HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 09-16 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - May 27, 2010
4. 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.
5. Update on the Redevelopment of the former Howe Fertilizer Site, 4821 Xerxes Ave N.
• Status of the Environmental Clean -Up Grant Programs.
• Future consideration of a major plan amendment relating to the expansion of the
building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.
6. Discussion with the owners of 6530 James Avenue North, a 127,600 sq. ft. industrial
building, regarding a business use involving outside storage.
7. Discussion regarding an amendment to the I -1 PUD for the Palmer Lake Plaza that would
accomplish the following:
• Identifications of portions of the building that would be eligible for
commercial /service and institutional special uses.
• Including group and drop in day care as a special use for this I -1 PUD.
8. Review of the Planned Unit Development provisions and process of the Zoning
Ordinance.
9. Other Business
• Map of Community Development Projects
10. Adjournment
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Gary Eitel, Planning Commission Secretary
Date: September 14, 2010
Subject: Discussion Items for September 16, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting
Item No. 5 Update on the Redevelopment of the former Howe Fertilizer Site, 4821
Xerxes Avenue North.
• Status of the Environmental Clean -Up Grant Programs.
The City has been informed that Real Estate Recycling has been provided
direction from the Department of Agriculture that will enable the preparation of a
Development Response Action Plan that will meet the requirements of the
Department of Agriculture and allow Real Estate Recycling to participate in the
Spring 2011 applications for DEED'S and Met Council's Environmental Clean -Up
Grant Programs.
Note: Earlier this year, Real Estate Recycling received approval of their MPCA
Development Response Plan and were successful in obtaining a $600,000
environmental clean -up grant from Hennepin County and $50,000 from the
Metropolitan Council for reimbursement for a portion of their investigation costs.
• Future consideration of a major plan amendment relating to the expansion of the
building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.
On February 25, 2008, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission's
recommendations and approval of the Real Estate Recycling Application to
rezone 5.03 acres from I -2 industrial District to I -1/PUD and granted site plan
approval for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial facility with the following
modifications to the I -1 development standards:
1. The 100 ft. setback from a R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoning district was reduced to 50
ft.
2. The 50 ft. front yard setback for parking and access driveway (across the
street from residential) was reduced to 25, ft.
Attached for your reference is a copy of the 2008 Planning Commission report and copy of the
February 14, 2008 Planning Commission minutes.
Real Estate Recycling has submitted the attached site plan which illustrates the expansion of
their industrial building form 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.
9 -16 -10
Page 1
The increase in building size reflects the market interest in this site and was accomplished by the
following adjustments to the approved PUD plans:
- The building was shifted to the east.
- A portion of the rear dock/loading area was revised.
- A minor infringement in the 50 ft. buffer area for the access drive.
The increased building size exceeds the five percent PUD threshold for change and requires that
the revised plan is processed as a major amendment to this I -1 PUD.
A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in October. This
update is for informational purposes, no action is required at this time.
Item No. 6 Discussion with owners of 6530 James Avenue North, a 127,600 sq. ft.
industrial building, regarding business use involving outside storage.
k r n T James Avenue North
Bac ou d . he City's records identify the property at 6530 ,
formerly
Y Y r r Y
Gopher Motor building, as having two parcels /property ID's:
PID — 315- 119 -21 -14 -0003 is a 6.42 acre I -1 industrial parcel with a 127,053 sq. ft. building.
PID — 35- 119 -21 -14 -0002 is a 1.19 acre 1 -1 industrial parcel with a secured parking area.
The I -1 Industrial District includes as a permitted accessory use the storage of raw material, work
in process and inventory, provided such storage is within a completely enclosed building.
The only reference to outside storage within the I -1 district is found within the Special Uses,
Para (h), "Other non - commercial uses required for the public welfare as determined by the
Council including outside storage of materials when screened from public view by an opaque
wall. (i.e. public works or the former NSP yard)
The I -2 Industrial District does allow storage of materials as an accessory use, provided that
when the use abuts or is adjacent to any residential zone such storage shall be within a
completely enclosed building or effectively screened by a solid wall or fence, including a solid
entrance and exit gate not less than six feet in height, no more than eight feet in height.
