Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-2000 Planning Commission Meeting Packet7:15 IV. Public Hearings: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 22, 2000 - 7 :00 PM (Rescheduled 5/11/00 Meeting) 7:00 I. Call To Order /Approval of Agenda Mayor Presentation - To outgoing commission member, George Vogt. gt. II. Approval of April 13, 2000 Minutes (1) 7:10 IIII: Visitors: This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. A. W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. - Request for Planned Unit Development- General Plan Approval at 5620 and 5640 Memorial Ave. N. (2) B. City Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request - to Include Central Business District Design Guidelines (3) 7:45 V. New Business: 7:50 VI. Old Business: A. Public /Institutional District (4) VII. Informational/Update: A. Stillwater Area High School: Ropes Course - City Administrator Melena has requested input regarding this issue. Input will be reported to the City Council. Annual Review will be held at a later date. B. Planning Commission Applicants (5) VIII. Adjournment Reminder: Upcoming Meetings: June 8, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM Council Representative: May - Commissioner Vogt June - Commissioner Dwyer CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:00 PM 7 :00 I. Call To Order /Approval of Agenda Mayor Presentation - To outgoing commission member, George Vogt. II. Approval of April 13, 2000 Minutes (1) 7:10 IIII. Visitors: This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. 7:15 IV. Public Hearings: A. W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. - Request for Planned Unit Development- General Plan Approval at 5620 and 5640 Memorial Ave. N. (2) B. City Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request - to Include Central Business District Design Guidelines (3) 7:45 V. New Business: 7:50 VI. Old Business: A. Public /Institutional District (4) VII. Informational/Update: A. Stillwater Area High School: Ropes Course - City Administrator Melena has requested input regarding this issue. Input will be reported to the City Council. Annual Review will be held at a later date. B. Planning Commission Applicants (5) VIII. Adjournment Reminder: Upcoming Meetings: June 8, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM Council Representative: May Commissioner Vogt June - Commissioner Dwyer • • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, April 13, 2000 — 7:00 PM Call To Order /Approval of Agenda: Chair Hedlund called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dahlquist, Dwyer, Vogt and Wasescha. Staff Present: Community Development Director Danielson, City Planner Richards, Community Development Secretary Hultman and Planning Intern Hoel. Commissioner Wasescha suggested that Item A. of New Business "Public Institutional District" be deferred to May 11, 2000 due to the abundance of public hearings on the current Agenda. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to approve the Agenda ad amended. Carried 5 -0. Approval of March 9, 2000 Minutes: Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to approve the amended Minutes as presented to the Commission. Carried 3 -0, Hedlund and Dwyer abstained. Visitors: There were no visitors to items other than those indicated upon Agenda. • Public Hearings: A. Continued: Glenbrook Lumber & Supply Conditional Use Permit Request: Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 7:10 p.m. City Planner Richards reviewed his report highlighting issues including fencing and trash enclosure requirements. Community Development Director Danielson noted that the applicant has received support from the residents of the neighborhood and stressed the importance of containment of the area and briefly discussed land issues she felt should be considered. Visitors to the public hearing included: Gene Heiger, President of Glenbrook Lumber & Supply; Kevin LaCosse, Oak Park LLC; and Martina Plaster, 5472 Stagecoach Trl. N., Oak Park Heights. Gene Heiger stated to the Commission that he felt the fencing requests to be excessive and unreasonable and that interjections, mentioned earlier, as to how his employees and neighboring workers relationships should not be an issue to this request. Kevin LaCosse stated that he felt the area to be pretty well screened without adding any additional screening and agreed that during the daytime hours, when the busses were gone it would be possible to view the Glenbrook business operations from the roadway. He pointed out that the outside storage material in question is the finished product and that it is not unsightly in relation to the areas surroundings. Martina Plaster, a neighbor to the business site, stated that she had no personal problem with Glenbrook's request and that she felt the trees in place do a fairly good job of screening the area and that fence screening being requested is, in her opinion, unnecessary and expensive. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to close the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Commission discussion commenced as to the fencing requested, including location, nature of styling and material composition, screening fence requirements of neighboring business, and visibility issues. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to recommend approval as per the City Planner's report with condition number one being changed. Recommended approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a site plan for six foot board fencing to provide site delineation and screening on the east side and sufficient fencing on the north side to completely screen the outdoor storage area from the public right -of -way. 2. The trash generated on site shall be stored indoors or shall be completely screened if outdoors, subject to City staff review and approval. 3. Site lighting for the Glenbrook facility shall be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements subject to City staff review and approval. 4. A cash escrow equaling 1 1/2 times the City estimated costs for material and labor shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. Carried 5 -0. B. Continued: Twin Ci Federal TCF Re uest for Subdivision Site Review and Rezonin : and C. Twin City Federal (TCF) Request for Variance: City Planner Richards reviewed the activity of the previous public hearing on this matter and suggested that if the Commission desired to, they could combine discussion of the applicant's variance request with this continued public hearing discussion. Richards reviewed his planning report and highlighted issues relating to current city ordinances and conditions cited within the report for recommendation. Community Development Director Danielson informed the Commission that the revised site plan, submitted by the applicants has taken into consideration all of the concerns voiced by city staff and consultants. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment on the continued public hearing as well as the variance request at 7:53 p.m. Visitors to the public hearing included: David Beaudet, 6400 Lookout Trl. N., Oak Park Heights; Judy McDonald and Larry Rose of Twin City Federal. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 3 of 9 David Beaudet expressed his concern about the driveway access and traffic flow. He stated that when Superamerica built on the neighboring property their design included two drives, one of which was built on the adjoining property line anticipating to be shared with future neighbor. He expressed his opinion, of there being no hardship present for which to grant the requested variance. Richards clarified that the drive mentioned by Mr. Beaudet as being located upon the property line is actually setback ten feet from the property line as required by city ordinance. He further commented that combining the drive has not been recommend by the City Engineer due to traffic flow and safety issue considerations. Larry Rose indicated that he was not sure of the exact location of the separation but attempted to show the approximate location for the Commission. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Richards reminded the Commission that his report of April 3, 2000 includes conditions and 111 recommendation for both requests being made by the applicant. Commission discussion ensued as to issues relating to the requests for subdivision, site review, rezoning and variance. Concern was noted that the parcel being addressed is in an area without a development plan. Largely discussed were the issues of a shared driveway with neighboring Superamerica, northern access inviting cross traffic from Neal Ave., traffic flow issues in general, and the City Engineers written recommendation that access to the remaining outlot to the north be restricted. During the course of discussion the Commission determined the need to address the issues and recommendations of each request independently beginning with the request for variance. Danielson made note that the applicant has worked with the City staff extensively to arrive at a workable plan and further indicated that she felt the plan presented works to achieve safety and workability in the area. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt moved to deny the request for variance. Carried 5 -0. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to subsequently deny the request for rezoning and subdivision based upon recommendation for denial of variance. Carried 5 -0 • • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 4 of 9 D. Stillwater Area High School Request for Ropes Course CUP Amendment: City Planner Richards reviewed his report and noted the issue at hand to be the hours of operation. The applicant is asking for a change to the hours of operation as set in the original conditional use permit. Richards also reviewed the requirements of the conditional use permit as per the first amendment to the same. Commissioner Wasescha noted that there was a difference in the definition of period of operation between the Amended CUP and the April, 1999 City Council Minutes Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 8:30 p.m. Visitors to the public hearing included: Tom Edison, 5343 Monarda Ave., Baytown Township; Kent Grandlienard, 4477 Northbrook Blvd., Baytown Township; John Kern, 5469 Stillwater Blvd., Baytown Township; Cathy and Greg Kunz, 12820 53 St. N., Baytown Township; Terri Lewis, Stillwater Area High School; Dan Parker, ISD #834; Rick Printon, 5320 Monarda Ave., Baytown Township; Karen Rheinberger, 5325 Monarda Ave. N., Baytown Township; Dan Parker indicated that it was his understanding that the days of operation are on days that school is in operation as per documentation received from City Attorney's office, dated April 29, 1999. He noted that an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit has been discussed with the City and anticipates a meeting date with the City Council for this. He further noted that they have met with the City on a nearly monthly basis to address issues of all kinds and to his knowledge not one complaint regarding the rope course had been received by the City since the C.U.P. amendment. Terri Lewis a counselor at Stillwater Area High School and participant in the ropes course activity explained the function of the course. Karen Rheinberger expressed her opposition to an increase of hours of operation at the course. She cited her concerns of safety issues and submitted photos and a video documenting her concerns. She indicated that she was displeased that the school did not notify the residents of the area of their request. She further stated that she continues to be concerned about a visual intrusion by the course, noting that the trees to provide screening are inadequate. She expressed that she has lived with the agreement the school has for the rope course and feels it is unfair to have to continue to live with an invasion of privacy both visually and by the noise created from the course each day. Cathy Kunz is also opposed to the request based on safety issues. She stated that she has witnessed children climb the fence and use the course. She feels the course is not monitored well enough and indicated that she has had to call 911 on several occasions due to unauthorized activity at the course. Planning Commission Minutes 411) April 13, 2000 Page 5 of 9 • • Tom Edison expressed his concern about rules made by the school and broken by the school since the construction of the campus. He expressed his disappointment in the lack of communication from the school to its neighbors. Mr. Edison presented the Commission with photos of children using the course unauthorized and noted that he has also contacted 911. He continues to worry that someone is going to get hurt or worse. Mr. Edison noted that the visibility of this course to is so poor to police patrol that he has actually had to have the police enter his home to view the activity taking place at the course. He would like to see the CUP revoked and the course moved or removed. Greg Kunz questioned the course being a recreational facility, as he cannot use it as he would be able to a ball field and that the federal grant for the facility was for a learning use. He stated that the course structure itself is noisy and that the screening is inadequate and that some of the trees planted for screening are falling over. He indicated that he saw no reason for a change of hours and feels that the course should be moved. Rick Printon expressed his curiosity as to what the actual reason for the courses existence was and stated that the berm created to control noise is not serving it purpose. He sees no reason to expand the hours and wonders what will be next if such a request is granted. Kent Grandlienard stated that he feels that Baytown Township residents are shouldering the burden of this issue and suggested that the Oak Park Heights Police Department investigate their responsibility of the courses existence. He would like to see the request for hours expansion denied and consideration given to future removal of the course. John Kern stated that he disagrees with an expansion of hours and also understands the reasoning for the course as a valid training tool and would like to see expanded community use for such a resource. He indicated that he feels the course is in the wrong location and interrupts the natural environment area. He feels that better communication with neighbors would have aided in better placement of the structure and improved neighborly relations. Mr. Kern suggested that perhaps the course could be relocated to Oakland Junior High which is centrally located within the district. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to close the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Chair Hedlund called for a break from 9:10 to 9:15 p.m. Upon return from the break, Chair Hedlund asked the Commission for reaction regarding the request at hand. Discussion ensued as to demonstrated need for expanded hours of operation, discontinuity of language from April, 1999 meeting Minutes and C.U.P. Amendment documentation and other issues of concern relating to the request. Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to deny the applicant's request for amendment to the conditional use permit for expanded hours of operation. Carried 5 -0. Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to recommend that annual review findings reveal conditional use permit conditions not being enforced and that they be requested to be so by the end of the school year in June or the course will be closed until conditions are adhered to. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 6 of 9 Further discussion ensued as to screening, emergency personnel training, landscaping, gates /enclosure, ladder, hours of operation clarification and other ensued. Commissioner Dahlquist would like the Police Department to be required to report their evaluation of the safety of the equipment and the effectiveness of the fencing enclosure in place and to be informed of concerns, if any, the department has. Community Development Director Danielson noted that safety issues related to the course have been discussed with the Police and Fire Chiefs at staff meetings and no concerns were made known by them. She encouraged those contacting the police department about unauthorized use to also contact the city offices. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to table the previous made motion and discussion regarding annual review of the ropes course conditional use permit until their May meeting to allow staff to complete a review of the issues. Carried 5 -0. E. W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. Request for Minor Subdivision and PUD Concept Plan Approval: City Planner Richards reviewed his report on the mater, noting approval was recommended by staff subject to several conditions, which he discussed in detail with the Commission. Visitors to this public hearing included: Tim Freeman of Folz and Dupay Architects and applicant Will Zintl. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 9:45 p.m. Tim Freeman informed the Commission that his applicant had reviewed the planner report and is in agreement with the conditions established within it. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to close the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Discussion ensued as to the nature of property ownership, building locations, lot sized, and adjoining properties. Community Development Director Danielson explained the planned unit development nature of the project so as to afford equality to the common areas of the project. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The City will require the applicant to create a condominium ownership where the building footprints, including expansion areas will be under individual ownership and the green space, parking and drive aisle areas will be owned in common. The City will require submittal of the documents establishing the common ownership and easements subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. • 2. A site plan with private cul -de -sac turnarounds internal to the site will be required by the City subject to review and approval of City staff. 3. The entire perimeter of the parking lots shall include a concrete curb barrier. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 7 of 9 4. A revised landscape plan indicating additional green space and landscaping shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. A tree inventory of the site and conformance with the tree replacement standards shall be required and be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 5. A utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. A phasing plan should be submitted for site development. 7. Grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Watershed District. 8. A development agreement between the City and applicant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 9. Detailed plans to conform with ordinance requirements shall be submitted as part of general plan review including the following: Carried 5 -0. a. Parking lot b. Loading berths c. Lighting d. Landscaping/green space e. Design review f. Preliminary plat g. Comprehensive signage plan h. Site plan review i. Trash enclosures j. Outdoor recreation areas F. Central Business District (CBD): Community Development Director Danielson outlined the request as per her memo and walked through some of the design guidelines recommended. She provided an overview of the projects history and noted that a planning grant had been received from Metropolitan Council to fund some of the work that has been completed to date. Danielson noted that the concepts attached to this district are creative, convenience, cost effective, visually comfortable, pedestrian friendly and in general a town/community feel. She described the design and community elements including parking, building heights, building materials, signage styles, landscaping and architectural design. No franchise architecture designs are being permitted. City Planner Richards noted that zoning ordinance requirement conflicts can be handled by reference to the specific zone noted in the zoning ordinance per counsel from the City Attorney. Examples of this would include issues of setback, parking and signage. Richards noted that the establishment of Central Business District Design Guidelines would be handled in the same manner that the original Design Guidelines were. Planning Commission Minutes fp April 13, 2000 Page 8 of 9 Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to close the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Discussion ensued as to structure design theme /continuity. Areas of commonality, such as trees, lighting, landscaping, and building materials were discussed as a method of creating continuity among the different structure styles to create the feeling of a town/community. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to recommend adoption of a resolution to establish design guidelines for the Central Business District. Carried 5 -0. New Business: A. Annual Goal Setting Meeting Update: Community Development Director Danielson extended thanks to the Commission for their participation at the goal setting meeting. She displayed the board of 2000 -2001 goals for the City and reviewed them. B. Receipt of NSP Air Quality Monitoring Report: Danielson noted that provision of this 411. information was part of the information required per their conditional use permit. Receipt was acknowledged by the Commission. C. Other: Old Business: Commission Terms/Expiration: Commissioner Vogt announced that he would not be seeking reappointment to the Commission when his term expires at the end of May. Commissioner Dahlquist indicated that he would seek reappointment. Danielson indicated that she would inform the City Council and request commission vacancy advertisement. A. Commission Council Representation Schedule: The following schedule was created by the Commission: June - Dwyer October - Dwyer July - Wasescha November - Hedlund August - Hedlund December - Dahlquist September - Wasescha B. Street Lighting Review: Community Development Director Danielson highlighted the resolution adopted by the City Council establishing hatbox style lighting fixtures in hartford green as the designated style of lighting for the City. Informational/Update: A. Danielson informed the Commission that she would make every effort to provide the Commission with a summary of applications requiring a public hearing prior to placement on Agenda and delivery of Commission packets. • Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 9 of 9 Adjournment: Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Dahlquist, moved to adjourn at 10:42 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Julie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission: • PLANNING REPORT ENCLOSURE COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH BACKGROUND NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS TO: Tom Melena FROM: Cindy Sherman / Scott Richards DATE: May 4, 2000 RE: Oak Park Heights — W.A.T.E. PUD General Plan, Site Plan, and Plat Review FILE NO: 798.02 — 00.07 W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. has submitted an application for PUD general plan, site plan, and preliminary/final plat review. The property is located on the west side of Memorial Avenue North and is zoned B -3, Highway Business and Warehousing District. The total site is 8.93 acres in size and is platted into three lots. There are three existing structures on two of the parcels and one lot is vacant. This area was annexed into the City in 1998. Prior to annexation, the Township allowed the construction of two buildings on the center parcel. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved the concept plan in April of 2000 subject to several conditions that are outlined in the memo dated April 19, 2000 attached as Exhibit O. The applicant is currently in the process of acquiring the parcel south of this proposed project. If the purchase moves forward, the City can anticipate a similar application in June that will allow the southerly cul -de -sac to be constructed and a proposal for a similar development plan on the lot. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Site Location Existing Conditions Site Plan /Preliminary Plat Grading and Drainage 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2- 595 -9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM Exhibit E: Exhibit F: PU ? € cN bit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Exhibit K: Exhibit L: Exhibit M: Exhibit N: Exhibit 0: ISSUES ANALYSIS Utility Plan Circulation & Signage Plan Phasing Plan Photometric Plan Tree Preservation Plan Landscape Plan Outdoor Recreation Landscape Plan Trash Enclosure Plan Sign Plan Exterior Elevations/Floor Plans (3 sheets) Concept Plan Conditions, April 19, 2000 memo Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as highway business /warehouse. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation. Zoning. The property is zoned B -3, Highway Business and Warehousin g District. The existing lots meet the lot performance standards of the B -3 District in terms of width and area requirements. Setbacks required on the perimeter of the site are met and interior setbacks are based on the height of the structures er Section 401.06. B.15. A P PUD ace overlay to the B -3 District is proposed to address joint access and common space configuration. Preliminary /Final Plat. The property is currently three lots platted as Lots 5, 6 and 7, Kern Center 2nd Addition. A condominium lat is proposed creating individual P p p g nd�vidua! ownership of the parcels labeled A -F. The green space, parking and drive aisle areas will all be subject to cross easements for shared access and use. Association documents that outline how access and cross easements will function are to be submitted and are subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. Impervious Surface. Section 401.300.G of the Zoning Ordinance states that lots within the B -3 District must provide a total of 20 percent of the net buildable area of the parcel as green space. Based on the plans submitted, the overall reen ' g space is approximately 21.5 percent. The green space is common to all of the buildin g sites. Some of the parking spaces in lots adjacent to Memorial Drive will not be constructed at this time and will only be installed upon request by the property owner and if approved by the City. This provides green space in addition to the 21.5 %. Access/Circulation. The applicant had originally proposed a site plan with limited access through the parking aisles to the westerly buildings. For access of public safety and delivery vehicles, the City required cul -de -sacs within the site. The applicant has proposed access to be via private cul -de -sacs from Memorial Avenue as shown on Exhibit F. The cul -de -sacs and access drives will be constructed with surmountable curb. No parking will be permitted along the access routes. Circulation on the site is 2 • shown as a series of drive aisles within parking lot areas connecting buildings and • parking areas. This will facilitate emergency and delivery vehicle access to the rear buildings. Off- Street Parking and Loading. Off- street parking and loading is regulated under . 9 g g der Section 401.15.F. This requires, among other items, that the entire perimeter of h pe the lot include a concrete curb barrier that shall be 10 feet to any lot line. A curb barrier is identified around the entire perimeter of the site except adjacent to the south property P ! p p rty line where it is intended that the cul- de-sac will be extended to serve the adjacent vacant parcel. The number of stalls has been calculated for each lot based on an anticipated building p d ng use. A detailed analysis of the required number of parking spaces has been provided b P by i the applicant and is included on the site plan sheet. Based on the anticipated use of P o each of the buildings, 238 spaces are required and 238 spaces are P rovided for the overall development. Section 401.15.F.18 requires that at least one loading berth be provided per commercial l P P a and industrial uses and two shall be required for buildings that are 10,000 square feet or more. Loading berth areas have been identified on the rear of the ro p osed buildings. P P s. g Landscaping Plan. A landscape plan has been provided for ° P P p o the site. As part of the concept plan review and as a condition of approval, more plantings were to be added around the perimeter of the site, as outlined in Section 401.15.E.10. A tree inventory of the site has been provided. There are 126 significant trees on the site and 74 are to be removed. Consistent with the ordinance the trees must be replaced based on the caliper inches lost, either in plantings or a cash equivalent. g q The landscaping plan and tree preservation plan have both been by the City Arborist who will work with the applicants to add additional lantin s and/or provide p g P cash payment to replace caliper inches lost. Signage. A signage plan has been submitted that indicates three freestanding ee reestand�ng tenant identification signs. Section 401.300.N limits the number of freestanding signs to one 9 g per principal use and requires a comprehensive signage plan for the entire 1 ro'ect. Six P freestanding monument signs would be allowed for this development. The signage lan . p P indicates three signs and each will be double sided and will have two panels, one for each building in the development. There is no wall signage ro proposed. An P P Any modifications proposed to the sign plan will be subject to the PUD amendment P rocess. Trash. Section 401.300.K of the Zoning Ordinance requires that trash receptacles be q P located within a structure consistent with the design of the rinci al building. The P P g details of the trash enclosures are attached and indicate that the enclosures will be constructed of materials that are similar to the buildings and painted to match. 3 Outdoor Recreation. A plan for the outdoor recreation area between Lots D and F has been submitted. The area is fenced and is associated with a current tenant in an existing building. The plan includes a sandbox, patio, trail, benches and landscaping. Lighting. As required by Section 401.15.6.7, the developer has submitted plans that indicate the location of existing and proposed lighting. The plan reflects the use of shoebox style fixtures for lights on poles but identifies wall pack units for building lighting. All lighting fixtures shall be a full cutoff style with a shielded light source. Grading and Drainage Plans. A general grading and drainage plan has been submitted and is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Additionally, the City Engineer will review the plan and make recommendation regarding the drainage and stormwater requirements for the site. Watershed District approval of the plan is also required. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. Design Guidelines. Building plans have been submitted for each of the new buildings. The buildings propose a combination of concrete tip up panels (Grade II material) and glass (Grade I material) in an earth tone color to match the existing s buildings. Awnings g are shown over the main entrances on each of the buildings and a painted stripe is proposed on the structure to be built on lot B. The combination of materials is consistent with the Design Guidelines. There are several overhead doors on each of the buildings. The color of the doors should match the color of the building. There is a proposed addition identified for the building on Parcel C. If the expansion is to proceed it will be subject to site plan review and an amendment to the PUD prior to any work commencing. Phasing. A phasing plan has been submitted that indicates site development will begin in the year 2000 and will continue through 2004. Development Agreement. A development agreement will be required between the City and developer subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Our office recommends approval of the general plan, site plan and plat for W.A.T.E. Enterprises Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. Association Documents providing access and cross easements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Attorney. • • 2. The north and south cul -de -sacs shall be constructed concurrently with the development of the buildings in 2000. No parking shall be allowed on the access drives or cul -de -sacs. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. The tree replacement plan and calculations are subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 4. The signage shall be limited to three, two sided freestanding monument signs as proposed. Any modifications to the sign plan shall require an amendment to the PUD. 5. All light fixtures shall be a full cut off style fixture with a shielded light source. 