HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-003 Inf Sh CR10 and Brooklyn Boulevard Application Filed on 1-20-05
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 3-21-05 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2005-003
Applicant: Bear Creek Capital, LLC
Location: Northwest Quadrant of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Development Approval-PUD/C-2
The applicant, Bear Creek Capital, LLC on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, is seeking rezoning from R-1 (One Family Residence) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce)
of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for
a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy.
Beat Creek Capital, LLC has a purchase agreement to acquire the five lots in question. Two of the lots face County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) and are currently zoned R-1, while the
other three lots are zoned C-1 and face Brooklyn Boulevard. Once combined (See Planning Commission Application No. 2005-002) the five lots will create a single parcel of land that is
66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area. The property in question is bounded on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by County Road 10; on the west by R-1 zoned property abutting
on Drew Avenue North; and on the north by C-1 zoned property containing a dental center and parking lot.
The applicant’s plan is to demolish and/or otherwise remove the five existing single family homes and other accessory buildings to build a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy, which would have
cross driving, parking and access rights with the neighboring dental center site to the north.
The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial retail development. The C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because
it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C-2 requirements to allow an encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer
area required where a C-2 use abuts an R-1 use (along the west property line). This modification is proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and to accommodate Hennepin County
concerns to have the access to the site as far removed from the corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard as possible to accommodate traffic movements and left turn lane stacking
space. The applicant believes this modification will be offset by various plan considerations and aspects of their development proposal which will mitigate it. The land in question
is acknowledged in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for neighborhood service and retail business functions and such an expansion and rezoning could be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 development and
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 encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer area between C-2 and R-1 land uses.
Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide an 8 ft. high maintenance free screen fence with additional landscaping including a heavy concentration of balsam fur that will
grow above the 8 ft. screening device. This is similar to what was done where the retail development proposal along 69th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard was undertaken. In
that case, a maintenance fee fence and beefed up landscape were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of a driving and parking lane to the residential property backing
up to this development.
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 narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached).
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 decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. 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 their proposal.
Is there a clear public need or benefit?
The applicant comments that this site lies in proximity to high level commercial land uses. A Planned Unit Development provides flexibility of development while providing the public
with control over land use applications.
It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by
the City and also is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the residential needs of adjoining properties. It is not
anticipated that this proposal will be a detriment, but on the other hand, it should be a positive factor in providing benefits that positively affect the community as well as the applicant.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to Brooklyn Boulevard broadly recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard and replacing
them with either commercial and service/office uses or high and medium density residential uses. Specifically with respect to Brooklyn Boulevard and 58th Avenue North, the Comprehensive
Plan recommends neighborhood oriented commercial uses and retail functions.
Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications?
The applicant comments that adjacent and to the east a PUD with commercial land use application has been approved and enacted.
I am not certain to what PUD the applicant is referring. A Planned Unit Development was adopted for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall a number of years ago and commercial development
of a relatively intense nature is located east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to the south of County Road 10 as well. Certainly the proposed land use classification could be considered consistent
with and compatible with the land uses to the east and southeast of this site as well as the dental office immediately to the north. The significant question is how compatible this
proposal can be with the single family residential located immediately to the west. The City Council recently established a Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) which begins on the
east side of Brooklyn Boulevard and encompasses all of the Central Commercial area including Brookdale and perimeter businesses and the commercial and even multi residential land uses
along Shingle Creek to Interstate 94 then east to Highway 100. This Central Commerce Overlay District was established to indicate all of the potential commercial uses which were considered
to be appropriate for development in this area and also to outline specific uses which would otherwise be allowed in a general commerce area to be excluded or considered inappropriate
for this area. It would seem in conflict to extend a C-2 zoning district for this particular area without also excluding uses for that site that would be considered inappropriate.
Uses such as sauna establishments, massage establishments, currency exchanges, pawn shops and secondhand good dealers are uses that are not permitted in the Central Commerce Overlay
District and should not be allowed if this PUD/C-2 zoning designation is acceptable. It should also be pointed out that this Central Commerce Overlay District is not intended for use
as chapels, churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues as well as public and private elementary and secondary schools (K-12).
Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property?
The applicant notes that the current zoning of affected parcels does not allow for the proposed use.
The applicant is correct. The current zoning of the majority of the property, which is C-1 (Service/Office) does not allow a retail use such as a pharmacy. Another reason for seeking
the Planned Unit Development is to limit some of the uses that are otherwise considered inappropriate in the C-2 underlying zone as was outlined in the previous comments. Otherwise,
we believe it is possible for all of the other permitted uses in the C-2 underlying zone to be contemplated for development. However, with a PUD only the proposal approved with the
Planned Unit Development is what is to be developed.
Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned?
The applicant comments that to the east, commercial zoning has been increased.
This is not necessarily the case. The CC Central Commerce Overlay District was established, however, there has been no recent increase in commercial zoning in this immediate area.
The existing C-1 zoning classification has been in place since at least 1968 when many of the single family residential homes in this area became non-conforming uses. It has been the
City’s longstanding policy that these single family homes eventually be converted or redeveloped into commercial uses. As was mentioned previously, the City’s Comprehensive Plan does
recommend an expansion of the general commerce zoning district in this particular area and we believe it can be construed to include expanding it as being proposed by the applicant in
this situation.
e. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
The applicant indicates that they have taken measures to minimize impact of the zoning classification on adjacent uses as it relates to screening. They note that there requested zoning
will require a more comprehensive screening application.
The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard
ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residential to the west. The proposed commercial use also seems to provide
a good transitional use from Brooklyn Boulevard to the residential neighborhood to the west. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two
areas.
Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The applicant notes that the proposed pharmacy use of the property will combine five single family lots for commercial development with driveway access to 58th and Brooklyn Boulevard.
They note that they believe their proposal in coordination with adjacent property owners will insure safer circulation on the site and in the general area.
Generally it is the City’s position that inappropriate single family residential homes in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor should be replaced with other uses. Numerous access points
for single family residential homes on Brooklyn Boulevard cause potential traffic problems. Consolidating, eliminating and reducing access points on Brooklyn Boulevard is considered
a benefit. It can be said that the properties under consideration in this PUD are unsuited for their current use. Three of the five parcels are already zoned commercial although service/office
commercial rather than general commerce. To continue with the residential use would be inappropriate. Consolidation is necessary for commercial redevelopment.
Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best
interest of the community?
The applicant indicates that combing of parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard works best to effectively control development and traffic in this busy corridor. Through the Planned Unit Development
Process, they note that the City can negotiate controls of land use as promotion to the community’s best interests. They note that a retail land use falls reasonably with adjacent uses
within this sector of the city.
