HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 02-14 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
FEBRUARY 14, 2008
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call 2007 Planning Commission
3. Approval of Minutes - November 15, 2007
4. Adjourn 2007 Planning Commission
5. Administer Oath of Office: Rachel Lund, Michael Parks, Timothy Roche, Kara
Kuykendall
6. Call to Order: 2008 Planning Commission
7. Roll Call 2008 Planning Commission
8. Election of 2008 Chair
4. Election of 2008 Chair Pro Tern
10. Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is
to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission
makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
11. Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC 2008-001
Request for Rezoning from 1-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit
Development\Industrial Park) and Development Plan Approval through the PUD
process of a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site
currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North.
12. Other Business
13. Adjournment
Application Filed on 1-17-08
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 3-17-08 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2008-001
Applicant: Real Estate Recycling (RER)
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Planned Unit Development Rezoning/Development Plan Approval - PUD/I-1
The applicant, jenny Hanson, for RER Acquisitions, LLC is seeking rezoning from I-2
(General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of the old
Howe Fertilizer site addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (to be readdressed to a yet to be
determined new address) and development plan approval through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial facility.
BACKGROUND
RER has a purchase agreement and intends to clear the site of the existing three buildings
and undertake an extensive soils clean-up operation due to the impact of agricultural
chemicals and petroleum associated with the prior use of this site. The site was formerly
the home of Howe, Inc. which operated as a manufacturing and distribution facility for
custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from
prior to 1940. A gas station also operated on a portion of the site from approximately
1945 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at Howe, Inc. ceased in 1994,
while use of the site for distribution of agricultural chemicals was continued. Demolition of
the old metal buildings housing much of the operation occurred around 2001 leaving
primarily buildings built following a 1979 fire on the property. Use of the site has been
sporadic since the removal of the old buildings.
There is a lot of history between Howe Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center dealing with the
fertilizer manufacturing operation and the rebuilding and use of the site following the
above mentioned fire in 1979.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for RER to form the basis of a
comprehensive site corrective action plan dealing with the site soil and ground water
clean-up that must be addressed in order for the commercial/industrial redevelopment of
the property to occur. Such action will have to be accomplished in accordance with
Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulations relating to agricultural chemical clean-up
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for clean-up also. RER plans to
undertake the required clean-up and will coordinate this with the Department of
Agriculture VIC (Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up) and PCA VIC.
Once such a clean-up plan is approved, RER plans to build the 51,000 sq. ft.
office/industrial/warehouse facility mentioned above. It should be noted that RER has
2-14-08
Page 1
undertaken a number of these clean-up and redevelopment projects, most notably the
clean-up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located northwest of Hwy 100 and
France Avenue in Brooklyn Center and also the Minneapolis Business Center located on
49th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard in Minneapolis. They are seeking the
PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/ Industrial Park) rezoning to accomplish the above
industrial redevelopment. The site is currently zoned I-2 (General Industry) which allows a
number of more intense permitted industrial uses than are allowed in the 1-1 (Industrial
Park) zoning district such as the manufacturing of textile mill products; coating, engraving
and allied services; wholesale trade of motor vehicles; truck terminals; and outside storage
of materials, work in process and inventory. The 1-1 zone also allows a number of
commercial/service office uses not associated with accessory industrial uses which can be
considered more compatible with the neighboring residential uses in this area. One point
that should be stressed and should be acknowledged as a condition if this PUD is approved,
is that "adult uses" which are permitted in the I-1 zone would not be allowed in this
Planned Unit Development in deference to the residential neighborhood. The I-1 zone is
the only zone in the city where adult uses are allowed, but such uses at this location would
not be appropriate.
The applicant is also seeking the PUD designation to be allowed modifications to the 100 ft.
and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property at
a property line and at a street line respectively. Such abutment exists to the west and north
of this site. They propose to reduce the buffer along a portion of the west side of the site to
50 ft. to provide a drive lane accessible from the back of the building to 49th Avenue North
and a reduced buffer on the north side to 25 ft. also for a drive lane accessing vehicle
parking on the north and east sides of the proposed building. They propose to offset these
encroachments with screening, landscaping and berming as will be shown when reviewing
the development plans. All vehicle parking and building locations will meet setback .
requirements. These modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site
with a layout having a front facade that faces the higher traffic volume on Brooklyn
Boulevard and ties into the Minneapolis Business Center east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to
create a dock area and driving lane that they believe is effectively screened from the
residences allowing proper circulation around the site. No other modification to the
industrial district standards and uses are proposed.
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. Rules and regulations governing that
district (in this case, I-1) 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/or 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
encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer area where the property abuts R-1 land at a
2-14-08
Page 2
property line and street line respectively.
Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide the buffer and setback for
buildings and parking in these areas for the needed drive lanes and access to the site and
provide heavily landscaped, bermed and screened areas to mitigate these encroachments.
The proposed screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle traffic in
a manner that they hope will ensure neighboring residences will not be disturbed. There is
precedent for allowing drive lane encroachments into required buffer areas in the case of
commercial redevelopment at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard which was undertaken a few
years ago. In that case, a maintenance free fence and heavy landscaping were provided to
offset or mitigate the closer proximity of driving lanes to the residential property backing
up to the development.
The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, which addressed 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 rezoning 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:
a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
The applicant comments that polluted soils are currently uncapped,
representing a significant risk to human health and the environment. The
blighted buildings at the site are currently vacant bringing zero jobs and
minimal tax base to the site. Redevelopment, they note, will remove the
pollution, clean up the blighted site and bring jobs and tax base to the
neighborhood.
2-14-08
Page 3
It is the staffs 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 is also consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the
community and the other needs of adjoining properties. The use of the
Planned Unit Development process makes it possible to attempt to balance
the needs of the developer and the community. Addressing the clean-up of
polluted soils that can pose a risk to health and the environment is an
obvious public benefit as is eliminating blighted buildings and creating jobs
on a site that is vastly underutilized. The proposal addresses the public
needs and benefits in a way that makes it possible for the developer to do so
in an economically feasible manner. The proposal they have is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan which is basically silent as to the future
development of this site or this area of the city. The property is currently
zoned industrial and an industrial use is the anticipated long range use of this
property as well as the abutting rail road property to the south and
southwest of the site. Previous Comprehensive Plans and zoning ordinances
addressed the phase out and the non-conforming use aspects of the
manufacturing of chemical fertilizer on this site. It seems that the proposal
clearly addresses a public need or benefit.
b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding
land use classifications?
