Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-009 Inf Sheet 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard5-17-01 Page 1 Application Filed on 4-23-01 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6-22-01 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2001-009 Applicant: BKV Group Location: Northeast Corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD/C-2 The applicant, BKV Group Architects on behalf of Christensen Corporation, is seeking rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of a 45,000 sq. ft., four building, mixed use commercial/retail development on a 5.6 acre site located at the northeast quadrant of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is currently made up of 13 parcels or portions of parcels zoned C-2 (Commerce), 12 parcels or portions of parcels zoned R-1 (One Family Residence) plus vacated June Avenue right of way lying between 69th and 70th Avenues North. This property was formerly occupied by single family homes and various commercial establishments that have all been acquired by the City over the past six or seven years for the purpose of redeveloping this area. The land is bounded on the south by 69th Avenue; on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the north by 70th Avenue; and on the east by a line lying 150 feet east of the June Avenue right of way between 69th and 70th Avenues. This site has been the subject of City Council efforts over the past six or seven years to encourage the redevelopment and rejuvenation of this area. It has been long anticipated that some type of neighborhood commercial/retail development would be a likely proposal. The City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA), which is the City Council, has reached a preliminary agreement with Christensen Corporation based on a conceptual acceptance of the above mentioned development in this area. The approval of the plans through this Planned Unit Development process and the execution of a final development agreement must be accomplished before the development goes forward. A meeting was held on March 28, 2001, with the developer and neighboring property owners immediately adjacent to the east end of this proposed development at which time the preliminary proposal was reviewed. Generally, the reaction of the neighbors was favorable provided lighting and screening issues were properly addressed. The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial development which will include a 4,224 sq. ft. BP Amoco convenience store/gas station/car wash; a 4,230 sq. ft. McDonald’s convenience food restaurant; a 7,000 sq. ft. freestanding retail building; and a 29,575 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building to be located along the east side of the property. The C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because it acknowledges all of the proposed uses as either permitted or special uses. They are seeking modifications to the C-2 requirements to allow a 15 ft. building setback from the new 5-17-01 Page 2 Brooklyn Boulevard right of way for the 7,000 sq. ft. building, a 10 ft. greenstrip from the new Brooklyn Boulevard right of way in the location of the convenience store/gas station, a possible very slight encroachment into the building setback along 70th Avenue North for the attached car wash, and to allow parking and a portion of a drive lane to encroach into a 35 ft. buffer along the east side of the site. All of these modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and will be offset by various planned considerations. The land in question is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for expansion of retail business. 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 that district (in this case C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow a 15 ft. building setback rather than a 35 ft. building setback; a 10 ft. rather than 15 ft. greenstrip in a specific location; a potentially slight encroachment into the 35 ft. setback off 70th Avenue North; and between a 5 ½ ft. and 24 ft. encroachment into a 36 ft. buffer area along the east side of the site. Their rationale for seeking these modifications has to do with providing a more efficient use of the property. Allowing the 7,000 sq. ft. building to be within 15 ft. of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way is in line with the recommendations contained in the Brooklyn Boulevard study of a few years ago which encouraged commercial buildings to be closer to the boulevard provided they have the look of storefronts. The applicant’s proposal is consistent with those Brooklyn Boulevard study recommendations. The less than 15 ft. greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard is consistent with other city approvals that have allowed such a greenstrip along a major thoroughfare where decorative screen walls or other screening devices have been used. This was done at Brookdale in a couple of locations along Xerxes Avenue and County Road 10. A gas station at the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Bouelvard, although it never was built, was approved with less than 15 ft. greenstrip offset by a 3 ½ ft. high decorative wall. The applicant’s proposal has a combined wrought iron masonry screen wall and retaining wall along the Brooklyn Bouelvard greenstrip in the area to offset the lessened greenstrip. They propose an 8 ft. high opaque screen wall made of a maintenance free material to run all along the east property line where the site abuts with the backyards of residential property located along Indiana Avenue. This screen wall will tie into and be of a consistent or compatible design to the solid screen wall constructed by the city along 69th Avenue North. Landscaping in this area is also proposed to offset the lesser than 35 ft. buffer area. Employee only parking and trash containers, along with a one-way (south) drive lane would be located between the new building and the east property line. We would also suggest 5-17-01 Page 3 imposing a trash pick up restriction in this area to no earlier than 8:00 a.m. Deliveries to the rear of this building should also be confined to no earlier than 8 :00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m. 