HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-009 Inf Sh 1150 Brookdale Center Application Filed on 6-17-04
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 8-16-04 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2004-009
Applicant: Frauenshuh Companies
Location: Brookdale Center - North Parking Lot
Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment
The applicant, Frauenshuh Companies, is seeking another Planned Unit Development Amendment in order to construct a 4,195 sq. ft. Dairy Queen Grill and Chill in the north parking lot
of Brookdale Center. This new proposal involves a modification in the location of the building and the drive lanes previously approved in order that they not be required to construct
a 3 ft. high decorative masonry wall.
A Planned Unit Development Amendment was approved by the City Council on May 24, 2004 for a Dairy Queen Grill and Chill at this same location. That approval contemplated a 3 ft. to
3 ½ ft. high decorative masonry wall to be installed in the area where a 5 ft. green strip was authorized rather than the required 15 ft. green strip. The purpose of the decorative
wall was to offset or mitigate the negative effects of the lessened green strip. The new proposal has factors and attributes which the applicant believes should relieve them of providing
the decorative wall which has become an expensive obstacle.
The proposed site for the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill is located between the Midas Muffler/Precision Tune property and the Northway Drive/County Road 10 entrance to Brookdale. The property
in question is zoned PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and is bounded on the north by County Road 10; on the west by the Midas Muffler/Precision Tune site; on the south by
the Brookdale perimeter road with Mervyn’s parking lot on the opposite site of the road; and on the east by the Northway Drive/County Road 10 entrance to Brookdale.
The original Planned Unit Development Rezoning to PUD/C-2 and development plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Center was approved under City
Council Resolution No. 99-37 on March 8, 1999 (copy attached). A Planned Unit Development Amendment for development of the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill as Building No. 2 was approved
under City Council Resolution No. 2004-72 on May 24 2004 (copy attached). The current request is an amendment to the May 24, 2004 approval.
As the Commission is aware, the PUD process involves a 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 unless the city were to determine that another standard or use would be appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans submitted
by the developer. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems.
Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The PUD process involves a rezoning of land
and, therefore, is subject to meeting the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines that are contained in Section 35-208 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Also, proposals
must be consistent with Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments. Attached for the Commission’s review are copies of Section 35-208 and
35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance for review. As mentioned previously, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the overall PUD for Brookdale Center. The City Council also
approved an amendment to the PUD for the original Dairy Queen Grill and Chill proposal. Those resolutions contained the various findings and considerations necessary for approving the
PUD and the amendment. For the most part, these findings and considerations were made given the applicant’s proposed use and this amendment also is to acknowledge the revised building
location and details through the PUD amendment process. Approval of this Planned Unit Development Amendment should acknowledge compatibility with the policy and review guidelines of
the previously mentioned Section 35-208 and also the provisions of Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attached is a copy of the Brookdale PUD site plan and the site plan/landscape plan approved on May 24, 2004 for the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill proposal. We believe that the proposed
amendment submitted by Frauenshuh Companies can be considered in keeping with the findings and considerations associated with the previous approval provided the reconfigured proposal
meets the Commission’s recommended approval. The proposed amendment, we believe, can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses in this area. The development
plan amendment being submitted should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed development or be offset by factors related to the plan. It also appears that
the use of the property in the context of the overall development will be a good long range use of the land and can be considered to be in the best interest of the community. The plan,
as will be shown in the site and building plan proposal, utilizes the property in a manner that can be considered consistent with the Planned Unit Development approval granted under
Resolution No. 99-37 as amended by Resolution No. 2004-72. That approval allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations where an appropriate 3 ft. to 3 ½ ft. high
decorative masonry wall was to be installed to offset the negative effects of the proposal. This amendment seeks to eliminate the green strip encroachment and thus eliminate the need
for the decorative masonry wall.
AMENDED SITE AND BUILDING PROPOSAL
The recent proposed amendment comprehends shifting the building to the south thus allowing a 15 ft. green strip between the property line along County Road 10 and the curb line. This
curb line would follow the existing curb line for the Brookdale parking lot. It was in this area that the 3 ft. to 3 ½ ft. high decorative masonry wall was required, offsetting the
reduced green strip. Encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip would continue to be requested at the northeasterly corner of the site, adjacent to the Northway Drive/County Road 10
entrance into Brookdale. This was the area where extensive discussion took place between the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding an appropriate barrier to be provided in
this area. A condition of the approval of Application No. 2004-007 was “the garden wall or similar treatment should be extended southeasterly along Brookdale’s property line to control
pedestrian traffic.” To meet this condition and to offset or mitigate the reduced green strip in this area, the applicant is proposing to construct a concrete walkway connecting to
an existing sidewalk, which in turn ties into the crosswalk at the Northway Drive/County Road 10 intersection. The plan shows three existing wood planters and a concrete planter in
this right of way area along with some existing and additional landscaping. The applicant believes this is a sufficient enough visual and physical barrier to meet the previous approval
and to offset the reduced green strip. It should be noted that the survey provided with this submittal shows the wood and concrete planters. A review of the site indicates that these
are not as formidable a barrier as it would seem on the plan. The Planning Commission must determine what is a sufficient treatment to this area to meet the intent of a reduced green
strip and the physical barrier to attempt to control pedestrian traffic in this area.
With respect to the balance of the plan, it is basically unchanged from that previously reviewed. The north curb line will correspond to the curb line of the existing parking lot.
The shift to the south will eliminate approximately six parallel parking spaces adjacent to the perimeter road and an additional curb break will be created in this area. Attached for
the Commission’s review is a copy of the site/landscape plan submitted under the previous approval for comparison with the newly submitted plans. One point to be noted, is that the
building should be shifted approximately 5 ft. further south to meet the 35 ft. building setback requirement.
Grading/Drainage/Utilities, Landscaping, the Building Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations as well as Lighting/Trash are all the same, adjusted to accommodate the shifted building and
parking lot location.
PROCEDURE
As pointed out previously, this proposal is an amendment to the Planned Unit Development Amendment previously approved for the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill. As a Planned Unit Development,
the proposal is required to follow the procedures required for the original Planned Unit Development. This requires a public hearing, which has been scheduled. Notices of the Planning
Commission’s consideration have been sent and a notice has also been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post.
In many respects the plan is consistent with that approved under the most recent amendment with the big questions being the appropriateness of screening, landscaping and physical barrier
along the northeasterly portion of the site. It can be argued that because they are no longer seeking a green strip encroachment that the 3 ft. high to 3 ½ ft. high decorataive masonry
wall need not be provided to offset or mitigate the lessened green strip. However, green strip encroachments still exist between the northeast and southeast corners of the site. For
the Planning Commission to recommend favorably, it must determine that the plan offsets or mitigates this encroachment factor. Approval of this application should acknowledge the findings,
considerations and conditions that are comparable to those made in previous City Council Resolutions. A draft Planning Commission Resolution is offered for the Commission’s consideration.
This resolution outlines the Commission’s consideration of the matter and also recommended considerations and conditions for approval.
7-15-04
Page 1