The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 09-10 PCP . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - August 13, 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. Dave Phillips, Phillips Architects 98017 • Request for Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for an expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth Dealership at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the interim use of 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for the storage and display of new and used car inventory. This application was tabled by the Commission on August 13, 1998 and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group which met to review this matter on September 2, 1998. 6. Joseph Lampe and Ernee McArthur 98018 Request for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a metes and bounds description of a 16 1/,- ' x 675' strip of land. 7. Centres Group Brooklyn Center, LTD 98019 Request for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved for this area under Planning Commission Application NQ. 98015 to provide an alternative storm water detention plan. 8. Other Business 9. Discussion Items 10. Adjournment Application Filed on 7-16-98 City Council Action Should Be • Taken By 9-1.1-98 (Applicant Has Waived the 60 Day Limitation) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98017 Applicant: Dave Phillips, Phillips Architects Location: 6121 and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan-PUD/C-2 The applicant is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development(PUD)process for an expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the interim use of 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for the storage and display of new and used car inventory. The expansion would consist of a 8,500 sq. ft. building addition for automobile service and repair and a 1,100 sq. ft. car wash, while an approximate 100 by 180 ft. parking lot would be built on the adjacent lot to the south(6107 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership is owned by Mr. William Bartram-who leases the facility from Chrysler Realty Corporation, owner of the land and building at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Bartram owns the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard,which was formerly the location of a single family home that was recently demolished. The Chrysler Plymouth . dealership is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce)and the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is currently zoned C-1 (Service/Office). Both Mr. Bartram and Chrysler Realty are in agreement on seeking the rezoning of these properties to a PUD/C-2 zoning designation. The land in question is located on the westerly side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 62nd Avenue North. It is surrounded on the north by 62nd Avenue; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by property at 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard, which is zoned C-1 (Service/Office) and contains a legal non-conforming single family home; also on the south are two single family homes facing 61st Avenue North,which are located in an R-1 zoning district; on the southwest by Wangstad Park; and on the west by a portion of the Ewing Square Townhomes, double bungalows and single family homes. Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C-2 zoning district. These uses are not comprehended under the C-1 zoning district. Automotive repair is not allowed to abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property at a property line or at a street line. R-1 and R-2 abutment exists along the west property line of the dealership where one and two family homes are located and also along the south property line where there are single family homes facing 61st Avenue North. It should be noted that Wangstad Park is located in an R-1 zone as well. It is possible for off-site accessory parking for Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth to be located on C- • 9-10-98 Page 1 I zoned property through a special use permit provided the buffer and setback provisions required of the,principal use are met on the property containing the off-site accessory parking. The applicant's proposal, which includes expansion of the service garage to the west of the existing service garage, also creates a slight encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer/setback area required where the C-2 property abuts with R-1 zoned property. The existing building already encroaches into this buffer/setback area and the applicant proposes the expansion to continue along this building line having a setback line of 25 ft. 8 in. rather than 35 ft. Because of these factors and Mr. Bartram's desire to use his property (6107 Brooklyn Boulevard)on an interim basis, the applicant is seeking the PUD/Rezoning. Such rezonings could allow the expansion of the service garage in the manner proposed, provided a finding is made based on the plans submitted that the negative aspects are offset in an appropriate manner. This application was originally considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 13, 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 West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter at the Brooklyn Center City Hall on September 2, 1998. After review, discussion and input from persons in attendance, the advisory group unanimously recommended approval of the proposal to the Planning Commission. Attached for.the Commission's review is a copy of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group minutes from that meeting. Also attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 98017 which was presented on August 13, 1998, and the Planning Commission minutes from that meeting. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan and site plan showing the two sites and how they would interrelate with each other. The two properties would not be combined into a single parcel, however, they would share common access onto Broo'.clyn Boulevard just to the south of the auto dealership building and an appropriate cross access agreement would need to be developed. The Chrysler dealership site is 196,693 sq. ft. in area(4.5 acres) and requires 311 landscape points. The parcel at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is approximately 28,800 sq. ft. in area (.66 acres). This site requires 80 landscape points. The applicant proposes to meet the point system by utilizing existing landscaping on the site and some new landscaping to be located along the 62nd Avenue North greenstrip as well as landscaping for and around the new off-site parking lot both for screening and aesthetic purposes. In addition, screening and landscaping is to be provided in the area where the service garage 9-10-98 , Page 2 expansion is to take place. The Brookdale Chrysler site has 30 existing shade trees which are to • remain. The maximum credit for these existing plantings is 156 points. They are proposing to provide 21 new coniferous trees, Black Hills Spruce and Colorado Blue Spruce and nine new ornamental trees, such as Canada Red Cherry. Forty new shrubs are proposed which brings the total point calculation for the Brookdale Chrysler site to 315.5 points. The off-site lot proposes to have 80 landscape points by providing two Summit Ashe, five Black Hills Spruce and twenty Pointella Abbottswood as well as two existing shade trees. The concentration of landscaping is in a 35 ft. greenstrip along the westerly portion of the site. The new off-site lot would be provided with a proposed 4 ft. high fence for screening purposes. It has been recommended that the screening fence be 6 ft. high and be carried around to the south property line as well. It has also been recommended that an ivy or vine be planted on the southerly wall of the new addition to soften its impact on the residential properties to the south. This along with 16 Black Hills Spruce which are proposed to be planted in the greenstrip between the Chrysler dealership and the residential property should serve as appropriate screening to offset or mitigate the effects of the encroachment into the 35 ft. greenstrip and the expansion of the service garage adjacent to R-1 zoned property. It has been recommended that the applicant provide additional shade trees in the 15 ft. greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard. This should be provided in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Study of a few years ago. The applicant has agreed to provide this landscaping and it is recommended that it be provided in clumps of three or four trees rather than evenly spaced plantings. This again is consistent with the recommendations of the Brooklyn • Boulevard Streetscape Study. The applicant has requested that he be allowed to work with the staff in providing the precise location for these plantings and this seems appropriate. Drainage on the site will be conveyed to storm sewer, which will be connected to storm sewer in Brooklyn Boulevard. The new off-site accessory, or inventory, lot will be bound by B-612 curb and gutter. It appears that the plans and the Planned Unit Development proposal are in order and,noting the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group's recommendation, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. It should be noted that the applicant, at the August 13, 1998, meeting, agreed to waive the 60 day statutory requirement for responding to zoning applications. This was to allow the ability of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group to meet, discuss and make recommendations regarding the plans. The applicant has also followed up with a written statement waiving this matter. Otherwise, the application would have to have been acted upon by the City Council no later than September 14, 1998. PROCEDURE • 9-10-9s Page 3 It is recommended that the Planning Commission take any additional comments during the continued public hearing and deliberate any concerns that the Commission has. A draft Planning Commission Resolution is attached for the Commission's consideration. • 9-10-98 • Page 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 98017 Applicant: Dave Phillips, Phillips Architects Location: 6121 and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/C-2 The applicant is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for an expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the interim use of 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for the storage and display of new and used car inventory. The expansion would consist of a 8,500 sq. ft. building addition for automobile service and repair and a 1,100 sq. ft. car wash, while an approximate 100 ft. by 180 ft. parking lot would be built on the adjacent lot to the south(6107 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership is owned by Mr. William Bartram who leases the facility from Chrysler Realty Corporation, owner of the land and building at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Bartram owns the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard, which was formerly the location of a single family home that was recently demolished. The Chrysler Plymouth dealership is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is currently zoned C-1 (Service/Office). Both Mr. Bartram and Chrysler Realty are in agreement on seeking the rezoning of these properties to a PUD/C-2 zoning designation. The land in question is located on the westerly side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 62nd Avenue North. It is surrounded on the north by 62nd Avenue; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by property at 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard,which is zoned C-1 (Service/Office) and contains a legal, non-conforming single family home; also on the south are two single family homes facing 61st Avenue North, which are located in an R-1 zoning district; on the southwest by Wangstad Park; and on the west by a portion of the Ewing Square Townhomes, double bungalows and single family homes. Automobile sales and service are special uses in the