HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 04-17 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
. APRIL 17, 1997
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order- 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes -March 13, 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. Timothy Thompson 97005
Variance request to allow an addition to a detached garage at 5945 Camden Avenue
North resulting in an accessory building that exceeds both the 1,000 sq. ft. maximum size
of a single accessory building and also the ground coverage of a principal building.
• 6. Spiritual Life Church 97006
Request for Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 900 seat church on the vacant
4.4 acre parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and
Xerxes Avenue North.
7. Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha Rubber Co.) 97007
Request for Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 37,440 sq. ft. addition to the
Hiawatha Rubber Company building located at 1700 67th Avenue North.
8 Line Drive Batting Cages 97004
Request for a Special Use Permit to operate a batting facility at 6820 Shingle Creek
Parkway. (This matter was tabled at the applicant's request on February 12, 1997. The
Commission should acknowledge the withdrawal of this application as the applicant will
not be pursuing this request.)
9. Discussion Item:
a. Modifications to Tax Increment District No. 3
Two modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 are being
considered by the Economic Development Authority(EDA) and are scheduled for
a public hearing on April 28, 1997. These are the same modifications that the
Planning Commission considered at its November 14, 1996 meeting. The
Commission is requested to again state that"the modifications conform to the
general plan for development or redevelopment of the City as a whole".
10. Adjournment
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 97005
Applicant: Timothy Thompson
Location: 5945 Camden Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 35-310, Subdivision lb 3 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the construction of a 20 ft. by 30 ft. addition to an existing detached garage
which would create an accessory building exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. and which would also exceed
the ground coverage of the principal building on that lot.
The property in question is located in an R-1 zoning district and is surrounded by other single
family homes. The above cited section of the Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached
accessory buildings and carports provided the ground coverage of any single accessory building
shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft.; that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any
one residential premise; and that the total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings
shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building.
The applicant has submitted a letter and various drawings showing his proposal. His existing
house has ground coverage of 1,261 sq. ft., while his existing detached garage is 720 sq. ft. As
the applicant's letter points out, he would like to add 600 sq. ft. (20 ft. by 30 ft.) to his existing
garage in order to house four vehicles that he wishes to keep inside at all times.
The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Adjustments and
Appeals,to recommend and the City Council 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
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 thte Zoning
Ordinances, 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 is 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.
i 4-17-97
Page 1
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 a situation alone have not been considered to be a
hardship under the meaning of standard `a' above.
The applicant's letter addresses how he believes his request meets the Standards for Variance.
As indicated previously,he desires the variance in order to house four vehicles within an
accessory building. He notes that the positioning of his present garage is not conducive to
adding a third and fourth stall to the north side of the building. Also,the character of the houses
and lot sizes in this particular area are oversized and his proposal would not be out of place if
allowed. The provisions of the ordinance would not allow him to add a 30 ft. by 20 ft. addition
to create a tandem style garage and would require him,therefore,to build a second detached
structure behind his existing garage to be accessed by driving through the existing garage. He
also notes that he believes the tandem style garage will minimize site line impacts on Camden
Avenue and that surrounding neighbors will not notice a significant change in the mass of the
building given his proposal.
In summary, the applicant states that he believes that it is reasonable to grant the two variances
he requests in that they are consistent with the spirit of the zoning code;they avoid an
operational and functional obsolescence that would be created by the strict adherence to the
ordinance in achieving shelter for the four cars; do not negatively impact the value, enjoyment or
safety of the adjacent property; and they have little to no negative impact on the aesthetics of the
site lines of the property and its improvements.
A review of the variance proposal and the Standards for Variance leads the staff to believe and
recommend that no ordinance related hardship has been shown. The idea of having one or two
accessory buildings that would exceed the ground coverage of the home seems definitely to be
contrary to the concept of principal and accessory buildings. The City's ordinances have long
held that an accessory building or buildings should not be larger than the principal structure. In
fact,prior to the adoption of the current provisions, accessory buildings were limited to being no
more than 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building. The City's ordinances
also do not even require that properties have an accessory structure or garage.
