Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-03 NAC Planning ReportN INC PLANNING REPORT Enclosure 2 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: February 3, 2000 RE: Oak Park Heights - NSP Fly Ash Disposal Facility: Building Relocation FILE NO: 798.02 - 99.23 BACKGROUND NSP has submitted revised plans as part of the request for a conditional use permit for relocation of the existing storage building at their fly ash disposal facility located at 59th Street North and Peller Avenue. The building is to be relocated approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of 59th Street and Pelier Avenue in a location more central to the active area of the ash landfill. The construction trailer is to be moved off of the ash landfill site and is not part of the current request. The Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance, under Section 401.15.C.8 does not allow for pole buildings unless they are to be utilized for farming operations or in highly unique or special cases requiring a conditional use permit. Additionally, Section 401.15.J requires a conditional use permit for relocation of any structure over 120 square feet on a lot or onto another lot in the City. Any new or relocated building would also be subject to the Design Guidelines of the City. The City recognizes this building as a unique situation in that it has existed on the ash facility for a number of years and that it is regarded as a temporary structure. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Revised Site Plan Letter from Michael Thomes of NSP Letter from Paul Schiller of Barr Engineering Company Existing Building Modifications: Plan and Elevations Existing Building Modifications: Footing and Connection Details 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAG@ WINTERNET.COM ISSUES ANALYSIS Proposed Building Location. The revised, proposed location of the storage building is in an area of the site that is considerably Tess visible than what is originally proposed. The building will be set to the west of Beach Road and the existing bed and breakfast. The structure will be approximately 38 feet below the elevation of the bed and breakfast and 45 feet below the elevation of the previously proposed location. In that the building is 20 feet in height, it is highly unlikely that it will be visible from the adjacent roadways or from the bed and breakfast. Additionally, the landscaped area separating the residential area from the landfill facility will further screen any of the activities on the site. NSP indicates that the proposed location is temporary and the building will remain there only until future landfill development causes relocation. It is estimated that relocation or rebuilding will be required again in 2004 to 2005, if current landfill development rates continue. NSP has not indicated where a new or rebuilt building would be located, but they acknowledge that a structure would be needed to serve some post landfill and park related uses. Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in the previous planning report, the Comprehensive Plan discusses the recreational reuse of portions of the ash facility and the importance of its relation to Valley View Park. Concern was expressed with the previous location and its adverse impact to the neighborhood and park areas. If the building is located on the site so that it is not visible, there are no comprehensive planning issues. Zoning /Conditional Use Permits. The NSP building will be treated as a temporary structure with a definite date by which it will need to be removed or rebuilt. The City will require NSP to remove or destroy the building by December 31, 2005 or apply for an amended conditional use permit for its relocation and/or reconstruction on the site. The City will require the building to comply with Uniform Building Code and Design Guideline requirements when it is rebuilt, reconstructed, or replaced with a new structure. Health and Environmental Impacts. Moving the building to a new location on the site should not have any negative health and environmental impacts. The continuing operation of the ash facility does raise questions in regards to health and environmental safety. As part of this conditional use permit request, the City will require NSP to provide its health reports on fly ash including air quality monitoring reports. Additionally, it is recognized that the ash facility contributes to the runoff into the Perro Creek system. NSP has provided its storm water plans for the site as a part of this request. NSP will also be required to contribute its fair share of the costs related to improvements required to Ferro Creek Pond to eliminate flooding issues. In that the ash facility, especially those portions that are "capped ", contribute to the runoff and flooding problems along Perro Creek, NSP will need to be a participant in the solutions to the problem. It is suggested that a development agreement between NSP and the City outline the required information and the cost sharing for the storm water improvements. 2 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines indicate that industrial and warehouse buildings must use at least two different Grade 1 or 11 materials of which at least 65 percent will be Grade 1 and 11, and not more than 35 percent Grade 111 and IV materials. The building is a typical pole barn with steel siding, no windows and two doors, one large access and one entry door. The building is comprised of almost 100 percent Grade 111 materials (exterior finish installation system) and would in no way meet any of the other design requirements related to composition and detailing, especially the blank wall surfaces. Variations to the Design Guidelines can be permitted by the City council. In that the building is recognized as temporary and that it will be out of sight from the neighborhood and adjacent roadways, staff recommends that the building be allowed without major upgrades to comply with the Design Guidelines. Once the conditional use permit, if approved, has expired, any new or relocated building would need to be upgraded to Design Guidelines standards. Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. The natural elevation of the proposed building site should satisfy any screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. NSP has proposed the installation of security fencing and signage related to landfill operations to commence this Summer. The City would request that NSP add landscaping along the northerly berm area of the ash facility and provide required landscape and prairie seeding plans subject to City Arborist approval. The site plan, labeled Exhibit A, indicates the area for 2000 construction activity. NSP will meet with City staff within coming months to discuss landfill development plans and landscaping. Building Code Requirements. The building will be required to meet all Uniform Building Code requirements once it is placed on the site, including an adequate foundation. Plans have been produced by Barr Engineering Company for the foundation and other required code improvements. The plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Building Inspector. Restroom facilities and utility connections will not be required for the building in that it will not be used for office or meeting space. If any portable toilets are to be used on the site, they shall be located within the building. Billboard. A non - conforming billboard exists on the NSP property adjacent to Highway 36. As a part of the conditional use permit, the City wilt require the billboard to be removed within six months after the conditional use permit is approved. The terms of the billboard removal will need to be agreed to by the City and NSP as part of an overall development agreement. Fly Ash Facility Access. The site plan indicates the access driveway into the fly ash facility along Beach Road. A short asphalt apron is in place to facilitate tire cleaning before trucks enter City streets. City staff recommends that the asphalt driveway be extended at least 120 feet to facilitate tire cleaning. Additionally, the City will require that all tire washing activities, as required in previously approved conditional use permits for the site, be utilized. NSP will also be required to add a stop sign at Beach Road so that trucks come to a complete stop before leaving the property. 3 Trails. To provide access through the NSP property and provide connections with existing and proposed trails, the City will require the construction of trails on the fly ash site and along the power line easement area within lower Oak Park Heights. The City has plans to construct a trail system within lower Oak Park Heights and Valley View Park in the Summer of 2000. Linkages with the fly ash facility and along the power line corridors will be critical to completing the overall connections between east and west Oak Park Heights. Additionally, the trails will be necessary for completing the links between the planned park areas on the fly ash facility to Valley View Park. The specifications and locations of the trails shall be outlined in the development agreement. Conditional Use Permit Criteria. The judgement of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the application is to be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors outlined in Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal Comprehensive Plan. b. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. c. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. d. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e. The impact on the character of the surrounding area. f. The demonstrated need for such use. g. Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity. i. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Based upon the previous analysis, the revised, proposed location could be approved. The building will be located on the site such that it wilt not be seen from the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent roadways. In that the structure wilt be temporary, it will not have long term consequences for future land uses in and around the site. Additionally, the building should not change the character of the area or have a negative impact on traffic generation or public services or facilities. The City Council will need to determine if the Design Guidelines are to be enforced for this structure. 4 Section 401.15.0.8 specifies criteria for conditional use permit approval related to pole building exceptions and other building type and construction standards. These criteria are as follows: c. Exceptions to the provisions of Section 401.15.C.8 of this Ordinance may be granted as a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 401.03 of this Ordinance, provided that: 1) The proposed building maintains the quality and value intended by the Ordinance. 2) The proposed building is compatible and in harmony with other existing structures within the district and immediate geographic areas. 3) The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. The building is considered a temporary structure that will be totally screened by the natural elevation and existing vegetation. City staff suggests that the building be allowed with no major exterior upgrades but any relocation, reconstruction, or new construction of a building after 2005 be required to comply with all Design Guidelines. Section 401.15.J.2 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies performance standards relating to conditional use permits for relocating buildings within Oak Park Heights. The standards are as follows: a. Upon relocation, the building shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code in effect in Oak Park Heights. b. The proposed relocated building shall comply with the character of the neighborhood in which it is being relocated as determined by the City Council. c. The relocated use will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent property values. d. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent principal structures as determined by the City Assessor. Again, because of its isolated location, the building should not adversely affect the character of the area or result in depreciation of property values. The Building Official will review the building plans to assure compliance with all Uniform Building Code provisions. 5 RECOMMENDATION Based upon review of the conditional use permit criteria specified in this report, our office recommends that the revised, proposed building location be approved. We would further recommend that the City Council allow the existing structure to be relocated without strict conformance to the Design Guidelines. Details related to erosion control, health reporting on fly ash, storm water issues, funding of Perro Creek improvements, and billboard removal will need to be discussed with NSP and finalized in a development agreement. The approval of this conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. NSP shall destroy or remove the building from the ash landfill property and the CUP shall expire by December 31, 2005 or NSP shall apply for an amended conditional use permit for its relocation and/or reconstruction. The City will require the building to comply with Building Code and Design Guidelines requirements when it is rebuilt, reconstructed or replaced with a new structure. 2. NSP shall provide health reports on fly ash including air quality monitoring reports as required by City staff. 3. NSP shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs related to storm water runoff improvements required for Perro Creek Pond. A development agreement shall be executed between NSP and the City outlining the cost sharing for storm water improvements. 4. The building shall be required to comply with all Uniform Building Code requirements as approved by the Building Inspector, including an adequate foundation once its replaced on the proposed site. Any portable toilets to be placed on site shall be within the building. 5. Landscaping shalt be placed on the northerly berm area of the ash facility. All plans for landscaping, including areas that have been seeded as prairie and the berm area shall be subject to City Arborist review and approval. 6. The access from Beach Road shall be paved by NSP with an asphalt surface and extended at least 120 feet to facilitate tire cleaning. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection by NSP. 7. Trails shall be constructed within the fly ash site and along NSP power line corridors to provide connections with existing and proposed City trails. The trail locations and specifications shall be subject to approval of City staff and included in the development agreement with NSP. 6 8. The City will require the non - conforming billboard on the ash landfill site to be removed within six months after the conditional use permit is approved. 9. The construction trailer shall be removed within ten days following approval of the conditional use permit. Relocation of the trailer on the ash landfill site shall require conditional use permit consideration. 10. Any other conditions of the Planning Commission, City Council and City staff. pc: Kris Danielson Mark Vierling 7 2 z a u m a t RS1 January 31, 2000 Ms Kris Danielson Community Development Director City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Mr. Scott Richards Oak Park Heights City Planner Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 555 Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 tipr RE: King Plant Ash Landfill — Equipment Storage Garage Plans for Relocation and Structural Improvements Dear Kris and Scott; Northern States Power Company 414 Nicoiiet Mall — RSQ 10 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone (612) 330 -7657 Enclosed with this letter is a structural evaluation of the equipment garage located at the King Plant Ash Landfill. The evaluation, performed for NSP by Barr Engineering, assessed two concerns identified by the City: adequacies of the garage's structural framing and its planned foundation. NSP proposes that the modifications recommended by Barr become part of part of NSP's plans for relocation of the garage. Also enclosed is a plan sheet showing the newly proposed location for the garage. At this location, the building will be below the sight line of the surrounding community, which should address esthetic concerns. However, the new location is in the path of future landfill development, thus relocation (or rebuilding) will be required again in the 2004-05 time frame, if current landfill development rates continue. NSP requests that the Building Permit acknowledge that the proposed location is temporary, that the building will remain there only until future landfill development causes re- relocation. We request to keep options open at this time as to where that future site might be. Factors that may be significant in assessing possible relocation options include NSP's future need for landfill equipment storage, future traffic patterns in the area, what uses the closed portion of the Landfill may be fulfilling at that time, and whether the structure could serve some post-landfill and park - related uses such as a pavilion or equipment storage. Exhibit B Ms Kris Danielson Mr. Scott Richards January 31, 2000 Page 2 of 2 As previously mentioned, NSP hopes to meet with City staff within the next couple months to discuss landfill development plans and options. NSF is now working to develop coherence to our needs, and expect to be ready to meet with the City before the end of February. The discussion should include NSP's plans for this summer's construction activities. An expansion will be built in an area indicated on the attached plan sheet. Construction will also include installation of security fencing and signage. (Fencing pending another Building Permit.) 