In general we would concur with the comments made by the applicant and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should
lead to redevelopment that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and can
be considered in the best interests of the community.
Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
The applicant does not make comment with respect to this particular guideline.
We do believe that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that, we believe, can be consistent and compatible
with surrounding land uses. The proposal, possibly with some modifications, could provide a quality development that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and be in the general
interests of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
As mentioned previously, this proposal is for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy to be located to the north side of a 1.53 acre site created by the combination of five existing lots (two
currently R-1 and three currently C-1) proposed under this application to be rezoned to PUD/C-2. The plan calls for a shared parking, driving and access area with the property to the
north, which is zoned C-1 and contains a dental clinic and parking lot. The C-1 zoned property is technically not part of the PUD, however, its use with the subject site is essential.
Certain improvements or changes will have to be made to the dental clinic site and are proposed in order for the applicant’s plan to be accomplished. It is not clear who will be making
these improvements, but they should be tied to the PUD approval and any performance agreement and financial guarantee must assure their completion.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the site was previously reviewed with the preliminary plat. Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The applicant and the County
have tentatively agreed to a proposal that will allow joint use of accesses to the CVS site and the dental clinic site. All seven existing accesses to the two county roads will be closed
with two new full access points being established, one at the very northeast corner of the dental clinic site and the other at the very southwest corner of the CVS site. A “right in
only” access will be established off Brooklyn Boulevard to the CVS drive lane and parking lot. That access will be approximately 140 ft. north of County Road 10. The median on Brooklyn
Boulevard will be shortened at the north end and the median break on County Road 10 currently serving 3606 58th Avenue North will be closed and the left turn lane from County Road 10
to northbound Brooklyn Boulevard will be extended to just east of the proposed new access to the CVS site. This access point is about 8 ft. from the west property line and is as far
back from the Brooklyn Boulevard/County Road 10 intersection as recommended by Hennepin County.
Buffer and setback requirements where C-2 uses abut R-1 uses generally require a 35 ft. buffer not to be used for buildings, parking, loading or driving areas. This is a modification
being sought by the applicant through the PUD process. Safety considerations are the primary justification. Other encroachments into the buffer area, although not as great, are being
sought for a driving lane and are proposed to be offset by an 8 ft. high maintenance free opaque fence with a dense row of coniferous trees to offset the encroachment. The encroachment
will vary from 5 ft. to 18 ft. A similar buffer/screening proposal for the retail redevelopment PUD at the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North was approved
a couple years ago. Encroachments were allowed in that case where the backs of R-1 properties abutted with the development. The 8 ft. high screen fence should not be carried too close
to the County Road 10 right of way line so as to cause sight obstructions on County Road 10 or for the neighboring property to the west.
Parking for the CVS facility will be to the south of the building where 64 parking spaces are to be provided. The applicant has proposed an accessory parking arrangement with the dental
clinic to the north to provide exclusive rights to ten more parking spaces on the dental site.
The parking requirement for a 13,000 sq. ft. retail building is 72 parking spaces based on a parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area. The
74 parking spaces to be provided will exceed the minimum requirement provided the proper deed restriction is executed and filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering
the ten spaces for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy.
The location of the building is close to the north property line although meeting minimum setback requirements of 10 ft. The drive lane that circles the building will be on a portion
of the dental clinic property as it approaches the pharmacy pick up location. Stacking for this pick up point should be sufficient and should not interfere with the traffic flow on
site. The drive lane to the west of the building will be one way (south) and it is at this location that the 35 ft. buffer is encroached upon by 5 ft. The building could be shifted
5 ft. to the east and not encroach on the 35 ft. setback off Brooklyn Boulevard but it would mean a one way (north) drive lane around the east side of the building. Perhaps the applicant
could look at such a modification. Then the only buffer encroachment would be at the southwest corner of the site.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached for the
Commission’s review is his February 2, 2005 memorandum reviewing the proposed project. The Public Works Director has indicated that all water and sanitary sewer services for the houses
that will be removed from the site must be done at the mains and in accordance with specifications available at the City Engineering Department. He also notes that the sanitary sewer
and water mains located in the western portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way are adequately sized to provide these services to the site.
B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas. A parking lot expansion on the north side of the dental clinic site is proposed which will add parking 22 parking
spaces for the clinic’s use. A drive lane connecting to the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site is also provided. This parking and driving area is to be
bound by B-612 curb and gutter. Among other things, the Director of Public works has indicated that the applicant needs to provide a storm water management plan including drainage calculations
and detailed design drawings for proposed water management facilities. The proposal shows rain gardens to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. These are located
at the north end of the dental clinic site, to the west of the CVS Pharmacy building, to the east of the pharmacy building in the 15 ft. green strip area and at the southeast corner
of the CVS site. Storm water management facilities have to be incorporated into the site development plans to control the total discharge rate from the site to avoid over loading the
existing storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard. Connection to the storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to approval by Hennepin County. The utility plan needs
to be revised to include on site storm sewer to convey excess run off from the proposed rain gardens. A utility maintenance agreement will be required with the owners of the two lots
to provide for the long term maintenance of storm water facilities within the development sites. He notes that erosion control measures are to be installed prior to starting grading
operations and prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked on to public streets during the construction process is required. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit
must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on the site.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the CVS site
is 1.53 acres and the dental clinic site is 1.03 acres. One hundred twenty two landscape points are required under the retail type of development comprehended by the CVS proposal and
103 landscape points are required for the dental clinic site under an office type development. This amounts to 225 total points for the two sites. The applicant proposes to meet the
requirement by providing a variety of plantings totaling 359 landscape points. Four mature shade trees are planned to be saved on the site and are all located along the Brooklyn Boulevard
green strip, one by the CVS Pharmacy and the others in front of the dental clinic. Eleven new shade trees including Red Maple and Honey Locust are proposed along the County Road 10
green strip, the Brooklyn Boulevard green strip and at the north side of the dental clinic site. Five Spring Snow Crab Apple, decorative trees, are also planned for the north side of
the dental clinic site. Twenty one coniferous trees are planned along the west property lines of the pharmacy and dental clinic sites. Seven Balsam Fur are to be planted next to an
8 ft. high maintenance free fence west of the pharmacy parking lot to offset buffering requirements in this area and 14 Black Hills Spruce are provided along the west property line of
the dental clinic, apparently for screening of this commercial facility from the abutting residential. One hundred thirty one shrubs such as Alpine Currant, Arcadia Juniper, Wilton
Carpet Juniper and Service Berry are provided in planting areas along the County Road 10 green strip in parking island areas of the pharmacy as well as around the perimeter area of the
pharmacy. A shrub bed is also provided in the southwest region of the dental clinic site.
