Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2003 Planning Commission Meeting Packet• Estimated Times 7:00 I. Call to Order: II. Approval of Agenda: Adjournment: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA III. Approve Minutes: A. April 10, 2003 (1) Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 7:00 PM N. Department / Commission Liaison / Other Reports: A. Commission Liaison: B. Other: 7:15 V. Visitors /Public Comment: This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns regarding items not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. VI. Public Hearings: A. Midas Multi- Tenant Retail Building: To consider requests for site plan review, zoning district text amendment and conditional use permit for a one - story, multi-tenant retail building located between Applebee's and Jerry's Auto Detail at 60 St. N. (2) B. Kohl's: To consider a request for planned unit development: concept plan for construction of a Kohl's department store and four retail tenant spaces located East of Menard's at 60` St. N. (3) C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To consider amendments the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance relating to voting requirements, application schedule and review periods. (4) VII. New Business: A. Recommend Planning Commission Appointments (5) B. Select June Council Representative (6) VII. Old Business: VIII. Informational: A. Next Meeting: June 12, 2003 — Regular Meeting @ 7:00 p.m. B. Council Representative: May — Commissioner Runk June — Commissioner - TBD CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, April 10, 2003 ENCLOSURE Call To Order /Approval of Agenda: Chair Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Liljegren, Runk and Powell. Acting City Administrator Holst, City Planner Richards and Commission Liaison McComber. Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 4 -0. Approve Minutes: Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to approve the Minutes of March 13, 2003 as presented. Carried 4 -0. Department /Commission Liaison Reports /Other Reports: A. Commission Liaison: None. B. Other: None. Visitors /Public Comment: There were no visitors to the meeting or public comment other than items upon the Agenda. Public Hearings: A. Continued: Oakgreen. Village: To consider requests of Valley Senior Services Alliance Housing and Community Services,. LLC for site. plan . review, conditional. use permit, subdivision, planned unit development: concept plan for office condos, commercial and retail use known as g Oakgreen Village to be located at 58t St. N. and .Novak Ave. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the requests and prior outstanding issues, noting that some of the issues have been addressed by the applicant's revised plans. Richards reviewed changes made to the plans and provided an issue analysis with respect to the requests before the Commission. Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment at 7:11 p.m. Kenneth Hooge - Senior Housing Partners, the applicant, expressed that he felt a cooperative effort has worked well to deal with the project issues. He noted that they would prefer to develop the entire area at one time and that they were still preferable to tax increment financing for the project. Mr. Hooge responded to Commission Liaison McComber's question regarding neighborhood meetings for the project area. He informed her and the Commission that meetings were held nearly a year ago and at the time, primary concerns seemed to be the location of an apartment . building and the purchase of private residences along Oakgreen Avenue. To that end, the apartment building was moved back and any possible property purchases can only occur when the means possible to do so are available. i Brief discussion ensued as to building placement, potential development of Oakgreen Avenue properties owned by Valley Senior Services Alliance, future of outlot under the power line, future roadway changes being discussed for Hwy. 36 and frontage road area, right -of -way and engineering issues and ponding placement possibilities. Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Carried 4-0. Commission discussion ensued as to future change possibilities to Oakgreen Avenue, timing for the project development, and the recommendations and conditions within the planning report. Chair Dwyer acknowledged that change in this area, development and roadway, will affect the city and expressed his appreciation for the residents in the area being involved even when issues tend to run on for a long period of time. Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to recommend City Council approval of the request, excluding Phase II and subject to the amended conditions of the April 3, 2003 planning report, specifically: 1. A preliminary plat shall be submitted as part of the general plan of development process. Forty feet of right -of -way from the centerline of Oakgreen Avenue N. shall be dedicated as part of the plat. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 2 of 8 The . octensiori of Novak Avenue N. must be redesigned to be completely 'on the subject property, or the applicant must reach an agreement. with the adjacent property owner for the street to be partly on the adjacent property consistent with the submitted plans. 3. The phasing plan must be revised to include all areas of the development, including ponding and streets. 4. The Planning Commission, Parks Commission and City Council should make preliminary comments regarding open space, public park land needs and sidewalk trail locations as it relates to this project. 5. The trail and landscaping south of 59t St. N. shall extend to Oakgreen Ave. N. and shall connect to the existing trail east of Oakgreen. 6. Information related to land market value shall be provided to calculate park dedication requirements for the subject property at the time of general plan of development submittals. 7. All concept utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. • Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 3 of 8 8. All concept drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. Written approval from Xcel Energy related to construction of ponds and a roadway within the power line easement shall be required with submittals of the general plan of development application. 10. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the townhome configuration and the proposed density of units. 11. Any other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission, the Parks Commission and the City Council. Carried 4 -0. B. WATE Enterprises: To consider requests of WATE Enterprises for site plan review, amended concept plan review and general plan of development /planned unit development review for construction of a new office /warehouse building, including cold storage building and parking at 5610 Memorial Ave. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the applicant's requests, provided an issue analysis and offered concluding remarks and recommendations. Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment at 7:45 p.m. Todd Erickson — Project Engineer noted the highlights of the project and discussed drainage at the site. Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Chair Dwyer, moved to close the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Carried 4-0. Commission discussion ensued as to City Arborist report and its requirement of the applicant to prepare a tree inventory for species category and trunk size, building color scheme, signage and planning report conditions. Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to recommend City Council approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant should identify the square footage of office space and warehouse space to determine the appropriate parking spaces needed prior to City Council review. 2. The access and circulation plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 4 of 8 3. The applicant should identify the location of snow storage within the site plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 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. 6. The landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 7. The applicant shall pay a tree replacement fee as determined 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 subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 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 Marshall and/or Building Official. 13. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan with all location of lights and types of fixtures. The lighting plan and a revised photometric plan shall be subject to review and approval of City staff. 14. All signage plans shall be subject to review and approval of City staff. 15. A Development Agreement is subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 16. All other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission, the Parks Commission and City Council. Carried 4 -0. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 5 of 8 C. WATE Enterprises: To consider requests of WATE Enterprises for site plan review, amended concept plan review and general plan of development /planned unit development review for construction of a cold storage building and parking at 5670 Memorial Ave. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the applicant's requests, provided an issue analysis and offered concluding remarks and recommendations. Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment at 8:07 p.m. Todd Erickson — Project Engineer discussed wetland and retaining wall issues. He noted that they have met with the city's engineering firm and that Brown's Creek Watershed District has review their plans and approved them subject to City of Oak Park Heights approval. Additionally, Mr. Erickson discussed drainage, snow removal and signage plans. David Beaudet — 6400 Lookout Trail expressed his concern of having snow piled in front of the buildings. He stated that the City is in the process of developing a wetland ordinance and expressed that he felt wetland protection should be considered whether or not the property is situated in an area designated as a DNR protected wetland. Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Carried 4 - 0. Commission discussion ensued as to snow removal/storage, wetland buffer and related wetland issues and the ordinance being developed by Oak Park Heights, and maximizing use of the property for its commercial use. Chair Dwyer, seconded by Vice Chair Dwyer, moved to recommend City Council approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised plan indicating the percentage of buildable area and green space pursuant to Section 401.300.G of the Zoning Ordinance prior to review bye the City Council. 2. The applicant shall identify the location of snow storage within the site plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 3. The applicant shall pay a tree replacement fee as determined by the City Arborist. 4. The landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. • 5. The drainage and grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signage plans shall be subject to review and approval of City staff. Carried 4 -0. New Business: A. Hwy. 36 Partnership Study: Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 6 of 8 6. 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 subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. The applicant shall submit to the City a signed permit from the Brown's Creek Watershed District. 8. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. The location of fire hydrant and sprinkler systems within both buildings shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall and/or Building Official. 11. A Development Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney 12. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval of City staff. 13. All signage plans shall be subject to review and approval of City staff. 14. Any other conditions of City staff, the Planning Commission, the Parks Commission .and City Council. Commission Liaison McComber provided a review of the Joint Planning Commission meeting with the City of Stillwater Planing Commission and their discussion of the changes to Hwy. 36 and adjacent roadways. She noted that the City Council was seeking Commission feedback and a recommendation. Chair Dwyer stated that he felt the Stillwater Planning Commission put a lot of effort into the process and expressed that he found what was proposed pretty favorable. He stated that he found there was general agreement to many of the design aspects needed and pointed out that a number of Oak Park Heights businesses are clearly affected and that he is optimistic that a firm plan for the roadway changes would allow business held in limbo to plan for the future and expressed that he was hopeful that many of those affected would be able to relocate within Oak Park Heights. • • Chair Dwyer asked for visitor comments. Carried 4 -0. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 7 of 8 Commission discussion ensued regarding the proposed changes including cul- de-sac placements for maximization of frontage road use in some areas, mapping deadlines, potential traffic flow with the prospect of a new St. Croix River Bridge crossing, the impact upon Oak Park Heights businesses, pedestrian and vehicular safety on the roadway with and without change and such. David Beaudet - 6400 Lookout Trail, N. discussed some of the historical information to the project and expressed that he felt that transportation was the primary aspect of discussion and earlier roadway studies and suggested that the Commission may wish to request the City Council to update the studies as there are perspectives beyond transportation needing consideration with any changes to be made. He discussed some of the viewpoints of neighboring communities who are affected by Hwy. 36 changes and stated that the Oak Park Heights corridor was significantly safer than other corridors of the highway. Commission discussion ensued as to the costs of design change to Oak Park Heights, the feeling that safety has been clearly considered along with the matter of transportation, built in safety features as part of the design change and the general feeling that the public is asking for change and that they should be listened to. Chair Dwyer encouraged all concerned to pay attention to the issue and communicate their concerns to the City Hall. He added that there was information available for viewing at the City Hall and that the City Council would be addressing the subject at their second meeting in April. Chair Dwyer seconded by Vice Chair Runk, based on their meeting and discussion with the Stillwater Planning Commission, moved to recommend that the City Council approve alterations for Hwy. 36 as recommended by the Partnership Advisory Committee; which is Concept F- Buttonhook Design, eliminating intersections along Hwy. 36 and replacing them with overpasses, constructing the highway below grade to accommodate traffic and reduce noise and to add cul -de -sacs at frontage road by Jerry's Auto Detail, Gardy's Sport Center and McCormick's Furniture and to look at reducing the curve at the west side frontage road next to McCormick's Furniture. Furthermore, the Commission asked the City Council to provide comment on the recommendation. B. Planning Commission Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Changes for 60 Day Development Review Timeline: City Planner Richards informed the Commission that the change was being requested so as to make the City Ordinance language consistent with Minnesota State Statutes and to address voting requirements for zoning changes. Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to schedule a public hearing at the May 2003 meeting for discussion of this proposed change. Carried 4-0. Old Business: None. Informational: A. Next Meeting: May 8, 2003 - 7:OOp.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2003 Page 8 of 8 B. Commissioner Interview Scheduling: Acting City Administrator Holst reminded Commission and viewers that applications were being accepted for the Planning Commission until 4:30 p.m., April 21, 2003 and that applications could be obtained by contacting City Hall. C. Arden Hills Touring Boutwells Landing: Acting City Administrator Holst informed the Commission that a tour of Boutwells Landing was being arranged for the City of Arden Hills and their Planning Commission for Saturday, May 3' at 11:00 a.m. She asked the Commission if one of them would be interested in participating with the tour. Chair Dwyer stated that he would check his schedule and notify Judy as to whether or not he could attend. Adjournment: Commissioner Powell, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to adjourn at 8:47 p.m. Carried 3 -0. Respectfully submitted, fti USL4Thaur\ A. Hultman J C munity Development Approved by the Planning Commission: • MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND Attached for reference: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 ISSUES ANALYSIS 0 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAN INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St Louis Park, MN 55415 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Scott Richards DATE: May 2, 2003 RE: Oak Park Heights -- Oak Park Commercial (Midas) Zoning Ordinance Amendment, CUP and Site Plan Review FILE NO: 798.02 — 03.06 The City of Oak Park Heights has received a request for a Zoning Ordinance amendment, conditional use permit (CUP), and site plan review to allow the construction of a commercial building at 13613 60 Street North. The site is located between 60 Street North and Wal -Mart and is zoned CBD Central Business District. The applicant is requesting approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow minor auto repair as a conditional use in the Central Business District. If the Zoning Ordinance is amended to allow this use, the applicant could then receive a CUP to allow a Midas Store with minor auto repair in the building. Existing Conditions Survey Site and Landscape Plan Lighting Plan Utility Plan Building Elevations ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Zoning Amendment Criteria. Section 401.03.A.7 reads as follows: The City Council and Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Their judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to the following factors: a. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal comprehensive plan. b. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. c. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. d. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e. The impact on character of the surrounding area. f. The demonstrated need for such use. g. Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity. 1 The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e. parking, loading, noise, etc.). Zoning Amendment Analysis. • An autobody repair business is . located west of the subject site, and a recreational vehicle sales and repair business is located west of that. The City annexed these • properties in the 1980's, and the businesses were grandfathered into the City at that time. The proposed minor auto repair use would not be out of character with the surrounding area; however, the Planning Commission and City Council need to determine if minor auto repair is consistent with the vision they have for the Central Business District. This is a policy decision; therefore, we are not making a recommendation on this issue. If you believe that the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to allow minor auto repair in the Central Business District as a conditional use, we then recommend that the following language be added for that use: Proposed Language. Auto repair -minor and tire, battery and muffler stores and service, provided that: a. The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, and functional plan of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the existing nearby commercial and residential buildings, and shall not cause impairment in property values, or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the site. 2 • b. Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's ability to provide utility, police, fire, administrative or other services to the site. c. All automobile repair activities shall be conducted within the principal structure and the doors to the service bays shall be kept closed except when vehicles are being moved in or out of the service areas. d. No outside storage of vehicles, parts or merchandise shall be allowed without approval of the City Council. e. Facilities on a site contiguous to any residential district shall not be operated between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM unless otherwise allowed by formal action of the City Council. f. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise in accordance with Section 401.15.B.11 of this Ordinance. g Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Section 401.15.F of this Ordinance and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. h. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND. SITE PLAN REVIEW • . • Conditional Use Permit Criteria. If the Zoning Ordinance is amended to allow minor auto repair in the Central Business District, then the Planning Commission and City Council may consider approval of the CUP request. In evaluation of the requested CUP, Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the possible effects of the proposed use, with that judgment based upon (but not limited to) the following factors. These are the same factors that were considered with the Zoning Ordinance amendment. a. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal comprehensive plan. e. The impact on character of the surrounding area. 3 b. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. c. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. d. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. f. The demonstrated need for such use. g. Traffic . generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity. 1. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e. parking, loading, noise, etc.). Highway 36 improvements. The Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT) plan for reconstruction of Highway 36 shows on /off ramps crossing through this property. The plan for reconstruction is not final and cannot be used to deny this development project unless MnDOT or the City purchases the property. Access. The site plan indicates access from 60 Street North and the entrance drive to WaI -Mart. The applicant has met with MnDOT representatives regarding the 60 Street access, who have indicated no issues with the proposed access. The property is permitted by agreement to use the Wal -Mart access drive. Lot Performance Standards. There are no minimum lot area, lot width, or setback requirements in the Central Business District. The maximum building height is 35 feet. The only portion of the building that exceeds 35 feet is the tower element on the Midas store. Structural elements that do not contain useable space are allowed to exceed the maximum height by five feet. The distance from the ground. to the top of the tower is 38' -6 "; therefore, the building complies with height requirements. 4 Parking. Auto repair businesses are .required. to have eight off - street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. The Midas store is proposed to be 4,512 square feet in size. Floor area is determined by subtracting 10 percent from this amount. The Midas floor area is 4,061 square feet; therefore, 12 parking spaces are required for the Midas store. The rest of the building is proposed to be occupied by retail stores. Retail stores are required to provide at least one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The four proposed retail stores have a total of 6,800 gross square feet and 6,120 square feet of floor area. The retail stores portion of the building requires 31 parking stalls. In total, the proposed building requires 43 parking spaces. The site plan includes 46 parking stalls, two of which are disability accessible; therefore, the parking requirements have been met. Storm Water. The applicant will be required to apply for Browns Creek . Watershed District approval for the site. Since on -site ponding is not proposed, the Watershed District may require payments for downstream storm water management or on -site ponding. The applicant will need to work with the Browns Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer in determining the appropriate stormwater improvements /payments that result from development of this property. Storm water calculations will need to be provided by the applicant. The site may require on -site temporary ponding until storm water management issues are resolved. It may be that only a portion of the building can be constructed while temporary storm water ponding is in place. Central Business District Design Guidelines. In October of 1999, the City adopted a master plan for the Central Business District in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly, mixed -use district. To aid in the implementation of the goals and policies of the plan, specific design guidelines for the CBD were developed. The subject property is on the western edge of the Medium -Box Mixed Use Precinct. The design guidelines state that buildings within the medium box precinct should relate to the character of small box development via building scale and height, building material colors, horizontal lines and architectural styles and details. The guidelines further state that buildings should form gateways and pillars to other precincts. Building Design and Materials. The design guidelines state that buildings should be constructed of authentic materials such as wood, brick, stone, cast stone, stucco or pour in place concrete. Accent materials may include metal, glass, block, copper flashing or similar materials. The proposed building materials include E.F.I.S. (stucco - type finish), glass, brick, and decorative colored concrete masonry units. A metal standing seam roof is proposed on the Midas tower. A stone sill is located below windows and between contrasting colors of decorative concrete block. Vertical brick elements and variations in the roofline break up the mass of the building. Canvas awnings highlight and shelter entrances. Colors. The design guidelines state that buildings should employ earth tones or muted colors and that light and bright colors should be used only as minor accents. The building .. elevations do not specify colors. Colors must be specified before .approval . is granted. Walkways. According to the design guidelines, sidewalks within medium box precincts should be at least 8 feet wide along building frontage and a minimum sidewalk width of six feet should be provided along 60 Street. A five -foot -wide sidewalk is provided along most of the frontage of the building. While this is less than the eight feet suggested by the design guidelines, it appears to be sufficient for the expected pedestrian traffic on the site. The Parks Commission should make a recommendation regarding a sidewalk along 60 Street North. Lighting Plan. The design guidelines state that lighting should be designed to reduce glare and be in scale with the surrounding buildings and that pedestrian scale lighting, not more than 14 feet high, should be located on walkways, trailways and adjacent to store entrances. The design guidelines state that parking lot fixtures must be in scale with their surroundings with cutoff fixtures located below the mature height of trees in parking lot islands. The maximum height of the light fixtures is 25 feet. The submitted lighting plan shows four pole lights at the perimeter of the parking lot. The lights are proposed to be 23 feet tall to the bottom of the fixture. The lights are a cut -off style. The light contours shown on the lighting plan indicate acceptable light levels at property lines. No exterior building lights are proposed. Signage. Specific sign plans have not been submitted yet. Alt site signage must meet the signage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines. A pylon sign is indicated at the 60 Street North entrance, but sign details have not been provided. The design guidelines state that in the medium box precinct the types of signs allowed are awning, canopy or marquee, projected signs, window signs, roof signs or low ground monument signs. We recommend the proposed pylon sign be replaced with a monument sign. Utilities. The utility plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Landscaping. The design guidelines strongly encourage site landscaping to enhance storefront entries and plank walls. Landscaping is further encouraged to screen dumpsters and off- street parking areas. The submitted landscape plan includes a limited quantity and limited variety of plants. We recommend that the landscape plan be enhanced subject to the City Arborist's review and approval. Trash. The site plan indicates that a trash enclosure will be located in the southwest corner of the parking lot. The applicant must provide details of the proposed enclosure including height, materials, and color. The enclosure must be compatible with the buildings. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and City Council should review the criteria for amending the Zoning Ordinance and determine whether minor auto repair is an appropriate conditional use for the Central Business District. if the Planning Commission and City Council wish to amend the Zoning Ordinance, we recommend adding the provisions found in the Zoning Amendment section of this report. A number of issues need to be resolved with the proposed project relating to amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, storm water management, building material colors, a sidewalk along 60 Street, signage, landscaping, and trash enclosure details. We recommend tabling the CUP and site plan review requests to allow more time to resolve these issues. pc: Mark Vierling 6 • NOTE: ALL PLANTING BED AREAS TO HAVE 1 112" BARK CHIP MULCH OVER WEED PREVENTION FABRIC. 1 PROJECT DATA PARKING PROVIDED SURFACE INCLUDING 2 HC STALLS 46 CARS INTERIOR BAYS 6 PROVIDED TOTAL PROVIDED 52 CARS PARKING REQUIRED RETAIL(6,500 SF / 200 = 34 CARS) MIDAS STORE (8 CARS PLUS 3,512SF / 800 = 12 CARS) TOTAL REQUIRED 46 CARS GREEN AREA 7,195 SQ FT BUILDING GROSS AREA 11,312 SQ FT SITE AREA 39,454 SQ FT MARK NOTE: ALL PLANTING BED AREAS TO HAVE 1 112" BARK CHIP MULCH OVER WEED PREVENTION FABRIC. 1 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE NI o 0 W s. MARK CURRENT, ALPINE - RIBES ALPINUM JUNIPEROUS SABINA JUNIPER, ARCADIA 2" UNDEN HYBRID TIUA X FAFLVESCENS'GLENLEVEN" 2" LOCUST - SKYLINE GLEDITSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKY UNE' • SERVICEBERRY- APPLE AMELANCHIER XGRRANDIFLORA' COMMON NAME ir HTG POT 38" O.C. 24" SPRD. POT SPACE 4' O.C. 21/2 DIA 2112 DIA • MULTI- STEMED 8 HTG SIZE 95 38 N to A QNTY 1 I 0 0 0 11 N 0 5 s m Ea z ! 1 a ■,■' '_ 0) n hi . > to EP) z m TRASH ENCLOSURE s limr: aa►u OJRB VIII_ • ■.111, ..� - r - .rte ...►� 150.0 FT CO �i r 100 -0' > > 270.62 FT w_- > > i J L . , 1 R CITY REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m 0 9 m 0 w � 4, Sp m o> � m > • z cmn • 3 5 N Z r' m try t i n (I) • N o m fl 138-0• ENTRANCE DRIVE (n m z Z 0 0 J z 'v N r - Z Z tro e v � 96# AVMHON DNIINVid 33E11 cc Q 8 O CL W = < o o ac- C.) a O O d• M M i n 0 in Z Z w a J ' W r Q W r 1o31IHoulb 3AfLIa 3ONVWN3 U wo(NI th Q to U Z to < w af �C M w w cG NO113fkllSNOD iOd ION - AlNO MIIAftJ U13 bOd Z a z EL w cn 0 z 0 0 z co 0 CO 0 N O 0 SF I • a 0 is a 1 ••t n O a t IN lo piiii 80880 Iii:t 1 1 1 1 o'a 0 a X h a v o c x a o • 3 n 2• 0, I a t, ~ P.. N -• :,; a a ° ► 3 a n 5 a ft "ft 4; a � c 5 0 m 0 0 rr z • f:• �' gory . '•�-. ti .._...�...,., 10 0 •r.�t _.�_..._. «..._.... ... •••• ________ jj T ,. • -1s 1 L_ —. ' +'. �• t r r�P =P 1■t �s+r ?� s m 0 . i 11 _ s 1 `' ;t If : &t1iir ti ' gi ijI iiiI! 11 r 111 i It 1 I I 41 L it i l t €E 3 t _ /I I 1 k 1 t u • j J /ff € ri•�j S ( n �•r+�r� r�1■�r�� r r f� il f i l 112 "r; iti 11' 11 1 4 1 1 4; pi,. 1;4 ft; tit ;t :ft] • I III t'; kit hI il l ' 1 Ill 1 41 :L 1 1 ; r 1 withiNcus a a 1 1......�, '•.awa.,,.. ..w�..w+... +....r.- «w...+� - .~ .. y.+ �.v+w+., w ...... w.�..wr. -wr ..... .. � w +... r .,-..-. ., t2..y.� T. w.. -- — ....•+...w...... •■• • ■••••• • !ice • • • ••••••• • • ■•••■ 1 •••■••■ • • • •■■•• • ••• • lifFT;IMni:;A:11:PI:r.6:K/71" vt r �r rc� n vn ■ sr� >r(n • �+ a ni� 1 0 i fp plipi 1111;; ill ;F ilth 1111 Hi i i i I'll 41111 11;1114 ‘141 1 i IP! t !I -4-1 id 4111141 ;10 t 'V IT1 g a 0 1 i fi !II pilltr iilh ROI! !Ili i i ill 1 P 1 1 'Hill! Iliii 1 ! il i ! 1 iii gill PM li tie l 1111 ' 1 1 4 . 3I„ it ifel, 1 t o 111 1 4i1 1 111_ 1 ti t t Ir 40.0 Oil! lifill fill I 11 1 IN 111 1 11 4 ii 1 11 I ' i II ill t . pt 1 1 0 1 4 R 1 -a I t I uft $ !I I 14 Iiilill g kw (.1 1 if . I 1 S it I I I li lit I 1 illil i t [ • 4 ; 0 1 i i 4 111;:l g li ; 1 !I ! i i il NI i i r'l i I ! ill ; 1 1 14 lil 11 ; I : ilivi: f l iii! i 1 :;lIl . i f fi 1 10 % : "! , II 1 I t { 4 I r 1 p r fir+ }a rt t '' r t �rQr�s• r t= r : }r"sp n r r art■ } r -o "P 1 1114 1 A 11 1 11 1 a l I a itl fi tl. u; I'll till , I , , p It! c l lir . ri: I.. 'I 1 I Ir I I. i 1111 l y 1 2 i la iit II 'Ili ! pli 11 11 141 I'll i I 'cp' = s � x = i " I ki t IS b I II ; t t :1 ; i ff t II f tr ! I ! I : E t•;ro.:iKG'rs Pp:J✓.; P•'AR c!4: LL 0 7C 0 �-1 0 0 z -1 ••• ` , • F . 1 ..w.•.. - +- •��'•"•......•. -. rte , • ... ��M M .� — - ► I • i= 3 41 fr if q s i pi f g 2 i , 1 E a �� & it . ,t !! 4 • FUIADWAT t I • 7 / L • l • 1 t • S•t .� t,• ri 0 • 5 cr: CL z c 0 < p � V U o f. O m r COI 0 a O " 1 fi it1pp 0+ I NOLLDflUISNOD 110d ION - K1NO M3IA3U Ally JOd V W O N %. c (n 0 LA S w u) O u_ L in Q W oti r w 2 cd • 8f 8 0000 � C z to mr-z 3 N rn o g m m -i 0 40 z PROPERTY LINE 3,4 m f S 1 s 1 J PROPERTY LINE 1 � m v m wx tri 0 v m �„ Z mn Mr I v C N N O rd Z FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION tr 1 3 > r) 1E 49" < ..., 0 rn ..... >0 hirn CD x m woo t!! o -4 nm x L.4 Cit U. Z ARCHITECT s^ AT NA � rn O �.o o v m m Z w '0 N 5 rn Xnm ta 3 O C y 0 0 BACKGROUND 2y + JLO U E NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.96336 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: May 1, 2003 RE: Oak Park Heights — Kohl's Retail Development, North American Properties: Concept Plan FILE NO: 798.02 — 03.06 North American Properties has requested PUD concept plan approval to allow the construction of a Kohl's Department Store and various other retail users totaling over 172,000 square feet south of 60 Street North and west of Norell Avenue North. The subject site is approximately 24 acres, is undeveloped, and is encumbered by a 225 foot Xcel Energy easement and powerline. The property is zoned 0, Open Space Conservation and would be rezoned to B -2, General Business District. The request is being processed as a PUD overlay to allow the shopping center and phased development. The rezoning will be done at the general plan stage of the PUD process. A concept plan was approved in November 2002 for a Kohl's store and associated retail development within the Central Business District east of the existing Wal Mart Store. That concept plan approval has not been withdrawn by the applicant (AGI) at this time. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Boundary and Topographic Survey Exhibit 2: Concept Site Plan Exhibit 3: Concept Grading Plan Exhibit 4: Concept Utility Plan Exhibit 5: Exterior Elevations — Front/Side Exhibit 6: Exterior Elevations — Rear /Side Exhibit 7: Project Narrative Exhibit 8: Traffic Report ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as commercial by the Land Use Plan of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shopping center is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing Menard's development to the west and the Wal Mart to the east. Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned 0, Open Space Conservation and is proposed to be rezoned to B -2, General Business District. A PUD overlay will be applied to address the phased development and allowing the multi lot shopping center. The property would be rezoned as part of the general plan of development review. Subdivision. The proposed development is contained in Outlot B, Brackey Addition. The property will be replatted into lots and blocks as part of the general plan of development review. The applicant has indicated that the plat may include a lot for the Kohl's site and one or more platted Tots for the other retail users. The northern portion of the site would be retained as an outlot for future commercial retail uses and possible MnDOT right --of -way. No concept plan approval will be given for the northerly outlot as part of this application. Surrounding Properties. The subject site is surrounded by the following: • 60 Street North (Highway 36 to the north). • Norell Avenue, McCormick's Furniture, City water tower site and Wal Mart to the east. • 58 Street North and Boutwells Landing to the south. • Krueger Lane and Menard's to the west. • = - . Project Description. The development consists of an 86,000.square foot Kohl's store and four other retail spaces. The buildings are oriented facing north behind the Xcel Energy powerline easement. Customer parking of 836 stalls are proposed in front of the building and partially under the transmission lines. All loading and service activities would occur at the rear (south) of the buildings. The outlot to the north of the parking would be reserved for future retail development. Additionally, a portion of this outlot is included in the Highway 36 ramp /frontage road plans developed by MnDOT. The site currently proposed for the retail center development, including the parking lots, would not be impacted by the MnDOT plans. All of the ramps /frontage roads would be included in the outlot area. A portion of the outlot, in the northwest corner of the site, has been indicated on the City's Stormwater Management Plan for a potential ponding area. The project engineer is currently working with the City Engineer and Browns Creek Watershed District to determine the stormwater pond requirements for this site. The policies anticipate a future expansion area for the Kohl's store totaling 19,200 square feet. That portion of the plan would not be considered at this time. A future • Use Ratio Required Spaces Kohl's (86,000 gsf X .9) 77,400 nsf 1 space per 166.67 square feet 465 Four Retail Bays (67,000 gsf X .9) 60,300 nsf 1 space per 166.67 square feet _ 362 TOTAL 827 10 expansion of the shopping center would require concept/general plan review at the time it is proposed. Access. Access to the site is proposed from the east via Norell Avenue North, the south from 58 Street and the west from Krueger Lane. City staff recommends that the access to 58 Street that is closest to Krueger Lane be removed. The other access locations are acceptable to the City Engineer and City staff. The site plan design separates the customer /employee traffic with the loading /delivery area traffic. The applicant has suggested that the access to Norell Avenue could be moved north near the existing Wal Mart pond. The City would be favorable to this change if an access easement could be obtained from Wal Mart, the owner of the property. That access would be preferable for circulation internal to the site. A disadvantage would be that the access would not align with the Wal Mart access in this location. The separation of the two opposing accesses would be less than 100 feet. If the applicant proposes to move the Norell access, the location and required roadway changes would be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Traffic Generation. A traffic analysis has been provided as attached in Exhibit 8. The City Engineer will provide a review of the traffic analysis and offer recommendations on the findings. The only intersection significantly affected by the development would be at Norell Avenue and 60 Street. The traffic analysis indicates that easterly traffic movements at that intersection would drop to level of service "F ". The analysis also provides alternatives to address that traffic issue. Off- Street Parking. According to Section 401.15.F of the Zoning Ordinance, shopping centers must provide six parking spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. As shown below, a total of 827 parking spaces are therefore required for the subject property. As shown on the site plan, the applicants are proposing to provide 836 spaces for the development. Thus, the minimum parking supply requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been exceeded for the current development. Additional parking would need to be provided to accommodate the 19,200 square foot expansion area for Kohl's. Setbacks. The 58 Street frontage would be considered the front yard for evaluation of setback requirements for this development. A front yard is required to be 40 feet; the site plan indicates a 185 foot setback. The project is also consistent with the 20 foot side yard and 20 foot rear yard requirements. All of the parking areas will be set back at least 10 feet from the property lines. The driveway at the north edge of the site is proposed to be set back less than 10 feet. The site plan will need to be revised to be consistent with this requirement. Grading and Drainage. A concept grading and drainage plan has been submitted for this development. The applicants do not anticipate the need to construct a stormwater pond on this site at this time, although adequate area would be provided for in the northwest corner of the outlot. That is also the location designated for a stormwater pond in the City's Stormwater Management Plan. The applicant will be required to apply for Browns Creek Watershed District approval for the site. The watershed may require contributions for downstream stormwater improvements or allow for drainage to and expansion of the regional pond adjacent to the Menard's. While it is anticipated that ample area for ponding can be provided, if required on the outlot, the applicant will need to work with the Browns Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer in determining the appropriate stormwater improvements /payments that result from development of this property. Utilities. A concept utility plan has been submitted for this development. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have indicated that the current utilities can adequately serve the proposed development. Utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Trails /Sidewalks. The development includes a sidewalk in the front of the retail customer entrances. There are no existing sidewalks on the development side of 60 Street, Norell Avenue, 58 Street, or Krueger Lane. The Parks Commission should comment if any additional trails or sidewalks should be constructed as part of this development. .Sidewalk connections along. either .Norell Avenue. and /.or Krueger Lane ..... should be considered to allow for pedestrian /bicycle access from the south. Adequately marked crosswalks on 58 Street, at Norell Avenue, and Krueger Lane would need to be considered with any potential crossings. Loading Area. The loading docks for Kohl's would be located on the southwest corner of the subject site. The general plans will need to reflect significant screening in the form of landscaping, fences, and berms to reduce the impact of the loading dock to Boutwells Landing and Autumn Ridge residents. The site plan indicates a substantial berm for most of the frontage along 58 Street. The setbacks are minimal along Krueger Lane, thus reducing the potential for a berm and landscaping. Building Height. The B -2 District specifies a building height of 35 feet. The conceptual elevations indicate building heights of 35 feet and lower, depending upon the retail store facade. Architectural Appearance. As the development proposal moves forward, the architectural appearance of the structure will be subject to detailed review in comparison with the City Design Guidelines. Lighting, Signage, and Landscaping. Details plans related to lighting, signage, and landscaping have not been submitted. Such plans will need to be submitted and considered as part of the general plan review. Xcel Transmission Line Tower. The site plan anticipates grading around the existing Xcel transmission line tower and placement of a retaining wall. The applicant has submitted the concept plans to Xcel for comment. Development Contract. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City pending approval of a concept and general plan. The City Attorney will require submittal of all cross easements and other easements necessary for this development. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the planned zoning for this property. While issues remain related to traffic and stormwater, staff would suggest this project could be recommended for concept plan approval with the conditions as follows: 1. The City finds that the proposed concept plan, building and parking arrangement to be acceptable. 2. Rezoning of the property to B -2 with a planned unit development overlay would occur concurrently with the general plan of development approval. 3. Concept plan approval does not include the proposed 19,200 square foot Kohl's expansion or the planned outlot directly south of 60 Street. 4. The site plan shall be revised to remove the access to 58 Street that is closest to Krueger Lane. 5. The access to Norell Avenue may be moved north pending approval by Wal Mart of an access easement and the approval of the City Engineer. 6. The City Engineer shall comment on the traffic analysis provided by the applicant. The traffic circulation plan and required improvements shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. The site plan shall be revised to provide at least a 10 foot driveway setback at the north edge of the project area. 8. The grading and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval of the • Browns Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. All required stormwater improvements and /or payments shall be outlined in the general plan approval and the development contract. 9. The concept utility plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. The Parks Commission shall comment on the need for additional trails and sidewalks on /or adjacent to the subject site. Sidewalk connections along Norell Avenue and Krueger Lane to 58 Street with crosswalks should be considered. 11. The general plan shall address adequate berms, fences, and landscaping along 58 Street and Krueger Lane to screen the loading dock areas. 12. The architectural appearance of the structure shall be subject to Design Guidelines review as part of the general plan of development consideration. 13. Detailed plans related to lighting, signage and landscaping shall be subject to review as part of the general plan of development consideration. 14. The grading and placement of a retaining wall adjacent to the transmission line towers shall be subject to written approval of Xcel Energy. 15. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City subject to review and approval of the City Attorney and City Council All cross 40 easements and other easement documents required for this development shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. • U t i 3§ 8 lei Hi 11 1 1 i • li 1 H . 1 u2.' dhilthiliihdlithilii ti a . m Hl #1 ii H M • 1 1• s" ,p I11111111 llisi 111111'110 oo04.H140mms*ctameolaest t o s r .• JO a/r N Jo . MIS H109 co,, ; i' i o n tJI VfI Jl V Y / v ` 1 I3P14d.f iL1 Y 9—i ON V .4.Y IC MAY IOCIVIN te- g bN ow loam IZ lal 1 N b wi laid JOON I Y8 ADd e•� ;1W or•Trinr annv 141 Pan AMn•wartsorvu yneV Man, s.i 1 s.J.:t^fGJ.l N t i g A J V m C - 1 � tog vozri 8 0 0 eD oti R rt dR� rr . w fit Md.IIw 1 1 ilio a. W. i .1.4 1.4 4a.• Jos s4.S1 r 0 14 T 4i /r 1 1• 4.I t r I; I ; " " 21 1 . STATE HIGHWAY 36 60th STREET' NORTH P ffi ri 0 I 0 ii % 1 0 z g 04 1 i :cl. I a 1 6, I' 1 I a. I 1 il MGM .a� -Js V3dd N oz's L NVdX3 eirunJ A Eirmomiere 416. ■1111 MIMS 41kit � ► �� - ����� ii GI W �� Imo ; rItiF. AW.,.MIIIIPrl- , li viria ir - r ■i�lr is' a.. um MIL 1 A =' f 71 i � ow III I 111111 ill 1111 IN AN r 1111 or • I ...NM A 11121=rw , r liium AEI r 1 - III _ , Iv ,r M 7 .0.••••••••••••• •••■••••• • .1 1 1 1 1 1. — --- f.∎ _ - ---- -- "MOH awls Igo n b 1Q3 Hd clneSeaT E002 /81/t0 5*P'tOdtD620tC002\ 4 • g 00ZVd W c�. c i 1 X 1;i 111E4 . 1/■' 10' 4 0 ° ' it" ftillet W R. 5 f 141 rn r • ore 03 • 4 a S, 1 1 t 1 1•• 1" STATE HIGHWAY 36 �..�......... �� • 1 � z rr . .» r. .,■...•�.. .. ..� .�..� ... �,....��........� ........�.. �.........,., ... isq 1 c) 1-' f Cry asql OI� . 1 l i J••■II— VMO tom 1:901111jzz t f rS www WV ;LOO 1111 i . MOROI— '911311= `1st■ MO 2.1 l 1 1 E a 6 C E yr ac I O I I I *WHIM tZ i %SJN1MV80 O3.l3Nx B*FWdZ It I \PPo3\Z 1Z t \tuswdo1 O wwaJ— gO \tOOZV -311YN OHIMVxO • Z 0 W DRAWING nix NAME: R: \2003\08 —Comm De .$ope.ael\ 1212\C.d41212pr...dwg RIVED DRAWINGS: 1212..01. 1212bk01 A r rn 3 co 0 to • 3 V1 0 w � CJ m 4 4. p < t'D CD n a CD ..... 0 n r D r 0 • CD o At 0 • PUD - - Concept Plan Application Narrative Proposed Commercial Retail Site in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota April 17, 2003 Introduction North American Properties is submitting the attached application for development of a 25 -acre site in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. This narrative describes the site development and various aspects of the application request. Location The site is presently vacant and located at the southeast comer of 60 Street North and Krueger Lane. It is bounded on the south side by 58 Street North and has a small amount of frontage along Norell Avenue North. State Highway 36 is directly to the north of the site. Through the center of the property is a 200+ foot overhead electric transmission easement. At the southwest comer of the site is a city water tower and on the north side of the site near 60 Street is a city sanitary sewer lift station. Menards and Walmart are located to the west and east of the site, respectively. Site Development As shown on the Concept Site Plan, the proposed commercial site will include a Kohl's � p p Department Store and various other retail users totaling 172,000+ square feet of retail space. The site plan shows the buildings being located dust south of the electric transmission easement facing State Highway 36 with 830 parking stalls in front of the buildings partly s and under the transmission lines. Primary access to the site will be from p y two driveway locations on Krueger Lane. A secondary access is proposed from Norell Avenue. Service entrances for the retail space will be behind the buildings and north of 58 Street. The property is currently platted as one outlot. Although a preliminary plat has not yet been completed for the site, it is anticipated that the plat will include a platted lot for the Kohl's site and one or more platted lots for the other retail users. At this time it is proposed to retain the northern portion of the site as an outlot for future commercial retail uses. Site Guiding and Zoning According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the site is presently Guided for a Commercial use. To accommodate the proposed site use, the property will need to be rezoned from its current "0" en Space ace — Conservation District zoning to "B -2" p General Business District. Rezoning of the site will likely include a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. EXHIBIT 7 Building Architecture As shown on the Architectural Elevations, the architecture and storefronts of the proposed buildings will generally be consistent with each other to provide a unified appearance. The architectural materials will consist primarily of brick, rockface block and synthetic stucco (eifs). The .various storefronts will be tied together through the use of decorative brick piers and stucco cornices. The brick piers and cornices will continue on all sides of the building. The colors of the brick and stucco used on Kohls building will also be repeated on all building elevations. Roadway Access The roadway system surrounding the property provides ample access to the proposed site and primary access will be from two driveways off of Krueger Lane. The Preliminary Traffic Study submitted with the Concept Plan Application provides additional information on existing and proposed traffic conditions. Site Utilities Public utilities for sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer service are presently available to serve the site within the adjacent roadway right -of ways. It is anticipated that other utilities (i.e., gas, electric, telephone) are also available to serve the site. As shown on the Concept Utility and Grading Plans, stormwater drainage from the site will be directed towards an existing 48 -inch storm sewer pipe within Krueger Lane. The storm sewer pipe drains west into a regional pond created with development of the Menards site. The proposed concept plan for this site does not include onsite ponding facilities. Although directing all of the proposed site's drainage to the Menards pond appears consistent with the City's stormwater management plan, this issue will need to be discussed f urther with the City and the Brown Creek Watershed District. In addition, the City's plan shows a proposed regional pond within the outlot portion (near 60 Street and Krueger Lane) of the site. That issue will also require farther discussions, either with this site development, or with future development of the outlot. TRAFFIC REPORT FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA April 2003 Prepared for: North American Properties 300 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 225 Minneapolis, MN 55344 Phone 952 - 974 -9200 Fax 952- 974 -9300 Prepared by: Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone 952 -937 -5150 Fax 952 -937 -5822 EXHIBIT 8 Summary The purpose of this preliminary traffic study is to document the potential significant transportation impacts resulting from the development of the Oak Park Heights retail site. This study is not intended to be a complete traffic impact study but rather to identify areas of major concern that may need to be addressed by future study. Background Information The proposed Oak Park Heights retail site development will be located south of T.H. 36 in Oak Park Heights. The site is bordered by Krueger Lane on the west, Norell Avenue on the east, 58 Street North on the south and 60 Street North on the north. Customer access to the site is planned from two driveways on Krueger Lane and one driveway on Norell Avenue. Truck traffic will access the site from one driveway on Krueger Lane, two driveways on 58 Street North and one driveway on Norell Avenue. The driveway on Norell Avenue will serve both customers and trucks. The background traffic count data for this study was obtained from the SRF Consulting Group and from traffic counts. SRF had collected traffic counts within the last year for their studies of T.H. 36. P.M. peak period turning movement counts were collected on Krueger Lane at 58 Street North and 60 Street North for this study. The existing p.m. peak hour traffic counts are shown on Figure 1. Page 1 Figure 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Counts • North Fronta TH 36 4- 124 r Mid Entr. 72 -'` 10 to jI South Entr. 83- 8 - % oz, t M c icc 1 -0 North Entr. .0 Q. 0 40 245') e Road 60th St Norell Exit o 0- o-fi 0 'S T o� r-- Lig o uo k- 13 37 58th St k35 140 170 c)c 120-' 55--) 15-N 45 ( 75 "185 10- ooto es' • 15 ao rn "2-8 x `-290 2303 - � ,� L E 5 x'115 1 65-1 T r X55 1070--) ° r 0 a n o X34 0 ( 15 Page 2 The planned roadway lane usage is shown on figure 2. Figure 2 Planned Roadway Lane Usage North Frontage Road TH 36 60th St r -÷ Mid Entr. dl T1" South Entr. �L tyr North Entr. NoreHExit Al , '-'0, -4 ,_._ 1 t 0. 