HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 04-11 PCP 3 PW C
io-of
BROOKLYN
CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
APRIL 11,2013
1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes—February 28,2013 Meeting
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. Planning Application Items (public information and input)
a) City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance Amendment
Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 34 (Signs) and Chapter 35 (Zoning)
of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the allowance of dynamic message signs
(DMS) to public places and uses, and adding new definitions of"Public Uses" to
the City Code.
(Allowance for public input will be considered on this item)
6. Planning Application Items without public hearing)
a) Loren Van Der Slik/Gatlin Development Planning App. No. 2013-002
Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, located in the
Shingle Creek Crossing PUD
7. Action Items—None
8. Discussion Items—None
9. Nominations and Election of New Chairperson for 2013
10. Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 28, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Scott Burfeind, Randall Christensen, Benjamin Freedman and
Carlos Morgan were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the
Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, and
Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stephen Schonning was absent and
excused. Michael Parks was absent and unexcused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES—FEBRUARY 14, 2013
There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Chair Rahn, to approve the
minutes of the February 14, 2013 meeting as submitted. The motion passed.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as 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.
DISCUSSION ITEMS - DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE CITY COUNCIL IN AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 34- SIGNS (ALLOWING
DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS IN PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC PLACES)
Mr. Benetti reminded the Planning Commission that at the February 14, 2013 Planning
Commission meeting, the following recommendations were made:
1. The Commission should provide a recommendation of support, and indicate what, if any
measures or standards should be incorporated into any ordinance amendment. Moreover,
if these signs are allowed in residential areas, the Commission should provide input as to
what the potential impacts upon the residential neighborhoods may be, and discuss
options, or specific methods and standards that could be included to limit any impacts;
2. the Commission should direct city staff to prepare language providing a new definition or
land use term, similar to the other communities' ordinances, in regards to the "Public"
and"Semi-Public"uses;
3. the Commission should discuss or determine if you support the possible expansion of
DMS's in other zoning districts, and if so, what areas or districts deemed appropriate;
Page 1
2-28-13
4. the Commission should recommend a desire to conduct a public input session on any
proposed sign ordinance reforms, and specifically request a fully published and noticed
public hearing. The Commission may direct Planning Staff on notice letters sent to
specific groups or stakeholders, such as the local schools, churches, City licensed sign
hangers/vendors, or others.
He added the Commission generally supported the idea of allowing DMS type sign in the
Public/Semi-Public places and the City Code should provide a new definition or classification of
"Public" and "Semi-Public" places. The Commission also generally supported the idea of
expanding DMS' to other districts but did not decide what districts would be appropriate. He
added the Commission also discussed providing certain limitations such as message change
intervals, which may need further study or consideration in order to be modified and the
Commission raised a number of concerns on the brightness levels of these signs in public places.
Mr. Benetti further explained it was agreed that the City should focus on limiting the brightness
of these signs; possibly limit the size(s) of signs; and limit the changeable interval of messages
especially if they are in residential zoned areas.
Mr. Benetti stated by current ordinance standards, the level of brightness or illumination of light
from an exterior light source, located in or next to a residential neighborhood, must not exceed 3
foot-candles, measured at the property lines (Sec. 36-712).
Mr. Benetti pointed out the Planning Commission should discuss limiting the size of these
dynamic message signs if they are located in a residential zoned district. He added the City
Attorney suggested the Planning Commission consider limiting DMS standards to the same
standards as allowed throughout the city on existing signs at schools and churches.
Mr. Benetti added the Planning Commission should discuss limiting a different change rate or
time interval for messages to change on signs in Public Places based on the fact the City allows
these to be located in or near residential districts. He pointed out the City Attorney suggested
the City consider limiting DMS to longer periods, may recommend signs are turned-off
completely at a certain time of the day and activated at a set time, and could require the
electronic messages be kept stationary for a longer period of time than the 2-second message
interval currently allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Benetti explained staff is recommending consideration of the following:
1. Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to Public and Semi-
Public Places;
2. Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to the C1
(Service/Office) and CIA (Service/Office) Districts;
3. Planning Commission recommends the City Council direct city staff to prepare language
providing a new definition or land use term similar to the other communities' ordinances
with regards to "Public" and"Semi-Public"uses;
Page 2
2-28-13
4. Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider limiting the overall
allowable size of any new DMS area or cabinet to no more than fifty percent (50%) of the
maximum allowable signage provided for in the district where the sign is placed.
5. Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider specific [new] standards
for any DMS in a residential area, including, but not limited the following:
a. A DMS message must remain stationary or static for up to one hour or more;
b. dimming technology that automatically adjusts their brightness in direct
correlation with ambient light conditions, and said brightness;
C. Sign brightness shall not exceed the industry standards of 0.3 foot-candles above
ambient light as measured from a preset distance depending on the sign size;
d. Any DMS located in a residential zoned district shall be turned off or
programmed to go blank between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.
6. Planning Commission recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a
Draft Ordinance addressing these new reforms to the existing DMS provisions and
standards found under City Code Chapter 34 — Signs, and that this item be sent back to
Planning Commission for public input under an official, published public hearing
process, whereby an official recommendation on the proposed Ordinance will be made
and forwarded back to the City Council for final consideration.
Mr. Benetti explained that a local sign company brought a lighted sign for the Commission's
review to determine the light measurement when lit. He further explained staff prepared
recommendations that could go to the City Council who will review and direct staff to work with
the city attorney to draft language amending Chapter 34 of the city ordinances regarding sign.
He added a formal recommendation would then be made by the Planning Commission to forward
back to the City Council.
Commissioner Christensen stated he lives on 69th Avenue which is a County Road and there are
at least three places where these signs would be allowed within a 12 block stretch. His concern
is that most of these signs would be directly across the street from homes.
Commissioner Freedman asked if other cities had complaints with these signs. Mr. Benetti
replied that he has not heard of any complaints since most signs are in commercial zones.
Commissioner Morgan arrived at 7:25 p.m.
Chair Rahn stated that these signs are the way of the future and the city can anticipate more and
more of these signs. He added he would like to see the technology made available while still
protecting the neighborhood. He doesn't feel the issue will go away and we should figure it out.
Commissioner Morgan asked if that these signs are for businesses why is this an issue?
Page 3
2-28-13
Mr. Eitel clarified the discussion is regarding lighted signs in public and semi-public zoned areas
to include churches, schools, libraries, city hall, etc. not commercially zoned properties where
these signs are allowed. He added the discussion came up to take a look at how a school or
church can change their old message board to take advantage of the new technology. He added
generally these type locations use their signs to inform rather than advertise.
Commissioner Morgan stated staff has done a good job with researching this and he feels it is a
great opportunity to embrace the technology available. He feels the city should ask the Chamber
how they feel and we should go with what they think is appropriate.
Commissioner Christensen asked for clarification regarding how bright a sign can be.
Mr. Benetti replied there are no brightness standards for signs but there is a lighting standard for
new lighting for parking or a new development which cannot exceed 3 ft. candles at the property
line. He further explained that if a light appears to be too bright, they could take a measurement
and if it is determined it is too bright, they can ask it to be brought down. He added further that
through this process, the city could require a limit to the brightness on signs.
Commissioner Morgan asked for a demonstration on just how a light appears at certain illumes.
Mr. Benetti replied at the request of the Commission a lighted sign was brought in and the sign is
on display tonight at the entrance to City Hall. The sign was at 0.3 foot candle.
There was further discussion and explanation by staff and the sign company regarding the signs,
what makes them a DMS and how the lights and messages can be adjusted based on what a city
requires. It was also explained how a Dynamic Message Sign operates including how the
message part of the sign can be turned off and still keep the identification part of the sign lit.
Commissioner Christensen stated he would like to see the ordinance amended in a way that
protects the residential neighborhoods since that is where most of these uses are located.
