HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 06-11 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
June 11, 2015
1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM
2. Roll Call
3. Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to
hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these
matters.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Motion to Approve the May 14, 2015 Meeting Minutes.
5. PLANNING ITEMS
a) MBC II, LLC (Howe Development) Planning Application 2015-003
Property Addresses: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of Planned Unit Development Amendment
to Enlarge Approved Building Area and Allow Outdoor Storage Area
Requested Planning Commission Action:
• Motion to open Public Hearing; take public input;
• Motion to close Public Hearing;
• Commission Discussion on the Requested Item
• Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-03
b) CS Property NMA, LLC Planning Application 2015-004
(New Millennium Academy)
Property Addresses: 5120 Lilac Drive North
PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of a Planned Unit Development with New
Zoning Classification of PUD-Mixed R-2/R-3 (Planned Unit Development - Two
Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence) & Development Site Plan of a
K-8 Public Charter School Facility
Requested Planning Commission Action:
• Motion to open Public Hearing; take public input;
• Motion to close Public Hearing;
• Commission Discussion on the Requested Item
• Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-04
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
June 11, 2015
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS – (none)
7. Adjournment
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
MAY 14, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Chair Randy Christensen, Commissioners Benjamin Freedman, Carlos Morgan (arrived at 7:09
p.m.), Stephen Schonning, and Rochelle Sweeney were present. Also present were Secretary to
the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and
Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
3. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION
Chair Christensen explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
Chair Christensen presented a perfect attendance award to Commissioner Schonning.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 30, 2015
There was a motion by Commissioner Freedman, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to
approve the minutes of the April 30, 2015 meeting. The motion passed.
5. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS
5a) APPLICATION NO. 2015-002 OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS – ISD NO. 279
SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF RE-DESIGNED PARKING LOT WITH BUS
DROP-OFF AREA AND STAFF-ONLY PARKING AREA
Chair Christensen introduced Application No. 2015-002, consideration of a site plan approval of
a re-designed parking lot with bus drop-off area and staff-only parking area at Willow Lane
Early Childhood Education Center located at 7020 Perry Avenue North. (See Planning
Commission Information Sheet dated 05-14-2015 for Application No. 2015-002.)
Mr. Benetti stated Larson Engineering, acting on behalf of ISD No. 279 (Osseo Area Schools) is
requesting consideration of a site plan for ISD 279’s Willow Lane Early Childhood Center
located at 7020 Perry Avenue North. This site plan would approve the re-design and
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -2- DRAFT
reconstruction of the existing parking facility located to the north of the center, along with a new
staff-only parking lot area between the center and the neighboring CEAP/Northwest Family
Service’s parking ramp. He stated that this item is being presented as a general commission item
without a public hearing, but Commissioners do have the right to open it up for comments. He
provided a history and background on the site and facilities including a three level parking
garage to be shared by all service groups between the two properties. He showed an aerial photo
and pointed out access points that were changed in 2011. He stated that the plan calls for
removal of the central area of the parking lot and the basketball/play-court area located along the
east side of the building. He went over the bus route that will be used to deliver students to and
from the building and he pointed out the areas designated for staff, visitor and handicap parking.
He also stated that the plan will keep five inlets with two inlets being installed. He stated that the
plan has been reviewed and approved by staff engineers and that the engineers did provide
comments regarding a rock entrance construction to the new area and lengthening the erosion
control fencing on the south end. He stated that consultants from the school did provide a traffic
observation report for April 20, 2015 that showed that the site can easily accommodate the buses
and a normal parking day. In conclusion, he stated that the site can easily attain the parking
needs; the new bus drop-off will provide the separation they are looking for; the Planning Staff
has no concerns; and the engineers did not have any concerns. He stated the school would need
to replace three trees that are being removed under this project.
Mr. Benetti stated Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a
recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2015-002, a site plan
to allow the reconstruction of an existing parking lot for a new bus turn-around and drop-off
area, visitor parking, and staff-only parking lot for Willow Lane Early Childhood Education
Center with the conditions noted in the Planning Staff report and also similar in the resolution.
Chair Christensen asked if the Applicant wished to step forward and make a statement or add
anything to the staff presentation.
Dale Carlstrom, Facilities and Transportation Operations Director at Osseo Area Schools and
Eric Meyer, Civil Engineer for Larson Engineering, addressed the Commission. Mr. Carlstrom
stated that the purpose of the re-design was to provide for student safety. He stated that the
facility serves birth to four-year-olds. There are currently many individuals walking between
buses and cars entering into bus traffic. There is also an interest in providing more parking on the
property because there are staff that work in the community and are parking on Perry Avenue
and that is causing a problem with the community. He stated that the district feels that the new
design will work with the property.
OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2015-002
Chair Christensen recognized residents in the audience who wished to speak on this matter.
There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to
open a public hearing on Application No. 2015-002, at 7:16 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously.
Chair Christensen called for comments from the public.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -3- DRAFT
Joan and Kenneth Herman, 7001 Perry Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, questioned why all the
cars are parking on Perry Avenue because the parking lot sits empty, and why the parking lot
was not being used. They stated that they have been told by school staff that people did not want
to walk through the school halls. They also stated that parking on Perry Avenue in the
wintertime is quite dangerous and that there were 18 cars parked on the street today. Mrs.
Herman asked about moving houses. She was told that no houses would be moved and the site
would maintain the same footprint Mr. Carlstrom stated that if the staff used the parking lot, it
would help with the parking problem and that the purpose of the re-design is so that school staff
do not park on Perry.
Mr. and Mrs. Herman expressed their gratitude that a proposed plan in 2008 to expand the
parking lot did not happen. Mrs. Herman asked if there was a charge for parking in the parking
ramp and if it was full. Mr. Carlstrom replied that there was no charge for parking and it is
designed to accommodate the traffic and it is anticipated that the numbers will go down when
Hennepin County opens another office. He stated that they discourage staff from parking in the
ramp so they don’t interfere with the other tenants.
Mr. Herman asked how many vehicles the ramp will hold. That information was not available.
Chair Christensen stated that the main goal of the re-design was the safety of the children and
that school staff will be told they need to park in the lot.
Mrs. Herman stated that she is hopeful the re-design will alleviate the parking on Perry Avenue,
but if it doesn’t, she will come before the Commission again. Mr. Carlstrom stated that they can
influence where staff and parents park, get a better traffic flow and a better parking lot with the
re-design and that school staff is interested in getting staff and parents off of street parking.
Mr. Herman suggested re-keying the door on the south end of the building and stated that if the
door was to be re-keyed it could be set up so people could get out but not in. Mr. Carlstrom
stated that currently only staff could get in.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING)
There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to close
the public hearing on Application No. 2015-002 at 7:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Christensen asked for questions and comments from Commissioners.
Chair Christensen stated that he shared the Hermans’ concerns and is in favor of the re-design
and anything that can be done to discourage parking on Perry Avenue.
Mr. Carlstrom stated that the coordinator of the program is interested in giving staff parking
options and hopefully this re-design will address the issues.
Commissioner Schonning asked Mr. Carlstrom if they anticipated installing signage to designate
parking for CEA/Northwest Family Services.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -4- DRAFT
Mr. Carlstrom indicated that the district is working on signage to direct the public.
Chair Christensen asked if it will be gated. Mr. Carlstrom replied that there would be no gate.
Chair Christensen asked about fencing. Mr. Benetti stated there would be no fencing.
Chair Christensen asked about signs at each parking stall. Mr. Carlstrom stated that there would
not be signs.
Chair Christensen stated he thought there was going to be a gate.
Mr. Benetti apologized and stated that he thought there would be a gate. He stated that he hopes
the signs will be enough of a deterrent to keep CEAP/Northwest Family Service’s clients from
using the parking lot.
Chair Christensen asked if 12 to 13 cars being parked on Perry Avenue would impact the count
study with regard to the amount of parking spaces needed.
Eric Meyer of Larson Engineering stated that the re-design will provide 11 new spaces.
The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. 2015-02 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2015-002 SUBMITTED BY OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS –
ISD NO. 279
There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to
approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-02.
Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Morgan, Schonning, and
Sweeney.
And the following voted against the same: None
The motion passed unanimously.
The Council will consider the application at its May 26, 2015 meeting. The applicant must be
present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require
that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -5- DRAFT
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
6a) CONTINUATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE REGARDING REDUCED SETBACKS FOR PORCHES AND
DECKS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Mr. Benetti noted that staff has provided additional draft language amendments for the Planning
Commission to consider. He stated that staff is still encouraging a number of definitions and that
he didn’t hear disagreement regarding the deck definition. He has checked other city ordinances
and this is standard. He presented the first and second drafts of Section 35-900 definitions with
regard to PORCH, ENCLOSED and PORCH, UNENCLOSED. He stated that he doesn’t want
to deal with an unattached porch. He stated that building a porch on stilts against a home meets
code and is still considered an attachment even if there is a six-foot gap. He stated he has taken
out the word “unattached”. He spoke about the reasons for the following language change: If
attached to a dwelling, the platform is larger than permitted for landing, not including steps and
ramps. If said structure provides main access into a dwelling, a reasonable sized landing,
including steps or ramps leading into the porch shall be permitted. He stated that he thinks the
Commission needs to talk about whether or not they want to allow for an enclosed porch or an
unenclosed porch. An enclosed porch would allow for doors, windows and perhaps screens and
an unenclosed porch would be a deck with a roof. He stated that he did not change any of the
standards. He asked Commissioners for thoughts, concerns and suggestions.
Chair Christensen described an enclosure he had seen that was identified as a portico. He
questioned if that type of enclosure is something the City wants to allow.
Commissioner Morgan stated that people are going to do things to increase the value of their
home.
Chair Christensen stated that a mudroom would be seen as a positive and will add a sale value.
Commissioner Sweeney questioned if the structure has a door. Chairperson Christensen
answered affirmatively.
Mr. Eitel stated that it is an extension to the foyer.
