HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-04 NAC Planning ReportBACKGROUND
Attached for reference:
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5776 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St, Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952,595,9636 Facsimile: 952,595.9337 planners@nacplahning.rom
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Judy Hoist, Acting Administrator
FROM: Mike Darrow 1 Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2003
FILE: 798.02 - 03.04
Exhibit A: Applicant's Letter
Exhibit B: Engineer's Report
Exhibit 0: Title Sheet
RE: Oak Park Heights - W.A.T.E PUD Concept and General Plan of
Development Amendment, Site Plan Review - 5610 Memorial Avenue
North
W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. has submitted an application for Concept and General Plan
of Development and site plan review for the construction of an office/warehouse and
cold storage building to the west of 5600 Memorial Avenue North. The property is
zoned B-3, Highway Business and Warehousing District. This development is part of a
larger development area that includes over 10.2 acres north and east of the proposed
site. This area was annexed to the City in 1998.
Currently W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. owns six buildings and H.S.I, Inc. owns one
building in the W.A.T.E. Addition of the Kern Center. W.A.T.E. Enterprises has had the
option to build additional buildings on Lot 4, which would make a total eight buildings,
including H.S.I.'s building. The applicant has submitted plans to build a 12,800 square
foot office/warehouse building and 3,816 square foot cold storage facility on Lot 4.
Additional parking areas are also proposed.
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved the Concept Plan
for this area of the W.A.T.E. development in July 2002. This plan is a significant
departure from the previous plan because of the addition of the cold storage building.
Proposed OfficelWarehouse
12,800
square feet
Proposed Storage Area
3,816
square feet
Parking and hard surface area
77,498
square feet
Total Impervious Surface area
94,114
square feet
Non - Impervious Area
18,224
square feet
Percent of Green Space
19 %
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit!:
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions/Demo Plan
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
Utility Plan
Layout and Circulation Plan
Planting Plan
City Arborist's Comments
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 Warehousing District. The
existing lots meet the lot performance standards of the B -3 District in terms of width and
area requirements.
Subdivision. This lot has been previously platted as Lot 4, Block 2, Kern Center, 2nd
Addition.
Lot Coverage. 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. Below is a breakdown of the area:
Based on the proposed figures, the applicant does not meet the 20 percent green space
requirement. The applicant will be required to modify the plan to meet this requirement.
Access /Circulation. Access and circulation within the proposed development is
consistent with the overall circulation patterns of the existing buildings in that traffic will
flow between buildings. Access and traffic circulation will be subject to the review and
approval of the Fire Chief to determine if there is adequate turning radius for safety
vehicles between the building and storage facility. The access and circulation plan will
also be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Off-Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading is regulated under
Section 401.15F of the Zoning Code. This requires, among other items, that the entire
perimeter of the lot include concrete curb barriers that must be setback 10 feet from any
lot line. The applicant does not meet the 10 -foot requirement on the southeastern
corner of the site.
A detailed analysis of the required number of parking spaces was provided by the
applicant as part of the May 4, 2000 and June 28, 2002 PUD reports. According to the
PUD, there are currently 260 parking stalls required. Currently 284 parking stalls exist.
According to Section 401.15 F.9 of the Zoning Code, parking spaces required for
warehousing and storage is based on the number of employees of the largest shift or
one space per 1,500 square feet of floor area. Additional parking requirements for
areas identified as office space are also required. The applicant will need to identify the
proposed square footage of all office space within the plan in order to calculate the total
parking spaces needed for both uses. Currently, the applicant is proposing 46
additional parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing loading docks as part of the warehouse structure. Four 12 x
12 and four 8 x 9 foot overhead doors are located on the western side of the
development. The proposed site does allow for adequate turning radius for trucks. The
applicant should identify the proposed location of snow storage.
Landscaping Plan. The proposed warehouse and storage buildings will result in a loss
of 48 mature trees including Elm, Hackberry, and Oak with an average diameter of 13
inches. The applicant is proposing 32 shrubs to the south and east of the proposed
building. Four Ash trees are proposed to the south and southeast of the proposed
building. The applicant will be responsible for all fees associated with tree replacement.
The tree replacement fee will be set by the City Arborist. A tree replacement agreement
and landscaping plan will be subject to the review and approval of the City Arborist.
Signage. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan. If signs are proposed they will
be subject to review under Section 401.300.N of the Zoning Code.
Trash. According to Section 401.300.K of the Zoning Code, trash receptacles must be
fully screened and be consistent with the design of the principle building. The applicant
is proposing a trash enclosure area north of the proposed cold storage area. The
exterior finish of the trash enclosures will be painted concrete block and is consistent
with the existing building to the east. The applicant is also proposing to have wood
gates as part of the trash enclosure.
