Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 08-13 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER August 13, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Motion to Approve the Agenda for August 13, 2015 4. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Motion to Approve the July 16, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. PLANNING ITEMS a) Cass & Associates, LLC Planning App. No. 2015-007 Property Address: 4800 Lilac Drive North Consideration of a Site and Building Plan of 26,253 sq. ft. addition to the existing Cass Screw Machine Products facility, located in the I-2 General Industry District. Requested Planning Commission Action: • Direct Staff to present Planning Report • Discuss the Requested Item with Staff, Commissioners and Applicant • Motion/Second to Allow Public Comments (if so requested) • Motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-07 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 8. ADJOURNMENT PC Minutes 07-16-15 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JULY 16, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Randy Christensen, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, John MacMillan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Carlos Morgan (arrived at 7:16 p.m.) were present. Commissioner Freedman was absent and excused. 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the agenda for the July 16, 2015 meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 4. 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. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JUNE 24, 2015 There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2015 meeting as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. 6. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS 6a) APPLICATION NO. 2015-006 JORRI CARTER; PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION ALLOWING A RECORDING STUDIO IN A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENT DISTRICT (2914 53rd Avenue North) PC Minutes 07-16-15 -2- Chair Christensen introduced Application No. 2015-006, Public Hearing - Consideration of a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation Allowing a Recording Studio in a Residential Dwelling in the R-1 One Family Resident District, located at 2914 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Benetti, Secretary to the Planning Commission, went over the process for a special home occupation permit; noted that written notices of this public hearing were mailed to all residential property owners within 150-feet of the subject site; showed the property location and pictures of the home; provided the applicant’s narrative, and indicated where the studio is located on the property. He stated that a special use permit can be taken away if it becomes injurious to surrounding residents. Mr. Benetti stated Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2015-006, with the conditions noted in the Planning Staff report and also similar in the Resolution. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2015-006 Chair Christensen recognized residents in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillian, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2015-006, at 7:14 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant Jorri Carter, 2914 53rd Avenue North, stated that he is definitely willing to comply with all City regulations and his intention is to cooperate and work with neighbors. Mr. Benetti read and addressed the following list of concerns from a neighbor, Mrs. Deb Burseth of 5324 Lilac Drive North: 1. What are the hours of the operation? Mr. Benetti stated that the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. What about possible drug use on the property? Mr. Benetti stated that the police department should be called and that the City has the power to give and take away a special use permit. 3. How much added traffic to the neighborhood is allowed? Mr. Benetti explained the possible traffic patterns for the business and what decibel level is allowed. He explained that the decibel level can be monitored by the police department. He explained that the complaints would be handled by either the City or the police department PC Minutes 07-16-15 -3- depending on the time of day. He stated that the City has not rescinded special use permits in the past, but if there are issues they will be worked out or the special use permit would be rescinded. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2015-006. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for questions and comments from Commissioners. Chair Christensen stated his concern that a typical length of stay for clients of a half an hour to an hour would prompt calls regarding possible drug dealing. Applicant Carter acknowledged this concern and stated that a client visit would never be shorter than a half hour and is typically about an hour long and could go to two hours. Chair Christensen asked if the City has issued a special use permit for a studio before. Mr. Benetti replied that the City approved a home studio in 2008 on Woodbine Avenue. The studio was located in the basement. He does not believe it is still active and there were no complaints but there were concerns that were addressed by Staff and the applicant at the time. He is not sure how long it was in operation, but there were similar conditions to this application. Mr. Benetti reiterated that the City has the ability to remove the special use permit should this home based use become a problem. Applicant Carter stated that he was conducting business for a while before applying for the special use permit. He stated that he did speak with adjacent neighbors and was not made aware of any concerns regarding noise from the home studio. Chair Christensen asked if there is a sunset to the permit. Mr. Benetti replied that a special use permit is essentially effective for life of the property, and runs concurrently with the ownership of the land. However, if the special use permit holder has been found to be in violation of the approved conditions or standards of City Code, the City retains the right to remove or withdraw the permit from the Applicant or property owner. If the current owner moved, the permit would not transfer to the new owner; it will be owner-specific. Commissioner Koenig asked the Applicant if the lack of Sunday hours would impede his business. Applicant Carter stated that it would impede his business but he did not want to cause problems. If his neighbors had any issues with him conducting business on Sunday he would willingly cease conducting business. Commissioner Koenig stated that weekends and evenings would most likely be times when musician clients would be more available. Applicant Carter stated that he is not trying to cause problems for anyone else. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -4- Commissioner Koenig stated that he was speaking in favor of doing business on Sunday. Applicant Carter stated that he would prefer to do business on Sunday and would be willing to limit the hours and clients. Chairman Christensen stated he would like the permit conditions to stay as is without Sundays. He believes the conditions contain a good mix of what the Applicant is asking for. Commissioner Koenig stated that he thinks the permit conditions are good as they are, but noted that the report does not address times that may be busy and that the Applicant may need such as Sunday. He is in favor of later hours; however, he realizes this is a home. Chair Christensen stated that he would love for the applicant to have more clients because he could then move the studio from his home. He stated that going from a home studio to a regular studio would be fantastic for the Applicant from a business standpoint. Applicant Carter stated that the business growing would be a good thing because he did not really want it in his home. Chair Christensen asked Commissioners how they felt about the business hours and being open on Sunday. Applicant Carter asked if neighbors could settle the issue of hours. Mr. Benetti stated that a public hearing at the City Council meeting is at their discretion and is not typical. He stated that the Commission can address the Sunday hour issue and it is not unheard of to have a business operate on Sunday. He stated that the Commission could talk about limited clients and hours on Sunday. Commissioner Koenig clarified that the Applicant was willing to leave himself at the mercy of his neighbors. Applicant Carter stated that he is willing to accept the neighbors’ preference regarding Sunday operations. He wants to keep peace and make sure the neighbors are happy. Chair Christensen stated that now is the time to make a recommendation to the City Council and they may decide to amend it, but they like to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendations. He asked Commission members for their input on the Sunday hours. Commissioner Koenig asked the Applicant if there were other hours that would be more fruitful. Applicant Carter stated that he doesn’t have that specific client information, but would be able to get it if he could contact his producer. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -5- Chair Christensen stated that Applicant Carter could give his best estimate and possibly contact Mr. Benetti before the next City Council meeting. Mr. Benetti recommended that the Commission decide on a recommendation to the City Council on limited Sunday hours at this meeting. If the hours do not work out, the applicant can come back and ask for an adjustment. Chair Christensen suggested two clients in a four-hour block from noon to four. Commissioners agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Benetti asked for amended motion to include Sunday hours from 12:00 Noon to 4:00 p.m. There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Schonning to amend the resolution to include Sunday hours from 12:00 Noon to 4:00 p.m. Mr. Benetti asked if the Commissioners wanted to limit the number of clients. Chair Christensen stated that he preferred limiting the number of clients to two and asked Mr. Commissioner Koenig if he would accept an amendment to his motion. Commissioner Koenig asked if it was necessary to limit the number of clients. He would favor not limiting the number, but agreed to two clients. Commissioner Morgan asked the Applicant what he would want. Applicant Carter replied that he would be happy with Noon to 4:00 p.m. and a limit of three clients. Mr. Benetti suggested not limiting the number of clients and only limiting the hours. Chair Christensen asked Commissioner Koenig if it was his intention not to put a limitation on the number of clients in the motion. Commissioner Koenig replied affirmatively. Chair Christensen asked for a second to the motion. Commissioner Morgan seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, and Sweeney And the following voted against the same: Chair Christensen The amended motion passed (5 in favor to 1 against). The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2015-006 SUBMITTED BY JORRI CARTER FOR PC Minutes 07-16-15 -6- SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION ALLOWING A RECORDING STUDIO INSIDE A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING IN THE R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (2914 – 53RD AVENUE NORTH) There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-006 with the following amendment: The hours of operation shall be between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and the studio will be limited to 12:00 Noon to 4:00 PM on Sundays. Customers may utilize the recording studio on an appointment only basis and only at a time when the Applicant and/or partner/employee are present. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, and Sweeney. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its July 27, 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. 6b) APPLICATION NO. 2015-004; CS PROPERTY NMA, LLC (NEW MILLENNIUM ACADEMY); EVALUATE AND DISCUSS RECOMMENDATION ITEMS FROM JUNE 11, 2015 MEETING; 5120 LILAC DRIVE NORTH Mr. Benetti stated that the Commission is being asked to provide a companion recommendation (amended recommendation of approval from the June 11, 2015 action on this PUD item) to be presented at the July 27, 2015 City Council meeting. He asked the Commission to evaluate and discuss the following recommendation items from the June 11, 2015 meeting: 1. Architectural (materials and features) of the proposed new school building; Mr. Benetti went over the development site plan and the new core elevation plan; new exterior material and color schemes; and the landscaping. He stated that the exterior will be similar to the Shingle Creek Crossing building. 2. Screening and buffering plans for neighborhood residents; and Mr. Benetti stated that he has made several unsuccessful efforts to contact Mrs. Tapelt. He pointed out changes to the grading and an eight-foot high, double sided fence that will be installed which will provide a minimum 6-foot high screening. He stated that the City is also recommending that the school work with the neighbors to provide any additional screening. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -7- 3. Traffic Study Findings and Recommendations (ingress and egress). Mr. Benetti went over the traffic and parking study. He pointed out the intersection scheduled to be replaced and stated that the current access point will remain until the intersection is replaced. He stated that the traffic study showed that there will be AM and PM delays and that the final traffic report was not ready in time for the Planning Commission meeting, but City staff is working with Hennepin County Traffic Engineers to reduce PM delays. The school will be adjusting to an earlier start time. He stated that providing a temporary traffic signal at 51st Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard is not warranted; a lane conversion inside Brooklyn Boulevard as a holding lane for northbound vehicles is not doable; a temporary connection at the Hwy. 100 ramp/Brooklyn Boulevard future intersection was deemed too expensive; and traffic cops are not warranted. The City has asked the Applicant to provide bus lane maps. He explained the bus route that will be used to leave the site and stated that the school will contract with the bus provider regarding the exit plan. Mr. Benetti presented the following agreement with New Millennium Academy: 1 NMA will install a temporary swing gate at the end of Lilac Drive (per City standards and approvals), with the gate to be closed during AM/PM peak hours (or maybe throughout the entire day school is in session). 2 NMA agrees to accept conditions in the PUD Agreement that prescribe the mandatory and approved bus traffic patterns, visitors’ and staffs’ vehicles patterns, which enter/exit from this school site. 3 NMA will provide or hire licensed traffic enforcement officer or uniformed police officer(s) to be used for traffic control services during the AM/PM movements, if required. 4 NMA will meet with City of Brooklyn Center [staff] to analyze and assess traffic and access patterns every 6-months or every 12-months, or whenever requested by the City of Brooklyn Center, and will agree to accept any recommendations made by City of Brooklyn Center and/or Hennepin County officials to address or mitigate any traffic/access concerns should they come to light after the school is opened or operating. 5 NMA will post an approved financial guarantee or enter into an agreement to participate in funding of up to $150,000 to be used for the installation of a temporary traffic signal or other traffic mitigation measures, should the City and/or County call for any in the future. This agreement will be brought back to the NMA school board for approval and staff hopes to have it completed by the next City Council meeting. Mr. Benetti stated Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a companion recommendation (amended recommendation of approval from the June 11, 2015 action on this PC Minutes 07-16-15 -8- PUD item) to the City Council regarding Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-04, with the conditions noted in the Planning Staff report and also similar in the Resolution. Commissioner Morgan stated that things are progressing well. Commissioner Schonning stated that he is happy with the changes to the development plan and that he thinks it will be a greater view and asset. Chair Christensen asked about type of fencing will be used. Mr. Benetti replied that the recommendation is for a solid screen fencing using either wood or maintenance free materials. Chair Christensen recommended that the homeowners provide their preferences for the fence. Mr. Benetti agreed that the neighbors’ input is important. He stated that the school will work with homeowners. Chair Christensen expressed concern regarding the drop off and the possibility of snow accumulating in the neighbor’s back yard. Mr. Benetti stated that the elevations are not that different and there is a swell between the properties. Chair Christensen stated that he was pointing out a concern he wanted noted. Commissioner Morgan stated that the City of Brooklyn Center residents he has talked to are happy the school is coming. He thought the Applicant was very thorough, did a good job and he is looking forward to the ground breaking. (Commissioner Ben Freedman arrived at approximately 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Freedman elected to sit in the audience instead of his Commissioner’s seat). Chair Christensen asked if the control arm was going to stop all traffic including Happy Hollow residents. Mr. Benetti replied affirmatively and explained that it will probably be in operation during school hours and that he has received an overwhelming response from neighbors that they don’t want any traffic through their neighborhood. He is confident that this will address concerns about parents dropping off students and coming through the neighborhood. Director of Business and Development Eitel added that Lilac Avenue via Malmborg’s has not been improved to city street standards. He stated that putting in the control arm will stop traffic from crossing through the school property when school is in session. Chair Christensen stated that he did hear people they say didn’t want to increase traffic through the Happy Hollow neighborhood, but doesn’t know if it is a good idea for the park. Mr. Benetti stated that the control arm protects the school while school is in session and ensures the goal to prevent traffic, parents and buses from using Lilac. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -9- Mr. Eitel stated that another option would be to complete Lilac Avenue and make it a city street. Chair Christensen stated that he wants to make sure that when the street project is finished that 50th or 49th Avenues cannot be used for busing. Mr. Eitel stated that is difficult to tell someone they can’t use a city street. Chair Christensen stated that you can tell them that you prefer that they don’t. Commissioner Morgan stated that the Commission should be looking at ways to say yes instead of no. Chair Christensen stated that he is thinking of ways to support the Happy Hollow neighborhood. Commissioner Sweeney stated there is no advantage to taking 50th Avenue. Commissioner Schonning stated that the section of road that has not been developed is a glorified alley and he would see the logic of closing that off short term because it is easy access and people would want to use it. Commissioner Morgan stated that he thinks the City has been very accommodating and has tried to look for solutions. Commissioner Koenig asked about the location of the gate. Mr. Benetti pointed out the location of the gate at the end of Lilac Drive. Mr. Eitel stated that the City is working with the church to improve Lilac Drive. Commissioner MacMillan asked if the gate will be down just during school hours. Mr. Benetti stated that it will be measured. The consensus is to have it shut down all day for the duration of school. The City will work with the school because the school will be opening and shutting in accordance with the City’s wishes. He stated that the City Council may give staff discretion to work with the Applicant regarding this issue. Mr. Eitel stated that the gate should be closed during school hours to protect the kids and pedestrians inside the school site from any vehicles that may want to take a short-cut through the school parking lot. Chair Christensen asked about a sign indicating a no-through street. Mr. Benetti stated that any street sign would need to be approved by the City Engineer and installed by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Morgan left the Council Chambers at 8:33 p.m. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -10- Chair Christensen stated that he thinks the Commissioners are in consensus on materials, screening and buffering (while making sure the City/school works with the homeowners). The Commissioners will need to agree to let the traffic and egress/ingress issues left in the capable hands of planning staff and the city’s traffic engineers. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2015-004 SUBMITTED BY CS PROPERTY NMA, LLC (NEW MILLENNIUM ACADEMY) FOR ARCHITECTURAL (MATERIALS AND FEATURES) OF THE PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL BUILDING; SCREENING AND BUFFERING PLANS FOR NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS; AND TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (INGRESS AND EGRESS), WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED IN THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND ALSO SIMILAR IN THE RESOLUTION. There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to provide a companion recommendation to the previously adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-04 (dated June 11, 2015), with the following appended findings and conditions: 1. The proposed building materials (as submitted by NMA to the City on 07/08/15) are acceptable, provided the new school building is constructed with 4-sided architecture; 2. The proposed screening measures with minimum 8-foot high screen fence and additional landscaping for the adjacent properties are hereby approved; and 3. The traffic and access alternatives offered by NMA are acceptable. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Schonning, and Sweeney. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously (5 -0 in favor, with Commissioner Morgan absent at the time of the vote). The Council will consider this updated information and recommendations at the July 27, 2015 meeting. The applicant should be present to address the Council as necessary. Commissioner Morgan returned to the Council Chambers at 8:39 p.m. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS Commissioner Benjamin Freedman approached and addressed the Planning Commission. Commissioner Freedman apologized for not being able to attend his official last meeting as PC Minutes 07-16-15 -11- Planning Commissioner, as he was attending to an unexpected water-line break inside his residence. Commissioner Freedman stated that it had been an honor to serve on the Commission. He spoke of his family’s love for the City. He thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to serve alongside them and he thanked the Planning Staff and stated his feeling that they do an incredible job and that the City is a better place because of their work. Chair Christensen thanked Mr. Freedman and expressed his sadness that Commissioner Freedman was moving from the community and leaving the Commission. 7a) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER/HENNEPIN COUNTY’S ACTIVE LIVING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Mr. Benetti stated that he will send out a flier tomorrow regarding this project via e-mail. He stated that the demonstration will take place on Saturday, July 25th. 7b) COMMISSIONER MORGAN’S PERSONAL REQUEST TO ADDRESS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Morgan stated that it was good to see more members serving on the Commission. He suggested developing a list of attributes the City is known for and develop an award for an individual and an award for a top business or government entity in recognition of their partnership with the City and the Planning Commission. Chair Christensen directed Staff to see if this is something the Commission can do with the City Council’s blessing. Mr. Eitel stated that the Commission could make a recommendation. Commissioner Morgan inquired why the Planning Commission could not implement the award. Mr. Eitel replied that the Planning Commission is an advisory body that can make recommendations but cannot approve any action. Chair Christensen stated that there may be a template available for a good partnership award and suggested having Staff approach the City Council with the request to acquire their feedback. Commissioner Sweeney asked if the City has a partnership award. Mr. Eitel replied that there hasn’t been one since he has been here. He stated that Staff will come back with some ideas. Commissioner Morgan also suggested an exercise for Commissioners to experience a City project from beginning to completion. Chair Christensen stated that this may be an opportunity for the Planning Commission to see more about what happens before it gets to the Commission because they don’t know what happens behind the scenes. He talked about seminars available to Planning Commissioners and City Planners. PC Minutes 07-16-15 -12- Mr. Eitel gave examples of two upcoming City projects that could be looked at by the Commissioners. Commissioner Morgan stated that he envisioned a small project that the Commission could develop. Mr. Eitel stated that he thought it would be difficult to do a separate project. Chair Christensen talked about a previous seminar hosted by the City of Brooklyn Park. Commissioner Morgan suggested doing a mock exercise regarding 57th Avenue No and Logan Avenue N. Mr. Eitel suggested that the Commissioners could go through planning exercises in preparation for the City’s Comprehensive Plan development. There were no other discussion items. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None at this time. 9. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ) The undersigned, being the duly qualified and assigned Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Regular Session of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center held on July 16, 2015. 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at Brooklyn Center City Hall. 3. That the Planning Commission approved said minutes at its July 30, 2015 regular meeting. _______________________________ _______________________________ Tim Benetti, Secretary Randall Christensen, Chair ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 1 of 8 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 13, 2015 Application No. 2015-007 Applicant: Cass & Associates, LLC (Steven Wise, CEO/Pres.) Location: 4800 Lilac Drive North Request: Site & Building Plan for Addition to Cass Screw Machine INTRODUCTION Cass & Associates, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Cass”) is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval for a 26,253 sq. ft. addition to the existing Cass Screw Machine Products facility, located at 4800 Lilac Drive. The new addition will be constructed along the east side of the facility, with additional parking along the north of the site. Site plan items do not require a public hearing, but can be considered under a normal public meeting review, whereby comments from the public may be allowed or noted for the record. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: I-Industrial Current Zoning: I-2 General Industry Surrounding Zoning: North: I-2 General Industry East: I-2 General Industry South: I-2 General Industry West: N/A – Hwy. 100 corridor Neighborhood: Happy Hollow Site Area: 3.68 acres Setback Standards: Building: Front Yard = 35-ft.; Rear Yard = 25-ft.; Side Yard (Interior) = 10 ft.; and Corner Side-Yard = 25-ft. Parking: 15-ft. from any street right-of-way line Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes to building plans; No to existing parking areas Subdivision Ord.: Yes, even though no platting is required in this case. Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request: No (however, acknowledgement of legal, non-conforming status of parking areas may be needed). • Application Filed: 06/29/15 • Application Deemed Complete: 07/29/15 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 09/28/15 • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 2 of 8 BACKGROUND Lester E. Cass started Cass Screw Machine Products in 1945, as a small, single-machine shop in downtown Minneapolis. In 1965, Cass moved the shop from downtown Minneapolis to 4748 France Ave. N. The new building held the machine shop, office, quality and tool rooms, and the shipping department. In 1980, Cass constructed an 8,000 sq. ft. addition to the original facility. As the company continued to grow, adjacent buildings inside this I-2 Industrial area were acquired, which consists of five buildings. Besides 4748 France Avenue North, Cass owns and operates the different levels or services of their machine shop operations from 4800 Lilac Drive North, and 3625, 3607 and 3615 – 48th Avenue North. According to Mr. Wise, the new addition to Cass is estimated at $1.5 million, with new racking and forklifts for the new warehouse scheduled to run upwards of $200,000 or more. These final estimates are being worked on by Cass and their contractor. Cass currently employs 57 full time workers in the 4800 building, with 10 office employees and 47 in the shop/manufacturing area (note: of the 47 shop employees, 12 work the night-shift). Mr. Wise indicated their goal for 2016 is to hire an additional 10 employees SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS The subject property consists of 3.68 acres. The existing Cass facility is indicated at 40,508 sq. ft., measuring approximately 322 feet long by 160-ft. wide (refer to survey drawing below). ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 3 of 8 The site contains 46 spaces on the north parking area, along with room for 18 spaces on the south side (office area) which are accessed directly onto 48th Avenue. A small number of cars (approx. 5) also park along the front island separator between the office area and warehouse area. The new 26,253 sf. addition is planned for the east side of the building, and measures approximately 180-ft. by 145-ft. The expansion will take place in the vacant space located to the east of the existing 4800 facility. This parcel of land is relatively flat and unobscured, with little grading planned or needed for this particular addition. Although there is an existing paved access and driveway (approx. 100-feet in length), there are no plans to remove this access or use it as an entrance into the new building addition. ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 4 of 8 The building also contains three loading doors or bays along the south elevation, which are scheduled to remain, with a new loading dock and driveway planned for the new addition. The architectural plans label this new addition as “storage” or warehouse. The new addition is noted with “Precast concrete panels stamped and dyed to match existing brick/office portion of building.” The panels will have a decorative band along the upper portion of the panels, with window lights spaced evenly across this banded areas on the north, east and south elevations. Additional work-level window lights will also be installed along the north and south elevations. A new truck loading dock and driveway is planned for the south elevation, with direct access from 48th Avenue to the south. An additional truck/loading bay is planned for the north elevation, with access from the new parking lot areas. The new parking area will tie into the existing parking lot to the north of the building, which angles inward towards the new building addition due to the angled northerly lot boundary line. Parking will be addressed further in the following section of this report.  Parking & Access Pursuant to City Zoning Code Sect. 35-700, Off-Street Parking Requirements, an Industry/Wholesale use is required to provide one space for every two employees on largest work shift; or one space for each 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area, whichever greater. The overall number of employees working at this 4800 facility is 57 total (including the 12 late-shift workers). Even with the projected 10 employees for 2016, this expanded industrial site would require up to 34 spaces, based on this 1 space per 2 employees determination. Estimating the parking needs based on the overall building size is calculated as follows: ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 5 of 8 66,671 sf. / 800 sf. (GFA) = 83.3, or 84 spaces required. The subject site currently contains 46 parking spaces along the north side of the facility, which serve the office and manufacturing employees at this location. This parking lot is accessed only off Lilac Drive on the west side of the property. Lilac Drive dead-ends approximately 200 feet from this parking lot entrance, which is the property line/driveway leading up to the former Allied Building Products property to the north. Although not officially labeled on the property survey, there appears to be an additional parking area located on the south side of the office building area, which consists of 18 parking spaces. The survey also appears to “ghost-line” 8 to 10 spaces in the loading area to the east of this office area (refer to diagram below – red cloud areas). Parking spaces that would appear to conflict with existing building layout or designs, especially existing [physical] improvements), and in this case the overhead doors/loading docks in this area, leads planning staff to discount or not include these 8-10 spaces in the overall parking calculations. The total parking spaces indicated under the new site plan are noted with 114 spaces. Plans call for the main north parking area to contain 85 total spaces. The site plan officially identifies 18 spaces on the south side of the office area; and also 11 spaces in the “notch” between the office and new warehouse spaces. The site plan/survey indicates the 18 space parking area near the office was installed with a zero