Commissioner Burfeind stated he feels these are primarily public uses that don't have any
regulations regarding brightness for signs allowed and what is being proposed is more stringent
than what is currently allowed in commercial areas. He feels the recommendations made by staff
minimize the impact on the neighborhood which would allow the signs while limiting hours,
size, brightness, etc.
Councilmember Kleven asked if the Commission discussed different colors within the signs.
Chair Rahn replied color was not addressed so much as brightness of the sign. The sign
company explained the colors available are red, amber and multi-colored and the number of
pixels determines the different colors. He further explained that you would not be able to read a
message if the letters are multi-colored, however, with a design program a diagram could be
inserted into the sign with many colors.
Commissioner Morgan stated he doesn't feel the city should regulate colors.
Page 4
2-28-13
Chair Rahn responded he's not sure that you could limit and regulate the amount of color in a
sign. Mr. Benetti replied that the intent of a sign is to be read and if the mix of colors hinders
that, a business would not use the mix of colors in a sign. He added he feels the majority of the
signs will be an amber light on a black background.
Commissioner Christensen stated he would like to see language defining the minimum allowed
distance for a lighted sign from a residential property. He added he wants to make sure churches
and schools do not place dynamic signs right on the shared property line. He also stated he
would like to limit hours to turn off the DMS at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Benetti replied the 10:00 P.M. was based on city parks closing at 10:00 p.m.
Chair Rahn added he feels allowing the DMS part of the signs to be turned on at 6:00 a.m. is too
early and he would like to see it changed to 7:00 a.m. and turned off at 9:00 p.m. if in a
residential setting.
Commissioner Burfeind stated he agrees with the need to define a setback distance from
residential properties for the DMS signs. Chair Rahn stated he agrees and would like to propose
a number to Council.
There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Morgan requesting
the Council consider amending Chapter 34 of the sign ordinance regarding Dynamic Message
Signs, and forward the statements of support and recommendation to the City Council noted as
follows:
1. Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to Public and Semi-
Public Places, with further recommendation the City Council direct city staff to
prepare a draft ordinance to include the following measures:
a. new definition or land use term similar to the other communities' ordinances
with regards to "Public" and"Semi-Public" uses;
b. limiting the overall allowable size of any new DMS area or cabinet to no more
than fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowable signage provided for in
the district where the sign is placed.
c. any DMS in a residential zoned district message must remain stationary or
static for up to one hour or more;
a. any DMS in a residential zoned district must have dimming technology that
automatically adjusts their brightness in direct correlation with ambient light
conditions, and said brightness, and said brightness shall not exceed the
industry standards of 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light as measured from a
preset distance depending on the sign size;
b. any DMS located in a residential zoned district shall be turned off or
programmed to go blank between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily.
c. A DMS in a public or semi-public place located in a residential district shall
be placed or allowed no closer than 50-feet to 75-feet from an adjacent
residential lot line.
Page 5
2-28-13
2. Planning Commission was supportive of a further study to allowing dynamic message
signs to the C1 (Service/Office) and CIA(Service/Office) Districts;
3. Planning Commission recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare a Draft Ordinance addressing these new reforms to the existing DMS
provisions and standards found under City Code Chapter 34 — Signs, and that this
item be sent back to Planning Commission for public input under an official,
published public hearing process, whereby an official recommendation on the
proposed Ordinance will be made and forwarded back to the City Council for final
consideration.
Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Christensen, Freedman, and
Morgan.
And the following voted against the same: None
The motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW OF THE 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND PROJECT MAP
Mr. Benetti provided information regarding the 2013 Community Development Activities &
Projects Map including identifying ongoing development sites, potential land use proposal sites,
redevelopment and opportunity sites, and study corridor areas.
• Maranatha—on-going project which may come back for the additional 38 unit building
but with no timeline.
• Slim's Pizza—just opened for business. City has been in discussion with the owners to
possibly expand their business which would require acquisition of some of the homes
along Brooklyn Boulevard.
• Old Honda site—identified for a new dealership.
• Vacant lot behind SuperAmerica at 691h and Brooklyn Boulevard.
• Luther Honda and Toyota Site—may expand PUD to include acquired single family lots.
