Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018 03-15 PCP
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER March 15, 2018 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Motion to Approve Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 15, 2018 4. Approval of Minutes Motion to Approve the March 1, 2018, Meeting Minutes 5. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 6. Planning Application Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2018-001 Applicant: Greg Hayes (Ebert Construction) Project Address: 1950 57th Avenue North (PID: 02-118-21-13-0030) Request: (1) Preliminary Plat for Northbrook Center 3rd Addition, (2) Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, and (3) Site and building plan approval for the construction of a four story, 112,000-square foot indoor FRPPHUFLDO VWRUDJHbuilding. b. Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Applicant: Tashitaa Tufaa (Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC) Project Address: 6440 James Circle North (PID: 35-119-21-41-0008) Request: (1) Site and building plan with Special Use Permit for an event center 7. Discussion Items None 8. Other Business None 9. Adjournment PC Minutes 03-01-18 -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 MARCH 1, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Vice-Chair Rizvi at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Acting Vice-Chair Abraham Rizvi, Commissioners Jack MacMillan, Stephen Schonning, and Susan Tade were present. Chair Randall Christensen, and Commissioners Alexander Koenig and Rochelle Sweeney were absent and excused. Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Planner and Zoning Administrator, Ginny McIntosh, and Michaela Kujawa-Daniels of TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc., were also present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – MARCH 1, 2018 There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the agenda for the March 1, 2018, meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 15, 2018 There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2018, meeting, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 5. CHAIRPERSON’S EXPLANATION Acting Vice-Chair Rizvi 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. 6. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS None. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7a) ORDINANCE RELATING TO ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY, AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE SECTION 25-1000 (SMALL CELL WIRELESS CARRIERS) PC Minutes 03-01-18 -2- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh introduced this item. She stated this item is going to be before the City Council at their next meeting. She stated that, as the 5G cell network is built, this type of small cell wireless technology will become more apparent throughout cities and the City wants to be prepared to regulate what they can to protect public right-of-ways, city-owned equipment, such as decorative light posts, and continue to provide clean, aesthetically-pleasing, and un-cluttered streets. The main issue is that right now there are no provisions in place to protect the City from this type of technology, as it was determined these types of providers had a right to install their equipment in the public right-of-way. The new ordinance the Commission is being asked to review outlines specific provisions in place to protect city-owned equipment and right-of-way, outline certain allowances for small cell technology, and address the ability of the City to charge fees for providers utilizing City equipment to mount their antennas, boosters, and other technology. 7b) FOLLOW-UP ON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION (OPPORTUNITY SITE) – FEBRUARY 20, 2018 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS WITH JENNIFER HASKAMP OF SWANSON HASKAMP CONSULTING (SHC) Ms. McIntosh presented this item and showed the Commission the Alatus presentation and proposal outlining their plans for the opportunity site. This presentation was first shown at the Special City Council Work Session on February 20th. Acting Vice-Chair Rizvi asked approximately how long the process takes for Alatus to complete each step. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated Alatus will work with the City to negotiate a development plan that is both financially feasible and that the City can support. They will submit their pro forma and the City will have an opportunity to review their financial subsidy request. The next step will be for them to submit a formal Master PUD application for Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. She stated that, for now, Alatus will focus on completing the market study, which will probably take place within the next few months. The City should expect to see a draft plan towards July or August. Commissioner Tade asked if Ms. Beekman could define a “Class A” office space. She stated it relates to the structure and what is included in it, such as technology being integrated into a structure and clarified that Class A is relating to the structure only, not the business within. Commissioner MacMillan asked if they will be LEED certified. Ms. Beekman stated they haven’t discussed that yet. She stated the next step is that the preliminary development agreement (PDA) will be presented to the City Council at a March meeting for their approval. She stated the PDA is an agreement to work together in good faith with the developer over the next year to complete their due diligence and provide a development plan that the City can support. Commissioner Schonning stated he liked that their plan was what they were looking for within the City for a long time, and noted they had interesting ideas for the plan that went beyond the bounds of the site and spoke to an overall relationship with the surrounding area. Commissioner MacMillan asked what would need to happen to gain site control over the old Kmart building. Ms. Beekman stated they would need to buy it and stated the present owner is located out of state. PC Minutes 03-01-18 -3- DRAFT 8. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Beekman addressed the comprehensive plan schedule and noted she hopes to have the comprehensive plan completed and to the City Council by August. Due to this time line, the City will need to request for an extension to the submittal deadline. She stated it’s an aggressive schedule, so staff is proposing that for four months (April, May, June, and July) they adjust the Planning Commission meetings to allow for one meeting a month to be dedicated to comprehensive plan work and discussion only, while the other would be available for formal planning application submittals. She stated they are also proposing that the March 29th meeting be dedicated to the comprehensive plan and review of the SWOT results. Commissioner MacMillan asked if they closed on the HOM furniture site. Ms. McIntosh stated the closing had indeed occurred last month and that they are completing some interior demolition work already. 9. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Abraham Rizvi, Acting Vice-Chair 02.20.2018 CITY COUNCIL BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN CONCEPT BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ABOUT ALATUS Numerous, award-winning, transformative urban and suburban projects. Leader in Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Single-Family development. More than 30 years of real estate, design, construction, and management expertise. Have proudly served clients and 60+ Twin Cities communities to date. QUALITY INTEGRITY FORESIGHT PROJECT TEAM Bob Lux President Vishal Dutt CFO Chris Osmundson Development Director Alex Polinsky III Construction Director Mark Stenglein Government Relations Director Carla Dunham Development Associate BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PAST DEVELOPMENT –MAYO CLINIC SQUARE -$60 million TDC: mixed-use redevelopment (2015) -Located in the heart of downtown Minneapolis entertainment district -245,000 sq. ft.: Office, medical, sports facilities, restaurant, retail, public parking BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PAST DEVELOPMENT –LATITUDE 45 APARTMENTS -$72 million TDC: mixed-use residential (2015) -Mill District, East Town Neighborhoods; Skyway- connected, blocks from Mississippi River and St. Anthony Falls. -318 Luxury Apartments, 10,000 sq. ft ground floor retail BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –IRONWOOD APARTMENTS -$43 million TDC: mixed-use residential (delivery Q4 2018) -182 Luxury Apartments, 4-Story structure adjacent to New Hope Village Golf Course -Healthy-living community: VRF system, proximity to future LRT line extension BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –2ND ST MIXED-USE, ROCHESTER -$125 million TDC: mixed-use residential (delivery Q1 2020) -13-story world-class tower -350 Luxury Apartments (6 Townhomes), 24k sq ft retail/commercial. -Proximity to 2nd St Transit Corridor, St Mary’s Hospital, downtown Rochester. BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –12TH ST TOWER -$135 million TDC: mixed-use residential (in design development) -Downtown West / Convention Center and East Town Neighborhoods, skyway connected -360 Apartment homes, street-level commercial office and retail spaces BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –200 CENTRAL CONDOMINIUMS -$190+ million TDC: mixed-use 40-story point tower (in design development) -Historic St Anthony Falls neighborhood -214 luxury condominiums, ground floor retail and restaurant to activate vibrant streetscape BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –PARKSIDE AT HUMBOLDT GREENWAY -65 Single-Family Home sites in North Minneapolis. -Historic Lind-Bohanan and Shingle Creek neighborhoods, walking distance to Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway system -Phases I & II 99% Sold Out –Phase III begins Spring 2018. Semi-Custom new homes -prices starting at $299,900+. BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ALATUS PIPELINE –ARDEN HILLS MASTER PLAN -427-Acre Master Planned Community 15 min from downtown Mpls & St Paul -120 Acres: Single Family Housing -45 Acres: Town Center (Mix of Housing, Retail, Entertainment, Civic uses) -97 Acres: Commercial Mixed-Use (Office, Retail, Flex) -40 Acres: Corporate Campus -70 Acres: Green Spaces, Parks, Trails -2019 Mass Grading + Infrastructure construction, 2020 start for vertical development. Est $700 Million+ Value at Completion. CURRENT SITE –BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PROPOSED SITE CONCEPT –BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PROPOSED SITE METRICS* BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS Phase Use Sq/Ft (Entertainment/Retail/Office) # of Units (Apartments/Hotel)# of Stories A Office + Ground Floor Retail ~113 - 155k Up to 5 Floors B Housing + Ground Floor Retail ~8-10k ~175 - 225 DU Up to 12 Floors C Housing (or Senior Housing?)~125 - 175 DU Up to 6 Floors D Creekside Park West (~2.5 Acres) + Park Headquarters 1 Floor E Creekside Park East (~4.8 Acres) + Restaurant ~3-5k 1 Floor F Office, Entertainment, Retail ~145 - 175k Up to 7 Floors G Hotel, Restaurant, Retail ~7-9k ~200-250 Keys Up to 6 Floors H Housing ~150-200 DU Up to 5 Floors I Housing, Grocery, Retail ~29 - 31k ~125 - 175 DU Up to 4 Floors J Multi-Screen Cinema, Restaurant, Retail ~69-71k ~7 - 9 Screens 1 Floor Summary by Type Range Total Office 200 - 265k Total Retail/Restaurant 56 - 70k Total Housing 575 - 775 DU Total Hotel 200 - 250 Keys Total Entertainment 38 - 40k Total Cinema 60k Park HQ tbd *Preliminary: Subject to Change PRECEDENTS –MULTI FAMILY BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS –MULTI FAMILY BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS –MULTI FAMILY BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS -COMMERCIAL BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS -COMMERCIAL BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS -COMMERCIAL BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS –GREEN SPACE AND PARKS BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN ABOUT ALATUS CURRENT SITE PROPOSED SITE PRECEDENTS ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 15, 2018 Application No. 2018-001 Applicant: Greg Hayes (Ebert Construction) Location: 1950 57th Avenue North Request: (1) Preliminary Plat of the Northbrook Center 3rd Addition (2) Establishment of a Planned Unit Development (3) Site and Building Plan Approval for Construction of a Four Story, 112,000-Square Foot Indoor Commercial Storage Building INTRODUCTION Greg Hayes of Ebert Construction (the “Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of a Preliminary Plat of the Northbrook Center 3rd Addition, which would subdivide an existing 7.32-acre lot into two (2) lots. This request is associated with additional requests by the Applicant to establish a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 2.6-acres (Lot 1) and approve a site and building plan for the proposed four story, 112,000-square foot indoor commercial storage building. The remaining approximately 4.72 acres (Lot 2) would remain under the ownership by the City of Brooklyn Center (Exhibit A). Although the building and site plan do not require a public hearing, the request for approval of the preliminary plat and establishment of a Planned Unit Development require that a public hearing be scheduled in accordance with Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Developments) of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance, and Section 15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of the Platting Ordinance. An Affidavit of Publication confirmed publication of the public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 1, 2018 (Exhibit B). Mail notices were also sent to neighboring property owners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: TH/MF/OS/RB/PS- Mixed (Townhome, Multi-Family, Office/Service Business, Retail Business, Public and Semi-Public) Neighborhood: Grandview Current Zoning: C2 (Commerce) District Surrounding Zoning: North: C2 (Commerce) District East: R3 and R4 (Multiple Family Residence) Districts South: PUD/C2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and C2 (Commerce) Districts West: Highway 100 and C2 (Commerce) District across Highway 100 • Application Filed: 02/13/2018 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 04/14/2018 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 2 Site Area: Approximately 7.32 acres, to be subdivided into: Lot 1 (Ebert Construction) –approximately 2.6 acres Lot 2 (City of Brooklyn Center) –approximately 4.72 acres BACKGROUND Subject Property History The Subject Property was formerly home to Northbrook Center and later on, what was known as the Hmong-American Shopping Center. The Subject Property was at one time comprised of five buildings (approximately 77,000-square feet of commercial space), 421 parking spaces, and was almost entirely covered in impervious surfaces. At different points throughout the shopping complex’s history, the site was home to such establishments as the Chuckwagon Inn (restaurant), an Asian Grocery Store, fabric store, a hardware store with post office inside, pharmacy, and gas station. In 2004, the City’s Economic Development Authority adopted EDA Resolution Nos. 2004-10 (Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Real Property for Redevelopment Purposes), and 2004-12 (Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of Real Property for Redevelopment Purposes (Hmong American Shopping Center)), to acquire the entirety of what is known as the 57th and Logan site. This acquisition surrounded concerns relating to the state of and overall dilapidation of the shopping center and conversations held with the principal owner of the majority of properties located on the site at that time as to its redevelopment. The EDA proceeded by filing a Petition in Condemnation and Motion for Transfer of Title and Possessions under Minnesota Statute § 117.042 with the Hennepin County District Court. A 90-Day Image 1. Northbrook Center in 1967 (Courtesy of Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online) ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 3 Notice to Vacate and relocation expenses were provided to tenants renting space within the shopping center. Site Contamination and EDA Acquisition Outlot A (5801 Logan Avenue North), located to the north of the Subject Property, is presently the location