Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 02-25 PCP r r - • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER February 25, 1999 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Administer Oath of Office: John E. Whitehead 4. Approval of Minutes - January 28, 1999 5. 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. 6 Talisman Brookdale, LLC 99001 Request for Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment i • S Application Filed on 1/28/99 Revised Plan and Document Submitted on 2/23/99 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 4/17/99 (60 Days from 2/23/99) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 99001 Applicant: Talisman Brookdale, LLC Location: Brookdale Center Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan-PUD/C-2 The applicant, Lance Sturges on behalf of Talisman Brookdale, LLC, is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development(PUD)process for the expansion and redevelopment of Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. Their plan calls for the demolition and reconfiguration of the west end of Brookdale. An 86,650 sq. ft. second floor would be added that would cantilever 40 feet out over the parking lot and the reconfigured main floor at this location. The second floor would house a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater to be operated by the Sony-Loews Cinema Group. The main floor would contain a large food court and a new configuration for retail shops. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition would be added at the north entrance to the Center adjacent to Dayton's. This would be divided among two • potential restaurant sites and a new entry way. Approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of retail space would be added along with a revised entry way on the southerly side of the mall also adjacent to Dayton's. The proposal also calls for the demolition of the old Penney's Auto Center building and the addition of five restaurant and retail out buildings. (Two along Xerxes Avenue in the vicinity of the 56th Avenue entrance, one easterly of Midas along County Road 10 and two southerly of the Shingle Creek Parkway entrance to the Center adjacent to the Ground Round and Kohl's.) The applicant is seeking the immediate approval for the relocation of Applebee's Restaurant from the Mall to a 4,650 sq. ft. building pad on Xerxes, north of the 56th Avenue entrance to Brookdale. Access to all of the out buildings proposed would be via the Brookdale Shopping Center perimeter road through the existing accesses to the Center(no direct access to these sites from public streets). The other out buildings are conceptual at this time and are 4,000 sq. ft., 10,000 sq. ft., 15,000 sq. ft. and 25,000 sq. ft. respectively. The property in question is currently zoned C-2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by County Road 10; on the east and southeast by T. H. 100; on the west and southwest by Xerxes Avenue North. • 2-25-99 Page 1 i • i sir The reason for the requested PUD zoning is the extent of the applicant's proposed redevelopment and a number of special considerations requested by the applicant that are modifications to existing ordinance requirements that are believed to be necessary to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Brookdale Regional Center. The requested rezoning is to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and the uses proposed are either permitted or special uses in the requested underlying C-2 zone. Retail uses and restaurant uses are permitted uses while fast food restaurants and motion picture theaters are special uses provided they do not abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property. Considerations that are being requested that are not consistent with city ordinances include the following: • Permit a setback for parking lot pavement (greenstrip) of 5 ft. from the property lines rather than the typical 15 ft. required in certain specific locations. • Permit a building setback of 35 ft. from the property adjacent to a public right-of-way rather than the 50 ft. building setback required for buildings from major thoroughfare right-of-way. • Permit double 90 degree parking space layout to be 60 ft. wide rather than the 63 ft. required by the ordinance. • Permit parking space requirements to be based on gross leasable area rather than the gross floor area required for retail space. • Permit 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the required 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. • Permit an additional freestanding sign on the Brookdale Shopping Center property along T. H. 100. • Permit a freestanding sign of 320 sq. ft. rather than 250 sq. ft. • Allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area for restaurant use without requiring a seating count for parking space requirements rather than the 15 percent currently allowed under the ordinance. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing the district (in this case C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by 2-25-99 Page 2 the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking modification to allow the above listed requests which deviate from the current zoning ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which addresses Planned Unit Developments(attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and,therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines which are contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well. The applicant has submitted a written request entitled"Application for Planned Unit Development and Building Plan Approval for Brookdale Center Additions and Renovation", dated January 28, 1999 (attached), a parking analysis prepared by the Traffic Group out of Towson, Maryland (also attached) and site plans for the planned renovation. A traffic analysis of the surrounding roadways is being prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson(SEH). The most recent plan revision was submitted to the City on February 18, 1999, and it is anticipated that the SEH traffic study will be presented on Tuesday,February 23, 1999, at which time the application will be considered complete and the 60 day time limit for City Council action will begin. This means City Council action should be taken by no later than April 17, 1999. 1 As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposals based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The . policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute"spot zoning"which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not related to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to pages 5 and 6 of the applicant's January 28 1999 submittal where they indicate how they believe their Po ro sal meets P the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The following is a review of these guidelines and a summary of the applicant's comments as well as the staff comments related to the guidelines. A. Is there a clear and public need and benefit? The applicant indicates that Brookdale Shopping Center has lost its luster and its purpose and ability to provide the community residents with the most up-to-date merchants, services and entertainment. People have found other centers to be more complete and this has resulted in fewer shoppers at Brookdale and a loss of merchants and a lack of interest for new merchants to become part of the center. They believe the proposed rezoning along with the redevelopment and reconfiguration will allow 2-25-99 Page 3 the owner to expand in order to provide the retail and entertainment mass necessary to attract newer customers and newer merchants. I It is the staffs opinion that a significant redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center is necessary to keep it competitive in the Twin Cities market area. Other regional shopping centers are either newer or have upgraded significantly since the Mall of America was constructed. No such upgrading has taken place at Brookdale and it has, in many respects, fallen behind in the attractions necessary for a retail shopping center. It appears that what the applicant's are proposing is necessary for this rejuvenation to take place. It is clear to us that this rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center is a public need or benefit to the community. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that Brookdale has been operating for over 35 years in a C-2 commercial zoning district. They also note that surrounding uses are compatible with the present C-2 zoning and would be compatible with the change to the PUD/C-2 proposal. It is the staff s opinion that this proposed PUD zoning classification is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. Most of the property surrounding Brookdale is commercial or is separated by major thoroughfares from what might be considered incompatible land uses. We believe, as previously mentioned,that the upgrading of Brookdale is essential to the community as well as many of the surrounding commercial land uses. A viable Brookdale Shopping Center is essential for the viability of many of the surrounding C-2 land uses as well. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that the present retail use of the property will be enhanced with the addition of a 20 screen theater entertainment venue. The retail,selected services, and theater uses proposed are consistent with the current zoning and the developer is only requesting development changes in the zoning ordinance to enable the property to be utilized practically, efficiently, aesthetically pleasing and profitable. The staff believes that all of the uses contemplated in the Brookdale Shopping Center redevelopment which include retail, service related uses, restaurants, including fast food restaurants and the proposed new theater complex can be contemplated for 2-25-99 Page 4 development of the subject site. As mentioned previously, the underlying zoning district (C-2) allows all of these uses as either permitted or special uses. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? There have been no physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area which would adversely affect the continuation,expansion and rejuvenation of Brookdale. It has been the center of the retail community for over 35 years and the City is committed to attempting to retain its viability and place in the Twin City retail market. ' E. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, however, we do believe there is a broad public purpose evident in the refurbishing and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Shopping Center. F. Will the subject property bare fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant indicates that they are prepared to comply fully with the restrictions and changes that are allowed. As noted, a number of modifications are proposed and further comment will be made later with respect to a justification for these proposed modifications. Findings will need to be made by the City and a development agreement between the City and developer will address any issues and will { acknowledge the site plans as part of the development agreement. The applicant's proposal will need to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to other regulations as well. They are seeking some greenstrip modifications, setback modifications,parking formula considerations, parking standard deviations and sign ordinance modifications that will need to be justified on the basis of the plan submitted and studies provided. 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 answers this question in the negative and notes that the existing uses g have been operated under the C-2 commercial zoning district for some time. They also note that the proposed theater will be consistent with the district and adjacent properties. Page 5 We do not believe that it can be argued that the site is generally unsuited for uses permitted in this zoning district. That is why the C-2 designation is the underlying zoning designation in this Planned Unit Development proposal. The modifications requested and the new development proposed required a Planned Unit Development amendment and development agreement as a basis for this development to proceed. The Planned Unit Development is the vehicle by which the City can provide control over the potential development or redevelopment of this area. H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3. The best interest of the community? It is believed that the creation of the PUD/C-2 zoning district in this Brookdale area provides flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for this site. It has been pointed out that Brookdale Shopping Center is a unique use in the city and perhaps should have its own specific zoning district with its own specific regulations designed for a regional mall type use. In effect, this PUD/C-2 zoning designation and the accompanying development agreement will establish Brookdale Shopping Center as a unique use within the community for which special development consideration can be justified based on the size of the operation and on its uniqueness. We believe, as pointed out before, that this redevelopment and rejuvenation is in the best interests of the community if it is properly done. The proposal is certainly not inconsistent with the City's current Comprehensive Plan, which recommends an intense commercial development for the Brookdale and surrounding area. The PUD zoning gives the City what is considered to be the needed flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for the Brookdale Shopping Center. As previously mentioned, we believe the proposal is in the best interest of the city if properly developed along with appropriate analysis and findings that the proposed modifications meet the development needs of the community. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds by noting how the proposed expansion and rejuvenation will change the Center in a number of positive ways. They note that it is evident that Brookdale Center needs improvement at this time and that approval by the City to use the redevelopment plans as presented will assure future strength and competitiveness of the Center that will benefit the community in a number of ways. The staff would agree. The proposal does appear to have merit beyond only the interests of a particular property owner and will lead to the needed upgrading and 2-25-99 Page 6 r rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center. It is a community anticipated and needed improvement and we would concur with the applicant's comments. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously,the applicant's proposal calls for the demolition of a portion of the west end of the Brookdale Center mall and the expansion of that area with an approximate 86,000 sq. ft., 20 screen,4,252 seat theater on the second floor of the rebuilt center. Also, additional square footage is planned by the north entrance to the mall for restaurant uses and at the southerly entrance to the mall for additional retail space. The applicant has provided a floor plan and tenant mix proposal for the expanded area. Originally the applicant was proposing an amphitheater to be located in the mall adjacent to the ticket area for the theater and across from Sears. This amphitheater proposal has been abandoned and the revised plans have recently been submitted. Five freestanding out buildings are planned, four of which are conceptual at this time. The applicant has submitted the building plans for a freestanding Applebee's restaurant, which would be 4,650 sq. ft. in area. The other buildings are anticipated as part of the PUD but would require later submission of an amendment to the PUD for the particulars of the building such as building exterior elevations, floor plans and building uses. Building No. 5, which is proposed to be located adjacent to Kohl's, is located within a portion of the 100 year flood elevation on the site. 1 This would require the need for fill on the site and to provide compensating storage. This matter is being reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and it is possible that compensating storage at Centerbrook Golf Course can be provided so that this area could be filled. The Watershed Commission is scheduled to review the Brookdale plans on March 11, 1999. ACCESS/PARKING Access to Brookdale Shopping Center would remain unchanged. Access is gained from public streets at four locations, Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10;Northway Drive and County Road 10; 56th and Xerxes Avenue, and 55th and Xerxes Avenue. Again, these access points would be for the most part unchanged. The applicant has provided a detailed site plan showing a proposed parking scheme that would allow for 5,700 parking spaces on the site. They are proposing to provide 90 degree parking which can allow for more parking spaces within the same parking configuration that they have. Currently most of the parking on the Brookdale site is angled parking with one way drive lanes. The distance between parking stalls is 60 ft. which allows for 60 degree parking and a driving lane. The applicants are proposing to be allowed to have 90 degree parking within this 60 ft. separation rather than the 63 ft. required by the current zoning ordinance. They propose to make up the 3 ft. difference by reducing the length of parking from 19 ft. 6 in.to 19 ft. and the 2-25-99 Page 7 driveway width from 24 ft. to 22 ft. It should be noted that the Brookdale Shopping Center was granted a parking dimension variance many years ago and the current angled parking with the 60 ft. separation was provided. We would recommend that the 60 ft. wide double 90 degree parking with the 22 ft. drive lane be agreed to as a proof of parking, which could be installed if the applicant chooses to do so. For circulation purposes, it appears to us that the angled parking and alternating one way drive lanes is a more efficient parking and driveway scheme for the shopping center, however, should additional parking spaces may be needed to accommodate users, we believe such a configuration could be utilized. The other aspect of parking which the applicant is requesting modification to is the actual retail parking formula used for determining the minimum requirement for Brookdale Shopping Center. The city's retail parking formula requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. In the case of the Brookdale Shopping Center,this gross floor area requirement includes all connecting corridors, service and storage areas as well as the mall itself. The parking requirement is to provide 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of this entire area. The applicant is requesting that we utilize gross leasable area, which is only the store area actually utilized for commercial purposes for determining the maximum parking required. It appears reasonable to utilize gross leasable area for a major regional shopping center such as