• Freeway Boulevard Industrial Park—future study of 600,000 sq. ft. of vacant industrial
space.
• Humboldt Avenue Corridor between 65th and 691h Avenue North—study potential
improvements.
• Evergreen Park Villas—2 1/2 acre parcel targeted for multi-family residential use.
• Eastwood 2nd Addition—potential single family home development.
• Vacant land south of the FBI site—4.9 acres owned by the EDA.
• Vacant land south of the Embassy Suites—2 acres targeted for a second hotel.
• Opportunity Site within the Central Commerce District—Brookdale Square, Minnesota
School of Business site, former Best Buy site, and Brookdale Ford.
• Old Jerry's Market site—vacant parcel.
• EDA parcel at 57th and Logan Avenue.
• Trail link to Hennepin County trail-way system along 57th Avenue N.
• Shingle Creek Crossing site—on-going development.
• Sears site—incorporate into the Shingle Creek Crossing development.
Page 6
2-28-13
• Northport Elementary School—in Phase III of a Phase V renovation.
• Twin Lake Manor Apartments—potential new owner may acquire and renovate.
• Bridges over Hwy 100 at County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard are scheduled for re-
decking and rehabbing in 2014.
• Howe Fertilizer site—owned by Real Estate Recycling who is submitting a new PUD
amendment to include a larger building and new layout.
• Surly Brewery—looking to expand their business.
• Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study.
There were no other discussion items.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Eitel noted there is a meeting scheduled on March 28, 2013 which is a religious holiday. It
was suggested that the meeting be rescheduled to either Tuesday or Wednesday of that week if
needed.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Freedman,to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
Page 7
2-28-13
City of Business and Development
TBroojUyn Center— wwwDepartment
.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55430-2199
Phone 763.569.3300 TTY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Gary Eitel, Business &Development Director
Tim Benetti, Planning &Zoning Specialist
DATE: April 11, 2013
RE: Agenda Item No. 5.a — Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 34 (Signs) and
Chapter 35 (Zoning) of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the allowance of
dynamic message signs (DMS)to public places and uses, and adding new definitions of
"Public Uses to the City Code.
Introduction
Planning staff requests the Planning Commission conduct a public informational meeting (public
hearing) of the proposed ordinance amendment related to dynamic message signs and new
definitions to the City Code. City staff has published a notice in the official Sun-Post News, and
mailed notices to all schools and churches in the city; and also all sign hangers and vendors
licensed to do work within the City.
Background
When this item was initially presented to the Mayor/City Council at the January 14, 2013 City
Council Work Session meeting, they specifically requested the Commission conduct a public
hearing as part of your official review and consideration of this matter. Up until this meeting,
there has been no official hearing or notices mailed or published on this item, other than the
postings of meeting agendas.
At the February 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Staff presented a memo
report with information related to dynamic message signs in Public/Semi-Public Places, along
with statements related to potential impacts to residential neighborhoods, allowances for such
signs in other districts; and sign standard reforms.
The Planning Commission has generally supported the concept of allowing DMS type sign in the
Public/Semi-Public places, and further supports the efforts of the City to include new definitions
or classification of what constitutes a"Public Use".
Upon conclusion of the discussion regarding this item, the Planning Commission formulated the
following statements and recommendations to be forwarded on to the City Council:
1. Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to Public and Semi-
Public Places, with further recommendation the City Council direct city staff to
prepare a draft ordinance to include the following measures:
a. new definition or land use term similar to the other communities' ordinances
with regards to "Public" and"Semi-Public"uses;
b. limiting the overall allowable size of any new DMS area or cabinet to no more
than fifty percent (50%) of the maximum allowable signage provided for in
the district where the sign is placed.
c. any DMS in a residential zoned district message must remain stationary or
static for up to one hour or more;
a. any DMS in a residential zoned district must have dimming technology that
automatically adjusts their brightness in direct correlation with ambient light
conditions, and said brightness, and said brightness shall not exceed the
industry standards of 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light as measured from a
preset distance depending on the sign size;
b. any DMS located in a residential zoned district shall be turned off or
programmed to go blank between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily.
c. A DMS in a public or semi-public place located in a residential district shall
be placed or allowed no closer than 50-feet to 75-feet from an adjacent
residential lot line.
