Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-001 Inf Sheet 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Application Filed on 1-17-08 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3-17-08 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2008-001 Applicant: Real Estate Recycling (RER) Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Rezoning/Development Plan Approval - PUD/I-1 The applicant, Jenny Hanson, for RER Acquisitions, LLC is seeking rezoning from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of the old Howe Fertilizer site addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (to be readdressed to a yet to be determined new address) and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial facility. BACKGROUND RER has a purchase agreement and intends to clear the site of the existing three buildings and undertake an extensive soils clean-up operation due to the impact of agricultural chemicals and petroleum associated with the prior use of this site. The site was formerly the home of Howe, Inc. which operated as a manufacturing and distribution facility for custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from prior to 1940. A gas station also operated on a portion of the site from approximately 1945 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at Howe, Inc. ceased in 1994, while use of the site for distribution of agricultural chemicals was continued. Demolition of the old metal buildings housing much of the operation occurred around 2001 leaving primarily buildings built following a 1979 fire on the property. Use of the site has been sporadic since the removal of the old buildings. There is a lot of history between Howe Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center dealing with the fertilizer manufacturing operation and the rebuilding and use of the site following the above mentioned fire in 1979. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for RER to form the basis of a comprehensive site corrective action plan dealing with the site soil and ground water clean-up that must be addressed in order for the commercial/industrial redevelopment of the property to occur. Such action will have to be accomplished in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulations relating to agricultural chemical clean-up and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for clean-up also. RER plans to undertake the required clean-up and will coordinate this with the Department of Agriculture VIC (Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up) and PCA VIC. Once such a clean-up plan is approved, RER plans to build the 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility mentioned above. It should be noted that RER has undertaken a number of these clean-up and redevelopment projects, most notably the clean-up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located northwest of Hwy 100 and France Avenue in Brooklyn Center and also the Minneapolis Business Center located on 49th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard in Minneapolis. They are seeking the PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) rezoning to accomplish the above industrial redevelopment. The site is currently zoned I-2 (General Industry) which allows a number of more intense permitted industrial uses than are allowed in the I-1 (Industrial Park) zoning district such as the manufacturing of textile mill products; coating, engraving and allied services; wholesale trade of motor vehicles; truck terminals; and outside storage of materials, work in process and inventory. The I-1 zone also allows a number of commercial/service office uses not associated with accessory industrial uses which can be considered more compatible with the neighboring residential uses in this area. One point that should be stressed and should be acknowledged as a condition if this PUD is approved, is that “adult uses” which are permitted in the I-1 zone would not be allowed in this Planned Unit Development in deference to the residential neighborhood. The I-1 zone is the only zone in the city where adult uses are allowed, but such uses at this location would not be appropriate. The applicant is also seeking the PUD designation to be allowed modifications to the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned property at a property line and at a street line respectively. Such abutment exists to the west and north of this site. They propose to reduce the buffer along a portion of the west side of the site to 50 ft. to provide a drive lane accessible from the back of the building to 49th Avenue North and a reduced buffer on the north side to 25 ft. also for a drive lane accessing vehicle parking on the north and east sides of the proposed building. They propose to offset these encroachments with screening, landscaping and berming as will be shown when reviewing the development plans. All vehicle parking and building locations will meet setback requirements. These modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site with a layout having a front façade that faces the higher traffic volume on Brooklyn Boulevard and ties into the Minneapolis Business Center east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to create a dock area and driving lane that they believe is effectively screened from the residences allowing proper circulation around the site. No other modification to the industrial district standards and uses are proposed. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. Rules and regulations governing that district (in this case, I-1) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and/or redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer area where the property abuts R-1 land at a property line and street line respectively. Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide the buffer and setback for buildings and parking in these areas for the needed drive lanes and access to the site and provide heavily landscaped, bermed and screened areas to mitigate these encroachments. The proposed screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle traffic in a manner that they hope will ensure neighboring residences will not be disturbed. There is precedent for allowing drive lane encroachments into required buffer areas in the case of commercial redevelopment at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard which was undertaken a few years ago. In that case, a maintenance free fence and heavy landscaping were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of driving lanes to the residential property backing up to the development. The Planning Commission’s attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission’s review. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute “spot zoning”, which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City’s policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant’s comments and their proposal: Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant comments that polluted soils are currently uncapped, representing a significant risk to human health and the environment. The blighted buildings at the site are currently vacant bringing zero jobs and minimal tax base to the site. Redevelopment, they note, will remove the pollution, clean up the blighted site and bring jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. It is the staff’s opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and is also consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the other needs of adjoining properties. The use of the Planned Unit Development process makes it possible to attempt to balance the needs of the developer and the community. Addressing the clean-up of polluted soils that can pose a risk to health and the environment is an obvious public benefit as is eliminating blighted buildings and creating jobs on a site that is vastly underutilized. The proposal addresses the public needs and benefits in a way that makes it possible for the developer to do so in an economically feasible manner. The proposal they have is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which is basically silent as to the future development of this site or this area of the city. The property is currently zoned industrial and an industrial use is the anticipated long range use of this property as well as the abutting rail road property to the south and southwest of the site. Previous Comprehensive Plans and zoning ordinances addressed the phase out and the non-conforming use aspects of the manufacturing of chemical fertilizer on this site. It seems that the proposal clearly addresses a public need or benefit. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that the proposed PUD will be comprised of a less intensive I-1 zoning classification rather than the current I-2 zoning designation. This use, they note, is consistent with uses across Brooklyn Boulevard at the Minneapolis Business Center and they believe it is also compatible with surrounding residential uses. We would comment that the proposal is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications from the standpoint that the proposed I-1 underlying zone is less intensive than the existing zoning and the use can co-exist with abutting properties provided appropriate screening is maintained and other requirements of the district are maintained as well. We have commented about the inappropriateness of introducing adult uses which are allowed in the I-1 district. There is precedent in PUD’s to exclude certain uses permitted by the underlying zoning that are determined to be inappropriate. This would be the case with adult uses and it is recommended that such uses be specifically excluded if the proposal is adopted. The applicant’s proposal certainly is consistent with the uses east of Brooklyn Boulevard in the Minneapolis Business Center which, coincidentally, have been developed by the applicant. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant comments that the proposed zoning district will result in a less intensive use at the site. They point out that office/warehouse use is consistent with surrounding uses and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. They believe the addition of an attractive new building will clean up the blighted site and remove pollution. We would concur with the applicant’s comments that the proposed I-1 underlying zone is a less intensive use for the site. Of note should be that outside storage of inventory, work in process or other materials would not be allowed in this PUD but could be allowed as permitted uses provided they are screened under the existing I-2 zone. The less intense nature of the industrial uses and commercial uses allowed in the underlying I-1 zone are seen as a good down zoning and use of the property. We have already commented on prohibiting adult uses as part of this PUD and such action is not without precedent in other Planned Unit Development Rezonings. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicants note that on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard zoning classifications continue to be a mix of R-1 and I-2. They note, however, the recent development of the Minneapolis Business Center on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard has resulted in rezoning from I-2 to I-1. They believe their proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center resulting in a less intensive use and zoning change from I-2 to I-1. The down zoning of this property to an underlying PUD zone of I-1 can be considered an appropriate change. If screening can be appropriately provided to the residential areas, the intended use of this property for industrial purposes is an allowable use. Making the site consistent with the development to the east can be considered a positive for the City. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant notes that the proposal is for a Planned Unit Development with an underlying I-1 zoning classification. They point out that the development will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD. We believe that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions of this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residences to the west and this site as well as buffer and screening from the residents to the north. The proposed I-1 use seems to provide an appropriate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two areas. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant again notes that the present zoning is I-2 which allows for heavy industrial uses. They note that given the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I-2 permitted uses are unsuited for this area. We would concur with the applicant’s comments with respect to this guideline. The development plans in general seem to provide a good layout and site plan for this area. Some of the allowable I-2 uses may be inappropriate for this area given the relatively close proximity to residential uses. Residential and industrial uses can co-exist given proper screening and development considerations. Some of the uses allowed in the I-2 zone such as outside storage, could be considered unsuited for this use because of the abutting residential. The proposed PUD/I-1 rezoning addresses many of these concerns. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicant indicates that the redevelopment will not expand a zoning district but will upgrade the current I-2 to I-1. This rezoning will result in higher quality jobs and increase in tax base and a less intensive use of the site. In general we would concur with these comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a redevelopment that should be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. As mentioned previously, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area and can be considered in the best interests of the community noting particularly the clean-up of a polluted site and a relatively clean development. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant points out that polluted soils currently pose a risk to human health and environment. The site in its current condition is blighted and underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. They point out the redevelopment will remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution and add high quality jobs and tax base to the site which results in merit beyond the interests of only the current owner. We also believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal would provide a quality development that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, his proposal is for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse building on the 5.03 acre site that formerly house Howe, Inc. a manufacturing and distribution site for fertilizer and agriculture chemicals. The applicant’s proposal is to clear the site of the existing buildings, clean it to acceptable standards of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to commencing building of the facility. The site in question is located at the southwest quadrant of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and is bounded on the west by abutting R-1 zoned property, on the north by 49th Avenue with R-1 zoned property on the opposite site of the street; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the City of Minneapolis with recent new industrial development on the opposite side of the street; on the south and southwest by I-2 zoned property owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Their plan is to build what they characterize as a modern and attractive building with significant landscaping and screening for the residential neighborhood. The architecture will be similar to that of the Minneapolis Business Center, located to the east. The site would have access to 49th Avenue and the building primarily face Brooklyn Boulevard, which in this location is an overpass over the Soo Line Railroad leading into the City of Minneapolis. A small portion of this site is located in the City of Minneapolis and is primarily slope and landscape from Brooklyn Boulevard or Osseo Road as it is known in Minneapolis. Contact has been made with the City of Minneapolis and written communication has indicated that they consider the City of Brooklyn Center as the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment project and no approvals from the City of Minneapolis will be necessary. ACCESS/BUILDING SETBACKS/PARKING Access to the site will be from 49th Avenue North. The existing access to the site, which is considered to be too close to the intersection of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard (approximately 75 ft.) will be removed. This access is currently about 90 ft. in width at the property line/right of way line and about 40 ft. in width at its narrowest point. This access will be replaced with two accesses, the easterly one serving the north end of the building and the east side of the building and be used primarily for passenger vehicle access to the parking lots. This access will be approximately 180 ft. from the intersection of 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard and will be 24 ft. in width serving two way traffic. The westerly access will be 30 ft. in width and be approximately 290 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard/49th Avenue intersection and will serve as access primarily for trucks going to the loading area on the west side of the building. The building itself exceeds all setback requirements from property lines and from residentially zoned property. It is approximately 82 ft. from the 49th Avenue right of way line and 90 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way line at the closest points. The building will be over 180 ft. from the residential property to the west at the closest point (currently the existing north building on the site is 140 ft. from the residential property to the west). It is the location of the driving lanes that encroach on the 100 ft. buffer from the west and the 50 ft. buffer on the north side of the property that the applicant is seeking modifications from the standards through this PUD proposal. The off-street parking requirement for this 51,000 sq. ft. building based on a 20 percent office/80 percent industrial occupancy is 102 parking spaces. These 102 parking spaces are provided on the north and east side of the building primarily and 13 spaces along the west side out of the 100 ft. buffer area. (Parking requirement is one space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area of office and one space for every 800 sq. ft. gross floor area industrial.) The applicant has also shown the ability to provide up to 150 parking spaces on the site which would allow up to 45 percent office, 55 percent industrial occupancy. This is accomplished by providing up to 48 additional spaces on the west side in areas which would not be needed for loading/unloading area with an increased office occupancy. The east and west parking areas will be connected by a 12 ft. single drive lane on the south side of the building. It should be noted that no vehicle parking spaces will encroach on the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer areas, only driving lanes. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Work’s/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his 2/11/08 memorandum relating to this application. His written comments are offered for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The utility plans call for the water main to be connected to water in 49th Avenue North and looped around the building with a 4 in. domestic service and 8 in. sprinkler service being provided. Sanitary sewer will be tied into existing sewer in 49th Avenue North. The applicant proposes to provide a dry storm water drainage pond on the west side of the site adjacent to the residentially zoned property. Much of this ponding area is in the buffer area required along the abutting property line. Drainage calculations have been provided to the City Engineer for analysis and this site will be required to receive approval from the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission. It appears that 4.46 acres of this 5.03 acre site drains into the new storm water pond before being discharged into the storm sewer system. B-612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas and is indicated on the plan. Berming is proposed in the green strip along 49th Avenue North to provide additional screening from the residences on the north side of 49th. A 30 inch high retaining wall will be located on the building side of that green strip. Berming is also provided between the access drives and a retaining wall is also in this area. No erosion control plan has been submitted but erosion control measures will have to be installed prior to starting grading operations in accordance with best management practices. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on this site can be undertaken. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the site is 5.03 acres in area and requires 332 landscape points. They propose to meet the point requirement by saving some of the existing landscaping and providing additional landscaping. Their plan indicates that they will provide 30 shade trees (Imperial Honey Locust, Swamp White Oak and Noble Weeping Willow), 19 coniferous trees (Black Hills Spruce), 21 decorative trees (River Birch, Amur Maple), and 254 shrubs (Isanti Dogwood, Dwarf Winged Euonymus, Allegheny Service Berry, Glossy Black Chokeberry, Nanny Berry Viburnum, Arctic Willow, AW Spirea, Arcadia Juniper, Taunton Spreading Yew, Daylilies, Maynight Saldia and Feather Reed Grass). The Swamp White Oak will be located along the green strip between the east access and Brooklyn Boulevard, by the ponding area and at the southwest corner of the building. The Imperial Honey Locust will be in the green strip areas along Brooklyn Boulevard and in a planting area in the front (ease side) of the building. The two willows will be to the west of the retention pond. The Black Hills Spruce will be located primarily on the berm area between the two drive lanes for screening purposes and adjacent to the residential lot to the west and at the north end of the dry pond. Twelve Amur Maple decorative trees are located in four groups along the front of the building, while the River Birch are planned for the south side of the building and to the north of the dry storm water pond. Shrubs are used for foundation plantings and in planting beds along the Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue green strips and also around the dry storm pond. An existing 8 ft. high screen fence located along a part of the west property line with abutting residential property will continue. A new 8 ft. high cedar fence is proposed to extend from this fence to the drive lane then northerly along the drive lane to the north property line. Care should be taken at this entrance to assure proper visibility when accessing the street. The plan also calls for a 10 ft. high screen wall extending out from the building to screen the loading area. This should be a concrete wall matching the building exterior. The existing fence should be repaired/replaced as necessary. It is suggested that a maintenance free material rather than the cedar, be considered for the screen fence. The applicant has also provided cross sectional elevations indicating the berming, landscaping, and screening to be provided in areas encroaching into the normally required buffer. This seems to offset or mitigate this encroachment nicely. Underground irrigation is to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. As indicated previously, the design will be similar to the Minneapolis Business Center buildings located to the east of Brooklyn Boulevard. A natural color palette and punched out entry elements will be utilized. The exterior will be primarily smooth and raked finish concrete panels with built up synthetic stucco cornice and painted metal canopies. Anodized aluminum and glass entry doors will be provided as well. Tinted insulated glass will also be utilized. As indicated previously, a screen wall is to be provided for the loading area on the north side of the building. It is recommended that this be a masonry finish comparable to the exterior of the building. LIGHTING AND TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35-712 of the city’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflector or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the 3 foot candle limitation is not exceeded along the property lines. Building mounted lights are proposed on all four sides of the building and a ground mounted flood light for the sign is indicated at the northeast corner of the sites. Care should be taken to shield the wall mounted lights so that no glare emanates from the property. Our main concern, as always, is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and that it be consistent with the standards indicated above. No trash enclosure area has been indicated on the plan and we assume that all trash will be stored inside the building for pick up. PROCEDURE As the Commission is aware, State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on January 17, 2008. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted four weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council, no later than March 17, 2008. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the former Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings. The Neighborhood Advisory Groups because of lack of interest and also the time frame set out in State Statute have been discontinued. It should be noted that the applicant was encouraged to contact neighboring property owners and a list of notified property owners was provided prior to the public hearing. It is our understanding that contact had been made and we have encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors, particularly with respect to the screening proposals. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Sun/Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. 2-14-08 Page 11