Brookdale which is unique with respect to the dynamics of a regional shopping center and the fact that people frequenting the Center frequent many establishments within the mall rather than just going to one store at a time. The applicant has provided a shared parking analysis prepared by the Traffic Group, Inc. to determine the maximum number of parking spaces that are required for the Brookdale Shopping Center complex. They note the particulars of the project with proposed parking at 5,702 parking spaces on site. They have undertaken what is called a shared parking analysis showing the actual demand that is necessary for a proposed center based on those assumptions. The analysis assumes the procedures contained in an Urban Land Institute study. The provide They p e three exhibits showing calculations used to arrive at the maximum number of parking spaces required for the subject site based on maximum demand. They indicate that a maximum of 5,133 spaces would be required for the Brookdale Shopping Center for both a weekday and weekend. They note that the Center is designed to provided 5,702 parking spaces, therefore, based on their analysis, more than sufficient parking is proposed on the site to meet maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand. The report also goes on to note other shopping centers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area that have current parking ratios of less than 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. They note the Rosedale Shopping Center, which has 4.59 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable space and Southdale Shopping Center,which has a 4.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. They believe the information is clear that the shared parking concept developed by the Urban Land Institute indicates that more than sufficient parking is proposed on the subject site based on the maximum hourly demand determined by the analysis. It should be noted that with the proposed development, not all of the buildings will be built at one time. There is a fudge factor, so to speak, which can be used as buildings come on line to 2-25-99 Page 8 ti determine the amount of parking necessary to meet the Center's demand. It is also not clear at this time whether or not the applicants are proposing to make significant changes to the parking layout at Brookdale Shopping Center. The City Engineer has noted in his report some concerns about the parking and the lack of delineation within the Brookdale proposal. This was based on a previously submitted plan and the applicants have made some changes in response to the comments by the staff. It appears that the 33 ft. wide perimeter road will be acceptable and the 30 ft. drive lanes close the Center itself will be appropriate. Again, we are not sure as to the applicant's intention as to when the parking plan presented would be installed. It appears, given the information provided that their plan could be adequate and when the parking is installed, concrete delineation should be provided as a condition of approval. Clarification from the applicant on this point is in order. ' A concern that has been noted is the location of the theater with respect to the westerly boundary of the Brookdale Shopping Center. It appears that the parking provided may not be conveniently located to the heaviest draw,the theater. There may be some temptation to park vehicles along Xerxes Avenue and it is recommended that this street be posted no parking to avoid on street parking and congestion on Xerxes Avenue. On site parking problems are really the applicant's problem. Should the plan prove to be insufficient, it will be their problem and in their best interest to correct. All in all, we believe the applicant's proposal for considering gross leasable area rather than 1 gross floor are for determining the amount of parking required would be appropriate. Given the comments provided relating to the shared parking analysis, we would concur also that this would be an appropriate consideration for the Brookdale Shopping Center and the proposed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area would be in order. It should be noted also that sufficient on site parking should be a major concern of the applicant,and if parking becomes a problem, consideration of deck parking would be in order. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has submitted a grading, drainage and utility plan which is being reviewed by the City Engineer. The extent of the Brookdale remodeling and renovation and the fact that the site is well in excess of the watershed requirements, requires that the matter be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. An application has been submitted and the matter will be on the Watershed's agenda for their March 11 th meeting. The City Engineer has met with the applicant's Engineer and Watershed Engineer with respect to drainage issues. The City Engineer has also provided his written comments with respect to the applicant's plan. He notes that the site plan proposes to utilize the existing utilities that currently service Brookdale. These utilities are private utilities and the property owner is responsible for verifying existing utilities and future needs. He notes that with the proposed detached buildings along Xerxes Avenue, it will be necessary to verify the availability of services from Xerxes Avenue. I 2-25-99 Page 9 It should be noted that a ponding project has been completed to provide ponding capacity for Brookdale and the surrounding areas with-respect to watershed requirements. Therefore, no on site pond will be required for Brookdale. Storm water is proposed to be routed to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond by using existing and proposed storm sewer on the site and connecting to the crossing beneath Trunk Highway 100 that was recently constructed. The proposal for storm drainage is to route as much storm water as possible to the regional pond. A new large storm sewer pipe (42") is proposed to be installed on the east side of the property. The pipe will carry most of the site's drainage to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond. The City Engineer notes that a geotechnical engineer should be retained by the owner to evaluate the structural capability for placing this storm sewer in that location. The City Engineer also comments with respect to the building site location for building No. 5 which is located within the 100 year flood elevation. As ` mentioned previously this is a conceptual approval only and further building plans will need to be submitted at the time the applicants propose to develop the site with such a building. However, the location of the building will also be subject to the Watershed Commission's review. This location will necessitate the need to fill the site so that it is above the 100 year flood elevation and, thus, the need for compensating storage for the area filled. The City is working with the Watershed's Engineer to explore the possibility of utilizing the Shingle Creek Regional Pond at Centerbrook Golf Course for providing additional compensating storage which will have a direct affect on the ability of the applicant to locate the proposed building No 5. The construction of the 42" storm sewer pipe will necessitate the need to redo the parking lot in the area. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission for evaluating such plans. The total acreage of the Brookdale Shopping Center site is 76.74 acres which requires a landscape point total of 3,010 landscape points. The plan submitted shows existing landscaping,which is to be saved, and the introduction of some new landscaping around the perimeters of the property particularly along Xerxes Avenue and some new landscaping along County Road 10. Additionally landscaping will be provided around the new building locations as well as some island locations that are indicated on the site plan. The landscape point total for existing landscaping is 708.5 points. The applicants propose to add 2,611 additional_landscape points by providing 120 shade trees, 73 coniferous trees, 92 decorative trees and 1,670 shrubs. The new landscaping is distributed around the site as previously mentioned. This landscape plan will provide a total of 3,319.5 points on the site. The landscape plant key list various species that are proposed for the various types of trees. Shade trees would include Green Mountain Sugar Maple,Red Sunset Maple, Imperial Honey Locust, Common Hackberry, Marshall's Ash, Greenspire Linden and Swamp White Oak. Coniferous trees include Black Hills Spruce, Colorado Spruce, Austrian Pine and Norway Pine. Decorative trees are Crab Apple, Japanese Tree Lilac, Serviceberry, and Thornless Hawthorne. 