lot line setback. Although not ideal to have parking areas directly accessed onto a public roadway (48th Avenue), it appears this parking has been in place for quite some time and can be considered legal non-conforming or a “grandfathered” right. Under this new plan, the total number of 85 spaces provided on the north parking lot area meets the Zoning Code Sect. 35-700 for parking requirements based on the overall (finished) size of the facility. The additional 18 spaces on the south can continue to be used as part of the grandfathered rights, which provides up to 103 spaces at this point. The newly illustrated 11 total spaces in the existing “notch” area appear to continue to conflict ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 6 of 8 with the three loading bays or doors near this area, and planning staff does not feel these spaces should be marked or provided, due to this apparent conflict with the loading space be shown or striped, unless Cass agrees to remove the loading doors in this area. If Cass wishes to install the five spaces (2 handicap + 3 regular) along the east edge of the office area, that may be acceptable provide movement may be accomplished or not conflict with the existing and planned loading areas.  Grading/Drainage/Utilities Plan Sheet CP-101 is the preliminary site drainage plan for this Cass expansion. Since most of the 4800 parcel will be taken up by building and parking improvements, and due to limited space in providing on-site ponding for storm water management, Cass engineers elected to design an underground “ storm-tech” chambered system to treat storm water run-off on this site (similar to the redeveloped Luther dealership sites along Brooklyn Boulevard). Plans call for the roof water to be routed down to the storm-tech system, along with the existing and new parking lot areas to the north. This water is then routed along the east edge of the new building addition, and connected down to the existing public storm sewer system under 48th Avenue roadway. Please refer to the City Engineer’s Review Memo (dated August 7, 2015) for comments and detailed requirements related to this on-site stormwater management system.  Landscape and Tree Plan The Cass site plan includes a detailed landscape plan, which illustrates certain amounts and locations of various landscaping items throughout the new site. Although City Code does not contain a landscape or tree ordinance, the City has held that any new development areas shall comply with the city’s adopted Landscape Points System policy, which provides certain percentages and amount of landscaping based on a development’s size (land area). This landscape points system requires commercial sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on a maximum percentage of certain materials (50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). The existing Cass site contains three mature locust trees within the vacant east space, three ash trees in front of the existing warehouse space, and a number of upright junipers/evergreen shrubs ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 7 of 8 along the west and south walls of the office area. The three locust trees along with the three ash in the front will be removed under this expansion plan. Cass’ architects have provided a points calculation table and detailed plant schedule as part of this submittal. The landscape plan indicates 204 points, which reflects correctly upon the overall 3.68 acre size of Cass’ property. The schedule calls for 100 points applied to shade trees; 78 points for coniferous/evergreen trees; and 26 points for shrubs/plantings. The landscape plan identifies 16 new river birch trees to be planted within the raised island separator near the new loading dock driveway, along with 11 new Scotch pines along the south elevation line of the addition; and 2 additional Scotch pines to the north side. The plan also includes new decorative shrubs and plants in and around the reconstructed area near the main (public) entryway into the office area. The 16 river birch inside the island area initially appeared a bit too crowded; however, after conferring with the architect from Sjoquist Architects, the City accepts this clustering, as these trees will mature later and need to be thinned accordingly, and will provide a nice landscape feature along this new building line. The City is further recommending the landscape plan include approved shade trees under the Landscape Policy, which should consist of either maple, oak, linden or locust (or similar approved) type trees. The plan should provide these additional shade trees be interspersed with the Scotch pines along the front, and possibly adding a few trees in the triangle shaped area north of the north parking lot, near the Allied Building property. Staff will work with Cass’ architects/design team to revise and provide an amended landscape plan that meets the city’s Landscape Policy; and staff will ensure any updated plan is approved prior to issuance of any building permits, and is made part of the recommendations noted in the draft Planning Commission resolution.  Lighting/Trash The site lighting plan is very limited, and calls for three new wall mounted light packs. Two wall lights along the back side of the new addition, and one light near the new loading dock entrance. The photometric plan that accompanied this plan illustrates that little if any illumination or lighting will exceed the approved levels per City Code. This lighting plan is deemed acceptable by the City. There is no additional outdoor trash enclosures planned for this new warehouse addition. Staff assumes all trash and refuse is property handled and managed accordingly by Cass and/or their haulers. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The city engineers have provided preliminary review and comments regarding this new site plan, noted in the Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated August 7, 2015, and is referenced and included in this planning report. Some of these conditions may be applicable at time of future building permit review and approvals. ________________ App. No. 2015-007 PC 08/13/15 Page 8 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2015-07, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2015-007, the Site and Building Plan approval for the 26,253 sq. ft. addition proposed by Cass Screw Machine, located at 4800 Lilac Drive North, subject to the following conditions: 1) Developer agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memo, dated August 7, 2015. 2) Final drainage and utility plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer. 3) 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. A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be provided for review and approval. 4) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 5) Plans should exclude or eliminate the 6 new parking spaces near the existing loading doors on the south elevation. 