Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-010 Inf Sheet 6300 Earle Brown Drive Application Filed on 5-19-05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-18-05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005-010 Applicant: L H B Location: 6300 Earle Brown Drive Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval-PUD/C1A The applicant, Scott Anderson on behalf of L H B Architects, is seeking rezoning from C1A (Service-Office, no height limit) to PUD/C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service-Office, no height limit) of a vacant 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. (Property will be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive.) This application also involves development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and an enclosed attached water park facility. The property in question is currently zoned C1A and is bounded on the west and north by Earle Brown Drive with a six story office building and I-94 right of way on the opposite sides of that street; on the east by the Earle Brown Heritage Center; and on the south by another high rise office building (City County Federal building). The City Council has long been concerned about the potential development of this property and its effect on adjacent and adjoining properties. Eventually the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the site for the purpose of controlling potential future development. The City Council/EDA has aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on the property since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth study of a number of years ago, which recommended such a use in this area. Discussions with potential developers have led to the EDA entering into a development agreement with Oliver Companies for a combination hotel/water park on this site. Earlier this year the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved an ordinance amendment allowing transient lodging and associated uses as permitted uses in the C1A zoning district. This action makes the hotel use consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for this area which recommends office/service business uses for this area. The applicant’s plan as part of this Planned Unit Development is to build a four and six story, 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high water park facility. The hotel would be attached to the east of and south of the enclosed 32,000 sq. ft. water park feature. An enclosed walkway connection between this complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center would also be made tying the two facilities together for their joint benefit. The applicant is seeking the PUD/C1A rezoning to accommodate the above hotel/water park facility. The C1A underlying zoning designation is proposed because it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C1A requirements to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. This modification is proposed to make a more efficient use of the site which is slightly smaller than necessary to accommodate parking and landscaping requirements. The applicant has not proposed site considerations to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of the plan. Plan considerations will be offered to off set this that are consistent with previous approvals or encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement. The land in question is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for office/service business (C1A) uses. Transient lodging and associated uses are permitted in the C1A district, therefore, the proposal is 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 C1A) 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 issues. 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 is seeking modifications to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. The City Council has previously allowed encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement along street right of way when an approximate 3 ½ to 4 ft. high decorative fence has been provided to off set the lack of buffer area between the street and adjacent parking lots. Such was the case at the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment where a combination pier and wrought iron fence was provided in areas where the green strip was less than 15 ft. The Super America Planned Unit Development on 57th Avenue and Logan provided a similar feature. We have discussed with the applicant the possibility of providing some type of fencing in this area and have suggested that used in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and SA developments as an example or the possibility of extending the wood rail fence associated with the Earle Brown Heritage Center all along the abutting Earle Brown Drive right of way. Their landscape plan, as will be shown later, proposes landscaping in the Boulevard portion of the street right of way. This landscaping and fencing should provide an appropriate buffer to off set the lack of 15 ft. of green strip in this area. 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 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 the addition of a full service hotel is viewed as a major asset to the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center. He notes that their proposal will give the Earle Brown Heritage Center the ability to attract a new level of client to the facility, which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. 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. The proposal should balance the business needs of the adjoining Earle Brown Heritage Center and the adjoining properties in this area. As mentioned previously, the Calthorpe study recommended a hotel for this site and the recent Opportunity Site study considers this a positive for the development and redevelopment of this area. This hotel/water park proposal should be a positive factor in providing benefits to the Earle Brown Heritage Center as the Earle Brown Heritage Center will provide positive reinforcement for the hotel/water park. The City Council/EDA has actively pursued such a use of this property and the proposal is seen as providing a public need or benefit. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant comments that the project is a permitted use within the C1A zoning classification and will provide substantial support functions for the surrounding land uses. The staff would concur with these comments. As mentioned previously, the zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. The C1A zoning district allows service/office uses in buildings without a height limit such as in he C1 zoning district. In the C1 zoning district buildings are limited in height to three stories. The office buildings on the west side of Earle Brown Drive and south of the site in question are all over six stories in height. The hotel portion of the proposed facility would be four stories and six stories in height while the water park feature connecting the two portions of the hotel would be four stories high. Building wise, this facility is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. A physical connection is proposed between the new facility and the Earle Brown Heritage Center for the joint benefit of the two uses. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant answers simply yes. We would concur noting that consideration of the proposed uses was undertaken at the time the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that they are not aware of substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area, but comments relative to the recent change in the C1A zoning classification. The staff would comment that the CC Central Commerce Overlay District has been expanded to include this area, however, there has been no other recent zoning classification changes in the immediate area. This area was rezoned to C1A in the mid to late 1980’s to acknowledge high rise service/office commercial uses in this area. Prior to that time the property had been zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and commercial development was handled through the granting of a special use permit. The City Council at that time felt the high rise development was appropriate and the buildings in this area reflect that. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The applicant comments that this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal. Although this is not a city initiated proposal, the city has pursued the development of a facility such as this for this site over a number of years. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant simply comments yes to this guideline. The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We have previously noted the request from the applicant for no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive right of way. A condition of approving the plans for this development should provide for some type of fencing/screening in this area such as that approved in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment or as has been suggested,an extension of the wood rail fence similar to that surrounding the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The use itself seems compatible with the Earle Brown Heritage Center and, in fact, complimentary to as well. The Heritage Center is also considered compatible with and complimentary to the hotel/water park facility. 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 site is generally suited to the use proposed except with respect to size. The project site is slightly smaller than necessary to meet the parking and landscape buffer requirements. The subject property is not unsuited for uses allowed in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location. Service/office uses would be appropriate in this area and a building of the height and bulk of the proposed hotel facility certainly fits into this site. The site is impacted by a curved roadway which makes it slightly more difficult for development. Topography and location do not cause problems with respect to the development of the property. It is a site suited for the uses allowed in the C1A zoning district of which the proposed hotel/water park are permitted uses. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of the 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 notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district. The staff would note that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is also believed to be in the best interest of the community with respect to the compatibility of the City’s Earle Brown Heritage Center and this facility. Both should prove beneficial to the other. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds that the addition of a full service hotel gives the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center the ability to attract a new level of clientele to the facility which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. They note that successful conference centers help a community become more attractive and prosperous and create opportunities to introduce growth and investment that will stimulate economic growth as visitors are potential investors and consumers. We would concur with the applicant’s comments with respect to this guideline. We do believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and will lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and should be beneficial to the Earle Brown Heritage Center and be in the general interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the proposal is for a four and six story 250 room hotel with a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high, 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility. An enclosed walkway would connect the new facility to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The water park feature will not be open to the public generally. It is designed for the use of patrons and patrons of the Heritage Center. The restaurant will, however, be open to the general public. No conference rooms or meeting rooms will be offered in the hotel. The Earle Brown Heritage Center/ meeting rooms will serve the needs of the hotel. The water park will be located in a 32,000 sq. ft. enclosed space that is four stories high. The building meets setback requirements and takes advantage of a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows a commercial building to be as close to an interior property line as three feet rather than ten feet, provided that the exterior wall of the building conforms in all respects with the requirements of the State Building Code. This wall is located along a portion of the east property line adjacent to a Heritage Center Building. The applicant and the City’s Building Official have met to discuss this matter. The Building Official believes it may be necessary to have a clear area between the hotel and the existing Heritage Center building. After determining what the distance might be, it may be necessary to provide a deed restriction on the Heritage Center property preventing buildings from being constructed in this area. This will need to be reviewed further and recommendations from the Building Official will be based on code compliance and building construction considerations. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be at four locations along Earle Brown Drive. Two of the access points are shared accesses, one with the City Council Federal building to the south and the other to the Earle Brown Heritage Center to the east. The two non-shared accesses line up with the access drives across Earle Brown Drive serving the office buildings on the opposite side of the street. A total of 350 parking spaces are provided based on hotel, restaurant and employee parking requirements. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for ever hotel room and one parking space for every hotel employee at the maximum shift. The restaurant parking formula is one space for every two restaurant seats and one space for every restaurant employee. The employee count for the hotel and restaurant at the maximum shift is 50 employees. A total of 350 parking spaces are, therefore, required and provided. The plans indicate a parking width of 8 ft. rather than the required 8 ft. 8 in. Adjustments must be made to meet the minimum requirements which in turn may effect meeting the parking requirements. Parking spaces are provided around the north, west and south portions of the building. Driving lanes are aligned as best as possible with adjoining parking lots at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the City County Federal building. Concrete parking delineators are provided to form the drive lanes accessing the building. A canopy for a drop off area is provided to the hotel by the main entrance on the north side of that building. A service area is to be provided along the east side of the hotel. The connection to the Earle Brown Heritage Center is along the south wall of the hotel connecting to the water park as well. Parking and driving areas will be bound by B-618 curb and gutter as indicated on the plan. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his written comments with respect to this proposal. The site is approximately 6.2 acres and, it is my understanding, that it will be required to have a formal Watershed Management Commission review. Storm sewer will be provided throughout the site to collect storm water to be conveyed into an existing pond that serves the City County Federal building and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Calculations need to be submitted to show that this pond is sufficient to handle drainage from this site. It was originally designed to meet the Watershed standards in the mid 1980’s when the Earle Brown Heritage Center was redeveloped and the office building to the south was developed. These matters will need to be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for the property. Sanitary sewer and water are available within the Earle Brown right of way and sewer and water connections are made to the building at three different locations as shown on the utility plan. The Director of Public Works notes that the existing 8 in. sanitary sewer is not adequate to serve the proposed hotel/water park development. Earle Brown Drive is proposed for reconstruction in 2006 and the existing sanitary sewer could be replaced with 12 in. sewer if authorized by the City Council. A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed hotel/water park was completed by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. and is attached with the memo indicating that existing facilities will be able to adequately accommodate the traffic generated by this proposed development. The Commission’s attention is directed to the Director of Public Works’ memo relating to the proposed development. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. The site is 6.2 acres and requires 412 landscape points. The landscape plan provided shows a total of 375 points and indicates a point requirement of only 374 points. The landscape plan should be revised to provide an additional 37 landscape points to meet the minimum 412 required. The landscape plan relies more heavily on shrubs than is recommended by the landscape point system. Only 25 percent of the landscape points required should be in shrubs, a maximum of 103 points. Their plan provides 136 ½ landscape points for shrubs. A better distribution of landscape should be provided in the revised landscape plan. The existing plan calls for only six shade trees, three to the east and three to the west of what might be considered the main entrance to the site. These are Redmond Linden. Eighty seven decorative trees are provided such as Japanese Tree Lilac, Columnar Crab Apple, and Clump River Birch. These are provided in the green strip which is within the boulevard right of way area around the perimeter of the site and up close to the water park portion of the building as well as in front of the main hotel entrance on the north side of the building. Decorative trees are also provided on the island areas at the access points to the site and in a “pocket plaza” located between the south portion of the hotel and the indoor water park. Eight coniferous trees are provided, six of which are in the boulevard right of way area and two on the divider areas between the parking facilities. Two hundred seventy three shrubs such as Compact American Vibernum, Rose Pavement Foxy, Russian Cypress, Green Mound Alpine Currant and Mount Airy Fothergilla are located around the site at different locations. It is recommended that the landscape plan be revised to meet the point distribution system and the total number of points required for a 6.2 acre site. Additional shade trees would be in order and perhaps some additional coniferous trees also. It is also recommended as noted previously that a decorative fence at least 3 ½ to 4 ft in height be provided where there is no minimum green strip provided. This would be along the north and west sides of the site. A wood rail fence such as at the Earle Brown Heritage Center might be in order. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed building. The hotel portion of the building would have an exterior treatment of brick with metal decorative panels and aluminum windows. The water park portion of the building would be precast concrete with metal panels and aluminum windows. Skylights are to be located both on the hotel and the water park portions of the building. The walkway connecting the hotel/water park with the Earle Brown Heritage Center appears to be metal panels and aluminum windows. A canopy extends out from the north side of the building where there is a pick up drop off area. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the city ordinances 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 a intensity level greater than 10 foot candles measured at property lines abutting street right of way or non residentially zoned property. No glare is allowed to emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the standard is not exceeded. Freestanding light poles are proposed at 13 different locations on the site plan. Eight of these are single headed lights, while five are double headed lights. The lights are located primarily in the island areas around the west and north side of the building with lights also serving the parking and service areas on the east side of the building and the parking lot on the south side of the building. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plans. It is assumed that the trash will be collected in the service area and no outside trash facilities will be located on the site. If this is incorrect, the plan should be modified to show the location of an appropriate trash container. PROCEDURE This PUD/C1A proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must follow the normal rezoning process. Generally the Planning Commission seeks Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to Rezonings and Planned Unit Developments. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the commercial/industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission, following public hearing should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and various conditions related to the development plan. 6-16-05 Page 1 Application Filed on 5-19-05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-18-05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005-010 Applicant: L H B Location: 6300 Earle Brown Drive Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval-PUD/C1A The applicant, Scott Anderson on behalf of L H B Architects, is seeking rezoning from C1A (Service-Office, no height limit) to PUD/C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service-Office, no height limit) of a vacant 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. (Property will be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive.) This application also involves development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and an enclosed attached water park facility. The property in question is currently zoned C1A and is bounded on the west and north by Earle Brown Drive with a six story office building and I-94 right of way on the opposite sides of that street; on the east by the Earle Brown Heritage Center; and on the south by another high rise office building (City County Federal building). The City Council has long been concerned about the potential development of this property and its effect on adjacent and adjoining properties. Eventually the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the site for the purpose of controlling potential future development. The City Council/EDA has aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on the property since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth study of a number of years ago, which recommended such a use in this area. Discussions with potential developers have led to the EDA entering into a development agreement with Oliver Companies for a combination hotel/water park on this site. Earlier this year the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved an ordinance amendment allowing transient lodging and associated uses as permitted uses in the C1A zoning district. This action makes the hotel use consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for this area which recommends office/service business uses for this area. The applicant’s plan as part of this Planned Unit Development is to build a four and six story, 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high water park facility. The hotel would be attached to the east of and south of the enclosed 32,000 sq. ft. water park feature. An enclosed walkway connection between this complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center would also be made tying the two facilities together for their joint benefit. The applicant is seeking the PUD/C1A rezoning to accommodate the above hotel/water park facility. The C1A underlying zoning designation is proposed because it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C1A requirements to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. This modification is proposed to make a more efficient use of the site which is slightly smaller than necessary to accommodate parking and landscaping requirements. The applicant has not proposed site considerations to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of the plan. Plan considerations will be offered to off set this that are consistent with previous approvals or encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement. The land in question is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for office/service business (C1A) uses. Transient lodging and associated uses are permitted in the C1A district, therefore, the proposal is 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 C1A) 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 issues. 