of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) monitoring wells in place for the ongoing groundwater and vapor investigation of contamination caused by a former dry cleaning operation. In 2003 and 2004, Phase I and II environmental investigations were completed on and around the Subject Property through funding received from Hennepin County and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The results of the Phase II investigation identified chemicals relating to dry cleaning operations in the soil and groundwater near the former dry cleaners on the 57th and Logan site. In 2005, an additional assessment to the site was conducted and involved the collection of soil borings and a well receptor survey of 50 nearby properties. This was completed to further assess and delineate any potential plume of contaminants originating from the former dry cleaning facility on the northern portion of the 57th and Logan site. This study included an additional assessment as to any potential contaminant plume down gradient from the site in the residential neighborhood southeast of the site, and focused on private wells in the area. Following the removal of asbestos from the shopping center, demolition of the shopping center complex occurred in 2005. It was during this time frame that a tank was discovered in the floor of the former dry cleaner site. This tank was used as a repository or collection point for dry cleaning chemicals used as part of the operation. As part of the site’s cleanup, the dry cleaning tank was removed from the site and, as mentioned, monitoring wells were installed on Outlot A (located to the north of the Subject Property) to provide ongoing monitoring as to any remaining contamination. The Applicant has been working with MPCA as to their requirements, and has been in consultation with Bay West to conduct vapor gas testing. This testing will help identify what type of under slab ventilation system will be required. The Applicant indicated they would enter into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. EDA Sale of Subject Property On August 14, 2017, the City Council/EDA Work Session included a discussion relating to a proposed Letter of Intent with Ebert Construction for commercial development on the northern half of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Northbrook Center 2nd Addition (1950 57th Avenue North) for a four story, 112,000-square foot indoor commercial storage building. Deliberation was held as to whether the as proposed development plan was compatible with the Economic Development Authority’s Targeted Development Strategy for the 57th and Logan site, and whether they wished to proceed with a Letter of Intent and Purchase Agreement for the conveyance of a portion of said property. Given a favorable response from the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA), the EDA subsequently adopted Resolution 2017-11 (Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Letter of Intent to Sell the Property Located at 1950 57th Avenue North). Approval of the aforementioned EDA Resolution was followed by adoption of EDA Resolution No. 2017- 19 (Resolution Approving Purchase Agreement and Conveyance of Approximately 2.5 Acre Portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center 2nd Addition) on November 13, 2017, which authorized the sale of a portion of the 57th and Logan site. ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT As part of the City Platting Ordinance requirements, preliminary and final plat approval is required to formally subdivide Lot 1, Block 1, of the Northbrook Center 2nd Addition, also known as 1950 57th Avenue North. As proposed, the subdivision would result in the creation of: Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center 3rd Addition (Ebert Construction) –approximately 2.6 acres Lot 2, Block 1, Northbrook Center 3rd Addition (City of Brooklyn Center) –approximately 4.72 acres 1 Map 1. Existing Lot Configuration of Subject Property. Map 2. Preliminary Plat for Subject Property (Northbrook Center 3rd Addition) ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 5 The proposed subdivision would provide the acreage necessary for the Applicant to construct the proposed 112,000-square foot indoor commercial storage building on a 28,000-square foot building footprint on Lot 1 of the proposed Northbrook Center 3rd Addition. Access to the Subject Property would be via driveway that would largely line up with 58th Avenue North. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be separated by an approximately 75-foot wide drainage and utility easement for Northern States Power Company (Doc. No. 498916). Lot 2 would continue ownership under the City of Brooklyn Center until a developer was identified. As Lot 2 is approximately 4.72 acres in size, there is the possibility of further subdividing Lot 2 in the future. Per comments outlined in a review of the preliminary plat by Hennepin County (Exhibit C), the County expressed support of the proposed access to the Subject Property off Logan Avenue, however, the County discouraged the introduction of any future access points off 57th Avenue North, as the section of 57th Avenue North located to the south of the Subject Property is above the County’s critical crash rate. This request to restrict access to Logan Avenue was echoed by MnDOT in their review (Exhibit E). The County indicated that any future development of proposed Lot 2 (City of Brooklyn Center) utilize an internal access road that would provide ingress and egress via Logan Avenue North. In addition, the County indicated a desire to have 20 feet of the southern half of proposed Lot 2 (City of Brooklyn Center) dedicated as sidewalk, trail, utility, and roadway easement. This request is associated with potential future roadway improvements along 57th Avenue North. As the Staff Report is focused on the development of proposed Lot 1, consideration of Hennepin County requests regarding Lot 2 would be reserved for a future date. Based on staff findings, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation of the preliminary/final plat (Northbrook Center 3rd Addition); subject to the Applicant complying with the comments outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum dated March 6, 2018 (Exhibit D), MnDOT review dated March 14, 2018 (Exhibit E), and comments relating specifically to Lot 1 in the Hennepin County review dated March 7, 2018 (Exhibit C). ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Applicant has proposed construction of an indoor commercial storage facility on the northern portion of the property known as 1950 57th Avenue North (Subject Property). As part of the proposal, the Applicant is requesting the establishment of a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow flexibility in defining the proposed use and minimum parking requirements for this proposed use. As self-storage units have evolved over the past few years from the typical outdoor storage unit, to indoor, climate controlled mini units with keycard access and office staff, the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently identify this type of use in the City Ordinance. Given this lack of defined use, the minimum required parking standards are also not outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Per Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to, “promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy, and ensure a high quality of design.” The section further explains that, “Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35-704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City’s satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of complementarity of peak parking demands by ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 6 the uses within the PUD.” Approval of a PUD requires that the proposed uses are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that implementation of said PUD be controlled by the submitted development plan. Applicants may combine PUD development plan approval with the site and building plan approval required by Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City Zoning Ordinance by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. The Applicant has submitted sufficient documentation and plans to work through the requests for establishment of a PUD and building and site plan approval simultaneously and as outlined within this staff report. Should the Subject Property receive approval to establish the new PUD, the Subject Property would require re-zoning to identify the establishment of said PUD. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district with the exception of certain permitted conditions or allowances as imposed or approved by the City Council. In accordance with Section 35-355, the City Council shall base its actions on the PUD rezoning using the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section. 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood on which it is to be located. 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. As noted by the Applicant, the proposed indoor commercial storage building would typically have office hours from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Customers with rental units would have access to the building through card access seven days per week from the hours of 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. Approval of the site and building plan is contingent upon receiving approval to establish a Planned Unit Development and its subsequent re-zoning. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL In conjunction with the Applicant’s request for preliminary plat approval of the Northbrook Center 3rd Addition and establishment of a new Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would provide flexibility in defining the proposed use and minimum parking requirements, the Applicant is also requesting approval of the proposed site and building plan for the as proposed indoor commercial storage building. Building Setbacks The minimum building setback requirements within the C2 (Commerce) Zoning District are as follows: Front: 35 feet Rear Yard: 40 feet Side Interior Yard: 10 feet The indoor commercial storage building setbacks are proposed at: Front: 66.7 feet -- Rear Yard: 61.6 feet Side Interior Yard (South): 45 feet facing Logan Avenue As outlined above, the proposed indoor commercial storage building would meet all of the minimum building setback requirements for properties zoned C2 (Commerce) District). ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 7 Building and Site Layout The proposed 112,000-square foot indoor commercial storage building would be located on a 28,000- square foot building footprint and rise four stories in height (Exhibit F). As proposed, the northeast corner of the building’s main floor would feature an 816-square foot office area (open to the public), break room, utility room, and restroom facilities. Stairwells are indicated at the northeast and southwest corners of the building with an elevator shaft running through the center portion of the proposed building. As noted below, the breakdown of proposed overhead access doors to direct access storage units and the transfer bay are as follows: North Elevation: Four (4) overhead doors East Elevation: No overhead doors—facing Logan Avenue North and residential area South Elevation: Ten (10) overhead doors—facing 57th Avenue North and commercial properties West Elevation: Six (6) overhead doors—facing Highway 100 Two of the four doors located along the north elevation would be utilized by customers for access to the elevator and rental storage units via the approximately 1,600-square foot transfer bay area, and the other two doors for access to private storage units, whereas the ten doors on the south elevation and six doors on the west elevation would all serve as direct access doors to rental storage units. As proposed, there would be 784 total storage units with the majority allocated for the following storage unit sizes: 5-foot by 10-foot (199 units), 10-foot by 10-foot (154 units), and 10-foot by 15-foot (133 units). With the exception of the main floor, floors two through four would be comprised solely of storage units, hallways, and elevator and stairway access points. ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 8 As noted above in Image 1 and the attached Exhibit G, the Applicant intends to use a mixture of Class I type exterior building materials in the construction of the proposed indoor commercial storage building. These materials include the use of textured architectural pre-cast concrete panels, architectural metal (ACM) panels, and insulated glass. Horizontal metal sun shades would be installed over a thermally broken storefront system, and the transfer bay area would utilize glass on the oversized, overhead doors located on the north end of the building. Given their size, this should lessen the effects the door size might otherwise have were the doors to be of solid color. There are no plans to build on adjacent Outlot A, and monitoring wells are currently in place to track for contamination initially identified in the 2000s. The remaining smaller, direct access overhead doors would feature a cohesive paint color on the door panels. Although unofficial, the City does reference a set of design guidelines when reviewing site and building plan applications. These guidelines are based on the Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Design Guidelines, which were approved in 2011. These guidelines strive to have at least 50-percent of all four sides (wall surfaces) on new buildings constructed with Class I materials, with the remaining surfaces to be constructed of Class II materials. While these are guidelines, it is stressed that the Applicant be thoughtful in the design of the building and site. As reference: Class I materials include: brick or acceptable brick-type material, marble; granite; other natural stone or acceptable natural looking stone; textured cement stucco; copper; porcelain, glass; architectural textured concrete pre-cast panels; and other materials including masonry units with enhanced detailing such as patterns, textures, color, dimension, banding, and brick inlay, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Image 1. Proposed Indoor Commercial Storage Building Elevations ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 9 Class II materials include: exposed aggregate concrete panels; burnished concrete block; integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block; cast-in-place concrete; artificial stucco (e.g., E.I.F.S., Drivit); artificial stone; fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch; canvas or vinyl awnings; prefinished metal; and other materials not listed elsewhere, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Access and Parking The Applicant intends to provide site access via a 24-foot wide driveway at the intersection of Logan Avenue North and 58th Avenue North. The proposed drive would wind from the north end of the building to the west before terminating at the south end of the building. No drive aisle is proposed along the east side of the building, and therefore, no overhead doors are proposed for installation along the east elevation. The elimination of the drive access along this elevation is intended to minimize the commercial feel on this side, which faces Logan Avenue and a line of residential housing. As the proposed use and minimum parking standard is not specified in the City Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant provided the locations of other like indoor commercial storage building projects in the Twin Cities metro. Staff researched these locations by referencing their respective City approvals and reviewing aerial imagery when necessary to identify the total square footage of each commercial storage building and their parking allowances. This information is summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Parking Requirements for Similar Indoor Commercial Storage Buildings in Twin Cities Metro. Indoor Commercial Storage Building Location Provided Parking Spaces (in bold) Square Feet Parking Required per 1,000 SF 8570 Aspen Lane North— Brooklyn Park 8—Per Brooklyn Park Staff Report dated 09/13/2017 105,444 SF 0.076 1315 Cope Avenue North— Maplewood 6—Per Maplewood Staff Report dated 10/19/2016 108,150 SF 0.055 2960 Empire Lane—Plymouth 11—Per Google Maps 76,430 SF 0.144 12995 Valley View Road—Eden Prairie 13—Per example reference in Minnetonka Staff Report dated October 20, 2016 75,000 SF 0.173 6250 Olson Memorial Highway—Golden Valley 10—Per Google Maps ~85,000 SF* 0.118 4370 Fountain Hills Drive NE— Prior Lake 12—Per reference in Prior Lake Staff Report dated March 6, 2017 95,000 SF 0.126 MN ADA Parking Requirement (1 to 25 spaces) 1 space required -- Average (Above Locations) 10 spaces (90,837 SF x 0.115 ÷ 1,000) 90,837 SF 0.115 Sources: Greg Hayes (Ebert Construction), 2015 Minnesota Accessibility Code, reviews of aerial imagery and municipal staff reports (above). *Note: Total square footage of Golden Valley commercial storage building (Lock Up Storage) based on square footage and similar parking allocations provided for Lock Up location in Plymouth. Based on the calculations noted in Table 1 above, the average number of parking spaces provided across the six provided Twin Cities commercial storage locations is 10 for an average 90,837-square foot building. This is assuming a parking requirement of 0.115 spaces per 1,000–square feet of building. Under this assumption, it can be presumed that the as proposed 112,000-square foot building would require a minimum of approximately 13 parking spaces. The submitted site plan identifies 12 parking spaces, including one ADA accessible space with adjacent loading zone. ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 10 Given the provided 1,600-square foot internal loading and unloading area within the transfer bay, staff is comfortable with the as proposed 12 parking spaces. Should parking deficiencies be identified at a later time, the Applicant may need to alter the site plan to incorporate additional parking. Parking spaces must be constructed per City Zoning Code minimum width (8 feet, 8 inches) and length (18 feet) requirements for 90-degree parking. The Applicant identified a typical space width of 9 feet and 20 feet in length on the submitted site plan. The Applicant also intends to maintain the minimum required 24-foot drive aisle throughout the parking area. The Applicant shall work with the Fire Inspector to ensure the site plan meets 2015 Minnesota Fire Code provisions, including, but not limited to: maximum distance from fire hydrants, maximum drive aisle length without turn around (150 feet), direct emergency access to riser/utility room (as site plan specifies building will be fully-sprinkled), any required FDC connection, and turn radius requirements for fire trucks. Per Hennepin County and MnDOT, no additional access points should be located off 57th Avenue North. Instead, future development on Lot 2 (City of Brooklyn Center) should utilize an internal access road that would provide access off Logan Avenue. With this in mind, the Applicant revised their site plan to offer additional green stripping along the southern edge of Lot 1 should an access road ever be constructed in the future. The Applicant otherwise substantially meets the minimum 15-foot green strip requirement along the street right-of-way (Logan Avenue). LIGHTING | TRASH | SCREENING Lighting Per the City Zoning Code, “any new or additional lighting installed to illuminate the storage area must be down-cast, cut-off style light fixtures.” The submitted photometric plan notes that all proposed luminaires will be fully shielded and of the cutoff type. The Applicant has also indicated that the proposed lighting would meet the requirements of Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Code by not exceeding three (3) foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property, or 10 foot candles measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. As is specified, no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The photometric plan notes that the maximum number of foot candles for any light poles or wall-pack fixtures would be not more than 3.8 foot candles and located towards the interior of the Subject Property. The identified foot candles along the perimeters of the property are identified as zero (0) foot candles. This includes the east side of the property that faces residential housing along Logan Avenue North. The average estimated foot candles throughout the site are 0.4. Per the submitted photometric plan, one light pole fixture is proposed for installation to the north of the parking area and at a height of 20 feet, while seven (7) wall-mounted luminaires would be mounted at select locations along the north, west, and south elevations of the building. No lighting is proposed along the east elevation of the building. Both styles of fixtures are LED with cut-offs, and offer zero uplighting. Trash The site would feature an approximately 12-foot by 12-foot trash enclosure, which would be located approximately 30 feet off the north interior property line and to the east of the parking area. The City ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 11 has normally viewed these areas as “accessory structures,” which are permitted with a minimum required setback of three (3) feet from side and rear lot lines. Trash enclosures are to be fully enclosed through use of fence or masonry type materials and effectively screen any dumpsters or recycling containers within. Screening The trash enclosure and any other ground mounted equipment (e.g., transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent public rights-of-way and properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood, masonry, or other durable materials that are complementary to the materials used on the primary building. Per Chapter 12 (Building Maintenance and Occupancy) of the City Code, roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through use of parapets, wall/fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right-of-way. Landscaping The project submittal includes a detailed landscape plan, which illustrates the proposed planting schedule (i.e., trees, shrubs, annuals/perennials, mature size, planting size, root conditions). Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on landscaping, the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage of a development. The point system requires commercial sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on the maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). Given that the proposed use isn’t clearly identified within the Zoning Ordinance, staff has determined that a use of “light industrial” be used for the purposes of the Landscape Point System Policy, as the site will not operate as a retail use (i.e., “Restaurant/Retail/Service/Entertainment/Hotels”) and as it does not identify as an “Office,” or “Heavy Industrial” type of development. Assuming a 2.6 acre site, the Applicant would need to achieve a minimum of 60 points. Table 2. Landscape Point System Policy Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 30 points 30 (8 trees x 10 = 80) Coniferous Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 24 points 24 (9 trees x 6 = 54) Decorative Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 21 points 12 (8 trees x 1.5 = 12) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 15 points 14.5 29 shrubs x 0.5 = 26.5) Total 100% or 60 points 80.5 points As summarized in Table 2 above, the submitted landscape plan is meets and exceeds all of the requirements of the Landscape Point System Policy. As part of the landscaping, daylilies will be provided for foundational plantings, while the main drive into the site will be lined with crab apple trees. White swamp oak and maple trees would line the eastern perimeter of the site facing the residential properties along Logan Avenue North, and Swiss stone pines would congregate towards the southwestern portion of the property (along Highway 100). To provide additional texture and interest, the Applicant intends to plant ornamental grasses, spirea, and dogwood shrubs along the west and ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 12 south elevations of the building. The dogwood shrubs will provide even more interest as they are known for their display of red bark through winter and early spring. As part of any approval, the Applicant will need to install an irrigation system and provide shop drawings of the proposed irrigation system for City review. ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER REVIEW Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg conducted a review of the application submittal and documents. Comments regarding this application can be found in the memorandum to city staff and dated March 6, 2018, attached hereto (Exhibit D). It should be noted that some of the outlined conditions may be applicable at time of approval for future land disturbance or building permits. The installation of all utility services and lines, and the finished grading of the Subject Property are to be reviewed and conducted under issuance of a separate Land Disturbance (Alteration) permit, which is reviewed and approved by City engineers, and inspected for completeness by City engineers and building officials. In addition, an MPCA NPDES permit and a review by the West Mississippi Watershed Commission are required. The Applicant must also meet the requirements as outlined in reviews and commentary provided by Hennepin County, MNDOT (Exhibits C and E), and West Mississippi Watershed Commission. If drainage is directed to a MnDOT right-of-way, a drainage permit will be required. As reference, the Applicant, as part of their review, provided a copy of their completed site Stormwater Report (Exhibit H). Per Exhibit D, it is specified that stormwater be filtrated in the BMPs and discharged to the storm sewer, rather than allowing infiltration in cases where sites contain contaminated soils or groundwater. The Applicant shall continue to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and any requirements they may have. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the perimeters of all driving and parking areas shall be bounded by type B6-12 curb and gutter. FIRE INSPECTOR REVIEW The Applicant shall work to ensure all 2015 Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any building and site plan approval. Per the submitted site plans, the proposed storage building is to be fully-sprinkled. As such, the Fire Department will need emergency access to the proposed riser/utility room. Additional requirements include, but are not limited to: providing sufficient fire hydrants per maximum distance requirements, installation of a Knox-Box, any required FDC connections, and compliance with maximum drive aisle lengths for fire trucks. SIGNAGE Although wall signage is identified in the submitted architectural renderings, no formal requests for approval were made as part of the application submittal. Any new signage, including wall and monument signs, would require conformance with Chapter 34 of the City Code (Sign Ordinance). Any requests beyond the allowances identified in the Sign Ordinance would require that the Applicant apply for and receive approval to deviate from the Sign Ordinance. The Applicant will need to file a separate Building Permit application for any proposed signage. Based on staff findings, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation of the requested establishment of a Planned Unit Development and approval of site and building plans; subject to the Applicant complying with the comments outlined in the Site Plan and Document Approval Conditions ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 13 noted below. SITE PLAN AND DOCUMENTS APPROVAL CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-001 for the Subject Property located at 1950 57th Avenue North: 1. Plat and PUD approval: Approval of the plat and establishment of the new Planned Unit Development are contingent upon final plat approval and successful recording of said plat. No separation of Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center 2nd Addition, may occur without separate approval of a subdivision as provided under Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances. a. The proposed subdivision is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Center 3rd Addition (Ebert Construction) –approximately 2.6 acres Lot 2, Block 1, Northbrook Center 3rd Addition (City of Brooklyn Center) –approximately 4.72 acres b. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the Assistant City Engineer’s review memorandum, dated March 6, 2018, shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals. c. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 (Platting Ordinance). 2. Building and Site Plan and Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits; and the final location or placement of any fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Inspector. a. 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. b. A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Agreements: a. The Property Owner/Developer 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 C-2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. The owner of the property shall enter into a utility, facilities, and easement agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. a. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the entire perimeter of the site and over the storm water BMPS treatment areas up to the 100-year event. ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 14 c. The Developer shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications and standards comprehended under this Site and Building Plan. d. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 4. Engineering Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memo, dated March 6, 2018 (Exhibit D). a. A land disturbance (alteration) permit is required. b. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. c. Applicant shall meet all requirements as identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). d. The Applicant shall meet all applicable requirements as identified by Hennepin County in the review dated March 7, 2018 (Exhibit C). e. The Applicant shall meet all applicable requirements as identified in the review by MnDOT dated March 14, 2018 (Exhibit E). f. The Applicant shall meet all applicable requirements identified as part of the review by the West Mississippi Watershed Commission. 5. Construction Standards: a. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department. b. The Applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. c. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 6. Facilities and Equipment: a. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. b. The building shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems meeting NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. c. The proposed 12-foot by 12-foot trash enclosure shall be constructed with building materials that are complementary to the principal building (proposed indoor commercial storage building). 7. Landscaping: All landscaped areas, including street boulevards, shall include approved irrigation systems to facilitate site maintenance. a. Per City requirements, an irrigation system is required. b. The contractor shall submit irrigation shop drawings for review and ________________ App. No. 2018-001 PC 03/15/2018 Page 15 approval prior to installation. 8. Signage: The Applicant shall submit a Building Permit application for any proposed signage as part of the development proposal. Signage is subject to the Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the requested preliminary plat for Northbrook Center 3rd Addition, subject to the Applicant complying with the comments outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum dated March 6, 2018 (Exhibit D), Hennepin County review dated March 7, 2018 (Exhibit C), and requirements as outlined by MnDOT in their review dated March 14, 2018 (Exhibit E); The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the requested establishment of a new Planned Unit Development for the proposed indoor commercial storage building, subject to the Owner/Developer complying with the conditions outlined in the Site Plan and Documents Approval Conditions of this Staff Report; and The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the as proposed site and building plans for the Subject Property located at 1950 57th Avenue North (Subject Property), subject to the Owner/Developer complying with the conditions outlined in the Site Plan and Documents Approval Conditions of this Staff Report. Should the Planning Commission accept these recommendations, the Commission may elect to adopt the draft resolutions to be provided at the scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 15, 2018. Attachments Exhibit A- Proposed Preliminary Plat for Northbrook Center 3rd Addition, prepared by Loucks, dated February 21, 2018. Exhibit B- Affidavit of Publication, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 1, 2018. Exhibit C- Hennepin County Preliminary Plat and Site Review, prepared by Chad Ellos, P.E., dated March 7, 2018. Exhibit D-Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated March 6, 2018. Exhibit E-MnDOT Review, prepared by Josh Pansch, dated March 14, 2018. Exhibit F- Civil Set for Proposed Indoor Commercial Storage Building, prepared by Otto Associates, dated February 13, 2018. Exhibit G- Select Architectural Renderings and Interior Plans, prepared by Mohagen Hansen, dated January 29, 2018. Exhibit H- Stormwater Report, prepared by Otto Associates, dated February 12, 2018. LOUCKS W: \ 2 0 0 9 \ 0 9 0 3 2 B \ C A D D D A T A \ S U R V E Y \ _ d w g S h e e t F i l e s \ S 0 9 0 3 2 B - P L A T Pl o t t e d : 02 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 8 2 : 5 4 P M 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL 02/07/18 SURVEY ISSUED 02/21/18 REVISED LOT LINE License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of VICINITY MAP Field Crew Max L. Stanislowski - PLS 48988 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. Minnesota. 