2-25-99 Page 10 Shrubs include Little Princess Spirea, AW Spirea,Compact Viburnum, Lilac, Dwarf Korean Lilac, Techney Arborvitae, Arcadia Juniper and Mint Julep Juniper. The applicant has requested that it be allowed to have 5 ft. greenstrips rather than the required 15 ft. greenstrips in certain locations. These areas include the parking lot for out building No. I,the parking lot on both sides of the Applebee's building on Xerxes,the parking lot by building site No. 3 along County Road 10 and an area adjacent to the perimeter road along T. H. 100. It should be noted that the City has granted variances from the greenstrip requirements in the case of the Phillips 66 station at the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant in this case indicates the need for parking to accommodate some of the buildings in the locations indicated on the site plan. The City has granted some greenstrip variance requests but has done so on the basis that where these greenstrip variances take place that a screen wall of about 3 to 3% ft. in height be established to provide a substitute for the normally required greenstrip requirements. It is believed that it would be appropriate in this case to require the same type of consideration to offset or mitigate the lack of greenstrip to the site. Any deviation from the 15 ft. greenstrip should be conditioned on the providing of a 3 to 3%Z ft. high keystone wall where the required greenstrip would be less that 15 ft. This would be consistent with past approvals by the City and would offset or mitigate the lack of greenstrip in these areas. The applicants have also requested consideration for 35 ft. building setbacks,at the proposed building location No. 1 along Xerxes Avenue and possibly other out buildings abutting major thoroughfares. The zoning ordinance requires a 50 ft.building setback where buildings abut major thoroughfares. The City has previously granted a variance for a 35 ft. building setback for a commercial building along Brooklyn Boulevard consistent with recommendations found in the Brooklyn Boulevard studies. I believe the same consideration could be given for commercial buildings along a major thoroughfare such as Xerxes Avenue and/or County Road 10. However, the established setback should be the 35 ft. setback required for buildings on other street ri t-of- g gh way. One of the purposes of the building setback requirements is to avoid the adverse affects of noise, vibrations and odors. The 50 ft. major thoroughfare setback was primarily designed to keep residential buildings further back and to thus avoid these adverse impacts. It can be argued that the extraordinary setback is certainly not needed for commercial buildings and this has been a factor in allowing building setbacks in commercial areas on major thoroughfares to be less than 50 ft. and would apply in this case. Therefore, it is recommended that out buildings be allowed to be located within 35 ft. of the major thoroughfare right-of-way. BUILDING The applicants have submitted building elevations for the additions to the Brookdale Mall and also a building elevation for the new Applebee's location. As indicated previously,the new proposed 20 screen theater will be on the second story of the newly configured west mall area. The theater will cantilever out about 40 ft. over a drive lane and some parking stalls. This location will come closer to the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Shopping Center. A new entrance including the main theater entrance will be located between Sears and the newly added 2-25-99 40 Page 11 , space. The exterior finish will be primarily E.I.F.S. (Dryuit material). New entry areas will contain glass curtain walls, corrugated metal skin,metal trim and some decorative lights. In addition to the 20 screen theater, another feature is a large food court to be located also in the west mall area but on the first floor. It is highlighted by a glass curtain wall on the exterior and a ' wall sign indicating the location of the food court. Various wall signs depicting major retail areas such as Old Navy and a bookstore are indicated on the building elevations. Also,Sony- Loews' Theaters will have a wall sign and marquee. It appears that this signery is within the wall sign parameters outlined in the sign ordinance. No flashing or chasing lights are allowed as part of a marque, building decoration or sign display. Building elevations for the proposed A PP lebee's freestanding building are also provided. As indicated, this will be located along Xerxes Avenue, north of the 56th Avenue entrance to Brookdale. Again, no direct access to Xerxes will be provided to this site, with access gained through the Brookdale parking lot. The building elevations indicate a face brick exterior treatment around all four sides of the building to be primarily a reddish-brown color with some face brick accent color in a light gray. Stripped awnings are proposed with windows on the west, south and north elevations. A trash enclosure area is to be provided with wooden gates to screen the trash containers. Another aspect of the Brookdale plan for which special consideration is being requested is to allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area to be utilized in restaurant space without affecting the parking formula. Currently in shopping areas exceeding 50,000 sq. ft. up to 15 percent of the gross floor area can be utilized as restaurant without requiring the seating/employee parking requirement. Given the size and nature of the Brookdale shopping. center complex and the mixed or shared uses indicated in the parking study, it is believed that sufficient parking for such a use could allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable space to be utilized as restaurant without additional parking requirements. This is recommended and should be acknowledged if the Planning Commission concurs in any approval for the site. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing the location of lighting on the Brookdale Shopping Center. They do not plan to alter the location of parking lot lighting and it will remain as it is. This should be sufficient lighting and the plan provided shows that the foot candle standards contained within the zoning ordinance can be met. Decorative lighting is to be provided at various locations and around the new additions particularly in the area of the theater. Again, we recommend that no flashing lights or chasing lights be allowed as part of either the signery or decorative lighting proposed for the center. This is in keeping with past City approvals. PROCEDURE This PUDIC-2 proposal is a rezoning with a specific development plan accompanying it. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Normally,the Planning Commission 2-25-99 Page 12 s refers rezoning proposals to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Planning Commission serves as the Neighborhood Advisory Group for the commercial and industrial area of the City, therefore, there is no need to refer this matter for additional review and comment. i An additional request has been made that Brookdale be allowed to have an additional sign along the Trunk Highway 100 right-of-way with an area of 320 sq. ft. rather than the 250 sq..ft. maximum allowed for freestanding signs. Currently Brookdale has two freestanding,one at the Northway Drive entrance to the Center and the other at the Xerxes/56th Avenue entrance. The City's sign ordinance allows a commercial business having over 400 ft. of frontage along a street to have a freestanding sign on each such abutting street with the maximum area allowed to be 250 sq. ft. The amount of frontage on County Road 10, Xerxes Avenue and Highway 100 all exceed 400 ft. Brookdale has not chosen to take advantage of the Highway 100 right-of-way with a freestanding sign. The applicants are requesting that they be allowed to have two freestanding signs along this right-of-way. There is over 3,500 lineal feet of frontage along Trunk Highway 100. Given the fact that the amount of frontage is excessive it seems reasonable to allow two freestanding signs along the Trunk Highway 100 right-of-way. Also, given the size and the uniqueness of Brookdale Shopping Center it does not seem unreasonable to allow these freestanding signs to be 320 sq. ft. in area. The size and the unique nature of this regional shopping center are, in our opinion,justification for this modification. 1 A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post and notices have also been sent to neighboring property owners within 350 ft. of the site. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing and take comments with respect to the applicant's proposal. A draft Planning Commission resolution outlining the proposal,osal i t s history, making various recommended findings s and recommending approval of the i PUD application subject to a number of conditions is offered for the Planning Commission's consideration. 2-25-99 Page 13 _ 1 e :� � !Ojai t ttn�ttttttttttu� ♦. �._.�b • ON ■tttitttttttttt tttt�t�t��ttr. �:;+ � ,�► h man MIM"►?� t��ttttttttttr�■ tt�r�td�r� � .'��3r� �. .- , tttttttl► yam'° '`��J ����`��'►�!�► 11j1/�/�� � �_� ��/►1►�►►1►I��� 1/������ ���f`���������� :,.-___rte , 11a fall�� ��� ■t/1111 1�/t tttt/� y+� 1��1�1� C � � Vii► � �.Lws�i,, �i�'It�l�� ►sue ■�tt�f�Cy��t■ i� ,'�" • milli♦ cc 99 r�. •r �� �� �M , M %I M 2 1 1 , will Lo 2 1tt� Lo 1 1 : " was HMOs ES Lv�, SS tt ttt� ♦�t '0 � 111 _ ) - _- � NEW im son SIR ttttttttt _y�Aj t � � ■ �.� —� — �o . �, ,���,i I liij i ii � �'. 3 �; l j,i iil!. 1 i •: i , i , ! u® t i cc w C o n. ° fill, t � 131, 'a.'""'•s>: � Ed fit iii?i7i iZ._�''•:ii Y•.1 i }k R:is '9 fA iii � t �2•i:� :•:, s} N �� �:'2?:V�d:'c rfi',''rM1'+w4;.o::':'t;;:::�::y"v'w::i'.M,�5.v5S"'•�r.'2 �!3 i•!� 5 .�:}},•,:.y;.}:+�:;t•;��:�ct:,};t,nka.>:.r...>22>,};^.•.t°,,�y: }X �� � �Ilie� t ••ti:?y :.:.. . o tfig ii i f 5 ?� '::„::•.;y:v+•:• € 1fl3! �! 7 � iii i Cb aA P I. .,x•^�ni}}}}::.:ti yt:�f:::�ib,•y}}:.}�i{}}:::y:i.;�t n -r cc ;j}::'iti:}i t.};. .....H�V}i;•. m - • � �,{ �w`t':t'i:$:;:.•t+,”•i'v}ry4�i'�•M:�t.M ty,��� Cz cz t! 'WiR CD ------------ 02 mm u}+;{`?Gi}:•n'tif, }yt}"maw ......... ..... O ".: ^ ti:,}::},ti ?}Lifi:}j"•nrni+''' ''-'''�''`'"'•''.y.•••$ti1 M ••X M�'�rin�.tiv:'t� i• � Y:y}C +n'•y� ✓:v:":ny;yv'v.YYV.vt' i�+�i }hyit$.