Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 02-14 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 14, 1996 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order- 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Administer Oath of Office: Donald Booth 4. Approval of Minutes - January 10, 1996 5. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's • functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions. 6. Sunlite Properties 96002 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to build an approximate 69,000 sq. ft. office/industrial facility on a 6.25 acre site located west of Parkway Circle, north of the Holiday Inn. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Planning Commission Application No. 96002 Applicant: Sunlite Properties Location: West of Parkway Circle, North of the Holiday Inn ( To be addressed as 6601 Parkway Circle) Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment The applicant, Sunlite Properties, is seeking an amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval for this area in order to build a 69,778 sq. ft. speculative office/industrial building on a 6.25 acre site located west of Parkway Circle, north of the Holiday Inn. The site is the same site for which the City Council granted Site and Building Plan approval for an 80,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building for General Litho Services, Inc. and a Special Use Permit to the same applicant for the placement of fill in the flood way which would alter the location of the 100 year flood line on the site. These applications (Planning Commission Application No. 95004 and 95006) were approved by the City Council on March 27, 1995, and May 22, 1995. General Litho, however, chose not to proceed with their development plans. This same property also became part of a Planned Unit Development Rezoning when the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 95009 on July 10, 1995. That Planned Unit Development encompassed a number of contiguous tracts of land located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The purpose of this Planned Unit Development was to accommodate and acknowledge various developments and the common area parking arrangement for these developments. (See City Council Resolution No. 95-157). The current applicant has submitted a new, but similar, plan for the development of this area. The property under consideration is part of a PUD/1-1 zone and is bounded on the north by the Metropolitan Council Transit Operation (MCTO) operation garage and the Spec 10 office/industrial building which houses the Target Audit Division as a principal tenant; on the east by Parkway Circle (a non-public roadway serving as access to the buildings in this area) with a central parking lot serving buildings in the area on the opposite side; on the south by the Holiday Inn; and on the west by Shingle Creek and its accompanying green strip. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the property is to be gained via Parkway Circle from Shingle Creek Parkway. Two drive-ways, one at the southeast corner of the site and the other a shared access with the building to the north at the northeast corner of the site, provide vehicle access to the proposed facility. Parking on the site would include 170 parking spaces located on the north, east and south sides of the proposed building. The applicant is planning Page 1 2-14-96 to have a maximum of 30 percent of the building in office occupancy with the balance as industrial or warehouse occupancy. The parking requirement for an industrial use with an office component is a combination of both the office and industrial parking formulas based on the square footage devoted to each. The office parking requirement is one space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area; while the industrial parking requirement is one space for every 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area. In this case, the proposal calls for a maximum of 20,933 sq. ft. of office and a maximum of 48,844 sq. ft. of industrial or production/manufacturing/warehouse in the building. This breakdown would, therefore, require 105 parking spaces for the office component of the building and 61 spaces for the industrial component of the building for a total of 166 required parking spaces. There is, therefore, a surplus of four parking spaces provided on the plan. The Ian also calls for 20 additional parking p p king spaces along the north property line which are accessed from the abutting property to the north. These parking spaces are to be dedicated as off-site accessory parking for the sole use of the adjoining property. There currently is an encumbrance on the subject site requiring it to be able to provide up to 153 parking spaces for the sole use of the adjoining property to the north. This requirement was part of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and Proposal mentioned earlier in the report which is being modified by a new agreement affecting various parcels within the Planned Unit Development area. A continuation of the off- site accessory parking agreement for 20 spaces, rather than 153, is still required of this property and will be acknowledged in the final agreement. This final agreement will have to be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of building permits for this site. The on-site parking area, as well as the 20 off-site spaces, are bounded by B-612 curb and gutter and meet the minimum requirements for stall width and depth for 90 degree parking. Appropriate parking protection areas and 25 ft. wide drive lanes are also provided. The office portion of the proposed building will be along the north side where most of the available parking will be located. This is a change from the General Litho plan which did not have an abundance of parking along the north side of the building. The front of the General Litho building faced east. This arrangement allows for the potential of up to four tenants, each having office access to the north parking lot along the north side of the building. Two loading dock areas containing three loading berths each are located on the south side of the building. These