Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 05-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 11, 2000 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 2000 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 conce rned in these hearings, g , the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Charles and Vivian Cloutier 2000 -005 • Request to uncombine, or resubdivide, two of three underlying lots and a Variance to allow a subdivision of land by metes and bounds description at 5318 62nd Avenue North. 6. Erick and Susan Bates 2000 -006 Request for a Special Use Permit for a home occupation involving the use of equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling at 6413 Noble Avenue North. 7. Melvin Raile 2000 -007 Request for a Variance from the minimum district requirements in Section 35-400 to locate a two family dwelling on the property at 5411 Bryant Avenue North. 8. Clark Engineering Corporation (for Hennepin County) 2000 -008 Request to Rezone from R -7 (Multiple Family Residence - Six or More Stories) to C- lA (Service /Office - No Height Limit) a 3.352 acre parcel of land south of and adjacent to the Hennepin County Regional Service Center. j • 9. Clark Engineering Corporation (for Hennepin County) 2000 -009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval to combine two parcels of land into a single parcel to accommodate the expansion of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center. 10. Clark Engineering Corporation (for Hennepin County) 2000 -010 Request for Site and Building Plan approval for the remodeling and expansion of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center, 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. 11. Other Business 12. Adjournment • • Application Filed on 4 -20 -00 City Council Should Be Taken By 6 -19 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -005 Applicant: Charles and Vivian Cloutier Location: 5318 62nd Avenue North Request: Resubdivision and Variance The applicants, Charles and Vivian Cloutier, are seeking approval to uncombine, or resubdivide, two of three underlying lots and a variance to allow a subdivision of land by metes and bounds description rather than by a formal plat at 5318 62nd Avenue North. The purpose of this action is to re- establish underlying lots in order to create two lots which can be sold and used separately. The property in question is zoned R -1 (One Family Residence) and is located on the north side of 62nd Avenue, easterly of Unity Avenue. The lot is currently 175 ft. wide by approximately • 135.3 ft. deep. The legal description is Lot 8, Block 2, and Outlot 4, Bergstrom's Lynside Manor, 3rd Addition, and Outlot 3, Lynn -Lee Addition. Lot 8 is 75 ft. by 135.3 ft. or 10,147.5 sq. ft. in area; Outlot 4 is 45 ft. by 135.29 ft. or 6,088.05 sq. ft. in area; and Outlot 3 is 30 ft. by 135.26 ft. or 4,057.8 sq. ft. in area. The Cloutiers originally acquired Lot 8 (the most easterly of the three lots) and a house was built on it in 1959. In 1960 a garage was built. Later the Cloutiers acquired the two adjacent outlots and the three lots were combined for tax purposes in the early 60's. The process of combining parcels for tax purposes is an administrative procedure that combines lots without the benefit of replatting. Once done, the City considers the lots to be a single lot for building purposes as well as tax purposes. The underlying legal descriptions still exist and are used to describe the parcel. The lots, once combined for tax purposes, cannot be sold or conveyed separately without being uncombined or resubdivided which requires City approval. Because the lots are considered a single lot, the City requires the requesters to provide a survey to show that the re- established lots have no property line encroachments or setback deficiencies before the City will allow the lots to be uncombined. In this case, the applicants propose to leave the two outlots combined so that they can be sold as a separate buildable parcel (75 ft. by 135.27 ft.) and also sell the easterly lot containing the house and garage. • 5 -11 -00 Page 1 If the lots are uncombined and the underlying lot lines re- established, the survey provided shows that the garage on Lot 8 would have a setback of less than 3 ft. from the re- established property line. A 3 ft. setback is the minimum distance for an accessory building from an interior lot line. A portion of the garage overhang would encroach over the lot line. We would not recommend approving re- establishing the underlying property lines through a resubdivision unless these encroachments are corrected. The applicants' options are the following: 1. Move the garage so that a proper building setback is met from the re- established property line. 2. Replat the three lots into two new parcels meeting minimum lot width and area requirements and having a configuration such that no setback deficiencies or property line encroachments would exist. 3. Seek a variance from the platting requirements that would allow a metes and bounds division of land that would leave resulting lots meeting the minimum lot width and area requirements and having no setback deficiencies or property line encroachments. The applicants have chosen to pursue option number 3 as they have a closing date of June 15, . 2000, scheduled to convey the lot with the house and garage to a prospective buyer. They believe the garage relocation is unreasonable and the platting process is burdensome and needlessly expensive. The requested variance to allow a metes and bounds division of land is very similar to one granted earlier this year to Jay Scheffler and Mr. and Mrs. Smietana (Planning Commission Application No. 2000 -002) which allowed the relocation of the common property line between two properties. The applicants' surveyor has shown a division that would transfer a 5 ft. by 38 ft. (190 sq. ft. in area) portion of land at the northeast corner of Outlot 4 to Lot 8. The resulting parcels would be: Parcel A with a lot' width of 75 ft. and lot area of 9,955.25 sq. ft. and Parcel B with a lot width of 75 ft. and a lot area of 10,337.5 sq. ft. All existing buildings would have proper setbacks and no property line encroachments would exist. The applicants believe their proposal is a reasonable way of dealing with this situation which is also consistent with past actions on the part of the City. The granting of the variance would relieve them of the burdensome time and expense of going through the entire formal platting process. The granting of the variance, they believe, will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to any other property in the area. They are aware that the City has granted similar variance requests in the past. 5 -11 -00 Page 2 4 6 • Under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, divisions of land are to be performed by a plat or registered land survey unless the City Council, by variance, allows otherwise. Section 15 -112 of the Subdivision Ordinance authorizes the City Council to grant variances from their regulations when, in their opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In making its findings, the City Council must take into consideration the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance, the City Council must find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his/her land. 2 That the variance is necessary r the reservation and enjoyment of a substantial �'Y p property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. As pointed out previously, it is the applicants' contention that to require the formal platting process for this division is overly expensive, burdensome and unnecessary in that no new legal • lots are being created with the division of land and that there is substantial precedent for granting similar variances. The staff would concur and we do believe the standards for variance in this case can be met. Also, there is much precedent for the granting of metes and bounds division variances in cases such as this. Such variances were quite common prior to 1978. Since that time, at least seven such divisions have been approved through the variance process by the City Council. The variances that have been granted typically site the right of the property owner to divide his/her property and the hardship of bearing full platting costs to divide the property by plat. Also, the division of land by metes and bounds have been allowed provided that: 1. No new buildable lots are created; 2. The underlying land is platted property; and 3. No lot or setback variances are implied and that all lot area requirements can be met. The first action recommended would be to authorize the uncombining or resubdivision of the land to re- establish the underlying property lines and then to grant a variance to convey a portion of the re- established outlots to Lot 8. The proposed new legal description, for Parcel B would be Lot 8, Block 2, and the north 38 ft. of the east 5 ft. of Outlot 4, Bergstrom's Lynside Manor, 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The new proposed legal description of Parcel A would be Outlot 4 except the north 38 ft. of the east 5 ft. thereof, Bergstrom's Lynside Manor, 3rd Addition, and all of Outlot 3 of Lynn -Lee Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • 5 -11 -00 Page 3 In our opinion, the proposed metes and bounds description variance requested by the applicants appears to meet both the variance standards contained in Section 15 -112 of the City Ordinances and also the City's policy regarding the division of land by metes and bounds description. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the uncombining and re- establishing of the underlying property descriptions are 5318 62nd Avenue North and rant a variance to allow a Y gP Pe rt3' g subdivision by metes and bounds descriptions on the basis that the standards for variance and the City's policy regarding such divisions are met. Approval of this application is subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The legal descriptions and survey showing the re- establishment of the underlying parcels and the division of land shall be filed with Hennepin County. 2. The City Assessor is authorized to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County and to acknowledge the newly established legal descriptions. 5 -11 -00 Page 4 �, 111►► 1��'�' .■r - � ■_ NO t mm mm mm mm ■■ ■■■ ■� �.. ,� • =■ ■■m �w �■■ ■ mm mm /1/111 � Mitt /ttr 1�lilt .IJIIIIIIi� _ ■ i /iiiii ■i1111 /IIIii�/ Tx FS- also ■����t► �� = ; liiiiii IIi1i ■�� /� ■ ■� ■ ■����� ■tt/1 ' . C iiiiiii� 111111111 ■'� ■ " ■/ ■ /lIt all 111f� 111: C �� ;� ■�■ �� C : :W ■ ■ ■,■ ■�■� ■■� ■■� r - - �� ■�■ �■■ ■ lop ■■ ■t■ ■ OEM no ■ ■ 1111/ /.�.► .az ■,. , ■ ■. ; .. C . will ZOP C■ =moo S 89'59'57" E -- 150.00 -- I h 69.87 -/ – 80.13 -- Fowd > '' d 5 .24.4 1 W W c, r .