+`a ,.{;.x•}.''••`•..`:.•.:! x;;r•.;?%.C;1.:'.+%.tlr.},t,,•.'..... .........,: #i•: t}q:,;}:yst:.}:�::.:::.}.y;>a;:a'i'h::i::::xbw�s::S:c�«:at�< ., y A • fI Z A4 IL • s r Y q � III1ry I I , �ssoo�� ■ � I� I II II Iff li' I " — © �■ r1I'�ij' �� i,11 I'i i � I� J•. NO �I Ild lu �" �: .t.•l u 11 I I I I � �.J I I _ n 1 ( ■I I i�j,�Illl III I ,I , I I� r � 1 to I Itl ' �� rl N � � ■I I I :I j III I 'll II �. � (' I " 1 II I III I �( I� ,� I; si�rr, p , I.• 11 It p I I I (1 �II �t I� �[� �I � �JI�'I�L���• JM ���� �. t� I f - ,.: '� 1 k �4 a - a ' 3 I(1■jt `�1i�1 ��jtfi 4�1�t f�f#jijs �tj`��1 ������ ���#I . +ii � j 11 i'lumf de cu . X10 ; �� ` Alb oj 'BROM I tht ...................... ............ ------------ F-------------I ........... .14T Tj` O Alk cn S ti � i _ 1 , �1•!! {fj tl�f i�ttt {.3�, �Ill�`- #t`f� tl;�} { � � � { 1 � �l [ �e { �� R! Z 0 t- I i Z W t a cn t ' t .t 0 CD t t `' dki 1 II i 't : Ili t! j ,lt M® .— t ) a , 3 tti•�; � t! , tJ � 1 it ( _ y N 3�,s� i I�,�i de ! S ca l K' L=J Ir • U , ri Ki s s Kk At,�Ki •s' . Z; { } ? tL Zt s c 1 n ' g- d �I ff o II]fl t ac u al �°i i K`• •� t •, K, �• K, K�• Kip j sa.-s�sn• log 1 N LU Ib 1 b a 0 • N - <2 J s J r ! � � u N cu Li Z O • o- 3 cn r z C W z 3 � z W W' �� UZ i I� _ i CSC ' _ I _ t r CO I 5 b n • N I I d I I J W 1 I • J I I O C N Ala 1 0 o� 1 6 i z �� i �1 • nc co LF Luj € wt w s w •! macc_ s 1 i . s t 1 1 ill 1 L u Ian 1� i.w Ilu _ t_J v 1 w 1 co 4 w cni t 3 1 T� M 1 1 n 1 b n s i A A tai __ old= L Ism= z CAI xka Ri FA Ism. ;Z7 IPA Long" I, ( 1� 1 � i, f � I a � ►t .:iii FAMI i itt � ttt t I / 1 • ' 1 i \ \ �. s / ♦% �\ _ 'mss' _ I / I IL lb !3L I ♦ r � 5� ♦ I 1 ' 1 1 # I Y 1 4 lilt ri =34 1 J iii�, �;# ills t � t, ( J! Nt , t a j LO ht I.IH.. 1tnJi tt.i ltl� 3�Sli 1 1 � � , } 7 J J S Cam) R 1 I i 0 si ` Nil 4f I r \ I 1 J i i 1 t � ' 1 1 f j 1 � J 1 1 3 �y� 1 I 1 � 3 4 y , t � I � f 1 e � � i J , I a l , 1 f � � r Ilp M.- I 1U 111 IN 1i 111111111 1 1']1 11 11 C-) i ! tlli � » toila iii„ � irh ll�li _ ] ll � , � t IQ 1 l INN .� I . 1 i It \ 1 JP lio At 1 / It .;i y _ -4p If Jill 1111 11.1 1 co`- i . i r � O t / V 1 r ii i11#j�,cr 1t�,�� I l: t HJU l�lli i'i I 1 } 1 } 1_ ! d® t { tat ; tat x� A it all � T 21 QCs a , Jill: HI ! 11t111 � 1� t}1715 11l1i lte�iili: �:t!}t lt 1 lit I ! n 111 ! } +s® if L tma/ttt:snt!!Snns.°>r..w.tWJ.n�a+l+ttwules..�...tteur-,ISntS?.:t :;; ' !.:att�St �iiL'ISSSN�r-'r"_ s —'• -_IL'Stttii�P. SL'Stty t :•••1 i - °`°tB�t_.nun.nr�llttd t f 1.................... .....n .................�«... 'tatagq,gsnta!~' ...+-+�+�5!!!t!rl�et9tutst;tt� t•I 1 I•;1 ������Y I11 +,-„�s�gtttm/ "•�!�n�ltat:�t9tis!ltil[31�tItIL1�t I I� } �':'`;�. '1 �1 !!!!!!i ...1... �� '. .. •1 I �uuu..asuuunualuaeaa.nm.wa.nrun+.^.ana.aru..nonn.w..vII2uL t ...•••• • 1 . .1 / om.urll.unw.rnw..waruuuo�..wr..n.onuauau...111.1� M I..•1 1 I r 1 •l 1 1\/ 11 , 11 1 1 11 111 1 •/ 1•. 1 1\ 8a1 CL \111 11;1 1 1\• (•� 1111 Z 1 \ \ 1; 111• �����1 1 1 1• .1.1 . l 1/1 1 � t eye 1 h ly 1�l� � .1.q. l .1 1 (•� �' ;.•• • 1;1. 1.11 1:11. ' '•1 , • •\ t1/, / , 1.11 LJ I � 11J • . • ..1' ;'.• 11•; ; �vq �I II� • \•• . 1• \ 11 . 11.1 1.11 1 11.1 I (/'1� \ 1 •I , 11 • 111\ 1111 • 1•\• 3111111111 II .. � .. ;,,.. \ 1...1 1•. 1.1 1 ; O •1• 11 .; . \ . 11 . 111; . ..11 �P ..1 1•• . 1.•\ • •111 111 • .•. . -__ tll •111 .111 11 1.11 1 1111 /111 1 1.11 11 \11 1111 11, 11 •••\ 1 1111 1.11 1 1111 11 1 .� \;.•1'•. . ., •'�w•w-.•.nom'•'�1'. .•1 ,.' 1.1.111:.1 11\1 1;1 1 - 1�ri � 1.kJ■1 1 ':1\•1 1•111 :� Q�• .11' : '. X1.1.'\: , 11\lJ1 , l ', .t° .�:•TL;•'1•.'•ate... .•” II IIII I II 1 1 .• \ :\ G L .�1 1•S. 1• SDI 111 1;••1 " \.;\11 1 9!111111U 11 , 4H 11.11H 11.:1; ! 1 111 �� Ilf \./111111 1'1\ t• \\.\1 {..•.fit 11.•1.: 111"•I 11 wl l{� 111\t/\11 1 1111111 11 1••1111111.1 3 \l 11 • ;�;t;11 1111. � ur 1 1;;11 1 •1•\ t 1\ 1 •1 11 \111 1 •11•\• 111 , 11 \ •1,111..1 1•�i�+�1•11.11/1\1 \ ISI.'11 .•J 1\ 11 \111111 •l 11 I{I\\ 11••11 1; , 11 1 1 1 1 �•a11\ •• 1 1 1.�• 111111 \ '11'1111 :,�� g111 111 \. • \ 11 .\ . ..,all-:l�l 1{�ry t\l S Ala l�,1 •�i�\ 1.1 1 1 1111\ 11\1A\ .1\1 1 \1 \ 1\1• ' 1 1• 111 !.11111 IIl1 . 1• t \/al�; a1r1111 \ 1 1 1';;:�t;;:�,I\1111 •111 •{,M•,1\ Ilal 1 1111 1 l• { 11I l 1,.1 A1 1 I. 1+.1 1,',:;,✓•1,1 1�1 \1 1\ 1.11• I ,1\{� . \..a.G1 1 1 It 1• \ •111 H•\ ., 181.0' .d City of Brooklyn Center Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Pur ose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning", defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3. The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Section 35-208 c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off-street parking. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. Section 35-355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 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-IMIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. 35-45 Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council mav, 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; ?. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 35-47 The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning, of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 35-49 APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR BROOKDALE CENTER ADDITIONS AND RENOVATION BR OOKDALE CENTER i BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA J TALISMAN BROOK )LE,L.L.C. January 28,1999 . J A N 199£ RECEIVED s ! �?441(lYk IEKIER, MIN- ol ,f : BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN i PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTBUILDING PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION Submittal Date: January 27,1999 ' Subject Property: BROOKDALE CENTER 1108 Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center,MN The applicant,Talisman Brookdale,L.L.C.does hereby submit their application for the re-zoning of the subject site and request certain modifications of the current City governed requirements as they pertain to the proposed property additions and renovations. _S THE PROPERTY The property known as Brookdale Center is within the City of Brooklyn Center and consists of three(3) ,I separately owned parcels totaling 81 acres.The parcels are individually owned as follows: Talisman Brookdale,L.L.C. 59 acres Sears and Mervyns parcels 22 acres The property is located in Hennepin County.The property is bounded by Xerses Avenue on the West,Bass Lake Road(County Road 10)on the North and State Route 100 on the South side.The property currently has two(2)entrances from both Xerses Avenue and Bass Lake Road(County Road 10). The existing access to the adjacent roadway system is not scheduled to be changed to accommodate the purposed additions and renovation to the Center. RE-ZONING REQUIREMENTS The Property is currently zoned C-2,COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.The property is presently being used as a retail shopping center that is allowed by the current zoning.This application requests that the zoning of the Property be changed to PUD/C2 to enable the Owner to incorporate certain changes to the existing Zoning and other ordinances that will enable the Owner to better utilize the property,to benefit the economics of the center and in turn result with a property that will be financially stable and healthy now and in the future. Request: Re-zoning of the Center to PUD/C-2 BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL The Applicant requests Planning Commission approval of the following proposed development site and building plans: 1. Brookdale Center Additions and Renovation 2. Applebee's restaurant THE CHANGES REQUESTED TO THE CURRENT CITY REQUIREMENTS The following is a summary of the changes that are requested by the applicant to facilitate the redevelopment of the Center.The changes are addressed in more detail later in this application: 1. Permit the use of a 20-screen cinema within the shopping center. 2. Permit the setback to parking lot pavement of 5'from the property lines. 3. Permit a building setback of 35' from the property adjacent to a public right of way. 4. Permit double 90 degree parking space layout to be 60'wide with 8'8"wide car spaces. 5. Permit car space requirements to be based on Gross Lease Area versus Gross Floor Area. 6. Permit 4.5 car spaces per 1,000 SF of Gross Lease Area. 7. Permit an additional freestanding sign on the Brookdale Center property along State Route 100. 8. Permit use of a LED type sign 9. Permit double-sided freestanding signs with a single side face of 320 SF 10. Permit 20%of the GLA for restaurant use without requiring seating count for parking space and retail formula requirements. 11. Permit 35%Accessory uses within a covered mall building. 