coincident with Application No. 98015,under Application NO. 98016,the applicant is also seeking
preliminary plat approval to combine the 9 privately owned properties along with the City/State
acquisitions into a plat to be known as Regal Road Development Addition.
Chair Boone called for questions from the Advisory Group members.
A member inquired about the likelihood of the State allowing the acquisition of its property in view
of traffic concerns. Mr. Warren stated there is a good chance for acquisition of certain parcels, but
was unsure about another. Recommendations resulting from a recently updated traffic study include
extension of the median to Camden, installation of a traffic semaphore at Camden, and additional
turn lanes in certain locations. These improvements along with the off-peak traffic pattern of movie
theaters appear to alleviate any traffic concerns.
Chair Boone asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Kaare Birkeland,developer of the theater
complex, provided background on Regal Theaters, described changes in the theater industry,
explained its customer oriented philosophy and operating schedule, and explained the basis for the
4/1 parking ratio. A color rendering of the theater building was shown.
A member inquired about the lighting plan for the site. Birkeland indicated the plan is not complete,
but parking lot lighting will be channeled downward and will meet City Ordinances.Regal uses neon
lighting on its buildings which does not"carry far." It was noted that freeway lighting is worse than
the lighting allowed for this development. Mr. Birkeland explained that the company will be
responsible for the cost of street improvements associated with its development.
Mr. Boone stated it was obvious that substantial "homework has been completed by the applicant.
He supported the private undertaking that benefits the City and area without the use of City funds.
He noted the desirability of a theater complex in that location since it can control movie start times
to ease potential traffic problems.
Product deliveries to the building will be made by step-down trucks (not semis) once each day
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Mr. Terry Moses, who is responsible for the restaurant development, stated the company will not
allow fast food service, gas stations, or convenience stores on the sites. Negotiations for sit-down
7-07-98 2
nationally-known up-scale restaurants, that probably will serve liquor, are in process. No outdoor
music will be allowed and lighting will meet City ordinances.
Mr. Russell McGintry,consultant to Regal Theaters, stated the company never sells tickets for more
than 80% of the theater seating, and staggers movie start times.
Members inquired about plans for snow removal on the site and the impact of the development on
the Melrose Gates complex. Mr. Birkeland stated that after plowing,the snow will be removed from
the site to accommodate maximum parking. He explained that easement agreements have been
accomplished with the Melrose complex and resident, emergency and fire truck access remains
adequate/unchanged through street improvements.
In response to a member's inquiry, Mr. Warren explained the coordination of the roadway
improvements with the proposed Holiday Station Store/dental clinic on 66th Avenue.
A member requested information on the drainage plan which requires watershed management
commission and city engineer approval. Messrs. Birkeland and Warren explained the location and
concept of the underground detention facility. It was pointed out that an alternative holding pond
plan has also been developed.
Developer representatives responded to questions regarding its demographic/customer/marketing
efforts. The company's year long study supports the desirability of the location along the I-694/94
and TH 252 corridor and customers will come from all parts of the Twin Cities metro area. The
company is in negotiations with several other suburbs for similar developments of varying sizes in
those communities. A 16 screen theater is in the footing stage in Eagan, MN. As requested,
representatives provided information about the exterior building materials.
In response to a question regarding the existing businesses on the property,Mr. Steve Nelson,owner
of Lynbrook Bowl explained the changes in the success and vitality of the bowling industry, stated
he does not intend to re-locate his business, and fully supports the theater/restaurant project. It was
pointed out that the developer has agreements to purchase three homes, and all of the existing
businesses, none of which intend to relocate elsewhere. The cost of the entire development is in the
$15-17 million range and the tax base will increase nine times. The development is in a TIF district
which is part of the Brookdale Center. According to the developer,no funds will be accepted by the
company, and will be directed for retention and use by the City.
There was discussion regarding the likelihood of successful operation of this development and a
similar one announced recently for the Brookdale Center and the existing movie theaters, and what
impact failure of the Regal operation would have.