With respect to buffering and screening, it is required along the western side of the two lots. The underlying C-2 zone requires a 35 ft. buffer and an 8 ft. high opaque screening device
where it abuts R-1 zoned property. Where C-1 property abuts R-1, a 15 ft. buffer is required. A minimum of a 6 ft. high opaque fence or City Council approved substitute is required
when a parking lot of more than six vehicles abuts R-1 zoned property. The applicant, as part of the PUD, is seeking modification to these requirements to allow a less than 35 ft. buffer.
A 30 ft. buffer would be provided for west of the driving lane adjacent to the CVS Pharmacy building and an approximately 17 ft. buffer tapering down to 8 ft. at the property line is
proposed to the west of the parking lot. The applicant proposes to offset these encroachments by having an 8 ft. high opaque maintenance free compost fence, similar to that at the 69th
and Brooklyn Boulevard retail redevelopment, along with seven Balsam Fur (7 ft. high at planting) and shrubs in the green area. In the area where the buffer is 30 ft., a Black Hills
Spruce will be planted. In the C-1 15 ft. green strip, 14 Black Hills Spruce would be provided to meet the screening requirements.
The applicant has been urged to meet independently with neighboring property owners particularly in this area to explain the proposal and to get reaction to the screening and buffering
plans. I have not had any indication that such contact has been made.
It would be the staff’s opinion that this area be provided with more landscaping such as coniferous trees in the 30 ft. buffer area and possibly some screen fencing where the dental
clinic parking lot abuts with the R-1 property. Pedestrian access breaks in the fencing might be warranted depending on individual preferences.
Meetings were conducted and proved beneficial in the PUD proposals for the retail development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the SuperAmerica PUD at 57th Avenue and Logan.
We do not require the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings as we have in the past because the City is bound by State Legislative mandate to give an applicant an answer to a properly
submitted zoning application within 60 days of its receipt.
It should be noted that underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. The building exterior is to be primarily a medium yellow EIFS with a red brick accent around the lower level
and on columns. A decorative EIFS cornice is proposed around the top of the structure. The Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 elevations show display windows and a decorative entrance
canopy is located at the southeast corner of the building. A canopy is provided over the drive up pick up location at the northwest corner of the building. Parapet walls should serve
as a screen for roof top mechanical equipment.
LIGHTING AND TRASH
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting
be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than three foot candles
measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the three foot candle limitation is exceeded in a couple of spots
along the west property line. Modification to the lighting plan should be made to meet these minimum standards. Freestanding light poles are proposed for the island areas south of
the pharmacy building and canopy lights are proposed under the drive up. In addition, either wall mounted or lights to provide a building wash are provided around the perimeter of the
pharmacy building. Our main concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and
that it be consistent with the standards stated above.
An 8 ft. high masonry trash enclosure with a face brick exterior to match the existing building is proposed to be located along the west side of the site just north of the CVS Pharmacy
building. The gates are to have cedar slats attached to a galvanized frame to provide opaque screening. The enclosure will screen a dumpster and compactor to be located within it.
PROCEDURE
Rezoning applications in the past that have been considered by the Planning Commission were typically referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
In this case, that would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. However, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from
the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on January 20, 2005. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application
needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the
zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than March 21, 2005. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can
hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission instituted a new
procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group
members to the meeting 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 time to review the matter and make comment to the Commission at Thursday evening’s meeting.
It should be noted again that the applicant was encouraged to meet with neighboring property owners and was provided a list of the notice being sent for public hearing. We particularly
encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors abutting along the west side of the site because they would be particularly affected by their proposal. I am not aware if any contact
was made.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following
the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned
Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. The Planning Commission must decide and recommend as to whether or not it believes this application
is sufficient. There are a number of points that we believe need to be addressed, such as screening along the west side, as well as other recommended changes. The draft resolution
is presented for discussion purposes. The Commission should keep in mind that the applicant can insist on having an answer to their zoning request within the 60 day time limit established
by the State Legislature.
2-17-05
Page 10
Application Filed on 1-20-05
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 3-21-05 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2005-003
Applicant: Bear Creek Capital, LLC
Location: Northwest Quadrant of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Development Approval-PUD/C-2
The applicant, Bear Creek Capital, LLC on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, is seeking rezoning from R-1 (One Family Residence) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce)
of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for
a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy.
Beat Creek Capital, LLC has a purchase agreement to acquire the five lots in question. Two of the lots face County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) and are currently zoned R-1, while the
other three lots are zoned C-1 and face Brooklyn Boulevard. Once combined (See Planning Commission Application No. 2005-002) the five lots will create a single parcel of land that is
66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area. The property in question is bounded on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by County Road 10; on the west by R-1 zoned property abutting
on Drew Avenue North; and on the north by C-1 zoned property containing a dental center and parking lot.
The applicant’s plan is to demolish and/or otherwise remove the five existing single family homes and other accessory buildings to build a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy, which would have
cross driving, parking and access rights with the neighboring dental center site to the north.
The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial retail development. The C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because
it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C-2 requirements to allow an encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer
area required where a C-2 use abuts an R-1 use (along the west property line). This modification is proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and to accommodate Hennepin County
concerns to have the access to the site as far removed from the corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard as possible to accommodate traffic movements and left turn lane stacking
space. The applicant believes this modification will be offset by various plan considerations and aspects of their development proposal which will mitigate it. The land in question
is acknowledged in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for neighborhood service and retail business functions and such an expansion and rezoning could be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 development and
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 encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer area between C-2 and R-1 land uses.
Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide an 8 ft. high maintenance free screen fence with additional landscaping including a heavy concentration of balsam fur that will
grow above the 8 ft. screening device. This is similar to what was done where the retail development proposal along 69th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard was undertaken. In
that case, a maintenance fee fence and beefed up landscape were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of a driving and parking lane to the residential property backing
up to this development.
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 narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached).
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 decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. 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 their proposal.
Is there a clear public need or benefit?
The applicant comments that this site lies in proximity to high level commercial land uses. A Planned Unit Development provides flexibility of development while providing the public
with control over land use applications.