The applicant notes that the proposed PUD will be comprised of a less
intensive I-1 zoning classification rather than the current I-2 zoning
designation. This use, they note, is consistent with uses across Brooklyn
Boulevard at the Minneapolis Business Center and they believe it is also
compatible with surrounding residential uses.
We would comment that the proposal is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications from the standpoint that the proposed I-
1 underlying zone is less intensive than the existing zoning and the use can
co-exist with abutting properties provided appropriate screening is
maintained and other requirements of the district are maintained as well.
We have commented about the inappropriateness of introducing adult uses
which are allowed in the I-1 district. There is precedent in PUD's to exclude
certain uses permitted by the underlying zoning that are determined to be
inappropriate. This would be the case with adult uses and it is recommended
that such uses be specifically excluded if the proposal is adopted. The
applicant's proposal certainly is consistent with the uses east of Brooklyn
Boulevard in the Minneapolis Business Center which, coincidentally, have
been developed by the applicant.
2-14-08
Page 4
C. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated
for development of the subject property?
The applicant comments that the proposed zoning district will result in a less
intensive use at the site. They point out that office/warehouse use is
consistent with surrounding uses and will provide additional jobs and tax
base to the neighborhood. They believe the addition of an attractive new
building will clean up the blighted site and remove pollution.
We would concur with the applicant's comments that the proposed I-1
underlying zone is a less intensive use for the site. Of note should be that
outside storage of inventory, work in process or other materials would not be
allowed in this PUD but could be allowed as permitted uses provided they are
screened under the existing I-2 zone. The less intense nature of the
industrial uses and commercial uses allowed in the underlying I-1 zone are
seen as a good down zoning and use of the property. We have already
commented on prohibiting adult uses as part of this PUD and such action is
not without precedent in other Planned Unit Development Rezonings.
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in
this area since the subject property was zoned?
The applicants note that on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard zoning
classifications continue to be a mix of R-1 and I-2. They note, however, the
recent development of the Minneapolis Business Center on the east side of
Brooklyn Boulevard has resulted in rezoning from I-2 to I-1. They believe
their proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of the Minneapolis
Business Center resulting in a less intensive use and zoning change from I-2
to I-1.
The down zoning of this property to an underlying PUD zone of I-1 can be
considered an appropriate change. If screening can be appropriately
provided to the residential areas, the intended use of this property for
industrial purposes is an allowable use. Making the site consistent with the
development to the east can be considered a positive for the City.
e. In the case of City initiated rezoning 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.
2-14-08
Page 5
f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning district?
The applicant notes that the proposal is for a Planned Unit Development with
an underlying I-1 zoning classification. They point out that the development
will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD.
We believe that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the
development restrictions of 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
residences to the west and this site as well as buffer and screening from the
residents to the north. The proposed I-1 use seems to provide an
appropriate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this
area. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable
relationship between these two areas.
g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the
present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography
or location?
The applicant again notes that the present zoning is I-2 which allows for
heavy industrial uses. They note that given the redevelopment of the
Minneapolis Business Center on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard and
the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I-2 permitted uses are
unsuited for this area.
We would concur with the applicant's comments with respect to this
guideline. The development plans in general seem to provide a good layout
and site plan for this area. Some of the allowable I-2 uses may be
inappropriate for this area given the relatively close proximity to residential
uses. Residential and industrial uses can co-exist given proper screening and
development considerations. Some of the uses allowed in the I-2 zone such
as outside storage, could be considered unsuited for this use because of the
abutting residential. The proposed PUD/I-1 rezoning addresses many of
these concerns.
h. 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?
2-14-08
Page 6
The applicant indicates that the redevelopment will not expand a zoning
district but will upgrade the current I-2 to I-1. This rezoning will result in
higher quality jobs and increase in tax base and a less intensive use of the
site.
In general we would concur with these comments and note that the proposal
does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the
developer and should lead to a redevelopment that should be considered
consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. As mentioned
previously, the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for
this area and can be considered in the best interests of the community noting
particularly the clean-up of a polluted site and a relatively clean
development.
i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner
or owners of an individual parcel?
The applicant points out that polluted soils currently pose a risk to human
health and environment. The site in its current condition is blighted and
underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. They point out the
redevelopment will remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution and
add high quality jobs and tax base to the site which results in merit beyond
the interests of only the current owner.
We also believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular
interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that can be
consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal would
provide a quality development that is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the
community.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL,
As mentioned previously, his proposal is for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse
building on the 5.03 acre site that formerly house Howe, Inc. a manufacturing and
distribution site for fertilizer and agriculture chemicals. The applicant's proposal is to clear
the site of the existing buildings, clean it to acceptable standards of the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to
commencing building of the facility. The site in question is located at the southwest
quadrant of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and is bounded on the west by
abutting R-1 zoned property, on the north by 49th Avenue with R-1 zoned property on the
opposite site of the street; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the City of Minneapolis
with recent new industrial development on the opposite side of the street; on the south and
southwest by I-2 zoned property owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Their plan is to build
what they characterize as a modern and attractive building with significant landscaping
2-14-08
Page 7
and screening for the residential neighborhood. The architecture will be similar to that of
the Minneapolis Business Center, located to the east. The site would have access to 49th
Avenue and the building primarily face Brooklyn Boulevard, which in this location is an
overpass over the Soo Line Railroad leading into the City of Minneapolis. A small portion of
this site is located in the City of Minneapolis and is primarily slope and landscape from
Brooklyn Boulevard or Osseo Road as it is known in Minneapolis. Contact has been made
with the City of Minneapolis and written communication has indicated that they consider
the City of Brooklyn Center as the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment
project and no approvals from the City of Minneapolis will be necessary.
ACCESS/BUILDING SETBACKS /PARKING
Access to the site will be from 49th Avenue North. The existing access to the site, which is
considered to be too close to the intersection of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard
(approximately 75 ft.) will be removed. This access is currently about 90 ft. in width at the
property line/right of way line and about 40 ft. in width at its narrowest point. This access
will be replaced with two accesses, the easterly one serving the north end of the building
and the east side of the building and be used primarily for passenger vehicle access to the
parking lots. This access will be approximately 180 ft. from the intersection of 49th and
Brooklyn Boulevard and will be 24 ft. in width serving two way traffic. The westerly access
will be 30 ft. in width and be approximately 290 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard/49th
Avenue intersection and will serve as access primarily for trucks going to the loading area
on the west side of the building.