Lighting. Two Tight poles exist on the eastern portion of the proposed warehouse
building. It is unclear as to the location of security lighting on the eastern or western
sections of the development. The application should identify the location of all lights
and type of fixtures. A revised photometric plan is subject to the review and approval of
staff and is subject to conditions under Section 401.300.1 of the Zoning Code.
Grading and Drainage. 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 recommendations regarding the drainage and stormwater
3
requirements for the site. Brown's Creek Watershed District approval of the plan is also
required.
Wetland Mitigation. The proposed parking area and buildings will include the
construction of a retaining wall approximately 16 feet form the wetland boundary as
indicated on the plan. The applicant submitted wetland delineation information to the
City on April 2, 2003. Currently, the City Engineer is reviewing the plan to determine
appropriate buffer areas and setbacks. If additional buffer areas and/or setbacks are
required as part of the review, this will significantly impact the overall plans submitted by
the applicant and revised plans must be submitted to the City.
Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for the review and approval of the City
Engineer. The applicant has identified a fire hydrant roughly 60 feet east of the
proposed building. The Fire Chief should comment on the appropriate location of the
fire hydrant.
Design Guidelines. Building plans have been submitted for the proposed buildings.
The applicant is proposing a combination of concrete panels in colors that are
consistent with the overall Design Guidelines. Awnings are shown over the main
entrances on the principle building and a painted stripe is proposed on the structure.
There are eight overhang doors proposed as part of both buildings. The combination of
materials is consistent with the Design Guidelines and the building will be identical to
the other structures in the W.A.T.E. development.
Development Agreement Amendment. A development agreement amendment will
be required between the City and developer subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney. Cross easements will be required for the joint access driveways in the
development subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I n order to proceed with Concept and General Plan Development Amendment and Site
Plan approval, our office recommends that additional information be submitted to the
City prior to moving forward with the applications. Below are additional issues that
should be addressed. They include:
1. The applicant should identify the square footage of office space and warehouse
space to determine the appropriate parking spaces needed.
2. The access and circulation plan is subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer and Fire Chief.
3. The applicant should identify the location of snow storage within the site plan.
4
4. The applicant shall modify the site plan to meet the 20 percent green space
requirement.
5 All curb barriers shall be setback at least 10 feet from all lot lines
5
6 The landscaping plan will be subject to the review and approval of the City
Arborist.
7 The applicant shall pay a tree replacement fee set by the City Arborist.
8. The drainage and grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
9. The wetland delineation information shall be subject to the review of the City
Engineer. If additional setbacks or buffer areas are required, the applicant shall
submit to the City revised plans.
10. The applicant shall submit to the City a signed permit from the Brown's Creek
Watershed District.
11. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
12. The location of fire hydrant and sprinkler systems within both buildings shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and/or Building Official.
13. A development agreement is subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney.
14. Additional requests for information by City officials or City staff.
WA.T.E. Enterprises, Inc.
March 7, 2003
Community Development Department
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. North
P.O. Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, NMI 55082
Attention: Community Development Director
APR 3 2003
11255 50 STREET NO. * LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 * 651-439-7973
Reference: New 80' x 160' Office/Warehouse Building and 36' x 106' Cold Storage
Building.
W.A:LE. Enterprises, Inc. owns six buildings and 1-1.S.I., Inc. owns one building in the
W.A.T.E. Addition of the Kem Center. At this time we are submitting plans to build an
80' x 160' office/warehouse building and a 36' x 106' cold storage building behind 5600
Memorial Avenue North. The new building would be 5610 Memorial Avenue North.
Both of the new buildings would be constructed of the same materials to match 5600
Memorial Avenue North. The 80' x 160' building would be office/warehouse and the
36' x 106' would be used for cold storage.
For your reference, 1 am enclosing a list of contacts and information for the different
areas that will be involved in the construction of the buildings.
As we have proven in the past, we will do everything possible to ensure that the job gets
done right.
EXHIBIT A
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik
\J Associates
Engineers & Architects
March 27, 2003
Ms. Judy Hoist
Acting City Administrator
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd., P. 0. Box 2007
Oak Park. Heights, NIN 55082-2007
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an : mative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer
and Employee Owned
Principals: C.)tto G Bonestroo, PE a Marvin L. Sorvala. P.F. Glenn R. Cook, PE.. Robert G. Schunicht. P.F.