6. Expansion of Building C shall be subject to a PUD amendment and site plan review process. 7. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Watershed District. 9. The overhead doors on all buildings shall match the color of the structure. • 10. A development agreement between the City and applicant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. pc: Kris Danielson 5 .,�,ltli 11111 + '` 1 a•� / 1 111 t I III IIII lil 111 I ii II 1 II'. 1 jl 01,11 II F11 11111,'111,11 II' 161'! !III1111111 61 1,11 111 1 ; t i E illllllllil ++ ^11:11111 II 111„1 A1'1'111 IP:111111111 . Ilikil ' IIItl!Illt, I rd l rnllflnr tii i - 1_ - . .+11111111 1! 111;11111 :t r.:'1 t 111111111111111°' : +.� 1 11.. 1111+'•. ..e .. 111 'ter ^ �� ! `1111 1111 11! {illlitirtl I I1! 111d 111 +:_t1± , °� l t1'�11 11111 11 1 ,.,. " 1' \1111111' Ijltilll II '.11'11' Iii 111111,,, --. 1 N11 tit f •" ;`� N t 1 f1 _ . tt toll :Iitit llltl 1f1IlE!1111 Its I II, III 11uII I. 1 1111 , 11 111 1 1/1111111:^ 1 16111,1111 Illlrf 11 1111111111 711111 1111111, 11111: 1111111 .111111111 ,t11i11t111 1(111111' 11111 .111111 III 11111111 11111111111 11111111 11 11111/11 I1111ft11 111111111111 11111. Dill, .11,111,11 IItIuu 11I111n 11111111111 1111111117 11!11111111 j1 ll k 111 ! 111611 .111 111 : : I 1111111111(11, tills 1!tll 111 II MI,: t If1' 1 111 111111 NIP Ik tll 11111' 1�1� 111111 III 11 lilll? all 111111 •1;111 1111!! I 11 111 . :: l If1 ' -;111111nil I_N1�1iIlmom 1111111111111111 111111161' 1111 kill ra iiiikibi ria,Ri wil. 1 al. . , ,..„ 1 1 lirp opli r 4,0 alb. A 4M ii 44 *1111 Ire 1 111 ii iM • ea i Jo filol iainve wil 'In ■4 lir mu tfiltilb It kvegulliiiiiirwgr nitk.N IMIKL. lain 1:1011.211 )11111ki, I itivar 4 4■41 iprAwil I skirs..4 bp,„,4%di a 4 LAIIP r i 111 746 I ,11 h.._ _„, alt I MraraviaaleiliF0 I 4tagm01111 big 1 hi 4% I AM • EXHIBIT A 1 • 111.10.1111.111.11.111111•■■•■•• a n-EtaA le-Mottlan 17 • 1N3W3SV3 ONIONOd puonaM 6unsix3 3OVNIV80 NVS • en , N - T NYS v >tome g b 15 8 .1r5 , b li 3 8 at vs- b a 8 '0 32 b 8 b S 1 0/ NYS 1 s I I I „ i )•1 .do o Existing Wetland 1,�. %., N • _ i DRAINAGE AND PONDING EASEMENT / ./N__ ...... . ...... . —/ V J / / wwwrww www w••"� i . i w w ~ V ./ j sgT, Z� P s I • . , , BLOCK 2 1 Y i! g I; if N 4. CO CO rt io • N 1 04! ref; e; igl 'Tia Xgiga ;-1 11 ?Qs ;01 m „„„ X --q.d.r 0 SAN z i 1 '4n ;;4 Rock rutts t sUki • 4* SR ® 12" DIP WA T£RMAIN SAN KOCK oN • J/4" 44 SAN % IP3' "17 frE raw" f A :a i r § ii 1 1 gi gig 14 1 4 a fili 2 9 s 21 2 Iq ,, r t 1 if i 11 i 1 fh i N ifi! fili ifil NI ff! i0 §7, :00 fiq't m ; § >. ff'2 Nu ru u'i u NN � Nu r uN i4 N 411 N1� tU 414 "TA N x " x "� x il W U b+ tN M 4+ N N N u . m M V I i ID J 12" DIP IN TERMAIN = a SAN s 1:1 ?). g t" illp ri EP Ciz7 ...0,, 8, . 4i1 r704 , IP §2 1! 2' lig .• g Nc tp t 0. O V 0 ig 01 -4 q i i • 1 g r. r il-3 t -1-4 C g s 0 Cf) it 8 tiri a i o r G' n y 0 NVs Cr) • - " puonom 5unslx3 1N3113SV3 ONIONOd a V 3OVNIV80 11 .. . /41111 nal Mita T .- NYS v • s2roo v1 4 NYS MO0'1E1 NYS a n traA v - raw-wif 635. NI WV 831 VIA (PO .Z1 • Q leas NYS tJ !, e g NYS a I tv ww 4 u g gf an z • SAN I c4 0 2 f 1 1 1 12" DIP WA TERAIAIN BLOCK • ( O SAN —4— SAN 1S\ N\ MI PO Pr" A 4L1Cg M000.0 111111NOU$ i . A.VIA AtAfh, NNA --4c- SAN • "., 34 irrrE nr5b Memori I Avenue No th I • „. J _ SAN 1.1.1•■•1011*.M.s 5 5 .4, Ak ••■•■•■■■ 1 1 1 ..--- 1 1 tr DIP e ATERMAtN 1111411).. 1N3NOSV3 ONIONOd 0 1 ■ 43 . , ..• •• .414111. .1111: • • • SO )0 .......... 0 0 / Existing Wetlond A „..., , ■ N 111 .„, — DRAINAGE AND PONDING EASEMENT •"*". e- I 9 I ; ; ; u t"t 51 1 11 stI Act 5d I ; A t, N I J .. sJo1f r - .. .. _ nob - 4 _ to s190.3- I I I T i 1 .1:, 11) ---- \ t L... IMO . 1 • ----4 I --J. I e l — i V e' IIIIIII : ( ii 1 ' n PHASE—YEAR 2003-2004 4' P „ 00,0 0 . 33S .1 tor um / 'I 7 12 H E 523.50 4... 4 -- 1 I ‘1,101 • • 1 4 I iv s • ir If ft . .. le 00 • • • 1 40 -r4 1N3113Sd1 ONIONOd ONY 3OYNId80 PuolwM bul }alx3 5 If hi Id u •r w oO' a l4O e l e).l s y d e d• MAMA a,ZL- gb (1.99) :> y 006b-b9b (1.99) 01 1.99 NW 'Ined'3S • peOm ®.1ofle1 OSQE iiitIntH4111110 w.rvAT an uan v Y1083NNIV1 'A1Nf10o NOl'JNIHSYM S1HJI3H Nadd MO A0 ll1l3 '3NI `S3SI8d831N3 1 N 11001d vas •LL roMa ;ru =DO :AO P15YNO N N %11V *V' muss*, N Mi'11o1 sumo sown O M" itS 4434.4+, m X of cw 4. a 4 10 CO IiUU a I 41 gi I re f 55 ; Oil I 51 11 iflUli I g [ I /411111 i t I - Me-mortal zog « oo.oN gas T VMNN1►WW.h'NV►W1Mnnr�w 4 Avenue e - North j N A S r w . ........... ............ 8 t , iti t itg .01, O O l . P9 2, t • � to 0 0 oiors co ii ig b A �. O i 2. ."z gir; y �o • tiT1 4(T, Crl I t 1 cks m r� 0 h w 'r•`I- `a'Y lt �r ' Nt y l ....1 N /! • � I W.1 ..: .. t •; ., ,. .. � ♦ .VM!IatMl1 � .yrt �Nn/t:a'..:'.t.�N�h.i�r•i�'.alh ni *f =.� :rt :�ec�( ?r rt „C� i i i 3o�ie a n U A 1117f.10 1119K • y 411W” 411 Amor wow wir 0 ree mig g aell Oar = mV mum ow ow one am 21 NA!. NM NM MN MN ow Imo = Nom MN +� N err am maw pm MI UM MN WM 111110._ MON IMO NM ism am mail Ism row are ammo IMIMOR WM ammi mime si mom AIM Warn sum swim vow MN NM am ail IMO EOM ININN MI Sin NM NM Mil ONiNN NNW NM NMI pew ow MOM. MN sem awn r mom M "min .11w..S all IMM NMI pone me i __IN moo nig mom INN UMW 011 1 OUR 11 .11 Finee um INIPM Mil NM MIN NMI MIMI WO _ � _ MN! Nevi mom mop mop gm sup lips um min am Noma Imo ausi Mrs oft WINN IIMi mon imam aNNII MIMI MI NM MOM Isms w• WNW MAI NM Now Nome moo ow moo Noe Iwo INN MU NMI NIMI MIN MIMI MIN MIN mom Now Nom NUN 11111111 INIII aim Nome NW swop NOM Mama aloft mos mil MN MOO MINIO OM Mil NMI aim SIM NONS IMP Maw ume mum= ONE NININ NW Ma NEN aft. am =9:2 I = 1111= Mili la MO IMMIN MN • (1 a_ • �i 1.... 0.111.7001,140.10 'AileuSprep wrest Mum sow vs.srp.p. •11111.4 tsp. Vielf•PAP • • —~� .1~Z ° 3 � ^ / | / |. >�- t ' '-—«� r 3 / 4 1c7z::dn rig .�� — = ____ • • • // • • ,., . = t. (� | } /. || / / / — l/ | / / � x mu opf oixI 13 7:4 • I 0' tit t 0 e 0 cl+ r' - rZV:T:ETEKTreCizf&ISEZ... . _ 1 __Lide.6*, Fro Firs 'WTX: • 01Z111 4 •;, • .■ I I • . • • • • ;r r r • .• • • • • • • .• • • • • r .1 • designery, architecture • assdaug wiled. alas.. oaks, maim. llostilmle etwelateita. acerb esrtitod • p.o.bas 47 $.Mdl. mai stinwstar. s SSW Wft' 411,34111$ • - Mtn, Intl mill... .. ... . • • _ - ---- now on.....tompi• pipes i pumas , It 1 .1 1 .•d .6.... .......erwrsena.u• WO." ....1... ean16olytio.til 4 ,..1eufflaep •• • • ••• • f •• ...„ I ir I •• • • .11111•11111101 • 1•••••••■•, • • . • 1. • • . • • s- : **. • 0 .011 . 91- Ve47Id ; o ocz 1 94-1111Er* Ca S. 09 _ sgsNisaq MN 111111111 = rZBSEEENIMCITS.. • - 0 • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Meiena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: April 19, 2000 RE: • Oak Park Heights - WATE PUD Concept Plan Review FILE NO: 798.02 - 00.07 The Planning Commission, at their April 13, 2000 meeting, voted unanimously to 410 recommend the PUD concept plan for property located on the west side of Memorial Avenue North. The total site is 8.93 acres and is platted into three lots. The area was annexed into the City in 1998. The request for concept plan review would allow for construction of one additional building on Memorial Avenue with buildings to the rear accessed via private roadways with turnarounds. The City will require the applicant to subdivide the property so that each building footprint and expansion area will be a separate lot, with common ownership of all drive aisles, parking areas and green space. A preliminary /final plat for this project will be required as part of General Plan review. The applicants were available for questions at the meeting. No adjacent property owners spoke at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended the PUD Concept Plan approval with the conditions found in the Planning Report as follows: 1. The City will require the applicant to create a condominium ownership where the building footprints, including expansion areas will be under individual ownership and the green space, parking and drive aisle areas will be owned in common. The City will require submittal of the documents establishing the common ownership and easements subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM EXHIBIT 0 2. A site plan with private cul -de -sac turnarounds internal to the site will be required by the City subject to review and approval of City staff. 