1 BROOKLYN CENTER,MN ITEM 5: 35-704,MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED,ARTICLE 2C(Zoning) -.y The current code requires that the calculations for parking be based on the Gross Floor Area of the building.The typical shopping area incorporates an unusually high amount of floor area in common area uses.Brookdale Center is also unusual by today's mall standards as the area of the interior common mall areas are much greater then current mall designs recommend.These are common mall walkways and court areas,shipping and receiving areas,service areas,storage areas and etc.that are not used to hold or cause the patron count to increase but are usually used for accessing from one tenant space to another.It is not the practice to create greater.common floor area space to generate more patrons or customers. Request: • Allow the use of"Gross Lease Area"(GLA)to be used to determine the requirements in the Center in lieu of"Gross Floor Area"(GFA). ITEM 6: SECTION 35-704,MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED(Zoning) ARTICLE 2C The current zoning ordinance requires 5.5 car spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA.As previously requested in Item 5 above the use of GLA in lieu of GFA has been requested.Additionally the applicant is requesting that the car space requirement be modified to reflect a practical understanding of the actual use of the expanse of parking spaces provided and the relatively few periods when the availability of parking is a problem to the center or its patrons.The applicant purposes a 4.5 car space per 1,000 SF of GLA although the present layout provides 5.19 cars per 1,000 SF of GLA.The project Site Plan as presented provides 6,263 car j spaces.This is a greater number of spaces then the existing car count.The car count has been adequate in the past for patron parking and expected to be adequate for the expansion and theater use requested.The varied peak hours for shopping and theater customers normally allow for adequate parking with the exception of certain traditional and seasonal excessive shopping days.It is also noted here that there has been usable land area removed from the original center aggregate property for the state highway ramps and the Shingle Creek pedestrian walkway. Request: • Allow the project to base their car space requirements on 4.5 car spaces per 1,000SF of GLA. • Allow the Developer the option and flexibility to finalize their design of the parking layout and count to the proposed standards approved by this PUD or a design that improves on the approved standards. ITEM 7: SECTION 34-140,PERMITTED SIGNS,ARTICLES 1,212(Sign Ordinance) The current sign ordinance allows the installation of a freestanding sign along the State Route 100 right of way.Due to the expanse,3,500 lineal feet,of property along this premium frontage it is requested that a second freestanding sign be allowed with adequate spacing from the already allowed freestanding sign.The signs are both necessary as they provide identification and suggestion to the public that a viable mall is readily available in the community.In the case of the theater it provides information regarding features being shown to bring the patron to the center rather then travel to another center out of the community.The sign ordinance allows a freestanding sign for properties having at least 400 feet of roadway frontage.The center has much greater frontage on State Route 100 then that allowed for other single businesses and the center represents many businesses that depend on this type of exposure for their success. EXHIBIT"A"ATTACHED."PYLON SIGN ELEVATION" Request: • Allow the installation of a second freestanding sign along the State Route right of way in conformance to the setback,other sign ordinance and the PUD approved requirements. ITEM 9: SECTION 34-140,PERMITTED SIGNS,ARTICLE 3A2a(Sign Ordinance) The current sign ordinance allows freestanding signage to a maximum of 250SF on buildings that have 24,000 SF or greater GFA.Brookdale Center is in excess of 1,200,000 SF of GLA.The center,as most businesses,requires exposure to the public on a continuos basis to remain viable.A new development is permitted by the sign ordinance to maintain a sign of up to 3 20SF where the new development contains 10 - BIZUUKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER,MN Is there a clear and public need or benefit? In the past 35 years Brookdale Center,a regional shopping center,has lost its luster and its purpose and ability to provide the community residents with the most up to date merchants,services and entertainment: The community residents have found other centers to be more complete in selection of merchants,services and entertainment.This has resulted in fewer shoppers at the Center,a loss of merchants,and the lack of interest for newer merchants to become a part of the Center. The re-zoning and the changes requested enables the Owner to expand in order to provide the retail and entertainment mass necessary to attract the newer and name merchants. The expansion proposed and the addition of an entertainment venue will provide the synergy necessary to provide: • the retail-entertainment mix that is necessary to serve the community _ • a convenient location for name merchants for the residents of the community • added employment for the community -' • stabilization to the value of the property as tax revenue source. This is a greater option then the continued deterioration of the Center and the potential of a diminishing tax base. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Center has been operating for over 35 years as a C2-Commercial District development.The surrounding area uses are compatible with the present C2 zoning and would be compatible with the change to the PUD/C2,PUD-Commercial District zoning. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The present retail use of the property will be enhanced with the adding of a 20-screen theater entertainment -4 venue.The retail,selected services and theater uses are consistent with the current zoning when the "Special Use"provisions for a theater is applied.The Owner is requesting development changes in the zoning ordinance to enable the property to be utilized practically,efficiently,aesthetically pleasing and profitable. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The Center has been operating for over 35 years.To the best of our knowledge there have been no major changes to the zoning in the area that are not consistent with the present and proposed uses. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals,is there a broad public purpose evident? The City does not initiate this rezoning.The rezoning does however have the broad public support of many local churches and civic organizations that are interested in attaining the necessary services,merchandise, and entertainment in an aged regional center that would benefit the residents of the community.It will also serve to enhance and retain the commercial viability of a major piece of real estate and tax base within the City. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? The applicant is prepared to comply fully with the ordinance development restrictions and changes permitted that are agreed to by the ordinance changes and rezoning approval. 5 s ;� BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN i c 1.7 UTILITY PLAN-EAST OLIVER&ASSOCIATES c 1.8 UTILITY PLAN-SOUTH OLIVER&ASSOCIATES LI 1.1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN COOPER LIGHTING 11.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ARTEKA CORP. a 2.0 EXISTING LEASE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.1 FIRST LEVEL PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.2 SECOND LEVEL PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.3 ROOF PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.5 EXTERIOR IMAGES ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE A-1 PLAN,ELEVATIONS&SITE APPLEBEES • PYLON SIGN ELEVATION,LOEWS THEATRES • LEGAL DESCRIPTION END t s . 1 f 7 High Rise Construction C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. construction Layout Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys I Professionally Registered M Minnesota,Iowa and Wisomsin ALTA Surveys J JOHN COULTER PETERSON Section Subdivisions Topographic Mapping P.O.Box 8900 /.MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55408.0900 Shopping Centers (612)824-0370 /(612)891-5407 / FAX(612)953.3074 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD PARCEL 1 : Tracts A, B, C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PERIMETER DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 (for informational purposes only, not for conveyance purposes) : Beginning at the most Southely crner of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence- North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West, assumed bearing along the line common to said Registered Land Survey No. 1469 and Registered Land Survey No. 936, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a distance of 553. 00 feet; thence South 61 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 50 . 00 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 177 . 00 feet; thence South 61 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 400. 00 feet; thence South 35 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 461.56 feet; thence North 11 degrees 43 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 577 . 90 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 460. 94 feet, a central angle of 35 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds for a distance of 282 . 80 feet; thence North 23 degrees 26 minutes 10 -seconds East, tangent to last described curve a distance of 306.71 feet; thence South 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East •a distance of 521.72 feet; thence South 28 -degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 130.32 feet; thence North 61 degrees 15 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 226. 37 feet; thence South- 28 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 43.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 17 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet; thence North 28 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of s 43.04 feet; thence North 61 degrees 15 minutes 56 seconds r$ East a distance of 104. 