6) The Developer shall submit a revised landscape plan that meets the City’s Landscape Policy. All landscaped areas, including street boulevards, shall include approved irrigation systems to facilitate site maintenance. 7) Site Plan approval is exclusive of all signs scheduled to be installed on this site, including new wall (building) signs. New signs are subject to Chapter 34 of the City Code of Ordinances and shall be approved under separate sign permits. 8) Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. 9) Developer 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 any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must 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. Attachments • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-07 • City Engineer’s Review Memo – dated 08/07/15 • Cass Screw Machine – Building Addition Site Plans M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 8, 2015 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review – CASS Screw Building Addition Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for site plan review on June 30, 2015 for the proposed CASS Screw Building Addition:  Civil Site Plans 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. Site Plan 2. Label accessible ramps. 3. The driveway apron cannot be expanded as proposed. The driveway access to the public roadway – maximum has already been exceeded and is non-conforming. Expansion of direct access onto the city street will not be allowed. Additionally turning movements must be provided for this area with proper design vehicle expected and must be contained on site, not extending into city right-of-way. Grading Plan, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan 4. Provide grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 5. Provide drainage calculations. The site’s outflow must be coordinated with the city’s storm sewer model to ensure the city’s existing storm sewer capacity is not exceeded and can be accommodated. 6. 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. 7. Provide quantities of erosion control BMP’s. Utility Plan 8. Provide utility plan. CASS Screw Building Addition Site Plan Review Memo, August 8, 2015 Page 2 of 3 G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\CASS Screw\Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\150806_Plan Review Memo.doc Detail and Specifications Plan 9. 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. Landscape Plan 10. Provide irrigation plan. Miscellaneous 11. See attached plan sheet redlines for additional miscellaneous plan comments. 12. Provide and include existing conditions plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, utilities plan and detail sheets. 13. Provide traffic impact study benchmarking existing versus new trip generation and Tier Two travel demand management plan in accordance with the City’s template plan. 14. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the propert y, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupanc y. 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. 15. 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). 16. 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 stormwater package including plans and calculations to the City of Brooklyn Center for project review on behalf on the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. 17. Applicant must apply for a land disturbance permit. 18. Utility Facilities Easement Agreement required. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 19. 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. CASS Screw Building Addition Site Plan Review Memo, August 8, 2015 Page 3 of 3 G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\CASS Screw\Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\150806_Plan Review Memo.doc 20. 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. 21. 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 $1,500 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. 22. 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: 23. A City of Brookl yn Center land disturbance permit is required. 24. Watershed plan review by the City of Brooklyn Center is required. 25. 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. 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. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2015-007 SUBMITTED BY CASS & ASSOCIATES, LLC REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF NEW ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CASS SCREW MACHINE FACILITY (LOCATED AT 4800 LILAC DRIVE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2015-007, submitted by Cass & Associates, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Cass” or “Developer”) requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan Approval of a 26,253 sq. ft. addition to the existing Cass Screw Machine Products facility, located at 4800 Lilac Drive North (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 13, 2015 to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2015-007, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed building addition proposed by Cass and other related improvements as comprehended under the Cass Screw Machine Building Addition Site Plan set, prepared by Sjoquist Architects, Inc.; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, along with full consideration of the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines for evaluating the site and building plans as contained in Section 35-230 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considered the site and building plan as an amendment to the original Luther Brookdale Volkswagen site, and determined it to be an appropriate and reasonable redevelopment of the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan proposed by Cass to construct the new 26,253 sq. ft. addition to their existing Cass Screw Machine facility, located at 4800 Lilac Drive North, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2015-007 and the Cass Screw Machine Site Plan set prepared by Sjoquist Architects, Inc., may be approved based upon the following considerations: A. The Site Plan Amendment is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance; B. The Site Plan Amendment on the Subject Site will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, which allows for the utilization of the land in question in a manner that is compatible with, complimentary PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; C. The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the Site Plan of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; D. The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; E. The Site 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; and F. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2015-007 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Developer agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memo, dated August 7, 2015. 