Views expressed by advisory members and other citizens in the audience included: developers make
business decisions;competition draws traffic,people,and money to central locations(i.e. car dealers
on Brooklyn Blvd, Holiday development/SuperAmerica, etc.); is there a better location for this
• development in Brooklyn Center/Brooklyn Park that would provide greater tax benefits; City should
7-07-98 3
be involved in selecting the best location of businesses/development;skepticism of the success of
this 20-screen theater due to location and questionable demographic ptudy; support the development
because of easy freeway access,visibility, and viable demographics; free-market issues; gateway to
Brooklyn Center and north Hennepin County; exciting beneficial development for the City.
Mr. Birkeland and other company representatives defended its selection of the property and
development resulting from year long careful studies supported by a powerful company with
successful theater operations nationwide. The property could support 175,000 square feet of retail
space.
Mr. Birkeland responded to a question regarding security cameras on the building, by stating that
the company would like assistance from the City on the issue of crime prevention/deterrence.
Mr. Warren responded to questions regarding the four seats to one parking space ratio noting that
the city ordinance does allow that ratio for theaters in retail developments of 50,000 square feet or
more. Mr. Billota, a company consultant, summarized the rationale for 4/1 parking for theaters
based on a nationwide study. Flexibility of theater scheduling including staggered times, multi
screens etc. has proven to support the adequacy of the parking ratio. The study showed support for
a 511 ratio and considered 3/1 an outdated standard based on old theater industry operations.
Intensive local studies reached the same conclusions.
Ms. Sharon Paulson, General Manager of the Brookdale Center, in the audience at this meeting,
stated that its plans for Loews multiscreen theater project will be finalized within 3-4 weeks. It will
be a 90,000 square foot, 20 screen complex with stadium seating, located at the west end of the
shopping center. Construction is anticipated to begin Spring 1999. Ms. Paulson stated that
competition is good, however while certain types of competition may be difficult to sustain, no
conclusions have been drawn with respect to the development of the two multi-screen complexes.
She indicated that the parking issue at Brookdale is currently under study as the theater's footprint
is being plotted.
Chair Boone wished success to representatives of the proposed Regal and Brookdale theater
developments and acknowledged the excitement of new additions to the City.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 98015
There was a motion by Chair Steve Boone, seconded by Member Michael Snelson,to recommend
to the Planning Commission that it recommend Council approval of Application No. 98015, a
request submitted by Centres Group,Brooklyn Center,Ltd.,for rezoning and site and building plans
through the PUD process for development of a 20 screen theater, and creation of two other sites for
future restaurants on a 17.72 acre site located northwesterly of I-694 and T.H. 252, subject to a
development agreement and appropriate conditions.
Voting for: Chair Boone and Member Snelson.
Voting against: None.
Abstentions: Members Kouri, Snyder, and Stutz.
7-07-98 4
The motion passed.
Chair Boone acknowledged with appreciation the participation of the advisory group members,
interested citizens, and representatives of the developer-Centres Group, Brooklyn Center, LTD.
Mr. Warren said the Planning Commission will consider the recommendation of the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group in conjunction with its continued review and discussion of the
application at its meeting on July 16, 1998.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Boone adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Arlene Bergfalk
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
7-07-98 5
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
i
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 bne 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 submittedian
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 TH2521694 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.
6-25-98
Page 9
It should also be noted that State Statutes only give the City 60 days in which to review and
mare a decision on zoning matters. This 60 day period starts with the filing of the application,
wh}ch 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
City of Brooklyn Center
Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to
this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City
Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy
It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning", defined as a
zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the
Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and
against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications?
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the
subject property?
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject
property was zoned?
E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning
districts?
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with
respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1 . Comprehensive
planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3. The best
interests of the community?
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual
parcel?
Section 35-208
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 Uti'IT 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 "PL-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 PLDs, the City Council
shall. whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlyingi zoning classifications for the
various pare 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-
iVII1XT_D."
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-'_.MLKED, the Council shall specify regulations
applicabie to uses and s rucrses 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-HEXED, 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. Develonment 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:
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-oi-way from property which
previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and [unction
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 PUTD, 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 PU-D 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 ,
Ciry'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 PUZD shall be consistent with the parkin;requirements
contained in Section 3 5-704 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
complementan_ty 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.
ja
3J-
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 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. Imolementation 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
8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parkin; 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:
I. 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,par'.,cing 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 PUTD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant
to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by
Section >5-230, tape developer shall submit such information as may deemed necessary
or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the
approved development plan.