The building itself exceeds all setback requirements from property lines and from
residentially zoned property. It is approximately 82 ft. from the 49th Avenue right of way
line and 90 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way line at the closest points. The
building will be over 180 ft. from the residential property to the west at the closest point
(currently the existing north building on the site is 140 ft. from the residential property to
the west). It is the location of the driving lanes that encroach on the 100 ft. buffer from the
west and the 50 ft. buffer on the north side of the property that the applicant is seeking
modifications from the standards through this PUD proposal.
The off-street parking requirement for this 51,000 sq. ft. building based on a 20 percent
office/80 percent industrial occupancy is 102 parking spaces. These 102 parking spaces
are provided on the north and east side of the building primarily and 13 spaces along the
west side out of the 100 ft. buffer area. (Parking requirement is one space for every 200 sq.
ft. of gross floor area of office and one space for every 800 sq. ft. gross floor area industrial.)
The applicant has also shown the ability to provide up to 150 parking spaces on the site
which would allow up to 45 percent office, 55 percent industrial occupancy. This is
accomplished by providing up to 48 additional spaces on the west side in areas which
would not be needed for loading/unloading area with an increased office occupancy. The
east and west parking areas will be connected by a 12 ft. single drive lane on the south side
of the building. It should be noted that no vehicle parking spaces will encroach on the 100
ft. and 50 ft. buffer areas, only driving lanes.
2-14-08
Page 8
GRADING /DRAINAGE /UTILITIES
The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage and utility plans which are being
reviewed by the Director of Public Work's/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his 2/11/08
memorandum relating to this application. His written comments are offered for the
Planning Commission's consideration.
The utility plans call for the water main to be connected to water in 49th Avenue North and
looped around the building with a 4 in. domestic service and 8 in. sprinkler service being
provided. Sanitary sewer will be tied into existing sewer in 49th Avenue North. The
applicant proposes to provide a dry storm water drainage pond on the west side of the site
adjacent to the residentially zoned property. Much of this ponding area is in the buffer area
required along the abutting property line. Drainage calculations have been provided to the
City Engineer for analysis and this site will be required to receive approval from the Shingle
Creek Water Management Commission. It appears that 4.46 acres of this 5.03 acre site
drains into the new storm water pond before being discharged into the storm sewer
system.
B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas and is indicated on
the plan. Berming is proposed in the green strip along 49th Avenue North to provide
additional screening from the residences on the north side of 49th. A 30 inch high retaining
wall will be located on the building side of that green strip. Berming is also provided
between the access drives and a retaining wall is also in this area.
No erosion control plan has been submitted but erosion control measures will have to be
installed prior to starting grading operations in accordance with best management
practices. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on this site can be
undertaken.
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
site is 5.03 acres in area and requires 332 landscape points. They propose to meet the
point requirement by saving some of the existing landscaping and providing additional
landscaping. Their plan indicates that they will provide 30 shade trees (Imperial Honey
Locust, Swamp White Oak and Noble Weeping Willow), 19 coniferous trees (Black Hills
Spruce), 21 decorative trees (River Birch, Amur Maple), and 254 shrubs (Isanti Dogwood,
Dwarf Winged Euonymus, Allegheny Service Berry, Glossy Black Chokeberry, Nanny Berry
Viburnum, Arctic Willow, AW Spirea, Arcadia Juniper, Taunton Spreading Yew, Daylilies,
Maynight Saldia and Feather Reed Grass).
The Swamp White Oak will be located along the green strip between the east access and
Brooklyn Boulevard, by the ponding area and at the southwest corner of the building. The
2-14-08
Page 9
Imperial Honey Locust will be in the green strip areas along Brooklyn Boulevard and in a
planting area in the front (ease side) of the building. The two willows will be to the west of
the retention pond. The Black Hills Spruce will be located primarily on the berm area
between the two drive lanes for screening purposes and adjacent to the residential lot to
the west and at the north end of the dry pond. Twelve Amur Maple decorative trees are
located in four groups along the front of the building, while the River Birch are planned for
the south side of the building and to the north of the dry storm water pond. Shrubs are
used for foundation plantings and in planting beds along the Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th
Avenue green strips and also around the dry storm pond. An existing 8 ft. high screen fence
located along a part of the west property line with abutting residential property will
continue. A new 8 ft. high cedar fence is proposed to extend from this fence to the drive
lane then northerly along the drive lane to the north property line. Care should be taken at
this entrance to assure proper visibility when accessing the street. The plan also calls for a
10 ft. high screen wall extending out from the building to screen the loading area. This
should be a concrete wall matching the building exterior. The existing fence should be
repaired/replaced as necessary. It is suggested that a maintenance free material rather
than the cedar, be considered for the screen fence. The applicant has also provided cross
sectional elevations indicating the bermitig, landscaping, and screening to be provided in
areas encroaching into the normally required buffer. This seems to offset or mitigate this
encroachment nicely.
Underground irrigation is 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. As indicated
previously, the design will be similar to the Minneapolis Business Center buildings located
to the east of Brooklyn Boulevard. A natural color palette and punched out entry elements
will be utilized. The exterior will be primarily smooth and raked finish concrete panels
with built up synthetic stucco cornice and painted metal canopies. Anodized aluminum and
glass entry doors will be provided as well. Tinted insulated glass will also be utilized. As
indicated previously, a screen wall is to be provided for the loading area on the north side
of the building. It is recommended that this be a masonry finish comparable to the exterior
of the building.
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, reflector or shades so as to concentrate illumination on
the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles
measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot
candles proposed indicates that the 3 foot candle limitation is not exceeded along the
property lines. Building mounted lights are proposed on all four sides of the building and a
ground mounted flood light for the sign is indicated at the northeast corner of the sites.
2-14-08
Page 10
Care should be taken to shield the wall mounted lights so that no glare emanates from the
property. 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 indicated above. No trash enclosure area has been indicated
on the plan and we assume that all trash will be stored inside the building for pick up.