Attached for your reference is a copy of the permitted and special uses allowed in the I -1
District.
Request: The owners of this industrial site, Dennis Janisewski and Lyle Ness, are requesting the
opportunity to discuss possible options that would allow World Transload and Logistics to
relocate from their current New Hope site to Brooklyn Center.
Tom Ronnkvist, owner of World Transload and Logistics and Tube Technology, which is
currently a tenant at 6530 James Avenue will be available to discuss his business operation
9 -16 -10
Page 2
which currently uses outside storage at their New Hope location for the 30 foot long pipes before
they are moved inside for processing (cutting and machining) and assembled for shipping.
The property owners request has been put into the attached booklet with photographs to assist in
the Commission's understanding of the building and product being requested to be stored
outside. Staff will visit the current operation in New Hope prior to the meeting and continues to
investigate options and opportunities for this business to meet the city's standards.
Item 7 Discussion regarding an amendment to the I -1 PUD for the Palmer Lake
Plaza
Background: The Palmer Lake Plaza was constructed in 1978 as a mixed use multi- tenant
facility consisting of approximately 139,000 sq. ft. including the following:
52,000 sq. ft. office area
39,000 sq. ft. warehouse area
48,000 sq. ft. service center area
The project was initially developed with a main parking area consisting of 281 stalls on the west
side of the lot and 50 parking stalls on the east side.
In 1986, an amendment to the site plan was approved which replaced the front row of parking
stalls on the west side of the building with a landscaped berm to screen the service area of the
west side of the building. The plan reduced the parking to 307 improved stalls and involved a
restrictive covenant on the proof of parking plan.
In 2003, the property was rezoned from I -1 to I -1 PUD as part of the development plan for a
43,761 sq. ft. Holiday Station store Commissary.
In 2007, the City Council approved a code amendment allowed the Brooklyn Center Area
Learning Center to proceed with their plans to locate within the Palmer Lake Plaza service
center.
In 2010, a special use permit was issued to Alleluia Sanctuary Church to locate within a
warehouse /suite within the office - service center.
The purpose of this discussion item is two -fold:
1. To recognize that approximately 95% of the service center is occupied by educational
and institutional uses that are special uses within the I -1 District.
2. To discuss the option of expanding the I -1 PUD for this property to include group day
care and drop in day care as a special use within the office - service center of this
building.
Note: At the present time, the special uses within the I -1 District do not include day care
9 -16 -10
Page 3
operations. A discussion with the City Attorney on the potential rezoning of this property to a
mixed use PUD (C- 1 1I -1) to address the building uses for this office - service center, resulted in
the suggestion that the PUD provisions be modified vs. a mixed use PUD approach.
The building owner and the Brooklyn Center Area Learning Center are seeking direction on
proceeding with an application to expand the Brooklyn Center Area Learning educational special
use to include a day care facility which is primarily for their students, employees and the
immediate business area.
Item 8 Review of the Planned Unit Development provisions and process of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In preparation for the redevelopment activities that will occur within the Central Commerce Area
and future development opportunities throughout the community, I would like to review the PUD
provisions of the city ordinances and increase our understanding on how this zoning tool can
most effectively be used to maximize development/redevelopment opportunities and achieve
both the goals of the developer and the City.
For this meeting, I will be providing a brief overview of the ordinance and identify the various
zoning districts /areas currently designated as PUD's. At our next meeting, I plan to expand our
understanding of this zoning tool, how it has been used within the City and the flexibility it
provides the City.
At our first meeting in October, I would like to have the City Attorney present to discuss with
you the PUD agreements that are a part of each PUD approval.