35-43
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 tot 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.
Cr 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 propene .
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
•
i
•
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINN.
i 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.
1
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' Street lying east of the
east line of Camden Avenue to the MnDOT right-of-way, and North Lilac Drive lying south of
66' 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" Street
3. 6525 Lyndale Avenue North(Beacon Bowl)
4. 430 - 65th 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 comer 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
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/Parkina
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.
3
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
PAGc 82
C E N T R E S _ G R 4 U P, _ L T D.
•A-
A member of the Centres Group
July 7 1998
Nor. Ron Warren
Planning and Zoning Specialist
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, NIN 55430-2199
Re: Regal Road Development Addition (66"`Avenue North and Camden Avenue
North)
Dear Ron:
As of one the co-applicants for approval of the above-referenced development, Centres
Group Brooklyn Center Limited Partnership, agrees that, as a part of such development,
the following uses of the subject property shall be prohibited: (i) "fast food" restaurant;
(ii) gas station; and (iii) convenience store. Further, simultaneously with the.recording of
the proposed plat of subdivision for the subject property, the owners of the subject
property shall execute and file for record against the subject property a declaration of
such restrictions, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City.
Centres Group Brooklyn Center Limited Partnership
Kaare A. Birkeland
KB:dmm
Real Estate Development and Management
7700 Highway 55, Suite 180, Ntinneapolis, MN 55427 (612) 541-1991 Fax (612) 541-1286
Huutlquarrers: 3313 N. 124th St., ste. E, 13rookrield, wi 5;,005 (414) 781-8760 Fax (414)781-4333
x=VACNAIS CENTER ORIV&2CO SFH CcNTER.ST.PAUL MN 55110 612 490,G+p 800 325.ZO55
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING EM?RCNMENTAL
MANsPORrAnoN
July 6, 1998 RE: Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Proposed Brooklyn Center MuItiplex
SEH No. A-BROCT9801.00
Mr. Scott Brink o Q
City Engineer Q
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Scott:
As requested, we have completed our review of the traffic related impacts of the proposed theater
multiplex located in the southwest quadrant of the TH 252 intersection with 66th Street in the City
of Brooklyn Center. Specifically, we have focused on the traffic generated by the proposed
development, 66th Street operations, and parking requirements.
Background
As shown in the proposed site lan, sent to us via fax on June 18
P , 1998, the development would
consist of a 20 screen/4,762 seat multi-screen theater, and three separate pad sites which are
anticipated to be developed as sit-down restaurants.
The proposed theater is shown on the site plan to have two access driveways located along Camden
Avenue. While the preliminary site plan does not currently show the driveway locations of the
restaurant pad sites,it is assumed that the two pads located immediately to the north and the south of
the proposed theater would each have a driveway on Camden Avenue. The remaining restaurant pad
site was assumed to share a driveway on 66th Street, with the existing Super America gas station.
Traffic Volumes
Estimated weekday and p.m_ peak hour(of the adjacent roadway and that of the site) trip generation
volumes for the proposed development are shown in Table 1. The vehicle trips generated by the
proposed development were based on the rates contained the Sixth Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 1997, as well as local rates (if known) for the specific land
use and intensity. A 10 percent reduction was applied to the restaurant trips to account for
multipurpose traffic between the various on-site establishments.
It is anticipated that approximately 80 percent of the traffic entering and exiting the site will do so
using 66th Street to the east. The remaining 20 percent will likely use 66th Street to the west of
SHORT ELLIOTT
HENCRICXSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS.MN ST CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS.Wt MACISCN, M LAX6 COUNTY.IN
EQUAL CPPCRTUNITYEMPLOYER
0 U6, ya AUN U3: U1 r; 612 4 U 21SU zi Ld �1pU3
Mr. Scott Brink
July 6, 1998
Page 2
l
Camden Avenue. This is based on the connections to the metropolitan roadway system, general flow
of traffic, distribution of residential areas, and availability of services within the immediate Twin
Cities metropolitan area.
The p.m. peals hour of the proposed development will likely coincide with peak hour of the theater.
Based on recent representative counts taken at a local multi-theater complex, the peak hour of the
theater is anticipated to occur between 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m (after the p.m. peak hour of the
adjacent roadways). Therefore, the site generated traffic was added to the adjacent roadways for both
the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadway and the p.m. peak hour of the proposed development.