The applicant's situation is not unique. It is not uncommon for persons requesting additional
garage space to construct two accessory buildings situated in such a way that additional overhead
doors have to be constructed to access the second building. To be required to put up a second
building as the applicant's drawing shows, in order to get additional space, is not uncommon nor
4-17-97 •
Page 2
is it a hardship in the sense that the zoning ordinance refers. It is, rather, an inconvenience. As
mentioned previously,the additional cost to comply with the ordinance provisions does not by
itself constitute hardship.
As noted, the applicant's situation is not necessarily unique to his parcel of land. Others have
desired to have more accessory building space than their principal building, or to have a garage
larger than 1,000 sq. ft. in area but have found ways to accommodate their needs and desires in a
manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance. To grant a variance in this situation,
would basically mean that similar requests for more accessory space than principal building
ground coverage should also be granted. If the Commission is sympathetic to the applicant's
case, an ordinance amendment, rather than a variance, should be pursued in order to allow equal
application of the ordinance on a city-wide basis.
The current accessory building provisions (Section 35-310, Subdivision lb 3) were adopted in
1981. They were adopted after denying a variance request to allow the construction of a garage
that would exceed 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building on a particular site.
In that particular case,the applicant was requesting to build a 24 ft. by 26 ft. garage that would
be the same size as her 24 ft. by 26 ft. house. The Planning Commission at that time reviewed
the provisions and determined that it was essential that no one accessory building, or
combination of accessory buildings, should exceed the ground coverage of the principal building.
They believed that two accessory buildings per lot was enough and that a single accessory
• building of 1,000 sq. ft. was large enough because the building code limited accessory buildings
on floating slabs at that time to 1,000 sq. ft. The building code has since been amended to allow
accessory buildings to be larger than 1,000 sq. ft. provided they meet certain other requirements
of the building code.
The Commission may wish to discuss further the possibility of an ordinance amendment which
might affect the applicant's proposal in part at least. Again, we do not recommend a variance or
an ordinance amendment that would allow an accessory build to exceed the ground coverage of
the principal building. We have some reservations about large accessory buildings being a
temptation to be used for other purposes such as non-permitted home businesses or attempting to
convert them to habitable space and having accessory living arrangements in them. Other
provisions in the ordinance limit accessory buildings to 15 ft. in height. We do not propose to
change these either. Again, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss these matters and
possibly recommend changes to the ordinance if they believe they are appropriate.
With respect to the applicant's request for a variance, we recommend that it not be granted on the
grounds that the Standards for Variances,particularly standard `a' regarding hardship and
standard `b' regarding uniqueness, are not met.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent.
i 4-17-97
Page 3
KA __
IM Ml
_ _ __ _
IN ■-
IN IN
Ml
Ml MEMME
IM IMIN IM ME
_ WIN ME 3'
_
Ml __ ME r
_ _ [�M rsi
'E d! f
IM IN mmwd
mm IMM q-pm ME
__ __ a
mm MW
Ml
MIN IN
" a M SIN _ �■ s��/i
IN
Elm m
NEW
WILMA
ON
MIN
IN
INN
i I
1 I _
I i
March 31, 1997
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Brooklyn Center City Council
Mayor of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Council and Planning Commission Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to present my application for a variance for the addition of a
20'by 30' addition to my existing detached garage at my home at 5945 Camden Avenue North in
Brooklyn Center.
Currently, my home is served by a detached garage which, because of the way it is
situated; makes it impossible to get more than two cars inside at one time. I own four vehicles
that are newer and/or in excellent condition that I would like to keep inside at all times.
My request for a variance covers two points in the existing ordinance. 1) That a garage
that is appurtenant to a residential dwelling should not exceed 1,000 square feet in size and that
2) That a garage should not be larger in square footage than a home.
• The hardship of strictly adhering to the ordinance in my attempt to be ablc to have
four vehicles inside would be embodied in the following statements:
1) That the house and garage positioning is not conducive to being able to access a third and
fourth garage stall by adding on to the garage to the north (see drawing), or building a separate
new garage on the property. There is little to no room to get around or past the existing garage to
the north and the existing garage is right against the south property line setback.