09032B MLS NRS MLS N/A PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 OF 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES SURVEYOR:OWNER/DEVELOPER: Loucks Associates, Inc.City of Brooklyn Center 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Maple Grove, MN 55330 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 763-424-5505 763-569-3319 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Per Hennepin County tax description) Lot 1, Block 1, NORTHBROOK CENTER 2ND ADDITION. Hennepin County, Minnesota DATE OF PREPARATION: February 6, 2017 BENCHMARK: Benchmark: Top Nut of the Hydrant located on the west side of Logan Ave at the westerly extension of the southerly R-O-W line for 58th Ave, as shown hereon, elevation = 849.30 feet (city datum) EXISTING ZONING: C-2(Commerce District) PROPOSED ZONING: C-2(Commerce District) AREAS: Proposed Lot 1= 108,900 +/- Sq.Ft. or 2.50+/- Acres Proposed Lot 2=210,051 +/- Sq.Ft. or 4.82+/- Acres Total=318,951 +/- Sq.Ft. or 7.32+/- Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 2701510216F, effective date of November 4, 2016. PROPOSED NORTHBROOK CENTER 3RD ADDITION 1950 57TH AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review –Logan & 57th Ave Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on February 13, 2018, for the proposed Logan & 57th development: Civil Site Plans dated February 13, 2018 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. Provide title sheet C1 – Site Plan 2. Use City details for driveway apron and B618. C3 – Utility Plan 3. Coordinate site storm water outlet with MN Dot. C3 – Grading Plan 4. Coordinate site storm water outlet with MN Dot. C4 – Detail and Specifications Plan 5. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plans. Miscellaneous 6. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments. 7. Provide irrigation plan. 8. 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 any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built 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. Logan and 57th Ave Site Plan Review Memo, March 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 9. 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 (which are separate from the as-built survey). 10. 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 West Mississippi Watershed Commission. The MPCA reviewed the site and gave guidance The MPCA requested soil samples to be collected and analyzed. (Email date Feb 20, 2018 from Liz Kaufenberg, see attached). Applicant must meet requirements from the MPCA review. Should the testing determine possible soil contamination issues, applicant must work with city to address. Per watershed rules proposed runoff rates shall remain less than existing runoff rates. Watershed Rule D.3.h.2.vii. prohibits infiltration on sites containing contaminated soils or groundwater. Storm water shall be filtrated in the BMP’s and discharge to the storm sewer. 11. The City has submitted the plans to MN Dot for review. Applicant must meet requirements from the MN Dot review. 12. The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet requirements from the Hennepin County review. 13. Applicant must apply for a land disturbance permit. 14. Utility Facilities Easement Agreement required. 15. A 10-ft drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the entire perimeter of the site and over the storm water BMP’s treatment areas up to the 100 year event. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 16. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended as required by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. 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. Logan and 57th Ave Site Plan Review Memo, March 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Anticipated Permitting: 19. A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 20. A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 21. Conditions specified by the City to meet the requirements of the:HVW0LVVLVVLSSL Watershed Commission must be met. 22. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 23. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 24. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by 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 by the City. Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 March 14th, 2018 Andrew Hogg City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 SUBJECT: Self-Storage MnDOT Review # P18-010 East of MN 100 and North of 57th Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County Control Section 2755 Dear Andrew Hogg, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats and has the following comments: Planning: To preserve safety and mobility at the MN 100 eastern ramp/57th Avenue, MnDOT recommends that all access to the Self-Storage site be from Logan Avenue. For questions on these comments, please contact Josh Pansch (josh.pansch@state.mn.us or 651-234- 7795) in MnDOT’s Planning section. Bike/Pedestrian: There is a bus stop located on the southern edge of the site on 57th and Logan. MnDOT requests that both street and pedestrian access to the stop remain open and unobstructed. For questions on these comments, please contact Cameron Muhic (cameron.muhic@state.mn.us or 651- 234-7797) in MnDOT’s Multimodal section. Water Resources: If drainage is directed to MnDOT right-of-way, a drainage permit will be needed. There cannot be any increase in drainage to MnDOT right-of-way. Drainage area maps and calculations will need to be submitted with the permit application. Calculations should show the 2, 10, 50, and 100 year events for existing and proposed conditions. For questions on these comments, please contact Hailu Shekur (hailu.shekur@state.mn.us or 651-234- 7521) in MnDOT’s Water Resources section. MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right-of-way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/index.html Please include one set of plans formatted to 11X17 with each permit application. Please submit/send all permit applications and 11X17plan sets to: metropermitapps.dot@state.mn.us Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn’t work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7795. Sincerely, Josh Pansch Senior Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Cameron Muhic, Multimodal Planning MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Douglas Nelson, Right of Way Chad Erickson, Traffic Chris Hoberg, Area Engineer Rick Bruss, Surveys Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Jason Gottfried, Hennepin County L o g a n A v e B r o o k l y n C e n t e r De s i g n e r AM Da t e 3/ 1 / 2 0 1 8 Sc a l e As N o t e d Dr a w i n g N o . Su m m a r y 1 o f 1 Sc h e d u l e Sy m b o l L a b e l Q u a n t i t y M a n u f a c t u r e r C a t a l o g N u m b e r D e s c r i pt i o n L a m p Nu m b e r La m p s Fi l e n a m e Lu m e n s P e r La m p Li g h t L o s s Fa c t o r Wa t t a g e A 1 L i t h o n i a L i g h t i n g D S X 0 L E D P 4 4 0 K T 3 M MV O L T DS X 0 L E D P 4 4 0 K T 3 M M V O L T L E D 1 D S X 0 _ L E D _ P 4 _ 4 0 K _ T3 M _ M V O L T . i e s 10 2 5 6 0 . 9 9 2 B 7 L i t h o n i a L i g h t i n g D S X W 2 L E D 3 0 C 1 0 0 0 4 0 K T4 M M V O L T DS X W 2 L E D W I T H 3 L I G H T EN G I N E S , 3 0 L E D ' s , 1 0 0 0 m A DR I V E R , 4 0 0 0 K L E D , T Y P E 4 ME D I U M O P T I C LE D 1 D S X W 2 _ L E D _ 3 0 C _ 1 00 0 _ 4 0 K _ T 4 M _ M V O LT . i e s 11 1 2 9 0 . 9 1 0 9 St a t i s t i c s De s c r i p t i o n S y m b o l A v g M a x M i n M a x / M i n A v g / M i n To t a l A r e a @ Gr a d e 0. 4 f c 3 . 8 f c 0 . 0 f c N / A N / A No t e 1. D a v i s a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c d o e s n o t a s s u m e r e s p o n si b i l i t y f o r t h e in t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n , o r c o m p l i a n c e t o l o c a l o r s t a t e l i g h t i n g co d e s an d o r d i n a n c e s . 2. A l l r e a d i n g s / c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e s h o w n @ g r a d e . 3. F i x t u r e s a r e 2 0 ' 0 " A . F . F . P o l e i s 2 0 ' . 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 5 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 5 0. 7 0. 9 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 1. 1 1. 2 1. 1 1. 1 1. 1 1. 1 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 6 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 5 0. 7 1. 0 1. 1 1. 4 1. 4 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 4 1. 4 1. 4 1. 4 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 3 1. 2 1. 3 1. 2 1. 0 0. 7 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 6 1. 0 1. 3 1. 6 1. 9 1. 8 1. 8 1. 9 1. 7 1. 6 1. 6 1. 6 1. 6 1. 8 1. 9 1. 9 1. 9 1. 6 1. 6 1. 7 1. 6 1. 2 1. 0 0. 7 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 4 0. 7 1. 2 1. 6 2. 0 2. 4 2. 4 2. 7 2. 5 1. 9 1. 7 1. 6 1. 6 1. 7 2. 0 2. 6 2. 7 2. 2 1. 7 1. 2 2. 2 1. 9 1. 5 1. 2 1. 0 0. 7 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 3 1. 7 2. 2 2. 7 2. 5 3. 3 2. 6 1. 9 1. 4 1. 3 1. 3 1. 5 2. 1 2. 9 3. 3 2. 3 1. 7 1. 0 2. 8 2. 2 1. 8 1. 5 1. 2 0. 8 0. 6 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 6 0. 9 1. 1 1. 4 1. 4 1. 4 3. 2 2. 2 1. 9 1. 5 1. 3 1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 6 1. 0 1. 4 1. 7 1. 8 2. 2 3. 5 2. 4 2. 0 1. 8 1. 6 1. 3 1. 1 0. 7 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 3 1. 8 2. 4 3. 3 2. 9 2. 3 2. 2 2. 1 1. 9 1. 6 1. 3 0. 9 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 4 1. 8 2. 5 3. 7 2. 3 2. 2 2. 2 2. 3 2. 3 2. 2 1. 8 1. 1 0. 4 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 1. 0 1. 4 1. 7 2. 0 2. 5 1. 9 2. 1 2. 2 2. 3 2. 4 2. 3 2. 1 1. 5 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 6 1. 0 1. 2 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 9 2. 1 2. 1 2. 3 2. 4 2. 4 2. 3 2. 2 0. 9 0. 3 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 6 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2 1. 3 1. 1 2. 2 2. 2 2. 2 2. 3 2. 4 2. 3 2. 3 2. 1 0. 9 0. 3 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 2. 7 2. 3 2. 2 2. 2 2. 2 2. 1 1. 9 1. 4 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 5 0. 7 1. 0 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 3. 5 2. 4 2. 1 2. 1 2. 1 2. 0 1. 6 1. 1 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 1 1. 1 0. 9 3. 4 2. 3 2. 0 1. 9 1. 8 1. 5 1. 3 0. 9 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 6 0. 9 1. 0 1. 2 1. 3 1. 2 2. 4 2. 0 1. 9 1. 8 1. 6 1. 3 1. 1 0. 7 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 6 1. 0 1. 2 1. 5 1. 7 1. 8 1. 7 1. 7 1. 7 1. 5 1. 4 1. 1 0. 8 0. 5 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 3 1. 7 2. 2 2. 7 1. 4 1. 6 1. 5 1. 4 1. 2 0. 9 0. 6 0. 4 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 4 1. 7 2. 5 1. 4 1. 6 1. 5 1. 3 1. 1 0. 8 0. 5 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 3 1. 7 2. 3 3. 0 1. 4 1. 5 1. 4 1. 3 1. 0 0. 7 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 9 1. 3 1. 5 1. 8 2. 1 1. 7 1. 6 1. 5 1. 3 1. 0 0. 6 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2 1. 4 1. 3 2. 4 1. 9 1. 7 1. 3 0. 9 0. 5 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 0. 9 1. 0 0. 8 3. 4 2. 2 1. 6 1. 2 0. 8 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 6 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 3. 4 2. 2 1. 6 1. 2 0. 8 0. 4 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 3 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 2. 4 1. 9 1. 6 1. 2 0. 8 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 1. 6 1. 5 1. 3 1. 0 0. 8 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 6 1. 0 1. 1 1. 0 0. 8 0. 6 0. 4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 3 0. 7 0. 8 0. 7 0. 6 0. 5 0. 3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 4 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 8 B- 1 B- 2 B- 3 B- 4 B- 5 B- 6 B- 7 A- 1 Pl a n V i e w Sc a l e - 1 " = 2 0 f t S H E E T N O . O F S H E E T S R E V . N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N D E S I G N E D D R A W N C H E C K E D D A T E : P R O J E C T N O : E n g i n e e r s & L a n d S u r v e y o r s , I n c . S S O C I A T E S 9 W e s t D i v i s i o n S t r e e t B u f f a l o , M N 5 5 3 1 3 ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 4 7 2 7 F a x : ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 3 5 2 2 w w w . o t t o a s s o c i a t e s . c o m N F e e t 0 2 0 4 0 S E L F - S T O R A G E E B E R T C O N S T R U C T I O N B r o o k l y n C e n t e r , M N P R E L I M L A N D S C A P E P L A N L 1 L 2 0 2 - 2 6 - 1 8 1 7 - 0 5 5 5 P . O . B O X 3 0 8 E X C E L S I O R , M N 5 5 3 3 1 P h : ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 4 - 2 2 6 0 F a x : ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 4 - 0 1 5 5 P L A N T S C H E D U L E 2 0 2 2 6 1 8 A L D S T A F F & C L I E N T C O M M E N T S P L A N T I N G D E T A I L S 4 " W o o d m u l c h o r o t h e r s p e c i f i e d m a t e r i a l t o b e p l a c e d a t 3 " d e p t h . B a c k f i l l w i t h l o o s e n e d s o i l i n d i g e n o u s t o s i t e . C o m m e r c i a l g r a d e b l a c k p o l y e d g e r . S h r u b P l a n t i n g D e t a i l N o S c a l e A p p r o v e d t r e e w r a p t o b e a p p l i e d p r i o r t o w i n t e r s e a s o n . D o n o t a l l o w b a c k f i l l o r m u l c h m a t e r i a l t o c o m e i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h r o o t c o l l a r . W o o d m u l c h o r o t h e r s p e c i f i e d m a t e r i a l . ( 3 " D e p t h ) B a c k f i l l w i t h l o o s e n e d s o i l i n d i g e n o u s t o s i t e . 