The proposed development wiU have the greatest impacts on the Ieft turns in from westbound 66th
Street and the outbound right turns onto 66th Street at the Camden Avenue intersection and the
anticipated shared driveway between the existing Super America,and the proposed restaurant. During
the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadways, we estimate that there will be 192 westbound left tums
onto Camden Avenue and 93 left turns into the shared driveway off of 66th Street. Right turns onto
66th Street from Camden Avenue and the shared driveway are estimated at 110 and 82`vehicles,
respectively.
The turning movements are anticipated to significantly increase during the p.m. peak hour of the
proposed development; particularly at the 66th Street intersection with Camden Avenue. It is
estimated that 652 vehicles will make the westbound left turn onto Camden Avenue and 512 will
make the northbound right turn onto 66th Street, during the p.m. peak hour of the proposed
development. Volumes at the shared driveway on 66th Street will also likely increase at a lesser
extent. It is estimated that 111 westbound left turns into the shared driveway and 102 northbound
right turns onto 66th Street will be made during the p.m. peak hour of the proposed development.
66th Street Operations
As the estimated volumes indicare, the proposed development will likely have a significant impact on
the operations of 66th Street;particularly at the Camden Avenue intersection. Given the existing lane
configuration, traffic control,and the site generated traffic during the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent
roadways, the intersection of 66th Street and Camden Avenue will likely operate at an acceptable level
of service "A". Considering the peak hour traffic generated by the proposed development, the
intersection will operate at a level of service "E", with the stop-controlled northbound left turn
operating at a level of service "F". In other words, while the existing lane configuration and traffic
control may be able to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development
during the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadways, they will not be able to accommodate the traffic
generated by the proposed development's peak hour.
Preliminary investigation revealed that a traffic signal may be warranted at the intersection of 66th
Street with Camden Avenue,as a result of the site generated P.M. peak hour traffic alone. Assuming
signalization, the intersection of 66th Street and Camden Avenue will likely operate at a level of
service "A" given site Generated traffic during the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent roadways, and a
.... .
Mr. Scott Brink
July 6, 1998
Page 3
level of service"B" given the peak hour traffic generated by the proposed development. it should be
noted that this analysis considers the intersection of 66th Street and Camden Avenue independently,
without considering the effects of the turn lane storage requirements and the potential vehicular
queues that may occur,especially if the intersection is signalized.
Currently, there is adequate*storage in the striped two-way left-turn lane to accommodate
approximately 18 westbound left-fuming vehicles on 66th Street before access into the existing Super
America is partially blocked. As a general rule, dual left-turn lanes should be considered when turning
volumes are equal to or greater than 300 vehicles per hour, or when the requirements for storage make
the turn lanes extremely long. At unsignalized intersections, tum lanes should provide enough storage
length to accommodate the number of vehicles anticipated to arrive in an average two-minute period
during the peak hour. At signalized intersections, turn lane storage lengths should be based on the
average number of vehicles that will need to be stored per signal cycle times a safety factor(usually
1.5 or 2.0).
Considering the existing, unsignalized intersection operation and the peak hour traffic of the proposed
development,the westbound left turn lane on 66th Street at Camden Avenue should accommodate 22
vehicles (or be roughly 550 feet in length). Assuming that a traffic signal with a 60 second cycle
length is installed at this intersection, the left turn lane should be able to accommodate 17 to 22
vehicles (or approximately 425 to 550 feet in length), depending on the safety factor used.
Under either scenario, it is likely that 66th Street will not be able to accommodate the traffic volumes
generated during the proposed development's peak hour without impacting access in and out of the
existing driveways between Camden Avenue and Highway 252. Revised roadway and/or intersection
geometries, such as a dual westbound left-turn lanes are a likely solution; however,they would require
the widening of 66th Street and there may not be sufficient distances or widths to develop the dual
left-turn lane using standard taper lengths.