2) That the character of the houses and lot sizes on this particular block are such that an oversized
garage does not either look out of place, nor does it render the lot with little to no green space.
The lots are 210 feet or more deep and at least 80 feet wide. This garage addition would produce
a garage that would be less than 10%of the total lot area of the property.
3) That by constructing the addition (30'by 20') in tandem style, I will be able to access and
service the garage by one garage door rather than three garage doors in the case where I had to
build a third detached structure behind my existing garage which I could only effective reach by
driving through the existing garage and into the detached second garage.
4) That by constructing the addition(30'by 201) in tandem style, as shown on my drawing, I will
minimize a) The site line impact from Camden Avenue as a result of narrow angle depth
perception; will not change the current appearance of an existing detached two car garage. b)
• That the surround neighbors will not notice a significant change in mass of building; site
disturbance or consistency and quality of construction. The addition will be design to be the
same, matching height of 8' to the roof trusses (rather than the 10'allowed) with the siding color
and roof materials will be identical to the existing structure. c) That the improvement will be
aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property owners and will not pose any nuisance, or endanger
public welfare in any manner.
In summary, I believe that it is reasonable to grant these two variances in that they are
consistent with the spirit of the zoning code; they avoid an operational, and functional
obsolescence that would be created by the strict adherence to the Ordinance in achieving shelter
for the four cars; do not negatively impact the value, enjoyment, or safety of the adjacent
properties; and they have little to no negative impact on the aesthetics of the site lines of the
property and its improvements.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tim Thompson
5945 Camden Avenue North •
Brooklyn Center, NIN 5543
. i
I r`
« I �
Awl < ,
•� 1 •� ! — s� — I
r~ — �—
f =:
Q�1
N !
3nr ,
I I
t I
! 1 t
t ,
r
_ N I I
3nr
c = o
ti 3nr . t
`�I aQTr
I I i R p _.t c •7 .� .V
1 � j
N 3nr tNrc�g c
! '
In
S.17
r t�
in
;lp C ; I
—
N 3A:
i
Ld
Q
O2 —
Q
_ N c O
oo) O O
! 00 V a41
!
I I
,s
L
t
J�
ri
L'
Y.
�I
•
f
1
• t v
.4
O
J x
Oc
o
(i JA
ip +
1
Y
C4 ;
a ! F
VI
` ttf
r
d
N t
(� i � r7•+���rirw�ri ■• ���+l err��w sw
i i 1
� f !
I �
I �
j �
t
� � f
4
i I
' � I
tIf i
A i
. f
i lv
� I �
? f ,
f
i
LO
V
r4
' 1
' U
' O
a
a
Q
M
LO
•
CO
fh
4J a
fo
Section 35-310. R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. One family dwellings.
b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special
uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not
including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include
but not be restricted to the following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces.
3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling
building, subject to the following limitations:
aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater
than 1,000 square feet.
bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one
• residential P remises.
cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not
exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building.
4. Public recreational structures in parks,playgrounds and athletic fields.
5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and
tennis courts.
6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section
35-900.
7. Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract
upon which it is located.
9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family,provided
adequate offstreet parking is provided.
35-16
:.> V Building floor plans, elevations, sections and outline specifications, including i
materials proposed.
VI Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility
provisions as may be required.
J. Conditions and Restrictions
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such
conditions and restrictions as deemed necessary to protect the public interest and to secure
compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. The conditions may include the
execution and submission of a Performance Agreement with a supporting financial
guarantee that the subject property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in
conformance with the plans, specifications and standards.
Section 3 5-240. VARIANCES. In instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions
of this zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive
to an individual property under consideration,the City Council shall have the power to grant variances,
in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The provisions of this 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 predecessor in title shall not
constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance.