_:erry A. Bourdon, PE- Hinson, PE.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, PE. s Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.. Richard E. Turner. RE.. Susan M. Eberlin,
Associate Principals: <e A. Gordon, �'E- Robert R Pf fferle, P.E. :orchard W. F ❑seer, PE. ° David O. Loskotd. PE.
Michael T Rautmann, PE p Ted ?C Field, PE. ° Kenneth P Anderson, PE MarK R. Roils. PE David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A.
Sidney `' JVillramson, PE., L.S. Agnes M. Ring, M.3 A. a Allan ;Rick SChrf ?rd t, PE. = Thomas I Peterson. RE..
James R. Maland, PE. e Miles 8, Jensen, P.E. ti L. Phol!p Gravel ill. PE. ° Daniel J. Edgerton. PE. • Ismael Martinez, P.E. •
Thomas as A. Syfko, PE.. Sheldon J. Johnson ° Dale A. Grove, PE _ Thomas A. Roushar, E. Robert J. Devery. P.E.
offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and • Iillmar, ,VIN • Milwaukee, V/1 Crh cago,
Website: ,vvUw- bonestroo corn
Re: W 4A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. — Office/Warehouse & Cold Storage Building
5610 Memorial Avenue North
Concept Development Plan Review
Our File No. 55 -03 -000
Dear Judy:
We have reviewed the latest concept development plan for the W.A..T, E. Enterprises, Inc.
proposed office /warehouse and cold storage building at 5610 Memorial Avenue North as
submitted by Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. for W. Zintl, Inc. and have the following
comments/recommendations:
1. The proposed improvements include constructing a retaining wall for the driving/parking
area up 16' from the Wetland Boundary as shown on these plans. As the City of Oak Park
Heights' Wetland Conservation Act agent, we recommend a wetland delineation be prepared
to accurately define the existing wetland boundary and submitted for our review. Wetland
boundaries typically extend beyond the normal water level of a wetland.
2. Although the City does not have a formal Wetland Ordinance in place defining required
buffers and/or setbacks, we have been requiring these elements as part of P LTDs or
amendments to PUDs. The Brown's Creek Watershed District's (BCWD) engineer,
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR), has indicated that since this "is not a ANR
protected wetland ", the BCWD buffer requirement rules do not apply. However, once a
wetland delineation is submitted and reviewed, we will recommend minimum buffer andior
setback requirements to the City.
3, The latest plan submittal has been revised as of 3124/03 to increase the size of the future cold
storage building. We require drainage calculations for our review.
4. Mark Doneux, previous BCWD Administrator, reviewed the previous plans on October 1-1,
2002. We offer the following comments on this previous review and BC /VD Permit issued
on 9/30/02:
Mr, Doneux indicates, "It appears that all stormwater facilities for the site, were
designed, approved and constructed as part of the .Kern Center Improvements in
1999," I believe this was the intent when the Kern Center Improvements were
2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113. 6'51-636-4600 g` Fax: 651 -636 1
WHIT B
constructed, however that assumed the 42" outlet to the Kern Center Pond would be
opened and downstream improvements to the westerly wetland constructed for storm
water retention. Since that time, the BCWD has not allowed improvements to the
existing westerly wetland. As such, the existing Kern Center Pond and outlet has
reached its limit for any further development in the Kern. Center. As you know, the
City of Oak Park Heights and the BCWD are cooperatively pursuing a project to
expand the Kern Center Pond to allow for further development within the Kern
Center to meet BCWD's rules for rate and volume control. However, until such time
the Kern Center Pond is expanded, the existing pond cannot handle storm water
runoff from additional developed impervious areas.
Mr. Doneux utilized a 100 -year High Water Level (HWL) of 927.68 for the existing
wetland. We have previously modeled this entire drainage area and are using a 100 -
year HWL of 929.2. The applicant has revised his drawings to reflect the 929.2 level,
and we suggest BCWD review the number they are using. A 1 996 Washington
County topographical map showed the water level of the pond to be 928.5, which is a
good indication of the Normal Water Level (NWL) of the wetland. It appears that is
the approximate NWL of the pond today, also.
0 A BCWD Permit was issued on 9/30/02 with six conditions and one special condition
that references five more recommendations from Mr. Doneux's 10/11/02 memo. The
applicant indicated in his 3/7/03 letter to the City that he has BCWD approval. It is
my understanding from correspondence between Jay Johnson and Karen Kill,
Washington Conservation District and BCWD Administrator, that neither party has
signed the permit as of yet, and that she is verifying if any /all of the conditions of the
permit have been met.
