HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2003 Planning Commission Meeting PacketII. Approval of Agenda:
III. Approve Minutes:
A. May 8, 2003 (1)
Adjournment:
VII. Old Business:
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:00 PM
Estirnated
Times
7:00 I. Call to Order:
A. Welcome New Planning Commissioner Chuck Oswald
IV. 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. Continued 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 60t St. N. (2)
VII. New Business:
A. Council Representative Schedule: Review and Update (3)
VIII. Informational:
A. Next Meeting: July 10, 2003 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.
B. Council Representative: June Commissioner Dwyer
July Commissioner Dwyer
4
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, May 8, 2003
Call To Order /Approval of Agenda: Chair Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. Present: Commissioners Liljegren, Runk and Powell. City Administrator Johnson, City
Planner Richards and Commission Liaison McComber.
Commissioner Powell, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to approve the Agenda as
presented. Carried 4 -0.
Approve Minutes: Chair Dwyer, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to approve the
Minutes of April 10, 2003 as amended. Carried 4 -0.
Department /Commission Liaison Reports /Other Reports:
A. Commission Liaison: Commission Liaison McComber reported that she has
requested the Hwy. 36 design recommendation to be placed on the May 13, 2003 City
Council agenda for discussion.
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. 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 60t St. N.
City Planner Richards reviewed the requests, noting that the area is currently zoned CBD
Central Business District which does not include minor auto repair and that the text
amendment being requested is to allow the use as a conditional use within the CBD zoning
district. Richards reviewed the May 2, 2003 Planning Report for the matter and provided an
issue analysis for the same. He noted that there were a number of issues remaining to be
resolved and suggested the Commission consider tabling the conditional use permit and site
plan review requests to allow time for their issues to be addressed.
Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment at 7:15 p.m.
Charles Radloff, for the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they didn't see
any serious problems with the conditions of the planning report; however he was somewhat
surprised at the MnDOT access decision. He stated that they had discussed the project with
MnDOT and while he thought they had this area covered he would work on the issued. Mr.
Radloff commented on the zoning text amendment, stating that the land had been conveyed,
with a covenant that a Midas be building on the site, prior to the area being zoned CBD and
that it had been their understanding that this land had been "grandfathered" and that the text
amendment is a critical issue to the proposed project.
ENCLOSURE 1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2003
Page 2 of 5
Peter Houser, property owner, introduced himself and responded to Commissioner Dwyer
that he was aware of the potential changes to Hwy. 36 but also understood that at this time
nothing in the way of changes had been firmly established. Mr. Houser stated that he has had
numerous conversations with MnDOT and has been led to believe that this property would
not be jeopardy with any changes to the roadway. He briefly discussed the transfer history of
the property and his purchase of it in 1993 with a deed covenant that a Midas be constructed
on the property. Mr. Houser has been a Midas franchisee for the past 25 years.
Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to close the public hearing at
7:23 p.m. Carried 4-0.
Commission discussion ensued as to the property deed covenant, planner's request to table the
conditional use permit and site plan review, Hwy. 36 changes and potential ramifications,
deadlines to act upon the applicant's request, Hwy. 36 mapping and timeline goals and general
concern of potential changes and their impact upon the property being considered.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Chair Dwyer, moved to continue the public hearing to the
June, 2003 meeting. Carried 4-0.
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
Menards at 60t St. N.
City Planner Richards reviewed the applicant's requests, reviewed the planning report of May
1, 2003, provided an issue analysis and offered concluding remarks and recommendations.
Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment at 7:40 p.m.
Steve Johnson —North American Properties addressed the issue of former Kohl's applicant, AIG
having not formally withdrawn from the project and explained how North American Properties
became involved with the project. He offered to contact AIG representatives for formal
withdrawal to simplify things if desired by the Commission.
Mr. Johnson addressed the planner's reports and the conditions set forth within the same, noting
that they are interested in having the future expansion included with concept approval.
Discussion commenced as to setback requirements, parking ratios, construction process,
timelines and relativity of project to other Kohl's developments. Issues related to landscaping,
access and sidewalks was discussed as was tree removal and preservation requirements.
Dan Parks Westwood Professional Services discussed the design layout and described how
they derived at the internal driveway concept as part of long term planning with future retail
expansion.
4
r
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2003
Page 3 of 5
Residents of the Autumn Ridge neighborhood were present and asked for elaboration of the
traffic study relative to increased traffic at 58t and Newgate. City Planner Richards noted that
the potential changes to Hwy. 36 will reduce traffic on 58t Street. Discussion was had as to
screening at site between the proposed project and the residential areas.