('. (7!, rM N Garage N °,°= Ln � �� We v I �e is 50 Une mt � 24 .4//A _1 � fi Lito c� in Lin f the Pf oP 10,339 sq. ft. � q 4 Gh E45t o I 5.01 / Approximate line of �' A i i "! f' an d I i overhead eaves ti,- u w n / S 89'59 57 E „I ivl� ��� ("Dz n 1 to o I „ L4 W y 9,9 2 sq. ft. W U cT (A • °i- . 10 6 w rn W rn I \ \ 18.08 / i18.3 ,T1 I \ W to P . \ \ j v 1 Story Frame \ I rn w X5318 I 46.2' I v m 17.55 Sj v I t01 a01 C \ I I I N 1 ' i N 89'58'16" W 8958'16" W \ ` _ -- 75.00 -- / — \ – 75.00 -- 1 1 i � N 1 1 i 53/ 62nd Avenue Application Filed on 4 -27 -00 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -26 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -006 Applicant: Erick and Susan Bates Location: 6413 Noble Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicants, Erick and Susan Bates, are requesting Special Use Permit approval for a home occupation involving the use of equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling, namely a trash disposal unit 4 ft. wide, 4 ft. high and 5 ft. in length. Section 7 -102, Subdivision 1, of the city ordinances requires refuse containers but limits their size in residential areas to no more than 30 gallons unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Other than for special construction or clean up projects, the City Council has not authorized trash facilities larger than 30 gallons. The property in question is zoned R -1 (One Family Residence) and is located on the west side of Noble Avenue about midway between 64th and 65th Avenues North. It is surrounded on the north, west and south by single family homes and on the east by Noble Avenue and other single family homes on the opposite side of the street. Home occupations involving the use of equipment not customarily found in the home fall under the category of a Special Use Permit. The Bates operate a business called Metro Carpet Removal out of their home. They provide carpet removal services at off site locations. Appointments for their services are booked by phone and no customer traffic takes place at their residence. After removing carpet, they transport the discarded material to their home where they store it in the large trash container which is picked up weekly. The vehicle used in the business is within the size limits allowed to be parked in residential areas. Their business, other than the use of the large trash container, is considered a permitted home occupation not requiring formal approval by the City. The use of the large trash receptacle puts the business into the Special Use Permit category. p e e t g ry . The applicants have submitted a letter (attached), along with a site drawing of their property and a photo. The letter explains their business and comments as to how they believe their special home occupation would meet the standards for Special Use Permits. They note having the large trash container will eliminate the need for multiple smaller containers. They also note that they intend to either house the disposal unit in the garage or provide appropriate screening. The trash container will be out of the screened area or garage for approximately 2 -4 hours per week to allow for dumping. They do not believe that their business will impede the normal and orderly • 5 -11 -00 Page 1 development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district. P P gP P Y P g They state that there is no customer visitation or traffic associated with the operation of their business and that they believe their business will conform to the applicable regulations contained in Section 35 -406 for special home occupations. The concern with this special home occupation is obviously the impact the trash container may P P Y P Y have on the neighborhood and neighboring property. The applicants indicate that it would be housed either in the garage or behind a fenced area and certainly this should be a requirement if the application were to be approved. Approving such a home occupation would not set a precedent other than in similar situations. The ordinance limiting trash containers in residential areas to 30 gallons does allow the City Council to authorize larger units. As mentioned previously, the carpet removal business as conducted by the applicants would be considered a permitted use if not for the large trash container. If the Special Use Permit is denied, the home occupation still could be conducted using 30 gallon trash containers (no limit in number is listed in the ordinance) or by transporting discarded carpeting directly to a disposal facility. The Commission should review the various aspects of the business in light of the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 (attached). A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners: RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission determines the special home occupation to be appropriate, it could be recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for a carpet removal home business that will involve the use of a 4 ft. wide, 4 ft. high and 5 ft. long trash disposal unit for the storage and disposal of discarded carpet and pads. This use may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the Special Use Permit. 2. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. The trash container unit may only be used for discarded carpet and carpet pads and shall not be used for collecting and storing refuse, rubbish, trash, yard waste or recyclable materials. 4. The applicants are required to house the trash container unit within a 6 ft. high opaque screening structure except for when routine pick up is conducted. 5 -11 -00 Page 2 • 5. The trash container shall be tethered or securely fastened in such a way as to keep it secure from rolling loose. 6. All vehicle parking associated with the home occupation shall be off street on an improved space. Vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, of the city ordinances. IC I • 5 -11 -00 Page 3 r ter_ �-� .11 . .� � ..... � SO AN 001 INS IM I mm � ■u IU - ■ Eagaaa MW Mal -_- MOR MIS mm SIR "Ji I �i mot �� ,• `',\ t I so INK ME Ila mm SIM tttt� \t\\� // // . ■�t� MEN t -- - ��— t���\tt111t/ �w ■�i �� i gas all t� 1111111�1�� 1 r _E glass am ONE r SIM MM WINE WOW A mm MRMR 1001010 w mm woo WEVE ■ r w� ■� �' �■ saw ww wVE1 .�■ oil INK SON ME SIM t1, , ; "M ; !■ ot111/����� X111 aim 1�0,,� ��► ■ w " w 001 a !■ �� //jj�jl/ ■111 S ww r_dW ■ w �■ ■ t�t� I f e A CT / I i it � t Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members; We are writing to you to request a "Special Use Permit" for a "Special Home Occupation" and for the "use of equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit." We would like to thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter. We are happy to be in our first house in Brooklyn Center and wish to be good neighbors. The following points are in response to "Section 35 -220, Standards for Special Use Permits." Briefly, we own a small business called Metro Carpet Removal. As the name states, we provide carpet removal services. All services are performed off -site. All appointments are • scheduled by phone. The carpet is transported in a Ford Econoline cargo van. a. The business provides us with the financial resources necessary to preserve and maintain our personal property. The disposal unit will contain only carpet. No organic material will be disposed of in the unit. The unit is approximately 4' wide, 4' high and 5' in length, on wheels, with a securable, connected lid. Use of the one single disposal unit will eliminate the need for multiple smaller trash containers. b. Our intention is to either house the disposal unit in the garage or provide appropriate screening. We intend to either construct a fence within normal setbacks or maintain the disposal unit within the confines of a locked garage. It will of necessity Within view for approximately need to be puff out e pp y two to four hours per week to allow for emptying. This usually takes place on Wednesday morning, usually around 9:30 when the homeowner is present. On occasion, when business is good., we my require an additional pick-up, which would operate in the same matter as stated above. c. The business and the. disposal unit will be entirely confined within the confines of the property boundaries and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses, permitted in the district. d. No customer visitation or foot traffic is necessary for • the operation of the business. e. The carpet business conforms to applicable regulations in Section 35-406 for "Special Home Occupations." Again, we thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of importance to our family. Cordially, Erick and Susan Bates 6413 Noble Ave N Lot 6, Block 1, Bergstrom's Lyndale Manor Section 35 -220 • 3. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. C. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such • conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ordinance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. S. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits NWhen a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the subject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paving an additional fee in an amount as set forth by the City Council resolution. Special use permits granted pursuant to the' provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the subject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit related thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandonment. I Application Filed on 4 -27 -0 pp 0 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -26 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -007 Applicant: Melvin Raile Location: 5411 Bryant Ave N Request: Variance The applicant, Mr. Melvin Raile, is requesting a variance from the minimum district requirements contained in Section 35 -400 to be allowed to have a duplex on the property addressed as 5411 Bryant Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R -2 (One and Two Family Residence) and is located on the west side of Bryant Avenue in the 5300 -5400 block. It is surrounded on the north, west and south by single family homes and on the east by Bryant Avenue with single family homes on the opposite side of the street. The lot is 63 ft. wide by 136 ft. deep with an area of 8,568 sq. ft. and contains a garage which was accessory to a single family home that was recently demolished. The owner of the lot has been advised that the garage is not allowed to continue to stand on the property without a principal building. • Apparently Mr. Raile, who currently lives at 5105 Humboldt Avenue North in Minneapolis, has reached an agreement to purchase the lot and wants to move the two family dwelling located at 5105 Humboldt Avenue North to the subject property. The Humboldt Avenue property is being acquired by Eminent Domain to make way for the Humboldt Greenway project. Mr. Raile has been advised that the lot is not large enough to meet the minimum lot requirements for a two family dwelling. He, nevertheless, wants to pursue, through the variance procedure, his request to locate the two family dwelling there. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -400, the table of minimum district requirements (attached), particularly with respect to the R -2 district. The R -2 district allows both one and two family dwellings as permitted uses, however, the minimum lot requirements are different for both uses. A two family dwelling interior lot is required to have a minimum lot width of 75 ft. (at the building setback line) and a minimum land area of 6,200 sq. ft. per unit or a total of 12,400 sq. ft. A one family dwelling interior lot is required to have a minimum lot width of 60 ft. (at the building setback line) and a minimum land area of 7,600 sq. ft. The lot in question is simply sub - standard, or too small, for the two family dwelling Mr. Raile would like to move onto it. The zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission, sitting as a board of adjustments and appeals, to recommend and the City Council to approve variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. The 5 -11 -00 Page 1 provisions of the ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property, must be the proximate cause of the hardship. Circumstances caused by the property owner or his/her predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the standards for variances, contained in the zoning ordinance are met. These standards include the following: A. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. B. The conditions upon which the application for a variance are based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. D. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is • located. It should be noted that the economics of the situation alone have not been considered to be a hardship under the meaning of Standard A above. The applicant was given the standards for variance and asked to provide in writing how his proposal meets these standards. His letter (attached) points out that his property is being acquired through Eminent Domain for a redevelopment project. He wants to keep the house and to move it onto the lot at 5411 Bryant Avenue which is vacant. He notes that it is difficult to find a vacant lot (apparently in the neighboring area). The lot in question is close, convenient and available. With all due respect to the applicant, his arguments simply do not, in the staff's opinion, meet any of the standards for variance contained in the zoning ordinance let alone all of the standards. To deny him the use of this lot is not a hardship under the meaning of the ordinance. Even though the lot cannot be used as a two family dwelling it is not unbuildable. It still can be used for single family residential purposes and likely will be even if this variance is not granted. The fact that the lot is close and convenient does not meet the standards as well. The situation is not unique. A similar request was made by a person having an interest in a parcel of land on Azelia Avenue in the R -2 district. That lot also did not meet the minimum standards for a two family interior lot. 5 -11 -00 Page 2 • Basically, the effect of allowing a variance to put a two family dwelling on a sub - standard size lot in the R -2 district would establish a precedent that would allow two family dwellings on lots F that are at least 63 ft. in width and 8,568 sq. ft. in area (4,284 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit). This is a substantial departure from the requirements contained in the R -2 zoning district. It can be argued as well that the granting of the variance could be considered detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood if the standards for density are lowered beyond the expectancy in the ordinance. Again, it is the staff's opinion that none of the standards for variance are met with respect to the applicant's request. The ordinance specifically requires that the City Council may grant a variance only after demonstration by evidence that all of the standards for variance contained in the zoning ordinance are met. A public hearing has been scheduled with respect to this application and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. With respect to the applicant's request for a variance, it is recommended that it not be granted on the grounds that none of the standards for variance contained in the zoning ordinance are met with respect to this application. • 5 -11 -00 Page 3 11111■ Illl ■����I� ■ „�111111� ■11 1111 ■O1I IIIIII� �. � %NMI ir • 111111111111111 ■11111111on ■dill■ 1111 11111■ iillllllliltlil oi 111 1111 1111 11111111111► �.- 111111111111111 �1���1111�1�1111'1111 1111111 111■ Illllllllii illllilllllllll ■� ��� ��� 111 1111 :.It ■ ■11 1 1111 11111111 ■���I , .. rrllllrrrrlrll ■���! IIIf1111 �I/■1/1 1�1 11 .. 11111 Ililllllili ,� 1111111111l11 = - 111111 W 111 1111 1 ■ ■ //I 111111 - 1111111 111111 ►� I �_�I11111111111 MINI MUM i � 111111 1111111 111��11111111■ 11111■ ■■ ��■ 11//1111 ' 111 ■111 1111111 111111 11111"�� j 11111111 111111��� 11111111 �1 111 I 1111.1 111111 1 1111111111 Iil�ai .l ■EMNON 1 111111 IEEE 11111 �1 / IHiH H /HH■ 1■ ■ ■111 /11�� ' : ' ■111111 ��■■�■■ NONE ■ 11111■ ■1 ■■ ■1■C ` IIIIi ■�� / _ ONE 1 /��■ I 111 1 Ii: 11111■ ■'T ,!���1�1.1� ,"�'�� ■1111111 111111 � / - 1111■ 1 ■� 11� lil�u� HOE &ZK � � � 3���� 1111■ ��� S.t iQA IDdif - SmC _ YK L am` _..__ ASFf + L'S lima :c. "l iY l 6II LLII Yft = ■.■ � � � ■�11 �■1_11�... � ..�� ■ � �1! M l lllllll . - �� _.• 'F r N + ( �t , <, .,l C }� - ' 1 f S J .1 ) r J } � r . ' � i t S Y i.`` :'r.,,... i r 1 A J (f t I l (.• 1 3 l 0 _1 Jr t Se 35 -400 TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIRE S. Every use of land within the City of Brooklyn Center conform to the Colin minimum requirements which are applicable to the Land IlWistriet in which such use is contemplated. (Note: Refer to applicable footnotes) (1) Yard Setbacks (10) (12) Land (3) (5) (2) Area Width (2) (5) Side Side District (S q. Ft. Feet Front Rear (6) Interior Corner RI One Family Dwelling (Interior Lot) 9,500 /unit 75 35 25 (9) 10 25 One Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 10,500 /unit 90 35 --(5) 10 25 R2 One Family Dwelling (Interior Lot) 7,600 /unit 60 35 25 (9) 10 25 One Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 8,750 /unit 75 35 --(5) 10 25 Two Family Dwelling (Interior Lot) 6,200 /unit 75 _ 35 40 10 25 Two Family Dwelling (Corner Lot) 6,200 /unit 90 35 --(5) 10 25 R3 (See Sec. 35 -410) 5,400 /unit --(7) 35 40 --(7) 25 R4 (Sec Sec. 35 -410) 3,600 /unit •100 35 40. 10 25 R5 (See Sec. 35 -410) 2,700 /unit 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 15 (4) 25 (4) R6 (See Sec. 35 -410) 2,200 /unit 100 50 (4) 40 (4) 20 (4) 50 (4) R7 (See Sec. 35 -410) 1,400 /unit -- 50 (4) 40 (4) 20 (4) 50 (4) C1 (See Sec. 35 -411) -- (11) 150 35 40 10 25 C 1 A (See Sec. 35 -411) -- (11) 150 35 (4) 40 (4) 10 (4) 25 (4) C2 (See Sec. 35 -412) -- 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 10 (4) 25 (4) 1 -1 (See Sec. 35 -413) -- 100 50 25 10 50 I -2 (See Sec. 35 -413) -- 100 35 25 10 25 35 -50 . - �pP /; c� +�'.��. �"• . rya - ode �rmr� lyh l n' y �'� axt�r wf � � /(/ •�� :ice iA- a -cdr"' �'' +� �t. - ��'V'Y I AAA, —��ar- 1 y x • • Application Filed on 4 -13 -00 ` City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -12 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -008 Applicant: Clark Engineering Corporation (For Hennepin County) Location: West Side of Shingle Creek Pkwy at John Martin Drive Request: Rezoning The applicant, Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County, is requesting rezoning from R -7 (Multiple Family Residence - Six or More Stories) to C -IA (Service /Office - No Height Limit) of a 3.352 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Shingle Creek Pkwy at John Martin Drive, adjacent to and south of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center. The property in question is bounded on the west by a City owned 10.89 acre outlot that is primarily wetland, flood plain and wooded area; on the east and southeast by Shingle Creek Parkway with the State Farm Insurance Company office on the opposite side of the street; and the County Regional Service Center on the north. The property under consideration currently contains a part of a pond and the access drive servicing the Hennepin County Service Center. • BACKGROUND The 3.352 acre parcel under consideration was part of a large triangular shaped parcel that was divided into its current configuration in 1994. A 10.89 acre parcel was also created at that time which is made up of wetland, flood plain and woods. This parcel ( Outlot A, Amcorp Addition) was gifted to the City at that time. It was anticipated that Hennepin County might have an interest in the other parcel created at that time for possible future expansion or that this land would be used for some other development subject to an existing access easement over the parcel. No other access to the site was to be allowed. The County acquired the property and now seeks to rezone it to C -1A which is the same zoning classification as the Service Center property.. Companion applications 2000 -009 and 2000 -010, have been submitted that include combining the property into a single lot and site and building plan consideration for the Service Center expansion. As a point of interest, the subject parcel and the adjacent 10.89 acre wetland was the original proposed site for the County Service Center and was rezoned to C- I A in 1976 to accommodate that use. It was later determined that the majority of the site was unbuildable due to soil conditions and wetland and the current County property was then rezoned to C- 1 A with the other property reverting to its previous R -7 zoning in 1977. The proposed rezoning is, thus, an expansion of that rezoning to accommodate a larger facility. • 5 -11 -00 Page 1 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REZONINGS All rezoning applications are reviewed in light of the rezoning evaluation policy and review , guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the city's zoning ordinance (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (also attached) in which they comment on each of the guidelines. The following is a listing of the guideline, the applicant's comments and the staff response to each of the guidelines: A. Is there a clear and public need and benefit? The applicant indicates that there is a clear and public need noting the use of the Service Center has been increasing and additional building space is needed to meet the demand. We would concur with this comment and do see the expansion of the County Service Center to be a benefit to the public'in accommodating additional needs that are serviced at the site. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that they believe the proposed rezoning is both consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications noting that the Service Center property is currently zoned C -lA. They point to properties immediately east of Shingle Creek Parkway which contain commercial retail uses and that the property south and west of the subject property are wetlands and part of the Shingle Creek flood plain. Again, we would concur with the applicant's comments about the consistency and compatibility with surrounding land use classifications. Furthermore, the C- I A zoning designation fits well with the high rise residential to the north of the County Service Center and the Service Center itself ties in well with the Shingle Creek green strip and park areas to the west. In fact, trail connections to the County Service Center tie into existing trails within this area. The City has long believed that the land uses lying west of Shingle Creek Parkway are most appropriately service /office and the existing multiple residential rather than the more intense C -2 or commercial retail land uses. The proposed rezoning and use of the property by the County is consistent with that concept. Furthermore, the City's recently revised and updated Comprehensive Plan designates this particular parcel for public and semi- public use which is the same Comprehensive Plan designation for the County Service Center and the City Hall/Community Center parcels. The proposed rezoning can, therefore, be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. 5 -11 -00 • Page 2 • C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that they are proposing to unify the zoning of County owned property in order to allow construction of the proposed County Service Center expansion. They also note that other uses permitted under the zoning ordinance will not be constructed on this parcel. The staff would comment that although the County does not intend to make full use of all of the uses allowed under the C -1 A zoning district, that we still consider this guideline to be met. The land lying westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway in this area can accommodate various service /office uses and could, if developed as such, accommodate high rise office development which the C -IA zone acknowledges. It is the staffs opinion that the proposed C -lA zoning is the most compatible zoning designation given this site and surrounding sites. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant indicates that they are not aware of any significant changes. That the library was constructed in the late 1970's and they assume adjacent properties had the • same zoning as they do today. The area west of Shingle Creek Parkway between Interstate 94 and approximately County Road 10 was planned in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The City Hall complex was built in the early 1970's as was the high rise residential property to the south of the City Hall. Plans at that time contemplated high rise residential development along Shingle Creek between Shingle Creek and Shingle Creek Parkway. In the 1970's when Hennepin County became interested in developing a service center in this location, it was determined that such a use would be compatible and appropriate in this location. As mentioned previously, the particular parcel being considered under this rezoning application was part of the original 13+ acres contemplated for location of the County Service Center. It did not work out and the site was moved to its current location. Also in 1994 when the large R -7 parcel was divided into two lots, one being basically unbuildable because of wetland and flood plain designations and the other being a buildable parcel, it was considered feasible that the buildable parcel might be added to the County property to accommodate a potential expansion. Obviously, rezoning of the property to a consistent zoning designation with the current property would be necessary. E. In the case of City g proposals, initiated rezonin is there a broad public purpose P evident? • 5 -11 -00 Page 3 This is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, rather a County initiated proposal. • However, the staff does believe there is a broad public purpose evident in the rezoning in that it will accommodate a needed expansion to the County Service Center. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? The applicant's answer is again affirmative. They note that they believe that the property will conform to all applicable zoning requirements of the proposed district. The staff would generally agree and that is the subject of Application No. 2000 -010 which involves the site and building plan consideration for the proposed County expansion. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicants respond that they believe the site is very small or perhaps too small for constructing a multi -story apartment building, parking and also the necessary storm water ponding that is required under the current zoning classification. They also note • that access for the Service Center crossees the site further reducing the developable area. The points raised by the applicant are pertinent. The size, configuration, topography, location and the access arrangement do make the combination of this site with the County Service Center site to be better for maximizing the use of the property. H. Will a 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 applicants note that the rezoning, they believe, serves the best interests of the community, allowing expansion of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center. Again, the staff would concur that the proposed expansion appears to be in the best interests of the community. Also, as mentioned previously, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which calls for this area to be used in a public and/or semi - public nature. This Comprehensive Plan recommendation did acknowledge future County expansion plans. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners • 5 -11 -00 Page 4 • of an individual parcel? ill Again, the answer the applicants give is yes. They note that the interests of the community are served by the proposed rezoning which will permit expansion of the current service center. Again, the staff would concur with the applicant's comments and do believe that this proposal does demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an individual owner by providing public benefits with the expanded Regional Service Center. The rezonin g Y evaluation policy and review guidelines also note that the City policy is that zoning P classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning proposals 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 principles. We find no significant conflicts with this policy as noted above in our review of the guidelines for rezonings. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, we l believe, is also consistent with good planning principles with the proposed use being consistent and compatible with existing surrounding land uses. We find no conflict with the proposal in this regard. • PROCEDURE It is the City's practice with respect to rezoning applications for the Planning Commission to refer such requests to the Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Planning Commission serves as the Neighborhood Advisory Group for the commercial and industrial area and, therefore, it is not necessary to seek advisory group comments. Notices have been sent to surrounding property owners and a notice of the Planning Commission's consideration of this rezoning request has appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post. RECOMMENDATION All in all we believe the application is in order and would recommend approval of the rezoning application acknowledging its consistency with the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. Attached for the Commission's review is a draft Planning Commission resolution regarding the recommended disposition of Application No. 2000 -008 submitted by Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County. • 5 -11 -00 Page 5 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 2000 -008 SUBMITTED BY CLARK ENGINEERING CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF HENNEPIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, Application No. 2000 -008 submitted by Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County proposes rezoning from R -7 (Multiple Family Residence - Six or More Stories) to C -1A (Service/Office - No Height Limit) of a 3.352 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 11, 2000, when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and in light of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2000 -008 submitted by Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The rezoning will allow for the appropriate expansion, renovation and redevelopment of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center which is considered to be a benefit to the public. 2. The rezoning proposed is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area which calls for it to be used for a public or semi - public purpose. 3. The proposed C -1A zoning of the property is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. 4. All permitted uses in the proposed C -lA zone may be contemplated for development or redevelopment of the subject property. 5. The subject property will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the C- lA zoning district. • Page 1 6. It is believed that the proposal is consistent with the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • Page 2 t, pun iii �� I �A� • � __ Ing1� C mii N11111���� mm REN �� �� ■!lrr11� ��1��Irf � � IIIIIr �i 1m - `� a 1111.1!!!!r l " its llNINE r l ►� ■1 11 ►����) /t■ lllll /l!!!r !l �Wlll■ ll!!1!!!lr 111!11111!1!'"■ ��i�L�111Y1 ' . �� 11111111�"�Illl 111111111► ,� � . • • ! l l l l : ��'' � . __ 1111 ►1 1,. �!l llll.11l/ .' • 1111 511111 .1r►� lllll� - \�3i� 11111 =.� _- -- -- -- - - m m m == - == == == : , " __ _ 0 - 0 __ =77C mm co 2 mm _ -- -- - - -- IL_„ _� E __ __ _ I1111� ■ — i - �w is mom mm ago c ■� –i �:� MIN OR mm __ r_r _ mm Em WE mm • �r 111111111111111�i �� �_ ,;.:. ■� ■! �■_ o 111111 small Iff ME EC : - �� m. SE == ' �• �` ,'_ 'tea i� 11■ ■ ■ ■ ■��! i �� m_ 11W "i ■� __ - - ID am _ _ ' CI 1111111111 ml – City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. P 'rte The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the e ev luation of pe Th Y odic proposed changes to classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Pow p o licy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be spotezoning", def as a It is the p Y osals will not co Comprehensive Plan, and, B. 'Rezoning prop decision, hich discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the zoning principles. Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning 3. Proce rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, v measured. e y ea or individually Each 9 p ally as deemed by the City . against these guidelines, which may be weighed collect 4. l d I S A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? of the C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development subject property? al physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subjec D. Have there been ty substanti property was zoned? ls, is there a broad public purpose evident rezoning proposals, E. In the case of City - initiated proposed zonir subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the prop F. Will th e 1 districts? district, with s the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning G. is to size, configuration, topography or location? d 1. Comprehensive Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zonirigosed district, n ng district; b 1. 3. The best H. m o planning; 2. The lack of developable land the proposed interests of the community. ' bey the interests of an owner or owners of an individ 1. Does the proposal demonstrate merit Y • parcel? Section April 13, 2000 Mr. Ronald Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 E N G I N E E R I N G RE Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 CORPORATION Amcorp Addition Clark Project No. C99030 Dear Mr. Warren, be rezoned from County is requesting that Lot 1 Block 1 of AmcCrp teaon the adja cent parcel, Hennepin constructed a Regional Service R to CIA. The County R.L.S. No. 1543 several years ago. Growth in the demand onorlans.services The proposed plans at this location has caused the County to look at expansion P w ill move the existing stormwater pond from the library parcel on to this rezoned parcel ill be placed there also. and new parking w Zoning Ordinance regarding the requirements for rezoning We have rev iewed ess each of the comments below: W nsu l ting Engineers and will ad dress Surveyors d p ublic need. Use of this there is a c 1. Is there a clear and public n as n and additional buildi pace is required to meet service center has been incre the demand. use 2. Is the P roposed zoning consistent with and compa is b zoned CIA Th egp la classifications? Yes, the current service cen retail properties with similar building immediately east of Shingle Creek ion proposed by the County. The properties south configurations to the building addition Wet ands and form part of the Shingle Creek and west of the subject property flood plain. ro posed zoning district be contemplated for E 3. Can all permitted uses in the p P app is for unifying the zoning o development of the subject property? No. This app ro osed expansion. The of County Employer owned property and to allow construction of the p p P arking for the subject parcel will have the new storm r tier the zoning code wi not bE building expansion. Other uses p ermitte d constructed on this parcel. al or zoning c 4. Have there been substantial physica t is not o�any signif car since the subject property was zoned? The applic • changes. The library was constructed in the late 1970's and the adjacent properti appear to date from the same period. 621 Lilac Drive North Sioux Falls Rapid City Minneapolis, MN 55422 Fort Myers Aberdeen South Dakota South Dakota _. _ .- . — c—*6 M4nta Page 2 Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 Amcorp Addition , Clark Project No. C99030 subject property bear fully the ordinance development restril tci app zoning E 5. Will the subs p p roe will conform to all app proposed zoning districts. Ye S• Thep p rty l ; requirements of the proposed district. nt zoning . e rese g 6. is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the p N G I N E E R I N G with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Yes. The site is district, P 0 R P 0 R AT 10 N very small for constructing a multi -story apartment building, he access the for ponding as required by the current zoning classification. center crosses the site, further reducing the developable area. rezonin result in the expansion of a zoning district, zoning warranted 7. Will the g rict; Comprehensive planning; 2) lack of developable land in the propos g or 3) the best interests of the community? The r Regional interests of onal Servi a Center the community, allowing expan sion of the County g merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of 8. Does the proposal demonstrate m Y an individual parcel? Yes. The interests of the community are served by the proposed rezoning which will permit expansion of the current service center. We have demonstrated need and merit for this rezoning application and have met all of the guideh nes listed in the zoning code. Please place this application on the plannino commission agenda. Please feel free to contact us if additional information is required. CLARK ENGINEERING CORPORATION A VW Leonard L. Linton, P.E. Senior Project Engineer LLL /nkw 99030_1.doc '' Enclosures f rw rw� "••.: a .- f / f CURRENT ZONING CIA f PROPOSEb ZONING CIA F i f! { ___..._._.._. .......... t _ ._ ._ ..........._ ....... _ .. _. _...... _......_ ..... e` �...� 17 CURRENT ZONING iW " PRdPOSED ZONING CIA , .. sue" : •' ' ft— Fmm ..,. R ZONINGG 1� ✓ / �' ' APPUC ON sue.. � Jr; • n: rr C —RZ • 1 • a w . Application Filed on 4 -20 -00 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -19 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -009 Applicant: Clark Engineering Corporation (For Hennepin County) Location: West Side of Shingle Creek Pkwy Between Summit and John Martin Drives Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant, Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County, is seeking Preliminary Plat approval to combine two parcels of land into a single parcel to accommodate the expansion of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center which is located at 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. The properties in question are Tract A, RLS 1543 (6125 Shingle Creek Parkway) the site of the current County Service Center, and Lot 1, Block 1, Amcorp Addition, which is a vacant 3.352 acre parcel of land south of the County Service Center which contains part of a pond and an access drive serving the Service Center. The County Service Center is zoned C- I A and the vacant parcel is the subject of a requested rezoning to C -IA under Planning Commission Application No. 2000 -008. The County Regional Service Center is a permitted use in the C -IA zoning district. As mentioned the current legal description of the properties is Tract A, RLS 1543 and Lot 1, Block 1, Amcorp Addition. The new proposed legal description would simply be Lot 1, Block 1, of a yet unnamed plat. Lot 1, Block 1, Amcorp Addition is 146,020 sq. ft. or 3.352 acres in area. Tract A, RLS 1543 is 435,536 sq. ft. or 9.998 acres in area. Once combined the lot would be 13.35 acres and is proposed to house an expanded Hennepin County Regional Service Center containing court services, licensing, social services and an expanded library. The combining of these two lots will make it possible to eliminate a 50 ft. wide driveway easement that exists for access purposes from the John Martin/Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to the - County Service Center. The applicants, as part of the renovation plan, also propose to relocate the existing pond to the southerly portion of the combined lot. Because this property is over five acres in area and is adjacent to Shingle Creek, it is required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. The applicant, as mentioned, plans to relocate the existing pond and to meet Watershed ponding requirements in the new ponding area. This matter has yet to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, but should be accomplished within the near future. The first phase of the County renovation/expansion project is the pond relocation and some driveway modifications. They • 5 -11 -00 Page 1 plan to accompli this work this summer and to begin construction on the Service Center P P g expansion in the Spring/Summer of 2001. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat. He has indicated some minor utility concerns relating to the water main and storm sewer. He has requested the applicant to provide him with storm water calculations and has reminded them about the need to submit an application for the Watershed Commission review. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat application and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. RECOMMENDATION The proposed preliminary plat appears to be in order and approval of this application is recommended provided the rezoning comprehended under Planning Application No. 2000 -008 is approved and subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The storm water drainage system and the design of the water detention facility are subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement documents shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County as part of the final plat. • 5 -11 -00 Page 2 ' — ONE IM ■ � ■1111�11� I.,, -�� ■ On / ►�j►1� ' L :Z o11 1�� FAUM _�. -- ■ ■11u� 111111 . ��-� ■ ■ • ■■ /1111. ► ■ �� IIII / ►Ij�11�AN the UP -� „� lilt /� 11 .. 57 oil ' 1111 ■111111 11►��� �� , �; `� � / �� � , too 0 - ■111 ����I /�■ 111 ■�1111� � - �` .' 11 �lW 111■ 1111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ / �'�� � I C= �� w 11 ■1111111 ■11111 1111 ■11111/ — �_ ■■ 11 ■1111111f�1111 1111 ■111 /► -, —� 1111 1��1'��11 ■II�yI�► � ... ■1111 �.. 111 1111 ■111 • == 11//j 1I/1 ► �11 1111.11. AN ��1/1 1111 ■� .� MAN11 1111 ■� �� - !��� IAB COO �t� ■ ■11d�1 ■1 ■11■ =. ■- 111 __ _ ww w- -w -- - . = - _ - A . w = — - �- -w - •IL 1' 1� _ - 2 MCC IMINE M, - -� _ __ MINK Nit Iw, � !w —_ _ 111 w ON 1 ��►�!a -t - __ w_ w ww .■ E u9 Sisal —_ w . ww ZEN -- -_ ■_' �__ ■w MAN ww MINE ■ MWI mm ii ■� i MAW C, P No cm ww ww ww - S - ■ mm Now �r III 11111111111��i �� �■ !M6A ■� ■1 �■■ ■■ 11 1111 8ii111 IIIr - mm .� 011 11111. ■„■■■® �■ rw w� w� _w - -� Ow� - NOR SI I MINK FARVIL MEN M s_ -,1. 1111111111 m� �� M l No = MN �I� =I" ■ I js I aii� lit 1 ._.