5 . Driveway and parking area improvements are being proposed over the City's storm sewer
easement for the existing 42" storm sewer along the north side of this parcel. Verbiage
should be included in the developer's agreement (or PUD amendment) indicating that the
developer is responsible for restoring any of these surface improvements should repair or
reconstruction of the existing storm sewer ever be required.
6. The nearest existing fire hydrant on this site is approximately 300' from the proposed cold
storage building. The fire department should review these plans to verify if additional fire
pr is r ( t require hydrants with a 250' radius of buildings).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604-4815.
Sincerely,
TROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES INC
Dennis M. Postier, P.E.
BON
cc: Jay Johnson, Public Works Director
Jim Butler, Building Official
Scott Richards, City Planner (Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.)
!'lark Vierling, City Attorney (Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P.)
DMP, DDH, File — Bonestroo
K_'.55\O1d\W.A.T.E. Enterprises - 56I0_ Warehouse &c Storage BIdg. review 3- 27- 03.doc
pr. roar 31VG r:p Ucir 0530 t.O.38
� :w
� °��_
�'
K
r
+�
' x
� �Y �
d
44 W
r ':
x
o 4
�r
_ ---
rs rU�
_
� =x ...
]fib 01iSS) x CUM
vM��us�1�o*€ t
�,,,
i3
nv [o;va;Y ate
F .D1I
,
NM 1 213J.VM1111.S
�� ����ow3w 0440
�1oN tlrNHnb n
rdQ1534+��
1�J OS]NNIW `?t3ZVM1111 S
H Of1N3nb 1d1214W3W 01.9
3�flOFt3h�A'V3DIi3D Q15adAd
�� 8d
9 i0 L 1]]f
r
3n .d+Jr S.1N3i'i�i0� Ally
, � � �
z 4�
ii II
' ��`�1 `�1Nl� 'M
133HS 31111
cf)
0
4., <1
w
a
3
i N... /- N.. - - -- T PROJECT LOCATION CI TITLE SHEET
' ',.. C3 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
. C4 U1ILTY PLAN
i i .... z )t - /
+ ' '''''''.- — / ' ' -_,, ''''./
i i ,, ,,, - s / ,,1.2.-/1 VICINITY MAP
/ '0'
,;,, / /Si, --,,,,....„: / SEC. 6, TZ9N, RZOW
11 ,//:
r00 e eN*":-.../ / /. .
1j - .4W.. 0 g. , ' / , i • ""X / PROJECT
'4 .4: ''., ,,,,,,, ' . . - . 1/ ;Pi / y i / LOCATION c f, s,,,, t 1
\4.,E.0 5 CV1 '''N•...,/
7 ,/ , „-„, ,
. /„... ---_, 1 53RD STREEET NORTH ' I
. 1/4:,' I ; 1 1
i I
EXHIBIT C
,3 U.
, as
i ll
NO LL d MS 30 NO ra13 ,3
-,
r;
'
4
8
E
, a,
4—
,0
,.„"
'46
arva I
3, Wall.
3, ourSid
go t—oo
::
..,.,•,—,,,
i [46. I SO , ff.. (,,,) v.
Zis)cr tril 'SKWATILIS '1[LION EfINRAV 1 019c
0.223.01,3
Om...1S .
omwv _
No S c NW 5J31.VM1111S
1-1ilION 3nN3AY lYNOW31
VIOS3NNINI `MIVAN1111S —
3IOV 01 01.9S
HDION 11NMV 1VR
asnoRitiViND1110 CUSCMOM
;...t.oti
ZD
...NNW &U 0
. DNI 1INIZ *AA
NY1c1 OM l'g SNOILICINOD 9NIISIX3
11111
111111j..
1111111111
0
• 111119111111
Li)
ONDITIONS DEMO PL
PP
6
47 4 5
r�'sr
a
!If5 OF.{ ff tu, (HO 7,4
hi'{ ` 3LVILIA S 1.11,, ?NN?RIMY"'M0y1; IO2%
14
\
\ 1 1 1 , I
1�h 1 ' t 1
L - 4, '\ ---j.' � \ ■ � 1 a
I I l
11 � `� 1
\ =11�\ I� I 1
f 1 ' I
��l I ; I
a \\' II l l Il 1 ll
V
�' it II +
!; ! I I I 1
f ; 1 i , 1
\ � J f '
i, F ( f 1 i
.rl....__....._.____\_ ...... ______
n f f
1 I 1 ! i ` i
! I 1 1 I 1
! , I I 1 1
I 1 1 1 \
I ! i ,
`tix�uiaax3 `zIod
�
a W
❑U U R N O CJ
g w ❑ NE�i
Q � N � p
q rx§
[ �/1D n ?a ��
r ntn w 1 "� ¢cpw
tii4, z L? q d- �.y L h p O ;!