Discussion was had as to loading dock design, delivery schedules, traffic and noise associated
with store deliveries. North American Properties stated that they would provide the City
with information pertaining to truck traffic and delivery.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to close the public hearing at
8:14 p.m. Carried 4
Commission discussion ensued as to the Commission's desire to see parking reduced,
conditions language to review and reduce parking requirements, 10 foot setback requirement,
landscaping designing with a 5:1 ratio for parking and the Commission's desire to see the
applicant and staff work together to determine an appropriate parking ratio for the site.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to recommend City Council
concept plan approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City finds that the proposed concept plan, building and parking arrangement to
be acceptable.
2.
Rezoning of the property to B with a planned unit development overlay would
occur concurrently withthe general plan of development approval.
3. Concept plan approval includes the proposed 19,200 square foot Kohl's expansion.
4. The access to Norell Avenue may be moved north pending approval by Wal -Mart of
an access easement and approval of the City Engineer.
5. 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.
6. The grading and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Brown's
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.
7. The Zoning Ordinance parking requirement of six parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet may be varied for this development as part of the General Plan of Development
approvals. Applicants shall work with City staff to determine appropriate ratio for
the development. Parking stalls that are in excess of the requirements for this
development may be shown on the site plan as proof of parking and landscaped
appropriately.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2003
Page 4 of 5
8. The concept utility plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
9. 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 58t Street with crosswalks should be considered.
10. The general plan shall address adequate berms, fences and landscaping along 58`
Street and Krueger Lane to screen the loading dock areas.
11. The architectural appearance of the structure shall be subject to Design Guidelines
review as part of the general plan of development consideration.
12. Detailed plans related to lighting, signage and landscaping shall be subject to review
as part of the general plan of development consideration.
13. The grading and placement of a retaining wall adjacent to the transmission line
towers shall be subject to written approval of Xcel Energy.
14. 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
easements and other easement documents required for this development shall be
subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
Carried 4-0.
C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To consider amendments to the Oak Park Heights
Zoning Ordinance relating to voting requirements, application schedule and review
periods.
City Planner Richards reviewed the May 1, 2003 planning report regarding the proposed
amendment and discussed voting requirements and language for the proposed changes.
Commission discussion ensued as to the language changes, majority voting requirements and
some suggested text clarification was made. The Commission expressed its desire to see
information more complete and to have the Commission and the City Council closer to the
same page for review information. The Commission also expressed its desire to see developers
in earlier to allow more time for their requests to be processed.
Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for public comment. There were no visitors to the public
hearing.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Chair Dwyer, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 4-0.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to forward to the City
Council, recommending approval, subject to staff recommendations. Carried 4-0.
r
New Business:
A. Recommend Planning Commission Appointment:
Planning Commission Minutes
May 8, 2003
Page 5 of 5
Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren moved to recommend that the City Council
reappoint Mike Runk to a 3 -year planning commission term. Carried 3 -0 -1, Runk abstained.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren moved to recommend that the City
Council appoint Chuck Oswald to a 3 -year planning commission term, effective May 31, 2003.
Carried 4-0.
B. Select June Council Representative:
Brief discussion ensued, wherein Chair Dwyer stated that he would serve as the Planning
Commission representative to the City Council for the month of June. Chair Dwyer ask that
the Commission be provided with a current schedule for Council representation.
Old Business: None.
Informational:
A. Next Meeting: June 12, 2003 7:00p .m.
B. Council Representative: May Vice Chair Runk
June Chair Dwyer
C. Montanari Homes:
City Planner Richards noted that Montanari Homes was moving forward with their project
and that there were some changes made to the original plan which will be reviewed by the
City Council at their May 13, 2003 meeting.
Adjournment: Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Commissioner Powell,
moved to adjourn at 9:01 p.m. Carried 4 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie A. Hultman
Community Development
Approved by the Planning Commission:
MEMORANDUM
pc: Pete Houser
Charles Radloff
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacpla:nning.com
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: June 5, 2003
RE: Oak Park Heights Oak Park Commercial (Midas)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
FILE NO: 798.02 03.05
ENCLOSURE
At their May 8, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning
Ordinance amendment, conditional use permit (CUP), and site plan review for the
construction of a commercial building at 13613 60 Street North that would contain a
Midas and up to four retail stores. The site is located between 60 Street North and
Wal Mart and is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The Planning Commission
reviewed the application but did not act on the amendment or specific site issues
pending additional information related to a MnDOT access permit and stormwater
issues.
The applicant continues to pursue a written access permit from MnDOT and is working
with the City Engineer and the Browns Creek Watershed District on the issue of whether
stormwater will need to be temporarily held on site or can be accommodated
downstream.