The following rules shall govern applications fora variance from the strict requirements of this
ordinance:
1. Procedures
a. A "Variance" application shall be initiated by the owner of the subject property or his
authorized agent. The application shall be referred to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals for public hearing, study, and report and may not be acted upon by the City
Council until it has received the recommendation of the Board, or until seventy-eight
(78) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without a report by
the Board. The date of referral is defined as the date of the public hearing.
b. The applicant shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals a"Variance" application, copies of which are available at the municipal
offices,together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The
application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board at least fourteen (14) days
before the date of the public hearing.
35-11
r
C. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall refer the matter to the
Board by placing the application upon the agenda of the Board's next regular meeting;
provided, however,that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the
Board, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals.
d. No less than seven(7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the
property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject
property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not
invalidate the proceedings thereunder.
e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City
Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board.
f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall
be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen(18) days following the
recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a
recommendation, within seventy-eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board.
g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty-eight
• (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the
event the Board has failed to make any recommendation,within one hundred and eight
(108) days of referral to the Board.
Ii. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered.
Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the
case may be,the maps,drawings,plans, records or other information requested by the
Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the
application.
i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the'Board's action
upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the
application,shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this
notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application.
35-12
2. Standards for Variances
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant
variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive
to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend
and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be
granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following
qualifications are met:
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 is 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.
3. Conditions and Restrictions
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose
conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the
provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
to protect adjacent properties.
35-13
• Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 97006
Applicant: Spiritual Life Church
Location: Southwest Quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
Applicant is requesting Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 28,611 sq. ft, 900 seat
church on the vacant 4.4 acre parcel of land that is located at the southwest quadrant of Shingle
Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C-1
(Service/Office) and is surrounded on the north by Shingle Creek Parkway with I-1 zoned
property containing the Palmer Lake Plaza Office/Industrial building on the opposite side of the
street; on the east by Xerxes Avenue and a two story office building with I-1 zoned property
containing an office/industrial building on the opposite side of Xerxes Avenue; on the south and
west by Freeway Boulevard with R-3 zoned property containing the Earle Brown Farm Estates
Townhouses on the opposite side. Religious uses are listed as permitted uses in the C-1 zoning
district.
ACCESS/PARKING
Access to the property is to be gained via 24 ft. wide drive ways located along Xerxes Avenue
and two along Freeway Boulevard, one at the northwest corner of the site near Shingle Creek
• Parkway and the other along the southeasterly portion of the site. The site plan does not show
the location of existing accesses on Xerxes Avenue North serving an office/industrial building or
on Freeway Boulevard serving the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouses. There are two access
drives on the opposite side of Freeway Boulevard to the west of this site and one on Freeway
Boulevard to the south of this site serving the townhouse complex. None of the proposed
accesses appear to line up directly with the existing accesses except possibly the Xerxes access
with the office/industrial building to the east. Locations of accesses should be reviewed and
noted on the plan for possible adjustment. The City Engineer has commented about his concern
for the northwesterly access along Freeway Boulevard possibly being too close to Shingle Creek
Parkway. He would prefer more distance, but we also should be concerned about it's alignment
with the access to the townhouses on the opposite side of the street. The access to the
townhouses along the south portion of Freeway Boulevard appears to be about midway between
the proposed access for the church and the corner of Freeway Boulevard. This too should be
reviewed.
The parking requirement for churches is one parking space for every three seats in the main
church building. The applicant's plan indicates 900 seats in the church proper, therefore, 300
parking spaces are required for this site. The parking plan provides for 303 parking spaces
including five handicap. The stalls scale 8 ft. 8 in. wide, which is the minimum stall width for
parking spaces allowed under the zoning ordinance. There should be at least one more handicap
stall based on the requirement of one handicap space for every 50 parking stalls. In reviewing
• 04-14-97
Page 1
the site plan, it is noted that the parking lot width to the east of the church's main entrance scales .
only 125 ft. This area, in order to meet the zoning ordinance minimum requirements for parking
lot dimensions, should be 127 ft. The site plan should be adjusted and there appears to be no
problem in doing this. Parking and driving lanes are provided all the way around the building.