C-2 zoning district. These uses are not comprehended under the C-1 zoning district. Automotive repair is not allowed to abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property at a property line or at a street line. R-1 and R-2 abutment exists along the west property line of the dealership where one and two family homes are located and also along the south property line where there are single family homes facing 61 st Avenue North. It should be noted that Wangstad Park is also located in an R-I zone as well. It is possible for off-site accessory parking for Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth to be located on C- 1 zoned property through a special use permit provided the buffer and setback provisions required of the principal use are met on the property containing the off-site accessory parking. The proposal, which includes the expansion of the service garage to the west of the existing service garage, also creates a slight encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer/setback area required 8-13-98 Page 1 40 where the C-2 property abuts with R-1 zoned property. The existing building already encroaches into this buffer/setback area and the applicant proposes the expansion to continue along this building line having a setback of 25 ft. 8 in. rather than 35 ft. Because of these factors and Mr. Bartram's desire to use his property(6107 Brooklyn Boulevard) on an interim basis, the applicant is seeking the PUD rezoning. Such a rezoning could allow the expansion of the service garage in the manner proposed,provided a finding is made based on the plan submitted that the negative aspects are offset in an appropriate manner. Mr. Bartram, at some point, would like to redevelop the area around 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for commercial use, such as office redevelopment, general commerce redevelopment or possibly even the expansion of the car dealership. It is my understanding that he has approached neighboring property owners about their interest in selling their land. The use of his property" on an interim basis for parking and display of inventory would allow a reasonable interim use of the property and would not preclude future redevelopment because no new buildings would have to be removed from the property in order to redevelop it. Also, although the parking and display lot would be accessory as this time to the dealership, the expansion of the dealership would be accomplished on its own merits. The parking in the display/inventory lot is not needed to support the service garage expansion contemplated in this proposal. It should be noted that Mr. Bartram had pursued a PUD/C-2 rezoning of the same parcels of land in 1993 under Planning Commission Application No. 93011 to pursue an expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership facility. The proposal at that time comprehended a building addition that would have extended onto the 6107 Brooklyn.Boulevard site and 40 additional parking to the south of that building. Improvements to the building included a new write up area, office, restrooms, lunchroom, and display room additions. This PUD was approved by the City Council on November 8, 1993,through Resolution No.'93-201 (copy attached), following an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan that allowed this area to be designated for"commercial retail"development. Prior to this Comprehensive Plan amendment the area including the Chrysler Plymouth dealership and the property Y to the south were designated only for"Service/Office"commercial redevelopment. The amendment designating the area for commercial retail or general commerce redevelopment has been included and recommended in the City's revised Comprehensive Plan as well. Therefore, it can be said that the expansion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bartram and Chrysler Realty, after the 1993 approval,did not pursue the development proposal and the PUD/C-2 designation was not attached to the property. They must,therefore, seek such a designation at this time. Although the proposal today is somewhat different from that of 1993, many of the same principals exist. REZONING 8-13-98 Page 2 e 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 riles and regulations governing that district (in this case C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking modification to allow automobile service expansion and an encroachment into a buffer/setback area based on special modifications that would be or could be made to their plan to offset,or mitigate, the negative effects of such an expansion. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City's zoning ordinance,which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the City's zoning ordinance as well as the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well. Mr. Dave Phillips, of Phillips Architects, on behalf of the owners has submitted a letter and written statement regarding the proposal along with comments as to how he believes the proposal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. The letter(attached) indicates that Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard needs additional space to accommodate the needs of their customers. In addition, he notes the facility is in need of upgrading to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). He also indicates the desire of Mr. Bartram for an interim use of the property as a parking and display area which would reserve its ability to be combined with properties to the south and west in the future for redevelopment purposes. His letter goes on to review the proposed addition to the service garage and a 1,100 sq. ft. car wash and the remodeling of the former body shop into a parts area. He notes that in all six service bays will be eliminated in the existing area leaving a net add of seven service bays to the total compliment at the site. Also,there would be remodeling within the existing structure to provide ADA toilet facilities as well as interior changes including creating new sales offices in the existing customer lounge, toilets and service office areas. The showroom would be completely renovated and the existing used car building located to the north of the existing building would be demolished. He also notes the interim use of the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for the display and storage of new and used car inventory. He points out that their would be.a shared driveway between the existing Chrysler Plymouth dealership and the offsite lot with the elimination of one existing driveway on the south portion of the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard. The letter goes on to comment on how the applicant believes their development proposal meets the guidelines in the zoning ordinance and how they believe it offers the city benefits with this development. 8-13-98 Page 3 I n The following is a review of the guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's zoning ordinance relating to the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. First the guideline is listed, then the applicant's comments are cited and a staff response is provided as follows: A. Is there a clear and public need and benefit? The applicant's comments indicate that the improvements they propose to make will eliminate a driveway along Brooklyn Boulevard, increasing the safety at the site. Also, the ADA access and other improvements to the existing facility will benefit the public and the customers of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth. The demolition of the used car building will enhance the Brooklyn Boulevard"street scape". The ability will still exist to combine 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard with other lots for potential redevelopment in the area and will eventually correct a zoning conflict. The public will benefit from the substantial capital investment, which will encourage other improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard and increase the tax base. He notes that this PUD does not request any public funds or subsidies and the redevelopment will add additional above average paying jobs to the city. All of the points mentioned above by the applicant can be considered public benefits. Redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard has been acknowledged as important in a number of studies that have been conducted by the city and in the revised Comprehensive Plan as well. The important element in any redevelopment is that it meet city needs and be consistent with redevelopment policies. The PUD process is a vehicle which can be used to give the city the needed flexibility in addressing issues such as allowing expansions and consideration of abutting residential properties. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that the Chrysler dealership property is currently zoned C-2. The use as a new car sales and service facility has existed there for approximately 30 years. The PUD will not change the existing uses at the 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard property. He notes that the Bartram.property (6107 Brooklyn Boulevard) is zoned C-1 and the use as an accessory parking lot is consistent with that zoning. C-2 and R-1 zoned property are allowed under the City's zoning ordinance to abut, each other,however, certain buffer and setback requirements are imposed on the commercially zoned property. The sale of motor vehicles is a special use in the C-2 zone and automobile repair and service is also a special use in this zone,but this aspect of the business is not allowed to abut R-1 or R-2 zoned property at a property line. The use of the lot at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for off site accessory parking is comprehended under the City's zoning ordinance. It should be noted that a number of 8-13-98 Page 4 studies, two in fact, recommend that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow automobile service stations, gasoline stations, fast food restaurants, etc. to abut residentially zoned properties in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor including the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership so that it could expand. This PUD proposal would allow such a redevelopment and the expansion of the service garage at the facility. Particular attention should be made as to how this expanded area, and encroachment into the buffer area is addressed through screening and landscaping to offset adverse affects. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that no change in the underlying zoning is requested as part of the PUD. The proposed uses, either exist in the case of servicing the vehicles or are permitted in the current zone. They say that it is desired by the city staff that 6107 property be eventually combined with adjacent C-1 and R-1 properties to form a viable commercial site. This PUD, they note, facilitates the future assembly of this commercial lot by combining it with the Chrysler property. It should be noted that all of the permitted uses and the proposed uses in this proposal could be comprehended for development or redevelopment in the proposed zoning district if this PUD proposal is accepted. It should be clarified that the city staff does not necessarily desire that 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard be eventually combined with adjacent C-1 and R-1 zoned properties. It is a fact, however,that in order for a C-1 zoned property to be developed along a major thoroughfare such as Brooklyn Boulevard,that it have a minimum of 150 feet of frontage and one acre in area. The staff has commented to the developer that the combination of lots in this area would allow such a redevelopment. It is not, however, a particular desire of the city staff that all of these properties be combined, only that it may make some sense to do this in terms of efficient redevelopment of the entire area. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant indicates that after the Chrylser facility was cosntructed, zoning was changed to permit the sales of new vehicles, but servicing of the vehicles became a non-conforming use. Servicing of the new cars sold at any dealership is an integral and required part of the business. There has been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes made in this area since the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth property was zoned C-2 in the early 8-13-98 Page 5 i 1960's. It is true that the repair of automobiles is prohibited from abutting residential property and this provision became part of the City's zoning ordinance in the late 1960's as well. We do acknowledge that automobile repair is an integral part of the sales of new and used vehicles. In fact, the City's licensing regulations relating to automobile sales requires that there be a repair facility for each operation involved in the sale of new and used cars. Various studies done in the past few years relating to Brooklyn Boulevard indicate that there should be a change in city regulations relating to this abutment issue and that the commercial areas such as the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth site be allowed to expand. This can be seen in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which was accomplished in 1993 relating to the then proposed Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth expansion allowing it to go forward. The use of this property in the future as a commercial retail use is recommended in the revised Comprehensive Plan as well. E. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This is not a city initiated zoning proposal, therefore,this guideline does not apply. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? The applicant indicates that the PUD does not propose uses which are new to the 40 zoning district, but that the process is requested to allow for the upgrading or updating of the Chrysler Plymouth facility to current standards and the additional service space needed. It is the staff's position that the subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the PUD/C-2 proposal based on findings that would need to be made by the City Council and a development agreement between the city and the developer, which would address any and all issues raised and be acknowledged in an approved site plan as part of the development agreement. Perhaps one of the most critical points that will need to be reviewed is how the proposed use can be screened from abutting residential uses to the west and south. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district,with respect to size, configuration,topography or location? The applicant notes that the 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard property would not meet current zoning criteria as a C-1 use due to its size. He also notes that if this property were permanently attached to the larger C-2 property (6121 Brooklyn Boulevard)to the north, then the adjacent C-1 lot to the south (6 101 Brooklyn Boulevard)would not 8-13-98 4 Page 6 meet the criteria for redevelopment as a C-1 property even if it were combined with the two R-1 lots to the west. He adds that this PUD process allowing for an interim use of 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard would also allow for future redevelopment of the property to the south of the Chrysler dealership, apparently in its entirety. The City's zoning ordinance does require minimum one acre sites with 150 ft. of frontage for service/office land uses along a major thoroughfare such as Brooklyn Boulevard. It is true that the 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard site cannot, by itself, be developed under its current zoning as a service office development. It must be combined with other property for development purposes. It is also true that 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard, which is also zoned C--1,cannot be redeveloped under its current C-1 zoning by itself without it being attached to other property to make a large enough development site. It has been speculated, as it was in 1993,that it may be desirable for the other two properties,which are zoned R-1 and are located westerly of the C-1 zoned properties to be included as commercial land for redevelopment purposes. The only way that the two properties which are zoned C-1 (6107 and 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard) can be developed under their C-1 zoning, is if they are combined. The PUD process establishes a vehicle for proper redevelopment or the potential redevelopment of all of the properties in this area. In the meantime, it seems appropriate to use the 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard property on an interim basis for an off-site lot for the parking and display of vehicles associated with the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership. H. Will the rezoning,result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted b : 1. a P g � Y Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicant notes that all uses contemplated by the PUD request currently exist. Also the PUD is warranted due to the lack of developable land in the area and the applicant believes additional capital investment in the property is in the best interest of the community. He adds that Chrysler is also committed to compliance with the Americans with Disability Act when completing renovations for their facilities. The staff notes that studies done of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor do encourage expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership and also to provide for expansion needs of businesses in the area. The existing Comprehensive Plan was amended to acknowledge the change in the designation of this area for a commercial retail use as well as the service office use. It can be said that the expansion of the zoning district is warranted by Comprehensive Planning and that the Comprehensive Plan has been modified to allow such an expansion in this particular case. It should also be noted that there is a lack of developable land in not only the proposed zoning s-13-9s Page 7 district, but in the city as well. Very little undeveloped land exists in the city and for redevelopment to occur, proposals such as this are the only means for redevelopment. The creation of the PUD/C-2 zoning district provides for flexibility in dealing with redevelopment issues such as that proposed by that application. The proposed redevelopment, could be considered to be in the best interest of the community if it is properly developed. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant notes that they believe the proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owners by providing safety improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard including eliminating one driveway and construction of a shared entrance. They also note that future development potential to the south of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership allows for consolidating the non-conforming parcels into a viable commercial lot. The staff believes the proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of a particular property owner if it sari be concluded that this can lead to an upgrading in the site and the upgrading of the physical character of Brooklyn Boulevard as well. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposal calls for an approximate 8,500 sq. ft. addition to the west side of the existing Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth building along with a 1,100 sq. ft. car wash addition also to the west of the building. The service addition would add additional service bays to the site and reconfigure, internally,the uses within the building itself. As the applicant has indicated, various modifications to the site would be done to meet ADA requirements. The existing used car building located in the north parking lot would be demolished and would provide additional parking in this area. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site would remain basically the same with the accesses off 62nd Avenue remaining. The existing southerly access to the dealership site along Brooklyn Boulevard would be modified to be a shared access with the off-site parking lot to the south. An existing driveway access serving 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard would be eliminated. With the net gain of seven new service bays, an additional 21 parking spaces would-be required. It appears that the site can accommodate the expansion. Parking at a car dealership is a function of providing enough, parking for employees, customers, and vehicles being serviced. The balance of the site can, therefore, be used for inventory. Parking on the site will accommodate the expansion. The off- , , 8-13-98 Page 8 site lot is really a benefit to the dealership by providing additional inventory parking and display parking along Brooklyn Boulevard. DRAINAGE/GRADING/UTILITIES This aspect of the proposal will be reviewed by the City Engineer and further analysis will be forthcoming. It may be required that this proposal be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission because the combined sites are in excess of five acres. Further comment with respect to this will be provided. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing minimal landscaping to the off-site accessory lot primarily to the west of the lot. It should be noted that an additional landscaping plan indicating the point analysis for the entire Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth site should be submitted so that an evaluation can be made as to the appropriateness of the existing landscaping on the site. An analysis of the approximate .66 acre site (6107 Brooklyn Boulevard) should also be provided. This request has been made of the architect and he has assured me that he will provide such an analysis. Screening of the site is important with respect to the approval of such a proposal. It is the staff's position that extensive screening should be provided to the south of the service garage addition, particularly where it encroaches into the normally required 35 ft. buffer strip. Again,a PUD application can waive such an encroachment,but such a recommendation should be done only with extensive screening that offsets the negative effects of the encroachment. Also,with respect to the west portion of the off-site lot where the applicant is proposing a 4 ft. high opaque fence, it is recommended that screening, of an opaque variety, be provided to a height of 8 ft. where the off-site lot abuts with the existing R-1 zoned property to the west. It is also recommended that a 6 ft. high opaque screening fence be constructed along the south portion of the property, at least on an interim basis, to screen 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard,which is currently used as a residential property, from the proposed parking and display facility. This is consistent with the conditions of approval which were granted for Application No. 93011 in 1993. BUILDING The building elevations indicate that the exterior of the addition will be a single score concrete. block painted to match the existing building. This seems to be in line with the existing building exterior on the site. LIGHTING/TRASH 8-13-98 Page 9 The plan does not show proposed lighting for the off-site lot. It is assumed that the lighting on the existing site will remain the same. Lighting on the off-site lot will be of concern primarily in the manner that it effects the residentially zoned property to the west and the existing residence to the south. Lighting along these property lines should be a cut off type so as not to cause light glare on the adjacent pr6perties. The applicant should provide sufficient detail with his plans to meet this ordinance standard. The plans are not totally complete,but they are sufficient to begin the PUD process. Further discussion and consideration of the entire site is in order. PROCEDURE This PUDIC-2 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific plan in hand. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing the rezoning and the site and building plan should be referred to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. In this case, it should be referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of that Neighborhood Advisory Group as soon as possible. Persons receiving notices of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350 feet of the property) and anyone else who desires to be notified, would be informed of the date, time, etc. of that meeting. As the Commission is well aware,we are operating under a state mandated deadline for making decisions relating a to zoning requests. The City has 60 days in which to act on such a request ., from the date of filing an application. This application was filed on Jul 16, 1998 and must be a PP PP Y acted on by the City Council by September 14, 1998. Almost 30 of the 60 days has expired by the time this matter is brought to a public hearing by the Planning Commission. It is also believed that the Neighborhood Advisory Group process is necessary and important. The applicant may wish to consider waiving his right to have this matter decided within 60 days so that the appropriate public hearing and public input process can be accomplished. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing and then table the application and refer it to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. 8-13-98 Page 10 N. L.) I I I I - /'.•:'%.'•'.:•.',1ff �.••�,•''.','.jam, I r a -1 —� I I 4 /. -�--'—�\_`"""".,�•� ;;- rtl t � � •v �.: -�� tr: .i ' •.` �j I _ 68t}l A c YE• N. �� (�;4\��S�� / G� ,,l ma' y I •;,- r` 4A Al Oil 4VEi All AVE. ��''��/ ° (•1-1 Or CUA I • I . �n � � � , ; t;r�•�+. AVM' ; � Cl oR.i G2 t� 63M. AVE. N. I ( � PLANNING COMMISSION I I I I APP NO. 98017 f LAO • I wo I I Ro! t N �, I I I I III ho .h ,� I I I I I �, �• ,�.;�,, ;:" ,�1 u.l I I I I / , i �/ ` `''�� `: ten• f :Y ' AVE, N. I err. I 1 I I 1 1 WWI /, Wil �I 1 1 _! Q'lA ,SI I I t t_ a w • cc—[ t ;f;i;• it• ii it ,I ! ji;� I Ti P H*H* Tii i:t 4 :y r a .� �i4 !iiI!I:hiijs si 1H x • t a O In io fit Z ` t\\iz. •ti :lt r • ! P i r/ •.1 : Of. • I I� 01- it Ot- /'�• ; /� z , \ ale r fit JAI A fps$ Al 1 cl - — 1 1 ILI fill . b► � �; t f; ff I r ------ L;�;- ----------- - . -- — - —.� tj — —• a -- —• — •3� �._. __ 11pp t BRCC<LYN BCUL°V:RD "'RCCKLYN BCULEV:RD --- � ; 0 0 i. IlFiljffl r a `1- �• Ilililll z m . F lit } � l E S L d •�i �¢� � • Y Ill ; Itjf Z), lA t •lYt,r t t nir n Y N. 1 , i le� i• • •e 1 1,1'1 � \ lag I ° ! o r- too I! 0$ \' n r Aor L111 5�och<LYN 50uL_=VAS (CNTY. ». NO. 15: I is d A V II • :1 NE ¢i 1$ l 'all 0 ZZE C1 m ;. i a �sy• ra g rp NEW ADDITION AND RENOVATION c,;R BROOKDALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH 6!21 °ro--cikr, 5culevard a u� " L Al All --- � � a 1- ji .. Le LIZ- , g cz� / • � Y I , 1' l:A ©f r-O .• a,;. � � F. �� t?,.s?,?, �; _ off _ a • " t � lip ic fE IP ....&goal-* a• all, ` Q ^I AAAA?AAa•AA U a?;! m " f eeee'eeeeee �� »�� Itlltlllitl It fill V m red :v � 2 f r,, o M bf 40 p . U 1�\ T S~ 0 I 11 ^^ 1 7 Val Is It r f � I I � o f ; if of t. . A f i 61,2'PRQCKLYN 90ULFV4RD ;� � J I� g t�- �� I � I T(1Q� is � I44_ �rce3 MV yti I. LL -- L m m 7 m lo. I t I� ' I lar� i r ) r- o I ' 7 TOM IM rx �\ 6k1 SACOKLYN SOMEVVARO Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 03-201 ` RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93011 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALE \CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH +' WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 93011 . submitted by Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth proposes rezoning from C2 (commerce) and C1 (service/office) to PUD/C2 (planned unit development/commerce) of the properties addressed as 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the combining of these two said properties, the demolition of a single family home on one of the properties and expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership all as part of this application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on August 26, 1993, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on September 30, 1993 , at the City Hall and unanimously recommended approval of this planned unit development proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on October 28 , 1993, received a staff report,a - draft Comprehensive Plan amendment, revised development. plans, and took further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 93011 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-2 on October 28, 1993 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 93011 at its November 8, 1993, meeting; and WHEREAS, the* City Council has considered this 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 Zoning Ordinance and in light of the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained in Section 35-355, and in light of the comments relative to this property in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken action to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to create consistency between the Plan and the proposed planned unit development concept presented by j Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth. Resolution No. 93_201 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 93011 submitted by Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth be approved in light of the following 1 considerations: 1. The rezoning will allow for appropriate redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard which is consistent with the needs and redevelopment policies of the City. 2 . The rezoning will allow for the development plan involving the expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership which can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The development of the property in question will, for the most part, conform with the City Ordinance standards. Variation form the buffer and set back requirements where the use abuts with single family residential uses is acceptable given the landscaping and screening plan submitted. 4 . The property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard cannot be developed by itself under the current C1 zoning designation given the requirements for a minimum one acre parcel for service/office development on a major thoroughfare and must be combined with other parcels for redevelopment. Furthermore, the likelihood of service/office redevelopment in this area being undertaken in the immediate future is remote given existing and future market considerations. 5. The rezoning of the land and the accompanying development plans allow for expansion of an existing, viable business along Brooklyn Boulevard consistent with recommendations contained in two recent studies for the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. Rezoning is consistent with the amended recommendations contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 7 . The rezoning proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interest of the owner of the land in that it will provide a substantial upgrading of this site and upgrading of the physical character of Brooklyn Boulevard which is seen as a benefit to the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that approval of Application No. 93011 be subject -- to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval Resolution No. 93-201 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 be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4 . Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Zhe building is 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 facility 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 in the new addition area. 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 and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The applicant is subject to the requirements and regulations of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to this site. A storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 12 . The 'applicant shall provide an updated landscaping plan within 12 months from the date of approval of this application consistent with the landscape -- recommendations which are forthcoming from the Brooklyn Boulevard Enhancements Task Force. The City Council may extend this deadline in the event Resolution No. 93-201 the Brooklyn Boulevard Enhancement Study is not completed by that time. '13 . The plan shall be modified to include the following: a. A minimum six foot high opaque screen fence along the south portion of the property where it abuts with 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard. b. A gate located in the driveway west of the proposed addition. C. Lighting along the south property line that will be a high cut off type so as not to cause light glare on the adjacent properties, particularly 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard. 14 . The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, to be reviewed and approved with the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of any permits to include provisions relating to the above stated conditions. 15. Building permits for this project shall not be issued until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 93014 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 16 . Use of the property shall be governed by, and shall comply in all respects with, the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance with respect to the C2 zone with the following exceptions: a. A buffer of less than 35' where the property abuts with R1 zoned property is allowed but only in the areas indicated on the approved development plan subject to continuing compliance with the landscaping, buffering and screening indicated on that plan. b. The automobile service and repair operation is allowed to be expanded but only in compliance with the approved dev� elo ment November 8,1993 Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk f The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly 3 seconded by member Barb Kalligner and upon. vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Barb Kalligher; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 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 parking. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sian Ordinance. Section 35-355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment,preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the2City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions impose&by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD-MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. 0A, 35-45 C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district. the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD-MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre,excluding land included within the floodwav 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; ?. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards,provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the,-- City. 3546 Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted Iot 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. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; =. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 4 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 3;-47 S. A site plan shoming the location of all structures and parkins areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation draarings 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 maybe in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35-210 of this _. ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to� PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the Guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization,uses,densities,circulation,parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD,the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35-230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the - approved development plan. 35-48 The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings. parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan. no ,r building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 35-49 Follo-,Lin` the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. the City Council shall consider the proposed amendment and may,by resolution of two-thirds of its members, amend the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Coordination with Other Agencies. In the performance of its planning activities, the Planning Commission shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in a development of the comprehensive municipal plan. Furthermore, the Planning Commission shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. I. 