1 2 " M I N . * N O T E : T r e e t o b e s t a k e d & g u y e d o n l y o n a n a s n e e d e d b a s i s . S h a d e T r e e P l a n t i n g D e t a i l L e v e l L o c a t i o n - N o S c a l e P L A N T I N G N O T E S P L A N T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T C A L C U L A T I O N S S H E E T N O . O F S H E E T S R E V . N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N D E S I G N E D D R A W N C H E C K E D D A T E : P R O J E C T N O : E n g i n e e r s & L a n d S u r v e y o r s , I n c . S S O C I A T E S 9 W e s t D i v i s i o n S t r e e t B u f f a l o , M N 5 5 3 1 3 ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 4 7 2 7 F a x : ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 3 5 2 2 w w w . o t t o a s s o c i a t e s . c o m S E L F - S T O R A G E E B E R T C O N S T R U C T I O N B r o o k l y n C e n t e r , M N P R E L I M L A N D S C A P E P L A N L 2 L 2 0 2 - 2 6 - 1 8 1 7 - 0 5 5 5 P . O . B O X 3 0 8 E X C E L S I O R , M N 5 5 3 3 1 P h : ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 4 - 2 2 6 0 F a x : ( 9 5 2 ) 4 7 4 - 0 1 5 5 2 0 2 2 6 1 8 A L D S T A F F & C L I E N T C O M M E N T S MP-1 METAL PANEL - 1: FLAT INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: LIGHT GREY EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND MP-3 MTL-1 MP-2 MTL-2 PC-1 INSULATED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST PANEL - 1 FINISH: MEDIUM GRAY AGGREGATE AND LIGHT GRAY AGGREGATE METAL PANEL - 3: FLAT INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: DARK GREY PREFINISHED METAL TRIM - 1 COLOR: LIGHT GREY MTL-3 PREFINISHED METAL TRIM - 2 COLOR: MEDIUM GREY PREFINISHED METAL TRIM - 1 COLOR: DARK GREY SHD-1 PREFINISHED METAL SHADE DEVICE - 1 COLOR: DARK GREY MP-4 METAL PANEL - 4: FLAT INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: EXR WASABI MP-5 METAL PANEL - 5: VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: MEDIUM GREY MP-6 METAL PANEL - 6: VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: DARK GREY METAL PANEL - 7: VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL COLOR: EXR WASABI PT-1 PAINT COLOR: EXR WASABI PT-2 PAINT COLOR: DARK GREY 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" Roof 141' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 0" T.O. PRECAST 145' - 0" 3RD LEVEL 121' - 0" 4TH LEVEL 131' - 0" MP-1 MP-5 MTL-1 MTL-3 MP-6 PC-1 SHD-1 MP-1 MTL-2 SHD-1 MP-3 MP-4 MP-2 PT-1 83 SF SIGN 67 SF SIGN 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" Roof 141' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 0" T.O. PRECAST 145' - 0" 3RD LEVEL 121' - 0" 4TH LEVEL 131' - 0" MP-1 MP-5 MTL-1 MTL-3 MP-6 PC-1 SHD-1 MP-1 MTL-2 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" Roof 141' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 0" T.O. PRECAST 145' - 0" 3RD LEVEL 121' - 0" 4TH LEVEL 131' - 0" MP-1 MP-5 MTL-1 MP-5 MTL-2 MTL-3 MP-3 PC-1 PT-1 MP-2 SHD-1 MTL-2 PT-2 83 SF SIGN 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" Roof 141' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 0" T.O. PRECAST 145' - 0" 3RD LEVEL 121' - 0" 4TH LEVEL 131' - 0" MP-1 MTL-1 PC-1 MTL-2 MP-3 SHD-1 MP-5 MTL-3 PT-1 67 SF SIGN EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 3,184 SF 51.0% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 2,330 SF 37.3% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 730 SF 11.7% TOTAL 6,380 SF 100.0% NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 2,939 SF 32.6% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 3,830 SF 42.4% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 2,252 SF 25.0% TOTAL 10,607 SF 100.0% EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 3,956 SF 62.4% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 2,298 SF 36.3% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 83.14 SF 1.3% TOTAL 6,505 SF 100.0% SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 5,414 SF 58.5% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 3,206 SF 34.7% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 629 SF 6.8% TOTAL 9,250 SF 100.0% DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952 -426 -7400 Fax 952 -426 -7440 D R A W I N G I N F O R M A T I O N P H A S E I S S U E R E C O R D R E G I S T R A T I O N A R C H I T E C T P R O J E C T N A M E THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. COMPUTER DIRECTORY: S H E E T D E S C R I P T I O N NOT FOR CONS T R U C T IO N C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 1 7 3 2 2 L o g a n A v e n u e E S S _ t n i c h o l i e @ mo h a g e n h a n s e n . c o m . r v t A300 Checker Author JANUARY 29, 2018 17322.0EBR Path CITY SUBMITTAL LOGAN AVENUE SELF-STORAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION 57XX LOGAN AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS 3/32" = 1'-0" A300 1 NORTH 3/32" = 1'-0" A300 2 EAST 3/32" = 1'-0" A300 4 SOUTH 3/32" = 1'-0" A300 3 WEST NO. DESCRIPTION DATE EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 3,184 SF 51.0% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 2,330 SF 37.3% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 730 SF 11.7% TOTAL 6,380 SF 100.0% NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 2,939 SF 32.6% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 3,830 SF 42.4% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 2,252 SF 25.0% TOTAL 10,607 SF 100.0% EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 3,956 SF 62.4% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 2,298 SF 36.3% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 83.14 SF 1.3% TOTAL 6,505 SF 100.0% SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL MATERIAL CLASS TOTAL SF % OF TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CLASS I 5,414 SF 58.5% ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANEL CLASS I 3,206 SF 34.7% INSULATED GLASS CLASS I 629 SF 6.8% TOTAL 9,250 SF 100.0% N DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952 -426 -7400 Fax 952 -426 -7440 D R A W I N G I N F O R M A T I O N P H A S E I S S U E R E C O R D R E G I S T R A T I O N A R C H I T E C T P R O J E C T N A M E THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. COMPUTER DIRECTORY: S H E E T D E S C R I P T I O N NOT FOR CONS T R U C T IO N C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 1 7 3 2 2 L o g a n A v e n u e E S S _ t n i c h o l i e @ mo h a g e n h a n s e n . c o m . r v t A310 Checker Author JANUARY 29, 2018 17322.0EBR Path CITY SUBMITTAL LOGAN AVENUE SELF-STORAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION 57XX LOGAN AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES SOUTHEAST CORNER PERSPECTIVE NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE GREEN SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANELS TEXTURED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST PANELS LIGHT GRAY SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANEL HORIZONTAL METAL SUN SHADES THERMALLY BROKEN STOREFRONT SYSTEM GREEN VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL LIGHT GRAY VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL THERMALLY BROKEN STOREFRONT SYSTEM HORIZONTAL METAL SUN SHADES DARK GRAY VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL GLASS OVERHEAD DOORS DARK GRAY VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL TEXTURED ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST PANELS GRAY SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANEL HORIZONTAL METAL SUN SHADES GREEN SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANELS THERMALLY BROKEN STOREFRONT SYSTEM DARK GRAY SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANELS GREEN VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL THERMALLY BROKEN STOREFRONT SYSTEM HORIZONTAL METAL SUN SHADES DARK GRAY VERTICAL RIBBED INSULATED METAL PANEL DARK GRAY SMOOTH FACED INSULATED METAL PANEL 9 West Division Street, Buffalo, MN 55313 • 763-682-4727 • Fax 763-682-3522 • www.ottoassociates.com STORMWATER REPORT BROOKLYN CENTER SELF STORAGE Brooklyn Center, Minnesota February 12, 2018 Otto Project No. 17-0483 This project includes developing a 2.6 parcel that is being split from an 8.17 acre parcel. This site was previously fully developed (91-100% impervious) but the buildings and parking lots were removed and seeded until redevelopment occurs. A 28,000 square foot building footprint is being proposed for a 4-story storage facility, along with a parking lot and access drives. The Hennepin County Natural Resources map indicates hydrologic group A soils are present. The design infiltration rate from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for HSG A soils was used for this design. Onsite infiltration tests will be performed in the Spring. The site drains in two directions, northwest to a culvert within State Highway 100 right-of-way and east to storm sewer within Logan Avenue North. Proposed Impervious Area = 1.18 acres Volume Abstraction Required = 1.18 ac x 1” = 4,283 cf Volume Abstraction Proposed = 15,234 cf The MIDS calculator results show the proposed design provides 89.6% TP removal and 89.6% TSS removal. Peak runoff flow rates are as follows: RUNOFF (cfs) 1 Year 2 Year 10 Year 100 Year Existing to MnDOT ROW 0 0 0.03 2.44 Proposed to MnDOT ROW 0 0 0.00 2.37 Existing to Logan Avenue No. 0 0 0.01 0.62 Proposed to Logan Avenue No. 0 0 0.01 0.90 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Cara Schwahn Otto Reg. No. 40433 Date February 12, 2018 He nne p in Co u nty Natu ra l R es ourc es Ma p Da te : 2/8 /2 01 8 Co mm e nt s : Th is data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' wit h n o re prese ntation as to co mp le te ness or accu racy; (ii) is furnish ed with no wa rra nty of a ny kin d; an d (iii) is n otsu it ab le for le ga l, eng ine erin g or surveying p urpo ses. He nnepin Count y shall n ot be liable for a ny d amage, injury or loss re sulting from th is data. CO PYRIGHT © HENNEP IN COUNTY 20 18 1 inch = 2 00 f ee t Le ge n d Land Cov er - Q ual ity High Qua lit y Good Qua lity Mo dera te Qu ality Poo r Qualit y Altere d N on-Native PlantCommunity: Native SpeciesPresent Altere d N on-Native PlantCommunity: No Na tiv eSpecies Pr ese nt Land Cov er - G ene ra l C la ss Ar tificial Su rf ace s andAssociated Area s Plan ted o r CultivatedVegetation Fo res ts Woodlan ds Shr ublan ds Her bac eous Nonvascula r Vegetat ion Spa rs e Ve getat ion Wa ter PID: 0 211 8 211 3003 0 Add re s s: 1 950 57T H AV E N, B RO OKLYN C ENT E R O wne r N am e: EC ON D EV AU T HBROOKLYN C TR Acr es: 7.31 ¯ 1S E1 2S E2 Routing Diagram for 17-0483 Existing Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 2/8/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 17-0483 Existing Printed 2/8/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 2.600 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 2S) 2.600 39 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"17-0483 Existing Printed 2/8/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: E1 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 2.070 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 2.070 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: E2 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.530 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.530 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"17-0483 Existing Printed 2/8/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: E1 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 2.070 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 2.070 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: E2 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.530 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.530 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"17-0483 Existing Printed 2/8/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: E1 Runoff = 0.03 cfs @ 13.24 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 0.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 2.070 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 2.070 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: E2 Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 13.24 hrs, Volume= 0.003 af, Depth= 0.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.530 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.530 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"17-0483 Existing Printed 2/8/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: E1 Runoff = 2.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.153 af, Depth= 0.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 2.070 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 2.070 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: E2 Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.039 af, Depth= 0.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.530 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.530 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, 1S P1a 2S P1b 3S P1c 4S P2 5R To MnDOT ditch 6P P1b Basin 7P P1c Basin Routing Diagram for 17-0483 Proposed Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 2/12/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.420 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S) 1.180 98 Paved parking, HSG A (2S, 3S, 4S) 2.600 66 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: P1a Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.280 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.280 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P1b Runoff = 1.69 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af, Depth= 0.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.840 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.450 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.290 77 Weighted Average 0.450 34.88% Pervious Area 0.840 65.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: P1c Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Depth= 0.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.310 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.250 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.560 72 Weighted Average 0.250 44.64% Pervious Area 0.310 55.36% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P2 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.030 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 43 Weighted Average 0.440 93.62% Pervious Area 0.030 6.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 5R: To MnDOT ditch Inflow Area = 2.130 ac, 53.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 6P: P1b Basin Inflow Area = 1.290 ac, 65.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.73" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.69 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 24.9 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 843.85' @ 12.54 hrs Surf.Area= 7,646 sf Storage= 1,108 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 33.3 min calculated for 0.078 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 33.3 min ( 865.3 - 832.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 843.70' 21,360 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 843.70 7,430 0 0 844.00 7,870 2,295 2,295 845.00 9,530 8,700 10,995 846.00 11,200 10,365 21,360 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 843.70'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.20'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=843.85' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=843.70' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 7P: P1c Basin Inflow Area = 0.560 ac, 55.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.52" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.49 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af Outflow = 0.05 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 70.1 min Discarded = 0.05 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 844.55' @ 13.30 hrs Surf.Area= 1,219 sf Storage= 442 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 109.0 min calculated for 0.024 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 108.9 min ( 956.6 - 847.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 844.00' 3,850 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 844.00 400 0 0 845.00 1,900 1,150 1,150 846.00 3,500 2,700 3,850 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 844.00'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.50'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 13.30 hrs HW=844.55' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=844.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: P1a Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.280 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.280 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P1b Runoff = 2.29 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af, Depth= 0.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.840 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.450 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.290 77 Weighted Average 0.450 34.88% Pervious Area 0.840 65.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: P1c Runoff = 0.72 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af, Depth= 0.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.310 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.250 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.560 72 Weighted Average 0.250 44.64% Pervious Area 0.310 55.36% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P2 Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 20.36 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Depth= 0.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.030 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 43 Weighted Average 0.440 93.62% Pervious Area 0.030 6.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 5R: To MnDOT ditch Inflow Area = 2.130 ac, 53.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 6P: P1b Basin Inflow Area = 1.290 ac, 65.