It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by
the City and also is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the residential needs of adjoining properties. It is not
anticipated that this proposal will be a detriment, but on the other hand, it should be a positive factor in providing benefits that positively affect the community as well as the applicant.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to Brooklyn Boulevard broadly recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard and replacing
them with either commercial and service/office uses or high and medium density residential uses. Specifically with respect to Brooklyn Boulevard and 58th Avenue North, the Comprehensive
Plan recommends neighborhood oriented commercial uses and retail functions.
Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications?
The applicant comments that adjacent and to the east a PUD with commercial land use application has been approved and enacted.
I am not certain to what PUD the applicant is referring. A Planned Unit Development was adopted for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall a number of years ago and commercial development
of a relatively intense nature is located east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to the south of County Road 10 as well. Certainly the proposed land use classification could be considered consistent
with and compatible with the land uses to the east and southeast of this site as well as the dental office immediately to the north. The significant question is how compatible this
proposal can be with the single family residential located immediately to the west. The City Council recently established a Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) which begins on the
east side of Brooklyn Boulevard and encompasses all of the Central Commercial area including Brookdale and perimeter businesses and the commercial and even multi residential land uses
along Shingle Creek to Interstate 94 then east to Highway 100. This Central Commerce Overlay District was established to indicate all of the potential commercial uses which were considered
to be appropriate for development in this area and also to outline specific uses which would otherwise be allowed in a general commerce area to be excluded or considered inappropriate
for this area. It would seem in conflict to extend a C-2 zoning district for this particular area without also excluding uses for that site that would be considered inappropriate.
Uses such as sauna establishments, massage establishments, currency exchanges, pawn shops and secondhand good dealers are uses that are not permitted in the Central Commerce Overlay
District and should not be allowed if this PUD/C-2 zoning designation is acceptable. It should also be pointed out that this Central Commerce Overlay District is not intended for use
as chapels, churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues as well as public and private elementary and secondary schools (K-12).
Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property?
The applicant notes that the current zoning of affected parcels does not allow for the proposed use.
The applicant is correct. The current zoning of the majority of the property, which is C-1 (Service/Office) does not allow a retail use such as a pharmacy. Another reason for seeking
the Planned Unit Development is to limit some of the uses that are otherwise considered inappropriate in the C-2 underlying zone as was outlined in the previous comments. Otherwise,
we believe it is possible for all of the other permitted uses in the C-2 underlying zone to be contemplated for development. However, with a PUD only the proposal approved with the
Planned Unit Development is what is to be developed.
Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned?
The applicant comments that to the east, commercial zoning has been increased.
This is not necessarily the case. The CC Central Commerce Overlay District was established, however, there has been no recent increase in commercial zoning in this immediate area.
The existing C-1 zoning classification has been in place since at least 1968 when many of the single family residential homes in this area became non-conforming uses. It has been the
City’s longstanding policy that these single family homes eventually be converted or redeveloped into commercial uses. As was mentioned previously, the City’s Comprehensive Plan does
recommend an expansion of the general commerce zoning district in this particular area and we believe it can be construed to include expanding it as being proposed by the applicant in
this situation.
e. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
The applicant indicates that they have taken measures to minimize impact of the zoning classification on adjacent uses as it relates to screening. They note that there requested zoning
will require a more comprehensive screening application.
The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard
ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residential to the west. The proposed commercial use also seems to provide
a good transitional use from Brooklyn Boulevard to the residential neighborhood to the west. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two
areas.
Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The applicant notes that the proposed pharmacy use of the property will combine five single family lots for commercial development with driveway access to 58th and Brooklyn Boulevard.
They note that they believe their proposal in coordination with adjacent property owners will insure safer circulation on the site and in the general area.
Generally it is the City’s position that inappropriate single family residential homes in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor should be replaced with other uses. Numerous access points
for single family residential homes on Brooklyn Boulevard cause potential traffic problems. Consolidating, eliminating and reducing access points on Brooklyn Boulevard is considered
a benefit. It can be said that the properties under consideration in this PUD are unsuited for their current use. Three of the five parcels are already zoned commercial although service/office
commercial rather than general commerce. To continue with the residential use would be inappropriate. Consolidation is necessary for commercial redevelopment.
Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best
interest of the community?
The applicant indicates that combing of parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard works best to effectively control development and traffic in this busy corridor. Through the Planned Unit Development
Process, they note that the City can negotiate controls of land use as promotion to the community’s best interests. They note that a retail land use falls reasonably with adjacent uses
within this sector of the city.
In general we would concur with the comments made by the applicant and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should
lead to redevelopment that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and can
be considered in the best interests of the community.
Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
The applicant does not make comment with respect to this particular guideline.
We do believe that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that, we believe, can be consistent and compatible
with surrounding land uses. The proposal, possibly with some modifications, could provide a quality development that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and be in the general
interests of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
As mentioned previously, this proposal is for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy to be located to the north side of a 1.53 acre site created by the combination of five existing lots (two
currently R-1 and three currently C-1) proposed under this application to be rezoned to PUD/C-2. The plan calls for a shared parking, driving and access area with the property to the
north, which is zoned C-1 and contains a dental clinic and parking lot. The C-1 zoned property is technically not part of the PUD, however, its use with the subject site is essential.
Certain improvements or changes will have to be made to the dental clinic site and are proposed in order for the applicant’s plan to be accomplished. It is not clear who will be making
these improvements, but they should be tied to the PUD approval and any performance agreement and financial guarantee must assure their completion.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the site was previously reviewed with the preliminary plat. Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The applicant and the County
have tentatively agreed to a proposal that will allow joint use of accesses to the CVS site and the dental clinic site. All seven existing accesses to the two county roads will be closed
with two new full access points being established, one at the very northeast corner of the dental clinic site and the other at the very southwest corner of the CVS site. A “right in
only” access will be established off Brooklyn Boulevard to the CVS drive lane and parking lot. That access will be approximately 140 ft. north of County Road 10. The median on Brooklyn
Boulevard will be shortened at the north end and the median break on County Road 10 currently serving 3606 58th Avenue North will be closed and the left turn lane from County Road 10
to northbound Brooklyn Boulevard will be extended to just east of the proposed new access to the CVS site. This access point is about 8 ft. from the west property line and is as far
back from the Brooklyn Boulevard/County Road 10 intersection as recommended by Hennepin County.