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. 3. Policv It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,and b)rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning", defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 1. 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? 35-3 C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated foe) 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 35-210. REZONING APPLICATION PROCEDURES AN ID.RECONSIDERATION. The following rules shall govern applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance hereinafter referred to as "Rezoning Applications": 1. Procedures a. A rezoning application may be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission, or by the owner of the subject property. Any such application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing,study, and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Commission, or until seventy-eight(78) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without_a report by the Planning Commission. The date of referral is defined as the date of the public hearing. b. The applicant or his authorized agent shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "zoning application", copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission at least seventeen (17) days before the date of the public hearing. .35-4 f H I LLI 5 torch itecto & Contractors, Inc. Planned Unit Development Application July 13, 1998 Applicants: Chrysler Realty Corporation Attn.:R. E. Hahneman 2289 Parmalee Brighton, MI 48116 Phone (313) 229-8639 William J. Bartram 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard ' Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Phone (612) 535-5200 Subject Properties: 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard(Chrysler) 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard (Bartram) Architect& David A. Phillips Owners' PHILLIPS Architects&Contractors, Inc. representative: 1250 East Moore Lake,Suite 205 Fridley, MN 55432 Phone (612) 571-1911 Fax(612)571-3112 Description of project: The two applicants own adjacent parcels of land on Brooklyn Boulevard. This PUD application is made jointly by both applicants. Mr. Bartram is the owner of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership, but leases the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth facility located at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard from the property owner, Chrysler Realty Corporation. Mr. Bartram owns the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard,which was a former house. The.structure5 at(0-107 Brooklyn Boulevard have been removed. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard needs additional Space to accommodate the needs of their customers. In addition the facility i5,in need of upgrading to meet the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA). 1250 East Moore Lake Drive, Suite 205. Fridley. MN 55432 PH (612) 571-1911 Fax (612) 571-3112 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION July 13, 1998 6121 & 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard PAGE 2 The property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard is currently vacant. The proposed PUD allows for an interim use of this property with reserving its'availability to be combined with properties to the south and/or the west for development. Proposed Chrysler Building Addition and Renovation The Chrysler building is proposed to have a 6,960 eq ft service addition on the west side, and a 1,100 eq ft. car wash addition. The service addition will have 13 service bays. The existing service area in the former body shop will be remodeled into a parts area. The existed parts area adjacent,to the showroom will be relocated to this area. In all, 6 service bays will be eliminated in the existing areas, leaving a net add of 7 service stalls when the addition is completed. This relocation of the parts area will allow the current service offices and customer lounge to be located into the vacated area along with new ADA toilet facilities. Other interior changes includes creating new sales offices in the existing customer lounge, toilets, and service office areas. The showroom will be completely renovated as well. All work will incorporate a fully ADA compliant accessible facility at completion. A major benefit to the renovation will be the demolition of the existing used car building which is north of the main building at Brookdale Chrysler as the final phase of this improvement project. In summary, the service addition allows the parts department to occupy portions of the existing service area;sales and customer facilities including the additional floor space required for ADA compliance will occupy the former parts area; the used car sales will move into the newly created sales area in the main building allowing the demolition of the accessory building;and the interior of the entire facility will be renovated. The current Chrysler property is zoned C-2. 6107 Proverty The house at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard has been demolished earlier this spring. This lot, zoned C1, of approximately 28,800 sf. ft. is proposed to have paving constructed to be used for the display and stprage of the new and used car inventory. It is expected that this is an interim use of the property. A significant part of this PUP application involves one new shared driveway located off of Brooklyn Boulevard at the north portion of the 6107 property. The existing southerly driveway PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMENT APPLICATION July 13. 1-098 6121 & 6107 5rooklyn Boulevard PAGE 3 on the Chrysler property will be closed along with the existing driveway on the south portion of the 6107 property. Eliminating 2 driveways and replacing them with one new shared driveway for the two separately owned parcels with cross access easements i5 a clear safety benefit to the community. Compliance with Guidelinee A. is there a clear and public need or benefit? The public benefits for the approval of this PUD application include: 1. 5afety improvements by eliminating a driveway along 5rooklyn Boulevard. 2. ADA access, Sales and Service improvements to the existing facility which will benefit the public and the customers of 5rookdale Chrysler. Many of these customers are residents of the area. 3. The demolition of the used car building will enhance Brooklyn Boulevard "etreetocape". 4. The availability of the 6107 property to be combined with the house lots to the west and/or the commercial lot to the south to form a legal commercial lot will facilitate future development and eventually correct a zoning conflict. S. The public will benefit from the eub5tantial capital investment which will. encourage other improvements to along 5rooklyn Boulevard and increase the tax base. This PUD doee not reequeet any public funds or eubeidie5. 6. Additional above average paying jobs will be created at a local employer. The annual payroll exceeds$2,000,000. 5. 15 the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with the surrounding land use classification? The Chrysler property(6121)is currently zoned C-2. The use as a new car eales and Service facility has existed for approximately 30 years. This PUD will not change the existing uses at the 6121 property.The.5artram lot(6107)ie zoned C-1, and the use as an accessory parking lot is consistent with the zoning. The 6107 property i5 bordered on the south by a C-1 zoned home business and to the west by(2) R-1 houses. The R-1 zoned lots to the eouth currently abut the C-2 zoned dealership facility. PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMENT APPLICATION July 13.1998 6121 & 6107 Brooklyn boulevard PAGE 4 C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? No change in the underlying zoning is requested as part of this PUD. The proposed uses, either exist in the case of servicing the vehicles or are permitted in the current zoning. It ie desired by the city staff that the 6107 property be eventually combined with the adjacent C-1 &R-1 properties to forma viable commercial Site. This PUD facilitates the future assembly of this new commercial lot by not combining it with the Chrysler property. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning clasr,ification changes in the area since the Subject property was zoned? After the Chrysler facility war,constructed, zoning was changed to permit the Sales of new vehicles, but servicing of the vehicles became a nonconforming use. Servicing of the new care sold at any dealership is an integral and required part of the business. E. In the case of City-initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This is not City initiated zoning. F.Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? This PUD does not propose uses which are new to the zoning district. The PUD process is requested to allow for updating the Chrysler facility to current standards and the additional service space. G. Is the Subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration,topography or location? The 6107 property would not meet current zoning criteria a5 a C-1 lot due to We Size. If permanently attached to the larger C-2 6121 property, the adjacent C-1 lot to the South would not meet the criteria even if combined with the(2) R-1 lots to the west. This PUD would allow for the future development of the property south of the Chrysler dealership. PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMENT APPLICATION July 13, 1998 6121 & 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard PAGE 5 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? All uses contemplated by this PUD request currently exist. This PUD is warranted due to the lack of developable land in the area for the area. The applicants believe additional capital investment in the property is in the best interest of the community. Chrysler is also committed to compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act when completing renovations of their facilities. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? This proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owners by the public benefits stated above. The eafety improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard include the eliminating of one driveway and construction of a Shared entrance. Future development potential to the South of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth allows for consolidating the nonconforming parcels into a viable commercial lot. The applicants respectfully request City approval of this Planned Unit Development. Construction will begin upon approval and issuance of a building permit. Very truly yours, V chitect5 8� Contractors, Inc. li s p President . - 11 :31 TEL:612 421 911 P. 001 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 02, 1998 CAL TO ORAER The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Mr.Warren at 7:30 P.m. IN'M DUCTIQNS Mr. Ronald Warren, Planning and Zoning Special and Secretary to the Planning Commission introduced the members of the Advisory Group present including Mary 7o Danielson and Patricia Weitzel. Member Donald Ewert did not attend this meeting. Planning Commissioner Rex Newman and Planning Commission Recording Secretary were also present. Representing the applicant were Dave Phillips and William Bartram. APPLICATION NO 98017 SUBMITTED BY RAVE PHILLIPS PHILLIPS ARCHITECTS Using overhead transparencies, Mr. Warren described the location, site, and building plans of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth auto dealership, 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant is seeking approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process to construct a 8,500 sq. ft. addition to expand its auto service and repair departments and to install a car wash, and to renovate its facilities to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). In addition, the applicant requests rezoning of the dealership's property from C-2/Commerce to PUD/C-2 to facilitate the expansion and upgrading requested. Mr.Bartram, owner of the dealership, owns the property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard, and requests rezoning of that C-1-Service/Office property to PUD/C-2, to use that property for storage and display of new and used car inventory. A single family home was previously located on that property and because of its limited size can be redeveloped only in combination with another nearby lot. Mr. Bartram leases the dealership building and property fromits owner, Chrysler Realty Corporation. Mr. Warren provided additional information on the expansion proposal including landscaping as detailed in the Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 08-13-98. He noted that on August 18 the Planning Commission considered the application, conducted a public hearing, referred the application to the Advisory Group for its review and comment, and tabled action on the application. W. Warren called for questions from the Advisory Group. The Group requested comments from the Applicant. SEP. -08' 98 (TUE) 15:31 TEL:612 421 9511 P. 001 Mr. Phillips, the applicant, stated that Chrysler Corporation has invested substantial capital in the project which also is an investment in the community. Besides the new addition, the front of the building on Brooklyn Boulevard will be completely gutted and renovated for office space, customer lounge, and bathrooms to meet the ADA requirements, and provided details regarding the building to be added to the west end of the exiting structure,the car wash, and the parking lot. Mr.Phillips described the revised landscaping plan for the area between the residential property and the new building and on Brooklyn Boulevard, and provided details about the new 75' screening walls and fencing on the site. He stated that vine or ivy plantings on the side of the building that abuts the residential area as recommended by the staff and Planning Commission is a reasonable request to soften the impact of the wall. Reconfiguration of the service/repair area was described. Mr. Phillips reported that the Used Car building will be demolished and electrical components in that building will be relocated into the main building. In response to a question from Ms.Danielson,Mr.Phillips explained that vehicles will enter the 16 high car wash structure from the south and exit to the north to the storage lot or into a service area for additional detail work. Mr. Bertram stated that car wash hours will coincide with the late night service hours (Mon.-Tours. to 2 a.m.; Fri.-Sat. to 6 pm) which have existed for 19 years. He indicated that 3,000 of his 8000-9,000 customers utilize and depend on the late night service hours for their car service/repairs, and that he is always sensitive to the concerns of the residential neighbors. This project does not include any additional lighting on the site or buildings. In response to a question from Mr. Bucsko, a resident adjacent to the dealership, Mr. Phillips explained the exit from the service bay will be through a 14' door. Windows will be located near the top of the 20' building which is the same height as the existing building. There was discussion regarding the 35'easement area between the building and the residential properties in that it is a"no- man's land" subject to some undesirable activities and dumping of bicycles, etc. There was some discussion of the options available for redevelopment of the 6107 property where the new parking lot will be located which would require combination with adjacent lots which are currently residential. Chrysler is not interested in purchasing those lots for any future use. It was noted that the City approved a similar application for the Chrysler dealership in 1993, however Chrysler did not approve funding for the project at that tune. It was noted that approval of this application will not preclude further future development in the area. Mr.Bartram expressed the need to work with the adjacent residents to develop a combined property. While the owners of the adjacent residential lots, Messrs. Bucsko and Tacheny, lamented the additional construction on the dealership site, it was pointed out that upgrading and continued maintenance represent a commitment to the property and the City as opposed to deterioration or abandonment of the dealership. It was acknowledged that Brooklyn Boulevard is in reality a commercial roadway and needs to be supported for that purpose. Mr. Bartram indicated the proposal being considered for the Chrysler dealership would sustain his business far into the future and reiterated his commitment to being a good neighbor. Mr. Warren provided current information with respect to the County and City plans to improve the roadway which is scheduled for the year 2000. 9-02-98 2 SEP. -08' 98 (TUE) 11 :32 TEL:612 421 9511 P. 003 Commissioner Newman and Mr.Warren agreed that details for the landscaping that includes clumps of trees on 61st Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard could be worked out at a later date. RECOMMENDATION ON APPLICATION NO. 98017 Ms.Danielson stated her support for the application noting that Mr.Bartram has worked diligently with the neighborhood and the plans do not represent substantial changes to the current site. Ms. Weitzel stated her support for the application noting it will protect the existing property as well as protect and provide for possible future acceptable development, and will not add lighting to the car dealership. Commissioner Newman reiterated that the application does not create appreciable changes in noise or light pollution,brings certainty to the car dealership as a good neighbor and is therefore a positive improvement to the City. Mr.Warren stated he would convey the Group's favorable recommendation on the application to the Planning Commission. The Commission will take action on Application No. 98017 at its September 10 meeting. Interested parties are encouraged to attend that meeting. It was noted that the City Council will make the final decision on this matter at its September 28 meeting. AD70URN1MENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Arlene Bergfalk 77meSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9-02-98 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 98-04 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 98017 SUBMITTED BY DAVE PHILLIPS ON BEHALF OF BROOKDALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 98017 submitted by Dave Phillips on behalf of Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth, proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) of the properties addressed as 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership with an 8,500 sq. ft. building addition for automobile service and repair and a 1,100 sq. ft. car wash at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and the interim use of 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard for the storage and display of new and used car inventory; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on August 13, 1998, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on September 2, 1998, at the City Hall and unanimously recommended approval of this Planned Unit Development proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on September 10, 1998, received a staff report, revised development plans, 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 and in light of the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355, and in light of the comments,relative to this property in the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,be it resolved by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 98017 be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning will allow for appropriate redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard, which is consistent with the needs and redevelopment policies of the City. 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-04 2. The rezoning will allow for the development plan involving the expansion of the Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth dealership, which can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The development of the property in question, will for the most part, conform with city ordinance standards. Variation from the buffer and setback requirements where the use abuts single family residential uses is acceptable given the landscaping and screening plans submitted. Also the expansion of the automobile service operation is acceptable given the landscaping and screening plans submitted. 4. The property at 6107 Brooklyn Boulevard cannot be developed by itself under the current C-1 zoning designation given the requirements for a minimum one acre parcel for service/office development on a major thoroughfare and must be combined with other parcels for redevelopment. The interim use of this parcel for the parking and stbrage of inventory is an appropriate use and still allows for the future combination of this parcel with other property for appropriate commercial development. 5. The rezoning of the land and the accompanying development plans allow for expansion of a existing viable business along Brooklyn Boulevard consistent with the recommendations contained in recent studies for the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. The rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owner of land in that it will provide a substantial upgrading of the site and upgrading of the physical character of Brooklyn Boulevard and allow for the interim use of a parcel of land that would otherwise sit vacant and this is considered a benefit to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 98017 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. .2. Grading, 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 be determined based on cost estimates) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-04 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is 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. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the parking and driving areas in the off-site inventory lot. 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 and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The plans shall be modified to include the following: a. A minimum six foot high opaque screen fence along the west and south portions of the property where it abuts with 6101 Brooklyn Boulevard. b. Lighting along the south property line will be a high cut-off type so as not to cause light glare on adjacent properties, particularly those zoned residential. c. The applicant shall work with the Staff in providing shade trees in the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip consistent with the Streetscape Study for that street. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of permits to include provisions relating to the above stated conditions. 