Chair Christensen stated that it is not that much room but it is enclosed.
Mr. Benetti stated that this type of enclosure would be allowed if the Commission allowed for an
enclosed porch.
Chair Christensen asked what direction Staff was looking for.
Mr. Benetti stated that they are looking to the Planning Commission for recommendations on
enclosed front porches and limitations to them.
Commissioner Morgan stated that the porticos have multi-uses.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -6- DRAFT
Commissioner Sweeney asked Mr. Benetti about people trying to convert them into a three or
four season porch.
Mr. Benetti stated that an individual who builds a three-season porch and then decides to convert
it to a four-season porch is facing a new level of building codes that makes it cost prohibitive.
Commissioner Sweeney asked if it was possible to add wording to say that you can’t convert a
three-season porch to a four-season porch.
Mr. Benetti stated that the City is trying to discourage people from converting to a three or four
season porch because of setback issues and talked about limiting the scope of the enclosure.
Commissioner Sweeney stated that the Commission could make the ordinance very specific
about what the City means by enclosed.
Mr. Benetti suggested that the Commission could specify that no part of the porch can be used
for year-round living space.
Chair Christensen stated that according to code it wouldn’t be allowed because it would go
beyond the setback.
Mr. Benetti stated that the deck and porch allowance would allow for partial use by the residents
but not year-round use.
Commissioner Morgan confirmed that the Board is shying away from four-season use.
Chair Christensen stated that, according to code, adding on to it in front of the setback is not
allowed.
Mr. Benetti stated that it is currently not allowed. The new ordinance would allow for decks and
porches go into the setback, but it would not allow it for four season or year-round. This will
give residents at or near the 35-foot setback the ability to build a nice feature on the front.
Chair Christensen stated that if the City can pass the legal muster test, the ordinance could allow
an addition that is screened but not used as a three or four season facility.
Commissioner Schonning stated that Mr. Benetti’s previous statement that no part of the porch
can be used for year-round living space should be included in the ordinance. If the Commission
does not put in the verbiage, there will be people who will violate it.
Commissioner Morgan stated that he liked the year-round idea.
Chair Christensen stated that he does except for setback issue. He feels that if it is a year-round
structure it should be put in back where the code allows. He doesn’t want to change the setback
for the front.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -7- DRAFT
Commissioner Morgan asked if there was a middle ground that would suffice.
Chair Christensen stated that he is not advocating beyond screen. The enclosure being screened
is more than he is comfortable with, but he understands the weather conditions in Minnesota. He
stated that he is not in favor of going beyond screen.
Commissioner Sweeney stated that she thought the concern was that the City didn’t want people
sleeping in the area.
Mr. Benetti stated that the intent of the ordinance was to get people using their front yards.
Because people can only be outdoors approximately six months of the year, the City wants to
encourage the usage as much as possible and year-round use would increase the home’s
footprint. This ordinance is to allow for decks and open porches. If screens are the maximum
level of enclosure, the Commission wants in the ordinance, that language can be added.
Chair Christensen stated he would like to see this language added.
Commissioner Sweeney agreed with the language addition.
Commissioner Freedman stated that people can build as big a porch as they want as long as it
doesn’t encroach into the setback.
Mr. Benetti stated that the residential setback is 35 feet.
Commissioner Morgan confirmed that a porch on the back of the house is a different issue.
Mr. Benetti stated that the ordinance will come before the Commission at their next meeting and
a public hearing will be set as soon as possible.
Commissioner Morgan asked if the city council will get an update. Mr. Benetti stated that there
will be a public hearing first and then the Commission will meet and then a recommendation will
be brought before the City Council.
Chair Christensen stated that he thinks there will be feedback from the public.
There were no other discussion items.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Freedman announced that he had accepted a job offer in Glencoe. He will be
moving out of the City and will serve on the Commission for a few more months.
Chair Christensen announced that Commissioner Sweeney had agreed to serve as Vice Chair.
PC Minutes
05-14-15 -8- DRAFT
Mr. Benetti reminded Commission members about a joint Planning Commission meeting with
the cities of Crystal, New Hope, and Brooklyn Park on May 27th. The meeting will feature a
consultant teaching basic principles for planning commissioners. Commissioner Morgan stated
that he would attend.
Mr. Benetti stated that the Planning Commission’s May 28th meeting is cancelled.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
8:15 p.m.
________________________________
Chair
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: June 11, 2015
Application No. 2015-003
Applicant: MBC II, LLC (Paul Hyde)
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (former Howe Fertilizer site)
Request: Planned Unit Development – 2nd Amendment to Enlarge Approved Building Area
and Allow Outdoor Storage Area
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Paul Hyde, acting on behalf of MBC II, LLC is requesting a planned unit development
(PUD) amendment to a previously approved Howe Fertilizer Site PUD redevelopment plan.
This second amendment consists of the following requests:
a. enlarge a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 60,000 sq. ft. to 68,000 sq. ft., of
which the 8,000 additional square feet will be used as covered storage area; and
b. allowing a 4,000 sq. ft. outdoor storage area in the I-1 Industrial Park District.
This building addition and outdoor storage area is for the benefit of a local plumbing supply
company that requires outdoor storage of various raw materials, while maintaining enough space
inside the building for light manufacturing and processing of said materials.
This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Legal notice was published in the local
Sun-Post paper; and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 350-feet of
the subject site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS
Land Use Plan: Industrial
Current Zoning: PUD/I-1 Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park
Surrounding Zoning: North: R1 One Family Residence
East: Industrial (City of Minneapolis)
South: I-2 General Industry
West: R1 One Family Residence & I-2 General Industry
Neighborhood: Happy Hollow
Site Area: 5.03 acres
Setback Standards: Building: Front Yard = 50-ft.; Side Yard = 10 ft.; Rear Yard = 25-ft.
Parking: 15-ft. from any street right-of-way line
• Application Filed: 05/22/15
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/21/15
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 2
Conformity to:
Land Use Plan: YES
Zoning Ord.: YES, subject to PUD approvals.
Subdivision Ord.: YES, although no platting is required in this case.
Sign Ord.: Unknown at this time due to incomplete development of site.
Variance Needed for Request: NO, but PUD Amendment does provide a mechanism to
grant flexibility and allowances normally approved by a
variance.
BACKGROUND
The former Howe Fertilizer site was originally developed with a number of different buildings
used for the manufacturing, storage and distribution of various fertilizers, insecticides, and
agricultural related chemicals from 1940 to approximately 2001. The site also contained a full-
service gas station from 1946 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at this site
ceased in 1994. Due to a major industrial fire a number of years ago, the site and part of the
surrounding properties were inadvertently contaminated due to chemical and fertilizer wash-out
from the fire-fighting operations. Mr. Hyde has secured Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s
approval of his site clean-up (mitigation) plan, which includes a large amount of contaminated
soils to be removed and hauled off site, with new fill material brought in to stabilize the new
building foundation and parking areas.
In 2008, MBC, II received approval to build a new 51,000 sf. office/warehouse facility with
parking on the site. This site was originally zoned I-2 (General Industry), but the 2008 approvals
included a rezoning to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park). This PUD allowed
certain modifications to the 100-ft. and 50-ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut
residential zoned properties, either at the property line or the street lines.
In 2013, the developer requested an amendment to the 2008 PUD to enlarge the original
proposed building by 9,000 sf. to 60,000 sf.; and reaffirmed the reduced buffers and reduced
parking setbacks for the subject site. The City Council approved this first PUD Amendment
under City Resolution No. 2013-65 (June 10, 2013).
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
A Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land with a PUD designation
followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying
zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit
Development. Rules and regulations governing that district (in this case, I-1- Industrial Park)
would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the
City the needed flexibility in addressing development and/or redevelopment problems that may
be associated when presenting the site for review. Regulations governing uses and structures
may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development
plans.
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 3
OUTDOOR STORAGE STANDARDS for I-1 USES
Zoning Code Section 35-330. I-1 INDUSTRIAL PARK. Subsection 3. Special Uses, the following
standards must be followed or completed to allow or permit any outdoor storage area in this
district, noted as follows:
i. Outdoor storage and display of materials, equipment, and products accessory and
necessary to a principal or permitted use subject to the following standards:
1. The items in the area designated on the site plan for outdoor storage or sales
display area shall be effectively screened from view from adjacent public rights-
of-way or adjacent properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood,
masonry or other durable materials, or a combination of fence, berm and
landscaping approved by the City Council.
2. Allowable areas used for outdoor storage or display areas on an individual site
shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the gross floor area of the principal
building.
3. Outdoor storage or sales display area shall not be located within any front yard
or corner side yard abutting a public right-of-way, or within the buffer setback
areas as defined under Section 35-413, Subsection 1. a, b, c, and d.
4. Height of stacked or stored materials or equipment in the storage area shall not
exceed the height of the screening fence or height levels approved by the City
Council.
5. Outdoor areas shall not be used for the storage of junk or inoperable vehicles,
trash, debris, or any nuisance items as defined in the City Code.
6. The storage of hazardous liquids, solids, gases or wastes is strictly prohibited,
unless authorized by the city’s Building Official and Fire Chief, and approved by
the City Council.
7. The outdoor storage area shall not be within or interfere with designated parking
or drive aisles areas required by City Code Section 35-700 Off-Street Parking
Requirements.
8. Any new or additional lighting installed to illuminate the storage area must be
down-cast, cut-off style light fixtures, with a photometric plan approved by the
City Council.
9. The storage area shall consist of a concrete or bituminous surface. The property
owner or responsible tenant shall keep the outdoor storage areas free of refuse,
trash, debris, weeds, and waste fill.
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 4
10. Any storage or placement of materials outside of the designated area shall be a
violation of the City Code.
11. A detailed site plan specifically delineating the storage area, including the
landscaping and lighting plans for said areas, must be approved by the City
Council.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS)
1. Enlarge the pre-approved office/warehouse building from 60,000 sf. to 68,000 sf. by means
of a covered outdoor storage area.