Buffer and setback requirements where C-2 uses abut R-1 uses generally require a 35 ft. buffer not to be used for buildings, parking, loading or driving areas. This is a modification
being sought by the applicant through the PUD process. Safety considerations are the primary justification. Other encroachments into the buffer area, although not as great, are being
sought for a driving lane and are proposed to be offset by an 8 ft. high maintenance free opaque fence with a dense row of coniferous trees to offset the encroachment. The encroachment
will vary from 5 ft. to 18 ft. A similar buffer/screening proposal for the retail redevelopment PUD at the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North was approved
a couple years ago. Encroachments were allowed in that case where the backs of R-1 properties abutted with the development. The 8 ft. high screen fence should not be carried too close
to the County Road 10 right of way line so as to cause sight obstructions on County Road 10 or for the neighboring property to the west.
Parking for the CVS facility will be to the south of the building where 64 parking spaces are to be provided. The applicant has proposed an accessory parking arrangement with the dental
clinic to the north to provide exclusive rights to ten more parking spaces on the dental site.
The parking requirement for a 13,000 sq. ft. retail building is 72 parking spaces based on a parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area. The
74 parking spaces to be provided will exceed the minimum requirement provided the proper deed restriction is executed and filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering
the ten spaces for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy.
The location of the building is close to the north property line although meeting minimum setback requirements of 10 ft. The drive lane that circles the building will be on a portion
of the dental clinic property as it approaches the pharmacy pick up location. Stacking for this pick up point should be sufficient and should not interfere with the traffic flow on
site. The drive lane to the west of the building will be one way (south) and it is at this location that the 35 ft. buffer is encroached upon by 5 ft. The building could be shifted
5 ft. to the east and not encroach on the 35 ft. setback off Brooklyn Boulevard but it would mean a one way (north) drive lane around the east side of the building. Perhaps the applicant
could look at such a modification. Then the only buffer encroachment would be at the southwest corner of the site.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached for the
Commission’s review is his February 2, 2005 memorandum reviewing the proposed project. The Public Works Director has indicated that all water and sanitary sewer services for the houses
that will be removed from the site must be done at the mains and in accordance with specifications available at the City Engineering Department. He also notes that the sanitary sewer
and water mains located in the western portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way are adequately sized to provide these services to the site.
B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas. A parking lot expansion on the north side of the dental clinic site is proposed which will add parking 22 parking
spaces for the clinic’s use. A drive lane connecting to the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site is also provided. This parking and driving area is to be
bound by B-612 curb and gutter. Among other things, the Director of Public works has indicated that the applicant needs to provide a storm water management plan including drainage calculations
and detailed design drawings for proposed water management facilities. The proposal shows rain gardens to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. These are located
at the north end of the dental clinic site, to the west of the CVS Pharmacy building, to the east of the pharmacy building in the 15 ft. green strip area and at the southeast corner
of the CVS site. Storm water management facilities have to be incorporated into the site development plans to control the total discharge rate from the site to avoid over loading the
existing storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard. Connection to the storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to approval by Hennepin County. The utility plan needs
to be revised to include on site storm sewer to convey excess run off from the proposed rain gardens. A utility maintenance agreement will be required with the owners of the two lots
to provide for the long term maintenance of storm water facilities within the development sites. He notes that erosion control measures are to be installed prior to starting grading
operations and prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked on to public streets during the construction process is required. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit
must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on the site.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the CVS site
is 1.53 acres and the dental clinic site is 1.03 acres. One hundred twenty two landscape points are required under the retail type of development comprehended by the CVS proposal and
103 landscape points are required for the dental clinic site under an office type development. This amounts to 225 total points for the two sites. The applicant proposes to meet the
requirement by providing a variety of plantings totaling 359 landscape points. Four mature shade trees are planned to be saved on the site and are all located along the Brooklyn Boulevard
green strip, one by the CVS Pharmacy and the others in front of the dental clinic. Eleven new shade trees including Red Maple and Honey Locust are proposed along the County Road 10
green strip, the Brooklyn Boulevard green strip and at the north side of the dental clinic site. Five Spring Snow Crab Apple, decorative trees, are also planned for the north side of
the dental clinic site. Twenty one coniferous trees are planned along the west property lines of the pharmacy and dental clinic sites. Seven Balsam Fur are to be planted next to an
8 ft. high maintenance free fence west of the pharmacy parking lot to offset buffering requirements in this area and 14 Black Hills Spruce are provided along the west property line of
the dental clinic, apparently for screening of this commercial facility from the abutting residential. One hundred thirty one shrubs such as Alpine Currant, Arcadia Juniper, Wilton
Carpet Juniper and Service Berry are provided in planting areas along the County Road 10 green strip in parking island areas of the pharmacy as well as around the perimeter area of the
pharmacy. A shrub bed is also provided in the southwest region of the dental clinic site.
With respect to buffering and screening, it is required along the western side of the two lots. The underlying C-2 zone requires a 35 ft. buffer and an 8 ft. high opaque screening device
where it abuts R-1 zoned property. Where C-1 property abuts R-1, a 15 ft. buffer is required. A minimum of a 6 ft. high opaque fence or City Council approved substitute is required
when a parking lot of more than six vehicles abuts R-1 zoned property. The applicant, as part of the PUD, is seeking modification to these requirements to allow a less than 35 ft. buffer.
A 30 ft. buffer would be provided for west of the driving lane adjacent to the CVS Pharmacy building and an approximately 17 ft. buffer tapering down to 8 ft. at the property line is
proposed to the west of the parking lot. The applicant proposes to offset these encroachments by having an 8 ft. high opaque maintenance free compost fence, similar to that at the 69th
and Brooklyn Boulevard retail redevelopment, along with seven Balsam Fur (7 ft. high at planting) and shrubs in the green area. In the area where the buffer is 30 ft., a Black Hills
Spruce will be planted. In the C-1 15 ft. green strip, 14 Black Hills Spruce would be provided to meet the screening requirements.
The applicant has been urged to meet independently with neighboring property owners particularly in this area to explain the proposal and to get reaction to the screening and buffering
plans. I have not had any indication that such contact has been made.
It would be the staff’s opinion that this area be provided with more landscaping such as coniferous trees in the 30 ft. buffer area and possibly some screen fencing where the dental
clinic parking lot abuts with the R-1 property. Pedestrian access breaks in the fencing might be warranted depending on individual preferences.
Meetings were conducted and proved beneficial in the PUD proposals for the retail development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the SuperAmerica PUD at 57th Avenue and Logan.
We do not require the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings as we have in the past because the City is bound by State Legislative mandate to give an applicant an answer to a properly
submitted zoning application within 60 days of its receipt.
It should be noted that underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. The building exterior is to be primarily a medium yellow EIFS with a red brick accent around the lower level
and on columns. A decorative EIFS cornice is proposed around the top of the structure. The Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 elevations show display windows and a decorative entrance
canopy is located at the southeast corner of the building. A canopy is provided over the drive up pick up location at the northwest corner of the building. Parapet walls should serve
as a screen for roof top mechanical equipment.