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-04 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: ' whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 Application Filed on 8-13-98 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 10-12-98 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98018 Applicant: Joseph Lampe and Ernee McArthur Location: 16 %z' x 675' Strip of Land Located West of Oliver Avenue North Between 55th Avenue North and Ericon Drive Request: Variance (Subdivision By Metes and Bounds) The applicants, Joseph Lampe and Ernee McArthur who reside at 2118 55th Avenue North, are requesting a variance to allow a subdivision of land by metes and bounds description rather than by a formal plat. The property in question is a 16 %ft. x 675 ft. strip of land located on the back lot lines of the properties facing 55th Avenue North and Ericon Drive, westerly of Oliver Avenue North(see area map for location). The property is zoned R-1 (One Family Residence)and is surrounded by single family homes. The applicants have purchased this property which was a tax forfeit parcel and now wish to divide it into nine separate tracts of land, each 75 feet wide, that would coincide with the property lines of the nine lots abutting 55th Avenue North. The purpose of these divisions is to create parcels that can be conveyed to the adjacent homeowners. In a letter accompanying their application(copy attached), Lampe/McArthur have indicated that five homeowners have signed purchase agreements to acquire the segments of land adjacent to their lots to be created through this metes and bounds description. My understanding is that these are the homeowners at 2224, 2218, 2212, 2206 and 2200 55th Avenue North. All of these properties lay to the west of the Lampe/McArthur residence. Apparently, no agreement has been reached with the property owners to the east, but the applicants wish to divide the property nonetheless in the same fashion so such conveyances could be made in the future should agreements be reached. Attached for the Commission's review, in addition to the area map, is a copy of a portion of the 1/8 section map highlighting the parcel proposed to be divided and the Lampe/McArthur property as well as the addresses and dimensions of surrounding properties. Also, there is a reduced view of a plan sized survey showing the properties and the proposed divisions into the nine tracts adjacent to the various properties. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) for the various tracts have been prepared and have been reviewed and approved by the Hennepin County Auditor and the County's drafting and surveying staff. If the divisions are approved and the property conveyed as proposed, persons acquiring the adjacent parcels can request the City Assessor to "combine the parcels for tax purposes". Once 9-10-98 Page 1 this has been accomplished the properties are considered a single parcel for setback and building purposes. The combination would increase the depth of the properties from 127 ft. to 143.5 ft. One additional action which may be necessary will be for property owners to seta vacation of 10' drainage and utility easement which is along their north property line Under the City's subdivision ordinance, divisions of land are to be performed by plat or registered land survey unless the City Council shall by variance allow otherwise. Section 15-112 of the subdivision, or platting, ordinance authorizes the Council to grant variances from their regulations when, in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In making its findings, the Council shall take into consideration the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance, the Council shall find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his/her land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. The applicants in their letter of application have responded to these standards by stating the following: 1. The only reasonable use of this long, narrow parcel is to subdivide it so that the adjacent land owners can legally utilize it. The parcel was created via a platting error more than 60 years ago; the original plat should not have been approved_ by the Village; and correction of the error is to everyone's benefit. 2. The variance is necessary to allow the parcels current owners to sell segments of the parcel to adjacent homeowners. The right to sell one's property is clearly a "substantial property right of the petitioner". 3. Granting the variance not only is not"detrimental or injurious" : but the division is desirable because the adjacent landowners want to acquire segments of the parcel in order to enhance the value and usefulness of their existing property. The applicants also go on to note the costs expended thus far in the acquisition and division project that they have undertaken. They also note additional expenses would be incurred if the replatting process required under Chapter 15 is imposed. They note that because replatting via Section 15 will be very costly and requires an excessive inefficient and unnecessary expenditure of time, funds and effort by the existing land owner,potential purchasers, lawyers, surveyors,the Planning Commission and City staff,that they hereby request that a land division by"metes and bounds" be approved as a variance. 9-10-98 Page 2 The staff concur with the comments submitted by the applicants in this case and do believe the standards for variance can be met in this particular case. Also, there is much precedent for the granting of metes and bounds division variances. Such variances were quite common prior to 1978. Since that time, at least three such divisions have been approved through the variance process by the City Council. The variances granted typically cited the right of the property owner to divide his/her property and the hardship of bearing full platting costs to divide the property by plat. Also, divisions of land by metes and bounds have been allowed provided that: 1. No new buildable lots were being created; 2. That the underlying land is platted properly; 3. That no lot or setback variances are implied and that lot area requirements will still be met. The proposed metes and bounds description variance appears to meet both the variance standards contained in Section 15-112 of the City Ordinances and the City's policy regarding divisions by metes and bounds descriptions. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. RECOMMENDATION ' As mentioned previously, it is believed that the standards for variance and the City's policy regarding subdivisions by metes and bounds have been met. Therefore,approval is recommended noting the above findings subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The legal descriptions and surve showing the division of the 16 %2 ft. x 67 parcel . � Y g 5 ft. p of land shall be filed with Hennepin County. 2. Once these legal descriptions have been established, the City Assessor is authorized to allow combinations of adjacent parcels for tax purposes. 3. The utility easement located within adjoining parcels shall be vacated as prescribed by City Ordinances and a replacement drainage and utility easement shall be filed in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 9-10-98 Page 3 • i • all -/umm , OIA CDM 1.� :: ., M �.. J mat y mm -- MEN ■ �� a� �� ss� 11111 111 11�' � � i..l _ ban I � � z i w ; t fy) ^ ° ..J \ y3 /•� ( ) (991 1 i� (82) 9 ,� (2 �s �9 (89) 11,91 / (a3) / /,p• Y 16 � � (i 13 '• /Q QI�®� 17 / I (84) U 9 (102) r! ] t D\,.. (87) (58.) (Zt R �' �. (77) a & (103) \ 0 , f ► / i - :o b ro ( rre•s• � r Ip u 1 (105) y° (104) $\-., a 9/ •s (23 7 fly � W ERICON 75 (701 I I pr AIr r (61) ' N e (42) I (43) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67)' (68) (69) SS01 _221q 2213 2207 2201 212q 2123 2117 ° .c 7 _ s9 76.6 75 is 73 ►,Rt:F OIT., t'�•' �j r3 is 73 75 __ 7s rs I 7S 1 n 1 I (6) —d (69) (fi) (68) (70) t' (72) r (73) ('41 I' - (TS) - (6) 2 ,2224 2218 22/2 2206 2200 2//2 2/06 2/GYM i 74.2 77 1 R A 57H AVE N s n KO I w ra 03 °: 93 1:�•I I- --- I ` f 3 $ (l16) 0 i7) $ (tia) 8 (lie) (101) ' fl q� r ebsl I . 'I` j 7s` IIa °s ,;� -- 21) lot =•14 L! n 3 (" (131) 0 \ (1123) (122) (I2t) 8 \ 9/ (t32) g 130) j < I ( \1 95 76.6 Al 3i 1 ( I� 1129) (125) ti b t (91) 47•i 1 ° Gr✓ It 17 = b -97 A �R (99) (100) (134) ,• �\ j �) � r �s 40.71 " � .o••st 2 ' 1°143 ---- ' ago. pg `1 °S� 95 03 °S • v ty (128) (1?i) R (1:6) °I (9a) I t53i �>, 6 ( (58) 36) (95) 1 (9� ` i �� I I I1I ti► � I L es be Iol t 97 4 I a I I 7• ' 1 i s s 54TH AVE N (IC9) 1 4 ('21 rI I r 1 (IQ6) �• (105) a 1 10Z) Ills E`CHIBIT"A" y - I J 1 F Drawing of Parcel of Property ^ 'rJ GI rm 1 � N t GSA ~ r � r . s < I Q v ' a e 0 m r - m ^ I D n D ` m , 0 �6S a I y> w N IPA � I i t 5. J O . � T 1 e t e.S > .N • s To: Brooklyn Center Planning Commission From: Joseph Lampe and Ernee McArthur 2118 55th Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Date: August 11, 1998 Re: Request for Variance to Platting Process (Chapter 15 of City Ordinances) On April 8, 1996, we purchased from the State of Minnesota a 675 foot long by 16 %2 foot wide strip of abandoned, tax-forfeited property located behind our home and eight other homes on 55th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The prior owner of this parcel stopped paying property taxes on it in 1957, and the State of Minnesota assumed ownership in 1963. This narrow parcel of property appears to have been inadvertently created in the 1930's when two adjacent blocks of lots were incorrectly platted with a 16 %z foot gap between them, and the plat was approved by the Village of Brooklyn Center. In recent years, this narrow parcel became a nuisance and problem for the City, County and nearby residents, via trash dumping, overgrown weeds and brush, and encroachment with fences,buildings, gardens, etc. We hereby request that the City approve dividing this tax-forfeited strip of property behind nine homes on 55th Avenue into nine segments 16 1/2 feet wide by 75 feet long, so that they can be legally acquired and utilized by adjacent homeowners. So far, five homeowners have signed purchase agreements with Lampe/McArthur for the 75 foot property segments which lie at the rear of each of their homes. Acquiring title to the 75 foot segment increases the depth of each homeowner's property from 127 feet to 143.5 feet. A surveyor's drawing and neighborhood plat map are attached showing the location of the tax-forfeited parcel and its proposed division. Chapter 15 of the City ordinances is a 20-page single spaced document which specifies the mechanism for subdividing land in Brooklyn Center via formal land platting or re-platting(a three-page summary is attached). It is a very complex, lengthy and costly process,which the preamble states is oriented toward the orderly and controlled development of residential and commercial areas. Chapter 15 is highly appropriate for building a subdivision of homes,but we believe that it is an unnecessarily complex, costly and burdensome process for small parcels of unbuildable land, such as the one adjacent to the nine lots on 55th Avenue. A series of meetings and conversations between Lampe/McArthur, City and County staff, and a land surveyor during 1996/1997 produced a preponderance of opinion that a much lower cost, simpler, faster, and less burdensome process than re-platting would be preferred for dividing a strip of land 16 %2 feet wide. The Hennepin County Auditqr and the County's drafting and surveying staff have given their approval for a"metes and bounds"division of the property, rather than a formal re=plat. Section 112 of the Chapter 15 platting ordinance provides that"the council may authorize a variance from these regulations when in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance." "To grant a variance, the council shall find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated." Petitioner's Response: 1. The only reasonable use of this long, narrow parcel is to subdivide it so that the adjacent landowners can legally utilize it. The parcel was created via a platting error more than 60 years ago; the original plat should not have been approved by the Village; and correction of the error is to everyone's benefit. 2. The variance is necessary to allow the parcel's current owners to sell segments of the parcel to adjacent homeowners. The right to sell one's property is clearly a"substantial property right of the petitioner." 