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.98" for 2-Year event Inflow = 2.29 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af Outflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 29.6 min Discarded = 0.29 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 843.93' @ 12.62 hrs Surf.Area= 7,764 sf Storage= 1,729 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 52.3 min calculated for 0.105 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 52.3 min ( 877.4 - 825.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 843.70' 21,360 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 843.70 7,430 0 0 844.00 7,870 2,295 2,295 845.00 9,530 8,700 10,995 846.00 11,200 10,365 21,360 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 843.70'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.20'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 12.62 hrs HW=843.93' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=843.70' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 7P: P1c Basin Inflow Area = 0.560 ac, 55.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.73" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.72 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 13.38 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 74.9 min Discarded = 0.06 cfs @ 13.38 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 844.73' @ 13.38 hrs Surf.Area= 1,493 sf Storage= 689 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 145.1 min calculated for 0.034 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 145.0 min ( 983.6 - 838.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 844.00' 3,850 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 844.00 400 0 0 845.00 1,900 1,150 1,150 846.00 3,500 2,700 3,850 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 844.00'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.50'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 13.38 hrs HW=844.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.06 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=844.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: P1a Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 13.24 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Depth= 0.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.280 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.280 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P1b Runoff = 4.80 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Depth= 2.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.840 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.450 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.290 77 Weighted Average 0.450 34.88% Pervious Area 0.840 65.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: P1c Runoff = 1.69 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.310 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.250 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.560 72 Weighted Average 0.250 44.64% Pervious Area 0.310 55.36% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P2 Runoff = 0.03 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth= 0.17" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.030 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 43 Weighted Average 0.440 93.62% Pervious Area 0.030 6.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 5R: To MnDOT ditch Inflow Area = 2.130 ac, 53.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.01" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.24 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.24 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 6P: P1b Basin Inflow Area = 1.290 ac, 65.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.80 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 70.5 min Discarded = 0.31 cfs @ 13.29 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 844.30' @ 13.29 hrs Surf.Area= 8,375 sf Storage= 4,765 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 144.9 min calculated for 0.217 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 144.8 min ( 954.3 - 809.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 843.70' 21,360 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 843.70 7,430 0 0 844.00 7,870 2,295 2,295 845.00 9,530 8,700 10,995 846.00 11,200 10,365 21,360 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 843.70'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.20'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.31 cfs @ 13.29 hrs HW=844.30' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.31 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=843.70' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 7P: P1c Basin Inflow Area = 0.560 ac, 55.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.65" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.69 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 13.52 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 83.9 min Discarded = 0.09 cfs @ 13.52 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 845.34' @ 13.52 hrs Surf.Area= 2,438 sf Storage= 1,879 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 256.0 min calculated for 0.077 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 256.0 min ( 1,075.4 - 819.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 844.00' 3,850 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 844.00 400 0 0 845.00 1,900 1,150 1,150 846.00 3,500 2,700 3,850 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 844.00'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.50'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 13.52 hrs HW=845.34' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.09 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=844.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: P1a Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.021 af, Depth= 0.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.280 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.280 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P1b Runoff = 10.86 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.500 af, Depth= 4.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.840 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.450 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.290 77 Weighted Average 0.450 34.88% Pervious Area 0.840 65.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: P1c Runoff = 4.21 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.191 af, Depth= 4.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.310 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.250 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.560 72 Weighted Average 0.250 44.64% Pervious Area 0.310 55.36% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P2 Runoff = 0.90 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.048 af, Depth= 1.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.030 98 Paved parking, HSG A 0.470 43 Weighted Average 0.440 93.62% Pervious Area 0.030 6.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 5R: To MnDOT ditch Inflow Area = 2.130 ac, 53.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.58" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.37 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af Outflow = 2.37 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 6P: P1b Basin Inflow Area = 1.290 ac, 65.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.65" for 100-Year event Inflow = 10.86 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.500 af Outflow = 0.46 cfs @ 13.53 hrs, Volume= 0.500 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 85.1 min Discarded = 0.37 cfs @ 13.53 hrs, Volume= 0.495 af Primary = 0.09 cfs @ 13.53 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 845.24' @ 13.53 hrs Surf.Area= 9,925 sf Storage= 13,298 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 363.8 min calculated for 0.500 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 363.7 min ( 1,156.4 - 792.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 843.70' 21,360 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"17-0483 Proposed Printed 2/12/2018Prepared by Microsoft Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03113 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 843.70 7,430 0 0 844.00 7,870 2,295 2,295 845.00 9,530 8,700 10,995 846.00 11,200 10,365 21,360 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 843.70'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.20'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.37 cfs @ 13.53 hrs HW=845.24' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.37 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 13.53 hrs HW=845.24' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir (Weir Controls 0.09 cfs @ 0.59 fps) Summary for Pond 7P: P1c Basin Inflow Area = 0.560 ac, 55.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.10" for 100-Year event Inflow = 4.21 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.191 af Outflow = 2.27 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.191 af, Atten= 46%, Lag= 5.9 min Discarded = 0.12 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af Primary = 2.15 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-100.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 845.79' @ 12.22 hrs Surf.Area= 3,164 sf Storage= 3,150 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 181.6 min calculated for 0.191 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 181.8 min ( 982.2 - 800.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 844.00' 3,850 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 844.00 400 0 0 845.00 1,900 1,150 1,150 846.00 3,500 2,700 3,850 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 844.00'1.600 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 845.50'127.0 deg x 4.0' long x 1.00' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.48 (C= 3.10) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=845.78' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.05 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=845.78' (Free Discharge) 2=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir (Weir Controls 2.05 cfs @ 1.60 fps) Pr o j e c t N a m e : Us e r N a m e / C o m p a n y N a m e : Da t e : Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n : Ye s Le g e n d Us e r i n p u t c e l l s Ca l c u l a t i o n c e l l s Co n s t a n t v a l u e s Va l u e o b t a i n e d f r o m a n o t h e r s h e e t Si t e I n f o r m a t i o n Re t e n t i o n R e q u i r m e n t ( i n c h e s ) : 1 S i t e ' s Z i p c o d e : 55 4 3 0 An n u a l R a i n f a l l ( i n c h e s ) : 31 . 1 Ph o s p h o r u s E M C ( m g / L ) : 0. 3 TS S E M C ( m g / L ) : 54 . 5 Fr a c t i o n o f a n n u a l r a i n f a l l e v e n t s t h a t p r o d u c e r u n o f f : 0. 9 To t a l W a t e r s h e d A r e a La n d C o v e r ( a c r e s ) A s o i l s B S o i l s C S o i l s D S o i l s To t a l s (a c r e s ) Fo r e s t / O p e n S p a c e ( a c r e s ) - - u n d i s t u r b e d , p r o t e c t e d f o r e s t / o p e n s p a c e o r re f o r e s t e d l a n d 0 Ma n a g e d T u r f ( a c r e s ) - - d i s t u r b e d , g r a d e d f o r y a r d s o r o t h e r t u r f t o b e mo w e d / m a n a g e d 1. 4 2 1. 4 2 Im p e r v i o u s C o v e r ( a c r e s ) 1. 1 8 To t a l : 2. 6 Wa t e r s h e d A r e a R o u t e d t o B M P s ( S u m m a r y o f " M I D S B M P C a l c u l a t o r " T a b ) La n d C o v e r ( a c r e s ) A s o i l s B S o i l s C S o i l s D S o i l s To t a l s (a c r e s ) Fo r e s t / O p e n S p a c e ( a c r e s ) - - u n d i s t u r b e d , p r o t e c t e d f o r e s t / o p e n s p a c e o r re f o r e s t e d l a n d 0 Ma n a g e d T u r f ( a c r e s ) - - d i s t u r b e d , g r a d e d f o r y a r d s o r o t h e r t u r f t o b e mo w e d / m a n a g e d 0. 7 0. 7 Im p e r v i o u s C o v e r ( a c r e s ) 1. 1 5 To t a l : 1. 8 5 Mi n n e s o t a M I D S C a l c u l a t o r - - V e r s i o n 3 : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 Br o o k l y n C e n t e r S e l f - S t o r a g e Ot t o A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . 2/ 8 / 1 8 Th i s v a l u e h a s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e r e c o m m e n d e d v a l u e o f 1 . 1 i n s Ar e y o u u s i n g t h e c a l c u l a t o r t o d e t e r m i n e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a C o n s t r u c t i o n S t o r m w a t e r p e r m i t ? ( Y e s / N o ) No t e s : 1) M a k e s u r e m a c r o s a r e e n a b l e d . I f n o t , c l i c k M i c r os o f t O f f i c e B u t t o n i n u p p e r l e f t h a n d c o r n e r . Cl i c k " E x c e l O p t i o n s " . C l i c k " T r u s t C e n t e r " , c l i c k "T r u s t C e n t e r S e t t i n g s " a n d t h e n c l i c k " M a c r o S e t t i ng s " . S e t M a c r o S e t t i n g s t o "E n a b l e A l l M a c r o s " a n d r e s t a r t E x c e l . 2) E n t e r S i t e I n f o r m a t i o n i n bl u e c e l l s be l o w 3) G o t o M I D S B M P C a l c u l a t o r t a b a n d f o l l o w i n s t r u c ti o n o n t o p o f t h a t p a g e Su m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n To t a l i m p e r v i o u s c o v e r ( a c r e s ) 1. 1 8 To t a l w a t e r s h e d a r e a ( a c r e s ) 2. 6 0 Si t e r u n o f f c o e f f i c i e n t , R v 0. 5 1 % I m p e r v i o u s 45 % De v e l o p m e n t v o l u m e r e t e n t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t ( c u b i c f e e t ) 4, 2 8 3 Vo l u m e r e m o v e d b y B M P s ( c u b i c f e e t ) 4, 1 7 4 Ad d i t i o n a l v o l u m e r e m o v a l n e e d e d t o m e e t r e q u i r e m e n t ( c u b i c f e e t ) 10 9 Pe r c e n t v o l u m e r e m o v e d 97 . 4 6 % Po s t - d e v e l o p o m e n t a n n u a l v o l u m e ( a c r e - f t ) 3. 1 1 An n u a l v o l u m e r e m o v e d b y B M P s ( a c r e - f t ) 2. 7 9 Pe r c e n t a n n u a l v o l u m e r e m o v e d 89 . 6 1 % Po s t - d e v e l o p m e n t a n n u a l P a r t i c u l a t e P l o a d ( l b / y r ) 1. 4 0 An n u a l P a r t i c u l a t e l o a d r e m o v e d b y B M P s ( l b / y r ) 1 . 2 5 Po s t - d e v e l o p m e n t a n n u a l D i s s o l v e d P l o a d ( l b / y r ) 1. 1 4 An n u a l D i s s o l v e d P l o a d r e m o v e d b y B M P s ( l b / y r ) 1. 0 2 Pe r c e n t a n n u a l T P r e m o v e d 89 . 6 0 % Po s t - d e v e l o p m e n t a n n u a l T S S l o a d ( l b / y r ) 46 1 An n u a l T S S l o a d r e m o v e d b y B M P s ( l b / y r ) 4 1 3 Pe r c e n t a n n u a l T S S r e m o v e d 89 . 6 1 % No t e : Gr e e n c e l l s w i l l f i l l i n w h e n MI D S B M P C a l c u l a t o r t a b i s co m p l e t e Gr e y C e l l s a r e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g Si t e I n f o r m a t i o n e n t e r e d a b o v e Le n g t h "C " O f Ne w "I " Ru n o f f Sl o p e Pi p e Fr o m To (f e e t ) In c r e a s e To t a l To I n l e t In P i p e In c r e a s e "C " (I N / H R ) (C F S ) (f t / f t ) Si z e ( I N ) Q ( C F S ) V( F T / S ) In l e t In v e r t In l e t In v e r t CB 1 F E S 5 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 3 5 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 8 8 0 . 8 8 7 . 6 9 2 . 2 0 . 0 0 6 0 1 2 3 . 0 3 . 8 8 4 7 . 0 0 8 4 4 . 0 0 8 4 3 . 7 0 CB 2 F E S 5 0 0 . 3 3 0 . 3 3 5 . 0 0 . 2 2 0 . 8 8 0 . 8 8 7 . 6 9 2 . 2 0 . 0 0 6 0 1 2 3 . 0 3 . 8 8 4 7 . 0 0 8 4 4 . 0 0 8 4 3 . 7 0 ST O R M S E W E R D E S I G N De s i g n e d B y : C S O Ye a r S t o r m : 1 0 Pr o j e c t : B r o o k l y n C e n t e r S t o r a g e - E b e r t C o n s t . Ma n n i n g s " N " : 0 . 