LIGHTING AND TRASH
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting
be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than three foot candles
measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the three foot candle limitation is exceeded in a couple of spots
along the west property line. Modification to the lighting plan should be made to meet these minimum standards. Freestanding light poles are proposed for the island areas south of
the pharmacy building and canopy lights are proposed under the drive up. In addition, either wall mounted or lights to provide a building wash are provided around the perimeter of the
pharmacy building. Our main concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and
that it be consistent with the standards stated above.
An 8 ft. high masonry trash enclosure with a face brick exterior to match the existing building is proposed to be located along the west side of the site just north of the CVS Pharmacy
building. The gates are to have cedar slats attached to a galvanized frame to provide opaque screening. The enclosure will screen a dumpster and compactor to be located within it.
PROCEDURE
Rezoning applications in the past that have been considered by the Planning Commission were typically referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
In this case, that would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. However, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from
the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on January 20, 2005. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application
needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the
zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than March 21, 2005. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can
hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission instituted a new
procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group
members to the meeting 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 time to review the matter and make comment to the Commission at Thursday evening’s meeting.
It should be noted again that the applicant was encouraged to meet with neighboring property owners and was provided a list of the notice being sent for public hearing. We particularly
encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors abutting along the west side of the site because they would be particularly affected by their proposal. I am not aware if any contact
was made.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following
the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned
Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. The Planning Commission must decide and recommend as to whether or not it believes this application
is sufficient. There are a number of points that we believe need to be addressed, such as screening along the west side, as well as other recommended changes. The draft resolution
is presented for discussion purposes. The Commission should keep in mind that the applicant can insist on having an answer to their zoning request within the 60 day time limit established
by the State Legislature.
2-17-05
Page 10
Application Filed on 1-20-05
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 3-21-05 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2005-003
Applicant: Bear Creek Capital, LLC
Location: Northwest Quadrant of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning/Development Approval-PUD/C-2
The applicant, Bear Creek Capital, LLC on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, is seeking rezoning from R-1 (One Family Residence) and C-1 (Service/Office) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce)
of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for
a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy.
Beat Creek Capital, LLC has a purchase agreement to acquire the five lots in question. Two of the lots face County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) and are currently zoned R-1, while the
other three lots are zoned C-1 and face Brooklyn Boulevard. Once combined (See Planning Commission Application No. 2005-002) the five lots will create a single parcel of land that is
66,517 sq. ft. or 1.53 acres in area. The property in question is bounded on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by County Road 10; on the west by R-1 zoned property abutting
on Drew Avenue North; and on the north by C-1 zoned property containing a dental center and parking lot.
The applicant’s plan is to demolish and/or otherwise remove the five existing single family homes and other accessory buildings to build a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy, which would have
cross driving, parking and access rights with the neighboring dental center site to the north.
The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accommodate the above mentioned commercial retail development. The C-2 (Commerce) underlying zoning designation is being sought because
it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C-2 requirements to allow an encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer
area required where a C-2 use abuts an R-1 use (along the west property line). This modification is proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site and to accommodate Hennepin County
concerns to have the access to the site as far removed from the corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard as possible to accommodate traffic movements and left turn lane stacking
space. The applicant believes this modification will be offset by various plan considerations and aspects of their development proposal which will mitigate it. The land in question
is acknowledged in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for neighborhood service and retail business functions and such an expansion and rezoning could be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 development and
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 encroachment into the 35 ft. buffer area between C-2 and R-1 land uses.
Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide an 8 ft. high maintenance free screen fence with additional landscaping including a heavy concentration of balsam fur that will
grow above the 8 ft. screening device. This is similar to what was done where the retail development proposal along 69th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard was undertaken. In
that case, a maintenance fee fence and beefed up landscape were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of a driving and parking lane to the residential property backing
up to this development.
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 narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached).
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 decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. 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 their proposal.
Is there a clear public need or benefit?
The applicant comments that this site lies in proximity to high level commercial land uses. A Planned Unit Development provides flexibility of development while providing the public
with control over land use applications.
It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by
the City and also is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the residential needs of adjoining properties. It is not
anticipated that this proposal will be a detriment, but on the other hand, it should be a positive factor in providing benefits that positively affect the community as well as the applicant.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan relating to Brooklyn Boulevard broadly recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard and replacing
them with either commercial and service/office uses or high and medium density residential uses. Specifically with respect to Brooklyn Boulevard and 58th Avenue North, the Comprehensive
Plan recommends neighborhood oriented commercial uses and retail functions.
Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications?
The applicant comments that adjacent and to the east a PUD with commercial land use application has been approved and enacted.
I am not certain to what PUD the applicant is referring. A Planned Unit Development was adopted for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall a number of years ago and commercial development
of a relatively intense nature is located east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to the south of County Road 10 as well. Certainly the proposed land use classification could be considered consistent
with and compatible with the land uses to the east and southeast of this site as well as the dental office immediately to the north. The significant question is how compatible this
proposal can be with the single family residential located immediately to the west. The City Council recently established a Central Commerce Overlay District (CC) which begins on the
east side of Brooklyn Boulevard and encompasses all of the Central Commercial area including Brookdale and perimeter businesses and the commercial and even multi residential land uses
along Shingle Creek to Interstate 94 then east to Highway 100. This Central Commerce Overlay District was established to indicate all of the potential commercial uses which were considered
to be appropriate for development in this area and also to outline specific uses which would otherwise be allowed in a general commerce area to be excluded or considered inappropriate
for this area. It would seem in conflict to extend a C-2 zoning district for this particular area without also excluding uses for that site that would be considered inappropriate.
Uses such as sauna establishments, massage establishments, currency exchanges, pawn shops and secondhand good dealers are uses that are not permitted in the Central Commerce Overlay
District and should not be allowed if this PUD/C-2 zoning designation is acceptable. It should also be pointed out that this Central Commerce Overlay District is not intended for use
as chapels, churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues as well as public and private elementary and secondary schools (K-12).
Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property?
The applicant notes that the current zoning of affected parcels does not allow for the proposed use.
The applicant is correct. The current zoning of the majority of the property, which is C-1 (Service/Office) does not allow a retail use such as a pharmacy. Another reason for seeking
the Planned Unit Development is to limit some of the uses that are otherwise considered inappropriate in the C-2 underlying zone as was outlined in the previous comments. Otherwise,
we believe it is possible for all of the other permitted uses in the C-2 underlying zone to be contemplated for development. However, with a PUD only the proposal approved with the
Planned Unit Development is what is to be developed.
Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned?
The applicant comments that to the east, commercial zoning has been increased.
This is not necessarily the case. The CC Central Commerce Overlay District was established, however, there has been no recent increase in commercial zoning in this immediate area.
The existing C-1 zoning classification has been in place since at least 1968 when many of the single family residential homes in this area became non-conforming uses. It has been the
City’s longstanding policy that these single family homes eventually be converted or redeveloped into commercial uses. As was mentioned previously, the City’s Comprehensive Plan does
recommend an expansion of the general commerce zoning district in this particular area and we believe it can be construed to include expanding it as being proposed by the applicant in
this situation.
e. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
The applicant indicates that they have taken measures to minimize impact of the zoning classification on adjacent uses as it relates to screening. They note that there requested zoning
will require a more comprehensive screening application.
The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard
ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residential to the west. The proposed commercial use also seems to provide
a good transitional use from Brooklyn Boulevard to the residential neighborhood to the west. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two
areas.
Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The applicant notes that the proposed pharmacy use of the property will combine five single family lots for commercial development with driveway access to 58th and Brooklyn Boulevard.
They note that they believe their proposal in coordination with adjacent property owners will insure safer circulation on the site and in the general area.
Generally it is the City’s position that inappropriate single family residential homes in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor should be replaced with other uses. Numerous access points
for single family residential homes on Brooklyn Boulevard cause potential traffic problems. Consolidating, eliminating and reducing access points on Brooklyn Boulevard is considered
a benefit. It can be said that the properties under consideration in this PUD are unsuited for their current use. Three of the five parcels are already zoned commercial although service/office
commercial rather than general commerce. To continue with the residential use would be inappropriate. Consolidation is necessary for commercial redevelopment.
Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best
interest of the community?
The applicant indicates that combing of parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard works best to effectively control development and traffic in this busy corridor. Through the Planned Unit Development
Process, they note that the City can negotiate controls of land use as promotion to the community’s best interests. They note that a retail land use falls reasonably with adjacent uses
within this sector of the city.
In general we would concur with the comments made by the applicant and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should
lead to redevelopment that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and can
be considered in the best interests of the community.
Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
The applicant does not make comment with respect to this particular guideline.
We do believe that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that, we believe, can be consistent and compatible
with surrounding land uses. The proposal, possibly with some modifications, could provide a quality development that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and be in the general
interests of the community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL
As mentioned previously, this proposal is for a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy to be located to the north side of a 1.53 acre site created by the combination of five existing lots (two
currently R-1 and three currently C-1) proposed under this application to be rezoned to PUD/C-2. The plan calls for a shared parking, driving and access area with the property to the
north, which is zoned C-1 and contains a dental clinic and parking lot. The C-1 zoned property is technically not part of the PUD, however, its use with the subject site is essential.
Certain improvements or changes will have to be made to the dental clinic site and are proposed in order for the applicant’s plan to be accomplished. It is not clear who will be making
these improvements, but they should be tied to the PUD approval and any performance agreement and financial guarantee must assure their completion.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the site was previously reviewed with the preliminary plat. Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. The applicant and the County
have tentatively agreed to a proposal that will allow joint use of accesses to the CVS site and the dental clinic site. All seven existing accesses to the two county roads will be closed
with two new full access points being established, one at the very northeast corner of the dental clinic site and the other at the very southwest corner of the CVS site. A “right in
only” access will be established off Brooklyn Boulevard to the CVS drive lane and parking lot. That access will be approximately 140 ft. north of County Road 10. The median on Brooklyn
Boulevard will be shortened at the north end and the median break on County Road 10 currently serving 3606 58th Avenue North will be closed and the left turn lane from County Road 10
to northbound Brooklyn Boulevard will be extended to just east of the proposed new access to the CVS site. This access point is about 8 ft. from the west property line and is as far
back from the Brooklyn Boulevard/County Road 10 intersection as recommended by Hennepin County.
Buffer and setback requirements where C-2 uses abut R-1 uses generally require a 35 ft. buffer not to be used for buildings, parking, loading or driving areas. This is a modification
being sought by the applicant through the PUD process. Safety considerations are the primary justification. Other encroachments into the buffer area, although not as great, are being
sought for a driving lane and are proposed to be offset by an 8 ft. high maintenance free opaque fence with a dense row of coniferous trees to offset the encroachment. The encroachment
will vary from 5 ft. to 18 ft. A similar buffer/screening proposal for the retail redevelopment PUD at the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North was approved
a couple years ago. Encroachments were allowed in that case where the backs of R-1 properties abutted with the development. The 8 ft. high screen fence should not be carried too close
to the County Road 10 right of way line so as to cause sight obstructions on County Road 10 or for the neighboring property to the west.
Parking for the CVS facility will be to the south of the building where 64 parking spaces are to be provided. The applicant has proposed an accessory parking arrangement with the dental
clinic to the north to provide exclusive rights to ten more parking spaces on the dental site.
The parking requirement for a 13,000 sq. ft. retail building is 72 parking spaces based on a parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area. The
74 parking spaces to be provided will exceed the minimum requirement provided the proper deed restriction is executed and filed with the titles to the respective properties encumbering
the ten spaces for the sole use of the CVS Pharmacy.
The location of the building is close to the north property line although meeting minimum setback requirements of 10 ft. The drive lane that circles the building will be on a portion
of the dental clinic property as it approaches the pharmacy pick up location. Stacking for this pick up point should be sufficient and should not interfere with the traffic flow on
site. The drive lane to the west of the building will be one way (south) and it is at this location that the 35 ft. buffer is encroached upon by 5 ft. The building could be shifted
5 ft. to the east and not encroach on the 35 ft. setback off Brooklyn Boulevard but it would mean a one way (north) drive lane around the east side of the building. Perhaps the applicant
could look at such a modification. Then the only buffer encroachment would be at the southwest corner of the site.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which have been reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached for the
Commission’s review is his February 2, 2005 memorandum reviewing the proposed project. The Public Works Director has indicated that all water and sanitary sewer services for the houses
that will be removed from the site must be done at the mains and in accordance with specifications available at the City Engineering Department. He also notes that the sanitary sewer
and water mains located in the western portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way are adequately sized to provide these services to the site.