�,,, 1 � p GO lm!I ■1 �i P'UI„I'J {l w r �l 11II i O •` ``• O • Application Filed on 4 -27 -00 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -26 -00 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2000 -010 Applicant: Clark Engineering Corporation (For Hennepin County) Location: 6125 Single Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant, Clark Engineering Corporation on behalf of Hennepin County, is seeking site and building plan approval for the remodeling and expansion of the Brookdale Regional Service Center located at 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is the site proposed to be combined into a 13.35 acre parcel of land under Planning Commission Application No. 2000- 009 and contains the existing County Service Center and vacant land to the south. The property would be zoned in its entirety as C -IA (Service /Office - No Height Limit) if Planning Commission Application No. 2000 -008 is approved. The property is surrounded on the north by R -7 zoned property containing the Shingle Creek Towers apartment complex; on the west by the Shingle Creek green strip, Central Park, and a vacant city owned parcel of land zoned R -7 which is made up of wetlands, flood plain and • woods; on the east and south by Shingle Creek Parkway with the Target/Shingle Creek Center and the State Farm Insurance Company office on the opposite side of the street. The County Service Center and Library are permitted uses in the C -IA zoning district. The applicant's plan calls for the expansion (almost double) of the County Regional Service Center which contains court services, licensing, social services and the library. The plan also calls for the relocation of an existing pond on the site and an expansion of parking facilities to the south and east. The expansion would be accomplished in two phases, the first being the grading and relocation of the pond and driveway /entrance improvements to be completed this summer with the building expansion and remodeling to begin in the Spring/Summer of 2001. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be at the same existing locations. The north access is a shared access with the Shingle Creek Towers apartment complex and it is located at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. The south access is at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive. Alterations to these access points will need to be accomplished in order to accommodate the building expansion which will be to the east and south of the existing building. Modifications to center island deliniators at both the north and south access points are necessitated by the expansion. The new parking facilities will be to the east of the expanded building in an area that once housed prairie grass and a pond. As mentioned 5 -11 -00 Page 1 previously, the pond will be relocated to the south portion of the site and will occupy the , majority of the new lot which is to be attached to the existing county lot. The plans submitted show the expanded building gross floor area to be 111,150 sq. ft. The expanded parking which will be to the south and east of the new building will provide parking for 523 vehicles. The parking, lot will also be expanded in the northwest corner of the site. The 523 parking spaces to be provided exceed the minimum parking requirements for a service /office building of this size. The parking formula for a building this size requires one parking space for every 246 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The zoning ordinance allows for a reduced parking formula for buildings that are over 20,000 sq. ft. in area. The parking will be distributed throughout the south and east portions of the site with the largest portion of parking located out from the two main entrances to the regional facility. B -612 curb and gutter is required around all parking and driving areas and is noted on the site plan. A drop off area on the south side of the building between the two entrances will contain surmountable curb. Handicap parking facilities are provided by the library entrance and the licensing center entrance on the south side of the building. The layout seems to indicate that the primary access to the facility will be at the intersection of John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. An employee only parking facility is located at the southwest corner of the building and is proposed to be enclosed with a 6 ft. high chain link fence. A security garage is located on the west side of the building adjacent to the court services part of the complex and is there for transporting prisoners. This is the reason i for the security fence adjacent to the Shingle Creek trail and green strip area. G IN /D A E TI T • RAD G RAIN G /U LI IES The applicant has provided a grading, drainage and utility plan which is being reviewed by the City Engineer. His written comments are attached. Briefly, he has indicated there is a small problem with respect to how the water system is designed. Also, there is an issue with the storm pond which is now being diverted into the city's storm interceptor and is not acceptable. The City Engineer has requested that he be provided with storm drainage calculations. The Creek is subject to review and approval b the Shingle drainage and ondin plan pP Y applicant's J app g p g p Watershed Management Commission. This matter will not be able to be reviewed by that body until at least their June meeting. Storm water will be collected on the site through the use of ter to the newt constructed holding will convey water g and on P sewer which Y catch basins and storm Y app licants have p alternate trail layout to p rovided a ro the south end of the site. The app p P p connect trails on the site to those in the Shingle Creek green strip. This is being reviewed by the Public Works Director who may have additional comments with respect to this facility. An erosion control plan has been submitted showing silt fencing around the east, south and west water lines sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines 't plan shows a , perimeters of the site. The utility �'Y p Yp which will be removed and the location of new water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer locations to accommodate the new and expanded facility. 51100 Page 2 LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. This 13.3 acre site requires 1,078 landscape points. The applicant's proposal involves the elimination of some existing landscaping due to the expanded parking lot and pond relocation. The new proposal provides 1,104.5 landscape points with a variety of trees and plantings. The plan calls for 560 landscape points in shade trees, 240 landscape points in evergreen trees, 121.5 points in ornamental trees and 183 points in shrubs. The landscaping is spread out evenly over the site with trees and shrubs along the 35 ft. green strip area adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway. This area also includes a meandering sidewalk in this location. The plan calls for trees on island areas including Little Leaf Linden, Canada Red Cherry, Spring Snow Crab, Thunderchild Crab and Amer Maple. Plantings along the Shingle Creek green strip . include Royalty Crab Apple, Northwood Red Maple, Autumn Purple White Ash, Arcadia Juniper, Eastern White Pine and Canada Red Cherry. Plantings around the perimeter of the building include White Spire Birch, Thornless Cockspur Hawthorne, Autumn Purple White Ash, Spring Snow Crab, Summit Ash, Norway Maple and Austria Pine. Evergreen trees such as Austrian Pine, Scotch Pine and Black Hills Spruce surround the northwest parking lot along with Techny Arborvitae. Overall there are 56 over story trees, 48 evergreen trees, 81 ornamental trees and 366 shrubs. Perennials, such as Stelladora Day Lilies and Fountain Grass will be planted as well. • BUILDING As previously mentioned, the building addition will be to the east and south of the existing building. It is the applicant's intention to expand the building and utilize existing space complimented by the additional new office space. Two prominent features in the new facility will be circular entrance areas, one by the court facilities and the other by the new library facilities. A serpentine main street within the building will connect the licensing services at the south end of the building through the court services and social services and then to the new, expanded library area. The exterior of the facilities will include new building additions which will be primarily a red tone brick and stone base. The north and west elevations will also include the existing brick on the building. The library section of the new addition will be primarily "azur lite" tinted low -E insulated glass in prefinished aluminum frames. The main street feature will be prominent also as it extends above the main height of the building. LIGHTING /TRASH A lighting plan has been submitted indicating the proposed lighting will not exceed the foot candles authorized under Section 35 -712 of the zoning ordinance. Approximately 27 light poles will be located around the perimeter of the building and in the parking lot, some containing double lights, others containing a single light on a pole. • 5 -11 -00 Page 3 tici The plans do not show a specific location for trash containers, however, it is anticipated that they will be located on the northerly, or rear side of the building. These facilities will be required to be screened using materials compatible with the building. RECOMMENDATION Altogether the County's plans appear to be in order and the proposal is considered to be an attractive and much needed expansion to the Regional Service Center. Approval of the application is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 permits to assure completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view utilizing material that is compatible with the building. 5. The building is to 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. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas with the exception of the front entrance area which will be allowed to have surmountable curb to assist as a drop off area. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 5 -11 -00 Page 4 10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on the site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 12. The storm water drainage system and ponding areas shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits, including grading and drainage permits for this project. 13. An easement description over the proposed pond shall be submitted to the City and the easement shall be executed and filed with the title to the property at Hennepin County prior to issuance of permits. 14. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 15. A driveway and utility permit from the Engineering Department shall be required for work within the Shingle Creek Parkway right -of -way. • 16. The final plat combining this site into a single lot shall be approved by the City Council and filed with the County prior to the issuance of permits. 5 -11 -00 Page 5 ,. .111 /1 h;f � it all 12 - �� X1111 ► j'�11� ' � _ mo �114'�Ln3���� • ■II MORN OMON- 1 �i�i� ■ ■ ■■ 11111 ► ►i�s�■ = ,■ ■. LL all ... /I�111 11111111111 ,�• 1 '�*-1 �' j�I� 111 11111111111 /�• � � � �� • MINIM ■ 11111111111 ,�� ♦, `�` �-� • 11 Q W III■ 1111111 ■11 � � . . - - ��•v. � ,,,� �• 1111111111111111 (111111111/ — - /IIIIIIIIIIII!� -".1 � �i� Y11Y1 ' • • • 111 11 • : 1 � _ , �� 11111111�"�II/1 1 /i/ /1111/ " /111 1��,��111 /e!■ /� - �� �� �■ ..■ /111► 1.. 111 111/1111' • ling 1 1111 ■11► - �11111 111•j�•�1 11111' nomm■m 11r, �•I/ /111 11111 =.�� . FAR MIN . , 1111l1Y1111 • Iwo, woom ME ME : �: �■ i ii of .. zz 111 .M 0 r �.... 1111 �� C Sm .G C ME M MEND' . 11 � ; .■ tsu;t■: � ... MUM MEM = n Ali __ VIA. � �i■■��r -� � �■ �. � i _ � t om. �� • • . ���, ����� ���■ .