Note: a quick review indicates that the City has processed 33 PUD applications since 1993, the
largest PUD being Brookdale and the smallest being 57` Avenue SA site.
9 -16 -10
Page 4
LOGISMap Output Page O A W N*l & of 1
l '
.. . . .. o ---
))
.....I `� ...E .... i ...
i.
_. ...�. ...{ I...,. t mm
t i
( .. .....
p 52 ND AVE N
i
E _
._. ......
OAK aT
�i
f E
........
1
1i � f
.a'
C � ---- ° --- r — i E ... 51 ST AVE F(. 51 STAVE N�,.,
FI ST AVE N'
�_ - _P^ ...... .....� E _. _�. _ ! .....F _ Happy HullowPark
% 1
❑ i r....�,___..� .. ..
15 E
L7� ;C7 i' �•'..,� c?,
bOTW AVE N ....._ }E .. ...... I - ...._� E.. -. ... � ..
�-- ---- -� 501 AVE N ' ~ 4
.......... 1r _ .....................
4
y 4
.. 1 �.
4� m _ w
.� 4 - i
d, F
..,..� t. ...
�....� d9TH AVE N E
p
f
f
f � E
i
i f
.._.. .. O G Q .
,1 r
}
... - -- - --- '
r - ..._.....,� .... ASTH AVE N
n m ,
m m �b
F .........
3
�au.E..•er.>•ea;z -'�1 ,[„c�#�r�r.r,. €a�s3% z 4 rTH AVE
N 627Th
http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_logismap_ovsde &ClientV ersio... 9/14/2010
SITE DATA
Inn'NG. OPUS®
„I
NTE AAA
Opus Architects 8
E,— NIEA: %r. Engineers, Inc.
NMG REWIREUErvTS.
��hw sWr
wn: ..wpwne vv. rtx a°ss ao.A �w r
- . u.wa [F". a IAU sr. mere n rus "mmo - ' w erw nr- "wM a�ivi�a
PMNMC REWRED.
49th iuuu °W - — -
Ave. North
emR rrmx �ro
R
PROPOSED
-- DU EgnG SDRK uENTS.
LANES APE
SUFFER ° (PR BUFFER O RE ING
rmrtT is
j
(PROPOSED NO vlltl(NG RESiR Ci ON) — _ -- - - -
.,rPti -V R SIGNU��
N` m u ew
x 10 0" SCREENING w-L _______ __ _ __ _ _Z SPEC
- -_ FF SiREE pARNG REWIRE EMS: -
NEW 6' L ip rs
P As
CEDAR FENCE I ___ __ O UL RE RE ENiS N3Un NG REAOD1nN.
IN
H�HG wu+
�_-- -._ - -_ NauP�AO rnwr�aw.nur�M wr...- iwi -].s erun
ROPOSEO PEEN i I I I - C w A 'ww� ry +r�.p tl
SCAPE FFER a
e.n
CHAPTER 3: USE I OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
NON - SEPARATED USES Wwwe (uNnr mx_11
PROPOSED GREEN ] - _
VNDSCAPE BUFFER 1 5 ) r- _ -_.__ _ - - -_ —_ s u5£ GRpW cw
ESCAPE BUFFER ENCROACNNENT
ExISTING PENCE � I � --- � - - - -- - -
i
To p I i _
]1
i 26 me sn arwrw xv.Wao. [ue+ a aauwm ae oncR
__ DRIVE -I CHAPTER 6: CONSTRUCTION TYPESIREQUIREMENTS
f -- - - - -
_ -_ .DOORS N \� ---- '_ - - -_ i _ I \ \ \\ SECTIOR rrPF REOURENEMS (tA&E 6 -F) W E.CE. N 01 /1] /W "NNG /WD SIBMRK
00 /2] /10 RDASEU PUO SURNnTK
I � I ew[ w .us E�irt»n
4 I - gp�io-sx G�� mtv� Is
J HA NC IxDlarES '�
HAW 91 —NODS
P vENENi i�
Pond s
— i i N]Z nm
_
E LGS]AS
i ° \ G.NwN%NS
ROW SINN
9 Ow SETBxIXe10' °�NAWKM
DR NE -IN
\ C,` Is DOORS
�' -�-- � � � -'- � / l1 NE•al rsruuiRe�7 =�uEV�
MINNEAPOLIS
BUSINESS
CENTERII
\ ,
wtOaxtrx CE
uNF
P. \, - -------- --