In that this project requires a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow minor auto repair
as a conditional use in the Central Business District, the applicant has requested that
the Planning Commission take action on this issue first. If the Planning Commission
and City Council are not favorable to the amendment, the project cannot go forward. A
discussion of the Zoning Ordinance amendment and review of the criteria for approving
amendments is found in the May 2, 2003 planning report that is attached.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendment
separate from the consideration of the commercial development and make a
recommendation on the zoning issue at their June 12, 2003 meeting.
MEMORANDUM
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
BACKGROUND
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 buildin g at 13613 60 Street North. The site is located
between 60 Street North and WaI -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.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
ISSUES ANALYSIS
NQRTHWEST A$SOCIATE.D CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile; 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com
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.
d.
e.
f.
g.
The environmental issues and geographic area involved.
Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
The impact on character of the surrounding area.
The demonstrated need for such use.
Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools,
streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity.
i. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein
i.e. parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Zonin g Amendment Analysis. An autobody .repair business. is. located west of the.
subject site,, and a recreational vehicle sales and repair.business is Iocated'west of that.
The "City. annexed the 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:
2
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.
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 contra! and reduce noise in accordance with Section
401.15.B.11 of this Ordinance.
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.
,CONDI.TIONAL.USE PERMIT:AND. SITE PLAN. REVIEW
3
Conditional Use 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.
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.
g.
f. The demonstrated need for such use.
Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools,
streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity.
i. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein
(Le. 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
Wal -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
•s- maximum height ,by..fve feet. The distan.ce :from. the .,ground to:Ahe..top :of.the..tower is
38' -6 therefore, the building complies with height requirements.
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.
Storrn 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
4
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
p 9
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
g g
colors. and that light and bright colors should be..used only as minor accents. The
building::elevation.s do.. not specify _colors.. t.Co.lors, 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
gg
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
5
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. All 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 subrnitted 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•
pc: Mark Vierling
0
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.
eV
Of
et
Q
I as
LO
07
w
0
V cs
isol of
1 7 1 1 t
0
1
r
Li
w
w
A
1'
5
2
N
h
bm
o
IO7 1
.1 Illgi
He t .‘g !fi
1
Wi 4 glE
n 1-11:
o r
Isc
l ip, m 4
Q
;E
Z
Z3
mao
H
N
2{
•h
d
11
qq
QI®10�
1)�
15"
0
K t.11
Ali
oo
i.1°
0..
4
saP
3
M
0)
I fig 3[1.1 ,Sb3
a raw A 0 aa b1'r •i 'O 01 C I+ M
...2... A wg 14
vi u tl. 2.
11" aw.4: .H
N C
3 0. '4 C~ Mf; p
51° 1 p
MI a, 11.1.11i.i ,l«�a0 ++$v�+t7 Y tl ON •p 11 Ia
'�C M '17tl olt m 1 11 k. i02v4O v► A« c
P v���
d
"A..{ GI 41O �•�.•Mi
ba,N 1.41;14 aaN
a s p igi° 3
1 b 000 °SCIb
Fj o a 0 Z, MM N 'i7 .l p 6
N
O4 i t o N v :4
ri
5io al
44,
Itei
O l N
ac
12
t0
ille In.m.
"I O
h N
M o.
Edge':
IWO 5
a
1Nr. a e
mg. 8" e
0
.zN ..0
aC
i.2 I
14
Q
to
at
i p
en
i
7 ..C3 ec L'Ic s
O
llsi�° ::v' •.r •s ..1'
111.'M39u!
:1•86! :;4 ∎7
=88 00.05 s•-r nr i3.2ti e i C
to
M1
en
eH
of
T
Ale 03.
MVOs 00 V201102
co
/b
M1
4
-2 6 1
N
s„
Y
u O iad' N
O OO,�
ftij 0 4 M HAS
123! �v 8am o"
i s ut C is
t::011:2341,2 843
14° 0 1 e 4i3 g t4,2
A� n ra� O i
r1 0 A h� 0� tia
111110001144 O +1 w t U'd �o41: 1- O l w pC q°�0M 10 M
Rd Cp, pN �N�+NaN.ci .c wc.v., ;iigiiiiiiil y In :�A m a !�1 O ��0��1 0 p NN aitgaingia;
M N 00 1,f N 1! i rl Im
gp2"g pima- 11 ili III4
h 1 e 5 2
I 11YY
rora
Met
D H O v
a1C111 0 pj
r,�
IV
m
ry M1
n
0 sr9 bin ado'
t. abet
J
M1
0)
m
01
1;
11
t
i)
kal�
29R
r
SCRUCOM
1664E 0 ADM
O iN {ad
e0
•Y.
t�
a•••
ce
01
W O.
ni
0-
CC
O.
tl
UV
UV
1
1 PROJECT DATA
PARKING PROVIDED
SURFACE INCLUDING 2 HC STALLS 46 CARS
INTERIOR BAYS 6 PROVIDED
TOTAL PROVIDED 52 CARS
PARKING REQUIRED
R ETAI L(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
1
m
0
0
in
MA RI
E: ALL PLANTING BED AREAS TO HAVE 1 1/2" BARK CHIP
CH OVER WEED PREVENTION FABRIC.