1 hope this communication is sufficient to address the Garage Building Permit issue at the February 10 Planning Commission Meeting. Please contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely, Michael R. Thames Energy Marketing and Fuel Resources 612 -330 -7657 enclosures m 2 BARR January 31, 2000 Mr. Scott Thomas Northern States Power Company Ren. Square Building 7th Floor 512 Nicollet Mali Minneapolis, MN 55401-1927 Dear Mr. Thomas: Barr L. jineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435 -4803 Phone: 612- 832 -2600 Fax: 612- 832 -2601 Minneapolis, MN Hibbing, MN ° Duluth, MN Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO At your request, we have evaluated the structural framing system for the existing pole barn on your landfill in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. Paul Schiller from Barr met you at the site on January 26, 2000 to visually review the structure and verify overall dimensions. At that time, you provided information from your files regarding the original construction of the building, along with the building permit and inspectors comments from the original construction. You have proposed moving the structure, and requested that Barr address the building inspectors questions regarding foundations and structural framing. The following letter discusses our basic approach to the review, the foundation design, and recommended revisions to the structure to meet UBC code requirements for structural load resistance. Attached are drawings of the existing building and proposed details for the foundation and required bracing modifications. Background Our review was based on information on materials and member sizes gathered during the site visit, and on the sketches you provided from your files. You also provided information from your files that indicated the roof trusses were pre - engineered for vertical load resistance. The structure is wooden-framed with metal roof and siding, having nominal plan dimensions of 30'x48'. The eave Exhibit C Mr. Scott Thomas January 31, 2000 Page 2 height is approximately 15', with a 4:12 pitch on the roof. The roof height at the peak is about 20'. The framing includes 5 "x6" timber posts spaced 8' on center along the 48' walls, and at 10' on center along the 30' walls. The roof trusses are spaced 4' on center, and have knee bracing at every other truss, in line with the posts. The walls are braced in both directions in the end bays of each wall with 2x4's. Roof purlins are 2x4's spaced at approximately 2' on center, and wall girts are 2x4's spaced at approximately 2'-3" on center. The roof and walls are enclosed with light -gage architectural roofing, fastened to the purlins and girts with rubber - sealed nails. The building is used for storage of equipment and supplies for maintenance at the landfill. The building is unheated, and is only occupied briefly while maintenance is being performed at the site. It is our understanding that utility service to the building includes only electrical supply. Our approach to the review of the structure was to verify that the framing system could withstand code - recommended loading conditions. We used the Uniform Building Code, 1997 edition, to determine the loading on the structure. We analyzed the lateral Toad resisting system to verify that it could withstand the design wind loading, and also considered overturning of the structure and uplift forces on the roof. We then designed a foundation system to resist overturning and uplift forces, and to transmit the structural loading to the foundation soils. Structural Review of Existing Building The information available on the building was limited, so several assumptions were made in order to perform the analysis. First, the roofing and siding were not analyzed for strength, but were assumed to be sufficient to transmit loading to the structure. It is our understanding the minor damage to the siding or roof would not pose a threat to human life because of the infrequent use of the building. Second, we assumed that the knee braces were not an effective lateral -load resisting system. They were ignored in the analysis. Similarly, we assumed that the siding was not designed to act as a shear panel, and we neglected the strength of the siding in the lateral resistance of the building. We assumed that the siding and roofing were sufficiently rigid to transmit the lateral loading to the wall bracing. The magnitude of the lateral load is quite small, and therefore we believe that this is a valid assumption. We computed the total wind load based upon UBC Chapter 16, Section III. The lateral load was assumed to be resisted solely by the wall bracing in the corner bays, and only tension braces were Mr. Scott Thomas January 31, 2000 Page 3 assumed to be effective. Based on this analysis, the existing wooden 2x4 bracing was found to be inadequate. We then designed a steel tie -rod system to transmit the lateral wind loading to the foundation. We designed the tie rods and connections in accordance with the AISC Allowable Stress code and the NDS Specification for Wood Construction. The system used 3/4" steel rod, with steel end connections lag- bolted to the existing wooden posts. We used these same connections to attach the posts to the foundation based on the overturning analysis results. Details of this system are provided in the attached drawings. We computed the uplift force on the roof trusses. Based on visual inspection, the trusses in line with the posts appear to be attached securely to the posts, but the intermediate trusses