2. Planning Commission was supportive of a further study to allowing dynamic message
signs to the C 1 (Service/Office) and C 1 A (Service/Office) Districts;
Proposed Ordinance Language
Attached for the Commissioners review is a draft ordinance of the proposed amendments to the
City Code, specifically to Chapters 34 (Signs) and 35 (Zoning). Changes or language formulated
by City staff include new definitions of"Public Uses". The Commission may recall that initially
we had discussed adding a new "Semi-Public Uses" definition; but ultimately staff determined
this definition was irrelevant, since most semi-public uses, such as clubs or lodges, would only
be allowed in certain commercial zones, so it was felt best to simply forgo any new definition at
this time.
Permitted signs under the newly defined "Public Uses" section (Ch. 34.140.3.D) has also been
created and modified to allow DMS' in certain circumstances and specifies certain new standards
for these DMS' in residential areas.
Staff anticipates that after this ordinance is given due consideration by the City Council, staff
may be directed or recommended to begin work on a more comprehensive study or analysis of
the entire Ch. 34 Sign Ordinance. Staff believes this study could be used to further investigate
the needs of these signs in the commercial districts and corridors; and determine the
appropriateness of additional or more restrictive standards/regulations in these districts.
Planning Staff believes this added study is warranted and due in large part to the rapidly
changing design technology of these dynamic message board signs, and the expected availability
and affordability these sign will become to the businesses and consumers in the near future.
Recommendation
Staff requests the Planning Commission open the public hearing; allow for comments or
concerns from the stakeholders or citizens of the community; discuss this matter and the new
standards noted in the attached Draft Ordinance; and provide a recommendation to the City
Council.
DRAFT#4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DRAFT#4
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 2013,
at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 and Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding the allowance of dynamic message signs (DMS) to public places and
uses, and adding new definitions of public uses.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please contact the City Clerk at(763) 569-3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE
CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF
DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS (DMS) TO PUBLIC PLACES AND USES
AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC USES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended in the following manner (st--ikee A tex4 indicates matter to be deleted, while
double underline text indicates new matter):
Section 34-110. DEFINITIONS. The language set forth in the text of this
ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following definitions. Words used in the
present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular shall include the plural and the
plural includes the singular.
Public Uses—uses, facilities and properties owned or operated by a school
district, a municipality, county_, state, or other governmental units, and any religious
institution such as churches, chapels, temples, synagogues and mosques.
Section 34-140. PERMITTED SIGNS.
1. General Requirements and Standards for Permitted Signs
k. A dynamic messages sign "DMS," is permitted in the C2, I-1
and 1-2 Districts and with Public Uses in all allowable
districts. A DMS is also subject to the requirements of Section
34-140.3.A and Section 34-140.3.D of this ordinance. A DMS
message in the C2, I-1 and I-2 Districts must remain constant
for at least two seconds when such sign is in use.
1
3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit
D. Public and Berm D„l.': Plaees Uses (All Allowable Districts)
Public Uses such as individual schools churches. chapels.
synagogues temples and mosques and government facilities
and establishments.
1. Freestanding Signs Ghtffehes, synagegues and temples
may have the folio
a. One freestanding sign with the sign area not to
exceed 36 square feet. The sign shall not extend
more than 10 feet above the ground level. There
may be a second such sign if the use abuts two
or more streets. Properties entitled to a second
freestanding sign may elect to erect a single
freestanding sign not exceeding 72 square feet
in area or 15 feet in height.
2. Wall Signs
a.b-. One wall sign on each wall not to exceed 36
square feet.
b.c—. One wall sign immediately above or beside each
public entrance to that part of the building
which is used as a school and meets the
requirements of the Minnesota Department of
Education, or as a day care facility and is
licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public
Welfare. The sign area shall not exceed 10
square feet.