-- -- -- ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
� SITE PLAN
SIDE rM •'O _° � A 1.1
RuIErnNC SETDACN
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 nd redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located northwest of Hwy 100 and
p p 1 Y Y
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 I -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 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 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 ro osed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding
P P g P g
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
Pg g
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 49 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 /49
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
GRAD ING /DRAINAGEJUTILITIES
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 berming, 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
.y
INN
�.. �•� 1 l - -� .''S JET ' 1 :. ?Vy� �� „�,I'�. 1 V I M il- `1
fit
vagg
um
Mal
i
- 11 mom F m
HE v�
. ■ •- .. �■■ �. • "
WEI
NOUN •i
�f , -
i 1 -
n 1 '•
i
Q
as
ka
tnM
i F®suanur�ncM ° i� °• R h `
I.d.
LLt..�t.wk1i W14..wy4 t.•.F Y r...r.
rrt r.wY IIr.M
�'' 1 AFlfl]T • ti W r W tlYr. L M IMY ,�t�
��in '�' � i.Yira �«:e3• \ �.�.�STt�� "�.`if1Si. ' W--- �
•r �� a.� Y" b�.(.YYY 6 ti
.� wd -yf'.' Q.+ + ra �• { "' LY i:uri MAIMMM—VM
er
MF -2-017-RE
� �' r �` � . r rri w r.Yr.nr. a. r•.+Y r.r�rw r r
. �. e.rw�M+ '+� .�`. \ . . ° r ° J'rn�'"r. vSin"' wi.S.r r. w r o.r...nrw
6 '��`..:'$'.i. - bR32 — ice.`. ar.F w •w.�
w`.w�W'YirY "�a`wu`r:rwia w w u aa"` r `
�` WU
� _ �) 1 �\ s 3F.4GC741`aCt d:�t�L TGm
~+Y1.z �� ... ,`\ •`��s- S7L.^SZM.L r4m
&' M .�::�- :r.� ter.=: MALYR.S92
u0000
LM
A4,01 c
aorau�w�ee �� Py & � �uarw�n�m L S;wr
rrY rr.w wwwrr,..r� il° -�'F
�.�.�: s:7��e. + `` 5�r ST�` _ { �`'�. \ r.. � xwlariMeaum .�.•s �•.i
�....._. „•,:... wr..........L........._ -� a..r.... ruraatrerm.tP ��`:: ?.L^Z,
SR- lr" 7. r .`°`�r..'.7CSi.CLL"15..�""�'.." .. ..GS.S.:yr..`.`3"..""....�.w� " \t^*.v `" -^` ` ` �` �...rerw...a IJYOEIIiiVEY[1116 •4".T.'Sy'"w"..r..'
f: .....- .w...r_.e...«..�,...Y. CC.w*.� "•"ifi:7i:1Z.
U r
L�.: 1' 1L . «.rL.. +o Fo o w .o no �Mi.i w�w n:r-•r xcalluxe :iL�ra4.y
— - aCAtt M fFtT
fdt
RECEIVED aAllr�e
l
r�WtW IM
!h i �? .�1(f{ 8rtE BIAVEY
CITY OF BROOKLYN GENTF.P
WM aTA
i
NaY■Y. OPU
sn■R.« Y.11 m. Y lbMAl�OnYi i
I/lll. a.lwwn arw• �K.LR. fY1■. RO■ ��.�}}��� '
a.Wa KiaYp YK�- Y_ I
aaa� 1■/IOR iia
—y 49th Avg. )j,,th ^°MD ,......
www anw NZLMBE a�
12 W-V
CEMA F= { ' "•v �' YQ11611f W1 ■
i _ - � w wma la■pYers
! g'gK IMMOM AW M10a9f1R.