The overall design and layout of the approved 2013 Site Plan is virtually unchanged under
this second amendment request. The 60,000 sf. building is not being revised or moved; nor
is any loss of parking spaces.
2013 Site Plan -APPROVED
The PUD standards contained in City Code allows for buildings to be increased by no more
than 5% after official city approval. Under this allowable standard, only 3,000 sf. could be
added without special approvals. The request from 60,000 sf. to 68,000 sf. represents a
13.3% increase.
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 5
The additional building area is actually an extended roof covering attached to the main
building, which by State of Minnesota Building Codes is considered an addition to the
building (noted in red shading in the site plan drawing below).
2015 Site Plan -PROPOSED
This new covered storage area does not negatively impact the approved site plan in 2013, and
does not cause a loss of parking or impact of vehicle movements, since this area of the
building was reserved for loading/unloading. Other areas of the building will remain
available for loading/unloading outside the storage areas.
2) Allow a 4,000 sq. ft. outdoor storage area in the I-1 Industrial Park District.
The yellow shaded region (in the plan above) represents the 4,000 sf. outdoor (uncovered)
storage area called for under this PUD Plan Amendment. The City recently approved
(February 9, 2015) a new ordinance that allows outdoor storage areas for I-1 uses, but only
by means of a special use permit. Under this PUD application, the special use permit is
essentially waived and will be considered under this PUD Amendment process. The analysis
will still follow the same special use permit standards however, which are noted as follows
by italic style text headings, and planning staff analysis thereafter:
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 6
a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the
general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
The area will be used to store related plumbing supply materials for the future tenant/user of
this office/warehouse site. The screened, fenced in areas will provide adequate security and
protection for all goods and displays by the company. This new outdoor storage areas will
not be a detriment to this industrial site, or the surrounding neighboring uses or residential
neighborhood to the west, since this area will be screened itself by a separate 8-foot high,
solid wooden fence provide by the site developer. There should be no dangerous situations
that affect the public, in either health, safety, morals or comforts.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Staff does not believe the operation of this outdoor storage and display areas would be
injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other properties, nor diminish and impair property
values within the neighborhood. The site will be maintained by proper security measures,
and will be effectively monitored during and after regular business hours. Therefore, Staff
believes this outdoor facility to be acceptable under this standard.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
The new ordinance permits industrial park sites to have up to 15% of the principal building
area dedicated for outdoor storage areas. The subject building has a gross floor area of
60,000 sf. which under a standard special use permit process would allow up to 9,000 sf.
dedicated to outdoor storage areas. If the Planning Commission were to accept the findings
made previously by staff that the 8,000 sf. covered area is considered “added building space”
then the 4,000 sf. uncovered, outdoor storage area would meet this standard. Even if the city
chooses to count or combine both areas as 13,000 sf. as “outdoor storage” area, this total
amount can be approved under this PUD Amendment process, as part of the flexibility given
under this application. In any event, Staff does not believe any impediments will be made or
caused by the new storage area, nor cause any long-term or negative impacts to this area or
other users of this multi-tenant industrial site.
d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so
designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
The site will have two access points off 49th Avenue North. There are no changes to these
accesses as part of this PUD Amendment. All planned parking will remain intact, with no
changes or relocated spaces needed for these outdoor storage areas.
e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located.
Staff believes this outdoor storage area will be meet the overall and general standards for the
_________________________
Howe Fert. Site - MBC, II
PC 06/11/15
Page 7
I-1 Industrial Park District, and all new standards created under City Code Sect. 35-330, 3.i.,
which have been found to be acceptable by the developer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2015-04, which
comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2015-004, the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment to the 2013 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit
Development Project, subject to the same conditions and allowances as specified in the 2013
review and approvals:
1. Allow a revision from the 2013 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the proposed building
from 60,000 sf. to 68,000 sf., and also the 4,000 sf. of outdoor (uncovered) storage area
to the new proposed office/warehouse/light manufacturing facility.
2. All standards regarding the outdoor storage areas, as noted under City Code Section 35-
330. Subsection 3.i., shall be adhered to as part of any future development of this site
utilizing outdoor storage in this PUD/I-1 District.
3. Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as shown or
indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set;
4. All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2013-65 and 2008-23,
including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in effect and complied
with as part of this 2015 PUD Amendment approvals;
5. All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer’s Review Memorandum,
dated May 23, 2013 and the updated memo of June 3, 2015, shall be complied with as
part of this 2015 PUD Amendment approval.
6. Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney.
Attachments
• 2015 MBC II Planned Unit Development Plan Set
• PC Resolution No. 2015-03 (draft)
• CC Resolution No. 2013-65 (executed)
• CC Resolution No. 2008-23 (executed)
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 3, 2015
TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist
FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Works – PUD 2nd Amendment Review for HOWE PUD
Public Works Department staff has reviewed the submissions enumerated below for a PUD 2nd
Amendment, prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group dated May 21, 2015. Previous
PUD review comments, dated May 23, 2013 are attached. We offer the following comments:
Sheet Covered Storage Site Plan 3 Exhibit
• Verify 50’ screening buffer in northwest corner of the site.
Sheet C6.0
• The devolvement shall tie into the 12” main at location of existing 6” hydrant lead and
water meter structure (which shall be removed by developer) thus avoiding an additional
street cut.
Miscellaneous
• The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet
requirements from the Hennepin County review.
All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the
information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The site plan must be
developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified
by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require
additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the
water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design
elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over
approval of the final site plans.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 23, 2013
TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist
FROM: Steven J Jankowski, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Works – PUD Review for HOWE PUD
Public Works Department staff has reviewed the submissions enumerated below for a PUD
application, prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers Inc.:
CS Cover sheet 1/17/08
A1.1 Architectural Site Plan 3/26/13
A2.1 Architectural Floor Plan 3/26/13
A3.1 Building Elevations 3/26/13
L1.0 Landscape Concept Plan 3/26/13
ES1.0 Photometric Site Plan 3/26/13
C1.0 Existing Conditions Plan 3/16/13
C4.0 Preliminary Grading , Drainage Plan 3/16/13
C5.0 Phase 1 SWPPP 3/16/13
C5.1 Phase 2 SWPPP 3/16/13
C5.2 SWPPP Notes and Details 3/16/13
C6.0 Utility Plan 3/16/13
C8.0 Detail Sheet 3/16/13
PUD Public Works Review Memo – Howe Property Page 2
May 23, 2013
We are also in receipt of a Storm Water Management Plan for Minneapolis Business Center II
prepared by Jared Jones PE of MRFA dated March 26, 2013. We offer the following comments:
Sheet CS
• The drawing index needs to be revised to be consistent with the plan sheets submitted as
noted above.
Sheet L1.0
• A retaining wall is proposed along the north side of the eastern drive entrance; however, a
berm is shown along this area on sheet C4.0. The plans shall be modified to eliminate this
inconsistency.
Sheet C4.0
• The sizes of the storm sewer and structure inverts need to be added to the plan.
• A review of city documents indicates that a storm sewer may exist draining from the rear
yard of 3135 49th Avenue (two lots west of the site) easterly through the southern portion
of the site. An effort should be made to verify the existence of this line and if its
existence is confirmed to redirect the discharge into the storm pond.
• Typical cross section of the storm pond basins need to be provided showing side slopes
and safety benches.
• The location of the silt fence identified on sheet C5.0 is in nearly the identical location of
the proposed storm sewer along the southern boundary of the site. Redesign or explain
how this installation will be possible.
• Plans and specifications for any retaining wall greater than 4 feet shall be designed by a
registered professional engineer.
• Slopes along turfed area shall be no greater than the 3:1 proposed on the plan.
Sheet C6.0
• The area of the site immediately west of the drive access contains a hydrant, hydrant
valve and a water meter manhole which are not shown on the plan. In addition there is a
12” gate valve located in 49th Avenue which is not shown. These features should be
located and added to the plan. The hydrant, valve and meter manhole shall be removed as
part of the site redevelopment. The existing service line will need to be removed back to
the 12” main and plugged at the service tee.
• Storm water treatment from the site consists of on-site ponding along with an infiltration
basin. The rules of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission regarding
abstraction (infiltration) for storm water are contained in Section 3 (h) (2) (vi)(e) of Rule
D of Appendix C of the Third generation plan and state as follows:
“(vi) Constructed bio retention and infiltration practices such as rain
gardens, infiltration trenches and infiltration benches shall not be used
when (e) sites contain contaminated soils or groundwater”
PUD Public Works Review Memo – Howe Property Page 3
May 23, 2013
This site is known to have a number of contaminations issues and the proposed
infiltration basin may not be acceptable. A summary of the known commination issues
need to be documented along with an assessment of the degree of remediation which the
developer anticipates to achieve. This data will be utilized by the Watershed in their
review to determine whether infiltration is appropriate for this project.
• As mentioned above there will need to be removals of existing water main and
appurtenances. A new hydrant should be added on the 8” service main near the western
site entrance to provide fire coverage for the northwest quadrant of the site.
Below are additional requirements for the redevelopment of this site:
General Items:
1. The proposed plat is located adjacent to Hennepin County right-of-way. Minnesota
Statutes require that the City submit the PUD to Hennepin County Transportation for
written comments and recommendations. All Hennepin County comments will be
conditions of approval.
2. The final construction plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of
Minnesota to the City Engineer for approval.
3. This development is required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission. All City and Watershed storm drainage, treatment and
infiltration (if applicable) standards are required to be met.
4. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the
City of Brooklyn Center’s standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details
must be included in the final site plans.
5. A general project phasing and sequencing plan must be provided for the development.
6. During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings
are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the
administration and engineering inspection efforts.
7. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record
drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy. The survey must also verify that all property corners have been
established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed
by the City Engineer.
8. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s
design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must
formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the
approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision.
The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as-
built drawings.
9. Irrigation is required for the site. A copy of the irrigation plan needs to be provided.
10. Vehicle turning movement diagrams need to be submitted documenting the adequacy the
paved area in front of the loading area.