2. Othef publie and semi publie , elud „ ate
eltibs and ledges.
a. Freestanding signs as speeified abeve fef
�b Y p„
L, L,v synagegues and temples.
b n 11 sign, the niaxinium area of too ee
36 square F of
3. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS)
2
A DMS owned or operated by a Public Use located in a
residential zoned district shall meet the following
additional standards:
a. the area of a DMS sign is limited to 50% of the
maximum allowable signage.
b- the DMS message must remain stationary or
static for one hour or more:
c the DMS shall be turned off or programmed to
go blank between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. daily.
d. the DMS shall be located no closer than 50-feet
from any residential dwelling.
e. the DMS must have dimming technology that
automatically adjusts their brightness in direct
correlation with ambient light conditions and
said brightness shall not exceed 0.3 foot-candles
above ambient light as measured from a preset
distance depending on the sign size: as indicated
in the table below:
DMS S*gn Measurement Desian=
AREA of SIGN MEASUREMENT
(Distance
10 2
15 32
220 45
25 50
30 55
355 52
40 53
45 67
50 71.
55 74
50 77
45 K
74 84
75 v
80 89
85 2
90 95
25 97
100 100
3
Measurement Calculation= (Sign Area x 1001
Section 35-900. DEFINITIONS. The language set forth in the text of this
ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following definitions. Words used in the
present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular shall include the plural and the
plural includes the singular.
Public Uses—uses, facilities and properties owned or operated by a school
district, a municipality, county, state, or other governmental units, and any religious
institution such as churches, chapels, temples, synagogues and mosques.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(stfikeaut to indicates matter to be deleted, while double underline text indicates new matter)
4
Of Business and Development
XBroo4j'yi Caiter Department
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55430-2199
Phone 763.569.3300 TTYNoice 711 Fax 763.569.3494
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Gary Eitel, Business &Development Director
Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist
DATE: April 11, 2013
RE: Consideration of a Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-002, recommending
approval of the proposed Final Plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 3rd Addition, located
in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development
Introduction
Please see attached for the Planning Commission's review the proposed Final Plat of Shingle
Creek Crossing 3rd Addition. The preliminary plat of this same subdivision was reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the January 17, 2013 meeting, whereby a unanimous recommendation
was provided to the City Council. The City Council reviewed the preliminary plat at the January
28, 2013 regular meeting, accepted the recommendation as noted, and approved the plat without
any additional conditions.
Under the January 17, 2013 Planning Commission report, Planning Staff noted the new lot line
between Lot 3 (Bldg. J) and Lot 4 (Bldg. C) appeared to be slightly cutting off some of the
parking lines or the area reserved to LA/Fitness on new Lot 3 (refer to diagram below).
SASS LAKE R
-j - 443. -
- 23203_-=---_--
t 4,
BLO
N C , ,
to
J
� 253 68, �.Ok
LOT 3, > -'
0
' k
BLOCK 1 6
b b %V
y Z
-b;
�N
As part of our original recommendation in this report, Staff requested the Applicants re-adjust or
shift this line a bit to the east (split the middle) of the joint parking/drive aisle shown between
these two lots. Since the presentation to the City Council, city staff determined this line
adjustment is no longer necessary, since the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD currently provides for
shared-parking arrangements between all lots and users inside this PUD; therefore, this line
encroachment over these parking stall lines is inconsequential. Any condition or
recommendation to adjust this line has been rescinded.
Recommendation
This final plat has been reviewed by city staff and found to be in true conformance with the
approved preliminary plat. The original recommendations and conditions made under the
preliminary plat resolution still remain, with the exception of the lot line adjustment
recommendation between Lots 3 and 4, as noted above.
A draft resolution recommending approval has been prepared and made part of this submittal
item. Staff recommends the Planning Commission give due consideration of this final plat, and
adopt the resolution as presented.
Subject to the outcome of this Planning Commission review, this final plat is scheduled to be
presented to the City Council at the April 22, 2013 regular meeting for final consideration and
approval.