11 w
am FEE
FM
>a low,
1 i - Y. •` � � KUfi.a1R•WN ��B =rMR 4�R
j'� __✓ a%If 7 1, ` �Y
1 -~ - aw■ me YffiI.g. MK a-.0 /R/. Rp.■y1.
Pond
IWAS
m�
i a a KOg
4 111 ` an a7 M-lir caew
l
i •r
RECEIVED Y�
al � rtzanlau
CITY Of BROOKLYN CENTCER
g.orla aaavl
I
Mfr •'� 1 •
N \ • ��A�V���yO���
ME
MEL .y
N-II IF
nr w.s
O
- ���YElldl
err.
OPUL
p NA=VKD MUM
� rr
rr1CM =Vr+M
L W/B
AM
iO
rrr.� �r4
• ��. rrwl
mmr .
J
�1
�1[L 9M1IUI
aA
W sw YMWEAPOLI6
y
c r E „_e ! !Vit<All
��eay �aswartir
rra7
�\t n +'�iu MOHf gCTUML
J ! l.' 81iEPLAN
. C ITY OF BROOM YN GENTE A1.3
N
8 opus.
C.ARWAW.
BOOK ft
.. °.
30 IS 0 00 b - —
45.h Ave. `PJorth
:..�\ ✓�;
4
r'
r
i..
e.
I
P _ 1
'
1
I 1•
• - !'p4iq � t. �' ��'� ! _ rt' `mac
I
C .
1 YE CFs -.� W h.. L�
MUM
�I.
t W
JAN
ammm
O_RU MCiE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN C1.2
i
I
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
• OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Lund, Tim Roche, and Della
Young were present: Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission /Planning
and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary
Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Parks was absent and excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15.2007
There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Young,
to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2007 meeting as submitted. The motion
passed unanimously. Commissioner Lund abstained as she was not at the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Lund to adjourn
the 2007 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned
at 7:05 p.m.
ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE
Mr. Warren administered the Oath of Office to Rachel Lund, Timothy Roche and Kara
Kuykendall.
CALL TO ORDER: 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION
The 2008 Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Rahn at 7:06 p.m.
i
ROLL CALL 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION
j Acting Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Lund, Tim Roche, and
Della Young were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning
Commission /Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission
Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Parks was absent and excused.
i
ELECTION OF 2008 CHAIR AND CHAIR PRO TEM
Acting Chair Rahn opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Roche nominated
Commissioner Rahn as Chair of the 2008 Planning Commission. Acting Chair Rahn called
for further nominations three times. There being none, there was a motion by Commission
Page 1
2 -14 -08
• Roche, seconded by Commissioner Lund to close nominations and elect Commissioner
Rahn Chair of the 2008 Planning Commission.
Commissioner Roche nominated Commissioner Lund as Chair Pro Tern and Commissioner
Lund nominated. Commissioner. Roche. Chair Rahn called for further nominations three
times. There being none and following further discussion about the candidates, he called
for a vote. On a show of hands for the position of Chair Pro Tern, Commissioner Roche
received three votes and Commissioner Lund received two notes. Chair Rahn declared
Commissioner Roche Chair Pro Tern of the 2008 Planning Commission.
Commissioner Leino arrived at 7:09 p.m.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as 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.
APPLICATION NO. 2008-001- REAL ESTATE RECYCLING (RER) ACQUISITIONS LLC
Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2008 -001, a request from Real Estate Recycling
(RER) Acquisitions, LLC, for Rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD/1-1 (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. RER intends to clear the site of the three existing buildings and
conduct an extensive soils clean -up associated with the prior use of the site and then build
the proposed 51,000 sq. ft. building.
Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the
proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 2 -14 -08 for Application No.
i
2008 -001, attached and the Director of Public Works memo dated 2- 11 -08, attached.)
Chair Rahn asked for clarification on the required landscape points for the site. Mr. Warren
responded that the plan exceeds the required landscape points.
Commissioner Leino asked for clarification about the reference in the report to an adult use
being disallowed and what specific uses are reviewed under a PUD application. Mr. Warren
explained that adult uses which are allowed in the I -1 zone would not be allowed in this
location and he further explained how a PUD is described under the city's zoning
ordinance. Mr. Warren also stated that without the development of this site at this time,
the contaminated site, would not be cleaned up at this time. He pointed out that the
applicant specializes in the area of site clean -up and redevelopment.
Commissioner Lund asked about over flow of the detention pond and also if any traffic
counts had been done on the residential street. Mr. Warren responded that the Watershed
•
Page 2
2 -14 -08
• Commission would be reviewing plans for the detention pond on the site and the City
Engineer in his review of traffic issues has requested traffic and truck counts in his report.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION NO. 2008 -001
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2008 -001, at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Rahn called for comments from the public.
The applicant, Mr. Paul Hyde, of Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, 90 South 7th
Street, Minneapolis, introduced himself to the Commission and encouraged their questions.
Commissioner Young asked Mr. Hyde about possible leaching on the site. Mr. Hyde
responded that they have done some preliminary digging on the site and are waiting for
approval from the MPCA to progress further. He added that they have taken significant soil
and groundwater samples and have not yet seen any contaminates in the water but they
were evident in the soil.
Mr. Hyde further stated that during their site assessment they make sure all the
groundwater and soil are clean before they begin construction on the site.
Commissioner Young asked how the applicant will be getting the site LEED certified. Mr.
• Hyde responded that when they construct the building shell they do not meet certification
for LEED, however, that usually takes place after the tenant build out of the building.
Commissioner Young asked if the site was evaluated to determine if the development could
be done without the need for modifications requested under the PUD. Mr. Hyde responded
that they had reviewed that and the layout submitted is the most efficient use of the site
based on the size and shape of the land.
Commissioner Roche asked about the process involved with the development across the
street in Minneapolis. Mr. Hyde explained that the process involved with clean -up of a
contaminated site prior to the site being redeveloped involves three regulatory bodies
overseeing the clean -up of the site prior to groundbreaking; they are the MN Department of
Agriculture - AG VIC Program (ag chemicals), MN Pollution Control Agency - VIC Program
(hazardous substances), and the MN Pollution Control Agency - VPIC Program (petroleum).
Commissioner Lund asked how many new jobs might be created on this site. Mr. Hyde
stated that they would anticipate 50 -100 new jobs created. Commissioner Lund also asked
where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Hyde responded that they will be
located on the roof.
Mr. Robert Wirth, 4901 Zenith Avenue, stated that there is an underground creek along
49th Avenue North with monitoring stations due to chemicals going into the groundwater.
Mr. Hyde responded that he was aware of that and it will be addressed during clean -up.
Page 3
2 -14 -08
i
Mr. Tim McLaughlin, 3129 49 Avenue North, asked about the fence behind his house,
which has blown down several times. He stated that he had a survey and the fence doesn't
follow the property line. Mr. Warren indicated that from the survey provided by the
applicant the fence is on the old Howe property and if it is determined to be on Mr.
McLaughlin's property, it will be moved.
Mr. McLaughlin also stated that they are disappointed with the buffer being proposed
along his property line and asked about the allowance of a 60 ft. setback from their
property line when a 75 ft. setback is being proposed from Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mr. Warren explained the proposed Driveway location as being a safety matter in regards
to routing traffic away from Brooklyn Boulevard as cars enter and exit the site.
i
Paula Lanhart, 3135 49th Avenue, stated that the fence along her back property line is very
old and asked what the city's response would be if the existing fence came down? Mr.