B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas. A parking lot expansion on the north side of the dental clinic site is proposed which will add parking 22 parking
spaces for the clinic’s use. A drive lane connecting to the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site is also provided. This parking and driving area is to be
bound by B-612 curb and gutter. Among other things, the Director of Public works has indicated that the applicant needs to provide a storm water management plan including drainage calculations
and detailed design drawings for proposed water management facilities. The proposal shows rain gardens to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. These are located
at the north end of the dental clinic site, to the west of the CVS Pharmacy building, to the east of the pharmacy building in the 15 ft. green strip area and at the southeast corner
of the CVS site. Storm water management facilities have to be incorporated into the site development plans to control the total discharge rate from the site to avoid over loading the
existing storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard. Connection to the storm sewer system within Brooklyn Boulevard is subject to approval by Hennepin County. The utility plan needs
to be revised to include on site storm sewer to convey excess run off from the proposed rain gardens. A utility maintenance agreement will be required with the owners of the two lots
to provide for the long term maintenance of storm water facilities within the development sites. He notes that erosion control measures are to be installed prior to starting grading
operations and prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked on to public streets during the construction process is required. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit
must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on the site.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the CVS site
is 1.53 acres and the dental clinic site is 1.03 acres. One hundred twenty two landscape points are required under the retail type of development comprehended by the CVS proposal and
103 landscape points are required for the dental clinic site under an office type development. This amounts to 225 total points for the two sites. The applicant proposes to meet the
requirement by providing a variety of plantings totaling 359 landscape points. Four mature shade trees are planned to be saved on the site and are all located along the Brooklyn Boulevard
green strip, one by the CVS Pharmacy and the others in front of the dental clinic. Eleven new shade trees including Red Maple and Honey Locust are proposed along the County Road 10
green strip, the Brooklyn Boulevard green strip and at the north side of the dental clinic site. Five Spring Snow Crab Apple, decorative trees, are also planned for the north side of
the dental clinic site. Twenty one coniferous trees are planned along the west property lines of the pharmacy and dental clinic sites. Seven Balsam Fur are to be planted next to an
8 ft. high maintenance free fence west of the pharmacy parking lot to offset buffering requirements in this area and 14 Black Hills Spruce are provided along the west property line of
the dental clinic, apparently for screening of this commercial facility from the abutting residential. One hundred thirty one shrubs such as Alpine Currant, Arcadia Juniper, Wilton
Carpet Juniper and Service Berry are provided in planting areas along the County Road 10 green strip in parking island areas of the pharmacy as well as around the perimeter area of the
pharmacy. A shrub bed is also provided in the southwest region of the dental clinic site.
With respect to buffering and screening, it is required along the western side of the two lots. The underlying C-2 zone requires a 35 ft. buffer and an 8 ft. high opaque screening device
where it abuts R-1 zoned property. Where C-1 property abuts R-1, a 15 ft. buffer is required. A minimum of a 6 ft. high opaque fence or City Council approved substitute is required
when a parking lot of more than six vehicles abuts R-1 zoned property. The applicant, as part of the PUD, is seeking modification to these requirements to allow a less than 35 ft. buffer.
A 30 ft. buffer would be provided for west of the driving lane adjacent to the CVS Pharmacy building and an approximately 17 ft. buffer tapering down to 8 ft. at the property line is
proposed to the west of the parking lot. The applicant proposes to offset these encroachments by having an 8 ft. high opaque maintenance free compost fence, similar to that at the 69th
and Brooklyn Boulevard retail redevelopment, along with seven Balsam Fur (7 ft. high at planting) and shrubs in the green area. In the area where the buffer is 30 ft., a Black Hills
Spruce will be planted. In the C-1 15 ft. green strip, 14 Black Hills Spruce would be provided to meet the screening requirements.
The applicant has been urged to meet independently with neighboring property owners particularly in this area to explain the proposal and to get reaction to the screening and buffering
plans. I have not had any indication that such contact has been made.
It would be the staff’s opinion that this area be provided with more landscaping such as coniferous trees in the 30 ft. buffer area and possibly some screen fencing where the dental
clinic parking lot abuts with the R-1 property. Pedestrian access breaks in the fencing might be warranted depending on individual preferences.
Meetings were conducted and proved beneficial in the PUD proposals for the retail development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the SuperAmerica PUD at 57th Avenue and Logan.
We do not require the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings as we have in the past because the City is bound by State Legislative mandate to give an applicant an answer to a properly
submitted zoning application within 60 days of its receipt.
It should be noted that underground irrigation is required to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances.
BUILDING
The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. The building exterior is to be primarily a medium yellow EIFS with a red brick accent around the lower level
and on columns. A decorative EIFS cornice is proposed around the top of the structure. The Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 elevations show display windows and a decorative entrance
canopy is located at the southeast corner of the building. A canopy is provided over the drive up pick up location at the northwest corner of the building. Parapet walls should serve
as a screen for roof top mechanical equipment.
LIGHTING AND TRASH
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting
be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than three foot candles
measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the three foot candle limitation is exceeded in a couple of spots
along the west property line. Modification to the lighting plan should be made to meet these minimum standards. Freestanding light poles are proposed for the island areas south of
the pharmacy building and canopy lights are proposed under the drive up. In addition, either wall mounted or lights to provide a building wash are provided around the perimeter of the
pharmacy building. Our main concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and
that it be consistent with the standards stated above.
An 8 ft. high masonry trash enclosure with a face brick exterior to match the existing building is proposed to be located along the west side of the site just north of the CVS Pharmacy
building. The gates are to have cedar slats attached to a galvanized frame to provide opaque screening. The enclosure will screen a dumpster and compactor to be located within it.
PROCEDURE
Rezoning applications in the past that have been considered by the Planning Commission were typically referred to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
In this case, that would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. However, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from
the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on January 20, 2005. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application
needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the
zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than March 21, 2005. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can
hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings we normally have. The Planning Commission instituted a new
procedure because it still wishes to receive Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to these rezoning applications. We have invited the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group
members to the meeting 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 time to review the matter and make comment to the Commission at Thursday evening’s meeting.
It should be noted again that the applicant was encouraged to meet with neighboring property owners and was provided a list of the notice being sent for public hearing. We particularly
encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors abutting along the west side of the site because they would be particularly affected by their proposal. I am not aware if any contact
was made.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following
the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned
Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. The Planning Commission must decide and recommend as to whether or not it believes this application
is sufficient. There are a number of points that we believe need to be addressed, such as screening along the west side, as well as other recommended changes. The draft resolution
is presented for discussion purposes. The Commission should keep in mind that the applicant can insist on having an answer to their zoning request within the 60 day time limit established
by the State Legislature.
2-17-05
Page 10