berths will service the potential tenant spaces. A minimum of three berths are required for a manufacturing facility of this size. The loading berths exceed the minimum size requirements contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Page 2 2-14-96 GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The drainage plan proposes to drain the parking lots into various catch basins which will convey storm water via storm sewer ultimately to a storm water detention and treatment pond located southwesterly of the building. This detention and treatment pond is in the same location as the detention and treatment pond proposed for General Litho. One difference between the two plans is that a smaller detention and treatment pond located along the northerly side of the building is being eliminated under this plan. Storm water collected in the north parking lot will be conveyed via catch basins and storm sewer around the westerly side of the building to the detention and treatment pond on the southwest side. This detention pond has been sized accordingly to handle all of the storm water run off from the north and south sides of the building. The City Engineer has noted that the applicants will need to address drainage at the northeast corner of the site. It appears that they may need to provide additional catch basins connected to existing storm sewer in this area in order to not aggravate an existing drainage problem or regrade the site to prevent runoff. See the City Engineer's report (attached) relating to the project. The proposed finished floor elevation for the building is 849.1 ft. which is slightly lower than the 850 ft. elevation proposed for the General Litho building. This 849.1 ft. elevation is well above the 100 year flood elevation of 844 ft. The drainage plan and wetland mitigation proposed for the westerly side of the building, in the area by Shingle Creek, is basically the same plan as provided for the General Litho site. In fact, the consulting engineer is the same for both grading and drainage plans. This site is over five acres and also abuts Shingle Creek, which are two criteria requiring Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval of a storm water plan for this property. A previous, similar storm water plan was reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. It is not anticipated that there will be problems in this area. The wetland mitigation plan is also required to be reviewed and approved by the DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. Water will be provided to the building along the south side being hooked up to an 8-inch water main at the northeast corner of the site. Sanitary sewer will be provided at the east end of the building. These mains are not City mains and the applicant will be responsible for confirming their availability and get authorization to connect to them. L ANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. Although this site is 6.25 acres in area, there are approximately 1.63 acres of wetland which will be left in a natural state including seeding and plantings as required by Army Corps of Engineers' standards. The balance, or 4.62 acres, will be landscaped. These 4.62 acres require 363.4 landscape Page 3 2-14-96 points. The applicant's proposal calls for 391.5 landscape points through the use of a combination of 16 shade trees (160 points), 13 evergreens (78 points), 25 decorative trees (37.5 points), and 232 shrubs (116 points). Four Summit Ash trees are provided on the 15 ft. greenstrip located along the east side of the property by Parkway Circle. The majority of the other shade trees such as Hackberry and Sugar Maples are located to the northwest and at the southwest corner of the building. These shade trees are interspersed with decorative trees such as Amur Maple and White Spruce. Shrubs such as Red Barberry, Gold Drop Potentilla and Mock Orange are found at the { northwest corner of the parking lot, the southwest corner of the parking lot and close to the building along the south and east sides. Other shrubs provided include Sea Green Juniper, and Buckthorn Columnar. Canada Red Cherry, Red Splendor Crab and Spring Snow Crab are other decorative or ornamental trees provided around the site. Canada Red Cherries are found on either side of the south entrance to the site as well as being interspersed along the south side of the building. Red Splendor Crab and Spring Snow Crab are indicated in the greenstrip around the off-site parking being provided for the building to the north. As indicated previously, the plan does call for a 15 ft. greenstrip along the Parkway Circle access drive between the two access points. This area should be sodded as well as the area around the off-site parking lot and the parking provided for this building along the north side. Sod will also be provided in the area adjacent to the building which is not part of the natural wetland area where seed is being provided. The proposed landscaping seems to be well distributed around the site. Underground irrigation is required in all landscaped areas, except for that area to the west which is part of the wetland mitigation or natural area. BUILDING The building exterior is proposed to be FabCon uniform ribbed red aggregate precast concrete panels. Canvas canopies are proposed over the doorways leading to the potential tenant spaces. Aluminum door and window frames are also to be provided. Windows will be provided along the north elevation in the office areas. There is a potential for mezzanine space and windows may be provided in these areas as well. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant's site plan does not indicate the location of lighting within the parking lot. He has indicated, however, that they will be using wall mounted light fixtures around the building to light both the building areas and the parking facilities. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plan. The applicant has indicated that trash will be handled inside the building. We would recommend, however, that there still be a condition to require trash screening if there is to be any outside trash facilities. PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing has been scheduled for the amendment to the Planned Unit Development and notices have been sent as well as notice appearing in the Brooklyn Page 4 2-14-96 Center Sun/Post. Normally with Rezonings or Planned Unit Developments, these matters are referred to neighborhood advisory groups for review and comment. The Planning Commission serves as the neighborhood advisory group for the Industrial Park area and, therefore, no referral is necessary. As mentioned previously, this plan is very similar to the General Litho plan which was approved a little less than one year ago. Watershed and other agency reviews of the storm water plans, the wetland mitigation plan and the alteration of the flood line are being reviewed and it will be necessary to meet their requirements. Also, it should be noted that the proposed building will create an encroachment into an existing drainage and utility easement. An appropriate easement vacation for that part of the encroachment will have to be accomplished by the City through an ordinance amendment prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed expansion. RECOMMENDATION The plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. A 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 ensure the completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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. Page 5 2-14-96 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utilities service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 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 Engineering Department. 12. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits, and the following financial guarantees will be deposited with the City Engineer by the applicant: A. A $2,500 cash surety as required by the Wetland Conservation Act. B. A $5,000 cash surety to ensure completion of required wetland monitoring. 13. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. The 20 parking stalls indicated on the north side of the site shall be dedicated as off-site accessory parking for the sole use of the adjoining property to the north. Said declaration shall be filed with the titles to the property prior to the issuance of permits. 15. The amended agreement for parking on Parkway Circle, the central parking lot and adjoining area relieving the subject property of its 153 parking stall encumbrance and an appropriate amendment to the easement agreement and declaration of covenants relating to these properties shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits for this project. 16. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 17. The applicant shall receive the appropriate approvals from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers Page 6 2-14-96 and the Department of Natural Resources prior to the issuance of permits . for this project. 18. An ordinance amendment vacating a portion of the drainage and utility easement on this property affected by the proposed building expansion shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. Page 7 2-14-96 t Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 95-157 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO: 95009 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 95009 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I-1 (Industrial Park) and C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/I-1 and approval for a Planned Unit Development to accommodate appropriate common parking areas for the properties located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this proposal includes the rezoning of the properties addressed as 6601 and 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway (Tract G, RLS 1572 and Tract A, RLS 1564 respectively) ; 6601 and 6701 Parkway Circle (Tract A, RLS 1572 and Tract B, RLS 1564 respectively) ; 2000, 2100 and 2200 Freeway Boulevard (Tract B, RLS 1619, Tract A, RLS 1619 and Tract B, RLS 1572 respectively) ; and the north and south portions of the central parking lot (Tract C, RLS 1564 and -Tract C, RLS 1572 respectively) and the development of a new agreement for the purpose of creating certain parking, driveway and access rights upon the above stated properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 29, 1995, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Rezoning and Planned Unit Development were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 95009 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-1 on June 29, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 95009 at its July 10, 1995 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Rezoning and Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35- 355 ; and in light of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 95009 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in light of the following considerations: Resolution No. 95-157 1. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposals are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of , the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of land in question in a manner which is considered compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3 . The utilization of the property as proposed under this Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform, for the most part, with City Ordinance standards. Variation from the parking requirement for the Holiday Inn allowing it to relinquish its rights to 65 parking spaces allocated to it in the central parking lot is justified based on .a double counting of the parking requirement and the experience of approximately ten years which indicates no need for the additional 65 parking spaces. A lesser parking standard can be permitted also on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. 4. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5 . The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the central parking facility and access road and can be considered to be in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the approval of Application No. 95009 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: I. The Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement and Modification of Declaration for Parking shall be executed by all parties and be filed with the titles to the property with the Register of Titles at Hennepin County. 