9A A Z"- 58th St A � Nimmumemilllimernallr -4 ,dl yyrr )tri All intersections in the study area are controlled by stop signs except for the traffic signal located at T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue. Using the data summarized on Figures 1 and 2, intersection capacity analyses were conducted to determine the level of service of the critical intersection turning movement for each intersection. The results of the existing volumes stop sign capacity analysis are summarized in Table 1. Page 3 1 Intersection Name Existing Krueger Lane & 60th St. N. A Krueger Lane & North Site Entrance A Krueger Lane & South Site Entrance A Krueger Lane & 58th St. N. B Norell Ave. & 58th St. N. B Norell Ave. & Norell Ave. Site Exit A Norell Ave. & 60th St. N. C Scenario EB WB NB SB Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing 23.1 C 19.3 B 23.9 C 18.5 B 21.1 C Table 1 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Stop Sign Controlled Intersections * Determined using HCM 2000 methodologies in Synchro This table shows that with current volumes, each of the intersections in the study area operates at an acceptable level of service. A capacity analysis was also performed for the signalized intersection at T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue near the site. Table 2 shows that with current volumes, T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service. Trip Generation Table 2 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service Signalized Intersection Analysis T.H. 36 & Novell Ave. The trip generation for the site was computed using the standard trip generation rates contained in the publication Trip Generation, 6th edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers. The proposed development includes the following uses: an 86,000 square foot Kohl's with an expansion of 19,200 square feet and four other other retail uses totaling 65,323 square feet. The average shopping center trip generation rate was applied to the total size of the development. A comparison of the average shopping center trip generation rate with the trip generation for a similarly sized Kohl's store at another location revealed a slightly lower rate for the Kohl's store than the suggested I.T.E. rate. The average shopping center rate is expected to be a very reasonable estimate for the proposed development. Page 4 Use ITE Code Unit Numbe r of Units ail Daily Trips /Unit PM Peak Hour Trips/Unit Daily Trip y p Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Shopping Center 820 1000 Sq.Ft. 170,522 42.92 3.74 7319 638 Table 3 Trip Generation for Oak Park Heights Retail Site' ' Trip generation was determined based on the standard trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). Page 5 • • Traffic Assignment The existing count data on Krueger Lane along with other factors were analyzed to determine the expected direction of approach percentages. The counts on Krueger were indicative of the direction of approach for the existing Menard's store adjacent to the planned retail development. The direction of approach for the proposed development is expected to be similar to the existing Menard's store. The direction of approach percentages are shown on Figure 3. Page 6 Figure 3 Direction of Approach Page 7 • • Three methodologies of traffic assignment were performed to better accommodate anticipated capacity shortages at the intersection of Norell Avenue and 60 Street p p Y g North. The traffic operations of this intersection are the most significant concern of this study. The close spacing between T.H. 36 and 60 Street North on Norell Avenue limit storage for queuing vehicles and make lane weaving difficult. The methodologies of assignment change the use of 60 Street North to exit the site traveling to the intersection of T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue. The three methodologies that vary the paths that traffic exits the site: • Shortest Path — This is the path that traffic would be expected to choose if no traffic congestion would interfere with travel. • Partial Reroute — Traffic would be expected to adjust to this path to avoid congestion. It would be the quickest travel time path. • Complete Rerouting — This is a forced rerouting of traffic exiting the site to avoid 60 Street north. It routes some customers through the exit onto Norell Avenue in the southeast corner of the development. Page 8 Figure 4 Development Volumes -- Shortest Paths North Frontage Road Mid Entr. TH 36 < i266 83`> � r 23 v CNI c4 N 72 10 (D o N South Entr. 18 40 109 - ' 245 ' 186 r'0 North Entr, Tr • co ;47 t%-28 7 58th St 60th St Norell Exit 140 187 0 0)0 10 ° ua w) 15-3 oc=coo) 230 165 1070-- M 0 0mi xt/ 319-' 72--) 15-N 0 `x- 45 ( `7'5 Y185 a c�'v o chi 290 (No < j221 c o 0 o ©— 4-45 00 Page 9 • • Figure 5 Development Volumes -- Partial Reroute ...111....•.141/ North Fronta 83—> '‘j 23-y -Too N d' N T - In cv o �-- Mid Entr. 72 10 A 3 South Entr. 18 0 40 109 245 TH 36 X124 ,x`266 3 T 0 M v 4 5 f208 e Road • T ' - 56 North Entr. 58th St 66th St Norell Exit 291 187 t 10 O to to 15—) coc")O 230 165 1470 z7); o 8° c�r 180 60-3 15- k- 45 5 a'"185 I) r cy a c° 0- 290 c` ") t-- 4-815 e 4. T rs-55 00 tn.- 4 _45 -NFJ T r Page 10 Figure 6 Development Volumes — Norell Avenue Complete Rerouting TH 36 <"124 r266 .., �2' 10 cDC)N South Entr. rt, r...•..r North Fronta 83 t I r L NO Mid Entr. 18 0 40 'd IC 109 245 ar c) N co - 13 e43 1' r M 0 Q) 1' N (208 c e Road N.+ x '28 7 North Entr. 58th St 60th St Norell Exit o � 0--, 65 1 ) tf� k), 291 h05 Act 10 O rs) 15- c c ) c» 230 — NA 165 1070-- c O 18o 120 55 15Th cu 5 X85 1 ) r CN o x'290 c'' T` 4-815 • t 0 ti M (221 ') 1' rv-55 c � .r s f • N Page 11 • Intersection Name Post Development Paths Shortest Partial Complete Reroute Reroute Krueger Lane & 60th St. N. B B B Krueger Lane & North Site Entrance A B B Krueger Lane & South Site Entrance B B C Krueger Lane & 58th St. N. A B B Norell Ave. & 58th St. N. B , B B Norell Ave. & Norell Ave. Site Exit A A B Norell Ave. & 60th St. N. F F E Scenario EB WB NB SB Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay ,LOS Delay LOS Post Development 26.7 C 22.0 C 23.8 C 19.3 B 23.4 C • A capacity analysis of the past development traffic volumes was performed. The results are summarized on table 4 and 5. Table 4 Post Development PM Peak Hour Level of Service * Determined using HCM 2000 methodologies in Synchro As shown in Table 4, with the addition of the Oak Park Heights retail development all the stop sign controlled intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service except Norell Avenue and 60 street North. The critical movement at this location is the east to northbound left turn. Table 5 Post Development PM Peak Hour Level of Service Signalized Intersection Analysis T.H. 36 & Novell Ave. Table 5 shows that with the post development volumes, T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service. Page 12 Conclusions • The amount of traffic added by the Oak Park Heights retail development will not cause significant impacts to the nearby signalized intersection of T.H. 36 and Norell Avenue. • The planned driveway entrances on Krueger Lane are expected to operate well and without capacity problems. Adequate site access points for customers has been provided. • The planned truck access along 58 Street and Krueger Lane are adequate. The access from Krueger Lane will result in trucks make a left turn when entering before backing to the loading dock or to make a longer backing move after turning from 58 Street. • The spacing of the T.H. 36 and 60th Street intersections along Norell is currently inadequate. This is planned to be addressed through future upgrade projects for T.H. 36. • With the current peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of 60th Street and Norell, the intersection analyses for the intersection in isolation indicate that there is adequate capacity and acceptable operation. However, given the short spacing to T.H. 36, there are some observed difficulties with queuing and weaving between the two intersections. • Approximately 35% of the traffic exiting the site will be destined for eastbound T.H. 36. The most likely path for this traffic, if there were no impediments, is to leave the site area traveling northbound on Krueger Lane, turn right to travel eastbound on 60 Street, turn left to travel northbound on Norell Avenue and finally turn right to travel eastbound on T.H. 36. When the majority of traffic exitin g the site follows this path the northbound left turn from 60 Street to Norell will become overloaded. This is shown by the results of a stop sign analysis of Norell Avenue and 60 Street where the critical east to northbound left turn movement is level of service "F ", with an extreme ly high modeled delay (357 seconds average per vehicle turning left). • The left turn movement from eastbound to northbound at 60th Street and Norell of concern because drivers face a difficult yield decision at the stop sign. They must yield to cars that turn southbound to Norell Avenue from T.H. 36, to cars that are traveling northbound on Norell Avenue or to cars that pass through the intersection from the north leg. The situation is complicated further because many of the left turners planning to turn east on T.H. 36 will attempt to turn to the east most lane to make a right turn on T.H. 36. Further, the drivers must turn into an area that has limited storage space for vehicle queuing. The vehicle storage Page 13 • area between 60 Street and T.H. 36 will not be adequate during peak traffic conditions. • The problems at 60th and Norell can be lessened by encouraging site traffic destined for T.H. 36 to use Norell Avenue instead of 60 Street. This will reduce the number of vehicles stopping at the stop sign and reduce the total delay. To some extent, the expected traffic congestion may encourage drivers to find an alternative direction. The path of southbound on Krueger, eastbound on 58 Street north and northbound on Norell Avenue is one alternative. A second alternative is to exit the site directly to Norell Avenue from the southeast area of the site. It is suggested that signing and any other practical methods be used to encourage this movement. If all site traffic were routed away from east bound 60th Street, the modeled stop sign analysis critical delay at 60th and Norell drops from 357 seconds to 74 seconds. • The traffic volumes on T.H. 36 are expected to grow significantly if a river crossing is constructed. The growth in traffic volumes will necessitate the construction of a grade- separated intersection at Norell Avenue to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. When this occurs, the traffic bottleneck on Norell Avenue will be eliminated. This development can be constructed to not interfere with some plans for a relocated frontage road. • The preferred solution is to move the 60 Street frontage road further south. This will provide more space between T.H. 36 and the relocated frontage road for weaving and vehicle storage. It will take some time for the site to reach full occupancy and full demand. Once it is separated, it will be able to accommodate the area traffic volumes but may require 4 -way stop sign control and possibly a traffic signal. Further study is necessary to fully estimate the impacts to determine the ideal frontage road configuration and the impacts of moving the frontage road. Page 14 Bonestroo � Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects May 6, 2003 Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 -2007 Re: Kohl's Development — Brackey Addition Concept Plan Review BRA File No. 55 -03 -000 Dear Eric: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, PE. • Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. • Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. • Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. • Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Susan M. Eberiin, C.P.A. Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E: • Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. • Richard W. Foster, P.E. • David O. Loskota, P.E. • Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. • Ted K. Field, P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. • David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. • Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. • Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. • Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. • James R. Maland, P.E. • Miles B. Jensen, P.E. • L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E. • Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. • Ismael Martinez, P.E. • Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. • Sheldon J. Johnson • Dale A. Grove, P.E. • Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. • Robert J. Devery, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN • Milwaukee, W1 • Chicago, IL Website: www.bonestroo.com We have reviewed the concept development plans and traffic report for the proposed Kohl's Retail Development as submitted by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and have the following comments /recommendations for your consideration: Site Layout/Access Locations: L The proposed site plan calls for two accesses to Krueger Lane ( "main" entrances), two accesses to 58 Street North (primarily for delivery vehicles) and one access to Norell Avenue North. We recommend the most westerly access to 58 Street North be removed. The remaining access to 58 Street N. can remain at its current location across from Norwich Parkway, or could be located midway between Norwich Parkway and Krueger Lane. Also, the 58 Street N. access should be signed as "truck/delivery vehicle access only". .4. The appiicaiit: has expressed a & ii a to locate the proposed Norell Avenue N. access furthei north to better align with their internal store frontage drive. This will necessitate acquiring an easement from Wal -Mart across their pond property currently encumbered by a drainage /ponding easement dedicated to the City. Additionally, the access would be less than 100' from the existing Wal -Mart access, which may result in a recommendation of a "right - in/right -out" access only. Also, restriping of Norell Avenue N. would be required. It is our understanding the applicant will be contacting Wal -Mart to investigate this possibility. If the two parties determine a feasible arrangement, we will review the specific proposed access layout at that time. 3. The proposed northerly access to Krueger Lane is approximately 200' from the existing northerly Menard's access, while the proposed southerly access lines up across from the southerly Menard's access. Krueger Lane is a three -lane road striped with a center dual left turn lane. These access points are acceptable as shown. We recommend future access to Krueger Lane for the parcel north of Menard's be lined up across from the Kohl's proposed northerly access. 2335 West Highway 36 a St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651 -636 -4600 • Fax: 651 - 636 -1311 Traffic: 4. The traffic report submitted is acceptable with respect to projected trip generations/traffic volumes and projected direction of approach percentages. 5. Table 1 in the report indicates that the intersection of Norell Avenue N. and 60 Street N. has an existing Level Of Service (LOS) "C ". We suggest a breakdown of this intersection be shown indicating the LOS for each approach direction, to see if certain approaches are worse than others. 6. Table 4 of the report indicates that the Norell/60 St. intersection will have a LOS "F" after development of this site, under both "shortest path" and "partial reroute path" scenarios. As expected, the critical (worst case) modeled turning movement is the 60 Street N. east bound to Norell Avenue N. north bound movement. 7. Until 1Vi...DOT updates the existing. Highway .36 /frontage road intersectiens, the existing intersection of 60 Street N. and Norell Avenue N. will; experience increased delays. This is noted in the Conclusions section of the traffic report. To try to alleviate delays at this intersection, the recommendation is to use "signing and any other practical methods" to exiting a motorists onto Krueger Lane to head south and use 58 Street N. to Norell g Avenue N. or use the Norell Avenue N. access directly. A small percentage of motorists will probably robabl use these routes after experiencing delays when using 60 Street N. It is difficult to predict how successful signing or other practical methods will be at directing significant percentages of other motorists to use these "partial reroutes ". Grading/Drainage: 8. Storm water runoff from this development is proposed to be collected on -site via storm sewer and connected to the existing storm sewer in Krueger Lane. The existing storm sewer in Krueger Lane was sized to handle runoff from the majority of this site. We require storm water runoff and ponding calculations to verify if the existing storm sewer in Krueger Lane can accommodate the additional area from the northeast portion of this site. 9. Two existing storm sewer stubs are provided for this site out of Krueger Lane, one 27" and one 12" line. The proposed utility plans indicate utilizing the existing 27" line, but constructing a new manhole over the existing storm sewer in Krueger Lane instead of using the existing 12" line. 10. Storm sewers serving internal parking lots will be privately owned and maintained. As such, drainage and utility easement are not required for these items. 11. The City's Annexation Area Surface Water Management Plan requires a storm water pond at the southeast corner of Krueger Lane and 60 Street N. to accommodate storm water runoff from a portion of this site, the proposed outlot, as well as areas upstream (easterly) of this site. Consideration should be given to the sizing of this pond at this time and/or increasing the size of the existing Menard's pond in lieu of constructing this pond. 12. Proposed plans and storm water calculations shall be submitted to the Brown's Creek Watershed District for their review and permitting. Sanitary ewer: 13. Two existing 8" sanitary sewer services are provided to this site out of Krueger Lane. The proposed utility plans indicate utilizing the southerly service only to serve this site. Water Main: 14. The proposed water main layout is acceptable as shown. Two existing 6" water services are provided to this site out of Krueger Lane. The proposed utility plans indicate utili2ing both of these service to create a loop in front and in back of the proposed buildings, connecting on the east side and then connecting to the existing 12" water main in Norell Ave. =N. The applicant will need to verify if looping two 6" lines will provide adequate fire flows. 15. The proposed water main connection in Norell Avenue N. shall be accomplished via a wet tap, and the City Public Works department shall be notified prior to the work being performed. 16. Drainage and Utility Easements will also be required (25' wide) encompassing the looped water mains since they lie outside of public street right -of -ways and looped mains are considered "public ". Miscellaneous: 17. A retaining wall up to 14' in height is proposed in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the water tower easement. Detailed structural calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction. 18. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan needs to be included as part of the general plan submittal, as it pertains to the grading and private storm sewer construction activities. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604 -4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES INC . Dennis M. Postler, P.E. cc: Judy Holst, Finance Director Jay Johnson, Public Works Director Jim Butler, Building Official Scott Richards, City Planner Mark Vierling, City Attorney Kathy Widin, City Arborist Dan Parks, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. DMP, DDH, File -- Bonestroo & Associates K:155101d1Kohl's - East of Menards__Concept Plan Review 5- 5- 03.doc MEMORANDUM ENCLOSURE 4r NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacpianning.com TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang 1 Scott Richards DATE: May 1, 2003 RE: Oak Park Heights -- Zoning Ordinance Update -- 60/120 -Day Rule, Voting Requirements, and Application Deadlines FILE NO.: 798.04 — 03.01 ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE This memo describes sections of the Zoning Ordinance relating to voting requirements, application review periods, and application deadlines that the Planning Commission and City Council should consider amending. Some of the changes are needed due to changes in state law and court decisions. Other changes are recommended by staff but not required. VOTING REQUIREMENTS State law previously allowed Councils to adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two - thirds vote of all its members. With five Councilmembers, that translated to at least four out of five Councilmembers. Current state law requires adoption and amendment of a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all Councilmembers. State law also requires that the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two- thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body. The City's voting requirements for zoning amendments should be revised to be consistent with state law. The City may also wish to revise other voting requirements for other types of applications where a four -fifths (4/5) affirmative vote of the Council is required. Additionally, the City may wish to eliminate the four -fifths (4/5) affirmative vote requirement for Planning Commission recommendations for zoning amendment and PUD amendment applications. Revisions to state law do not impact Planning Commission voting requirements; however, we would recommend revisions that would allow the Planning Commission to make recommendations by a simple majority vote of members present if there is a quorum. We believe making this change would simplify and clarify the Planning Commission review process. Current regulations that the City may wish to revise are listed below: Zoning Amendment Voting. Planning Commission. Section 401.03.A.13 reads, "A recommendation for approval of a request for an amendment shall require passage by a four - fifths (4/5) vote of the Planning Commission." This requirement may be retained; however, we recommend revising the requirement to simply say that the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment request. Making this revision would allow the Planning Commission to make a recommendation with a majority vote of members present as allowed by Roberts Rules of Order, which were adopted by reference in the Planning Commission by -laws. We recommend Section 401.03.A.13 be revised to read, "The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment request." City Council. Section 401.03.A.14 reads, "Approval of a request for an amendment shall . require passage by a four -fifths (4/5) vote .. of the City Council. ".. This _requirement must be amended to be consistent with state law. We recommend Section 401.03.A.14 be revised to read, "Approval of a request for a zoning amendment shall require passage by a majority vote of all members of the City Council. Amendments that change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial require a four - fifths (4/5) majority vote of all members of the City Council." Conditional Use Permit Voting. Planning Commission. Section 401.03.A.15 reads, "A recommendation for approval of a request for a conditional use permit shall require passage by a three -fifths (3/5) vote of the Planning Commission." This requirement may be retained; however, we recommend revising this requirement to be consistent with our proposed language for zoning amendments. The Planning Commission would then be able to make a recommendation with a majority vote of members present as allowed by Roberts Rules of Order, which were adopted by reference in the Planning Commission by -laws. 2 • • We recommend Section 401.03.A.15 be revised to read, "The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the conditional use permit request." City Council. Section 401.03.A.16 reads, "Approval of a request for conditional use permit shall require passage by a three -fifths (3/5) vote of the City Council." We recommend revising this provision to allow passage by a majority vote of the Council. This would allow passage by an affirmative vote of two of three members present. We recommend Section 401.03.A.16 be revised to read, "Approval of a request for a conditional use permit shall require passage by a majority vote of the City Council." Variance Voting. Planning Commission. Section 401.04.B.1.a.8 reads, "The Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend approval or denial of the request by at least a three -fifths (3/5) vote of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendation and City staff's report shall be presented to the City Council." This requirement may be retained; however, we recommend changing the language to be consistent with the proposed language for recommendations on other types of applications. The Planning Commission would then be able to make a recommendation with a majority vote of members present as allowed by Roberts Rules of Order, which were adopted by reference in the Planning Commission by -laws. We recommend Section. 401.04.B.1.a.8 be. revised . to . read,.. "The .Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the variance request" City Council. Section 401.04.B.1.a.14 reads, "A variance of this Ordinance shall be by four -fifths (4/5) vote of the entire City Council." We recommend retaining this language. PUD Concept Plan Voting. Planning Commission. Section 401.06.C.2.b.6 reads, "The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the General Concept Plan." We recommend retaining this language. City Council. Section 401.06.C.2.b.7 reads, "The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies the application(s). The affirmative vote of four- 3 fifths (4/5) of the City Council shall be required for approval of a Concept Plan." We recommend requiring a majority vote instead. We recommend Section 401.06.C.2.b.7 be revised to read, "The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies the application(s). Approval of a PUD Concept Plan shall require passage by a majority vote of the City Council." PUD General Plan of Development Voting. Planning Commission. Section 401.06.D.4.h reads, "The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the General Plan of Development." We recommend retaining this language. City Council. Section 401.06.D.4.i reads, "The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies the application(s). The affirmative vote of four - fifths (4/5) of the City Council shall be required for approval of a Concept Plan of Development. The approval of a General Plan of Development shall constitute the approval of a planned unit development permit." We recommend revising this requirement to be consistent with the requirements for a zoning amendment because review of the General Plan of Development typically occurs at the same time as the project is rezoned to PUD. We recommend Section 401.06.D.4.i be revised to read, "The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies. the .. application (s)...... Approval ..of a General Plan of Development shall require a majority vote of all members . of the City Council. A General Plan of Development that includes changing all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential. to PUD where the General Plan of Development includes commercial or industrial uses requires a four -fifths (4 /5) majority vote of all members of the City Council. The approval of a General Plan of Development shall constitute the approval of a planned unit development permit." PUD Permit Amendment Voting. Planning Commission and City Council. Section 401.06.G.2 reads, "The same review procedure by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be followed for an amendment of a PUD permit as was followed with respect to the applicant's Concept Plan, outlined in Section 401.06.C. The affirmative vote of four -fifths (4/5) of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be required for approval of an amendment of a PUD permit." We recommend revising this requirement to be consistent with the process for approval of a PUD Concept Plan. 4 • • We recommend that Section 401.06.G.2 be revised read, "The same review procedure by the Planning Commission shall be followed for an amendment of a PUD permit as was followed with respect to the applicant's Concept Plan, outlined in Section 401.06.C. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on a request for an amendment of a PUD permit. Approval of an amendment of a PUD permit shall require passage by a majority vote of the City Council." AUTOMATIC REVIEW EXTENSION The following Zoning Ordinance sections should be revised in that they say that the City automatically extends the required review time for applications from 60 to 120 days. The courts have found that a City must review an application first and may then send a letter extending the review period to 120 days with the reason for the extension included in the letter. • Section 401.03.A.17 • Section 401.04.B • Section 401.06.C.2.b.8 • Section 401 .06. D.4. j Amendments and Conditional Use Permits Variance PUD Concept Plan PUD General Plan of Development The revised language should read, "Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, an application for [insert type of application] shall be approved or denied within sixty (60) days from the date of its official and complete submission unless extended by the City pursuant to statute or a time waiver is granted by the applicant." APPLICATION DEADLINE The Zoning Ordinance section describing the schedule for reviewing a PUD Concept Plan is the only section in the Ordinance to reference when an application is heard by the Planning Commission. This section (Section 401.06.C.2.b.1) reads, "Developer files application for a conditional use permit and rezoning (where applicable) concurrently with the submission of the General Concept Plan (at least twenty (20) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting). We recommend revising this requirement from 20 to 30 days to allow time for City staff to meet with the applicant, review the application, and write a report. We also recommend adding language regarding when a request will be heard to the schedules for amendments, conditional use permits, variances, and PUD General Plans of Development. We recommend adding the following language to Section 401.03.A.2, Section 401.04.B.1.a.2, Section 401.06.C.2.b.1, and Section 401.06.D.4.a, "The request shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring after thirty (30) days from the date of submission." 5 We also recommend adding the following sentence to Section 401.06.C.2.b.1 to be consistent with the language for other types of applications, "The application shall be considered officially submitted and the application approval time line commences when all the information requirements are complied with." RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Planning Commission review City staff recommendations regarding required changes relating to approval of zoning amendments and notification of review extensions. We recommend the Planning Commission also discuss making additional text amendments recommended by City staff. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the changes that it recommends. pc: Mark Vierling 6 1 fi r 13. Recommendation - Amendment, Planning Commission. A recommendation for approval of a request for an amendment shall require passage by a four - fifths (4/5) vote of the Planning Commission. 14. Required Approval- Amendment, City Council. Approval of a request for an amendment shall require passage by a four -- fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. 15. Recommendation - Conditional Use Permit, Planning Commission. A recommendation for approval of a request for a conditional use permit shall require passage by a three - fifths (3/5) vote of the Planning Commission. 16. Required Approval - Conditional. Use Permit, City Council. Approval of a request for conditional use permit shall require passage by a three -fifths (3/5) vote of the City Council. 7(--. 17. Application Review Period. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the City of Oak Park Heights automatically extends the required review time from sixty (60) days to one hundred twenty (120) days for all amendments or conditional use permit requests. Therefore, an application for an amendment or conditional use permit shall be approved within one . hundred twenty (120) days from the date of its official and completed submission. Said time frame is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearing(s). If necessary, the processing of the application shall be extended beyond one hundred twenty (120) days if this limitation is waived by the applicant. 18. if a request for a conditional use permit receives approval of the City Council, the applicant shall record such with the Washington County Recorder within (30) days of the City Council approval date. The applicant, immediately upon recording such or as soon as is reasonably possible, shall furnish the City proof of recording. No building permits for the property in question will be granted until such proof of recording is furnished to the City. 19. Renewal. An approved conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually by the City Council at the direction of the City Administrator to determine compliance with the conditions of the permit and Ordinance. The City shall notify the permit holder of the date of the annual review at least ten (10) days prior to the review hearing. 401.03.B. Amendments /Conditional Use Permit - Initiation. The City Council or Planning Commission may, upon their own motion initiate a request to amend the text or the district boundaries, and /or request for a conditional use permit of this Ordinance. Any person owning real estate within the City may initiate a request to amend the district boundaries or text and /or request for a conditional use permit for said real estate in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance. ZONING AMENDMENT AND CUP VOTING AND EXTENSION EXHIBIT 1 6. Justification. Application for a variance shall set forth reasons that the variance is justified in order to make reasonable use of the land, structure or building. 7. Approval. Should the Council find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Council may grant a variance from the strict application of this Ordinance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, provided such relief may be granted without impairing the intent of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council, in the case of major variance, based upon a report and recommendation by the City staff, shall have the power to advise and recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, structure, or use as it may deem advisable in the interest of the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. s* 401.04.B. Procedures. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the City of Oak Park Heights automatically extends the required review time from sixty (60) days to one hundred twenty (120) days for all variance requests. Therefore, an application for a variance shall be approved within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of its official and completed submission. Said time frame is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearing(s). If necessary, the processing of the application shall be extended beyond one hundred twenty (120) days if this limitation is waived by the applicant. Additional City requirements are as follows: 1. Variances. a. Processing. 1) Applicants requesting a variance, as provided within this Ordinance, are required to contact the Zoning Administrator in order to set up pre- application meetings with the City Attorney, City Planner, and /or City Building Official to discuss the variance in question. A staff meeting is strongly recommended for all types of proposals to answer questions on processing the application, payment of fees, explain ordinance requirements, identify the details of the request, review concept plans, provide advise, and potentially avoid any unnecessary plan modifications or site design related conflicts. * 2) Request for variances, as provided within this Ordinance, shall be filed with the office of the City Administrator and Community Development Director on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined in Section 401.08. Such application shall also be accompanied by three (3) copies of large scale copies and twenty (20) reduced (11" x 17 ") copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development, or use and a mailing list provided by * Amended Ord, No. 99-- 401 -09, 26 October 1999 VARIANCE REVIEW EXTENSION 04 -3 EXHIBIT 2 • • 6) The City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors, said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Ordinance. Failure of an applicant to supply all necessary supportive information may be grounds for denial of the request. The applicant or representative thereof shall appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions concerning the proposed variance. The Planning Commission shall make findings of fact and recommend approval or denial of the request by at least athree -fifths (3/5) vote of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendation and City staff's report shall be presented to the City Council. 9) The City Council shall not consider or act upon a variance request until they have received a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission. 10) Upon completion of the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the request shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council. Such reports and recommendations shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the City Council meeting. 11) The City Council shall review the application and may at its option conduct a public hearing on the request. 12) If, upon receiving said reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds that specific inconsistencies exist in the review process and thus the final recommendation of the City Council will differ from that of the Planning Commission, the City Council may, before taking final action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The City Council shall provide the Planning Commission with a written statement detailing the specific reasons for referral. This procedure shall be followed only one (1) time on a singular request. 04 -5 VARIANCE VOTING EXHIBIT 3 13) The City Council shall make a finding of fact and approve or deny a request for variance after receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation. )\ 14) A variance of this Ordinance shall be by four -fifths (4/5) vote of the entire City Council. 15) All decisions by the City Council involving a variance request shall be final except that an aggrieved person or persons shall have the right to appeal within thirty (30) days of the decision to the Washington County District Court. 