The main entrance to the building is at the northeasterly corner of the building. The site plan
shows required 35 ft. green.strips along Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North,
which are major thoroughfares. Fifteen foot greenstrips are provided for on the west and south
portions of the site where the property abuts with Freeway Boulevard.. This portion of Freeway
Boulevard is not a major thoroughfare and,therefore, only 15 ft. green strips are required.
DRAINAGE/GRADING/UTILITIES
The applicant has not submitted a grading, drainage or utility plan and one must be provided
before a favorable recommendation can be made. The site is 4.4 acres and would not normally
require Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval. City records
indicate that a portion of this site is wetlands and the applicant has been advised that wetland
delineation must take place. Because the property abuts wetlands, Watershed review and
approval will probably be necessary. The applicant's architect has been advised of the need for a
drainage, grading and utility plan as well as to provide the necessary wetland delineation. In the
meantime,we have no comments with respect to this portion of the plan.
LANDSCAPING •
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized
by the Planning Commission for recommending such plans. This property is zoned C-1 and we
have,therefore, requested the applicant to provide a landscape plan based on the points required
for a C-1 or Service/Office development. This 4.4 acre site requires 392 landscape points. The
project data summary on the front page of the site plan indicates that 379 landscape points are to
be provided. This is 13 points short of the minimum required. The landscape point itself,when
totaling points, shows only 356 landscape points. Adjustment to the landscape plan by providing
additional landscaping is in order.
The plan submitted calls for Fallgold Ash,Plum-leaved Crab Apple and Colorado Spruce around
the perimeter greenstrip areas of the property. Plum-leaved Crab Apple are also proposed for the
parking lot island areas as well as along the west side of the church building. A landscape area
containing Hillieri and Purpleleave Sand Cherry is proposed for the northeast corner of the site
around the proposed location for an identification sign. Techney,Arborvitae and Hillieri are also
proposed in landscape areas on either side of the entrance to the church building. The landscape
plan should be modified to provide some additional landscaping to meet the minimum points
required.
It should also be noted that the zoning ordinance requires parking lot screening where parking
04-14-97 •
Page 2
• lots containing more than six cars are across the street from residentially zoned property. This is
the case along Freeway Boulevard across from the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouses. This
screening should be at least three to four feet high to screen the parking lot and car headlights
from the residential across the street. It is also common in the industrial park area to provide
berming along Shingle Creek Parkway in an effort to screen the parking lot at street level. No
grading plan has been provided, however,the areas along Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes
Avenue would be appropriate for providing berming to shield the parking lot and asphalt areas
from these two roadways. It is recommended that the plans be modified to provide this as well.
BUILDING
The proposed building treatment is to be made up primarily of a textured decorative insulated
pre-cast concrete wall panel with prefinished metal coping and a prefinished standing seam metal
roof where a peaked roof is called for. A tinted reflectorized glazed curtain wall is also proposed
at the main building entrance. No colors have been indicated,but it is presumed that they will be
earth tones. The interior of the building will contain 900 auditorium seats in the main portion of
the church along with a nursery, bookstore,restrooms, a fellowship hall/classroom area and
kitchen as well as storage and a choir room. The upper level will include office areas, reception
and a conference room as well as a prayer room and storage. The plans indicate a possibility for
future expansion,however,no additional expansion of the church's seating capacity can be
allowed without additional land area.
• LIGHTING
The site plan shows the location of lighting fixtures around the perimeter of the parking lot at 14
locations. The general notes provided with the plan indicate that site lighting shall be provided
with such devices as required to restrict glare and intensities in conformance with the City's
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant should submit information as to the proposed height of the
lighting fixtures and a comment at least that the lighting fixtures will be shielded in such a way
as to direct light unto the site and not create glare.
No indication of outside trash disposal facilities is shown on the plan. Any such outside trash
disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical equipment,will have to be screened from
view by an opaque screening device.
It should also be noted that the general notes indicate that all surfacing, curbs and gutters shall be
provided in accordance with the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
As noted in the report,the plans are not sufficient enough to make a recommendation to approve.
No drainage, grading or utility plan has been submitted and wetland delineation is an issue. This
• 04-14-97
Page 3
wetland delineation matter may cause some significant alterations to this site if the property is •
indeed affected by wetlands.