0 1 3 Jo b N o : 1 7 - 0 4 8 3 Da t e : 2 / 0 8 / 1 8 Lo w e r C B Up p e r C . B . MH N o . A r e a ( A c r e s ) F l o w T i m e ( M i n ) Ca p a c i t y ( F u l l ) ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: March 15, 2018 Application No. 2018-002 Applicant: Tashitaa Tufaa (Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC) Location: 6440 James Circle North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval with Special Use Permit for an Event Center INTRODUCTION Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC (the “Applicant”) is requesting consideration and approval of a Site and Building Plan and issuance of a Special Use Permit for the property located at 6440 James Circle North (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property was formerly home to the AMF Earle Brown Lanes, which closed in 2015. The building and site subsequently sat vacant until 2017, when the Applicant purchased the Subject Property. Although the site plan does not require a public hearing, the request for issuance of a Special Use Permit requires that a public hearing be scheduled. An Affidavit of Publication was received, confirming publication of a public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 1, 2018 (Exhibit A). Mail notices were also sent out to property owners in accordance with Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: RB - Retail Business Neighborhood: Shingle Creek Current Zoning: C2 (Commerce) District Surrounding Zoning: North: I1 (Industrial Park) District East: C2 (Commerce) District South: C2 (Commerce) District West: C2 (Commerce) District Site Area: Approximately 4.03 acres Setback Standards: The typical minimum building setback requirements for a C2-zoned property are as follows: Front Yard: 35 feet Rear Yard: 40 feet Side Interior Yard: 10 feet Corner Side Yard: 25 feet The existing building setbacks are proposed to remain the same, with the exception of the installation of a porte-cochère (covered entrance) to allow for drop-offs by vehicle at the front entrance. As the Subject Property is located on a loop road, with one side fronting Freeway Boulevard, and two sides • Application Filed: 02/13/2018 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 04/14/2018 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 2 fronting James Circle North, this property would be considered a “triple frontage” lot. If viewing the Subject Property as having three frontages, the setbacks would be: Front Yard #1: 49.9 feet Front Yard #2: 232.1 feet Front Yard #3: 108.4 feet Side Interior Yard: 10 feet Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes (C2 District) Subdivision Ord.: Yes Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request: No BACKGROUND The approximately 35,462-square foot building was originally approved for and constructed in 1978 for use as the Earle Brown Bowl (bowling alley) under Planning Application Nos. 78023 and 78024 following site/building plan and Special Use Permit approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. The approval of the Special Use Permits under these applications allowed for live entertainment and a bowling alley in what was then zoned I1 (Industrial Park) District. This allowed for the Subject Property to function as a bowling alley, restaurant, and game room/recreational facility. Additional Planning Commission applications were subsequently approved by the City for: 1. Expansion of lounge area and exterior remodeling of Earle Brown Bowl (1982); 2. Addition to café for new cooler storage service area and waiting room (1987); and 3. Requests to build a temporary outdoor patio, and outdoor sand volleyball courts for summer league (1991). The bowling alley and restaurant closed in April 2015 and sat vacant until 2017 when the Applicant purchased the property. The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the former bowling alley and restaurant into an event center with a focus on weddings and other special events. As part of this proposal, the reestablishment of a permanent restaurant and bar within the facility is proposed, along with accessory kitchen, bathrooms, bridal suites, and office facilities. BUILDING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Building The proposal calls for the renovation of the existing approximately 35,462-square foot one-story building located at 6440 James Circle North. The building is located on approximately 4.03 acres and would be in close proximity to the City’s hotel establishments and freeway access via Interstates 94 and 694, and Trunk Highway 252. A civil set, containing site, utility, grading and drainage, landscaping, and photometric plans, have been provided by the Applicant and are attached hereto as Exhibit B. ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 3 Map 1. Subject Property Location. As part of the proposal, the interior of the existing building would undergo significant interior demolition and remodeling, whereas the major exterior improvements would be limited to cosmetic improvements to the façade of the building, installation of a porte-cochère and canopies comprised of steel, and alterations to the parking lot (Exhibit C). During a site visit in January 2018, staff identified current and potential deficiencies relating to building and fire safety, and zoning matters. This information was relayed to Architect Peter Hill, who is working for the Applicant, and who was on site for the tour. Photos of the existing site and interior have been attached for reference as Exhibit D. Although unofficial, the City does reference a set of design guidelines when reviewing site and building plan applications. These guidelines are based on the Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Design Guidelines, which were approved in 2011. These guidelines strive to have at least 50-percent of all four sides (wall surfaces) of new buildings constructed with Class I materials, with the remaining surfaces to be constructed of Class II materials. Given that the building was constructed in 1978, it is not expected of the Applicant to necessarily achieve these minimum requirements; however, it is stressed that the Applicant be thoughtful in the redesign of the building and site. Class I materials include: brick or acceptable brick-type material, marble; granite; other natural stone or acceptable natural looking stone; textured cement stucco; copper; porcelain, glass; architectural textured concrete pre-cast panels; and other materials including masonry units with enhanced detailing such as patterns, textures, color, dimension, banding, and brick inlay, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 4 Class II materials include: exposed aggregate concrete panels; burnished concrete block; integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block; cast-in-place concrete; artificial stucco (e.g., E.I.F.S., Drivit); artificial stone; fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch; canvas or vinyl awnings; prefinished metal; and other materials not listed elsewhere, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Per Architect Peter Hill, it is anticipated that all existing non-masonry construction would be removed to reveal the existing structure. The concrete masonry unit (CMU) façade would be pressure washed and tuck-pointed where required, before being primed and finished with paint in colors similar to those presented in Exhibit C. The porte-cochère ceiling structure, comprised of steel, will be painted in a darker color, along with building and site accents (e.g., exterior doors, door and window frames, and light fixtures). The porte-cochère column surrounds will be encased in a masonry construction similar to the main body of the building. The Applicant also proposes to push the existing trash enclosure back so as to minimize its view from the parking lot. This enclosure should utilize materials complementary to the building. ACCESS AND PARKING Vehicular Access/Parking The Applicant intends to maintain the existing driveway access off James Circle North in consideration of the parking requirements needed to achieve the minimum parking standards for a combination of uses. Ingress and egress would be via a 29-foot wide full access driveway. Access to Freeway Boulevard would be achievable by heading either south or north on James Circle North. The proposed driveway aisles would meet and exceed the minimum drive aisle depth requirement of 24 feet, which would allow for two-way, 90-degree parking. Per conversations with Peter Hill (Architect), the construction of the porte-cochère will require that the drive aisle be restricted to two one-way drive aisles heading in the same direction. Per discussions with staff, the Applicant should consider potentially angling the parking along the north end of the parking lot, as this may provide better intuition and guidance as to the direction of traffic and potentially allow for some additional parking. The Applicant will need to provide directional signage signifying the one way access restrictions for this portion of the lot in either scenario. As shown in Table 1 (Parking Requirements) below, the Applicant intends to provide 281 parking spaces. This would result in a loss of five parking spaces, as there are 286 spaces currently on site. Per the proposal, the 90-degree spaces would need to meet the minimum 18 foot depth and 8 foot, 8 inch width requirements per the Zoning Ordinance. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that off-street parking and perimeter parking lot driveways be prohibited within 15 feet of the street right-of-way, allowing this area to be maintained as a green strip. The Applicant has no plans to expand the existing parking lot and has indicated through the submitted plans that this green strip will be maintained with landscaping. ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 5 Table 1. Parking Requirements. Parking Use Minimum Required Parking Spaces Provided Parking Spaces (in bold) Places of Assembly (i.e. banquet halls) 1 parking space per every 3 seats (578 occupants max/3 seats = 193 spaces required) 193 spaces Restaurant and Bar 1 parking space per every 2 seats (101 occupants max/2 seats = 51 spaces required) 51 spaces Office/Conference Rooms 1 space for every 200 gross floor area (2,733 GFA/200 GFA = 14 spaces required) 14 spaces Kitchen and Catering Staff 1 space for every 2 employees on maximum shift (38 staff max per average maximum shift/2 employees = 19 spaces required) 20 spaces Storage and Mechanical Rooms -- 3 spaces ADA 7 (for 201 to 300 parking space requirement-minimum stall requirement of 279 stalls per Zoning Ordinance) 8 spaces Total Required Parking 277 spaces (ADA spaces incorporated into total) Total Provided Parking 281 spaces (ADA spaces incorporated into total) Source: Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance, 2015 Minnesota Accessibility Code Parking Requirements. LIGHTING | TRASH | SCREENING Lighting The Applicant furnished a photometric plan of the Subject Property, which indicates 21 LED wall pack style building lights with full cutoff lenses on all four sides of the existing building. Ten LED light posts would be provided for illumination throughout the parking lot at a mounting height of 28 feet. Per the City Zoning Ordinance, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” Additionally, glare shall not emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Ordinance further specifies that lighting shall not exceed ten (10) foot candles when measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. A review of the provided photometric plan, dated February 6, 2018, noted 1.01 foot candles as the average illuminance. The maximum foot candles noted along the property lines is 0.6, well within the maximum 10 foot candles for adjacent non-residentially zoned properties. Although commercially- zoned, the maximum foot candles are also well within the maximum three foot candle requirement for residential uses. The maximum foot candles along the adjacent-to-the-east Quality Inn (hotel) is 0.4 foot candles. Per the unofficial City architectural design guidelines, light poles, fixtures, and bases should maintain a consistent dark color (i.e., bronze, black, or brown), and feature dark sky-friendly or cutoff style fixtures. As proposed, the lighting fixtures would meet these guidelines. As part of the building permit submittal, the Applicant will need to provide imagery of the proposed lighting, as well as fixture specifications. ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 6 Trash The existing trash enclosure is located along the north end of the property and juts out from building, providing clear view of the enclosure. As proposed, the enclosure would be pushed back to align with the west face of the building, thereby obscuring view from the parking lot. The enclosure would be reconstructed in an approximately 23 by 40 foot footprint and of materials complementary to the building. The enclosure would be attached to the building and provided with a concrete walk so as to provide direct access off the kitchen. The enclosure would require reinforcement through installation of a retaining wall and interior bollards. Screening The trash enclosure and any other ground mounted equipment (e.g., transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent public rights-of-way and adjacent properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood, masonry, or other durable materials that are complementary to the materials used on the primary building. Per Chapter 12 (Building Maintenance and Occupancy) of the City Code, roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through use of parapets, wall/fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right-of-way. DRAINING | GRADING | UTILITIES The installation of all utility services and lines, and the finished grading of the Subject Property are to be reviewed and conducted under issuance of a separate Land Disturbance (Alteration) permit, which is reviewed and approved by City engineers, and inspected for completeness by City engineers and building officials. As proposed, the Applicant will conduct a full depth mill and overlay of the bituminous pavement, and removal of select curb and gutter, trees, fencing, footings, and trash enclosure walls. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the perimeters of all driving and parking areas shall be bounded by type B6-12 curb and gutter. As proposed, the Applicant intends to replace all removed curbing with this style of curbing and would therefore meet this requirement. The Applicant should refer to the City Assistant Engineer’s memorandum to determine what other approvals are required (Exhibit E). LANDSCAPING The project submittal includes a detailed landscape plan, which illustrates the proposed planting schedule (i.e., shade trees, coniferous trees, decorative trees, shrubs). Although City Code does not have any specific requirements for landscape plantings, the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage of a development. The Point System requires commercial sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on a maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorate trees, and 25% shrubs). As the proposed event center would be located on approximately four (4) acres, the development would need to achieve a minimum of 60 points, assuming a development use category of “Restaurant/Retail/Service/ Entertainment/Hotels.” ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 7 Table 2. Landscape Point System Policy Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 30 points 30 points accrued (12 trees x 10 = 120) Coniferous Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 24 points 24 points accrued (14 trees x 6 = 84) Decorative Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 21 points 21 points accrued (14 trees x 1.5 = 21) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 15 points 15 points accrued (65 shrubs x 0.5 = 32.5) Total 100% = 60 points 90 points As summarized in Table 2 above, the submitted landscape plan meets and exceeds the minimum required 60 points required given the development use by 30 points, based on the maximum points allowed for allocation. If reviewing the site purely based on points and without regard to maximum points allowed, the Applicant would be providing 257.5 points based on “Points per Planting” calculations. As part of the proposal, perennials and grasses, including Blue Heaven Little Blue Stem, Pardon Me Daylily, and Plum Pudding Coral Bells, are proposed for planting as foundational landscaping around the Subject Property. These plantings do not count towards the Landscape Point System total. The Applicant should reference the City’s unofficial Architectural Design Guidelines regarding overall landscaping and site treatment. As part of any approval, the Subject Property will require an irrigation system to be installed and a plan to be submitted to the City. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg conducted a review of the application submittal and documents. Comments regarding this application can be found in the memorandum to city staff dated March 5, 2018, and attached hereto (Exhibit E). It should be noted that some of the outlined conditions may be applicable at time of approval for future land disturbance (alteration) or building permits. FIRE INSPECTOR REVIEW Fire Inspector Brandon Gautsch conducted a review of the application submittal and documents and an on-site review of the site and building in January 2018. As part of the on-site visit, requests were conveyed to Project Architect Peter Hill as to the City’s Fire Code requirements. These include the removal of conifers located on the north end of the property near the entrance to the proposed riser/utility room, as emergency access is currently hindered by these trees. Additionally, the Fire Department requires installation of a Knox-Box for emergency access purposes, and achievement of minimum height requirements for the proposed porte-cochère. As this is not an all-encompassing list of requirements, the Applicant shall work with the Fire Inspector and Building Official to ensure all aspects of the site meet Fire Code and Building Code requirements. SIGNAGE Although wall signage is identified in the submitted architectural renderings, no formal requests for approval were made as part of the application submittal. As there is no record of special approvals for signage, any new signage, including wall and monument signs, would require conformance with Chapter 34 of the City Code (Sign Ordinance). Any requests beyond the allowances identified in the Sign Ordinance would require that the Applicant apply for and receive approval to deviate from the Sign Ordinance. The Applicant will need to file a separate Building Permit application for any proposed ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 8 signage. Based on staff findings, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation of the requested site and building plans for the Subject Property, located at 6440 James Circle North; subject to the Applicant receiving approval of a Special Use Permit for the use of an event center and complying with the comments outlined in the Site Plan and Document Approval Conditions noted below. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW As part of the Site and Building Plan approval, the Applicant is also requesting approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for an event center. According to Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, “Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. Before a building or premises is devoted to any use classified as a special use by this ordinance, a special use permit must be granted by the City Council.” Section 35-322 (C2 Commerce District) notes that “eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation and amusement places such as motion picture theaters and legitimate theater; sports arenas, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and gymnasiums, all provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district, including an abutment at a street line,” are allowed through approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit. It should be noted that the Subject Property, located at 6440 James Circle North, does not abut any R1, R2, or R3 properties. The Subject Property is currently surrounded by three hotels (Super 8, Norwood Suites, and Quality Inn), the former Oriental Market, a Denny’s Restaurant, a vacant City EDA- owned property, and the FBI building. Light industrial properties lie to the north of the Subject Property (across Freeway Boulevard). Per the Standards of Special Use Permits, a Special Use Permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: 1. 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 former use of the Subject Property was through issuance of two Special Use Permits. These Special Use Permits (for the uses of “bowling alley” and “live entertainment”) were en force for a period of 37 years before the ultimate closing of the Earle Brown Lanes in 2015. Given the intent of the Applicant to establish a “premier” event center, and “upscale” restaurant and bar, staff is to the understanding that it is not the intent of the Applicant to establish a use that would be detrimental to the overall public health, safety, morals, and comfort of the general public. It is hoped that the establishment of the proposed uses would provide an enhancement to the surrounding uses. 2. 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. The Subject Property was home to the Earle Brown Lanes (bowling alley), a restaurant/bar, and game room from 1978 until its closing in 2015. Earle Brown Lanes was approved by issuance of ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 9 Special Use Permits for the use of a bowling alley and allowance of live entertainment. Although the Subject Property has not been open to the public for nearly three years, the 37 previous years were spent catering to residents and visitors as a place of entertainment and dining. The Applicant intends to overhaul the interior of the Subject Property for reuse as an entertainment center, although in a slightly different capacity. The Applicant intends for the majority of the event center business to emphasize wedding events, although the facility would also provide an alternative location for hosting proms, private parties, and corporate, community, and educational events. As proposed, the facility would feature bridal suites, ancillary office and meeting space, and a “full-service, upscale” restaurant and bar. Approval of the bar and serving of liquor by staff of the facility for events would be contingent upon issuance of a City liquor license. It is not anticipated that the proposed event center will be injurious to the use of properties in the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 3. 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. It is not anticipated that the establishment of the requested special use would impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district. The Subject Property is currently surrounded by like-zoned C2 (Commerce) District properties. With the exception of the City EDA-owned property (vacant land) and the currently vacant, former Oriental Market, the surrounding land is currently developed. It is hoped that issuance of a Special Use Permit for the event center would allow for improvements at the surrounding properties. With regard to the City’s Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC), located across Interstates 94/694 and to the south, the Applicant has emphasized that his intent is to provide services that are complementary to EBHC, rather than competitive. At maximum, the three banquet rooms combined would provide occupancy of no more than 578 persons. The proposed restaurant and bar would be open to the public and would provide seating for 101 persons. To provide oversight of the operation, the Applicant intends to hire a building manager, a chef and restaurant manager, and bridal consultant. 4. Adequate measurements have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Staff met multiple times with the Applicant’s architect and real estate broker to work through the proposed uses and overall business plan for the site. Given the numerous uses of an event center, restaurant and bar, office space, and kitchen and catering staff, concerns were initially presented by staff regarding the ability to provide sufficient on-site parking. The Applicant explored potential alternatives to provide off-site parking, however, it was determined that there were no alternatives to provide for off-site parking that would meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements stipulated that any off- ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 10 street parking be located a maximum of 800 feet from the principal building, and that the land on which the off-site parking was located be used solely for parking, among other requirements. The Applicant inquired as to whether the City’s EDA-owned property (4.92 acres) would be an option, however, it was determined by staff that this would not be the highest and best use for the property. As the Applicant owns a bus company, it was also suggested by the Applicant that perhaps employees could shuttle from the Applicant’s property in Minneapolis, located six minutes by car, during higher use events, however, this would not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement that the property used for off-site parking be used solely for parking. Staff eventually worked with Architect Peter Hill to revise the proposed plans to alter the banquet room layouts and lower the maximum occupancy of the rooms. In order to meet the minimum parking requirements, the Applicant has retained the existing ingress and egress on the site, rather than adding an additional driveway. This access would still allow for full access to Freeway Boulevard by turning south or north onto James Circle North, as it is a loop road. As Special Use Permits allow for conditions to be placed in conjunction with issuance of a Special Use Permit, staff recommends that the Applicant adhere to the maximum occupancies outlined in the submitted plans. Should issues arise concerning clientele parking on City streets or adjacent parking lots (e.g., Super 8, Norwood Suites, Denny’s), staff may request the Applicant complete a Travel Demand Management Plan. 5. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Per the submitted plans, the Applicant has no plans to alter the exterior of the building in such a way to render the building or site non-conforming. With regard to the minimum parking requirements, the Applicant has worked with staff to revise the site and interior plans as necessary to address the parking requirements for the multiple uses proposed. Other than the request for a Special Use Permit to allow for eating establishments in conjunction with live entertainment, the proposed restaurant and office uses are generally permitted within the C2 (Commerce) District. As previously mentioned, the serving of liquor will require issuance of a City liquor license. Based on staff findings, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation of the requested Special Use Permit for an event center for the property located at 6440 James Circle North (Subject Property); subject to the Applicant complying with the comments outlined in the Site Plan and Document Approval Conditions noted below. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL CONDITIONS: Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Application No. 2018-002 for 6440 James Circle North (Subject Property): 1. Building and Site Plan Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits; and the final location or placement of any fire hydrants or other fire-related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Inspector. a. 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 ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 11 Council. b. The Applicant should evaluate whether angled parking along the north end of the parking lot (west of proposed porte-cochère) would allow for more intuitive traffic circulation. i. The driving aisle west of the porte-cochère shall maintain the same direction as traffic under porte-cochère. Directional signage is to be installed as part of this condition. c. The Applicant shall work with the City/Fire Department to address installation of fire hydrants where necessary and maximum distance requirements so as to meet code requirements. d. The Applicant shall verify that the proposed building and site has met City Code requirements. e. A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Agreements: a. The Property Owner/Developer shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this Site and Building Plan. b. The Applicant shall adhere to the maximum occupancies outlined in the submitted plans in order to conform with maximum allowable parking on site of the Subject Property. Should issues arise concerning clientele parking on City streets or adjacent parking lots, staff may request the Applicant complete a Travel Demand Management Plan. c. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 3. Engineering Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated March 5, 2018 (Exhibit E): a. Final grading, drainage, utility, irrigation, erosion control, and as-built plans, and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Fire Inspector Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions required per Fire and Building Code. These include, but are not limited to: a. Installation of a Knox-Box on the north end of the building to allow for emergency access to the proposed riser/utility room. b. Removal of existing conifers along the north end of the building as specified by the Fire Inspector upon visit to the site in January 2018. This is to allow for emergency access to the proposed riser/utility room. c. Compliance with minimum height and width requirements for the as proposed porte- cochère. d. Verification of minimum turn-radius required for fire truck apparatus as part of parking lot approval. 5. Construction Standards: a. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Department. ________________ App. No. 2018-002 PC 03/15/2018 Page 12 b. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 6. Facilities and Equipment: a. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements. b. Any outdoor enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complementary to the principal building. c. The maximum level of 10-foot candles or less will be maintained at the property line for lighting in accordance with Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Ordinance. d. The Applicant shall furnish fixture specifications and imagery of proposed light installations as part of the Building Permit submittal. 7. Landscaping: a. All landscaped areas, including street boulevards, shall include approved irrigation systems to facilitate site maintenance. Per Sheet L1.0 (Landscape Plan), the “entire site shall be fully irrigated. The contractor shall submit irrigation shop drawings for review and approval by the landscape architect prior to installation.” b. Irrigation shop drawings shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to installation. 8. Signage: The Applicant shall submit a Building Permit application for any proposed signage as part of the development proposal. Signage is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002, Site and Building Plan and Special Use Permit for an event center for the Subject Property located at 6440 James Circle North, subject to the Applicant complying with the Site and Building Plan Approval Conditions. Should the Planning Commission accept this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt the draft resolution which memorializes the findings in granting site and building plan and Special Use Permit approval, subject to the Applicant complying with the above-mentioned conditions of approval. Attachments Exhibit A- Affidavit of Publication for Notice of Hearing (6440 James Circle North), published March 1, 2018, in Brooklyn Center Sun Post. Exhibit B- Selected Plans from 6440 James Circle North Civil Set, prepared by the CivilSite Group, dated February 13, 2018. Exhibit C- Select Architectural and 3D Renderings of Proposed Event Center (6440 James Circle North), prepared by Peter Lindsay Hill, Architect, undated. Exhibit D- Interior Photos of Existing Building and Site (6440 James Circle North), taken by Ginny McIntosh, dated January 11, 2018. Exhibit E- Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated March 5, 2018. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 5, 2018 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review –6440 James Circle Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on February 16, 2018, for the proposed 6440 James Circle: Civil Site Plans dated February 13, 2018 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: C2.0 – Site Plan 1. Label accessible ramps. 2. Traffic lane dimension. C5.2 – Detail and Specifications Plan 3. Add current MN Dot plates for ADA accessibility ramps L1.0 – Landscape Plan 4. Provide irrigation plan. Miscellaneous 5. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments 6. Remove “City of Brooklyn Center Site Specific Notes” from all sheets. 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 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. 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 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). 6440 James Circle Site Plan Review Memo, February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 2 9. The total disturbed area is less than one acre, an NPDES permit is not required. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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: 11. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 12. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 13. 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.