16} A copy of all decisions granting variances for properties in the Shoreland, Floodway, Flood Fringe or River Impact District, shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 17) Whenever a variance has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application and proposal for the variance affecting the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least one (1) year from the date of its denial, except as follows a) If the applicant or property owner can clearly demonstrate that the circumstances surrounding the previous variance application have changed significantly. b) If the City Council decides to reconsider such matter by a vote of not less than three -fifths (3/5). 18) If a request for a variance receives approval of the City Council, the applicant shall record such with the County Recorder within thirty (30) days of the City Council approval date. The applicant, immediately upon recording such, or as soon as is reasonably possible, shall furnish the City proof of recording. No building permits for the property in question will be granted until such proof of recording is furnished to the City. 04--6 EXHIBIT 3 CONTINUED • elements of the proposed General Concept Plan represent the immediately significant elements which the City shall review and for which a decision shall be rendered: 1) Overall maximum PUD density range. 2) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways: 3) General location and extent of public and common open space. 4) General location of residential and non - residential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. 5) Staging and time schedule of development. b. Schedule. 1) Developer files application for a conditional use permit and rezoning (where applicable) concurrently with the submission of the General Concept Plan (at (east twenty, (20) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting). 2) Developer meets with the City staff to discuss the proposed development. 3) The Zoning Administrator formally acknowledges filing and receipt of a complete application and sets a public hearing. 4) The Planning Commission holds a public hearing. 5) The petitioner and /or their representative shall appear before the Planning Commission at the hearing to answer questions regarding the proposed project. X 6) The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the General Concept Plan. "")<- 7) The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies the application(s). The affirmative vote of four fifths (4/5) of the City Council shall be required for approval of a Concept Plan. * Amended Ord. No. 98- 401 -01, 28 April 1998 06 -10 APPLICATION SCHEDULE AND PUD CONCEPT VOTING EXHIBIT 4 8) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the City of Oak Park Heights • automatically extends the required review time from sixty (60) days to one hundred twenty (120) days for a Concept Plan request. Therefore, an application for a Concept Plan shall be approved within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of its official and completed submission. Said time frame is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearing(s). If necessary, the processing of the application shall be extended beyond one hundred twenty (120) days if this limitation is waived by the applicant. c. Optional Submission of General Plan of Development Stage. In cases of single stage PUDs or where applicant wishes to begin the first stage of a multiple stage PUD immediately, the General Plan of Development may be submitted for the proposed PUD simultaneously with the submission of the General Concept Plan. In such case, the applicant shall comply with all the provisions of the Ordinance applicable to submission of the General Plan of Development Stage. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider such plans simultaneously and shall grant or deny the General Plan of Development approval in accordance with the provisions of this Section. d. Effect of Concept Plan Approval. Unless the applicant shall fail to meet time schedules for filing General Plan of Development Stage and/or Final Plans or shall fail to proceed with development in accordance with the plans as approved or shall in any other manner fail to comply with any condition of this Ordinance or of any approval 'granted pursuant to it, a General Concept Plan which has been approved and a PUD Agreement signed by the applicant shall not be modified, revoked or otherwise impaired pending the application for approval of the General Plan of Development Stage and Final Plans by any action of the City of Oak Park Heights without the consent of the applicant. e. Limitation on General Concept Plan Approval. Unless a General Plan of Development covering the area designated in the General Concept Plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within twelve (12) months from the date Council grants General Concept Plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file General flan of Development Stage and Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and of an approved General Concept Plan, the approval may be revoked by Council action. In such case, the Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the General Concept Plan approval for that portion of the PUD that has not received final approval and re- establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. Upon application by the applicant, the Council at its discretion may extend for *Amended Ord. No. 98- 401 -01, 28 April 1998 06 -11 PUD CONCEPT REVIEW EXTENSION EXHIBIT 5 g. 3) The City Building Official for review of all plans for compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the State of Minnesota Uniform Building Code and any other applicable Federal, State, or local codes. 4 The City Planner for review of all plans for compliance with the intent, purpose and requirements of this Ordinance and conformity with the General Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan. 5) The Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. When appropriate, as determined by the City Administrator, to the Park Commission for review and recommendations. 7) When appropriate, as determined by the City Administrator, to other special review agencies such as the Watershed Districts, Soil Conservation Service, Highway Departments, or other affected agencies. All staff designated in paragraphs one (1) through four (4) hereof shall submit their reports in writing to the Planning Commission and applicant. d. The Zoning Administrator formally acknowledges filing and receipt of a complete application and sets a public hearing. e. The same notification procedure for this hearing shall be followed as was followed with respect to the applicant's Concept Plan, outlined in Section 401.06.C. f. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing. The petitioner and/or their representative shall appear before the Planning Commission at the hearing to answer questions regarding the proposed project. -X- h. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the General Plan of Development. x i. The City Council reviews all recommendations and approves /denies the application(s). The affirmative vote of four- fifths (415) of the City Council shall be required for approval of a Concept Plan of Development. The approval of a General Plan of, Development shall constitute the approval of a planned unit development permit. 06 -17 PUD GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT VOTING EXHIBIT 6 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the City of Oak Park Heights automatically extends the required review time from sixty (60) days to one hundred twenty (120) days for all General Plan of Development requests. Therefore, an application for a General Plan of Development shall be approved within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of its official and completed submission. Said time frame is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearing(s). If necessary, the processing of the application shall be extended beyond one hundred twenty (120) days if this limitation is waived by the applicant. k. The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the City Attorney to draw up a PUD Agreement which stipulates the specific terms and conditions approved b Pp by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This Agreement shall be signed by the Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights, City Administrator and the applicant within thirty (30) days of Council approval of the General Plan of Development Stage. Where the General Plan of Development is to be resubmitted or denied approval, Council action shall be by written report setting forth the reasons for its action. In all cases, a certified copy of the document evidencing Council action shall be promptly delivered to the applicant by the Zoning Administrator. 1. At any time following the approval of a General Plan of Development by the City Council, the applicant may, pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City apply for, and the Zoning Administrator may issue, grading permits 9 Y � g gP for f the area within the PUD for which General Plan of Development approval has been given. 5. Information Requirements. The General Plan of Development should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the General Concept Plan stage for the PUD. Information from the General Concept may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The General Plan of Development p submissions shall include but not be limited to: a. Present and possible new zoning classifications required for development stage submission and any other public decisions necessary for implementation rY mplementation of the proposed plan. b. Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans, drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet (or scale requested by the City Administrator) containing at least the following information: 06 -18 PUD GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW EXTENSION EXHIBIT 7 Action by the Planning Commission and City Council. The same review procedure by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be followed for an amendment of a PUD permit as was followed with respect to the applicant's Concept Plan, outlined in Section 401.06.C. The affirmative vote of four - fifths (4/5) of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be required for approval of an amendment of a PUD permit. 401.O6.H. General Requirements. 1. Records. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of all PUD permits issued by the City, including information on a project's permitted uses, all pertinent project plans, any conditions imposed on a project by the City Council, and such other information as the Zoning Administrator may deem appropriate. 2. Withdrawal of an Application. Any application under this Section may be withdrawn by an applicant without prejudice at any time prior to final City Council action thereon. 3. Resubmission of an Application. Once an application for a PUD permit has been denied by the City Council, that application may not be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of such denial. 4. Cancellation of a PUD Permit. Physical implementation of any approved PUD project must begin within twelve (12) months following City Council approval of the PUD permit for that project, unless in granting such a permit the Council shall specify a different period of time for project implementation. Failure to initiate project implementation within the appropriate time period automatically shall cancel the PUD permit for a project unless an extension of said permit is approved by the Council prior to the date of cancellation. An application for extension of a PUD permit shall be administered in the same . manner as outlined in Section 401.03.C.4 of this Ordinance for extension of a conditional use permit. An existing PUD permit also shall be canceled if any rezoning or other action by the City shall occur which supersedes the permit. 5. Qualifications of an Applicant. Any application under this Section shall be made only by the owner of the property covered in the application or by duly authorized representative, provided, however, that an option - holder or a contract - holder also may submit such an application if it is accomplished by a fully executed agreement or document from the property owner stating that there are no objections to the proposed project and that the applicant is in fact joining in said application as his /her interest may appear. * Amended Ord. No. 98- 401 -01, 28 April 1998 06-25 PUD AMENDMENT VOTING EXHIBIT 8 • Memo City of Oak Park Heights To: Planning Commission From: Julie A. Hultman, Community Development Date: May 2, 2003 Re: Commission Appointment At this meeting, you are being requested to provide recommendation to the City Council for two commission seats. I ask that you make two separate motions for re- appointment of Vice Chair Runk and for the new commissioner. If you elect to request reappointment for Vice Chair Runk for a 3-year term. The new term would commence June 1, 2003 and conclude May 31, 2006. The applicant for the seat vacated by George Volt's passing would be appointed for a full 3-year term as George's appointment was scheduled to conclude May 31, 2003. As such the new commission term would commence after appointment from the City Council and conclude May 31, 2006. If you have any questions regarding this information, please give me a iing. TREE CITY U.S.A. ENCLOSURE 5 • Memo To: Planning Commission From: Julie A. Hultman, Community Development Date: May 2, 2003 Re: June Council Meeting Representative George Vogt was scheduled to be the Commission Representative at the June City Council meetings. As George is no longer with us, I would like the Commission to determine the replacement representative for the month of June. Thank you. City of Oak Park Heights TREE CITY U.S.A. ENCLOSURE 6