PUD Public Works Review Memo – Howe Property Page 4
May 23, 2013
Easements, Agreements and Plat:
1. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing
easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated and
proposed easements must be dedicated.
2. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general
construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency
management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection
provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility
provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-
compliance provisions. A $5,000 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance
provision.
3. A PUD Development Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project
approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer.
4. An overall easement agreement is required that will provide the City perpetual
accessibility to all private utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper
utility service and maintenance for the entire site. This easement agreement also includes
private inspection, maintenance and reporting responsibilities and must be executed prior
to issuance of building and land alteration permits.
5. A 10-ft drainage and utility easement must be dedicated around the entire perimeter of
the site.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans with all
private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications,
etc.). Easements necessary to provide utility service to the proposed site development
should be dedicated as necessary.
7. Private site appurtenances (e.g. light poles, signs, etc.) must not encroach on public
easement areas. If such an encroachment exists and is determined by the City to be not
adverse to the public interest, such encroachments will require an Encroachment
Agreement.
Anticipated Permitting:
1. A City of Brooklyn Center sewer and water disconnect permit is required.
2. A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required.
3. A MPCA NPDES permit is required.
4. A Minnesota Department of Health department permit is required for the watermain
extension.
5. A Hennepin County permit is required for work within Hennepin County right-of-way.
6. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) plan review and
approval are required.
7. A portion of this project will require construction on the adjacent railroad property.
Documentation must be submitted showing authorization for this activity.
8. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to
obtain and warranted.
9. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable
building and land disturbance permits.
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2015-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC /
HYDE DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2nd AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL 2008
MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT (FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE – 4821 XERXES AVENUE N.)
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center previously
considered Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling
Acquisitions, LLC, which approved the rezoning from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned
Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49th
Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, commonly known as the former Howe Fertilizer Site and
addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (“Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Planned Unit Development rezoning considered the
acceptance and approval of a new PUD development plan for a 51,000 sq. ft.
office/industrial/warehouse facility on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2008, the City Council adopted City Resolution No.
2008-23, which in effect approved the original 2008 Planned Unit Development of the
Minneapolis Business Center II Project for the for the Subject Property ; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2013, the City Council adopted City Resolution No. 2013-
65, which approved the First Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development, whereby
requesting certain and additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 PUD approvals,
including:
1. enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to
60,000 sq. ft.;
2. allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel;
3. reducing certain boundary setbacks; and
4. allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would
impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1
District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered under Planning Application No.
2015-003, submitted by MBC II, LLC, an application that comprehends the approval of the Second
(2nd) Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development, whereby requesting certain and
additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 and 2013 PUD approvals, including:
a. enlarging the pre-approved office/warehouse building from 60,000 sq. ft.
to 68,000 sq. ft., of which the 8,000 additional square feet will be used as
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03
covered storage area; and
b. allowing a 4,000 sq. ft. outdoor storage area in the I-1 Industrial Park
District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June
11, 2015, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public
hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding this planning application, all of which
were received and noted for the record.
AND WHEREAS, upon due and proper consideration of this matter, and in light of
all testimony received, utilizing the guidelines for evaluating amendments to a Planned Unit
Development, as contained under Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Advisory Commission did formulate the recommendation noted
herein and forwarded to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , the Planning Advisory Commission of
the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2015-
003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of the 2nd Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based
upon the following findings:
1. The Amendment to the Original 2008 and Amended 2013 Planned Unit
Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the
Planned Unit Development section of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2. The 2nd Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal
keeps and maintains for the utilization of the land in question in a manner
which is 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 the 2008 Planned Unit
Development Rezoning remains a reasonable use of the property and will
conform to ordinance standards, including those allowed under City
Resolution No. 2008-23 and 2013-65, which remain in effect or modified
herein by this approval.
4. This 2nd Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal is
considered consistent with the recommendations of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5. This 2nd Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal
appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this
development can be considered an asset to the community.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City
of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2015-003 as
submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of the 2nd Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based
upon the following additional allowances and conditions:
1. Allow a revision from the 2013 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the
proposed building from 60,000 sf. to 68,000 sf., and also the 4,000 sf. of
outdoor (uncovered) storage area to the new proposed
office/warehouse/light manufacturing facility.
2. All standards regarding the outdoor storage areas, as noted under City Code
Section 35-330. Subsection 3.i., shall be adhered to as part of any future
development of this site utilizing outdoor storage in this PUD/I-1 District.
3. Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as
shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set;
4. All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2013-65 and
2008-23, including those not affected by these new allowances, shall
remain in effect and complied with as part of this 2015 PUD Amendment
approvals;
5. All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer’s Review
Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and the updated memo of June 3,
2015, shall be complied with as part of this 2015 PUD Amendment
approval.
6. Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City
Attorney.
June 11, 2015
Date Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Chair , Commissioners , , , , , and .
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member Dan Ryan introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC /
PAUL HYDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 MINNEAPOLIS
BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE-4821 XERXES AVENUE N)
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center previously
considered Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling
Acquisitions, LLC, which approved the rezoning from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned
Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49th
Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, commonly known as the former Howe Fertilizer Site and
addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North("Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the 2008 Planned Unit Development rezoning also considered the
acceptance and approval of a new PUD development plan for a 51,000 sq. ft.
office/industrial/warehouse facility on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, upon favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission, did adopt City Resolution No. 2008-23, which in effect approved the
original 2008 Planned Unit Development of the Minneapolis Business Center II Project for the for
the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2013, the Planning Commission also considered
Planning Application No. 2013-003, submitted by MBC II, LLC (the successors and assigns of
Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC of the Subject Property),which application comprehends
the approval of an Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development,whereby requesting certain
and additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 PUD approvals, including:
1.enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to
60,000 sq. ft.;
2.allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel;
3.reducing certain boundary setbacks; and
4.allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would
impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1
District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May
30, 2013, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public
hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding this planning application, all of which
were received and noted for the record.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
AND WHEREAS, upon due and proper consideration of this matter, and in
light of all testimony received, utilizing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in
Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Advisory Commission did formulate a recommendation to be
forwarded to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ,the Planning Advisory Commission of
the City of Brooklyn Center, does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning
Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment
to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be
approved based upon the following considerations:
1.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development is compatible
with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development
section of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal keeps
and maintains for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which
is 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 the 2008 Planned Unit
Development Rezoning remains a reasonable use of the property and will
conform with ordinance standards, including those allowed under City
Resolution No. 2008-23, which remain in effect or modified herein by this
approval. These modifications and standards are contained in the updated
2013 Minneapolis Business Center II Project development/site plans.
4.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal is
considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's
Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal appears
to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can
be considered an asset to the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as
submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based
upon the following additional allowances and conditions:
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
1.All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2008-23,
including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in
effect and complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals,
which are noted as follows:
a) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the
issuance of permits.
b) Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits.
C) 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 building permits to assure
completion of all required site improvements.
d)B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
e) Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
f) The buildings shall 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.
g)Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
h)Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
i) The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the
performance guarantee.
D The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and
agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm
drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of building permits.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
k)The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly
disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City
Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site.
1) Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of
permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance
with city standards and specifications.
m) All work performed and materials used for construction of
utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard
Specifications and Details.
n)The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during
construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and
obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the
site.
o) Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall
be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission prior to the issuance of permits.
P)Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1
underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally
within this development site. This site, however, may not be used
as an "adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35-330,
Subdivision I a, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within
this Planned Unit Development.
q)The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of
Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said
agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall
acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying
zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The
agreement shall further assure compliance with the development
plans submitted with this application.
r) The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as
approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land
lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified
as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal
binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2nd Addition so that it
shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said
deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior
to the issuance of building permits for this project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
S) The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan
to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that
present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable
with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of
building permits.
2.Allow a revision from the 2008 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the
proposed office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.;
3.Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as
shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set;
4.Allowing the reduced boundary setbacks of the parking area from 15-feet
to 10-feet in certain locations;
5.Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would
impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1
District.
6.The Applicant shall provide a paved pedestrian/bicycle connection
between the parking lot area near the front entryway leading out to the
existing sidewalk along Osseo Road.
7.All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer's Review
Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and referenced herein shall be
complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals
8.Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City
Attorney.
9.A final landscape and screening plan must be approved by the Planning
Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II,
LLC,requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008
Minneapolis Building Center II Project, is hereby approved subject to the conditions memorialized
herein.
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-65
June 10 2013
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
LUi2nrr
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Lin Myszkowski
and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof:
Tim Willson, Carol Rieven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan;
and the following voted against the same: none;
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-001 SUBMITTED BY REAL ESTATE
RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real
Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/1-1
Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of
49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and currently addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North;
and
WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned
property and development plan approval for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility on
that lot; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on
February 14, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and
development plan were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No.
2008-001 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-01 on February 14, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2008-001 at its February
25, 2008 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this 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 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and
the Planning Commission's recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions,
LLC. be approved based upon the following considerations:
1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and
intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in
question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of
comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding
land.
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23
3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development
Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with
ordinance standards except for allowing drive lane encroachments into the 100 ft.
and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R-1 zoned properly at a
property line and a street line respectively. These modifications from the I-1
standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate
redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors
contained in the approved site plan.
4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the
recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the
existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community.
6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met
and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that Application No. 2008-001 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with
respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be
determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements.
4. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
6. The buildings shall 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.
7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site
maintenance.
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23
8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for
maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from
city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of
existing buildings on the site.
12. Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City
Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications.
13. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to
the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details.
14. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as
approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction
site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to
disturbing the site.
15. Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of
permits.
16. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1 underlying
zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site.
This site, however, may not be used as an "adult establishment" as indicated in
Section 35-330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within
this Planned Unit Development.
17. The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building
permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall
acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as well
as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance
with the development plans submitted with this application.
18. The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City
Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of
Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23
proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2°d Addition so that it shall not be
used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with
the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project.