63 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 130.00 feet; thence North 25 degrees 59 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 404. 60 feet; thence South 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 49 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 5 . 61 feet; thence North i 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 88.40 feet; thence North 47 degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 176 .71 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 150. 00 feet; thence North 83 degrees 26 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 100 .51 feet; 4 High Rise Construction C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Construction Layout Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys ALTA Surveys i Professionally Registered in Minnesota,Iowa and Wisconsin Section Subdivisions 1 JOHN COULTER PETERSON Topographic Mapping P.O.Box 8900 / MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55408-0900 Shopping Centers (612)824-0370 /(612)891-5407 / FAX(612)953-3074 Page 3 z LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD PARCEL 2 : Tracts A, B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1614, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PERIMETER DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2 (for informational purposes only, not for conveyance purposes) : Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1614, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 08 seconds East, assumed bearing along the line common to said Registered Land Survey No. 1614 and Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a distance of 889 .23 feet; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 160 . 29 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 744.46 feet; thence South 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 255 . 65 feet; thence South 2 degrees 57 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 57 . 17 feet; thence South 31 degrees 42 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 40 . 28 feet;. thence along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 2824 .79 feet, a central angle of 1 degree 35 minutes 02 seconds for a distance of 78 . 09 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East, not tangent to last described curve a distance of 250 .58 feet; thence South 52 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 538 . 50 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 56.92 feet; thence along a non-tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 2824 .79 feet, a central angle of .3 degrees 28 minutes 35 seconds for a distance of 171 .40 feet; thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds West, not tangent to said last described curve, a distance of 267 .42 feet; thence South 52 degrees 34 minutes" 00 seconds West a distance of 504 . 32 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; Except that part described as follows : Commencing at the said most Southerly corner of Tract A, 4 Registered Land Survey No. 1614; . thence North 0 degrees 01 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 889 .23 feet; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 160 .29 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 311. 66 feet; IC Ica February 18, 1989 • / . Talisman Corporation Mr. Larry R,adzviUe Suite 135 1500 San Remo Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 RE: Brookdele Center Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Our Jab No-' 990103 Dear Mr.RadzvMe: Based upon your request, The Traffic Group, Inc. has undertaken a Shared Parking AnalYsis to determine the maximum number of parking spaces that are required for the proposed retail complex. For the purposes of our analysis, the following are the basic assumptions used to reach our conclusions: • 1,068,093 sq.ft. of gross leasable retail space • 4,252 seats for an 86,649 sq. ft. movie theatre • Proposed to provide 5,702 parking spaces on-site • The City Zoning Code requires approximately 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq, ft.for retail space.. The proposed plan suggests 4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. • The City Zoning Code allows that in retail centers over 50,000 sq. ft., that parking for movie theatres eidst at one space per three seats.The proposed plan assumes one space per four seats. • The City Zoning Code requires a Shared Farkiag Analysis be approved by the City Council ro. V"Wff4C Smite 600 40 W. CbempaaEo Asw "xe Zowfon,Maryland 21204 410-383-8405 Fax 410.321-8458 Mr. Larry Rad=ille February 18„ 1.9.9.9 Page a • Southdale Shopping Center- ■ 1,634,000 sq.& ■ 6,950 parking spaces 4.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Based on the above information,it is dear that other Centers in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area have been approved with parking ratios lees than 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as required by the City Zoning Code. Therefore, based on the information shown on pages 1 through 3, it is clear that the shared parking concept developed by the Urban band Institute indicates that more than sufficient parking is proposed on the subject site based on the maximum hourly demand determined by this analysis. The data contained in the Urban Land Institute Study has also been provided for your reference. hIf you have any questions concerning the enclosed information, please do not esitate to contact me. Sincerely, John W. Guckert b President JWGllmklsmb (rods-im (F=,LIPS) Thr Traffu Group,Inc.. -- a.e r VClO�F7C`J' BROOKDALE CENTER° M/NN. SHARED PARKING ANA Yc�c �.° WEEKDAY) tin--dot tout Retail' 1.058.093 sq.ft Movies= 4,252 seats Retail=4.5 SPacesl1,000 sq.ft MOV'MS= 1 space!4 Seats ftrki ns�Spaces based ort Hiohest Month tuna Retail= 4761 Movies= 532 TOTAL= 6263 7:00 AM 8% 381 0 8:00 AM 16% 381 es? —.. o e57 9.00 AM Q% 2000 0 10:00 AM 68%, 3237 2000 — 0 11:00 AM . 87% 4142 ._ 3237 12.00 PM 9795 4 0 4142 619 309'. 160 4778 1:00 PM 100% 4761 70Y. 55 372 5133 2:00 PM 97 4818 70% 372 4990 3:00 PM 95% 4923 70% 372 4:00 PM 67% 4142 4895 70°X, 372 4514 5:00 PM 79% 3761 70% . 6:00 PM 829 3TZ 4133 7:00 PM 89% 3904 80% a26 4330 4237 90% 479 4716 8:00 PM 87% 4142 100% 532 4674 9:00 PM 61% 2904 100° 532 3436 10:00 PM 32% 1524 100% 532 2056 11:00 PM 13% 619 80% 426 1045 1200 AM —.. 0 70% 372 37Z M;IIdmum Weekday HOUfty Demand a 5133 S Paticlfl PMA paces 9 �■ 3702 Spaces NOW Rswww &o HwAy Amu*ulalk n by P.t=napa of p"k"*u'we wren hm F-n:ac2t of Of study Under ale OgeQi m of UU-Urwfi L&V lna"Am h Bar-- schmen IWorsaa.Inc page 2 of 3 .f: f f� 4 Q' CCao OCDP U2 � tiaN aco° OO $ ° o0op C3 c cc cc CO Olt Q _ a Q vo. v°, vti"io�► aoS � ao'r' 00 Z � � w � 8 $ BSSS � S0000 p p Q = (� 5 C3 W9 1= CDo � o • jWa aot� °' o. � QOaocvo� � a i CD Nooh .n �+', v, hp � 40 � rrrtie� � r �. wS W >- S S °I;p g C2 cp S Lr4l y w � ►r o 'L 0 z 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 1999 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Brookdale Plan Review General site and preliminary plans have been reviewed relating to the proposed Brookdale Redevelopment. The plans reviewed are dated received by the City January 28, 1999, and submitted by the Architectural Alliance. I do have some comments to provide at this time. However, I anticipate providing additional comments upon completion of the traffic study by SEH and any comments/requirements resulting from review by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. At this time, we expect the Watershed to be reviewing the site plan and proposal at their March 11, 1999 meeting. � PARKING/ACCESS The parking study is not clear weather or not it is for the mall building only, or includes the detached buildings elsewhere on the site. The report submitted by The Traffic Group assumes 1,128,940 sq. Ft. of gross leasable retail space(GLA). The Plan submitted states a Total Mall Building Gross Leasable Area of 1,058,093 sf of GLA. It should be verified what buildings in addition to the mall itself have been used to compute the GLA. The Traffic Group's report proposes 6,263 parking spaces on site. I have counted the total number of stalls on the site plan and come up with approximately 6,235. However,this count includes all parking around existing Kohl's and Ground Round. Again, actual GLA locations and parking needs and parking assignments needs to be clarified much further. SEH may provide additional comments as well. GENERAL TRAFFIC OPERATION AND CIRCULATION SEH Inc. has completed a traffic study for the site (report attached, or will be available at the February 25 Planning commission Meeting). An analysis of existing traffic volumes and movements, as well as anticipated volumes and movements are provided in the report. It is not anticipated that the redevelopment will have an overall negative impact on the surrounding County Roadways (Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10), or T.H. 100. Locations of entrances to the mall are generally at the same locations. Therefore, access to the site will generally operate in an acceptable manner; with at least one exception, however. 