PROCEDURE
As the Commission is aware, 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 17, 2008. Due to zoning
requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted 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 17, 2008. 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 former Neighborhood Advisory Group
meetings. The Neighborhood Advisory Groups because of lack of interest and also the time
frame set out in State Statute have been discontinued. It should be noted that the
applicant was encouraged to contact neighboring property owners and a list of notified
property owners was provided prior to the public hearing. It is our understanding that
contact had been made and we have encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors,
particularly with respect to the screening proposals. -
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn 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.
2-14-08
Page 11
Q1
OA
12
i
I
1
I
I
R5:
/
ii
•
i~
R3
1
W~
A _„~wr!
G2
l~
LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1
oil
Ir 431!
Ott,
P All.
AST
Plhi
AGO
h ry f @
.
ANA
AVE.+v~ f, ~°b ~F~' ~ , ~ ` ~ _
now 4
s
http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=bc_LOGISMap_OV&ClientVersio... 1/28/2008
Real Estate Recycling
Former Howe Fertilizer Site
Redevelopment Narrative
Rezoning Evaluation and Review
Background:
The former Howe Fertilizer Site has historically operated as a manufacturing and
distributing facility for custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides,
fungicides and herbicides. A gas station also operated at the Site from 1945-1970.
Historical activities have resulted in soils impacted with agricultural chemicals and
petroleum. Currently, the Site contains three vacant blighted buildings that have fallen
into disrepair. Site soils are predominantly uncapped, representing a risk to human health
and the environment.
Development Plan:
Real Estate Recycling ("RER") proposes to construct an attractive 50,000 square foot
state-of-the-art Office/Warehouse facility at the Site. The building architecture and
design will mimic that of the new Minneapolis Business Center, located to the east. A
natural color palette and punched out entry elements will create a modern and attractive
facade, and significant landscaping will compliment the building and provide screening
for the neighboring residential. Current plans anticipate possible LEED certification, with
green elements including a white roof to decrease the heat island effect, high glass to
enhance natural light in the building, incorporation of native plant species in the
landscaping, a stormwater retention pond, and the use of recycled and local materials in
the construction.
PUD Proposal:
The proposed plan requests the creation of a PUD with an underlying I-1 zoning
classification (the site is currently zoned I-2). This use will be less-intensive than the
previous heavy-industrial uses, and will provide significant increase in tax base and jobs
to the area. RER requests the creation of a PUD to achieve variances from the 100 foot
setback on the West side of the Site, and the 50 foot setback on the North side of the Site.
On the west side of the Site, a variance from the 100 foot required setback to a 50 foot
setback is requested to separate the residential from a drive lane. The 50 foot setback
will be heavily landscaped to achieve opaque screening, and will include a stormwater
retention pond that incorporates native plant species. The next 50 feet will be used as a
drive aisle only. Parking will remain setback at 100 feet. This West Variance will allow
the construction of 125 foot truck dock, which is vital to the marketability of the building.
On the north side of the site, a variance from the 50 foot required setback to a 25 foot
setback is requested to separate the residential from a drive lane. Screening will be
effectively addressed through the use of landscaping and berming. Locust trees planted
along 40 avenue will also help integrate the building with the neighboring Minneapolis
Business Center. The North Variance will allow parking stalls on this side of the
building, vital to hit market minimums and ordinance requirements for parking.
RER will incorporate heavy landscaping, ponding and berming to mitigate the proposed
encroachments for the West and North Variances described above. The dock areas will
be screened from the neighboring residences with attractive opaque landscaping and
berming. This screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle
traffic, ensuring that neighboring residences will not be disturbed. All proposed parking
will be within the current setback requirements.
In addition to screening, RER will mitigate any truck traffic associated with the
redevelopment. The monument sign on the northeast corner of the Site will direct truck
traffic to the building. Additional signage will be installed at the northwest entrance to
identify the residential neighborhoods on 48th street and prohibit truck traffic in the area.
Any other site plan results in (1) a building significantly smaller, making the project not
economically feasible; and/or (2) dock areas facing the residential to the north or Osseo
Road to the east.
The current proposed building size and layout accomplishes an attractive front fagade that
faces the higher traffic counts on Osseo Road, the front door to Brooklyn Center. This
plan ties into the Minneapolis Business Center to the east, creates a dock area effectively
screened from residential, and includes building floorplate depth that is supported by the
market.
Jurisdictional Issues:
A very small portion of the Site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis.
Brooklyn Center staff has requested that RER request a maintenance easement or
declaration that will ensure that this portion of the Site is maintained. RER is currently
working with the staff at the City of Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center to secure a letter
and/or agreement that will ensure this portion of the Site is maintained.
Rezoning Guidelines:
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
Polluted soils are currently uncapped, representing a significant risk to
human health and the environment. The blighted buildings at the site are
currently vacant, bringing 0 jobs and minimal tax base to the Site.
Redevelopment will remove the pollution, clean-up the blighted site, and
bring jobs and tax base to the neighborhood.
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use
classifications?
The proposed PUD will be comprised of a less intensive 1-1 zoning
classification, rather than the current I-2 designation. This use is consistent
with the uses across Osseo Road at the Minneapolis Business Center, and is
also compatible with surrounding residential uses.
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
The proposed zoning district will result in a less-intensive use at the site
(down zoning from I-2 to I-1). The office/warehouse use is consistent
with surrounding uses, and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the
neighborhood. The addition of an attractive new building will clean up
the blighted site and remove the pollution.
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area
since the subject property was zoned?
On the west side of Osseo Road, zoning classifications continue to be a
mix of R-1 and I-2. However, the recent development of the Minneapolis
Business Center on the east side of Osseo Road has resulted in rezoning
from I-2 to I-1. The proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of
the Minneapolis Business Center, resulting in a less intensive use and
zoning change from I-2 to I-1.
E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose
evident?
Not applicable.
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the
proposed zoning districts?
A PUD is proposed with an underlying I-1 zoning classification. The
development will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD.
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning
district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The present zoning district is I-2, which allows for heavy industrial uses.
Given the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center across the
street and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I-2 permitted
uses are unsuited for this area.
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1)
Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning
district; or 3) The best interests of the community?
The redevelopment will not expand a zoning district, but will upgrade the
current I-2 classification to I-1. This rezoning will result in higher quality
jobs, an increase in tax base, and less intensive uses at the site.
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners
of an individual parcel?
The polluted soils currently pose a risk to human health and the
environment. In addition, the site in its current condition is blighted and
underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. Redevelopment will
remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution, and add high quality
jobs and tax base to the Site, results which demonstrate merit beyond the
interests of the current owner.
