The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997 02-12 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 12, 1997 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - January 29, 1997 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all.final decisions. • 5. Sunlite Properties 97003 Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment to build an approximate 73,900 sq. ft. office/industrial facility on a 6.25 acre site located west of Parkway Circle; north of the Hilton Hotel. 6. Line Drive Batting Cages 97004 Special Use Permit to operate a batting facility at 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway. (Request that this matter be tabled following the public hearing as the applicant may not pursue the request at this time.) 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Planning Commission Application Information Sheet 16 Application No. 97003 Applicant: Sunlite Properties III Location: West of Parkway Circle,North of the Hilton Hotel (To Be Addressed as 6601 Parkway Circle) Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment The applicant, Sunlite Properties III, is seeking an amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval granted to this same applicant under Planning Commission Application No. 96002 on March 25, 1996. The new proposal is for a 73,903 sq. ft. office/industrial building on the 6.25 acre site located west of Parkway Circle, north of the Hilton Hotel The previously approved Planned Unit Development for this same applicant was for a 69,778 sq. ft. office/industrial building on this same site in March, 1996. Prior to that, the City Council had granted site and building plan approval to General Litho Services, Inc. for an 80,000 sq. ft. office/industrial building in March, 1995. The current application is a new, but very similar,plan for the development of this property. The plan, in addition to providing for a somewhat larger facility,would shift the building easterly approximately 25 ft. and would provide access and parking around the entire building. The other significant alteration would be along the south side of the building where loading docks would be provided for each of the tenant spaces rather than the centralized loading spaces comprehended under the 1996 approval. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the site plan approved by the City Council under Planning Commission Application No. 96002. The property under consideration is part of a PUD/I l zone and is bounded on the north by the Metropolitan Council Transit Operation(MCTO) garage and the Spec X 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 Hilton Hotel; and on the west by Shingle Creek and its accompanying greenstrip. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site is gained via Parkway Circle from Shingle Creek Parkway. Two driveways, 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. The parking plan provides 162 parking spaces which would be located around all sides of the building. A drive lane connecting the north and south parking lots is a feature differing this plan from the 1996 plan. Also the front, or north side, of the building would provide a more decorative store front type treatment for the various tenant spaces. This side of the building is staggered somewhat and provides for a more interesting building. • 2-13-97 Page 1 The applicant is planning to have a maximum of 25 percent of the building in office occupancy with the balance as industrial or warehouse space. This is a change from the planned 30 percent office occupancy contemplated in the 1996 plan. The parking requirement based on a 25 percent office/75 percent industrial occupancy is 161 cars. The office parking requirement is one parking 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. The plan also calls for 20 additional parking 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. This will be an encumbrance on the subject site requiring the continuation of these 20 parking spaces to be provided for the sole use of the adjoining property. This requirement is a part of the Planned Unit Development for this area and surrounding areas including the central parking lot which lies to the east of the subject site. This is part of a final agreement which has been executed and filed with Hennepin County. The on-site parking area, as well as the 20 off-site spaces, are to be bound by B-612 curb and gutter and meet the minimum requirements for stall width and depth for 90 degree parking. The office space of the proposed building will be along the north side of the site where most of the available parking will be located. As mentioned previously, 12 loading docks will be provided along the south side of the building dispersed among the various tenant spaces. This is a change from the 1996 plan submitted, which called for two cluster type loading docks that would serve the various tenant areas. A minimum of three loading berths is required for a manufacturing facility of this size. The loading berths exceed the minimum size requirements contained in the zoning ordinance and should prove to be adequate for the