Revision to the landscape plan to provide more landscape points is in order. Indication of where
off-site accesses are located should be provided in order to evaluate the applicant's proposed
access arrangement. Screening across the street from residentially zoned property is required and
it is recommended that the grading plan be modified to provide berming along Shingle Creek
Parkway and Xerxes so as to screen the parking lots in these locations.
These matters have been reported to the applicant's architect and must be addressed before a
favorable recommendation can be made with respect to the applicant's plans. The application
should be tabled until an appropriate plan is presented. The Commission should keep in mind
the State Statute limitation of 60 days for reviewing such plans. It would behoove the applicant
to expedite their plan amendments rather than to receive a recommendation of denial due to
insufficient submission of plans.
04-14-97 .
Page 4
too
111 •`�' ♦�
Y Um
III/ ►�� `mss�I�i� °°••--_,_ ;�`, -., : , ® ►
Ilium ���� ��� ■■� --
g■in■■■� • � �
low
BIMINI
UNION KAM
lots
low ��i�e ►■■� loan►��� ♦��'.���/ _
- - IF
S
� a
1 � s
1
I
'II
1 !
CHURCH
r�+
F�iti■
ea
I
f I I
Aw
owl
f
141
i
1
• I�� ��IIII 7i�aM A`w iHUS1bleft It�GM P1[�l.
0 0
f
SPIRITUAL LIFE � [�� itm
�N� i lul l n.rr. wCHURCH iir� e.wc ea.w-
`I
i
T —`
_�541�I n�Si ��yL'SfY
°�?5•
�17k�
hio
-a2S•
as5�,saa�
SPIRITUAL
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
r
M+
• Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 97007
Applicant: Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha Rubber Company)
Location: 1700 67th Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant is requesting Site and Building Plan Approval to construct a 180 ft. by 208 ft.
(37,440 sq. ft.) addition to the existing Hiawatha Rubber Company building which is located at
1700 67th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and this light
manufacturing facility is a permitted use in this zoning district.
The subject site is located on the north side of 67th Avenue where it intersects with James
Avenue North. It is bounded on the west, east and south by other I-1 zoned land and on the north
by R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) zoned property. The Medtronic facility is immediately to
the west of the subject site;the Earle Brown Farm Apartments are to the north; the TCR
Corporation is located to the east; and 67th Avenue and other industrial uses are to the south.
The proposed addition would be to the north side (or back) of the existing building and would
add a manufacturing and warehousing area to this building.
ACCESS/PARKING
• Access to the site would remain unchanged and would be via 67th Avenue and James Avenue
North. The parking lot that is currently located along the east side of the building would be
extended all the way back to within 15 ft. of the rear property line. This area would serve as
loading space for the expanded building and additional parking for the site. Currently there are
49 parking spaces serving the existing building with seven being in the front along 67th Avenue
North. One of these parking spaces is a designated handicap parking space. Forty-two existing
parking spaces are located along the east side of the building and an additional 50 parking spaces
would be constructed along the east side to the rear of the proposed loading area. Thirty-six
more parking spaces could be constructed in back of the building, but the applicant has proposed
to defer these parking spaces and to install them only if they would be needed in the future. The
parking requirement for the total 77,047 sq. ft. building would be 113 parking spaces. This is
based on 4,583 sq. ft. of office requiring 23 parking spaces (at one parking space for every 200
sq. ft. of gross floor area) and 72,400 sq. ft. of manufacturing/warehouse space requiring 90
parking spaces (at one parking space for every 800 sq. ft. of floor area). The proposed 99
parking spaces appear to be adequate given the applicant's expressed parking needs. We would,
however, recommend that a joint parking agreement between the City and the owner of the
property be executed requiring the construction of up to 36 additional parking spaces should the
City determine they are necessary in the future. It is my understanding that the applicant does
not object to such an agreement.