2 . Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the following uses within the district: a. a 20 percent office/80 percent industrial occupancy of the Shingle Creek 11 building located at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway; Resolution No. 95-157 b. a 100 percent office occupancy of the RCM Plaza building located at 6707 Parkway Circle; c. the development of an 80,000 sq. ft. office industrial building for General Litho approved under Planning Commission Application No. 95004 at 6601 Parkway Circle; d. a. 60 percent office/10 percent clinic/30 percent industrial occupancy of the building known at Parkway Place, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway; e. a hotel, restaurant, nightclub, meeting room and ballroom use of the Holiday Inn, 2200 Freeway Boulevard; f. a 100 percent office occupancy use for the Minnesota State High School League office building, 2100 Freeway Boulevard; g. a restaurant use as proposed by Country Harvest Buffet approved under Planning Commission Application No. 94014 at 2000 Freeway Boulevard; h. and a parking "lot use of Tract C, RLS 1564 and Tract C, RLS 1572. July 10, 1995 b4�� &=i92,941'a Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption .of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody; '�a� and the following voted against the same: none, where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i /t. OA IN pro 9 Bill to Bills 0 Bills AP a Bill �S� � ■ �uuu 11 ./. i _ z S rr �� S5 0 IX Ord 11 IV Ar LR r ��■�— �as Lei (a�� �� i �I i I, N a' s S I , i y :rfm 39' g,n � �� ,•i r v : �6 9� t� �� , I HIS _ ixda= a<; 3Sjg e } Si3E i } 3;1 y77j�3 j3 f3 �jsa33;; �_ '� LiI `3 � Is }xs i• xx;? - # x tj a s s# s; ad .. E3Sii +E lyaBaiD; �IB jxi . ' a -°a, le °x A +j � -s# '•_ $ a! a y i = _ $. a i i:; � ?d i ;1111. 3$ii: �s2 sSI if E!! $.iix �8"z:sx< i j i �', I '�, �I �� II i �! m - r I D - \ Z / / I ` ' 1 i I a 6 • { as 2S * T k O I c + + c I I + #: E I E c E f + + i + ; b a� o i s � I -I o m ! I i . � _ = + i E + + z I s i Now EIRE was Le �• n 4 e..� o raw nwca.er.� � 1 i � e p Y b �3 • • it • � � Z e t C- _? §� lie f,R, �! ogil , W W 6 n ;tai w i x Q + � W I U �i a � I j y am ± LU st LU I J- Q 01 3 , / �. 1 / 1 , � W / w yv 2; 32 w iii' is1661 Q N ..•� cY;3t �j 1W • I �d it.; ' I r m 'T r I , r M I t I � b i I I • ` 1 1 1 ' V y I 51 1 e i I �T I 1 I AJ�1 < m V O W i • I�� � '��� ��� 1:61 Lj ;! WK SEM I. am-i -ll• i ♦ < Lo ,,! w 7 ( t F I� I� I ®! } I i LP i C Z E W W- 5 3. N Ch T MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 12, 1996 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: SUNLITE PROPERTIES PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Steffen's Multi-Tenant Building) A review of the proposed site grading and utility plan has been conducted, and the following comments are presented as follows: 1. The overall site grading plan is very similar to the plan previously approved by the City and the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission in 1995 as General Litho. The Watershed's Engineer has again reviewed this plan, and has stated the following requirements: A. A WCA(Wetland Conservation Act) Wetland Replacement Plan must be submitted and signed by the developer. B. A cash surety in the amount of$2,500 be deposited with the City by the developer as • required by the WCA. C. A cash surety in the amount of$5,000 be deposited by the developer with the City to ensure completion of wetland monitoring. This surety will be held for five years, as required by the WCA. D. Submittal of an Operation and Maintenance Plan which will maintain the outlet control structure and permanent pool in the storm water treatment pond. The plan shall be incorporated into a utility maintenance agreement that assures the designated operation and maintenance procedures will be faithfully executed. E. Easements shall be granted over ponding areas and other hydrologic/hydraulic features. The applicant/developer must provide the City with legal descriptions describing all easements. The above requirements should be incorporated into an Easement and Utility/Maintenance Agreement. 2. The northwest corner of the proposed building extends into an existing drainage easement. In addition, it appears that the extension of the existing 72 inch diameter pipe will likely require an addition to and/or modification to the easement. The applicant/developer must therefore provide the City with legal descriptions describing all easement vacations and revisions as needed to accommodate the proposed constructions. • 3. As shown, the existing 72 inch diameter storm sewer will be extended. Because of the high amount of storm water discharge through this pipe, the proposed CL 3 Rip Rap at the outlet may not • be sufficient to provide adequate erosion protection and long term maintenance. It is recommended that a properly designed flow dissipation device, concrete cable revetment, or other sufficient measure be installed. In addition, the existing storm sewer dissipation device is a very heavily designed and constructed concrete structure. Because of its size, it is unlikely that this structure can be salvaged and re-used. However, the structure must still be removed. 4. A continual drainage problem has existed upon the adjacent property at the northeast corner of this property. In order to prevent compounding of the problem by this development, it is suggested that the grading and utility plan be modified to provide either of the,following: A. The site be regraded to prevent any runoff from the Sunlite property to the northeast. B. Catch basins be added at the proposed northwest driveway entrance and connected with existing storm sewer. 5. Sanitary sewer and water services are shown. The mains shown are not owned by the City and their sizes and location cannot be confirmed. Since the mains available are privately owned, the applicant/developer is responsible for confirming their availability and attaining proper authorization to connect. 6. Hydrant availability and locations should be confirmed by the Fire Department. • i