3 GRADING AND UTILITIES The site plan proposes to utilize many of the existing utilities that currently service Brookdale. Since these utilities are private, complete records are not available, and the property owner would be responsible for verifying existing utilities and future needs. Proposed detached buildings along Xerxes would need to verify the availability of services from Xerxes. Storm water is proposed to be routed to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond by use of existing and proposed storm sewer on site, and connecting to the crossing beneath TH 100 that was recently constructed by the City. For portions of the site east of Shingle Creek, the developer's engineer is reviewing the plans to try to route as much storm water as possible to the Regional Pond. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission will comment further on this upon their review. A large storm sewer pipe (42 inch dia. RCP) is proposed to be installed on the east side of the property. This pipe would ultimately carry the vast majority of the site's drainage. Past experiences suggest that the underlying materials may not be able to adequately support the pipe without piling. A geotechnical engineer should be retained by the owner to evaluate the structural capability of the subgrade further. An existing City trunk sanitary sewer main crosses this same area and is supported on piling. The proposed site of Building#4 along Shingle Creek is also located close to an existing City sewer force-main. A proposed building site (#5) is also shown to be located within the 100 year flood zone of Shingle Creek. Under City and Watershed regulations, no full can be placed within this zone without the providing of compensating storage as approved by the City and Watershed. The City is working with the Watershed's Engineer to explore the possibility of utilizing another site as additional compensating storage. The Watershed and City would ultimately need to assess the sufficiency of the Creek's flow and flood modeling hydraulic capabilities before approving such a proposal. OTHER Under the proposed plan, the entire Brookdale parking area would need to be re-striped, along with some grading and curbing modifications. Provisions (such as overlay or seal-coat) should be provided by the developer to insure that all existing pavement markings are adequately removed. The plan does provide for use of existing access drives from the surrounding roadways. It is not expected at this time that formal approval from Vln/Dot and/or Hennepin County will be needed. However, it is recommended that plans be forwarded to those agencies as a courtesy for their information, or review and comment as necessary. Met Council Transit has also been working to establish a bus transfer site in the project area as well. At this time no site has been established. i Member Graydon Boeck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: _ j PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. - 99-02 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 99001 SUBMITTED BY TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission'Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC proposes a rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/C-2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center which is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east and south by T. H. 100 and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this' proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building.plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center to include the following; 1. The reconfiguration of the west end of the mall including an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater; 2. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for two restaurant sites; 3. An approximate 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised mall entry way along the southerly side- of the complex adjacent to Dayton's; 4. A 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant building along Xerxes Avenue North, northerly of the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Center; 5. Conceptual approval, subject to further Planning Commission and City Council review and approval, of four additional freestanding restaurant and/or retail buildings to be located around the perimeter of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 25, 1999, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received; and r WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings 1 contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit -- Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC 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 and will allow for the redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Mall which is a unique development within the City of Brooklyn Center and whose viability is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 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 for the most part with the exception of the following allowed variations from the zoning ordinance which are considered reasonable standards to apply to this proposal: • Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. greeenstrips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 'h ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects (this standard has been allowed in other areas within the city). Allow a 35 ft., or non-major thoroughfare setback for certain out building locations based on variances that have been allowed for other commercial buildings along major thoroughfares and seem appropriate in this location as well. • Allow a 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area required based on the shared parking analysis provided and on Urban Land Institute Methodology indicating a maximum of 5,133 parking spaces as being needed for the Brookdale Mall given the r ; mix of-uses and square footages proposed in order to meet the {� 2 maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand, which is also in keeping with at least two major regional malls in the area. • Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. required separation based on the fact that Brookdale has previously been allowed to have the 60 ft. parking standard and it appears that it would work in this situation. • Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale Mall. • Allow an increase from 15 percent to 20 percent of the allowable restaurant use without requiring additional parking at Brookdale based on the uniqueness of Brookdale, the mix of uses and dynamics of multiple stops per person at the Center. 4. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with 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 redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Regional Mall are an important long range use for the existing property and are considered to be an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are'met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 99001 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1_. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. t° 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior 3 i i 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 and building additions 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 new landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100. 8. Plan approval acknowledges a proof of parking for the Brookdale Shopping Center based on providing 5,700 parking spaces on site. The applicants are allowed to retain the existing parking configuration except where required 1 modifications are to be made based on building expansions or additions. New parking lot construction or reconfiguration shall require concrete parking delineators as approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit as built surveys of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an easement agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer 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's standard specifications and details. 12. Approval of the application is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to storm drainage systems. Effective compensating storage shall be approved prior to the construction and filling for the proposed building No. 5 on the site plan. 4 _ ! 13. 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 the various modifications to city ordinances and the rationale for allowing such deviations by the City Council and the conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. 14. Plan approval is granted .for the Applebee's Restaurant building as presented (Building No. 2 on the site plan). 15. Conceptual approval only is granted for three other out buildings shown on the site plan as Building No. 3, Building No. 4 and Building No. 5. Planning Commission review and City Council approval in the form of a Planned Unit Development amendment shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for these buildings. 16. The costs for traffic signals at the 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue intersections with Xerxes' Avenue shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 17. The plans shall be modified to show: a. A 3 ft. to 3 1/z ft. high decorative masonry wall in locations other than along T. H. 100 where greenstrips are less than 15 ft. b. The elimination of the access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building No. 3. C. The location of the Shingle Creek Regional Corridor Trail through the Brookdale parking lot. d. The removal of Building No. 1 which is not part of the conceptual approval granted at this time. L r 1 Date Chair AT EST: / �• L�X-�— Secretary 5 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dianne Reem and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman, Rahn and Reem. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6