Warren explained that the fence she referred to at the back of her property is owned by the
Soo Line Railroad and if it were to be destroyed, the city would contact them about their
responsibility to repair or replace it.
Mrs. Susan McLaughlin, 3129 49th Avenue, responded that they wanted it on the record
that they are not happy with the building layout on the site and the driveway in and out.
Commissioner Roche pointed out to the neighbors that the landscaping should be an
improvement to the site.
No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public
hearing on Application No. 2008 -001.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino seconded by Commissioner Roche, to close the
public hearing on Application No. 2008 -001, at 9:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The
Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application but did recommend
the addition of a 19 Condition regarding assurances for the site clean -up plan..
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -001
There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to
recommend to the City Council that it approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-
01 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application 2008 -001
submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC for Rezoning from I -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.
I Page 4
2 -14 -08
i
i
• Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Leino, Lund, Roche and
Young. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council will consider the application at its February 25, 2008 meeting. The applicant
must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning
Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for
reconsideration.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
•
Page 5
2 -14 -08
LOGISMap Output Page r o l
w
F I
HUMBOLDT RLN
71 7
1'
r
•.` _.. ..
1
� 67TH AVE N
s 5 t
,
f 1
f 67TH AVE N
PAR"AY OF ..
� f
•. � +
W
3 1
�y
i
:
ti - ....... t..... ... .. ...... .. ...........
T FREEWAY BLVD .... 65TH AVE N
k s
C
19 �
3 �
i
E J i
ltt
......W... � a �
> i
j ,
Central Park f
ct
%t �a�wrhzi msi A. Y. C <ay °3`T Y.>a6s^a 2X1.5 .,. . 43 dS: + +1s 2
http:// gis .logis.org /LOGIS_ArcIMS /ims ?S erviceName= bc_logismap_ovsde &ClientV ersio... 9/14/2010
LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1
>. n a - .. ii7TH AVE N.
pARiCtNAY GR -
3
q.. d
�R
2 {
K ,7
VI
'FREE'Y4AY -: f3LV0 85TH AVE N'
v
Mp� q
z
t „..
M "Central ParK..'
� „..,..,.. ..
http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_logismap_ovsde &ClientV ersio... 9/14/2010
3) Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 district land uses with
respect to activity levels. .
4) Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within
the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse
impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the
community.
5) Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger to
children served by the day care use.
Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special
requirements set forth in Section 35 -412.
Section 35 -330. 1 -1 INDUSTRIAL PARK.
1. Permitted Uses
a. The following manufacturing activities:
1) Food and kindred products as illustrated by:
Dairy products
Bakery products
Confectionery and related products
Beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled alcohol
Macaroni, spaghetti, and noodles
2) Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather, and
similar materials.
3) Lumber and wood products, except saw mills and planing mills
producing a dimensioned lumber.
4) Furniture and fixtures.
5) Converted paper and paperboard products (as opposed to paper and
paperboard manufacturing).
6) Printing and publishing and allied industries.
City of Brooklyn Center 35 -39 City Ordinance
7) Chemicals and allied products as follows:
Drugs
Soaps, detergents and cleaning preparations
Perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations
(compounding and packaging only)
8) Miscellaneous plastic products.
9) Fabricated metal products as illustrated by:
Office computing and accounting machines
Household appliances
Electrical lighting and wiring equipment
Communication equipment, including radio and television receiving
sets
Electronic components and accessories
Screw machine products
10) Professional, scientific, electronic and controlling instruments,
photographic and optical goods, watches and clocks.
11) Miscellaneous manufacturing such as jewelry and silverware, musical
instruments and parts, toys, amusement, sporting and athletic goods
and pens, pencils and other office and artistic material
12) Assembly of electric powered vehicles.