3. The entire perimeter of the parking lots shall include a concrete curb barrier. 4. A revised landscape plan indicating additional green spacefand landscaping shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. A tree inventory of the site and conformance with the tree replacement standards shall be required and be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 5. A utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. A phasing plan should be submitted for site development. 7. Grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Watershed District. 8. A development agreement between the City and applicant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 9. Detailed plans to conform with ordinance requirements shall be submitted as part of general plan review including the following: a. Parking lot b. Loading berths c. Lighting d. Landscaping /green space e. Design review f. Preliminary plat g. Comprehensive signage plan h. Site plan review i. Trash enclosures j. Outdoor recreation areas pc: Kris Danielson • krisDanielson,S/1/OO 1:38 PM - 0600,W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. To: KrisDanielson From: "K.D. Widin" <kWidin @2tatattpCC . org> Subject: W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. Cc: Bcc: X- Attachments: Kris, I have reviewed the latest landscape plan as well as the tree preservation plan for the W.A.T.E. Enterprises project. The landscape plan is acceptable. The species chosen are hardy, have few insect and disease problems and should be relatively maintenance -free. I will be talking to Heins Nursery this week regarding the species selection for the revised green space area between two of the front buildings, and I anticipate no problems with the plants chosen for that area. Regarding the tree preservation plan, I would like to have the construction limits staked and meet on site with the land surveyor and the property owner to determine if any changes could be made to the development plan in order to save several large bur oak in the northwest corner of the property. These trees are the largest bur oak I have seen in Oak Park Heights. They are in fairly good condition and should be retained if possible. Saving these trees would, at the very least, reduce the tree replacement required for the development. Kathy Widin Municipal Arborist City of Oak Park Heights Printed for "K.D. Widin" <kwidin @mmnlpcc.org> 1 a Z_ Z 0_ z • ^ > 4.. CC M (/) pZ 0.) 4.4 N" w c � o^ z z 2 LL ce w Q co �r- w ac oc 0 g gg, 1 0 i .i 1 g 1 N 4; w Q § u .4 I I 4 o H .1 j & 0 8 ti U I .‘ a i . 4 a a a w° I u p 1 . Q w 4 " U u a 0. O A 1 8 s u O g 2 u .O .s ad t i 2 'o 'a J..), 1 A w 0 c 0 a 1 vi 'a cA p Q 11 a I.4 o a E A u g 2 1 w a W U 1 V a t ki . i w .D Et: 0 W ° a ° i v 'd u IQ 1 4 O 4 w 0 0 5 u 0 w 0 I A s Q n3 2 i• g 1 ill U 0 V O 0 w u 0 U U w A O .o 2 z V a m a Co aaa co • Z Z 6 zz 1 —J N a. w 0 z h Q Z 2 . ce . C7 3� C) Z � 't .> rt ro z c OZ z t J W CC ro Z a co W ri „ z 0 H H z Pal > g H PT4 W W a (f) • 11•11•MINO 111•11111111111 41111111111111 - - ao co fit _H I 7 � w h ence wg o v a W N i nI/\I 1 1 r 1 V \J I ...1_ I ■...J V r r � fill Eg t i!g �� Si; Sn v s b `: pi it) iv 51 lie 0 . nI\ I -7 `..II VC' rii80l 4 3i it Lai V . 1 V INON3 Al 0r=2'= g..zu l.tCN 1 ` 1 \) r•1 n ' •1 ' 1 ,'1 %) V 1 `� \1 1 1 nI 1 n nl \I i_LI V_J\/ I V( I 1 • r sr 00'0 1 3J1.1 1.11W A 1 I nj l j v w ` t 1 . • - - -•5p� � 163 75 ' L sr IP ; � b s b?�' �t •�.ri rFrei • %/ ▪ 1 0aim o r sr OS'161 3.11.E 1. ft'N ! L CO u ' s Q a di A il , 1 �1 A h e, v. P v 4 . 9! 4 . 4 o a /:■ r 4 4 .1 P A P j .41 4` '� 1Z.- • �I 4 N ki .i` _ ____ •' 5 e 1 4„1/4 s r �6�.sa Y -•••Y i es .s `'�"s,io•.a .e w 255.6i s< • tN i• A. i ` *.? 6 4 195. • • 176' �� 53 5.77 S22 . 0 0'00 Or ofo _ ..._.•••. • v NYS Nlvwr/31 ,�,�,lo Mti 1 � 14 4.4 W c� .� rn c91 c w uo Zw o g ° 4t 1 0 NVS 1 n I 1 '_/ I \I I_i_IV'_J V w �• i _...... -• - r.r._...�.... . w• NVS S22°00'00 z O A w a 535. _ / N w .h w O 6 E O O Q 9 . ba N �s; 8 • b • g § Cg s 0 r2 8 o a L ♦ I_r%•1♦ \J / '1 0 . 1 ∎ J \J 1 (1n 1 -7 \ 1 1 n 1 - 1n n I\ I -- 1\ _ 1 VIN ( 2 - J_ i N 1 V( 1_J,>1 a � naA v � 1 i .j. M 111. NVS 0 . k 1 1 .. A . la ..... ,.. 1`t11•trVIArnlAt'l V I v 1!?■I 1_J/ 1 0 NV 1VM dl0 „ZI `r 0 I �Ji ViViVi 1 I 33 I aniy o 4 »Y sr? N111lnlip 1 f NVS R NYS `0 0 o� 00 *t« 4 N s 4- 0 3 9 1 N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS IN C rA COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: May 3, 2000 RE: Oak Park Heights - Design Guidelines Adoption FILE NO: 798.04 - 00.04 r Y 3 As you are aware, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Central Business District Design Guidelines as presented at their April 13, 2000 meeting. The CBD Design Guidelines would be in addition to the existing Design Guidelines that regulate building construction and site design in the commercial and industrial districts. The City Attorney, Mark Vierling, has determined that the Code of Ordinances should be amended to provide for the existing as well as proposed CBD Design Guidelines. Mr. Vierling has developed an ordinance that would create Section 401.16 providing for design guidelines. A copy of the draft ordinance is attached. One key point of the ordinance is that the provisions of the Design Guidelines would apply if there are conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has discussed how the CBD Design Guidelines would integrate with the existing g zoning requirements and which sections may result in code differences. A listing of those areas in which the Design Guidelines differ from the Zoning Ordinance is as follows: 1. Building Setbacks: Zoning Ordinance (401.15.C.1) No minimum setbacks required. CBD Design Guidelines (4a -d) Flexible standards are specified with minimum and maximum setbacks depending upon development type. 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 NAC@ WINTERNET.COM 2. Roof Design: Zoning Ordinance (401.02.B and 401.15.4) CBD Design Guidelines (6, 7, and 8) 3. Surface Parking: Zoning Ordinance (401.15.F.9 & 10) CBD Design Guidelines (16) 4. Signs: Zoning Ordinance (401.15.G) Building height definition allows for all roof styles No allowance for rooftop terraces No allowance for third story setbacks Specifies preferred roof styles Allows for rooftop terraces Allows for third story setbacks Specific requirements for number of spaces per type of use. Allows for joint facility parking. The City may need to add standards for additional flexibility in parking for downtown areas. Credits could be given for on- street parking and additional flexibility for joint parking utilization should be added for the CBD. These changes would be made as a separate Zoning Ordinance amendment. Specifies preferred location for parking lots and underground parking areas. Provides specific size and height requirements for signage. Prohibits certain signs such as projecting or roof signage. The City may wish to re- examine the sign allowances for the CBD to determine if they are appropriate for the development anticipated. These changes could be made as a separate Zoning Ordinance amendment. CBD Design Guidelines (19 b, c, & d) Allows for certain sign types such as projecting and roof. 5. Definitions: Zoning Ordinance (401.02.B) CBD Design Guidelines • pc: Kris Danielson Specifies Zoning Ordinance definitions. Some definitions vary from those specified in the Zoning Ordinance. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2000-401- ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS TO INCORPORATE AND REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Amendment. That Chapter 401 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Oak Park Heights is herewith amended to add a new provision 40 1.16 providing for design guidelines as follows: 40 1.16. Design Guidelines. The City of Oak Park Heights does herewith include and adopt design guidelines to coordinate themes for site design, architecture, parking lot g �p g design, pedestrian/bike access, environment, utilities and signage for all commercial and industrial properties in the city. The design guidelines shad be enforced for all new construction and/or re- construction and remodeling where a building permit is required and all areas designated for commercial and industrial use in the City of Oak Park Heights' Comprehensive Plan including all of the businesses and industrial zoning districts and all the commercial and industrial areas zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, central business district or other commercially zoned areas of the City of Oak Park Heights as are displayed in the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance and map. The specific design guidelines shall be set forth within a manual available for distribution at the office of the City Administrator for the City of Oak Park Heights, which manual and provisions therefore may be amended by resolution of the City Council from time to time. In the application of this ordinance, should the provisions as contained within the design guidelines be in conflict with other provisions set forth within the text of the zoning code, the design guidelines shall apply. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota, on this day of , 2000. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS • INII NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS I NC COMMUNITY PL - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: April 4, 2000 RE: Oak Park Heights — Public/Institutional District FILE NO: 798.04 — 00.03 4 ARP 4 Please find enclosed an outline for a Public/Institutional District to id for t � -- District c0 be considered i�ir the City of Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance. The issue of - • a Public/Institutional District has been discussed for some time in that all institutional uses in the City are zoned 0, Open Space i Conservation District. The rims u ose of t i . primary purpose that district is to provide a transitional zone for undeveloped property until it is zoned to the appropriate ' upon development. pp opr�ate district The 0, Open Space District would be amended and a new district would be created to provide for public facilities, schools, colleges, correctional facilities ' hospitals, nursing homes, and other related uses. Creating a zoning district will raise ' g 9 arse issues with what is to be included in the district and what ro erties are to be re p p rezoned. The affected property owners would need to be involved early in the process so that Y p at they clearly understand what the City is trying to accomplish. We should try to ' p ry avoid the situation created when establishing the B -3 District and rezoning the Kern Center. er. As such, a careful and thoughtful approach should be taken with this rezoning process. g p cess. The issues to be discussed include but are not limited to the following: 9 1. Churches. Shall churches remain as conditional in the residential ' districts or allow only in the Public/Institutional District? They could be allowed districts. Y d � n both 2. Schools and Churches -- Permitted Versus Conditional. Many other cities sties ai low churches and schools as permitted uses in their Public/Institutional Districts. Do we want to allow the primary use as permitted but all the related uses, such as athletic facilities for schools and social service activities for churches, as 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 NAC@ WINTERNET.COM conditional? Oak Park Heights has been able to carefully regulate the high a0 , 3ueJtoI activities through the conditional use permit process. Does the City want to change that? 3. Cemeteries and Memorial Gardens. versus conditional? 4. Limited Retail Commercial Activities. Do we want to allow limited retail commercial activities in the district? The ordinance would specify a 15 percent maximum gross floor area allowance. 5. Public/Governmental Uses. The district, as drafted, appears to favor governmental units in that all the public uses are permitted and everything private is conditional. 6. Living Quarters. Should these uses be conditional or accessory? Copies of a draft Public/Institutional District and an amended 0, Open Space District are attached. The Planning Commission should discuss these issues at their April 13, 2000 meeting. A public hearing on this item could be held at the May 11, 2000 meeting if the Planning Commission determines that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are appropriate. pc: Kris Danielson Is there any reason for this to be permitted • OAK PARK HEIGHTS - ZONING ORDINANCE P-I, PUBLIC - INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT SECTION 401.320 PURPOSE: The P -I District is intended to provide a specific district p peci�c zoning distnct for facilities directed to serving the public and specialized government - p g nt and semi-public uses. It is unique in that the primary objective of uses within this district • act is the provision of services, frequently on a non - profit basis, rather than the sale of o • gods or services. It is intended that uses within such a district will be compatible with adjoining • p � Wing development, and they will be located on or in proximity to a collector street or arterial street. PERMITTED USES: 1. Publicly owned civic or cultural buildings such as libraries, • g ryes, city. offices,.. auditoriums, community centers, public administration buildings and historical sites. rtes. 2. Parks and recreational fields, i ,structures and buildings. 3. Governmental and public regulated utility buildings, • y g ,structures and essential services necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 4. Cellular telephone antennas located on a ublic structure ucture as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 5. Cemeteries or memorial gardens. 6. Day care nurseries. INTERIM USES: 1. None. ACCESSORY USES: DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT 4/4/2000 1. Accessory uses customarily incidental to the uses er ' p matted in Sections 401.320.B, 401.320.C, and 401.320.D of this Ordinance. Fences as regulated by Section 401.15.0 of this Ordinance. 3. Off- street parking and loading areas regulated by Section 401.15.E of this Ordinance. 4. Parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields related to those uses permitted in Sections 401.320.B, 401.320.C, 401.320.D of this Ordinance. 5. Signage as regulated by Section 401.15.G of this Ordinance. 6. Radio and television receiving antennas including single dish TVROs two (2 meters or Tess in diameter, short -wave radio dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of household electronic equipment including radio receivers, federally licensed amateur radio stations and television receivers, as regulated by Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 7. Living quarters of persons employed on the premises. CONDITIONAL USES: 2 1. Private and public pre - school, elementary, junior or senior high schools p rovided that: a. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. b. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. d. Adequate off- street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. e. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. • • 2. Private and public colleges, seminaries, and other institutions of higher education provided that: a. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. b. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. d. Adequate off - street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. e. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Religious institutions, such as chapels, temples, synagogues, • p p y gogues, and mosques limited to worship and related social events p rovided that: a. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, ,but no greater than fifty (50) feet. b. Adequate screening from abutting residential • g I uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off- street parking and access is provided o p on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding p ending and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. Ordinance. d. Adequate off- street loading and service entrances rances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. e. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 3 4. Hospitals and residential care facilities provided that: a. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational areas. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. g. All state laws and statutes goveming such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are secured. c. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. d. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. e. Adequate off- street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal ' . Y p opal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking 9 is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. o f this Ordinance. f. Adequate off- street loading and service entrances are p irovided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. 5. Correctional facilities and shelters provided that: 4 The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. a. Facilities shall comply with all applicable codes and regulations and shall have, current and in effect, the appropriate state licenses. b. On -site services and treatment shall be for residents and inmates of the facility only, and shall not be for non - residents or persons outside the facility. Y c. All new buildings or additions to existing buildings shall be consistent with the scale and character of the buildings in the neighborhood. Exterior building materials shall also be harmonious with other buildings in the neighborhood. d. No correctional facility shall be closer than one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet from another licensed correctional facility or from any • 1• e. The conditional use permit is only valid as long as a valid state license is held by the operator of the facility where such license is required. f. Appropriate transition to neighboring property shall be provided by landscaping and site design consistent with the City ordinances and policies. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. property designated on the Land Use Guide Plan as residential and/or designated on the official zoning map as residential. h. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.'15.E. of this Ordinance. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. k. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 6. Nursing homes, residential care facilities, and similar ' filar group housing provided that: a. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, ct, but no greater than fifty (50) feet. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses ' 9 and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on • p the site or on Tots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal y principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding ending and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this ' Ordinance. d. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances es are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. 5 7. Outdoor recreation areas including golf courses, community clubs, swimming ools and similar facilities provided that: e. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. a. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. b. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Adequate off - street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. d. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Day care, social services or other non - directly related worship activities an accessory use within a religious institutional building(s) provided that: a. Adequate off- street loading and drop -off areas are rovided and regulated p 9 where applicable by Section 401.03.F. of this Ordinance. b. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 9. Limited retail commercial activities and personal services, p rovided that: a. Merchandise is sold at retail. b. Personal services are limited to those uses and activities which are allowed as a permitted or permitted accessory use within the B -1 Zoning District. c. The retail activity and personal services are located within a structure whose principal use is not commercial sales. d. The retail activity and personal services shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the building. 6 • e. The retail activity and personal services are not located within a structure whose principal use is residential. f. No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or sign in excess of ten (10) square feet identifying the name of the business shall be visible from the outside of the building. g. No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale or services shall be visible from the outside of the building. h. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. a. 7 10. Buildings in excess of height limitations as specified in Section 401.15.C.2 of this Ordinance provided that: The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinanceare considered and satisfactorily met. 11. Reduction in lot area requirements P rovided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. • 12. Cellular telephone towers and antennas not located on a public structure, provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. SECTION 401.21 PERMITTED USES: INTERIM USES: 1. None. DRAFT -DRAFT -DRAFT OAK PARK HEIGHTS - ZONING ORDINANCE 0, OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PURPOSE: The 0, Open Space Conservation District is intended to provide a district which will allow suitable areas of the City to be retained and utilized for new low density residential, open space, agricultural uses and provide a "holding" zone for newly annexed lands to ensure that development will be staged to maintain reasonable economy in public expenditures for public utilities and service. 4/4/2000 1. Farming and agricultural related buildings and structures subject to Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, but not including commercial feedlots or other commercial operations. 2. Nurseries, tree farms and greenhouses all for the growing of lants, but not to include p nclude retail sales. 3. Single family dwellings. 4. Essential services. 5. Day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons. 6. Residential care facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. 7. Cellular telephone antennas located on a public structure as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. ACCESSORY USES: • 1. Operation and storage of such vehicles, equipment and machinery which are incidental to permitted or conditional uses allowed in this district. 2. Not more than four (4) boarders and/or roomers by a resident family. 3. Living quarters of persons employed on the premises. 4. Home occupations. 5. Recreational vehicles and equipment. 6. Swimming pool, tennis courts and other recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their guests, when fully in compliance with all applicable State standards. 7. Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supplies and non- commercial recreational equipment. Private garages, parking spaces and carports for licensed and operable passenger cars and trucks. • 9. Radio and television antennas including single satellite dish TVROs one (1) meter or less in diameter, short-wave radio dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of household electronic equipment including radio receivers, federally licensed amateur radio stations and television receivers, as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. • CONDITIONAL USES: 1. Single satellite dish TVROs greater than one (1) meter in diameter provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2. Cellular telephone antennas not located on a public structure provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.8 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2 Citv Park Heights Commission Update To: Planning Commission Members From Julie Hultman, Community Develop Date May 5, 2000 Re: Planning Commission Applicant Update • Page 1 en ENCLOSURE 5 To date, we have had one application submitted for the open seat on the Planning Commission. We have made mention of the vacancy in the City Newsletter, which should be printed and mailed out very soon and will be mentioning it in the Stillwater Gazette City Page. The Stillwater Gazette has also noted the vacancy in its regular news printing. We are hopeful for several applicants to fill the vacancy and encourage you to mention the opening to your neighbors or other residents of the community that you feel might find the position interesting and rewarding.