3. Granting the variance not only is not"detrimental or injurious";but the division is desirable because the adjacent landowners want to acquire segments of the parcel in order enhance the value and usefulness of their existing property. Lampe/McArthur have so far expended$4,354 on the land division project. Utilizing the formal land re-platting process of Chapter 15 could easily require them to expend an additional $6,000 or more. Because re-platting via Section 15 will be very costly and requires an excessive, inefficient and unnecessary expenditure of time, funds and effort by the existing landowner, potential purchasers, lawyers, surveyors,the Planning Commission and City staff, we hereby request that a land division by"metes and bounds"be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as a variance from the process described in Chapter 15. Respectfully submitted by Joseph Lampe and Ernee McArthur subdiv4.doc EXHIBIT "B" Legal Description of Entire Parcel That part of Lot 25 Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/.of SE '/. of Section 2 Township 118 Range 21, and lying West of the W line of Oliver Avenue North. (Hennepin County Property ID: 02 118 2142 0114) landMdoc EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Parcel 1 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25,Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW %4 of SE '/4 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21,which lies west of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, John Ryden Second Addition. descl.doc E`CHIBIT 2 Legal Description of Parcel 2 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part.of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21, which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 2,Block 1,John Ryden Second Addition. descldoc EXHIBIT 3 Legal Description of Parcel 3 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/.of SE '/.of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 3, Block 1,John Ryden Second Addition. descldoc EXHIBIT 4 Legal Description of Parcel 4 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/4 of SE %4 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 4, Block 1, John Ryden Second Addition. desc4.doc EXHIBIT 5 Legal Description of Parcel 5 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 2,Township 118,Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 5,Block 1,John Ryden Second Addition. desd.doc EXHIBIT 6 Legal Description of Parcel 6 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21, which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 6, Block 1, John Ryden Second Addition. • desO.doc EXHIBIT 7 Legal Description of Parcel 7 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/4 of SE %4 of Section 2,Township 118, Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 7, Block 1,John Ryden Second Addition. • descTdoc EYHIBIT 8 Legal Description of Parcel 8 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW '/.of SE 114 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 8, Block 1, John Ryden Second Addition. • I desc&doc EXHIBIT 9 Legal Description of Parcel 9 as drafted by Hennepin County Auditor's staff That part of Lot 25,Auditor's Subdivision No. 218 lying within the NW %4 of SE %4 of Section 2, Township 118, Range 21,which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of Lot 9,Block 1, John Ryden Second Addition. descMoc Application Filed on 8-14-98 City Action Should Be Taken By 10-13-98 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 98019 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: Planned Unit Development Amendment The applicant is seeking an amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval for this area in order to provide an alternative storm water detention plan. The property in question is a 16.72 acre site approved for an 85,240 sq. ft.,4,592 seat,20 screen theater with two additional sites (one 71,693 sq. ft. and the other 88,186 sq. ft.)planned for future commercial development, most likely restaurant uses. The site is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue and the Super America property; on the east by T.H. 252; on the south by Interstate 694; and on the West by Camden Avenue. The Planned Unit Development rezoning and site and building plan for this property was . approved by the City Council under City Council Resolution No. 98-133 on July 27, 1998. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of that resolution containing the various findings, considerations and conditions for the approval of that proposal (Planning Commission Application No. 98015). Part of the approval included a grading, drainage and erosion control plan which included an underground water detention and treatment system. This facility was to be located under a large portion of the easterly parking lot for the theater. Condition No. 12 for Application No. 98015 states"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." The underground water detention and treatment plan was presented to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission on August 13, 1998 and after much discussion and review was tabled. The applicant must be granted a variance by the Commission for the proposed facility. Consideration of this matter is scheduled for the Watershed Commission meeting on September 10, 1998. The applicant has prepared an alternative plan containing a traditional detention pond in case the Watershed Commission does not approve their underground system. The applicant is, therefore, proceeding with an application to amend the Planned Unit Development(PUD) to seek approval for the alternate drainage plan and ponding as well as the 9-10-98 Pagel underground facility originally proposed. They still favor the underground facility but may have to proceed with the traditional pond. It is anticipated that by Thursday's Planning Commission meeting the applicants will have an answer from the Watershed Commission. The alternative plan calls for a traditional pond to be located at the northeasterly portion of the property,just south of the Super America property. The site will be graded and will drain to catch basins, which will convey water to the holding pond via storm sewer. The City Engineer is reviewing the amended plan and may have some additional comments. The plan identified as "Plan A" is the original underground facility, while the plan identified as"Plan B" is the traditional pond. The applicant is submitting both plans as a matter of timing. They have been advised that any major alternation to the PUD approved on July 27, 1998,would require ari amendment to that PUD. PUD amendments require the same notice and publication requirements as an original PUD application. This means filing an application four weeks prior to the Planning Commission's hearing date with notice required to appear in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices sent to surrounding property owners. The applicant wants to keep the approval process moving,thus the two plan strategy. If"Plan B" is pursued, the final approved plat approved under Planning Commission Application No. 98016 would have to be changed to reflect the new lot lines. Lot lines would be shifted to relocate parking such that pad site two, or the proposed Lot 3, Block 1, Regal Road Development Addition, would be reduced to 42,000 sq. ft. PROCEDURE As pointed out previously, this proposal is an amendment to the Planned Unit Development proposal for this area. As such, it is required to follow the procedures contained in Section 35- 355 regarding Planned Unit Developments. This requires a public hearing which has been scheduled. Notices have been sent and notice has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post. Normally, plans are referred to Neighborhood Advisory Groups. It is not recommended that this matter be referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group mainly because the plans are of a very technical nature. As mentioned,the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission will have to approve a storm water drainage plan for the facility. Depending on which option is pursued, the site plan will either remain the same or have to be modified as indicated. It is'not considered necessary that Neighborhood Advisory Group input on this particular aspect of the plan is necessary. RECOMMENDATION We believe the plans are in order, particularly with respect to any recommendations by the Watershed Management Commission. We would,therefore,recommend approval of the 9-10-98 Page 2 amendment acknowledging both alternative "Plan A"and"Plan B". Approval of this application should acknowledge the findings, considerations and conditions contained in City Council Resolution No. 98-133 and be subject to the following additional condition: 16. The final plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 98016 shall be modified prior to approval by the City Council if the grading,drainage and erosion control plan identified as "Plan B" is pursued. • 9-10-98 Page 3 ■ ■Ilia � - ■� �■ �� ■ate �� ""�'�+ t��' :i: � �� ■� - ■irf% '�� ,� ;i a �� iris -�9 ►eis�eeeieieeee� � � .��.,�- � WE WON M1 I son Son Ullmann man 1E ro "M I r--,4 lw�9 Ron MA W SIX2 _ - dW,d=P,d AP • .�. owl IPt all .a - lot! I I r• -- I?� n{3F°4 � 3neo I a • in 110 I qn 6 �'�! l '•I' ��' ' �. . • J 4th Isli Jill % �qffil, +- • I , 1 r } t � ((Si�i• w ,� 4 I h:•.il � a��3 I id �� t t ! is ;5�� ' � ��_ g ♦ �, 33338 � � F sia>r r In Pi lot,. ;J— 'till fill .: ! 11 1 I pig fill s UTILITY PUMI•PLAN A " ••••••�•• I1l RE TER3•^^^_. t r1 m L4 I I _ � illy t Iili� j •r•l.-�t� :r•IS PROOF PAARKI Df I ', .111111 !1.1111 'l�111111 fn all K 1" � ; } ��- II tFl� � •, r ro � is •°-�`� ;�-111��1t 1� tli =� � , , � '�I ' � /�`L 'rC,N � ! 4 !' �`_ �� 5. � : � X11 I �• j ;I \_jam U/y,a�=��p �• _ � ,�# ' � � •' l u � • !/f •( :,.. ` -,fit, .;,,.�,\1 1 ; ;� ! J I �.. .;.-- e•' !. .tl•! J '��' /y• I, L,"'./...\'111 i�t` � � .I l9e M V4.�- �J � �� ' l � -r• j�� ', .�`��A 'i ,11�`5„lii '7 ++ ! �. �Q\ �'�'�� ?'�w ._•j;V ri`Iil�i;� `...... a ►ono i If 112 umil RADINO.DRAINAO E.AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN•PLAN A REGAL THEATERS BROOKLYN CENTER.MINNESOTA f 1 � Ell OVA Sig; a� b � � B R I • N I � Ni I • f ! f 3 • � � B ! ;lid ��tlt ! jilt itit (I ! EROSION CONTROL PLAN ss' rna•. PLAN REGAL THEATERS Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 08-133 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 lie25, 1998, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing and referred the application to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; 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 Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 98015 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-3 on July 16, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 98015 at its July 27, 1998 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezoonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development 1 City Council Resolution No. 98-133 ordinance contained in Section 35-355, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission's recommendation contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center 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. 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 parkin; requirement for theaters which requires one parkin' space • E 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 parkin; 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. 2 City Council Resolution No. 98-133 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 Zonin; Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Application No. 98015 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 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 parkin, 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. 3 City Council Resolution No. 98-133 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. 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, car wash, pawn shop or check cashing operation and the development agreement will acknowledge this restriction or limitation on the future use of the property. 17. The construction and cost of all traffic control improvements related to 66th and Camden Avenues due to the project shall be the responsibility of the applicant including, but not limited to, traffic signal, median extension, traffic control structures, and any necessary right-of-way. This shall be acknowledged in the development agreement. 18. Vehicle access between the theater parcel and the proposed Lot 3, Block 1, Regal Road Development Addition and between the theater parcel and the Super America property is prohibited. The applicant shall provide a physical barrier, acceptable to the City, to prevent such cross access. • 4 City Council Resolution No. 98-133 July 27--- 1998 Date Mafor ATTEST: & City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmodynd upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, and Robert Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i•