�, ■■■ +1: IRS "MMINE ME Cm on ME -wol ...... ■� ME �r III IIIIIIIIIIIal o i� MME � so ■1 ►ii e �� ' ■ UONS MINE PARK MOME M� MIN) 1111 n �] �� €� Ell i lip 1111111110_ �' — __ _.. . I • MEMORANDUM DATE: May 1, 2000 TO: . Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer 4 SUBJECT: BROOKDALE REGIONAL CENTER The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary plat and subject civil drawings dated 4- 27 -00. 1. Storm water runoff from the existing site is generally directed towards Shingle Creek. The proposed plan of re- directing runoff from the site into the City's storm sewer interceptor is not acceptable as submitted. Drainage calculations and details of the overflow have not been provided. Hennepin County should be made aware that review from the West Mississippi Watershed and Shingle Creek Watershed will be required. 2. The ponding area will require an easement. An easement description over the proposed pond should be submitted to the City and the easement should be executed and filed with Hennepin County, prior to issuance of permits. 3. The property owner is required to enter into an agreement for maintenance and inspection of storm drainage facilities, prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A Driveway and Utility permit will be required for the work within the Shingle Creek Parkway right -of way. 5. The City shall be notified 48 -hours in advance of all testing including bacteriologic testing and Hydrostatic Testing. Point of contact is Mark Hartfiel, Supervisor of Public Utilities, at 612 -585 -7103. 6. The following note should be added to the utility plan "connect to existing water main and remove tee." 7. Mega -Lugs are to be used at all water main connections. • 8. Hydrants shall be Waterous Pacer model WB -67 -250 with an 8 -foot bury and a 16 -inch break off. 9. All water main is to be Y P of wrapped. 10. The rock construction entrance should be located behind the concrete sidewalk. The sidewalk should remain open for pedestrians until entrance is paved. Item 1 is a significant issue. Modifications to the drainage plan could alter the site plan. Consideration should be given to making any approval conditional to acceptance of the plan by both waterheds. • • lli�' "tea_ r — NMI 1 t %�� �ll . ,� �,,� ' , i ^ ,� ► ! :: ,,fi e ,`' ! ' "���;9� � '� %iii %� �• f ; � 1 _ H G.. TIN Ell rp � / • 9aDA OAWWNDD iw ]a093 DaYIM3l3D / "./+ �y i lOd0 — U p iii0e q as um siwvul TM !o aourwt Laxi �u •a xm 3Lnp011ddr ar ON Aln Aw N ar N1t]a5 3 67 OYIwp A a+wrm Sal � _ ,'�•� ww�M ('9N1 31.0a Lot! rla Sift 03Y10 At13N NOS t :a-s SAl) Sean Aawn OaflOtl%iOM 1D trouroDt otaJ am ZD K• LOS S 0 1 ® (tS9) tM YOaIDYtl3 Owl MM NO ONEWW - 3WDAM smolt M :art ZVI$ r ''' ,?^' : ^'•" 119 P"OAd MN-11 r. Did UORHOW l nroA•a N�^ "•pJ 'IOYUU vqm r w atww a vNa m aon arolal urtYil IDIYn a aYwo tr vl . •{ r` -�' ^ � r .•,",'� YN;Xa' ' L I. •x NaN•D wnaus uo - •�'�•: •� :i��.' %' �,m� • YN tan•A rum roan a nwN ow AYn alr ILYf awls•o lard %vreollm w '' " - S ..'' - A' •AUN� lA Aa+ LUa a aauwuw aatl0 wta uom'JOl ntaDA lewAUa - �wlA�ilo. w' '•• '••.' •. • ./ .; t1 � ' ^.•• :. 4s: r i ; , fI 3Y mY 1wa NA+awaa w�wlm 'aaa uau 3u+wA x vaa naN aaD+aaaa r : f • 'C ! �.;" l�,i': �'r a ' 1 8:. ( `. . t +twD wawa aaaneag •eu.era vAamaan a ay..»e w >n uD aarvu Y0° rNruraY a .o.N %; � . .- •• km r A law Awa ea:N Yoa•i voeou•n x uoo�w a»m• % E ' _ ' 'a1. ! .rt` ^ ` ' , •woa awj non t•aw v 3aml Ya 3m w 3M a+®v • »rwn a•wles or au • . ` / r � ` r /:i -7/ : -.{.'> ..! ` +aaY � ..' m m ars Ax A siosrYYml aw a.r iA1Y oA %Y•YA •uD vA •oilm '�i �' rte wawa •not••re � .. •iw- , oLnllYl I atlYnY3111 aYtr w wM Ava Y w rYd or ara O aarY Y•na 'L ry �' v,�<,�� r lvij'' •• I p 7.1.1 lti A LYw) OIA In11IAl l L � • « • 1 ' . Y' r �� R "- � ._. , � � I/, '�%. '•mN a OaIA/O w Anw• ••l ralftA s nu Ntlrr•m vnra. a raawuw Aar x ao - . � ,� , d i•.�. „j .; . .. � .' -.- •...._ •.. - , r^: , � �: a•uaus w < wuml x ar t•n]aN a mmx f•• < Ynmw iw nws:wa . �” m x w 3w asloNw x Yor aNmaYaa slut votes oa•NUt x a3mt 'T•"C.'.•� f.. �;; ^ f / y ,� �. � `. a an•ro sY YAStrA Wawa >r w lOtpL 3YNM nmu•lt or wn • ,4'• ' • t •. . e%.^Iro fYO+ n uaua aD YuIA.tYwq t • .:�- r� c'. ...11�,.'•k �, �� , aurA Ya A/Y 3AiYdA aM ewes w a/Y erw er alason a v :rm: �,, •� � . ` , •laD •wlwa •a K .'�....:� �',:: i;.i?., ` � i j t i 1 � : , vmtwYm a oYnvn r Sul x s 3x x 3or viral m ANaI a Lau n;r;, mM1 a w ]n-al An 3feYLl 7w xae N a•t dAa x M.oar marN YrM1lgt . _.�f • �..- ; •` I +• ANaim •3nYllWw iAf vr• �muvaN s a au tw mu vw x . aawA i:t =" : � , '`:�t. ;` Ma aNt Swu lAtm � aaM wu»m• aw Ym nvow arneAt a7nua , c .;;, u o :. rf • t i . MOILonaLSM07 vlAim ale m lolN ttao m a LAa 31LL NM aul x r um %fulo s 'fi.... - t'r' 'S �� - 1 ,l ■W LQN a 7NS crest w auw Yorma m iaxw °Y SYw'' ° wuvuA.a 1g1 n •�Al a xna ° w ,L• }` f j: } . }k;. , }/ \ tp,{�[}' t ••t 3rwla n YoNas•a vrnY ant or roN-a sw-a ,ii *{ g• ^:!F'u.�{.. ARIO m m Ynl•3o s a YYAr Sam xamx or ttlnYAw Yalinlwao stnivv ry; :4 ' �%' ` , ^ ^1 ,• t `.. , I 4 5 6 v MHU1p MO>t OL 1111M tlaAmorn am alul m tlDldaON s,a „'` t x •\ ... ' ,.� ,\ rtttpwor ar um 3tan0 rose trr try zlr matoell tneltoAea , �, \ s3 k A71Iw //l/taDOdal N UUM 'nw% aVa r Y muaOOl N33• awl 'w �.• - +r"''`' «we :i-Y . ' :rwA m! P-3 almo ;aw Y welt Mod 7M ttarYiteigD axaltgo/ pl 711pN i « 3 1 tmi a a ioa sr a ma rs stets x aatwmal a aos m amN 3tc 7Nt Les vrl nme 't .` �rs. - 1 ' _ _•�• I — — — —• �• — - a y' � a ',pP •`. des A..A: 1 n I r I P1t• -• e MOGO ad . xt + (, rt a f ( i+a I r;y.1'fF.h' ?I-. �ry� \ + r ,.�•� r �r•>� .ki r$• I ,!� da .. '• . "ri} I If" � , i '"' . = T.�' ., fi✓''. J �, a !�1 " .... -'�i(' y' �r ,�7� ., � T , b� n�' • ;� "p�l I� _ #. ( I 9 . F Aga: wlnwre> mwol a a na X � �� t - ..._... — ` :.6 - ..,M %"' i'tA' I,rw.rr ^:. • $�: ' ' i .. -• i 1,x, �••� vwalt amc7 : ,ry^ r. N <. � I' . t YAeyf� 7•IYYD alltatale Q l ' , t .� •. ( °.. l •: t � M1- rt+... %01 s3lnao6sr a w.ourie S ; .�:� ♦ ., O is __ • ! I T Nil 10 I I a �'� i, �1 . / • / •- 7r alga LLNrIIOI � f j'+i •'^ I'1 „�. / ' 'M,-: etsL:Lr �R A .'yi:�i r ! "tp.: ..:_ _ '� y' ®_, wera.ern )wwrmr �ia."'�.• L'o • .. .... _ ..... . iiLliil wdX !� 1L.* , � 7a• arc,.,,, F ...... 1 n:. ws"_ I f._ CTa7 r � a : ,o ^.0 lwa.�on•.ka 'yb� 7 1� 1� y �_ III r I t. ALTERNATE TRAIL LAYOUT FFE 8f1.0 � 1:. 0 i ' • I , I j J : / ' Y�f(• i`rT"� the E Pm Wd CM30 .� 1. K S■aN 73311 Yae K SIR CM W ■OOSN L S IS■■a3Y0 K amt OF I b N31)otL OCIM O1 I . S .. 1 .; .. W eae s■■ 17tV OOtR3 t33[ �t Of■RRI®M A fIR %W 3310R■ wawa •• a n sIL K lOta■Yit3C Sa1Kt llla■1■ICI 33nlN NLL R,Y■ no 13saa m■ e3311n•e trol3t®t 3737uatm eat ea eat XLn.: ' f' adt3tww 313as A 73■ ■et ' �¢'�' .. ' {. �/ y.,,'1T y - r \` .• P. NIy Rar. a mrlum - � .s ;lt y �,` - a x I•• aru ■ rsilllltlm N<• wer IIpfI. ONLY I `• ti- _� ,,s.;. c '' . x smeo..w.mo +nwxworxwr MOTOR ' , 7 `'• / tr. > : 9 i .� •. mxnrcroi r +�a Lwmwn wrrn N. m..alrt ro .sac m SON •: fi5 '. ► ■R pN11N14 INWD Y Ma b QtIFS K M09N0■ m IILtI �� .• ,. Y i�:' Ira •, . .�^^ •f . du N0 LORt LWL aINU a1 Oraa6l m W.�CAe INat 191D I � I • � ' '' " T. Ilaaeo oalloas x• wa unman r)c m rlltlo aL■. `{ L tIR •lW101i Lwl IY.O11 m aM NI•I m Mml III[ tl0 � Ti d am' . ;, /«•,d, i ...� � t - , L mE axnnm wo aro as evr mI mt Imur. ,.-3 . . ..._ .. .. ,�, /, - w � caimis ■i7 Mier •N wRUU oota N• L•Ilren - : / `°''�'>�• ` ,. LLSNM i• Io.L av NNaL SIa a•slli7u al■ro •r g vlyxt k 7MM. '. � 11 :!a' " � a � fNa+ws m1 mwpy ala amrlM . aNwso xo Brewaw any ua.r � I� }' '� � ,,/ F' ��V .• y 'A. ro � wt ml•rm. Enil� ald Ramdtl 1 - �� a/" -'• �/ •.} �'s R ' a wLrr. mrart amens aw a an r aw■ a I sv use I / .• '' �/' la iLL n(f tmLl s3a i m N Lets t IlttLi Ina aImIR t � umC 1 • I ' , . f'1" Y� �rlll� LIIO a >aIC16 NIL m Mnl[ llMil Ca1L! faCla[ HMC M• ( �� �W ' �W t',: ,!ty. R`r : ' ( x uw •rQ •Iir rLa Slt m N Tm m x nlllm M taro. ��mz31+nL 4YtIX • ' ,s ::✓`. • tmt sm Noe gL■NC ova wa - (' r ; '}� ` jr .1 :' � � •• / K ML � ObllOin LIMO Nliall0110. f Wl t[ tlS•Ip n f0il N OrotW/n CIMN MN SSSSO I .':"F.•w'rY . � " "1' i . ���' qwt /KM wi N.( Irol Iwl i.•Om ro rrN nw wr[ .ml WnOaa Na:I8Z0 / I : .• r • �.. ILIIIIw. tYr Il:.t ro •arL i.tli. LIO>, m fM Mo unnr wIILI It ' �F-;. • :' .. LiS. rIe Wd Ii7LIla LWe a Pt® MIS x m • A m61lEN Ae' NI.O031107 : � >'. ;�; • •' ; r 7'' � I•IIUnI.3 m x smlLta rtar t+a LNL MW. a3rts xl n Pre i in1L • :, i" l' pr�iaao Nntivan�io lmlr uno ,lwloI..al. " °Nr mina <' f � pr a wwaowtnoxerxrN6rroSLrmmxsruwoarcu Gradin Plan . .• :•f': � •:. `' , sip•+: ' ML OLLWIY ODSaI 0a1INl rINO IYT IO104 M.' Ll4 PLI Lml t �:. r , J, .-0• .:.,: f, : • wnwo tlloN aR ChasFIL '. �pri i 1 • %:; n n. rle R.n m�i Its. r arini m x mr s •naaw t•ILI mI emta. e7 '' ,'tea %� 3 `,r,:� •'' � L z oN IDGl S Q 4 T - D L C r OtG AINO aR aa1N L Nb NOONO. E (1317 tat- 003] ED M 1DGXON a UNpkAG30lM 111311T l (7X6 E3N� E3 VI O,Oni Sw4 1 30'0 ' y . ; • 1: '• UR m UES BUt WT PRNA7E IlIESJ I N ARE U - , Q re{1 M1T" U. . K 1OC11 U Or NOEROROIIID 7t1R3 DOW /fe OF AL M NO MUS ' K" . N=N NcocNOCNnr vERnm. K oucr tuanoN a .0 nuns Nusr SE u o« ou Na C —GP01 N St7a■163 ecrar wtLC11cIN; mfx SM.t i7 00 a ,- ��R A! fl y 4" FEon cmoraem slat ®. ! ' � ' 1 ,, h• u... .. E1 as d ,5"r •L� �,.r.;. ...` 11-M : If,4rl+ �y .� • aew 5., x,. :.. .. �� ,• ..y:. 1�. -.� +'YP it:` w.wslrww.� W ..1 ✓•. •ii ,E.me! A'sr' - slswr.w ..1- i T' r � � ;/ F ,�... �I:ma�.4 1 F• v . i �� t � I1'il r �r w.. •.w, JJ 7,�. a • .G "I. +)1 .:�'. - r - - _ . • r fe,P + •t 1 j 1 "a �. �.� swan u.. ~l i � FFE 851.0 . O O �D 4Y i a k• d.,. S`r • 7 _... � Pa t F. 1 ♦ �'�t.�, _ _ r7 : 1� y� � �. ' rww.`.r .$. .:.w --w ' '• x ' 1, �: .; ._ a._.r. I' r 5 r ' 'S ."' .H rr .'R iO a ww in .. a ; '..��F:�, o ?. rr . . •..r....ar.w - NOR REVIEW `.:. w..s �..w 5...�..� ONLY 1 3 x .. .. +fit: ':', !c : � %' • ��'�.:�r..»" CONSTRUCTION , ;:.41'� �� � a y!'.; : ? t �; ,,, ro ,� K �. X5"•..`5:,., � o � �..M»: +.i t ry E�amien a,�OR� ' I • ' K Y`Ek, y �^•/ w'�iiw�r��irisa� ' fasNU• Na:a Nu,br � ::' •i il�i ' ;•. � �.�.. �1�.. �:�Y .w++ &oowa4 Re94�d Cmlr ( t .i%w " :''.. �.�'• ' r � OIRS SNng4 QrNk hhqq ' �.• ':R.�. ' t r iM tzmf, BlooM/!0 CCMr, NN 331J0 '� DD Erosion X" ' %•j� "' Control Plan oxen: 9.0— �:.�:.�;,r+•r. ecaw Pro' 1 071 = IAN: NdALS WM Llcf w1N0 a0 oOlOU9,f1E OINtO710S, fvu. (061) "�",'*✓ •r'• •z'd�' Is1 -aooz rart N rinn iocrcx OF urmEn 49 uMW Llfi: 0 25 50 75 WTAY' /. p �• +,y • ( .:y +'' IY ^! /% . mm Omm La" m Nor MWAR LMS.) (� SEiNCE IDG1E3 Oco4: 1 .00-0 11E IOO"MM OF U M M M UTIUM ME SI N N IPPF�AM NCI ONLY AND UXATM OF Au UNA= wr K oal« Sh.11 w z7 oD a s �• ��t 1-4SOCN �S ,� Et+oE,ol e�eaoem s2:am w. -w- ..w ' w F •Ljµ j 1 �. � arwr aRs y...q(,..* .�., 6 d s. s ft .I'sS •. v.. y� .Y, •'s Fp' tbra E .Pro' Ce90M1 .. waw ai/li"BdC ^.r� Y r6f � /.t'.� • "ti Kq Ran: ran mm� ONLY ROT lOR comainuanom a� « � :: '�. �::. Ib ReA.bn. 1• r.q - i�`'T!' "�•. ^+� „�k'.iam 2xwew rL2 Wrx aERVwe�Wr�sx>ILes er A eeL W WL t MI P IY I.E LW! ILeE .y' �,'6•=": /,•,.„� .,.Y: do �si��tL,u sM�i s�i®w eyes r Eww ., 1' f ... / �.:.''