2) Final drainage and utility plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer. 3) 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. A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be provided for review and approval. 4) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 5) Plans should exclude or eliminate the 6 new parking spaces near the existing loading doors on the south elevation. 6) The Developer shall submit a revised landscape plan that meets the City’s Landscape Policy. All landscaped areas, including street boulevards, shall include approved irrigation systems to facilitate site maintenance. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 7) Site Plan approval is exclusive of all signs scheduled to be installed on this site, including new wall (building) signs. New signs are subject to Chapter 34 of the City Code of Ordinances and shall be approved under separate sign permits. 8) Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. 9) Developer 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 any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must 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. August 13, 2015 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner 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. 0 30 60 Sjoquist Architects, Inc 2800 University Avenue SE, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 612.379.9233 Fax 612.379.9263 http://www.sjoquist.com 18 South Riverside Avenue Suite 230 Sartell, MN 56377 Ph: (320) 339-0669 Fx: (866) 633-1830 schultzeng@live.com www.schultzengineeringdesign.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota BRIAN J. SCHULTZ, PE DATE LICENSE NO. xx/xx/2015 43129 PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N P R E L I M I N A R Y D R A I N A G E P L A N - 0 7 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 5 SCHULTZ ENGINEERING & SITE DESIGN PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION UNDERGROUND STORM WATER DETENTION SYSTEM 112 STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBERS W/ ISOLATER ROW CATCH BASIN STORM MANHOLE W/ 3-FT SUMP PAVEMENT DEMOLITION LIMITS STORM SEWER STORM SEWER CONNECTED TO INTERIOR ROOF DRAINS ALL ROOF WATER TO BE ROUTED TO STORMTECH SYSTEM STORM SEWER STORM MANHOLE DETENTION SYSTEM OUTLET STORM MANHOLE STORM SEWER CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN NOTE: THIS PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONCEPT PLAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY. THE PROPOSED PLAN IS BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOS, VISUAL OBSERVATIONS FROM A SITE VISIT, AS WELL AS SOME ASSUMPTIONS. A COMPLETE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SET WILL BE DEVELOPED ONCE A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS COMPLETED AND PROVIDED. NTS UNDERGROUND STORM WATER SYSTEM (TYP) TOP OF PAVEMENT BOTTOM OF CLASS 5/ TOP OF BACKFILL TOP OF CHAMBER BOTTOM OF CHAMBER BOTTOM OF CRUSHED ROCK BOTTOM OF BACKFILL/ TOP OF CRUSHED ROCK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE STORMTECH SYSTEM, CONTACT THE FOLLOWING: ADS CONTACTS: KRIS SAYRE (320) 219-8138 SUSAN MCNAMEE (866) 405-9316 1 INLETS & OUTLETS PAGE 1 OF 1Date:7/7/2015#DateComments Drawn By: SANDY Scale: AS NOTEDRevisionsGENERAL NOTES:A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION OR COMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.B. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT.C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ON OBJECTS/SURFACES.CASS SCREW MACHINEChecked By: TRENT Pl a n V i e w Sc a l e : 1 i n c h = 2 5 F t . 0.70.30.20.10.0 3.7 4 . 3 5 . 9 4 . 4 4 . 1 3 . 2 2 . 6 2 . 2 2 . 3 2 . 9 3 . 6 4 . 1 4 . 2 5 . 2 3 . 8 3 . 9 3 . 2 2 . 4 1 . 6 0 . 8 0 . 4 0 . 2 0 . 1 3.2 3 . 3 3 . 6 3 . 4 4 . 0 3 . 4 3 . 6 3 . 2 3 . 0 2 . 9 2 . 9 2 . 9 3 . 1 3 . 7 3 . 9 4 . 9 4 . 0 3 . 4 2 . 6 2 . 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 0.0 0 . 0 2 . 2 2 . 6 3 . 6 4 . 6 5 . 1 4 . 7 4 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 4 2 . 7 3 . 9 4 . 5 4 . 8 4 . 4 3 . 6 2 . 3 1 . 7 1 . 3 0 . 9 0 . 5 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.0 0 . 5 0 . 8 1 . 2 1 . 6 2 . 2 3 . 4 4 . 1 4 . 5 4 . 1 3 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 4 3 . 2 3 . 4 3 . 7 3 . 3 2 . 8 2 . 0 1 . 4 1 . 1 0 . 8 0 . 5 0 . 2 0.2 0 . 4 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 3 1 . 7 2 . 3 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 4 2 . 1 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 2 2 . 2 2 . 1 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 3 1 . 0 0 . 7 0 . 5 0 . 3 0. 4 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 5 0 . 3 0. 4 0 . 7 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 8 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 7 0 . 5 0 . 3 0. 4 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 8 0. 3 0 . 5 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 8 0. 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 6 0.3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 4 0.2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0. 1 1. 6 0.8 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 8 2 . 5 1 . 9 1 . 5 1 . 6 2 . 0 0.7 1 . 2 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 4 1 . 6 2 . 1 0. 3 0.4 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 6 0 . 6 0.5 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 8 0 . 7 0.6 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 . 1 1 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 1 1 . 0 0. 7 0 . 9 0.2 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0.9 1 . 2 1 . 6 1 . 9 2 . 1 1 . 9 1 . 6 1 . 3 1 . 2 0.7 0 . 9 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 4 Lu m i n a i r e S c h e d u l e Sy m b o l Qt y La b e l Ar r a n g e m e n t To t a l L a m p L u m e n s LL F De s c r i p t i o n Ca l c u l a t i o n S u m m a r y La b e l Ca l c T y p e Un i t s Av g Ma x Mi n Lu m . W a t t s Lu m i n a i r e L o c a t i o n S u m m a r y Lu m N o La b e l X Y Z Av g / M i n Ma x / M i n Or i e n t Ti l t SI T E G R O U N D N O R T H Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 1. 6 8 5. 9 0. 0 N. A . N. A . SI T E G R O U N D S O U T H 2 AA SI N G L E N. A . 26 AA 84 6 . 5 29 7 28 87 . 6 8 4 0. 9 0 0 MC G R A W G L E O N - A E - 0 6 - L E D - E 1 - T 4 F T W A L L M O U N T A T 2 8 F T 31 5 Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 1. 0 6 2. 5 1 BB SI N G L E N. A . 0. 9 0 0 MC G R A W G L E O N - A E - 0 3 - L E D - E 1 - T 4 W W A L L M O U N T A T 2 8 F T 15 7 0 0. 2 5. 3 0 27 AA 95 4 . 9 29 2 . 6 28 88 . 0 7 2 12 . 5 0 PA R K I N G Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 0. 5 2. 7 8 4. 2 0 0 29 BB 75 3 17 3 . 6 28 1. 8 4 4. 9 0. 6 3. 0 7 26 6 . 5 9 6 0 8. 1 7 SO U T H E N T R Y Il l u m i n a n c e Fc 1. 3 9 2. 1