19. The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate
hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health
or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building
permits.
1
Februarv 25. 2008
Date
ATTEST: (~~ll,~ Yl
City Clerk
Mayor
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Dan Ryan
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Tim Willson, Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich;
and the following voted against the same: none;
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 1 of 18
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: June 11, 2015
Application No. 2015-004
Applicant: CS Property NMA, LLC / Lucht Properties, Inc.
Location: 5120 Lilac Drive North
Request: Planned Unit Development with New Zoning Classification of PUD-Mixed R-
2/R-3 (Planned Unit Development - Two Family Residence and Multiple Family
Residence) & Development Site Plan of a K-8 Public Charter School Facility
INTRODUCTION
CS Property NAM, LLC (hereafter referred to as NMA), acting on behalf of the property owners
Lucht Properties, Inc. , are requesting rezoning from R3 (Multiple Family Residence) to new
PUD-MIXED R2/R3 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed of Two Family Residence and Multiple
Family Residence) District. Coupled with this zoning request is consideration of the
Development/Site Plan of a new three-story, 81,903 sf. kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8)
charter school facility. This PUD is planned for the redevelopment of the current Malmborg’s
Nursery site (identified on the aerial map below).
This report will provide background information, an analysis, and staff recommendations on this
proposed rezoning and development/site plan request. This item is being presented under a
public hearing, with proper notice published in the local newspaper, and mailed notices to all
those properties located within the Happy Hollow Neighborhood.
As part of their outreach to the surrounding Happy Hollow neighborhood, NMA conducted a
public information/open house meeting last Wednesday night, June 3rd in the adjacent Brookdale
Covenant Church. NMA reps indicated this event was well-attended, with brief comments noted
on the attached meeting synopsis and attendance sheet.
• Application Filed: 05/22/15
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/21/15
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 2 of 18
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS
Land Use Plan: TH/MF/OS/RB/PS (Townhome-Med. Density/Multi-Family High
Density/Office-Service Business/Retail Business/Public & Semi-Public
Current Zoning: R3 Multiple Family Residence (Townhouses/Garden Apartments &
Condominiums)
Surrounding Zoning: North: R1 One Family Residence
East: R1 One Family Residence
South: R1 One Family Residence (Happy Hollow Park)
West: R5 Multiple Family Residence (HWY 100 corridor)
Neighborhood: Happy Hollow
Site Area: 4.77 acres
Setback Standards: Building: Front Yard = 35-ft.; Side Yard = 10 ft.; Rear Yard = 25-ft.
Parking: 15-ft. from any street right-of-way line
Conformity to:
Land Use Plan: YES
Zoning Ord.: YES, subject to PUD approval.
Subdivision Ord.: YES, although no platting is required in this case.
Sign Ord.: N/A - unknown at this time.
Variance Needed for Request: NO, but PUD Amendment does provide a mechanism to
grant flexibility and allowances normally approved by a
variance.
2030 LAND USE PLAN
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 3 of 18
ZONING MAP
BACKGROUND
A Planned Unit Development proposal involves rezoning of land with a PUD designation
followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district; or in this case an R2
and R3 respectively. The PUD also provides for the “mixing” of different zoning district
standards as needed, which is the case under this application. These underlying zoning districts
provide the regulations governing uses and structures within the new PUD. The rules and
regulations governing these districts would apply to the development proposal. One of the
purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing
development and redevelopment issues. Regulations governing uses and structures may be
modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The
Planning Commission should reference Zoning Code Section 35-355 that fully addresses
Planned Unit Developments.
The current Malmborg’s Nursery site consists of 4.77 acres, which houses a large combined
greenhouse structure, along with a small attached retail/office/operations building. The property
also contains a well-kept two-story residence with a two-car detached garage. Subject to
approval of this PUD and development plan, the entire greenhouse structures will be removed to
make room for the new school; and NMA has indicated to city staff that they will make efforts to
sell or give the home away for relocating to another site.
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 4 of 18
This new PUD will provide the ability for NMA to redevelop the site with the proposed 82,000
sf. K-8 school facility, which will serve approximately 550 of their current students, with a
projected growth number of 700 to 750 students in the next few years.
REZONING ANALYSIS
The proposed mixed zoning offered under this PUD application is to provide the opportunity for
NMA to request the allowance of a public elementary school use in the R2 Two-Family District,
whereas the existing R3 Multiple-Family District does not allow public schools. By retaining the
R3 Zoning district (and combining it with the R2 Two Family), the highest and best use of the
property is not lost, even in the event the school decides to close down in the future or relocates
from the area or city. The City is also ensuring the proposed use remains compliant with the
2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this site and surrounding properties.
The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning
procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with
the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The
Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review.
As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the
Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The
policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and must not constitute “spot zoning”, which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates
in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted
planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured
against the City’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for
rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning
ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and their proposal:
a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
Malmborg’s Nursery has been a fixture in the City for a number of years, and historically
maintains a loyal customer base and following from within and outside the city. This nursery
business has been in slow decline over the last few years (due to large retail box
competition), and the owner decided to consolidate this business into their Rogers and Blaine
operations once this site is closed. The current site is listed on Hennepin County Assessor
records with an overall (combined farm/residential/commercial) assessed value of
approximately $584,000, which generates over $8,900 of annual property tax revenue. The
new school property would be considered tax-exempt if allowed to develop this site. The
loss of this tax revenue from Malmborg’s seems minimal, and should be easily absorbed by
the city, or cause any financial hardship or impact existing city services.
It is staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be viewed as meeting a clear and
public need or benefit, as it may be consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by
the City, and is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The redevelopment and
planned improvements on the site will remove an outdated and obsolete garden nursery
center, and provide a new elementary school facility for segments of the city’s population to
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 5 of 18
use and enjoy.
This new zoning district will provide the opportunity for NMA to build this very important
school for their children they serve, who live in Brooklyn Center and surrounding
communities. In the city’s 2030 Compressive Plan, under the heading “Geographically
Dispersed Non-Housing Issues”, it generally states:
“Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community, and neighborhood
schools and parks are the foundation of neighborhoods. The concept of
combining school and park uses adjacent to each other is economically efficient
from a public service perspective. It has been applied repeatedly and
successfully in the City and in many cities.”
Staff believes this development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and
should provide a positive effect on the community. The school use proposed by NMA in
their narrative and the development/site plans are consistent with what is acknowledged in
the Comprehensive Plan. Overall, this redevelopment plan appears to be compatible with the
goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan.
b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use
classifications?
Staff believes the proposed zoning, which would accommodate the development of this site
into a public school site, is consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses, such as the
church, single-family homes and public park. The new PUD-Mixed zoning will provide an
opportunity not only for the school, but for future development plans that may occur as
necessary. The R2/R3 combination will ensure the site is left to provide for lesser multiple
family residential land uses that would fit better in this area, and the school is nothing
different than other schools typically found in the R1-One Family Residence districts
throughout the city.
c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development
of the subject property?
Under the current R3 zone, the proposed school would not be allowed in this district; hence
the reason for providing (adding) the R2 District elements to this proposed PUD-Mixed
zoning category. The new R2/R3 Mixed provides a reasonable alternative to having the
school application proceeds under the R2 district standards, but still retain the higher
development potential of the R3 zoning district. The PUD-Mixed R2/R3 also ties in the site
development plan of the school, which is the only development that can be approved under
this application. Should the need arise, other types or forms of developments would need to
amend or re-file under a brand new development plan, which would be subject to Planning
Commission considerations and City Council approvals.
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since
the subject property was zoned?
From old city zoning files, it appears the subject site and surrounding neighborhood was
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 6 of 18
zoned R1 Single Family residence in 1961. In 1968, the site was identified as R3 Multiple
Family under Ordinance 68-10, which amended the entire (previous) 1957 Zoning
Ordinance, where it has remained this same zoning since that time. It does not appear this
site or the surrounding areas have seen any substantial physical land use or zoning changes in
the last 47+ years. For the most part, the underlying land uses have kept pace with the
respective zoning classifications.
e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose
evident?
This evaluation criterion is not applicable in this case because it is not a City initiated
rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal.
f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the
proposed zoning district?
Staff believes this school proposal will bear fully the development restrictions for this
Planned Unit Development without any deviations or modifications from the standard
ordinance requirements. The new facility will have adequate setbacks in place, along with
screening measures to protect the adjacent neighborhood residents.
g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning
district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
The exiting R-3 District was created in 1968 for Townhomes and Garden Apartments (later
added Condominiums). The R3 District allows one residential unit per 5,400 sq. ft. of land
area, or in this case up to 39 units. Density calculated as follows:
43,560 sf. (one acre) / 5,400 sf. = 8.1 units per acre.
4.77 ac. x 8.1 units = 38.47 units, or 39 possible units.
The current R-3 zone does not specify or allow “garden centers” or similar uses inside this
district, so when this site was re-zoned in 1968, it essentially created a legal, non-conforming
use under this R3 District. It is unknown if the Malmborg family agreed to have their
property rezoned knowing this may occur; or did agree to the rezoning to accommodate for
future multi-family residential development when the time came to sell the land or redevelop
into something other than the nursery site.
A number of years later, the city allowed certain C1 Service/Office uses to be allowed in the
R3 District by means of a special use permit, which still did not apply to “garden nursery
centers” or “public schools”. In any event, the business continued to operate under this non-
conforming status, and now that the site is considered for redevelopment, the R3 would not
allow the site to be developed as a public school without the new PUD-Mixed R2/R3
classification.
The allowable density and number of units that could have been developed on this site may
have had a considerable impact upon the surrounding single-family neighborhood, with
higher levels or traffic generated and increased vehicle movements to and from the site. The
proposed school project will also generate a considerable level of traffic, but only during
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 7 of 18
peak hours (morning and afternoon school hours), with little if any during summer months.