Access along 66th Street may also need revisions. The Camden Avenue intersection is located
approximately 700 feet west of the existing signalized Highway 252 intersection on 66th Street. There
are currently four driveways located along 66th Street,between these two intersections (three on the
north and one on the south side). As part of other studies for the City, we have suggested that the
installation of a median and access revisions (such as shared driveways) along 66Th Street may be
required in order to help channelize traffic and reduce the overall number of conflicts as traffic
volumes increase due to potential redevelopment in the area. In order to reduce the conflict area
between vehicles entering development on both sides of 66th Street, it is recommended that the
potential shared driveway between the existing Super America and the proposed restaurant be aligned
with the driveway located on the north side of 66th Street.
True to the nature of the land uses proposed as part of this development, the majority of the additional
• traffic added to the Highway 252 intersection with 661h Street will tend to occur after the roadway's
p.m. peak hour and be oriented to and from the south on Highway 252. This will result in heavier,
but non-conflicting northbound left turns and eastbound right turns at the intersection. Alternative
U UV- JV .U1 VY rr ..L .lrr YJV rrVV J....
4jUU�
Mr. Scott Brink
July 6, 1998
Page 4
i
land uses proposed for this site, which included office space, tended to increase traffic during the
roadway's peak periods, as well as adding to the number of eastbound left turns, which would directly
conflict with the northbound lcft turns. While the theater/restaurant land uses of this development
proposal will likely have less overall traffic related impacts during the peak periods on the Highway
252166th'Street intersection than multi-use developments with substantial office type land uses, the
shear number of vehicles making the northbound left turn onto 66th Street during the proposed
development's peak hour will likely be a problem,too.
Parking Requirements
The proposed site plan shows that 1174 parking spaces are provided for the theater complex. We have
reviewed several sources including the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation
(1937), the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking (1983), and data from Northwestern University's
Traffic institute, and have determined that the proposed multi-theater complex will likely require
approximately 1,155 parking spaces during a typical peak period. We therefore conclude that the
1,174 parking spaces provided will adequately serve the proposed multi-theater complex. It should
be noted,that the parking requirements of the three restaurant pad sites, and the potential for shared
parking between the proposed land uses were not studied as part of this analysis.
If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this letter, please feel free to contact
us (Glen at 490-2045 or John at 490-2195).
Respectfully submitted,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Glen Van Wormer, P.E. John M. Hagen, P.E.
Manager, Transportation Department Transportation Engineer
Jmh
Enclosure
X.1TRAMIAGeiWZMO.NM} UNK.7U6
s
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
• PROPOSED MULTI-THEATER COMPLEX
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
P.M. Peak Hour of P.M. Peak Hour of
Adjacent Roadways Generator
Daily
Land Use Size Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Movie Theater with Matinee 4,762 seats 3,100' 183° 103° 286' 720b 566° 1286'
Sit-Down Restaurant 6,000 SF 780 39 26 65 64 52 116
Sit-Down Restaurant 6,000 SF 780 39 26 65 64 52 116
Sit-Down Restaurant 5,000 SF 650 32 22 54 53 44 97
Existing Super America N/A 2,000 80 80 160 81 81 162
Subtotal 7,310 373 257 630 982 795 1,777
Total Trips Added to Adjacent Roadways` 6,950 356 240 1 596 954 767 1,721
Note:Unless otherwise noted, trip generation estimates are derived form the data provided in the Sixth Edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation'report, 1997.
"Daily trip data formovie theaters should be used with caution, since the rate is based on a limited number of
studies.
°Trip generation estimate is based on representative counts at local multi-theater complex.
`Adjusted total reflects 10%multi-purpose trip reduction applied to the restaurant land uses.
i
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption: f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION.NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDING DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 98015 SUBMITTED BY
CENTRES GROUP BROOKLYN CENTER. LTD.
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 98015 submitted by Centres
Group Brooklyn Center, LTD. proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/C-2 of 730,192
sq. ft. (16.76 acres) area of land that is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue and the Super
America site; on the east by TH252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the west by Camden
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned
property and site and building plan approval for an 85,240 sq. ft., 4,592 seat, 20 screen theater
on a proposed 13.09 acre site and the creation of two other sites, one that is 71,693 sq. ft. in area
and the other 88,186 sq. ft. in area for future commercial development, most likely restaurant
uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June
25, 1998, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building
plan were received; and
WHEREAS, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this
matter on July 7, 1998, at the City Hall and recommended approval of this planned unit
development proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on July
16, 1998, 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 Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 98015
submitted by Centres Group Brooklyn Center, LTD. be approved in light of the following
considerations:
• 1. The rezoning and planned unit development proposal are compatible with the
standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO.