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 being consistent with the city’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review. The applicant has submitted a written project narrative describing their proposal along with a written statement in response to the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. Both of these written submissions are attached for the Commission’s review. The written project narrative explains their proposed development and highlights the site and building plans submitted with this application. This PUD combines the various parcels previously mentioned through a preliminary plat which is the subject of companion Application No. 2001-010. They note that the site is approximately 5.6 acres in area and that their plan reflects the reduced land area required for the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. The concept they use in the layout of this retail development is to have the major buildings oriented toward the streets and/or intersections in the immediate vicinity. The buildings are positioned such that the major central parking areas are conveniently located near the entrances to each of the proposed structures. The three smaller perimeter buildings all face inward toward the center of the site and the central parking areas. These buildings are generally developed as finished four-sided buildings since their backs or sides will face surrounding streets. Further review of the details of the site plan will be presented later in this report. As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal 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 description which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the comprehensive plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the city’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and his proposal. A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant indicates that they believe their project provides public need or benefit in that it will bring new services and tenants to this area, which will 5-17-01 Page 4 provide local residents and businesses with greater convenience and access to these services than previous conditions. Also, they note the new development will enhance an under used high profile intersection in Brooklyn Center and significantly increase the tax base generated from this area. They note that to make this project more economically viable, a larger site than what was currently zoned C-2 was needed. They note that the larger area provides the critical mass needed for a more comprehensive development as they are proposing. They also note that the City apparently recognized this as well since it has acquired these properties for the purpose of redevelopment. It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the development criteria established by the City and also is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For a number of years the City has sought to see a redevelopment in this highly visible area of the city. Such a redevelopment is considered to be a benefit to the community. The City Council after reviewing two recent requests for development proposals, accepted the conceptual plan presented by Christensen Corporation and is now seeking to finalize the development agreement after going through the formal plan approval process. A commercial retail development such as being proposed is in line with the redevelopment long sought after. Such a development is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and, we believe, does meet a clear public need and does provide a public benefit. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes their proposed rezoning of this area to PUD with an underlying C-2 zoning designation is compatible with surrounding land uses. Existing properties west of Brooklyn Boulevard and south of 69th are similar commercial uses to that being proposed. They point out that their development plan recognizes the existing single family residential properties that will abut with the east property line of this development. They note that the design of the easterly building and its location counter any unwanted impact on these properties from customer traffic, lights, noise, etc. and that the building itself acts as a buffer from the more intense activities lying further to the west. They also note the R-1 zoned property on the opposite side of 70th Avenue, which houses a church or is considered an institutional type residential use. They believe their proposal is also consistent with this land use as well. The staff would concur with the applicant’s comments. We believe, as will be shown later in the site plan review, that the proposed commercial development can be considered consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications given the proposals of the applicant and the recommended 5-17-01 Page 5 restrictions to their operation particularly with respect to the neighboring property to the east. The overall plan, we believe, is also consistent and compatible with the other surrounding land uses. C. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that all of the known uses in the commercial development such as a convenience store/gas station/car wash, a fast food restaurant, and other proposed retail uses area permitted uses in the underlying C-2 zoning district. They also note that there are unknown tenants at this time but that they will be of a retail nature consistent with the C-2 zoning designation. We would concur with the applicant’s comments. The C-2, or underlying zoning designation in this PUD, does contemplate the widest variety of retail, service and office uses allowed within the city. All of these uses can be accommodated within the proposed commercial development. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject was zoned? The applicant notes that the zoning is basically the same as it has been for a number of years. They also note that the City has made efforts to create a parcel with enough critical mass needed for a redevelopment project. They also point out that older residential and commercial properties were acquired by the City and existing structures have been razed to make way for commercial redevelopment. The staff would comment that the land in question has been the subject of much discussion and review over the past few years. The City has acquired all of the parcels in this area in an attempt to seek an appropriate redevelopment. Previous preliminary agreements with another developer did not result in the timely acquisition of properties and development of an acceptable redevelopment plan. The City recently sent out a new request for development proposals, two of which were submitted and reviewed. The City Council, or EDA, has accepted the applicant’s conceptual plans and is now seeking to finalize development agreements and plan approvals necessary for the project to go forward. This proposal seems to be consistent with redevelopment ideas for this area and with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. E. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? 5-17-01 Page 6 This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because it is not a city initiated zoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant points out the areas in which they are seeking modifications from the C-2 zoning requirements. They note the large retail building will act as a buffer to the residential areas to the east. An 8 ft. high solid maintenance free fence along the common property line plus significant landscaping in this area should help to offset the service drive and the employee parking and refuse enclosures to be located within this buffer area. They note that the back of the building and the enclosures are finished with pre-colored rock faced masonry. They also note the small encroachment of the car wash into the normal building setback off of 70th Avenue as well as how they have offset the 15 ft. greenstrip requirement along Brooklyn Boulevard with a 3 ft. high masonry pier and wrought iron screening wall in the area by the convenience store/gas station/car wash. Additional landscaping will be installed between the screen wall and the city sidewalk. They also comment that the 7,000 sq. ft. building is being placed within 15 ft. of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way rather than the normal requirement of 35 ft. They note this is done intentionally in order to place a glazed storefront type face closer to the street/sidewalk creating a more pedestrian friendly design at this specific location. The applicant further comments that to offset the above adjustments to the underlying C-2 zoning district, they are proposing to provide significantly enhanced corner treatments at the two intersections of 69th and 70th Avenues including signage elements, colored concrete walks, planting areas, benches and a possible clock tower. The staff generally believes the subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with the deviations from the standard ordinance requirements mentioned. We believe providing a good buffer and redevelopment in this area offsets these modifications. We have noted before a need to limit the times for trash pick-ups and deliveries along the east side of the most easterly building on the site. This building as will be shown in the site and building plan later provides screening or buffering from the more intense uses that will take place on the westerly side of the site. All in all, we believe, these matters are offset by the positives of this development proposal. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? 5-17-01 Page 7 The applicant notes that if the current properties remained as they are, zoned C-2 and R-1, they would not be suitable for development as is being proposed. They note that a certain critical mass is needed to do an effective and substantial redevelopment of the property. They also point out that the triangular shape of the site provides a challenge to any development and that their site layout allows a cohesive arrangement for the development as proposed. The staff would concur with the comments made by the applicant. For an effective redevelopment in this highly visible and high traffic area, a need to expand the general commerce zoning is required. At the time of the current City Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan of 1980, it was anticipated that this area needed to be redeveloped and a larger land area would have to be included. The acquisition by the City of the properties in question has lead to the redevelopment site proposed. It is generally considered that the necessary area is needed for a suitable redevelopment. H. Will the rezoning result in an 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? The applicant’s comments relate to their view that the expanded commercial zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area. They also note that the parcel is now unused and this new development, for the many reasons stated above, are in the best interests of the community. The staff would concur and again note that the proposed zoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this are and is warranted. We also believe that the proposed development can be considered to be in the best interest of the community if the property is developed in the manner proposed. This has been a long sought after redevelopment and it appears to be a good development proposal. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant notes that the proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the future owner of the parcel in that this project creates new services for the community and a significant increase in the tax base on an otherwise underused, high profile property in the city. Again, the staff would concur with the developers comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond the particular interests of the developer and will lead to a development that is, we believe, consistent and compatible with 5-17-01 Page 8 the surrounding land uses. The proposal appears to provide a quality development, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the general interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposal again calls for an approximate 45,000 sq. ft., four building commercial retail redevelopment of the northeast corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. A BP Amoco convenience store/gas station/car wash would be located at the northwest corner of the site, a 4,230 sq. ft. McDonald’s convenience food restaurant would be located adjacent to 70th Avenue North, a 7,000 sq. ft. speculative retail building would be at the southwest corner of the site and a 29,575 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building is proposed at the easterly side of the site. ACCESS/PARKING Access to this redevelopment site will be provided at five driveway locations, three of which will be along 70th Avenue North and one each on 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard accesses are each right in and right out. As part of the Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction project, a new concrete median will be installed between 69th and 70th Avenues. An expanded concrete median will be constructed along 69th Avenue both east and west of Brooklyn Boulevard. Only right in and right out accesses will be allowed in these locations. A concrete delineator will be installed at both of these access points to assure such traffic movements. A deceleration lane will be provided to the Brooklyn Boulevard access, which is about mid way between 69th and 70th Avenues. Two of the accesses on 70th will be full left and right turn access points and one access, the most easterly, will provide access to the rear of the strip retail building. The flow of traffic behind the building, or to the east of the building, will be one way (south) and is designed for access to employee parking, enclosed trash containers and for delivery purposes to the rear of the building. It will be necessary to provide directional signs to prevent traffic from going in the wrong direction behind the building. This will provide for a better flow through the site and should cut down on traffic to the rear of the building other than that necessary for the above mentioned purposes. The applicant proposes under the preliminary plat application (Application No. 2001-010) to divide the site into four lots each containing its own building. The site, however, is being viewed as if there were no property lines separating these particular uses with common access and common parking features for all of the four sites. The overall parking requirement for this combined 45,029 sq. ft. complex is 248 parking spaces based on a retail parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The plan shows 251 parking spaces for the site. Surplus parking spaces exist for the gas station/convenience/car wash, the McDonald’s convenience food restaurant, and the 7,000 sq. ft. retail building. The multi-tenant building is a few parking spaces short of meeting its requirement. Therefore, we need to consider this as we do Brookdale, meaning that the total complex meets the parking requirements even though one individual site might be deficient. No expansions based on surplus parking can be 5-17-01 Page 9 comprehended under this Planned Unit Development because surplus parking is needed to meet the overall requirements. Up to 15 percent of the total square footage of this complex can be utilized as restaurant space without having to provide parking on the basis of seating and employees. This amounts to 6,754 sq. ft. of restaurant space allowed. All driveways servicing the parking areas meet the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. It should be noted that the access on Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to a driveway permit issued by Hennepin County. It is our understanding that the County has agreed to the proposed location of this driveway. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the City Engineer. All storm drainage will be collected in catch basins and be conveyed under ground in a new storm sewer system. It will be directed to a regional storm water drainage system to be located in the Palmer Lake basin. There will be no on site retention pond in this development. The drainage plan is subject to Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval. The site for the most part is relatively flat, however, at the northwest corner of the site, it drops down from the Brooklyn Boulevard and 70th Avenue intersection. To accommodate a change in grade, the applicant is proposing a concrete retaining wall with a wrought iron and masonry pier screen wall as mentioned previously. This will serve as a retaining wall as well as a decorative screen wall to off set the less than 15 ft. greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard in the location of the convenience store/gas station. The site is to be bound by B-612 curb and gutter, around all parking and driving areas. The buildings will tie into city water and sewer utilities running in the vacated June Avenue. These utilities are to be reconstructed in this location and the large multi-retail building will be served by sewer and water from this location as well as the McDonald’s and 7,000 sq. ft. retail building. Sewer and water connections for the gas station/convenience store will be tied into 70th Avenue. As mentioned previously, the City Engineer is reviewing the drainage, grading and utility plans and it is anticipated that written comments will be submitted with this plan. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. This 5.6 acre site requires a total of 370 landscape points. The applicant proposes to meet this requirement by providing a variety of plantings including 51 deciduous shade trees such as Norway Maple, Littleleaf Linden, Swamp White Oak, Patmore Ash, Autumn Purple Ash and Imperial Honeylocust; 32 coniferous trees including Colorado Green Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, and Arborvitae; 36 ornamental trees including Serviceberry, Crusader Hawthorn, Flowering Crabapple and Japanese Tree Lilac; 136 deciduous shrubs such as Bush Honeysuckle, Dwarf Winged Euonymous, Red Twigged Dogwood, Annabelle Hydrangea, Emerald Mound Honeysuckle, Alpine Currant, Spirea, Dwarf 5-17-01 Page 10 Korean Lilac, and Shrub Roses; 92 coniferous shrubs such as Sea Green Juniper, Savin Juniper, and Taunton Spreading Yew. They also propose various perennials throughout the site. In addition the applicant points out that various landscape materials in the roadway portion of the project and at landscape nodes at 69th and 70th Avenue will be provided in cooperation with the City. This amounts to an additional 252 points of landscape including 16 deciduous shade trees, 14 coniferous trees and 5 ornamental trees at these landscape nodes. The total points for landscaping on site counting all of this landscaping would come to 870 overall. Points applied based on the point system distribution method give the applicant credit for 489 on site landscape points, well in excess of what is required. The plants are generally dispersed around the site with a mixture of shade trees and coniferous trees along the east boundary line with the abutting residential property. Also some ornamental trees are provided in the expanded node