,,,,,,F < s tY W �� RJ oo r a �+�- Q �¢ AO-. fY p d: d oO 1� w } }s E U Vi _”. i dy U d Q 0
n:! W Q 4 :X O i� 6 Uwp n- 4 O aw E
° Li �� �
(.'J �_ g O W bmcN L. L. Q
awca N r ,d��
w ,n O L , 5,( L - , — f
it df1 :61,7_-,9 .2
MSS' NW `S31YM11I1S
H1AQN 7f1NIAd 1YRIOW3W 0L95
'M
VIOS3NNIW `d31.VM111iS
H121ON 311N3AY 1VI?1OW31 0I9S
3snoowM/D1Ao msoao'M
Vii717671
0 rt1
•
• i) , ,,,,,, 31. W
WU drtIDS 30 1,01S, : 2
21. 0'7
ON 3.3.
3bs
alva
wi u drX]b�
�yri ;19
n /SZ/G �ileY 7YtlRi1
go —o
i !I
N
NOSE NIA0111WWIIIIS
VEDS3NNIN `1131VM1111S
PI 3. Witif .
...MOD AI ID
6
ON1MNION3
CMAZATJIS
ONIN.1.1 OK,
lig. ta (m10210
Mag5 1-11,VDN EfWAY WriO}S3 Pi 029S
ZUOSS NW `RLYM11115
HINON 311N3AV IVNOVIRY OL9S
fflibTaiRY6
•NI
1 `1131VAA1111S
HISON 311N3AV 1V1101^131A1 01.95
3511014MM/3DM 0350,10ti
FiwaRzu
NY1dNOJlVIflDD V 1110AY1 GEOnd
. o 0
Lfl
tea,ANA
1ttSt{i5150nl tl50zani
ZAMhii'ELVA1711 3 'HIEN3l11MY7Yi Ui1'3itGt95
to
li!
❑
rp
CO
d•
IIN I Z 'M
NIV]d DNIINVid
T��n s1Tv
ZSDSS NW 4 2111,YMThIS
1-11AION 3flN3AY 1Y1'10W3W OL9S
V1OS3NN1W '1131VM1111S
HflION 3f1N3AV WISOWAW 01.95
3Sf10H37YM13Dk1i0 e S0d03d
NI
ti w
w
g q � � J C � � N Z
9
St?,
nN
i
; �a
wz
!i-
if)
4110
1
1
X
From: kdwidin@attbi.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 8:07 PM
To: Jim Butler; Judy Hoist; Jay Johnson; Scott Richards; Mark Vierling
Subject: Zintl - 5610 Memorial Ave. - Tree Removal and Land. Plan
O P H Staff -
1 have reviewed the plans for the proposed office /warehouse at 5610 Memorial Ave. and made a
recent site visit to confirm the tree inventory , and view the site and the tree condition. I have the
following comments regarding tree removal and the land. plan.
1. The project, if built as proposed, will result in the removal of 74% of the significant trees on
the site. Eight large oaks (20 -36 in. in diameter) are being removed as a result of this
construction. A few trees will remain by the pond edge, between the pond and the proposed
retaining walls, with most concentrated on the northern end of the site. Some of these trees
may die as a result of construction of the retaining walls
2. The City received a complaint from a neighbor in 2002 about the large retaining wall at
5630 and the high amount of tree removal on the sites on this side of the pond.
3. Thirteen trees, most of which are oaks (8 -36 in. in diameter) are designated to be saved. The
three largest trees will probably decline and die as a result of the construction of the retaining
walls. Tree protection fencing (orange snow fencing on steel posts set at 6 -8 ft. intervals, not
silt fencing) should be erected after tree removal and prior to grading. The fencing should be
placed at least 15 ft. from trunks of trees greater than 15 in. in diameter, in order to protect
some of the root system.
4. Nine trees which are shown on the inventory on the eastern edge of the woodland have
already been removed, even though there was no tree removal indicated in the plan for the
building on the front part of the property. These trees are included in the tree removal totals
for the current project. If additional trees die as a result of construction of the retaining walls,
these will also be added to the tree removal totals for the current project.
5. At the present time, if the building is constructed as proposed, 660 replacement diameter
inches of trees will be required or cash in lieu of planting ($33,000.).
6. The landscape plan is acceptable regarding the proposed plant species and sizes and given
the very limited greenspace around the proposed building. It is recommended that some
trees tolerant of wet sties be added between the retaining walls and the pond to provide
some screening for the walls.
Kathy Widin
Municipal Arborist
City of Oak Park Heights