13) Adult establishments.
b. The following wholesale trade activities:
1) Automotive equipment
2) Drugs, chemicals and allied products
3) Dry goods and apparel
4) Groceries and related products
5) Electrical goods
6) Hardware, plumbing, heating equipment and supplies
7) Machinery, equipment and supplies
City of Brooklyn Center 35 -40 City Ordinance
8) Other wholesale trade similar in nature to the aforementioned uses
such as paper and paper products, furniture, and home furnishings,
and beer, wine and distilled alcoholic beverages, but expressly
excluding petroleum bulk stations and scrap and waste materials and
similar uses.
C. The following service activities:
1) Laundrying, dry cleaning and dyeing
2) Contract construction
3) Kennels
4) Veterinarian and animal hospitals
d. Public transportation terminals (excluding truck terminals).
e. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the
same property with the use to which it is accessory. Such accessory uses to
include without being restricted to the following:
1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2) Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
3) Storage of raw materials, work in process and inventory, provided
such storage is within completely enclosed buildings.
f. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the
City Council.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -413 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Foundries, provided that the foundry operation is a necessary incident to a
principal use permitted in the I -1 district.
b. Textile mills.
C. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled
on the use site.
City of Brooklyn Center 35-41 City Ordinance
i
d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal
use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
e. Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are
demonstrated to the City Council to be:
1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those
uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
2) Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses
permitted in the I -1 district generally.
3) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
4) Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within
the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse
impact upon the industrial park or the community.
and, which are described in Section 35 -322, Subsection 1 d, a (subparts 1 -6),
f, (subparts 2 and 3), g through j; 3 m and 3 p. Such commercial
developments shall be subject to I -1 district requirements of Section 35-400
and 35 -413 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of
the use classification which the proposed development represents.
g. Warehousing and storage uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated
to the City Council to be:
1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those
uses permitted in the I -1 district generally.
2) Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
provided such uses shall adhere to applicable requirements in the I -1 district
and shall not involve maintenance or servicing of vehicles on the site..
h. Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare as determined by
the Council, including accessory outside storage of materials when screened
from public view by an opaque wall.
City of Brooklyn Center 35 -42 City Ordinance
.r+ -A
LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1
7
,
..y
P3ltperLakePark � -
'm
P
SIR t ;
T� y
'T RE
7 Y
�� t ... ry I 1 rn F .. � B � M fJIfM '• 7 C~ \. , � Shingie•. b 4k 7rali
ua omavmes�p,s.cro�
,lC)LCGMM$23Ds • ` / 7 . r ate, 1
http: / /gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArCIMS /ims?ServiceName =bc LOGISMap_OV &ClientVersiO... 1/13/2010
N�
em pD �O
pD pT
\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \�
z (o r oo < ry oo
Co m A OD D :fl
rn n o >O on NO \ \ \\
z Nn Z O D
�n �n
O zm �m
O -1Z
4 D ti
I-
z 3
zm
m�
m
-M
m
1
c v c
000 00000
V J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(
l �" oou�
oco �000n�
.1) ocoo
10000�caor
00000�coc
0000( Ad el
)0000 000( Uut1
000 0
t r o tc o C AN -
N t
zy
z A
m
D
-1
O
m
m
N
O
Z
Z dF
m
O
PALMER LAKE PLAZA
B BUILDING LAYOUT
COMPANRTH
`
A
6860 Shingle Creek Parkway 'IP
6H60 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY , BROOKLYN CTR, MN
SCALE: AS SHOWN ON DRAWING
SOite Awry
Br_kty0 Center, MN 55431
1 �
Ul--6
TI a € 3 PALMER LAKE PLAZA
—� 6850 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY. B 87 BROOKLYN CENTER. MN tag
D
- pp
REVISED: 8/18/056
�0 �ss�AB
T+41
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; Applicable Regulations.
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 - MIXED, 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 Plan.
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 may be 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 5. 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
I . 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 Conunission 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
Plamzing 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
I . 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
detennine 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
infonnation 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 constriction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a
development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
f. 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.
Ciry 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 maj or 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