City of Brooklyn Center
Section 35-208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed
changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-
167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policv
It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning", defined
as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not
relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy
and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by
the City.
4. Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use
classifications?
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of
the subject property?
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the
subject property was zoned?
E. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the
proposed zoning districts?
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district,
with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1)
Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district;
or, 3) The best interests of the community?
1. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an
individual parcel?
2) Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic
fields.
3) Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
Section 35-355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land
development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally
sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design.
Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts: Permitted Uses: Annlicable Reeulations,
a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters
"PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning
district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new
classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever
reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the
various parts of the PUD.
When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning
classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to
"PUD-MIXED."
b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those
governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following:
1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the
Council at the time of rezoning to PUD.
2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary
to comply with the development plan of the PUD.
3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD-MIXED, the Council shall
specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts
of the district.
City of Brooklyn Center - 35-47 City Ordinance
C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on
land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the
zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD
districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the
case of a district zoned PUD-N XED, the underlying zoning classification
shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any
use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most
restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties.
Subdivision 3. Development Standards.
a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included
within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing
rights-of-way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following
conditions exists:
1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the
surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will
conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the
neighborhood or community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right-of-way
from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new
PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that
previously approved development; or
3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land
uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be
consistent with Section 35-400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots
within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire
PUD does not exceed the permitted standards.
C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with
Section 35-400 to 35-414 and Section 35-700 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard
should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other
mitigative measures.
City of Brooklyn Center 35-48 City Ordinance
d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking
requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard
should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking
demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a
restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which
will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved
by the City.
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on
each platted lot within a PUD.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be
permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and
objectives of this section.
C. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plam
d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or
control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as maybe necessary
to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan.
e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for
streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision maybe
subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them.
The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities
and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications
or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the
interests of the residents or of the City, except that these subdivisions and
plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal storm
water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements.
Subdivision S. Application and Review.
a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The
development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after
evaluation by the Planning Commission.
Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of
Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information
and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall
include at a minimum the following:
City of Brooklyn Center 35-49 City Ordinance
1. Street and utility locations and sizes;
2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control
provisions;
4. A landscape plan;
5. A lighting plan;
6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the
development;
8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas;
9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings
to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and
10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications.
Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently
complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City.
b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development
plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official
newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent
property owners as required by Section 35-210 of this ordinance. The
Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such
recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time
limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance.
C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the
City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the
matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the
time limits established by Section 35-210 of this ordinance.
Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to
PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the
guidelines provided in Section 35-208 of this ordinance, the City Council
shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria:
City of Brooklyn Center 35-50 City Ordinance
1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of
this section;
2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be
located; and
4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation,
parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces,
and buffering and landscaping.
The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may
determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD
district.
d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan
approval pursuant to Section 35-230 of this ordinance. In addition to the
information specifically required by Section 35-230, the developer shall
submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the
City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the
approved development plan.
The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35-230 shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial
compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in
essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling
units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor
area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than
5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space
has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot
coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by
more than 10 percent.
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a
development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
£ Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval
required by Section 35-230 by submitting all information required for both
simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by
Section 35-230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building
permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans.
City of Brooklyn Center 35-51 City Ordinance
h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the
development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12
months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced
on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate
rezoning of the property.
i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City
Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this
section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change
greater than that permitted by Subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which
are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by
the Planning Commission- after such notice and hearing as maybe deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission.
City of Brooklyn Center 35-52 City Ordinance
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 2008
TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works 107
SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan Review
Planning Commission Applications 2008-001
Minneapolis Business Center II
Public Works Department staff reviewed the following preliminary documents submitted for
review under Planning Commission Application 2008-001 for the proposed office/warehouse
development located at the intersection of 49th Avenue and Brooklyn Blvd (CSAH 152):
• Sheet C LO Site Survey, dated January 17, 2008
• Sheet C1.1 Existing Site Conditions, dated November 15, 2007
• Sheet C1.2 Preliminary Grading Plan, dated January 17, 2008
• Sheet C2.1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, dated January 17, 2008
• Sheet C3.1 Storm Sewer Plan, dated January 17, 2008
• Sheet C3.3 Drainage Design, dated January 17, 2008
Public Works staff recommends that the City Council include the following conditions of approval
for Minneapolis Business Center II.
1. Site Plan
A. Land described as Parcel 2 within the proposed development site is located outside of the
boundaries of Brooklyn Center. This parcel is located within the City of Minneapolis. The
applicant shall coordinate proposed development plans within Parcel 2 with the appropriate
divisions at the City of Minneapolis.
B. The site plan indicates removal of the existing site entrance and construction of two separate
driveway entrances onto 49th Avenue North. Although the proposed access points will route
site traffic further into the residential neighborhood, the layout will generally produce an
improved configuration for the intersection at 49`h Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The
applicant shall provide estimated traffic and truck counts for the site prior to final approval of
the site plans.
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434 Page 1 of 4
FAX (763) 569-3494
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
C. The applicant shall coordinate any work proposed within the right-of-way of Brooklyn
Boulevard (CSAH 152) with Hennepin County.
D. If necessary, the applicant shall relocate the existing street light and base located at the
proposed westerly site entrance at the applicant's expense in accordance with City design
standards.
E. Parking spaces shall be dimensioned in accordance with City Ordinance Section 35-702
describing minimum dimensions for surface parking.
2. Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Utility Service
A. Domestic and fire services shall have separate exterior gate valves or PIVs to allow isolation
of individual water service lines. Amend water and sewer plan accordingly.
B. New gate valves shall be installed on both water service lines at the northerly property
boundary. Amend water and sewer plan accordingly.
C. Applicant shall obtain a street cut permit prior to installing water main within the right-of-
way of 49th Avenue North.
D. The water service connection to the existing water main within 49th Avenue shall be subject
to review and approval by the Supervisor of Public Utilities. The applicant shall discuss the
water service connection requirements with staff and amend the plans accordingly prior to
approval of the final construction plans.
E. Prior to demolition of the existing structure, water and sewer services shall be disconnected
from the water distribution and wastewater collection systems in accordance with the City of
Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Disconnects.
F. All water main and sanitary sewer utility extensions and relocations shall meet City of
Brooklyn Center design standards. The location and method of connection to the existing
water and sanitary sewer mains shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and
Supervisor of Public Utilities.