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-02
RESOLUTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF
THE FINAL PLAT OF SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION
LOCATED WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE AS SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER
SLIK ON BEHALF OF GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2013-002 was submitted by Loren Van Der
Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a
new subdivision to be titled SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, which is a replat of
6 lots generally located inside the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development project
site, (Subject Site); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on January
17, 2013, whereby the Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION was
given due consideration, a staff report was presented, a public hearing was opened to allow for
public testimony regarding the preliminary plat, and the Planning Commission subsequently
adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-01, which recommended the City Council
approve said Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION and;
WHEREAS, the City Council, at its January 28, 2013 meeting also considered
Application No. 2013-002 and received the recommendation made by the Planning Commission,
and in light of all testimony received and affirmed the Planning Commission's recommendation,
and adopted City Resolution No. 2013-21 , which approved the Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE
CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, subject to the following considerations:
1. The Developer will submit for the upcoming PUD Amendment No. 4 an
updated and overall master plan for the site which includes all new or
proposed lot line changes, building configurations, parking plan layouts,
landscaping, and other relevant plan updates.
2. The Developer must submit an updated Preliminary Plat, which is
consistent with and conforms to the approved Shingle Creek Crossing —
Amendment No. 1 Master Plan.
3. Any easements that need to be vacated under this platting process as
determined by the City Engineer must be considered under separate and
formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations,
descriptions, and exhibits signed by a licensed surveyor.
4. If the preliminary plat and/or final plat noted herein undergo any
significant changes or revisions between this preliminary plat approval
1 of 3
and future final plat consideration by the City Council, the Preliminary
Plat [and Final Plat] will be sent back to the Planning Commission for
additional review and consideration.
5. The recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's
review memorandum, dated January 11, 2013 must be addressed or
complied with as part of any final plat approvals.
6. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City
Engineer, prior to release by the City for recording purposes.
7. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
8. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be
provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of
the final plat application (within 30 days of release of the final plat).
AND NOW WHEREAS, Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development
Company, has submitted an application for the FINAL PLAT of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING
3rd ADDITION, which remains the replat of 6 lots generally located inside the new Shingle Creek
Crossing Planned Unit Development project site, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final Plat of SHINGLE
CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION at the April 11, 2013 meeting, at which time a staff
memorandum and supporting documentation of said final plat was presented; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined during its review that said final
plat to be in general conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK
CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, that the original recommendation to readjust the lot line between
proposed Lots 3 and 4 of this plat is rescinded; that all other conditions have been or will be met
by the Applicant prior to release by the City of the final plat for recording purposes; and the final
plat is in general conformance with City Code Chapter 15 —Platting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,
that the Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, as submitted by Loren Van
Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company,be approved,that all conditions noted under
City Resolution 2013-01 remain in effect and subject to completion by the Applicant.
April 11, 2013
Date Chair
2 of 3
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:
Chair , Commissioners
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
3 of 3
§
�
�� (
� �§ @
z �
O _
-
I 10
_
0-1 0
Q} 2
E- 0 -
_ - �\ k ��
\] \ \ 0\. \
\}E\\ o / 21
�
�
�
�
A� y
N
0
�y N
Q
O
Z
U
O
ogti fig. o� as b $
-4 oc � 521*9.22 Nl
7 /
<' �, �, �\ eF (y05/°JI"W 0 311
�'_ X121°165 36 :
\\ u ( /219'9102° h h
2 -
n
ll �jC y !n tl j3�V1 IN3n»NOrvADWISVO n 131 00 $ Sxbl��gU
N/d3NNN3H ONN03
do r3NAM P//M \n
r� C) rn �N3NU0.7/Y/i 3 '03s
-oi
10 h '. p 1Y't60Z
3,Sf;9o,/ON
/Z?/6/l 1 2:735 to 31V/7M
v/Z 7/771/ 1 Y':735 30 3N/7 3
9 /
�'2a 0
� o 0
25
o Oh� ,r13W�,V3 ,ya o
h�
/\ h !o %,/p °N
All
/ `r/� Vii/ \ .✓ \�� /`✓ oFF