The Developers have been very diligent and careful in laying out this building on this very
tight and small site, but selected this site due to its proximity to their student population and
availability. For all intents and purposes, it seems appropriate to move ahead with the
planned unit development comprehended under this application, as it seems good fit for this
area and community. .
h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1.
Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district,
or; 3. The best interest of the community?
The proposed PUD-Mixed R2/R3 does not necessarily expand the district, but provides a
reasonable mechanism for the school project to be considered by the city; and can be
supported by certain comprehensive plan goals and objectives, noted as follows:
GOALS
1) Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
2) Continuously renew and redevelop to make better use of land in City Center and the
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
3) Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and
civic pride.
4) Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development
in public areas.
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
1) Gradually reduce and eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses
(such as industry vs. housing).
3) Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and
residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new
investment.
5) Enhance and strengthen City Center’s economic viability and status in the regional market place.
• Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses
that address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-
friendly atmosphere.
• Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing
density and diversity of uses.
• Assist in the gradual evolution of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor consistent with
the 1996 plan so that it offers a positive, complementary but different environment
from that of the City Center.
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 8 of 18
6) Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design.
COMMUNITY IMAGE OBJECTIVES
1) Improve the connections and linkages between neighborhoods, major corridors, parks
and open space, and City Center, through streetscape enhancements, si gnage
systems, and other public way improvements.
• Improve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through redevelopment and
intensification of underutilized sites, traffic improvements, and appearance
enhancements, as outlined in the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study
(1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994).
Staff believes that a new elementary school at this location and the new zoning classification
to allow such development to proceed, is supported by the goals and objective found in our
2030 Comprehensive Plan, and as such, this may be considered in the best interests of the
community to permit the introduction of a new school to community and a reasonable use
and suitable redevelopment of this site as proposed.
i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an
individual parcel?
Staff believes that the new zoning has merit beyond just the particular interests of the owners
and/or developer(s), as this is for the benefit and betterment of many local children’s’
education, and an ideal means of formalizing their continued growth and development in this
community and metropolitan area. The benefit of the R2/R3 Mixed is to ensure that not only
this developer is allowed to develop the land, but future generations may have the right to
secure other forms of development should this project fail to take place or ceases in the
future.
The zoning would provide an opportunity for quality development that is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
The PUD plan that is tied in with this rezoning request provides for the construction of a three-
story, 81,903 sf. facility with typical classrooms on each floor, music hall, cafeteria/kitchen,
gymnasium, and administration offices. The site contains three separate parking areas, which
was designed to provide separation between the parent drop-off and bus drop-off areas, and a
smaller secondary lot for over-flow or visitor parking during school events and future soccer
games. A small playground is planned for the area on the east wing of the school building. The
plans identify four (4) new drive/access points into the site, with one access to the east from the
Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, and three separate access points on the west off Lilac Drive.
The parking and accesses will be addressed later in this report.
BUILDING
The building elevations and floor plans for the proposed building addition are attached to this
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 9 of 18
report. The first floor elevation plan calls for full use of the building footprint with 38,611 sf.
of space; while the 2nd and 3rd floors will be a partial footprint of 21,646 sf. dedicated to each
floor. The building’s exterior will be comprised of tip-up concrete panels, with different
colored bands to separate the materials. The entryways along the north and west sides of the
building will have a covered canopy, with connecting sidewalks along the front sections of
the building. The main west entry will open up into an A-framed roofline structure atrium,
with windows allowing natural sunlight from the east, south and west elevations of the
atrium. The remaining or majority of the school building will be a flat-topped roof line. It
appears a small parapet wall extending past the flat roof line, which Staff hopes will provide
effective screening for any roof-top mechanicals.
The required building setbacks (indicted previously) are noted again: Front Yard = 35-ft.;
Side Yard = 10 ft.; Rear Yard = 25-ft. The plans for the school reveal 75-foot setback along
Lilac Drive, a 180+ feet from Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, and 25.08 feet from the
side yard setback from Happy Hollow Park boundary line. The plans do not indicate what
the height of the new school building, but staff assumes a three story building to be
approximately 36+ feet in height. The R-2 and R-3 zones do not have any height limitations;
but in other multiple family districts, the height limits range from 1 - 2 stories in the R-4
zone; 2.5 – 3 stories in the R-5 zone; 4 – 5 stories in the R-6 zone; and unlimited in the R-7
zones.
The nearby church looks to be a 2.5 to 3 story high structure; and the Malmborg’s residence
is a 2.5 story residential structure; and the apartment buildings across Brooklyn Boulevard
are all three story buildings. Although some may argue this 3-story structure as “too big” or
out of character in this area, other existing developments appear to give slight higher height
allowances for this school, and the three story school building should pose little if any
impacts upon the surrounding single family neighborhood to the south. The Planning
Commission should determine if this building height is acceptable on this site,; and if not,
you must provide justifications or reasons to NMA to lessen or reduce the height of the
building.
ACCESS/PARKING
The subject site’s primary access is from Brooklyn Boulevard to the east, which is served by
the local frontage road that runs parallel with Brooklyn Boulevard, and serves the Malmborg
Nursery and Brookdale Covenant Church property to the north. This access road entrance
currently lines up with or across from 51st Avenue North. From its entry point off Brooklyn
Blvd., this frontage road turns north and essentially ends at the apex of the Brookdale
Covenant Church property. The “road” or driveway does continue around the north and west
sides of the church, and eventually ties back into Lilac Drive near the southwest corner of the
Malmborg site. At that point, Lilac Drive right of way begins and it continues down and
connects into 50th Avenue North.
NMA plans to have one access drive off the east frontage road, which driveway will lead to
two separate parking areas. The larger parking area located to the north of the site will have
81 spaces, while the smaller over-flow parking has 37 spaces. The drive coming off
Brooklyn Blvd. travels to the west and connects to the Lilac Drive frontage road. The parent
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 10 of 18
drop-off and visitor parking area located near the main front entrance to the west is designed
for one-way vehicle traffic, with angled parking and 14 + 2 handicap parking stalls. This
parent drop off area was encouraged by city staff to ensure separation of parent traffic from
the school bus drop off traffic, which is shown to take place on the main parking area to the
north of the school site.
All parking areas appear to have adequate sidewalk connections. Although not shown yet,
Staff recommends that a wide pedestrian walkway from the north parking to the school
building be painted across the driveway leading up to the school entry.
The far southwest driveway opening off Lilac Drive also provides access to the
delivery/loading area of the school, located on the south end (wing) of the school. There is a
proposed retaining wall (height unknown) along the south driveway line, with a trash
enclosure.
As part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Improvements project, slated for 2017 or
thereafter, Hennepin County, in cooperation with the City, will be making some significant
changes in the area adjacent to this new school site. As illustrated on the plan above, the
current access across from 51st Avenue is eliminated, and moved farther north by
approximately 100 feet. This access will no longer have free turning movements due to the
new curbed-median, but will allow only right-in/right-out movements at this location.
The clover-leaf ramp at Hwy. 100 and Brooklyn Blvd. is also being revised, by removing the
northbound on-ramp from Brooklyn Blvd. and creating a full signalized intersection at he
ramp and Brooklyn Blvd., with the road continuing across the road westerly and into the
north side of Brookdale Covenant Church, whereby this roadway will likely connect down
into the Lilac Drive right of way near the southwest corner of the Malmborg site. As part of
this connection, the City and/or Hennepin County will be securing some additional right of
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 11 of 18
way from the school (and Brookdale Covenant Church, which may include some excess
right-of-way land swapping, due to the no longer segment of the north/south Brooklyn Blvd.
frontage road between both properties.
As part of this future road improvement and Lilac Road connections, and since the Lilac
Road right of way does not extend into the current Malmborg’s site, NMA has identified the
current and future right of way lines (see illustration above) as per the City Engineer’s
recommendations. NMA has agreed to grant to the city this future right of way area once the
City/County begins work on the Brooklyn Boulevard roadway system, which will make
access from the north much safer and easier for the school, church, buses, parents and visitors
to this school site and surrounding sites.
Parking areas are required to have a 15 foot setback from any street right-of-way line. The
west parking (parent drop-off and short term visitor parking) is shown with an 18-19 foot
setback from Lilac Drive frontage road (as seen in the blue dashed line - below).
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 12 of 18
Once the city acquires the new (future) right of way for the Lilac Drive extension, it appears
the new parking will only be approximate 5-feet from the right of way line. Even though this
right-of-way is very narrow to begin with, there will be space available for a sidewalk along
this section of Lilac Drive, and the Planning Commission should determine if this 5-foot
reduced setback is acceptable.
Similarly, the school is also planning to have a 5-foot setback from the Brooklyn Blvd.
(frontage road) right of way as well (see diagram below). As part of this PUD process,
flexibility of this type can be granted if the Planning Commission and City Council accept
these reduced setbacks as part of the overall PUD site plans.
From a Planning Staff perspective, the allowance of the reduced setbacks appears reasonable
and not a concern at this time, as this area along Brooklyn Blvd. will likely be considered
excess right –of way once the access points and frontage road is eliminated, and the reduced
setback will no longer be an issue.
The overall number of parking spaces is noted at 134 spaces. While City Code is silent on
this number of required spaces for schools, NMA’s consultants from SRF Engineering are
working on a traffic demand and parking study, which unfortunately was not ready for this
planning commission packet. Staff anticipate SRF will provide adequate and justifiable
findings on the traffic impacts of this area (due to the new school project), especially bus
routes and traffic, along with the appropriate number of parking needed for this school use.
The leaders of New Millennium Academy agreed to provide strict guidelines and directions
for all parents and visitors to the site in order to lessen any increased traffic impacts on Lilac
Drive from the south. Additional traffic safety measures may be needed in the interim period
(such as the intersection of 51st Avenue and the frontage road access) until Brooklyn
Boulevard is improved; however, Planning Staff is unable to address or require these needs
until Hennepin County determines the best course of action or approves any other traffic
safety measures as part of this or other development needs inside this corridor.