• 4-17-97
Page 1
GRADING/DRAINAGE/ JTILITIES •
As part of the applicant's submittal for this proposed expansion, they have provided grading,
draining and utility information. The existing building is hooked up to City water and sewer
located in the 67th Avenue North right-of-way. There is a 30 ft. wide utility easement running
west to east through the north portion of the site. The proposed building expansion would be up
to this utility easement line. Sanitary sewer and water lines are located within this 30 ft.
easement. It appears that the applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water main and
existing sanitary sewer located in this easement to provide such utilities to the expanded area.
The City Engineer has expressed a concern regarding the close proximity of the back wall on the
proposed addition to the existing utility easement. He is reviewing the plan to determine the
exact location of the utilities in the easement and to determine if the close proximity may affect
either the utility lines or the building foundation.
The drainage plan calls for the extension of an existing storm sewer along the east side of the
building. This would be extended to service the expanded parking and loading area proposed to
be located to the north of the existing parking area. The new area will be required to have B-612
curb and gutter to assist with site drainage. This site is 3.78 acres and, because of its size, it is
not required to have Watershed Management review and approval.
Attached for the Commission's review are two memos from the City Engineer(dated 4/1/97 and
4/14/97)regarding his review of the plan. •
LAND S CAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to
evaluate such plans. This 3.7 acre site is required to have 252 landscape points. There currently
are 16 existing Green Ash trees located primarily around the perimeter of the existing building.
Two Welch Junipers are located along either side of the entrance to the building and Spreading
Junipers are located between the building and the 67th Avenue North right-of-way. The
applicant proposes to continue the Ash tree plantings along the east property line by adding four
more trees along the perimeter greenstrip. The Zoning Ordinance requires, where an I-1 use
abuts with an R-4, R-5, R-6 or R-7 use at a property line,that a 50 ft. buffer area be established.
This buffer area may not be used for buildings, loading or other industrial activities and must be
landscaped. It is also required to have a screening device, either fencing or landscape screening
as determined by the City Council. It should be noted that parking may come within 15 ft. of the
property line where the industrial and multi-residential uses abut. The applicant is proposing to
provide screening along the north property line by adding 13 Colorado Blue Spruce trees to be
planted approximately 25 ft. on center. A chain link security fence is also proposed around the
back and east side of the facility. It should be noted that parking garages are located immediately
to the north of the property line servicing the apartment building to the north of this site. This
4-17-97 •
Page 2
• provides some additional screening between the apartment building itself and this industrial area.
It is believed that the proposed screening of Spruce trees should be appropriate for this area. The
applicant intends to seed the proof of parking area and leave this area as a grassy area between
the building and the property line.
BUILDING
The building exterior will be a continuation of the existing building which is primarily a single
score concrete block with break off concrete block accents. Again, this finish will be continued
along the proposed building expansion. The expansion is to provide additional manufacturing
and warehousing space for the expanded use. Building docks will be located along the east side
of the building.
LIGHTING/TRASH
The plans do not indicate any additional lighting,however, it is anticipated that lighting will be
provided in the newly expanded area. Our concern is primarily that lights be directed down onto
the property and not create glare spilling over to adjoining properties,particularly the residential
property to the north. No outside trash facilities are indicated on the site plan. It should be noted
that any outside trash facilities must be screened from view with opaque screening.
RECOMMENDATION
Altogether the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended 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 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 the completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building addition 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.
• 4-17-97
Page 3
6. The underground irrigation system shall be extended to all new landscape 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 the expanded parking and driving
areas.
9. The applicant shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and
inspection of utility and storm drainage systems,prior to the issuance of permits.
10. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on the
site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department.
11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to
the City of Brooklyn Center's current Standard Specifications and Details.
12. Additional lighting proposed for this site shall be provided in conformance with
Section 35-712 of the Zoning Ordinance.
13. A Proof of Parking Agreement acknowledging the need to install up to 36 parking •
spaces on the site upon a determination of the City shall be executed and filed with
the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.