southeasterly of this building. Island plantings include ornamental trees and shade trees throughout the entire complex with boulevard trees along 70th, Brooklyn Boulevard as well as 69th Avenue. The applicant is working with the City in providing landscape nodes at 69th and 70th Avenue. These are to be decorative features which coincide with recommendations in the Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study undertaken approximately eight years ago. This area of Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to a current County widening project and the City has coordinated the landscape amenities with this construction. Heavy landscaping will be placed at the corner nodes. Colored concrete pavers will be installed along with ornamental iron fence and ornamental benches. Landscaping including shrubbery, ornamental and shade trees will also be provided. An asphalt trail along Brooklyn Boulevard will connect the two landscape features. An architectural feature is proposed at the corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Ornamental pedestrian light fixtures are proposed in the right of way area as well, which are consistent with the Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study. Underground irrigation will be provided in all landscaped areas to facilities site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building plans for all four of the buildings. They are proposing to utilize matching materials and design components to make for a unified commercial complex which is made up of different users. All the materials will be the same for all of the various buildings. This includes darker, earth tone brick, lighter rock face brick or block accents with colored standing seam or flat metal roof and fascia accents. The retail buildings also include colored fabric awnings. The larger retail center and the smaller retail building located at the southwest corner of the site will both use a selection of architectural treatments including roof cornices, tenant signage areas, fabric awnings, metal and E.F.I.S. vertical surfaces and accents with back lit tower caps to provide a cohesive design for the entire development. The McDonald’s building will use brick with contrasting brick accent bands on all sides of their building along with a dark green metal standing seam sloping roof. It should be noted that this mansurd or sloping type roof should be carried around on all sides including the rear elevation. 5-17-01 Page 11 The building elevations at this time do not include this feature on the east side. The BP Amoco station includes large store front windows on the front, higher narrow windows along the Brooklyn Boulevard side along with curving dark green metal signage fascia over the store front. Brick will be provided on all sides including the car wash. It should be noted that the rear elevation on the smaller retail building facing Brooklyn Boulevard will have store front windows along this elevation. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study allowing buildings to be located closer to the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way. All screen walls and trash screening devices will be of masonry material to match the existing buildings. With the exception of providing a uniform treatment around the McDonald’s building, we believe all the buildings are attractive and in keeping with a consistent theme to provide what appears to be a quality retail development. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed lighting for the site. They intend to use 25 ft. high freestanding light poles in the main parking lot area at various locations. Security lighting is proposed on the rear or east side of the large retail building. These will be wall mounted fixtures directed downward at a height of about 8 ft. Freestanding lighting is also proposed in this area on light poles installed in the green strip next to the service drive. These lights will be shielded and directed away from the residential area. All in all the proposed lighting plan is well within the foot candle standards established by Section 35-712 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Our main concern is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way. The site plan indicates the location of trash enclosures throughout the site. Three are to be located to the east of the large retail building in freestanding locations. These are all to be masonry enclosures to match the building exteriors and will have solid, opaque gates. An attached trash enclosure is proposed for the smaller retail building and for the McDonald’s. These too will be masonry structures to match the building exterior and contain solid opaque gates. The BP Amoco site will have a freestanding trash container also to be a masonry structure compatible with the building exterior and containing a solid opaque gate. PROCEDURE Normally rezoning applications that are considered by the Planning Commission are referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group, in this case the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time frame from the date a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on April 23, 2001. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, this application needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The clock, however, begins at the date the application is 5-17-01 Page 12 accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than June 22, 2001. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission’s public hearing is even held. This requirement makes it almost impossible for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission has instituted a new procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group members to the public hearing and are encouraging their comments and participation at this evening’s meeting. A staff report will be delivered to the Neighborhood Advisory Group members at the same time that it is delivered to the Planning Commission members. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to review the matter and make comment to the Commission at the May 17, meeting. 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. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing, should consider a draft resolution which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The resolution is offered for the Planning Commission’s consideration.