2. 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.
3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the rezoning and planned unit
development proposal will conform with City ordinance standards with the
exception of the parking requirement for theaters which requires one parking space
for every three seats within the theater complex. Variation from the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a parking formula of one parking space for every four theater
seats is justified on the basis of the development plan submitted and the operational
differences on parking demand that a multiplex theater of this size has which
allows the ability to stagger starting times within the theater complex to lessen or
spread out the demand for parking over a greater period of time. The applicants
have also provided a parking analysis that indicates national norms, local norms,
parking generation, and local parking studies all conclude that the standard of one
parking space for every four seats is a reasonable standard to apply to this proposed
theater complex.
4. The rezoning and planned unit development proposal are considered compatible .
with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the
City.
5. The rezoning and planned unit development appear to be a good utilization of the
property under consideration and the future potential uses of two adjacent
properties for commercial restaurant sites is also a good long range use of the
existing land and can be considered an asset to the community.
6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings and contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met
and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City
of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 98015 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 are 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
RESOLUTION NO.
be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
building permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to
meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The property owner shall enter into an easement agreement for maintenance and
inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits.
11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform
to the City of Brooklyn Center standard specifications and details.
12. Approval of this application is subject to the applicant complying with all of the
requirements and regulations of the West Mississippi Watershed Management
Commission with respect to this site. The storm drainage system shall be
acceptable to the Watershed Management Commission and the applicant shall
comply with any conditions imposed by that body prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project.
13. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by
approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with
Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits.
14. The applicant shall enter.into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn
Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of
building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge a parking ratio of one parking
• space for every four seats in the multiplex theater and shall acknowledge all
conditions of approval and assure compliance with development plans submitted
by the applicant.
RESOLUTION NO.
15. The area identified on the site plan as "pad site 2" and "pad site 3" shall be seeded
in a manner to allow appropriate maintenance of this property pending future
development. Future development of this area is subject to amendment to this
planned unit development.
16. The applicant has agreed and the City acknowledges that it will not allow the
development of "pad site 2" and "pad site 3" as a fast food/convenience food
restaurant, a gasoline service station/convenience store or a car wash and the
development agreement will acknowledge this restriction or limitation on the future
use of the property.
Date Chair
ATTEST: S
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.
•
Application Filed 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 T. H. 252 (Except for the Super America 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, a portion
of Camden Avenue, and that portion of North Lilac Drive that is controlled by the City of
Brooklyn Center into three parcels of land. The preliminary plat has been modified from the
preliminary plat which was considered and tabled by the Planning Commission on June 25,
1998. The plan no longer reflects excess NfNDOT right-of-way over portions of North Lilac
Drive.
The purpose of the plat is to create a large 570,313 sq. ft. parcel of land for the development of a
20 screen multi-flex theater and two other lots, one being 71,693 sq. ft. and located southwesterly
of the theater lot, and the other being 88,186 sq. ft. and located northwesterly of the theater lot.
• The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by 66th
Avenue and the Super America site; on the east by T. H. 252; 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 Rezoning and Site and Building Plan comprehended under Application No. 98015.
The properties under consideration are the following:
1. 6357 and 6351 Lilac Drive North(Lynbrook Bowl and Schwalenberg Interiors).
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 the southeast corner of Camden Avenue North and 66th Avenue
North(adjacent to the Super America property).
10. City owned property at the southwest corner of 65th Avenue North and North Lilac
Drive.
s 7-16-98
Page 1
11. Street right-of-ways for 65th Avenue North between Camden and North Lilac
Drive; portions of North Lilac Drive between Camden Avenue and 65th Avenue
North controlled by the City of Brooklyn Center; and the southerly portion of
Camden Avenue North.
The proposal would divide these properties into three lots to be known as the Regal Road
Development Addition. Lot 1 of the proposed addition would be 570,313 sq. ft. (13.09 acres)
and would be the site of the Regal Cinema 20 screen multi-plex theater. Lot 2 is 71,693 sq. ft.
(1.65 acres) and is the site proposed for future commercial development. Lot 3 is 88,186 sq. ft.
(2.02 acres) and is also a site for future commercial development.