do not appear to have a positive connection to the walls. On the drawings we have included a recommendation for attaching the intermediate trusses to the walls. We then checked the roof purlins for load capacity based on comments from the building inspector that these members were overloaded. We used 1000 psi as the basic allowable flexural stress (F of the purlins, assuming that the wood was spruce -pin- fir construction grade. We then applied modification factors for flat use, load duration, and repetitive members. We found that when these modification factors were applied, the computed snow load stress in the purlins did not exceed the allowable stress. Foundation Design The foundation system was designed to resist overturning of the structure, with a minimum safety factor of 1.5 (per UBC requirements). The minimum depth of the footing according to Minnesota Rules is 3' -6 ". Based on our discussions, we considered using individual round piers as footings, and assumed that the subgrade would be compacted Class V aggregate, extending to below the footing depth. Based on this system, the bearing capacity of the subgrade is expected to exceed 2,000 psf. The controlling load case for the footing design was uplift due to wind loading, particularly for the corner footings where the tie rods are attached. The required footing size was 24" diameter, extending to a depth of 4'-6". We included reinforcing in the footing to resist shrinkage or temperature cracking of the concrete. Details of the footing and material specifications are shown on the drawings. Based on your description that the site will be prepared by compacting the Class V aggregate in lifts, it is our opinion that moderate settlement of the footings is not expected, and would likely not result in damage to the structure, therefore we did not perform a settlement analysis. Mr. Scott Thomas January 31, 2000 Page 4 Site Location We did not have access to a site map, and therefore we were unable to show the plan view location of the structure on the site. We did discuss the location with you during our site visit. It is our understanding that you will obtain a site map and sketch the proposed location for the building inspector. A hand sketch was provided for the original building permit, and should be adequate for the current evaluation. Conclusion It is our opinion that the existing structure requires modifications to the lateral bracing system, and should have the intermediate trusses positively attached to the walls in order to meet code requirements. We have included details for a footing system previously described. We have prepared drawings that can be used for construction of the footings and bracing /connections. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact us at the number listed below. Sincerely, Paul Schiller, P.E. Civil Engineer (612)832 -2668 attachments G 11011 1111110 OHM 0 49 .o -, ❑r .n -,ui a £ 1 1 LiqP J , 7 1 J MODIFICATION ADD CONNECTION FROM TRUSS TO CROSS-BEAM - CONNECTION LOAD 450 LS UPUFT ADD POST -TO- FOUNDATION CLIPS - SEE DETAILS 1 AND 2 A00 POST -TO- FOUNDATION CUPS, CORNER POST WITH TIE ROD CONNECTION - SEE OETA, 4 ADD TIE R00 CONNECTION AT CORNER POST - SEE DETAIL 5 ADD POST -TO- FOUNDATION CUP, WINO DOUBLE TIE ROO CONNECTION - SEE DETAILS 1, 2 AND 3 ADO DOUBLE TIE ROD CONNECTION, SEE DETAIL 3, INVERTED (FOUNDATION BOLT HOLES NOT REQUIRED)! ADD POST-TO-FOUNDATION CLIP, MODIFY DETAIL 3 FOR ONE TIE ROO ONLY € o) i of 0 1 0 e 0 ig 6 2 zx ac N N Z Via CC N - 2 N x M-� a W 2 2 a- rwc+ri emit. ors e+0i 1,srrcm M+ w 0 D •0 ID E U L a 0 CL 0 Ui E 0 z Kris Danielson From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris, Thank you, From: Sent: To: Subject: 2/2/00 Kris Jim Kathy Widin Arborist City of Oak Park Heights Jim Butler [ jbutler @cityofoakparkheights.com] Thursday, February 03, 2000 3:34 PM kdanielson @cityofoakparkheights.com RE: NSP Conditional Use Permit Update In reviewing the report and building plans submitted by Barr Engineering Company, I have found them to be in compliance to the MN State Building Code. A permit is required for the alterations and the contractor must be licensed with the City. Should you have any further questions, please contact me. K.D. Widin kwidin a©mmmpcc.org] Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:48 PM kdanielson©cityofoakparkheights.com NSP Fly Ash Landfill - Landscaping 1 I have reviewed the plans which the City of Oak Park Heights has received to date for the NSP Fly Ash Landfill. Since the pole building will be moved to a Tess prominent location on the site, which will be screened in part by topography, it does not appear that NSP will need to put in landscaping to screen that structure. Regarding other landscaping for the site, I would like to see planting detail for the long berm which runs NE-SW through the site and which will serve a screening function for the still active portion of the landfill. l would also like a list of the plant species which were seeded in the "prairie" area in the SE portion of the site. Plans for other site landscaping would also be helpful. Kris Danielson From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindy Swanson [ Imswans @cityofoakparkheights.com] Wednesday, January 05, 2000 10:35 AM Kris Danielson NSP SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETING I have no issues, from a public safety perspective, regarding the location of the NSP pole building on the NSP Fly Ash Disposal Facility site. From: Sent: To: Subject: Carmichael, Brad [brad.carmichael@andersencorp.com] Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:04 AM ' kdan ie lson @cityofoa kparkheig hts. com' RE: NSP Conditional Use Permit Update I still don't see any issues with the new location. Will we have access to the property and building at all times, or will there be a fence and gate? Thanks, Brad Carmnichael