G. Proposed hydrant locations are subject to approval by the City Fire Chief and Building
Official.
H. The applicant shall pay City and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer connection charges
and City water connection charges.
I. The Applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans and private utility
relocations with Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications and other private
utility companies.
Page 2 of 4
J. The property owner shall enter into a standard agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center
for maintenance and inspection of private water main, sanitary sewer and storm drainage
systems located within the property boundary. This standard agreement authorizes the City
to perform repairs to the above stated infrastructure in the event that the land owner fails to
adequately maintain these private systems.
3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
A. Site plans shall be revised to show the boundaries of the existing drainage easement located
within the southeasterly portion of the property, Easement Document No. 5722931.
B. The property owner shall dedicate the following easements to allow for maintenance of
existing and proposed infrastructure within the site boundaries. Said easements shall be
recorded with Hennepin County prior to issuance of a building permit for the site.
■ A public drainage and utility easement (15-feet wide) along the southern perimeter of
Lot 1, Block 1, Howe Inc. 2°d Addition
■ A public drainage and utility easement over the perimeter of the proposed storm
water pond
■ A public drainage, utility and sidewalk easement located at the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of 49th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard (approx. 200 sq-ft)
C. The grading plan shall be revised to show the emergency overflow route for the proposed
storm water pond. The emergency overflow route shall have a maximum elevation of 857.
D. The applicant shall provide further engineering details regarding the flap gate and connection
manholes proposed along the storm pond outlet. These details shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer. Sheet C3.3 shall be amended to show the correct pipe sizes
connecting to the control structure.
E. Driveway entrance construction shall include installation of concrete driveway aprons and
replacement of existing storm sewer catch basin castings as necessary. Amend plans
accordingly.
F. All soil and materials removed from the site shall be disposed of outside the limits of
Brooklyn Center and in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements.
G. The proposed retaining wall shall not exceed 30-inches in total height without further review
and approval by the City Building Official.
H. Grading limits shall remain within the property boundary unless formal arrangements have
been made with adjacent property owners.
Page 3 of 4
I. An Erosion Control plan shall be incorporated into the site plans prior to final plan approval
and submittal to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. The erosion
control plan shall indicate that measures shall be installed prior to starting site grading
operations and that the owner/developer shall be responsible for the prompt removal of all
dirt and mud tracked onto public streets from the site during construction. The plan shall also
specify seed mix types and include seeding with emergent plant species around the perimeter
of the pond.
J. An NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site.
K. The applicant must obtain approval of a Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Control
Plan from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to initiating site
construction. The applicant shall submit the application materials to the City. The City will
forward the application to the Watershed Commission.
The above comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of
this review. Subsequent approval of the final site plans may require additional modifications based
on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage,
sanitary sewer, final grading and geometric design as established by the City Engineer and other
public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans.
Page 4 of 4
I
Minneapolis
City of Lakes
Community Planning &
Economic Development
Planning Division
350 South 5th Street - Room 210
Minneapolis MN 55415-1385
Office 612 673-2597
Fax 612 673.2728
TTY 612 673-2157
January 18, 2008
Ron Warren
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Redevelopment of the former Howe Fertilizer Facility
4823 '/z Osseo Road, Minneapolis
Dear Mr. Warren:
/ t
This letter is in regards to the property located at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota (Parcel 1, 4.86 Acres, PID #10-118-21-41-0020) and 4823 %z Osseo
Road, Minneapolis MN (Parcel 2, 0.2 Acres, PID # 11-118-21-32-0002). As you know,
Real Estate Recycling has proposed to redevelop the property with a new 50,000 square
foot office/warehouse facility. You have requested confirmation from the City of
Minneapolis that the City of Brooklyn Center is the responsible governmental unit for
this redevelopment project.
We understand that the building and parking will be located completely on Parcel #1,
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Brooklyn Center. Parcel #2 will not be
redeveloped, and will remain as greenspace. Both Parcels #1 and #2 will be maintained
by Real Estate Recycling. Per our understanding of this redevelopment, we confirm that
the City of Brooklyn Center is the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment
project, and no approvals from the City of Minneapolis will be necessary.
Sincerel ,
Hilary Dvorak, nior Planner
City of Minneapolis
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Affirmative Action Employer
1
LLS
it
~r
c
r
a
w Mar
aiM i
IMr~
i 1~~1'~~A
a
E~EIVED
ow
s
MAO
BI-11+ vv=•
i
ov OF wo Lv%ci~, V
r
n
z
C} y~^a}
Hill
~ 11 E<
III ti
r
f ~ r
i c ~ R• 1
f-1
E ~
~C
- f f J \a
f
i
I
S
8 1
f ~
I
1 jl
i
m
n
G
rn
a
o
f
fit
r p;
gun# . 1i i
~ u
i .
i
i
~Ef ~
f 11 T ~If
R ~ { ~f s
- ~ J
Q
r
c
b
b fr
Ads
t
i 1
w
~ R
jut
t I"
1 141F# 1
a
..G
MO
m
visill
®
10'`
q OR
«
s
ee~lwar
s ~ SOPUL
w.,c d>f~~eM~
eeee m NOW @*Mks
Ler wws~ ~
Leree~ ..wr. w
14,
49th ave. North Y..
_ a' _ Mrs I w
12' _ Y Mwns'srw~ ~r I +
~ a ~A+ rr I w
..A
i
L
Ww M
Ww
lrrw
o_wr
w
IVf7/O
~r•
LerL
L de
RECEIVED
; ; 0 1' C-
CITY 0 BROOKLYN CENTER
ww wwr.w
~:r.',z R~tcy IinR
.Y.M.e.
OiiRfR N
r.
A1.fl
r
I
0
0
CL
jI
m f
a p rr~~~! ~ iii1
A tt
Na
- 000
909
J
4
i~9if~i~~~li~
t
, •
~
~
~ s
1
L ~
H1
How-
t
-
rit • tt!!
T
; ■
o
4
~,r ~t emYB"'~
~'~ortFw°
. 49~ Ave. y
1 s •
4r
_,,....~...,~.._--.,,,~,s.._ u~ .asp- ~Y ' ST i c ~
Y
t r
~}1
~ ~ ~ s ~ ^ n 4,~,~~•y, - ASS d~ _ }.T~^.