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 is seeking modifications to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. The City Council has previously allowed encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement along street right of way when an approximate 3 ½ to 4 ft. high decorative fence has been provided to off set the lack of buffer area between the street and adjacent parking lots. Such was the case at the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment where a combination pier and wrought iron fence was provided in areas where the green strip was less than 15 ft. The Super America Planned Unit Development on 57th Avenue and Logan provided a similar feature. We have discussed with the applicant the possibility of providing some type of fencing in this area and have suggested that used in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and SA developments as an example or the possibility of extending the wood rail fence associated with the Earle Brown Heritage Center all along the abutting Earle Brown Drive right of way. Their landscape plan, as will be shown later, proposes landscaping in the Boulevard portion of the street right of way. This landscaping and fencing should provide an appropriate buffer to off set the lack of 15 ft. of green strip in this area. 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 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 the addition of a full service hotel is viewed as a major asset to the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center. He notes that their proposal will give the Earle Brown Heritage Center the ability to attract a new level of client to the facility, which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. 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. The proposal should balance the business needs of the adjoining Earle Brown Heritage Center and the adjoining properties in this area. As mentioned previously, the Calthorpe study recommended a hotel for this site and the recent Opportunity Site study considers this a positive for the development and redevelopment of this area. This hotel/water park proposal should be a positive factor in providing benefits to the Earle Brown Heritage Center as the Earle Brown Heritage Center will provide positive reinforcement for the hotel/water park. The City Council/EDA has actively pursued such a use of this property and the proposal is seen as providing a public need or benefit. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant comments that the project is a permitted use within the C1A zoning classification and will provide substantial support functions for the surrounding land uses. The staff would concur with these comments. As mentioned previously, the zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. The C1A zoning district allows service/office uses in buildings without a height limit such as in he C1 zoning district. In the C1 zoning district buildings are limited in height to three stories. The office buildings on the west side of Earle Brown Drive and south of the site in question are all over six stories in height. The hotel portion of the proposed facility would be four stories and six stories in height while the water park feature connecting the two portions of the hotel would be four stories high. Building wise, this facility is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. A physical connection is proposed between the new facility and the Earle Brown Heritage Center for the joint benefit of the two uses. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant answers simply yes. We would concur noting that consideration of the proposed uses was undertaken at the time the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that they are not aware of substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area, but comments relative to the recent change in the C1A zoning classification. The staff would comment that the CC Central Commerce Overlay District has been expanded to include this area, however, there has been no other recent zoning classification changes in the immediate area. This area was rezoned to C1A in the mid to late 1980’s to acknowledge high rise service/office commercial uses in this area. Prior to that time the property had been zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and commercial development was handled through the granting of a special use permit. The City Council at that time felt the high rise development was appropriate and the buildings in this area reflect that. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The applicant comments that this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal. Although this is not a city initiated proposal, the city has pursued the development of a facility such as this for this site over a number of years. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant simply comments yes to this guideline. The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We have previously noted the request from the applicant for no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive right of way. A condition of approving the plans for this development should provide for some type of fencing/screening in this area such as that approved in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment or as has been suggested,an extension of the wood rail fence similar to that surrounding the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The use itself seems compatible with the Earle Brown Heritage Center and, in fact, complimentary to as well. The Heritage Center is also considered compatible with and complimentary to the hotel/water park facility. 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 site is generally suited to the use proposed except with respect to size. The project site is slightly smaller than necessary to meet the parking and landscape buffer requirements. The subject property is not unsuited for uses allowed in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location. Service/office uses would be appropriate in this area and a building of the height and bulk of the proposed hotel facility certainly fits into this site. The site is impacted by a curved roadway which makes it slightly more difficult for development. Topography and location do not cause problems with respect to the development of the property. It is a site suited for the uses allowed in the C1A zoning district of which the proposed hotel/water park are permitted uses. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of the 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 notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district. The staff would note that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is also believed to be in the best interest of the community with respect to the compatibility of the City’s Earle Brown Heritage Center and this facility. Both should prove beneficial to the other. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds that the addition of a full service hotel gives the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center the ability to attract a new level of clientele to the facility which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. They note that successful conference centers help a community become more attractive and prosperous and create opportunities to introduce growth and investment that will stimulate economic growth as visitors are potential investors and consumers. We would concur with the applicant’s comments with respect to this guideline. We do believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and will lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and should be beneficial to the Earle Brown Heritage Center and be in the general interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the proposal is for a four and six story 250 room hotel with a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high, 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility. An enclosed walkway would connect the new facility to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The water park feature will not be open to the public generally. It is designed for the use of patrons and patrons of the Heritage Center. The restaurant will, however, be open to the general public. No conference rooms or meeting rooms will be offered in the hotel. The Earle Brown Heritage Center/ meeting rooms will serve the needs of the hotel. The water park will be located in a 32,000 sq. ft. enclosed space that is four stories high. The building meets setback requirements and takes advantage of a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows a commercial building to be as close to an interior property line as three feet rather than ten feet, provided that the exterior wall of the building conforms in all respects with the requirements of the State Building Code. This wall is located along a portion of the east property line adjacent to a Heritage Center Building. The applicant and the City’s Building Official have met to discuss this matter. The Building Official believes it may be necessary to have a clear area between the hotel and the existing Heritage Center building. After determining what the distance might be, it may be necessary to provide a deed restriction on the Heritage Center property preventing buildings from being constructed in this area. This will need to be reviewed further and recommendations from the Building Official will be based on code compliance and building construction considerations. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be at four locations along Earle Brown Drive. Two of the access points are shared accesses, one with the City Council Federal building to the south and the other to the Earle Brown Heritage Center to the east. The two non-shared accesses line up with the access drives across Earle Brown Drive serving the office buildings on the opposite side of the street. A total of 350 parking spaces are provided based on hotel, restaurant and employee parking requirements. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for ever hotel room and one parking space for every hotel employee at the maximum shift. The restaurant parking formula is one space for every two restaurant seats and one space for every restaurant employee. The employee count for the hotel and restaurant at the maximum shift is 50 employees. A total of 350 parking spaces are, therefore, required and provided. The plans indicate a parking width of 8 ft. rather than the required 8 ft. 8 in. Adjustments must be made to meet the minimum requirements which in turn may effect meeting the parking requirements. Parking spaces are provided around the north, west and south portions of the building. Driving lanes are aligned as best as possible with adjoining parking lots at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the City County Federal building. Concrete parking delineators are provided to form the drive lanes accessing the building. A canopy for a drop off area is provided to the hotel by the main entrance on the north side of that building. A service area is to be provided along the east side of the hotel. The connection to the Earle Brown Heritage Center is along the south wall of the hotel connecting to the water park as well. Parking and driving areas will be bound by B-618 curb and gutter as indicated on the plan. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his written comments with respect to this proposal. The site is approximately 6.2 acres and, it is my understanding, that it will be required to have a formal Watershed Management Commission review. Storm sewer will be provided throughout the site to collect storm water to be conveyed into an existing pond that serves the City County Federal building and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Calculations need to be submitted to show that this pond is sufficient to handle drainage from this site. It was originally designed to meet the Watershed standards in the mid 1980’s when the Earle Brown Heritage Center was redeveloped and the office building to the south was developed. These matters will need to be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for the property. Sanitary sewer and water are available within the Earle Brown right of way and sewer and water connections are made to the building at three different locations as shown on the utility plan. The Director of Public Works notes that the existing 8 in. sanitary sewer is not adequate to serve the proposed hotel/water park development. Earle Brown Drive is proposed for reconstruction in 2006 and the existing sanitary sewer could be replaced with 12 in. sewer if authorized by the City Council. A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed hotel/water park was completed by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. and is attached with the memo indicating that existing facilities will be able to adequately accommodate the traffic generated by this proposed development. The Commission’s attention is directed to the Director of Public Works’ memo relating to the proposed development. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. The site is 6.2 acres and requires 412 landscape points. The landscape plan provided shows a total of 375 points and indicates a point requirement of only 374 points. The landscape plan should be revised to provide an additional 37 landscape points to meet the minimum 412 required. The landscape plan relies more heavily on shrubs than is recommended by the landscape point system. Only 25 percent of the landscape points required should be in shrubs, a maximum of 103 points. Their plan provides 136 ½ landscape points for shrubs. A better distribution of landscape should be provided in the revised landscape plan. The existing plan calls for only six shade trees, three to the east and three to the west of what might be considered the main entrance to the site. These are Redmond Linden. Eighty seven decorative trees are provided such as Japanese Tree Lilac, Columnar Crab Apple, and Clump River Birch. These are provided in the green strip which is within the boulevard right of way area around the perimeter of the site and up close to the water park portion of the building as well as in front of the main hotel entrance on the north side of the building. Decorative trees are also provided on the island areas at the access points to the site and in a “pocket plaza” located between the south portion of the hotel and the indoor water park. Eight coniferous trees are provided, six of which are in the boulevard right of way area and two on the divider areas between the parking facilities. Two hundred seventy three shrubs such as Compact American Vibernum, Rose Pavement Foxy, Russian Cypress, Green Mound Alpine Currant and Mount Airy Fothergilla are located around the site at different locations. It is recommended that the landscape plan be revised to meet the point distribution system and the total number of points required for a 6.2 acre site. Additional shade trees would be in order and perhaps some additional coniferous trees also. It is also recommended as noted previously that a decorative fence at least 3 ½ to 4 ft in height be provided where there is no minimum green strip provided. This would be along the north and west sides of the site. A wood rail fence such as at the Earle Brown Heritage Center might be in order. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed building. The hotel portion of the building would have an exterior treatment of brick with metal decorative panels and aluminum windows. The water park portion of the building would be precast concrete with metal panels and aluminum windows. Skylights are to be located both on the hotel and the water park portions of the building. The walkway connecting the hotel/water park with the Earle Brown Heritage Center appears to be metal panels and aluminum windows. A canopy extends out from the north side of the building where there is a pick up drop off area. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the city ordinances 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 a intensity level greater than 10 foot candles measured at property lines abutting street right of way or non residentially zoned property. No glare is allowed to emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the standard is not exceeded. Freestanding light poles are proposed at 13 different locations on the site plan. Eight of these are single headed lights, while five are double headed lights. The lights are located primarily in the island areas around the west and north side of the building with lights also serving the parking and service areas on the east side of the building and the parking lot on the south side of the building. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plans. It is assumed that the trash will be collected in the service area and no outside trash facilities will be located on the site. If this is incorrect, the plan should be modified to show the location of an appropriate trash container. PROCEDURE This PUD/C1A proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must follow the normal rezoning process. Generally the Planning Commission seeks Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to Rezonings and Planned Unit Developments. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the commercial/industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission, following public hearing should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and various conditions related to the development plan. 6-16-05 Page 1 Application Filed on 5-19-05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7-18-05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005-010 Applicant: L H B Location: 6300 Earle Brown Drive Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval-PUD/C1A The applicant, Scott Anderson on behalf of L H B Architects, is seeking rezoning from C1A (Service-Office, no height limit) to PUD/C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service-Office, no height limit) of a vacant 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. (Property will be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive.) This application also involves development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and an enclosed attached water park facility. The property in question is currently zoned C1A and is bounded on the west and north by Earle Brown Drive with a six story office building and I-94 right of way on the opposite sides of that street; on the east by the Earle Brown Heritage Center; and on the south by another high rise office building (City County Federal building). The City Council has long been concerned about the potential development of this property and its effect on adjacent and adjoining properties. Eventually the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the site for the purpose of controlling potential future development. The City Council/EDA has aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on the property since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth study of a number of years ago, which recommended such a use in this area. Discussions with potential developers have led to the EDA entering into a development agreement with Oliver Companies for a combination hotel/water park on this site. Earlier this year the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved an ordinance amendment allowing transient lodging and associated uses as permitted uses in the C1A zoning district. This action makes the hotel use consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for this area which recommends office/service business uses for this area. The applicant’s plan as part of this Planned Unit Development is to build a four and six story, 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high water park facility. The hotel would be attached to the east of and south of the enclosed 32,000 sq. ft. water park feature. An enclosed walkway connection between this complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center would also be made tying the two facilities together for their joint benefit. The applicant is seeking the PUD/C1A rezoning to accommodate the above hotel/water park facility. The C1A underlying zoning designation is proposed because it acknowledges the proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the C1A requirements to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. This modification is proposed to make a more efficient use of the site which is slightly smaller than necessary to accommodate parking and landscaping requirements. The applicant has not proposed site considerations to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of the plan. Plan considerations will be offered to off set this that are consistent with previous approvals or encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement. The land in question is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for office/service business (C1A) uses. Transient lodging and associated uses are permitted in the C1A district, therefore, the proposal is 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 C1A) 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 issues. 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 is seeking modifications to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. The City Council has previously allowed encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement along street right of way when an approximate 3 ½ to 4 ft. high decorative fence has been provided to off set the lack of buffer area between the street and adjacent parking lots. Such was the case at the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment where a combination pier and wrought iron fence was provided in areas where the green strip was less than 15 ft. The Super America Planned Unit Development on 57th Avenue and Logan provided a similar feature. We have discussed with the applicant the possibility of providing some type of fencing in this area and have suggested that used in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and SA developments as an example or the possibility of extending the wood rail fence associated with the Earle Brown Heritage Center all along the abutting Earle Brown Drive right of way. Their landscape plan, as will be shown later, proposes landscaping in the Boulevard portion of the street right of way. This landscaping and fencing should provide an appropriate buffer to off set the lack of 15 ft. of green strip in this area. 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 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 the addition of a full service hotel is viewed as a major asset to the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center. He notes that their proposal will give the Earle Brown Heritage Center the ability to attract a new level of client to the facility, which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. 