proposed facility. GRADING/DRAINAGE/JTILITIES The drainage plan proposes to drain the parking lot 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. The detention and treatment pond is in the same location as the detention and treatment pond proposed previously. The detention pond has been sized to handle all of the storm water run off from the north and south sides of the building. The City Engineer has expressed some concern regarding the roof drainage from this site which is proposed to be drained into a storm sewer on the north side of the site. He believes a clean-out should be provided to provide appropriate maintenance for this facility. The proposed finished floor elevation for the building is 849.1 ft. which is the same elevation proposed for the previous Sunlite Properties building. This 849.1 ft. of elevation is well above the 100 year flood elevation of 844 ft. The drainage plan and wetland mitigation proposed for 2-13-97 Page 2 the westerly side of the building is the same as was previously approved. This site had been reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to the storm water plan for this property. The City Engineer has reviewed the amended site plan with the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission staff and no changes to that plan need to be made. The City Engineer,however, does have a problem with recommending approval of this application. The Watershed Commission and City had approved the plans for this development almost one year ago and the City Engineer has attempted to get the applicant and his representatives to provide him with matters relating to the conditions of approval of the application. Attached is a copy of a February 5, 1997 memo from City Engineer, Scott Brink regarding this matter. He lists five points of concerns relating to required conditions which he believes needs to be addressed. One relates to easement descriptions necessary for new easements as well as for vacating old ones. It should be pointed out that the proposed building location would encroach upon an existing drainage and utility easement, a portion of which will need to be vacated. Point two deals with the need for a utility and maintenance agreement; point three deals with a wetland conservation act replacement plan that needs to be signed by the developer; point four deals with a cash surety in the amount of$5,000 which needs to be deposited with the City to insure completion of wetland monitoring and finally the need for documentation regarding granting easements over ponding areas. This memo has been conveyed to the applicant's architect and I have advised him that we will not recommend approval of this application until the City Engineer is satisfied that these points will be addressed. LANDSCAPING 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 the Army Corps of Engineers standards. The balance, or 4.62 acres, will be landscaped. These 4.62 acres require 363.4 landscape 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). This is the exact same number of landscape points and distribution of landscaping that was proposed under the landscape plan submitted under Application No. 96002. The landscaping is distributed basically in the same manner altered only by what is caused from the shifting of the building to the east and the altered loading dock area to the south. Many of the shrubs and decorative trees proposed along the south side of the building, under Application No. 96002 have been shifted to the greenstrip along the south boundary line of this property separating it from the Hilton Hotel. The plan calls for a 15 ft. greenstrip along the Parkway Circle access drive between the two access points. This area will be sodded as well as the area around the off-site parking lot and parking provided for this building along the north side. Sod will also be provided in areas 2-13-97 Page 3 adjacent to the building which are not part of the natural wetland area where seed is being provided. The proposed landscape plan, as was the previous landscape plan, 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 Fab-Con concrete panels. No color or texture is indicated on the plans. Canvas canopies are proposed over the store front type doorways which are a more decorative change from that proposed under the previous building plans. Windows will be provided along the north building elevation as well as on a portion of the east and west building elevations where office areas will be. There is a potential for mezzanine space and windows may be provided in these areas as well. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant's 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 parking facilities. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plan. It is my understanding 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 Center Sun/Post. Normally with rezonings, planned unit developments or planned unit development amendments,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 plan which was approved for the same applicant approximately one year ago under Planning Commission Application No. 96002. Watershed and other agency approvals have been granted for this plan and soil corrections to the site have been made by the applicant already. As mentioned previously, the proposed building location 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. This is one of the points that the City Engineer was making. The fact that no description of this easement has been provided to him will in all likelihood cause delays in the issuance of building permits for this project. As mentioned previously, we will not recommend approval of this application unless the City Engineer's points have been addressed by the applicant prior to the Planning Commission's 2-13-97 Page 4 • s s consideration of this matter. RECOMMENDATION If the City Engineer's concerns can be addressed prior to the Planning Commission meeting, we would then recommend approval of the application subject to at least the following conditions: 1. 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 costs estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to insure 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. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility 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 following additional financial guarantees will be deposited with the City 2-13-97 Page 5 Engineer by the applicant: A. A $2,500 cash surety as required by the Wetland Conservation Act. B. A $5,000 cash surety to insure 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. 14. The 20 parking stalls indicated on the north side 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 title to the properties prior to the issuance of permits. 15. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 16. 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. 2-13-97 Page 6 i r APPLICATION \1 11 • tali • - AlAY CM AVE. N. ZRAt •s., ININ■11■1 i'AF , �. �■ • iii ��■�long ��• �� '�: % im�w�uu nu■nn■u�• OR iii►i �i �n � � �° - ��'. � � II► MEN .: s ; ro Old t 1 . � v I a i N g I-FFF--[-M t i� Ik HIM 'i• � fill 1i I 1 � h M7 Y t !s g o a ' sf if o .L L ' + T ` J L • s 8R st x MAO r.`.OI`IO M•I�C � � � '' ~ Y r.n a-i 9j gg g I sw • a 1 111 r It ki 4 , _a r.n .►.. 1 � yy a 'a• 3 I * I Yq i• it :� I• �! ��Y � I � -� i� cif 1 , �; fir`------ °`l ---� --i----�-- f Fk*t _ I_ a j 7 1 1 W T i -11 LU a w i M If 7a:772tt:faaa f�fill, lit • p'at , ;__�il� tai ;i!11 a elf j�;1 s p �;: 9: I A ! p IV op fit•' � a�G gby .5�. 4T'` ,,i'i y � �—,,,—``JI W ':i: �; I �l3•- � 3 C, `,� � I i :•i � la Z iu j �.. Sls \9 \~ `� —' '- Yep• /�%i�% _1 OF ''o,, i•,� a i 9 � � y � � � i9 E @ i � I �� _ f 1 �. f r• 3 _ f E� LI Jill ui 14 It;- LU g .. '. -- -- ---I-- - LI via is co uj •I ._.� •:a�•� LN UD I g w • Q / Uj �'• r.w st C ul z �i � I I I 1 � • eVZ � 1'il Sig ittli 1 1) III fill LL co • 'III"' `j � � •i �— � ��---L�-�__�--i e, � m� is � �dm � �(l��! i �— -�- -- - -- it I '�.Jy�� i � Sil :�ti-i •� � +JC �q S i M 111 ' ' ; fill #� ; f 111 11 �i. 3�i. a�s�yo , .�...-♦w+.ul..waive. , I � a ; g # o f ilgJ� fig' '� fill >I �y�7� y�S —Allft +.wo: - is -a t 117' �X�$� �g?:i�? W yll!. j2j Lj.s � i' -� - ..--�-— -—__ i � r � ��dd•74 �IIY41E4 W �t�4g17 ��ey �y'r�! fall •�-. s-mss I _\\;� I I �� R s P � �S 7 ►� ,j I � i I � � � �'� � ��Ill �Iig 1 1pag gig Fm�-i�s, fysg. ±s11 9 Yi95i 0::i I� Ir.:x•r rx I rw +I rw rw b W III = cl i 5` i ❑ ,n/_ � m j aura, ew rwa. rue, Cl I I wwaa1 awr I ( I d • Cl - � ti _ � I I t �; I > a ul P i sa E ii 'I ❑ { i I, I II ❑ .I �tl '' n � � � a w G y 1 I i❑ ii G li I i❑ C3 1,77 tj C— c0 a i r� u " 7 V LU cl LU O it .-...� ❑ � Q it i�� ' Q � _ �� n F it _ J m UJ W � W i 11 tt SI. • Ron Warren From: Scott Brink To: Ron Warren Cc: Clay Larson; Diane Spector Subject: Sunlite Properties Date: Wednesday, February 05, 1997 4:23PM I have looked at the revised plan submitted by Chuck Plowe for Sunlite Propertie. The plan has not changed significantly, but I do have some concerns about the roof drain going directly into the storm sewer, and the potential of freeze ups or clogging of the storm sewer leading perhaps to other problems. I will discuss this further with Clay. Eric Thompson(Watershed) has also received a copy of this plan. Because the plan has not changed significantly, he is fine with it, and doesn't require another permit application. I do however have a problem with approving this. Since the watershed and City approved this almost a year ago, I have been after Jerry Steffans, his attorney, and Chuck Plowe countless times to provide us with the approval condition requirements which include: 1. Easement Descriptions for new easements, as well as vacating old ones no longer needed. 2. A utility and maintenance agreement (provided for them by the City a long time ago). 3. A WCA Wetland Replacement Plan signed by the developer 4. A cash surety in the amount of $5,000 to be deposited with the City to ensure completion of wetland monitoring. 5. Documentation granting easements over ponding areas, etc. To the best of my knowledge, the City has not received any of these, despite the many reminders. I recommend no further approvals relating to this site until all of these required items are attained. • • Page 1