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 to acquire from the City the city owned property
at the southwest corner of 65th and North Lilac and also city controlled right-of-way along North
Lilac Drive and a portion of Camden Avenue right-of-way through a vacation process. The City
Council must ultimately agree to the conveyance and vacation of these properties before they can
be included in the plat. The City Council has not yet agreed to the final conditions for the
conveyance of this property.
If the conveyance is accomplished and the plat goes forward, easements for public utilities in the
65th,North Lilac and Camden Avenues will need to be drafted to protect utilities in these areas.
There will be a need for a cross access easement over Lot 2 to the Camden Avenue North cul-de-
sac for the Melrose Gate apartment complex in order to get access to the southeast access to the
site.
As mentioned in the previous report,the site is required to be reviewed by the West Mississippi
Watershed Management Commission along with the Planned Unit Development proposal. This
matter should be before that body at their meeting on August 13, 1998.
This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its June 25, 1998, meeting pending
review of the Planned Unit Development under Application No. 98015 by the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group. That group met to review the proposal and did recommend
approval of it at a meeting held in the City Council Chambers on July 7, 1998.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission, following a continued public hearing on this
matter as well as the Planned Unit Development,recommend approval of this application if the
Planned Unit Development is also recommended for approval. The approval should be subject to
at least the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
7-16-98 .
Page 2
r
• I Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be drafted and filed with the final
plat covering the utilities contained within the existing 65th Avenue North right-of-
way,the portion of the Camden Avenue North right-of-way to be vacated and
portions of the North Lilac right-of-way controlled by the City also requested for
vacation.
4. Appropriate street vacation ordinances must be approved by the City Council prior to
final plat approval.
5. The final plat is subject to review and approval of the West Mississippi Watershed
Management Commission relating to ponding areas and potentially the need for
easement areas also.
• 7-16-98
Page 3
mm ��, .r 1171 611 ■/111111 : ' ■JUM
�.i _
MM rata rim ■sa r.00 C. r•
mm If
mKmi
In NEI
Ems
LB
�� ■tt■■■111■ rata � I� � 1i
■ �� �� rir, ram r, �/a �' :: ���
/tr�10 w� EE C + �� /2r
�w �_ ►���� ♦� ter• >.= in►
m m
.... .11� " �' "_ 113 ■It
— • ems. .. ..
r♦roar, _ - �� �EN iw�■t �L `
mvp wp�
p�
pm-
►°°°°°°°°°i°i°+e = WA s
FAK
WA
Awl
W�U3 Wmi '�-' ���'
��r
AP p
�� fi Zm ��
i
i
•
,1 • ). 1�it It • ; li, '� I �� i •r4 i� � � l • j i :. �,
1 Jjltl�l r s p�l I
,
a l l'hi! � ll tal �'��:i�l.li �► •, i ; t II l t i t ( _y• • b A
(ilt,� ,` L' .`lr{,• t' {yy i 't E t F t fir_' '•.,_�_ f
vi'j�'l 1l 'illt'1' I a;
I ttt• ! �' �r I , i , . 111 1 I- • rr.
•� ji
t i J »1. I
l!{•I t' � it {��� � � � I I I I �
,11, !jt ,��j u r.S:I;,.r„ i ► ,� ,� t; I r 111 - .�..u...�
r�{ It::�•t';iP14 3 lt`jj,�'i�l• Al
.. .. .u.�
13Ettf. I.,l, .,fe ,litliis f HEN a,.�,�llt�lt► , 1, ! t+ �I ��
i;
ttr G ,r tt' �► i ._��
dill � • . �
tin>>ri�i' - % ,.-'
wN
A A\R
- . 0 P
O•� r •C ' I
(�► I ci ; I g��� I i
-- l; x > 1 t I fit
I � � :1 `��\ tee!� :1 , � �• // / � f��
� W ii ��" ��'I���ic f 1 • 1t!
1 F�
�! �� y�P(MYi(•1C. SiA110i
• Application File On 6-4-98
City Council Action Should be
• Taken by 8-3-98 (60 days)
i
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 comer of Camden Avenue North and 66th Avenue North
(adjacent to the SuperAmerica property)
10. City owned property at the southwest comer 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
Page 1
and would be the site of the Regal Cinema 20 screen multi-plex 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