Although not shown or identified on these plans, nor made an official part of this PUD
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 13 of 18
submittal, NMA and Brookdale Covenant Church officials have mutually agreed to share
their parking areas between both properties for any special school or church event, or regular
Sunday services as needed.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan as part of this PUD. All new landscape plans
must comply with the City’s “Landscape Point System” policy, which is evaluated and
determined by the LPS worksheet. This 4.77 acre site was based on the “Office” type
development (per Planning Staff recommendation), which requires a total of 422 planting
points. The current plan submitted by DSGW Architects indicates 22 required shade trees,
but list only 18 to be planted, along with 30 coniferous trees, 14 decorative trees, and 100
new shrubs and over 100 new plantings. The total number calculated by staff equals 431
points provided, which meets the landscape point system.
The plan also points out that a few existing trees will be remain or be saved as part of this
project, which is always commendable in redeveloping existing sites.
The landscape plan also identifies an existing 6-foot high privacy wood fence that will
remain under this plan (see diagram and Street View photo below).
Plans call for the extension of the fence by another 120 feet along this fence line, to screen
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 14 of 18
off the delivery area of the school. The Planning Commission should determine if this 6-foot
wood fence screen is adequate or high enough to screen this loading area.
Staff is also recommending NMA consider adding conifer (evergreen) plantings along the
south edge of the easterly overflow parking area (see diagram below) to help screen this
parking lot and part of the school site from the adjacent single-family home to the south.
The Planning Commission should make a determination as to the adequacy of the screening
plan and provide recommendations on this plan at the public hearing.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES
The developer has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans
which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. His written
comments are attached for the Planning Commission’s review. Sanitary sewer and water
main are located within the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way and should adequately be able
to serve this new school facility. Plans call for the installation of an infiltration basin and
storm water pong area along the north side of the site’s parking lot areas, which will be fed or
connected to the interior storm drain inlets and pipes which should serve this area. The new
infiltration basin #1 near the southeast corner of the site appears to take in the storm water
treatment from the easterly parking lot areas, along with the roof drainage from the new
school building.
As part of any new plan submittals, these drainage plans will be thoroughly reviewed and
need to be approved by the local watershed district, along with final approvals by the City
Engineer. It appears from the engineer’s review memo there are no concerns of this drainage
plan at this time.
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 15 of 18
LIGHTING/TRASH
The developer’s lighting plan for this school site is noted with 30 new LED lights. Most of
the parking lot light standards are shown as 25-feet in height, with single or dual luminaire
heads. The outer walls of the building will have 19 new wall sconces or light packs that will
provide lamination for access doors and security lighting.
All new lighting needs to meet or exceed those requirements established under Section 35-
712 of the city ordinances. City ordinance require that all exterior lighting be provided with
lenses, reflectors or down-cast shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property.
Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at
property lines abutting residentially zoned property. Review of this photometric plan
indicated all new lighting meets or exceeds this standard.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes the rezoning element of this PUD application can be given a favorable
recommendation, since it is believed the rezoning portion meets the criterion used to evaluate
such change, and the proposed concept plan associated with this PUD would be an acceptable
means of achieving what the Applicants seek in the redevelopment of this site. The related
development (site) plan of this PUD application also appears to be well thought out and well
planned for this area, and Staff finds the overall plan acceptable.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider approval of the zoning change of this site
from R-3 Multiple family Residence to the new PUD-Mixed R-2/R-3 (Planned Unit
Development - Two Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence), and the New
Millennium Academy Development Site Plan of the new K-8 Public Charter School Facility,
based on the following findings (also memorialized in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2015-04):
A. The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or benefit
to the community and regional area, as it will improve the appearance of the city
and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this
neighborhood area; and provide an excellent educational opportunity for the
children of our growing and diversified population groups.
B. The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment to the
neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community;
C. Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community, and neighborhood
schools and parks are the foundation of neighborhoods. The concept of
combining school and park uses adjacent to each other is economically efficient
from a public service perspective.
D. The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment plan of this site, which will be
compatible with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 16 of 18
underlying land use plan.
E. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use
classifications;
F. The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal
redevelopment of a targeted area for the community’s education needs, eliminates
an obsolescent or deteriorating nursery garden center; and will stimulate new
investment in the neighborhood and community.
G. The Development/Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards,
purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance;
H. The Development/Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Planned Unit
Development proposed on the Subject Site, will facilitate the redevelopment and
improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a
manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to
adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land;
I. The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned
redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will
conform with ordinance standards;
J. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the
recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; and
K. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range
use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset
to the community.
With these findings, Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to
the City Council to authorize the change of zoning of the subject site from R-3 Multiple family
Residence to the new PUD-Mixed R-2/R-3 (Planned Unit Development - Two Family Residence
and Multiple Family Residence) district, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions noted in the City Engineer’s Review Memorandum (dated
06/03/15) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City
Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled.
2. The Developer (CS Property NMA, LLC / New Millennium Academy) agrees to
dedicate to the city (with no compensation) the added right-of-way necessary to
complete the Lilac Drive roadway extension along the westerly project boundary
line, which will be made part of the overall Brooklyn Boulevard roadway
improvements in this area.
3. Developer shall plant additional coniferous (evergreen) trees in a staggered row
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 17 of 18
along the south edge of the easterly parking lot to effectively screen the adjacent
single family home to the south.
4. Developer shall provide a clearly marked and striped pedestrian walkway across
the main drive aisle, from the north parking lot to the front door entry.
5. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official
with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of any building permits.
6. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to
meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance
with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances.
7. The location or placement of any proposed or future fire hydrants and other fire
related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief.
8. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site
engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of permits.
9. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
10. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
11. Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new
freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain
subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit
submittals and approval.
12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform
to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details.
13. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during
construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department and applicant
shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site.
14. The Developer of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities
maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm
drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits.
15. Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits.
___________________________
New Millennium Academy PUD
PC 06/11/15
Page 18 of 18
16. The Developer shall submit 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 all site
improvements.
17. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
18. The Developer shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be
prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building
permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall
acknowledge the specific standards and regulations provided by the underlying
PUD-MIXED R2/R3 zoning district, as well as all other conditions of approval.
This agreement shall further assure compliance with the development/site plans
submitted with this application.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 3, 2015
TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist
FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review –New Millennium School
Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on May 2 2,
2015, for the proposed New Millennium Charter School:
Civil Site Plans dated May 22, 2015
Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the
following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit:
Title Sheet
1. No Comments.
C1 – Site Plan
2. Label accessible ramps.
3. Narrow the throat at northwest entrance of site.
C2 – Grading Plan, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan
4. Provide and list a SWPPP inspector/manager with contact information that must be available
within 4-hrs notification to respond to and implement SWPPP related corrective measures. If
the applicant is found to be non-responsive, the City may issue a stop work order and/or take
other means necessar y to correct SWPPP related issues.
5. Provide quantities of erosion control BMP’s.
C3 – Utility Plan
6. Coordinate site storm water outlet with MNDot including drainage calculations to match existing
conditions.
C4 – Detail and Specifications Plan
7. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City
of Brookl yn Center standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be
included in the plans.
A1.1 – Landscape Plan
8. Provide irrigation plan.
New Millennium Charter School
Site Plan Review Memo, June 3, 2015
Page 2 of 3
E1.0 – Site Photometrics
9. No comments.
Miscellaneous
10. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments.
11. Provide and include Demolition Plan.
12. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings
of all project plan sheets depicting an y associated private and/or public improvements,
revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built
survey must also verif y that all propert y corners have been established and are in place at the
completion of the project as determined and directed by the Cit y Engineer.
13. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s
design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formall y
certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and
under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be
certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings (which are
separate from the as-built survey).
14. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. In addition, the total
disturbed area is less than 5 acres; applicant must submit plans to the City of Brooklyn Center
for project review on behalf on the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission.
15. Provide traffic memo highlighting a traffic summary and bus routes, both temporary and
long term. It should be understood that the primary access (ultimate) will be from Lilac
Drive once the new intersection is constructed at Brooklyn Boulevard (south Hwy 100 ramp
location). The temporary interim primary access will be the current access at 51st Avenue,
which is expected to be removed in the future (shifted north and modified to a right in/right
out only).
16. The City has submitted the plans to MNDot for review. Applicant must meet requirements
from the MNDot review.
17. The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet
requirements from the Hennepin County review.
18. Applicant must apply for a land disturbance permit.
G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\New Millennium School 2015\Plan Reviews &
Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\150603_Plan Review Memo.doc
New Millennium Charter School
Site Plan Review Memo, June 3, 2015
Page 3 of 3
19. A cross access and parking agreement is required.
20. Utility Facilities Easement Agreement required.
21. Developer shall dedicate and work with the City of Brooklyn Center to make ensure roadway
easements for Lilac Dr. is sufficient.
Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration
22. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by
the Cit y Engineer in form and format as determined by the Cit y. The final plan must compl y
with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended as required by the City Engineer.
23. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost as
determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City.
24. During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are
established, the developer will be required to reimburse the Cit y for the administration and
engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the City can draw upon
on a monthly basis.
25. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general
construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency
management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection
provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions,
temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance
provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision.
Anticipated Permitting:
26. A City of Brookl yn Center land disturbance permit is required.
27. Watershed plan review is required.
28. A MPCA NPDES permit is required.
29. Conditions specified by the City to meet the requirements of the Shingle Creek
Watershed Commission must be met.
30. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to
obtain and warranted.
31. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable
building and land disturbance permits.
32. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other
entities designated b y the City.
G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\New Millennium School 2015\Plan Reviews &
Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\150603_Plan Review Memo.doc
New Millennium Charter School
Site Plan Review Memo, June 3, 2015
Page 4 of 3
The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at
the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further
prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined b y the City.