ANDSCAPE $QHEDULE
CURRENT, ALPINE RIBES ALPINUM
JUNIPEROUS SABINA JUNIPER, ARCADIA
2" LINDEN HYBRID TIUA X FAFLVESCENS'GLENLEVEN"
2" LOCUST SKYLINE GLEDITSIA TRICAKTHOS 'SKY UNE'
SERVICEBERRY- APPLE AMEL.ANCHIER XGRRANDIFLORA'
COMMON NAME
1-
1 S' HTG POT
3B' O.C.
24" SPRD. POT
SPACE 4' O.C.
21/2 DIA
21/2 DIA
MULTI STEMED
4' -0" HTG
SIZE
a
38
Pa)
A
QNTY
I
1
cn
z c
ID
0
Cn
rn
cn
12*
iv
m
0
rn
ta
t 11
m
xc o
n
z'MFM
4.1z
11.4
no n
ENTRANCE DRIVE
R CITY REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
3
1
0
-n
>0
X m
70
at en
11 1
tO
.43)
P1 9 II:
Z W
ARCHITECT
Z
RIIION 1331:11S H1.09
96# AVAAH011-1
EOE
ISO
cc -di. th
t
a. cc x_
LU
0 2
0 a.
54:
MOM
10311H3E1V
NO110111:11SNOD b03 ION ATINO AA31Aal A113 b()
I
r
I
1
1
1 1
1
t I
1
1 1
3AIPCI 01
1+ 4
1110 Lfl
E z
w
0
it) w
us
ds
re el
re
0
8
N
es
z
tar' �'S'�
-v
lig -I 1;141 f;pgi
It $11 ri lir f
Atillirgi ":11 1 1 III 1 .1.1 ft
;tritit 112 it I 1 1 L i 31 1 41 rt
WHINE 11; 1 i t 1; O I
111 I II
it I
ti i I r 4 1
dr, It
It r i
b 1 fl I 3- i t I
I 1 1! I I
t :1 Jg 1 t
7-0 t �i i l;ft(i i t l �i� F �i} f1 e' ��f "F I j r: �E cf f[ z I§ tt f k t l s ti ��1 i k� ki�ie 1it 1 {�j �I 1 f} i F �1 'Its rt 9 f`i i r 81 �i' 1 �i i j 1� i `l t #�s j P i I. s j l `a 4 f� �1.1
ra
li Iii I I
r pi i
I t
I 1 e
c c
a. cc g
W
OM 5c
0
a
pug n.
w<
2 ig
w
e gg
w Q
w
Oaf
iri.. o z ai
ill ii--- 1a
a -:11
13 iIHOHY .EN
ts2
3
r
cid o§
0
r•o
N
w
N N
10
O Co
Wx
0<
0
i
9
NOI1DfkllSNOO NOS ION -1.lN0 MIAJI LLD 210
V
.z12
8 23
8318
0
1-
m
m
0
rn
w
Mtn
?tom n
3 c 5
In n
N O n
FOR CITY REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
F K
>0 tnma
XIN s n to
W
WO w 1S;: V ARCHITECT :o
(i.::. 2 0
aw m
a
QV gw
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
January 9
February 13
March 13
April 10
May 8
June 12
July 10
August 14
September 11
October 9
November 13
December 11
City of Oak Park Heights
Planning Commission
Julie A. Hultman, Community Development
June 6 2003
2003 Commission Meeting Representation Schedule
The following schedule is being provided to you as per your request at the May 8, 2003 meeting. Please
note that there as a result of Chair Dwyer's representing the Commisison in June, he has doubled up as
he is on the schedule for july as well. November is vacant and must be assigned.
2003
PLANNING
REGULAR MEETING DATES
PLANNING:
Meetings are the 2nd Thursday of each month
Public hearing items are required to be submitted 20 days in advance of the scheduled meeting date. This
date is located in the 2nd column.
Meeting Date Public Hearing Submittal
December 20, 2002
January 24
February 21
March 21
April 18
May 23
June 20
July 25
August 22
September 19
October 24
November 21
Council Representative
Commissioner Vogt
Commissioner Dwyer
Commissioner Liljgren
Commissioner Powell
Commissioner Runk
Commissioner Dwyer
Commissioner Dwyer
Commissioner Liljgren
Commissioner Powell
Commissioner Runk
Commissioner
Commissioner Dwyer
ENCLOSURE
I will provide you each with an updated schedule after the June meeting, reflecting any changes you
have made.