4-17-97 •
Page 4
- U1\1111 •
•,. �I,, 1111/iAq t
OR
14111
AP
VIII I� i��■ ..■■ •'�--� ��® � -m �
oil
,.,,,,,,,■, • :�. ii,.Y�liii�iii •,�+*,•I;IJ ,�•J=`` i
own
mill 111111
l Nunn
Bananas r,I
NO
mm
MIN
_ __ No y ,
�► ii
NO
��.
ilk pr; ,.,
NO ON
V 05
A, Elm
t �
X11/�■■�/I� �� �_ �: �
G o•.�; H
"n
Elp � �:'
memo ild
• t
a g A � lpt U d - i iii
iii , .5
yy oil a R R a
_ � � Y, ■! � y1 i
a
a ma
R 8 9 99 .
HaON 3f1N3AY HI
e iF
Ag"tfit
jF
e `4y —'-----: '
4f
— R yi
711 S �� � �ae...a.w(+e•, I a _ \ �. �—� �; ��
■■ � � 3� jjy I s4 � QN i
!
ai
1z 11
'I L-11 bx
C � i
4I
s :
i9
i
W OY W ml
N s • I � c
ow u �,t I � a CO
e11i I fill i9Q
i
N
O
I
I
I
I 'I
x a '
F-1
� X
I
I u
I � i
I
• Ron Warren
From: Scott Brink
To: Ron Warren
Subject: Hiawatha Rubber - Proposed Expansion
Date: Tuesday, April 01, 1997 3:11 PM
I have reviewed the proposed site and landscape plan prepared by Bernard Herman Architects, Inc.
(undated). I can offer the following comments at this time, based on the limited amount of information
available:
1. The entire site apears to be less than 4 acres in size, so no aproval requirement from the local
Watershed is anticipated.
2. The proposed building expansion falls directly agains a utility easement that includes three known
utilities: water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. This is a concern, in that the specific location of the
utilities is not shown on the plan. If the addition is constructed too close to any utility, this may cause
present construction and future problems for either the utilities and/or building, in terms of future
maintenance and potential problems for each: particularly if the building foundation is constructed too close
to a pipe. It is recommended that the exact location of the utilities be verified, that the type of required
building foundation be known, and that a sufficient separation distance be considered.
3. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. The single catch basin is not enough to sufficiently
drain the entire existing and proposed parking lot. Significant ponding in the parking lot would occur. The
existing variance in elevations, and drainage for the future parking area must also be considered. Location
of roof drains should also be considered. Drainage impacts to properties immediately adjacent to this
property must also be considered.
4. The plan needs to show if additional utility connects (sewer and water) are needed.
• 5. Screening/landscaping in consideration of adjacent properties(particularly the apartments) should be
evaluated further in the grading and landscaping plan.
6. All new parking areas mus have concrete curb and gutter (13612 min.)
Page 1
• Ron Warren
From: Scott Brink
To: Ron Warren
Subject: Hiawatha Rubber Co. - More Comments
Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 3:12PM
Ron,
Here are some additional comments as a result of the updated plan recently received (Sheet Al, Bernard
Herman Architects, dated 4-3-97):
1. It apears that 2 additional handicapped parking stalls need to be available.
2. It is assumed that existing and future concrete curb and gutter terminate and begin at the same
locations as bituminous pavement. This should be verified.
3. Storm Drainage
A. The existing storm sewer is a private line. The owner should verify that this line(12 inch) is adequate
enough to carry significant rainfall events from the entire property, including the number of catch basins
that are needed. Design calculations are recommended
B. It is recommended that the proposed storm line be extended further to the north to pick-up proposed
future parking on the northwest part of the property.
C. It is not shown how drainage will affect adjacent properties, particularly down-spouts on the new
building. Additional runoff should not run to the adjacent properties. Swales, or apropriate grading
measures should be provided.
• 4. The existing hydrant on the north end of the proposed addition should be relocated to where it can be
made accessible (from the parking lot). Siamese connection needed and fire access point?
5. A new water service connection is shown, but no new sewer. Perhaps it is not needed?
• 6. The north side of the new building apears to be about 10 feet from the water-main. Depending on the
soil conditions, depth and type of footings, etc., the main may need protection from potential disturbance.
Page 1