G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\New Millennium School 2015\Plan Reviews &
Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\150603_Plan Review Memo.doc
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2015-004 SUBMITTED BY
CS PROPERTY NMA, LLC (NEW MILLENNIUM ACADEMY) FOR
APPROVAL OF A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH NEW
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PUD-MIXED R-2/R-3 (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT - TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE AND MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE) & DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN OF A NEW K-8 PUBLIC
CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY (PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5120 LILAC
DRIVE NORTH)
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2015-004 submitted by CS
Property NMA, LLC (New Millennium Academy) proposes a new Planned Unit Development
with new Zoning Classification of PUD-Mixed R-2/R-3 (Planned Unit Development - Two
Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence) and a Development Site Plan of a new K-8
Public Charter School Facility, located at 5120 Lilac Drive North; and
WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the Subject Site to facilitate
the planned and future redevelopment of the site with a proposed three-story, 82,000 sq. ft. public
charter school facility with outdoor surface parking areas, and playground; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is identified and guided in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan as TH/MF/OS/RB/PS (Townhome-Med. Density/Multi-Family High
Density/Office-Service Business/Retail Business/Public & Semi-Public, and the proposed PUD-
MIXED R2/R3 Zoning comprehended under this application would be consistent with this
underlying land use category; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly called public
hearing, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding this proposed
planned unit development were received and noted for the official record, and the request was duly
considered in light of all testimony received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the rezoning comprehended
under this planned unit development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for
evaluating rezoning contained in Section 35-208 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, along with the
provisions and standards of the R2 (Two Family Residence) and R3 (Multiple Family Residence)
districts, as contained in Section 35-311 and Section 35-312, respectively, along with the
provisions and standards of the Planned Unit Development district contained in Section 35-355 of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
the proposed new PUD Development Plans, which included the new site and building plans of the
new 82,000 sq. ft. K-8 public charter school, elevation plans, and civil plans completed by DSGW
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04
Architects and their consultants, and found the plans to be in order and approved for the Subject
Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the proposed Planned Unit
Development submitted under Application No. 2015-004 by CS Property NMA, LLC (New
Millennium Academy), may be approved based upon the following findings:
A. The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or
benefit to the community and regional area, as it will improve the
appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and
civic pride in this neighborhood area; and provide an excellent educational
opportunity for the children of our growing and diversified population
groups.
B. The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment
to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the
community;
C. The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment plan of this site, which will
be compatible with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and underlying land use plan.
D. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
land use classifications;
E. The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal
redevelopment of a targeted area for the community’s education needs,
eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating nursery garden center; and will
stimulate new investment in the neighborhood and community.
F. The Development/Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards,
purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance;
G. The Development/Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Planned Unit
Development proposed on the Subject Site, will facilitate the redevelopment
and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in
question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of
comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on
surrounding land;
H. The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the
planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04
property and will conform with ordinance standards;
I. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent
with the recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area of
the city; and
J. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good
long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be
considered an asset to the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City
of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2015-004 be approved
subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. All conditions noted in the City Engineer’s Review Memorandum (dated
06/03/15) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the
City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled.
2. The Developer (CS Property NMA, LLC / New Millennium Academy)
agrees to dedicate to the city (with no compensation) the added right-of-
way necessary to complete the Lilac Drive roadway extension along the
westerly project boundary line, which will be made part of the overall
Brooklyn Boulevard roadway improvements in this area.
3. Developer shall plant additional coniferous (evergreen) trees in a
staggered row along the south edge of the easterly parking lot to
effectively screen the adjacent single family home to the south.
4. Developer shall provide a clearly marked and striped pedestrian walkway
across the main drive aisle, from the north parking lot to the front door
entry.
5. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
6. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring
device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances.
7. The location or placement of any proposed or future fire hydrants and
other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Chief.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04
8. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site
engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
9. The Developer shall submit 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 all site improvements.
10. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
11. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas
to facilitate site maintenance.
12. Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new
freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall
remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to
separate sign permit submittals and approval.
13. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall
conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications
and Details.
14. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site
during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department
and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site.
15. The owner of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities
maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and
storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits.
16. Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits.
17. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance
guarantee.
18. The owner shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04
to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of
building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the
property and shall acknowledge the specific standards and regulations
provided by the underlying PUD-MIXED R2/R3 zoning district, as well as
all other conditions of approval. This agreement shall further assure
compliance with the development/site plans submitted with this
application.
19. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site
and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which
shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary.
June 11, 2015
Date Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Chair , Commissioners , , , , , and .
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CS Property NMA, LLC | New Millennium Academy
Neighborhood Meeting
Name of Location: Brookdale Covenant Church
Location: 5139 Brooklyn Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Time: 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Duration: 1 hour
Presenter: Mr. J. Kou Vang, Project Manager for CS Property NMA, LLC (Developer)
Ms. Yee Yang, New Millennium Academy (Tenant)
Ms. Amy Erickson, New Millennium Academy (Tenant)
Recorder: Ms. Deu Xiong-Vang, JB Realty Company
Attendees: See the attached sign-in sheet.
Minutes of the Meeting:
Mr. J. Kou Vang, welcomed everyone to the neighborhood meeting and was very pleased at the large
attendance despite the pouring rain outside. Mr. Vang gave a brief summary of the purpose of the
meeting and introduced Ms. Yee Yang, the Executive Director of New Millennium Academy (NMA).
Ms. Yang presented the history of NMA and introduced her Director of Teaching and Learning, Ms. Amy
Erickson. Ms. Erickson provided some information on what a charter school is, and the successes that
the students at NMA are having and concluded that NMA is ranked as a Celebration Eligible school by
the Minnesota Department of Education for proficiency, growth and closing the achievement gap of
their students.
Mr. Vang presented the proposed site plans and talked about the traffic flow and circulation of the site.
Along with the presentation, Mr. Vang showed the neighbors a number of preliminary site drawing; Hwy
100 re-alignment, site plan, building elevations and floor plans. The new building will house students
from Kindergarten to the 8th grade. It will be approximately 80,000 square feet. In anticipation of NMA
moving in July 2016, the purchase should close in the middle of August, 2015 and start construction in
the fall of 2015. With these information, Mr. Vang opened the floor for comments and questions.
There was a good amount of conversation between the Developer, NMA and the Neighbors. Below is a
summary of the concerns that was raised by the Neighbors:
• The Neighbors are concern about how the new school will impact the amount of traffic within
the neighborhood. How will it be dealt with? Will south bound Lilac be block off so that the
traffic does not flow into the neighborhood? Will traffic increase?
• The resident on the SW corner wants to make sure that there is a separation between the
School’s property and theirs. A fence would be a good idea.
• The Neighbors are concerned that the staffs, parents and visitors will park on the streets and
thus limit the amount of on-street parking for the residents.
• How will NMA handle parking during events that would require additional parking outside of the
100+ stalls that are currently being proposed?
• What is the likelihood that NMA will expand beyond K-8?
• What will happen to the school building if NMA’s enrollment deceased and they cannot support
the obligations of the bonds?
• How the School’s finances are being managed, how is the school governed and the hierarchy of
decision making?
• Will the School affect the property value of surrounding properties?
• Is the proposed school constructed to support additional stories in the future?
• Why is the education wing three stories and not only two?
• The neighbors have seen preliminary renderings showing a soccer field on Park land…are we still
proceeding with this as an option?
• Neighbors commented on the proposed flow of traffic specifically with the re-alignment of the
Brooklyn Boulevard and Hwy 100 inter-change. This was an overall comments and not
specifically related to the proposed development.
• What is the construction schedule? What happens if the new building is not completed on
time?
• What will the hours of construction activities be? They do not want it to go 24hrs per day.
• How will construction traffic be managed during the construction period? How will we handle
road restrictions?
• How will the building be built and what kind of materials?
• There were a number of general questions on; What is a Charter School? How is it funded? Are
there any enrollment restrictions? Why would students attend a Charter School?
• Why did NMA select Brooklyn Center? Will their students in North Minneapolis follow them?
Will the demographics in Brooklyn Center support them? What is the racial make-up of their
current student population? What is the difference between NMA and other Charter Schools?
Where do the current student body come from…geographically?
Questions and comments ended at 7:50pm and Mr. Vang thanked everyone for their time and the
meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Fond du Lac Center for American Indian Resources Duluth, MNNMA Charter School PUD ApplicationMay 22, 2015 5120 Lilac Drive North, Brooklyn Center, MNPerspective 1
Fond du Lac Center for American Indian Resources Duluth, MNNMA Charter School PUD ApplicationMay 22, 2015 5120 Lilac Drive North, Brooklyn Center, MNPerspective 2
NMA Charter School PUD ApplicationMay 22, 2015 5120 Lilac Drive North, Brooklyn Center, MN 3Perspective
Pre K
848
Proposed New Millennium School site
5120 Lilac Ave, Brooklyn Center, MN
scale: 1"=30'
1st grade
900
music
2,188
admin
2,145
gymnasium
9,563
kitchen
1,471
toilet/
lockers
mechanical
848
lobby
800
elevator
Entry
stairs
first floor plan diagram
38,611 sf
Kindergarten
990
Toilets
stairs
student
commons
2,275
Entry
nurse
558
bleachers
service entry
5/13/15
cafeteria
2,930
storage
stage
chair
storage
ramp
Pe office
Proposed New Millennium School site
5120 Lilac Ave, Brooklyn Center, MN
scale: 1"=30' 5-12-15
special Ed
465
reading
316
second floor plan diagram
21,646 sf
media ctr
1,676
toilets
stairs Elevator
computer
500
admin
1,292
2nd grade
847
stairsstairs
roof
upper student
commons
5/13/15
3rd grade
857
4th grade
933
toilets
Proposed New Millennium School site
5120 Lilac Ave, Brooklyn Center, MN
scale: 1"=30' 5-12-15
Third floor plan diagram
21,646 sf
5/13/15
8th grade
888
admin
847
7th grade
851
stairs Elevator
computer
500
toilets
5th grade
857
stairs
toilets
stairs
roof
6th grade
825
Art
1,037
Science
1,000
Res/st
621
Culture
916
upper student
commons