! -,1f{ ��Y��'" i�'`♦ Li1�M l0 6M•�I RY W eLs ' / /J)I ` 2 ,LL wCP iIL1m N1[ W MK 11 �MIIM s' 19 RV MO L WYY > u J,1 � 1 � • f� , b' . �.;•. ' R11e1 ILL VlW M[ W IM[ lA IL[l W u IlQ O OA0. /-'/ / / ^,� 4' '22 0 1 9tlN0 ►,WI mL1� OeIIQ �eL eLal ..s f f. � / � `�{ - 'i' � nvaL • rrr :onrr afMw¢ L�`im�i : ol�v Pro1M 710E _ ` / / � •' IrIUR 9AIbaW KM wIa OtllL N amac acre w M aaPi > E�rauiM me�R.m.bl �� � • J.L' �" //� � L wm1 allM[[ v:M. e. tr ®w eWM M[ W a[ UlaaO MI . f / �.1' • . S \• //: IMIW RLfAR F'aplll KOIM (d: Y'' • / /Y. / ��.• i `., /' iS /t' L M, wa Lrs as W IM( Easos nms as ecrL (� KaLw:w C.M. ' � ^•'r /W .' L .Y KNO OO L¢tO6 Lwl wr 1! IYP IR RYL e�9NMM CrwY Rk f, : ,'• L .dDWM M ar1..M f Wl W LP ItAW W a91 i11a 9MMW BIwRSw Gnbr, YM SSIlO ,� �: ' �� ' f a aFa11W sDM nisi � stF a ax was Rota eR9wsc to Pro a Me.�t.e • � •. � •. � [,l: ± `��Sr( -� ,,yi�sif:ll' L lLL.EE • W t M IaM 191 aT fMOFwl M DMinp PreH pary � i'.•:, r' a:.:;:: wmnLL .mreno+ssarmmraoiurrEa9ocnc Ufllffy mi Pia. :.' f. !'�� Me LML LnU10 f9r We[M9te fMYL L[CIIaWMxllIFlaVgN l.Rr r n /.�.' V � :^� • 5 �' ' ara.LW YOale alaL v RD9.O Flas K .LMAM AK x 1MrA1 Orate f. +•(a�l;l!FY aAauRSa Ar onrrtm W x secsm 09LRf. ..; /!.. Pro 71 STATE LAM M noun auDRE ctmK W 9t 0lMOlMKRM aLmLw . cmL (eel) 0 z 1N -0002 M FOP LWAT" a WOEeollolAO unlT' Ll (MS 50K lOGR3 May 9 LMES MR KQ PMAl 111E4) • M 10 K M a U.)ERp T V UlRlalts AFC [ XCF 10 x T Or AL LM 1 1[ ME 5 WJS R R" A1d m / WE a ou e10f K couw wow_ WE RACT MTIOR v All 11R11E IM14 C —UP01 OklOe Y:M[ ..•.•..•\ �' , , /: aeFD LEaOR[ CaFEMtYW MIRK 04 27 00 .e TwTr BCEEDIBL CL--qty in Count {j: a le rNrw /A111 roc and ARM a OW arr ME A now we rm yll rAT BUCRAF a � was / iIF (/AaoIaEo • aw aw 1 "._.............._....._.. ' MIOrI' .._.._...._.. . All Ewa was= got m 1w. low form raalw Mu o00 : d y wa 1aN EDMO ' =Y i ' .. w+a.. ... ; 1 ,(' lalRV.ne aaarm 'r C=;p ^\ _ 000 ,1;1,?�j�•l i u NOTES, IANOSCAPE BIDDER SAIL VISH THE SITE PRIOR W SUBIATTM A BID TO 1. BECOME PAMIUAR YATN SHE CONOMONS. THE LANDSCAPE CONFRACTOR SHALL ! • %y, i•. HAVE ALL UNDERGROUND UIRHIES LOCATED PRIOR TO ANY DIGGNG. THE C� , 1 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COOROMTE WAL1ATNIN VM THE GENERAL Clwk Em. Pm Net CM30 a �+ �. L AV. IUaI Y� N f WL iWOrl .IP1 x YgGM I«OtWiO. YI NAM YY9MPt IIIO . "' "••.'- 1 . rEam. M lara�nrAa w x � MMM� M.w01 fI0w1 ON M IIMI �Ir :. �,� • / aadwl _..... �......_..__......d'- _.. -- -------- — — — — ., .'.`•• ww uMUw wi � arna Mw m�i'a cad : I f.Y'+.! Nrn® wrtAe walR WNa a[ E11wrp1 MR x r4NEw w x aaOIR arwnri as Illrar N a :��tf�jfl t} �v IIl RIIOIQ Mlq /Ali .111 IUMIr6 rW M .OYCM la A 1YA II.IYIQ f WL 8[ FOaIP rIM • •`1`.c+•' �V- , •� a•.Dnr l arm aw.A as ww:.• - r m n.«l rlacm oa.® uwaa naac NuvN r" ■EYE Q twanm n owa Eaea >4 araai rwaw rw rUCm aml . naaaar am awu � CV .:a .. MAMA ealaa a w: m uarmes wam :..w as..«uum .levy M � pNLr .ao al mae .m A w ar a• - lr sroa uonK ir-AV o1a lw owia mr rm alt • rL aE1« .au wM Nvl Pooar wr urwm n wr TR Dlrml awr aaaawe «aM POp�TRYG710N I NaY D.'Im flrAx�aDaxp'ulE A ri r�w w ar M uberrc °A, %!•'• awA aac w.v s iww o A emur aaw«w Mo w rr ns ®n rt arm DON ...__._.._....... _.. ■ s®m am .wa E IVa« /anlr r ranwE YD Ar«wm w x ar. «1 rnw TD aE .... .._.._..._ ...................... • (.+ " `, �� lAA i rw.Em rnao we 1MTAII Nam w« r 11r Raw « x EM TAW y � r ' a / f /J ... • 4 �f 'IF... *. " - • • �(• B (/ ro p e ] MW RNNM CwAr . . ' �" • / �' , '� - 'Ll' * A dl]l 2 5hagw CrwM PMy i 1 � •' �:� f/ /.: •,'! :' T ... Broolyn E «BIN. 1NI SS1J0 �, at t � �.`_.., • TAI« r Landscape •- s �, ... � .. � Plan `' ,� / �, j, , • .. ` —.... _ .._ _...._. ....... _ Buatea Pro' 1 9871 ^• r` ENLARGED VIEW OF AREA BETWEEN POND AND SIDEWALK o ^s is WAR LAM NI HOURS WORE M WIM OR DEMOU M M"NOS. CALL (651) 1W V . W bmIA scow 1 . UNFS) SO -0 `/!•�/ . A O t 1011 IlE1D o MH AAA M M u N m )1N1D VIILIfY Y� (MS StRNt[ LOGT[S p •.•'„(_ �+'' Y� }- Ummy OWNED ', / UNM 1x16 8Uf Pp✓AlE Pro)Kl IlwlOw'. THE IOCKDONS Of UNDGWRO1w U ILM ARE DOW N a APPROXIMATE TAY OILY AM 0a D wlopnlaaE C —SP02 EAYE MOF 8 0 NDEPENDOMY 4ENEt0. M EVICT IDDONN Of ALL UNLONS M W BE / DEI INVIED BEFORE Commotm rOIdL $haaE o+ti n ao a 1' his R ~ a sad' g� i • � � I fir—, � � 1 � � # ! ► i - -- � , � � • i � it ld d a • aa.a1FF:1:1 � . aann � a.133M 1 '1 t ..... C1 " 7t i • 0 �= {� r 8 �� 1 �� > A �*, b��P��_�`Y' � I , ®jam "YI � .4� 5 p s e t r 1 . I • i 1 I� .Sr.. ^Y" � s - �S`yd i � •rlF,+ t k M1. .`N' r •.Fi' '' 4. , �{, ,�F�. �• �i j ..4 ,7 �+ .a' " BMfiI ll 3'. ^h •� . /"� �'� i �'�'SKS+ v �� ^ {• � F - "'" :� �,j, a SW�F �+. �.� 4'�.if a G w � . � 3� � i; j�s .. y `!t .�. �.p�Y: w ` �„a 5,�r r ;�..r `y� 'r?,� N Lx '� 8••• f � S4rx. }' k Schematic Design DUE" AND ASSOMTES Na Henr� Project Number 0031463 n Brookdale Regional Center w " LM :••s ei.• •,r••, �•��• 270 Coun Entry View .,....,..,•....,....,,, 44�:r s? �. �� by .. �;�',:a•'.r , �cx? `,°� M i c,•Sx S �� �-'s$ s r �• . �. , - ux't'67'.� %t: e • fe . i . T• k'�;Y+L•w cil X.*.'. .'"'r• �4'� +3 k }. . wi..' .,y ,, � • : g S !?:� .� a` t,.:es,. wk *' :: ;�.:.;'.i.: :•F+"': `f.;i ta; .F 3, rr�,,'r:;:,; . ,.,- • _ S NO ELEVATION ir 2 3�iT S t 4 M Vil w� . , l.� w -?• ; ) a s $� r > i > ' . r s �� °t y am , } rf • '�"i s��! qq.. y "', :1.�.. '` `•+ ; \ti fin' . 1Y-lq 1 + Y ] $ ] Y ' WEST ELEVATION , Design eu ND 0ow A ASSOCIATES w¢ Hmuiepin Brookdale Regional Center Schematic Project Number 0031461 �_ flat 111f. nruf s. n. •.• 11. ►.111, M111e.f.tf f /Itf County Rear Elevations �I �LIL� JL JCl ; c iLYr7 • � � G7 � � i we�� qWPI JL JL J JL JL J L, L, � - - -- eve= ��Ifi:• �����' %'.. O 00 000 0 „�.• _ -� A., O 00 O O ■iu will an.u•c ❑■ne Ron ©uEu eaan ucMIa;�� r,�_�aFane•au ICIe1e1717 _ 0 MI� ��nananan ■nanananananana�,- IMP ...,...... . .. ,���- .— _.._..._ —sue ' oaan oao�enn ■OanFtOa rr ma ngo nOnnO n n Ont7 0 -_ - - -_- �— �� Il��li �_ nn F1nn0 nnnnn0nn ��� - 0 O O J 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O N O O • • SCALM, O 0 3 - g O WT7 CLATED VFATCAL "11. TO MATCH EMS . ITm I'm p O ALI AW CLASS CODIR — 1111.11:61, GLASS; O p - O © O O © O d J p. F 0 0 0 0 _ r Tl I IlAlEl' I naln�oa1 t7a1F7an7 a1u■mgt;f�Fa�c■alta■oF -5m1 1 Ili III im o .- II 101!)IC✓IGI:I .r.e�e �ni.oae n Y nanao o�mi - r.0 Fr•5-o- =� nn-o��.Ll��l ^'- � - - - -- nan_e.ae�_nauaa . �� 1— ` ■ ��1 ■000117�7sasao■ `IIQ o ol� �no1 ■nan�nFq ■nanaoaal ganan■ nao■ nannnananan � O O j �' i• O O 0 S. �I S• S F• O O 0 F O © • l� j o 0 0 0 0 o ppo 0 0 I,IGIIO�t _- II _ � i 9� ©1 ©I _ uolu■ FUnw n�nt• n uri■ uFm�uau t•ur.uauttutuuTtvruorrinr�nc ;10118■ _ — n n 0 3 c © c o ❑ n o n n 71(ll ltltBt0lf 1 .. l�� ■,— I ■�t� ■ttlt�t� �u.o.uo.n.ou.un o. ■uu.ouuiunacw 1-- ICI© niivloo�iar3■ on© cYh© iillliilililllii' tilliiiilli' iiil! liilliillolll© illiiill© iliiiili0ili © ° _ T © 0 0 0 Ille�et n �►. 117101l31�IA17 umanauanrtm mFOrs ,Toaur tuanauanaOatia9ta0 ■o�O�ta�O - n n e n 0. im a M Fa n 17[Il �tllt[11G1: -- Win. .__�. _ ten. ■'� ��— ii: niiir iiin- n- n._- n___ n_ __n__.a_�imiiiiiivuni °i�._e._.. I II 11 ILI ■-• o [ ' ■uauio___u___n___oiiiimi�iio iiiir�• - •iiu e�i - ii. a r - a _ ,' •� ■ liiiliiiliiiliiiliiil' iillulllillllio�i► ilialiillllllllllii� 'lliili. - " -- :: a......__ e___ n___ n__. .o ■._ I!l=: = - ■_, O Exteri • • . - - - - • • - - - - - - - - - - - N o - - I --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - w w. w'w, ........ r .......... r ...... . .... .. - . r ...... . win.. T�- �- •w In Is In . r. In .. . ..... r .. . / ..... IJlwr..r �. ._ �...... - • .. .p��i- \\ .. .... •• • 1 . . - - .. w ... .... w L ...... ■ . . w�a� r • r i r ' . ' ; 1 1 .'. s .... r . ' - ..... r .... -� -�• r • . r r ..... w I .. . N o . . .......... . ... .. .. . r ... ... . --------- . r d .. . .. r .. . . . ........r.r.T. -- / .w r...� ... .. ........r No r ......... . .... �w i(I�,w. ...... ..... ....... .. . . . ...... . . ..... .. I .... _ r . .... . . . No .......... r .. . . . . . ........ . . .. .... ..... • . r . . r r .. . ..... . r .... .... .. . . . ..... . ... .......... / PRINTED FOR REVIEW ONLY"w'� I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION •la•e -1- / APR 2 6 2000 I OA N M ORE ASSOCIATES INC. USMA & 0 , E0.1 Adlk . oa�- V,,. .��'11,''`r�J r v jf�j:;rE:it: '` ;� •�' j•,� i _� j ":, • t rJiF[;js1� At tntltL�ii%;� ti !t' ' ''• � ''�•' •.• i'•a! %'�" :.• > ,�fl i '+ f . ►Oj.' Ai7i :'I ifi:,f.'•''� .. �•' i• '• •' • f 'ti•' ; �x. i ;:f� + s} '�ni- •'�i� r .. ^M � my t• .Y is ' teS �'�.Tti .• rt. + �.:r /'•.,. .Y = I � ���';;• }' - .:.'..i.r, = St••t��,,� '�y',ri t '�� �y'�.y�r:if r•tii�r�..ii it.•`:..' � .. • ti: s• �E. t y., a � ='i 1fa:A, .c • ! Y•••,, r:.'....r. %L•' � .. . t. :��. tilt) iL . }r„• +••' � •. •. _ .. lift %J 4 AI /•iY 1 :�'• . s i• liL :i :�i'.ti: •i': 1 �. t• It ,rte i ='mil - ' `•' ! : ct. ,. r•: r/ t ,l w • 'I Hr HOUSING: A one -piece die cast aluminum dousing mounts A mogul base. tampholder is glazed porcelain with a nickel directly to a pole or wall without the necd for a support arm. The plated screw shell. Position- oriented socrets are supplied low profile rounded form generates wind loading requirements standard to accept super metal halide lamps. All units leaiure of 1.2 EPA lamp stablizers except 150 HPS. LENS ASSEMBLY: A single -piece die cast aluminum tens ELECTRICAL: All electrical components are UL recogni7Prl, frame hinges down from the housing and is secured by a factory tested. and mounted on a unitized plate with Quick stainless steel lanyard and hinge pin, electrical disconnects. Each high power.factor ballast is the separate component type capable of providing reliable lamp An optically clear, heat and impact resistant tempered slat glass starting down to -20 °F. lens is mechanically secured with eight retainers. The electrical and optical chambers are thoroughly sealed with a one -piece FINISH: Luminaires are finished with a fade and abrasion memory retentive hollow core EPDM gasket to prevent intrusion resistant, electrostatically applied, thermally cured TGIC powder by rain, dust and insects. coat. Units are thoroughly cleaned and provided with a patented chromate acid pretreatment. OPTICAL SYSTEMS: The segmented optical systems are manufactured from homogenous sheet aluminum which has LABELS: All fixtures bear UL and CSA (where applicable) wet been electrochemically brightened, anodized and sealed. Tile location and LB.E.W. labels. multifaceted arc image duplicating systems are designed to produce IES Types 1 (1), 2 (2XL). 3 (3XL),.4 (4XL), and 5 (Q). Gardco reserrts to ript+l to ctrange nwterials ^ m0it; usa design of its With the 2XL, 3XL and 4XL luminaires, the reflector facets form pr. wwimr. rxincation as part of the corrxr. 's c:ntinuing product nprow:t ;,:;ram. Daslgn ana optical pave .!s are :?r•.1ing. a conical fan around the arc tube with each facet positioned to be. precisely tangent to the top of the are tube. i E 11 I•� >_���� . I 31.5' Q- '(Includes integral arm) I �` ', !k: .mss 1 E.P.A. (SQ.FT.) 1 -way — 1 .2 2 -way — 2.4 4 -way — 3.2