'w> sir, by "'11."
rt.
t :,v
s1+1o
of-W
tau
g~Fsw: ~:y`Iu91 - .
RECENEt -
I
•rda~es.a ~ san. rte.
w a~as~r ,ia7.=6ei ,2
it. r.=ffi.: B
r- Rey=ti"_
lam' ~ qA~. __e_
• •~e9~r~ ~T a-ef2a1
g t _
R .4TH y ` _ {I 'yy .r. ,rte i t' .
y.. ,
Y T~
a F'
h i ~1~1~ .i ! 1 _ t ~ ~ l,.i e~ 5-T~ ~ M1 . ~1&:~ e_
a r 71
.d1 js
f
} p i
Y RZ. +ru b * ' A
- `fir waaw s;r.n ,.s.•
an+rrr.~
Asa
.NAM -r.-
Win
Lr
raw
rum
r.."
ECEIVED w our
■r
t~
CITY OF-BROOKLYN CENTER - C21l
I
t;
a c-saa rsy Z
(iIM Pff it 6iq: l-M H "
.ep"
f tom' - '
t
>r y sa ~ r•i x -4.,..___-ms`s ~ ~r..
as ~o t y ~ ,o'
'I.¢
:tj ~ ~._7lrlek~ 5
c "u
r
i
F A
ILI,
_ 4.
a ,
v
1
r+~
f .
4
alp=
f a
r
4
%.+rw&
*rnr
A~
way ~
Wow -I--
r-fir
I~ as
L
raw
fuu
•w-60,
fps
•IM-rr
~rrw- t
O
tra Fa■n Ry Hab
racer
UNNRIP"
pM~
GSI~11
,JAIN I ~ X00,3
'CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
mm
l,
c6 l,
I
L
n '
fir..
P!M-dXt-59, it r
It::' =bSJ d 37
OFM N i s lrvi rrr•
_ RIM-882.58. f
12M-2d06a \ , ~ E IfIV B52A w Irix:-95x5` 8;1.]-
~a`,
3~'
~ o ~j~~,-1 p- . - n..ac~. t - - . as rwr ra r a w•i
` 7 L .SSii - SyC\~ ~ 1{.q,, yP. 1 - xY.-M~)'~1YY 11Y Y Y Y
cu°wu•~xu'tr I ar. 'I ~'`w {"1~ 3 * _ ~'ar"1 d ~t ~aS ~ - ~ ~ ilf RU,,~ y ~ A
I
gaarr
w
. , d° - _ ; ~ ;fie..
xe
1 14-
m
2k A4,
-um
YYr,1a pYA N'+ Yi
t•9• s Y s
i
srv. ~a.:,: h
OWN
r' y
:
r
1
0040.00
t _
O
Px,`.' ..:a" - - a `•+r:..rf. Red
kstitC R[ty[li
~ -t., i
RECEIVED
w
.,9A-' rwa r
l1rC OIIMMOg
OdOlfpllr
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER C3.~
t4-11~'i ;
4 ~ dap ~8
-,w- -A41 _
41.
I J- tl; L"Tf~.T
.w situ[ wo R1at
a x nsssal a s wsu ~ x sssra -
w s. ri. u u a.
.i..s w r~ ru
M i W MC MIIIi MIMIC
sro. u _ 'rarl._p ra. ssa1
17
w 's. rn •w'- ay1y=Ar~i yy..
t ~r
f{)jf~,y t-:yy~.s,.ti r. xy ay7c 1
y a
n 7s, eA ~
X
r'
,yg _ _ i .y'ri y
F-
- `Yr i .If
aarr+~
~rraia
r~
W-T
s.
MIaM I~lr rt
rrr r r
~'r~s► r x
RAW gS~"
`W
.~r
•rY~
0
RECEIVED NOW"
r•
CITY Of BROOKLYN CENTEE C3.31
Mil sow
_ 'Lam... L
isir teu aMar MYM[ W -Cq. M am 1
YM~.Yw:v F u.~iM yAai,w
..,.....>..p.:.F
.T- •MVI.Y...fs
f.exx.. v~w
n. wx.. w ~»...,a•av
• s ..w.
YL.r.rre W i
w.rrwrarer,.W.
vrlxMwwM fLS~S• vr••Ni~i Y~H.Y. •ir
x.wwv.rYwrrwW'
.ilur. ••.e.. nT.u......u.'
n. r S y`H
r~ x.arrsx
M
. M.ytrx.ww.~.•W: -
~w
A
M.M'brxr.Yr+i W
_ ~ x~ •t1i.• pii .xx I~[s.
x w xx :iiiwa.n.. r: ra,ly f
x Yw.yMw
r.e~
RECEIVED
4. l
JAN I ~Q :
U
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
OPUL
pn+ttr~r~
~ttwsra
s~
N
rsam
ww
L
a ems
(teal Lame Rccyrli
suom
w r
I' C3.41
Y ^
r m..n u ii~T°'Yra'~°w•-w ~'rir w
MY1 YU.,.r.aN,Y1n w•• i~.T3~iA
N..r.labr:
Y.`..,:
ialNNw~..-.
v-vu~~Ia •«ib. sweb neuv
:::lei:": w°«..rx~e•~rwg~~>
aNVN...M.r...\w/.b, 11..1 Y.101
« . "4. Uri - i.w,..
tw~i~6lPOi s..
rf.IY~~riivi.~ is 1.~ •!x ~.wt
•vi ~ys ax.. Y•313pL.n.
nwwk•m u...1'bip~ Vii:-rti4~ !Y ~•I
-vmu...wu ww.®.f r+ v...
••r isolf Y~av`.w...w.r..w
~.1lYYY~ Y•.v w.vw-.M
:.?a. ~•br.Y... ww. r..n..ria....
w.`.':.'7'.:...°:S: gib.
.1WOWY1 `y .~W Vtl 1vaW-K„•nWI.O'
ryeVr:a
RECEIVED
CITY Or BROOKLYN u~W + ER
OR IL
I now-
i~
M~ 11~M1~~11
l'OGc
• 40M
Lmxvk:=
IE~-~®
W+M~fQLs
OAAOI I
r
Cam"
QALO"lR1Al!