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. The proposal should balance the business needs of the adjoining Earle Brown Heritage Center and the adjoining properties in this area. As mentioned previously, the Calthorpe study recommended a hotel for this site and the recent Opportunity Site study considers this a positive for the development and redevelopment of this area. This hotel/water park proposal should be a positive factor in providing benefits to the Earle Brown Heritage Center as the Earle Brown Heritage Center will provide positive reinforcement for the hotel/water park. The City Council/EDA has actively pursued such a use of this property and the proposal is seen as providing a public need or benefit. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant comments that the project is a permitted use within the C1A zoning classification and will provide substantial support functions for the surrounding land uses. The staff would concur with these comments. As mentioned previously, the zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. The C1A zoning district allows service/office uses in buildings without a height limit such as in he C1 zoning district. In the C1 zoning district buildings are limited in height to three stories. The office buildings on the west side of Earle Brown Drive and south of the site in question are all over six stories in height. The hotel portion of the proposed facility would be four stories and six stories in height while the water park feature connecting the two portions of the hotel would be four stories high. Building wise, this facility is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. A physical connection is proposed between the new facility and the Earle Brown Heritage Center for the joint benefit of the two uses. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant answers simply yes. We would concur noting that consideration of the proposed uses was undertaken at the time the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the C1A zoning district. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that they are not aware of substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area, but comments relative to the recent change in the C1A zoning classification. The staff would comment that the CC Central Commerce Overlay District has been expanded to include this area, however, there has been no other recent zoning classification changes in the immediate area. This area was rezoned to C1A in the mid to late 1980’s to acknowledge high rise service/office commercial uses in this area. Prior to that time the property had been zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and commercial development was handled through the granting of a special use permit. The City Council at that time felt the high rise development was appropriate and the buildings in this area reflect that. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The applicant comments that this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal. Although this is not a city initiated proposal, the city has pursued the development of a facility such as this for this site over a number of years. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant simply comments yes to this guideline. The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We have previously noted the request from the applicant for no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive right of way. A condition of approving the plans for this development should provide for some type of fencing/screening in this area such as that approved in the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment or as has been suggested,an extension of the wood rail fence similar to that surrounding the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The use itself seems compatible with the Earle Brown Heritage Center and, in fact, complimentary to as well. The Heritage Center is also considered compatible with and complimentary to the hotel/water park facility. 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 site is generally suited to the use proposed except with respect to size. The project site is slightly smaller than necessary to meet the parking and landscape buffer requirements. The subject property is not unsuited for uses allowed in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location. Service/office uses would be appropriate in this area and a building of the height and bulk of the proposed hotel facility certainly fits into this site. The site is impacted by a curved roadway which makes it slightly more difficult for development. Topography and location do not cause problems with respect to the development of the property. It is a site suited for the uses allowed in the C1A zoning district of which the proposed hotel/water park are permitted uses. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of the 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 notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district. The staff would note that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is also believed to be in the best interest of the community with respect to the compatibility of the City’s Earle Brown Heritage Center and this facility. Both should prove beneficial to the other. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds that the addition of a full service hotel gives the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center the ability to attract a new level of clientele to the facility which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. They note that successful conference centers help a community become more attractive and prosperous and create opportunities to introduce growth and investment that will stimulate economic growth as visitors are potential investors and consumers. We would concur with the applicant’s comments with respect to this guideline. We do believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and will lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and should be beneficial to the Earle Brown Heritage Center and be in the general interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the proposal is for a four and six story 250 room hotel with a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high, 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility. An enclosed walkway would connect the new facility to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The water park feature will not be open to the public generally. It is designed for the use of patrons and patrons of the Heritage Center. The restaurant will, however, be open to the general public. No conference rooms or meeting rooms will be offered in the hotel. The Earle Brown Heritage Center/ meeting rooms will serve the needs of the hotel. The water park will be located in a 32,000 sq. ft. enclosed space that is four stories high. The building meets setback requirements and takes advantage of a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows a commercial building to be as close to an interior property line as three feet rather than ten feet, provided that the exterior wall of the building conforms in all respects with the requirements of the State Building Code. This wall is located along a portion of the east property line adjacent to a Heritage Center Building. The applicant and the City’s Building Official have met to discuss this matter. The Building Official believes it may be necessary to have a clear area between the hotel and the existing Heritage Center building. After determining what the distance might be, it may be necessary to provide a deed restriction on the Heritage Center property preventing buildings from being constructed in this area. This will need to be reviewed further and recommendations from the Building Official will be based on code compliance and building construction considerations. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be at four locations along Earle Brown Drive. Two of the access points are shared accesses, one with the City Council Federal building to the south and the other to the Earle Brown Heritage Center to the east. The two non-shared accesses line up with the access drives across Earle Brown Drive serving the office buildings on the opposite side of the street. A total of 350 parking spaces are provided based on hotel, restaurant and employee parking requirements. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for ever hotel room and one parking space for every hotel employee at the maximum shift. The restaurant parking formula is one space for every two restaurant seats and one space for every restaurant employee. The employee count for the hotel and restaurant at the maximum shift is 50 employees. A total of 350 parking spaces are, therefore, required and provided. The plans indicate a parking width of 8 ft. rather than the required 8 ft. 8 in. Adjustments must be made to meet the minimum requirements which in turn may effect meeting the parking requirements. Parking spaces are provided around the north, west and south portions of the building. Driving lanes are aligned as best as possible with adjoining parking lots at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the City County Federal building. Concrete parking delineators are provided to form the drive lanes accessing the building. A canopy for a drop off area is provided to the hotel by the main entrance on the north side of that building. A service area is to be provided along the east side of the hotel. The connection to the Earle Brown Heritage Center is along the south wall of the hotel connecting to the water park as well. Parking and driving areas will be bound by B-618 curb and gutter as indicated on the plan. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his written comments with respect to this proposal. The site is approximately 6.2 acres and, it is my understanding, that it will be required to have a formal Watershed Management Commission review. Storm sewer will be provided throughout the site to collect storm water to be conveyed into an existing pond that serves the City County Federal building and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Calculations need to be submitted to show that this pond is sufficient to handle drainage from this site. It was originally designed to meet the Watershed standards in the mid 1980’s when the Earle Brown Heritage Center was redeveloped and the office building to the south was developed. These matters will need to be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for the property. Sanitary sewer and water are available within the Earle Brown right of way and sewer and water connections are made to the building at three different locations as shown on the utility plan. The Director of Public Works notes that the existing 8 in. sanitary sewer is not adequate to serve the proposed hotel/water park development. Earle Brown Drive is proposed for reconstruction in 2006 and the existing sanitary sewer could be replaced with 12 in. sewer if authorized by the City Council. A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed hotel/water park was completed by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. and is attached with the memo indicating that existing facilities will be able to adequately accommodate the traffic generated by this proposed development. The Commission’s attention is directed to the Director of Public Works’ memo relating to the proposed development. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. The site is 6.2 acres and requires 412 landscape points. The landscape plan provided shows a total of 375 points and indicates a point requirement of only 374 points. The landscape plan should be revised to provide an additional 37 landscape points to meet the minimum 412 required. The landscape plan relies more heavily on shrubs than is recommended by the landscape point system. Only 25 percent of the landscape points required should be in shrubs, a maximum of 103 points. Their plan provides 136 ½ landscape points for shrubs. A better distribution of landscape should be provided in the revised landscape plan. The existing plan calls for only six shade trees, three to the east and three to the west of what might be considered the main entrance to the site. These are Redmond Linden. Eighty seven decorative trees are provided such as Japanese Tree Lilac, Columnar Crab Apple, and Clump River Birch. These are provided in the green strip which is within the boulevard right of way area around the perimeter of the site and up close to the water park portion of the building as well as in front of the main hotel entrance on the north side of the building. Decorative trees are also provided on the island areas at the access points to the site and in a “pocket plaza” located between the south portion of the hotel and the indoor water park. Eight coniferous trees are provided, six of which are in the boulevard right of way area and two on the divider areas between the parking facilities. Two hundred seventy three shrubs such as Compact American Vibernum, Rose Pavement Foxy, Russian Cypress, Green Mound Alpine Currant and Mount Airy Fothergilla are located around the site at different locations. It is recommended that the landscape plan be revised to meet the point distribution system and the total number of points required for a 6.2 acre site. Additional shade trees would be in order and perhaps some additional coniferous trees also. It is also recommended as noted previously that a decorative fence at least 3 ½ to 4 ft in height be provided where there is no minimum green strip provided. This would be along the north and west sides of the site. A wood rail fence such as at the Earle Brown Heritage Center might be in order. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed building. The hotel portion of the building would have an exterior treatment of brick with metal decorative panels and aluminum windows. The water park portion of the building would be precast concrete with metal panels and aluminum windows. Skylights are to be located both on the hotel and the water park portions of the building. The walkway connecting the hotel/water park with the Earle Brown Heritage Center appears to be metal panels and aluminum windows. A canopy extends out from the north side of the building where there is a pick up drop off area. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the city ordinances 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 a intensity level greater than 10 foot candles measured at property lines abutting street right of way or non residentially zoned property. No glare is allowed to emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the standard is not exceeded. Freestanding light poles are proposed at 13 different locations on the site plan. Eight of these are single headed lights, while five are double headed lights. The lights are located primarily in the island areas around the west and north side of the building with lights also serving the parking and service areas on the east side of the building and the parking lot on the south side of the building. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plans. It is assumed that the trash will be collected in the service area and no outside trash facilities will be located on the site. If this is incorrect, the plan should be modified to show the location of an appropriate trash container. PROCEDURE This PUD/C1A proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must follow the normal rezoning process. Generally the Planning Commission seeks Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to Rezonings and Planned Unit Developments. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the commercial/industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission, following public hearing should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and various conditions related to the development plan. 6-16-05 Page 1