IG.e~ C3.5;
R~we
e milli HIM
~i f
rF::Fi~~~it~F~•;ssr~~
ttttttAj I13 t t
i~
w
w
i
-6
0
m
C
m
IN" A
IN
L
ar ~ -
fi
Igo
\7D
1 ~~r
q~ww~
r
" " as m
~r•
L_J"~ .}Iqs
wry
ra..
r~
jFx~yr?irk
■
1
9EG
+ r
ANOWWWAL
suftm
IBEX
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
I__ Al.31
•rrww~
memo -
L
0
0
0
0
Q
0
o
a
1
5,
q+ [ w-
q' ~ e
rr l ~n
i f-~
rt• l ~w
aR
a~- ,
w• Wit- ~
u
,I i . . . v
lG
y
~ ~ i,wa.~erwrvNwnwtw
c
t
Y
RL
fy°~
a cruse
LTMI
WHO
lamxv6bmg
• ■.w."
.w~www
GP~ frets s_
ji•,2tie ~~sNnR
RECEIVED M
mamptm
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. I-- A2.1
& c
1 lr~PA9
i
t
E
o-
t
w
cc
LU
w
w
_ Y
a
:i
a~
t
s
J
K
d
0
n
W
O
C>
r"
r'rt
m
S
Orr fii`-!
i r c e r t ff
~crrcrararrrcrjiiiiZiifi•
arrerrrrrrararrrcar99 !
rrrerrcarrr-rrrc_rrerrrr~ j
+rrrr•artst"rrcararrrurrrc4
rrrrerrrrrrerrrrrra.rrrr~
car rrracrrrarrrrcratrra
~ rrr',rrerararrrrrrrrrerirrato
+ e_rr'rrererarrarrerrrar~rrr~ f
r~ r i~■ r■ rt-c--r-s-us Y r r c ~ i
arrtrrrrraarrrrrrrrrriTT7T'r
rr~srerrererrrrsrrrrrrettrrrrrr
+ !that{r xrr rerrrrtrrrrrrererarrerrrr
`11►tYa ~~yy■■,, t;Ix tcrtrratrarrerrrarrerara
+I 4 r 4v it' t: ~r r+t is r if r r a r r r r r r t r a r c r r r r r r r
httr!t'rtart`rrtratri.r;iTt;.rrs rrrrr f
; S. t l a Y t,3 r r r~ F. x t t r t"r E t[ ;'t r r t, t'r r t t. <f t IRVIA - :r'f r IF f `
r-#rrrsrcrr:rt[#rrrr</Y,trtc."trrricYrr'actt.. i
4-" t.lt r't rs~t p a asItr ty:.
~r'
F t6 to ci. tittr:T t3'7"cT7 -t; i-( cI as ft tt't f~ a-„trft
t.cicrr.i:.toars.lrrrvtretrt#-rr,c rt terror
I r,+r,,{trrrY'r4t-C.a'cc-C.C CYtcr:r:c Cifi't„t rt.r'axr,.t Ftj.6fY
It ri errtri°r to trls.rrt;rr to r[pi' r. r at R'r t<'"f rr rrrr
(a #rtfrt'ttrr-.t FJ r`t`(a7taX,tY rt#•.[rt' fa''r CCCLifi
t. c iY r T t r.,s t' l 1, t t{ I [ r;Y .a f; a 'a: t Y c i ;'•r a r i'r,Z' f a IF C c 1
t
rr'[.[, rttY,-rr' Y [-t, a if rC ffc c a- rrrof
-T °tiv s-s- # 3 xY cu t r t.i k r r r r~ l
+rr rafrr t
f rc' tc(rc►i ~'t
r+'r~ --r-: r r t
rrr r e
~ i~Trrr
c a air r r
~r7r e~rrr
r , _c_s r c,
c _a_e c rj ~r
~r r
a r c 't
t r t i i ~ ir r
F s [ ! e r[ C r r of L. r f f r r c[ f -rr r r-a r~ ?r t ~t
r F ~ crrcrrarrrjc
l r irrr;. r
l a ■ eIe+ r t~r r T e K t r', r1 t+ d r e. r.
r
r`s~s_rrc'cr,r!i
t rr`r-dirt r rr ra cc Crc cc c c c c c cc cTc cc cr~.tt
}r {rrirrt ererrrrrrerrrrr,r r',dd-~~rr~
~jr ~kJc_~L~c e r t d 1 t te'f.
r~ rrerrr t!t ;t ~rIrlal1:411"
rrrtrefrrerfarrrrrre
r err 41
~TTi iT~a r a r r r r e r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r_rj r iTT
trrrarrerrrrrre[rrrrr[r-11
r a r r r f r r a t a r r a r c r a r
i'rrrrrrerrrrrre
f. rrrrtecr -cTT'~ ~i
ti r r c _~-~YT^f tit
. FOI
m ie
0 i
m
m
v
I a
of I I Fit
--Fad
11-1 ]fill on
1f 1
_ 1 1 i
Member Roche . introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-001 SUBMITTED BY
REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real
Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1
(Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of
49'hAvenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and currently addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue
North; and
WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the, above mentioned
property and development plan approval for a 51,00 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility
on that lot; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on
February 14, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and
development plan were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development
request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in
Section 35-208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development
ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and the City' s
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2008-001
submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC. be approved based upon the following
considerations:
1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and
intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land
in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of
comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on
surrounding land.
3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development
Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with
ordinance standards except for allowing drive lane encroachments into the 100 ft,
and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R-1 zoned property at a
property line and a street line respectively. These modifications from the I-1
standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate
redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors
contained in the approved site plan.
4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the
recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of
the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the
community.
6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for
evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35-208 of the City' s Zoning
Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the
community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the
City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2008-001 be
approved subject to the following conditions and considerations:
The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official
with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to
be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to- the issuance of
building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements.
4. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
6. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to
meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
2
7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site
maintenance,
8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for
maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected
from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the
demolition of existing buildings on the site.
12. Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City
Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications.
13. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform
to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details.
14. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as
approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction
site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to
disturbing the site.
15. Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by
the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of
permits.
16. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1 underlying
zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development
site. This site, however, may not be used as an " adult establishment" as
indicated in Section 35-330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically
prohibited within this Planned Unit Development.
17. The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building
permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall
acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as
well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall farther assure
compliance with the development plans submitted with this application.
18. The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the
City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the
City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with
this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2nd Addition so that it shall
not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be
filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for
this project.
19. The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate
hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health
or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture
and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of
building permits.
2-14-08
Date Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Lund and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall,Leino , Lund, Roche and Young.
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4