HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2005 Planning Commission Meeting PacketI. Call to Order:
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approve Minutes of May 12, 2005 (1)
IV. De • . . ent Commis i• n Liais • n • they Re • orts:
A.
B.
C.
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: Oakgreen Village: To consider requests for Site Plan Review
and Planned Unit Development: Concept Plan for construction of
townhomes, known as Oakgreen Village -- Phase I and located to north of
58 St. and west of Oakgreen Ave.. (2)
B. Bahr Construction: To consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit,
allowing relocation of an existing single - family detached home, from 11051
Stillwater Blvd., Lake Elmo to a vacant lot at 15403 58 St. N., Oak Park
Heights. (3)
C. Xcel Energy: To consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment, P City to Ci Ordinance 308.08, for land reclamation and
grading to fill ditch for construction of short section of access road at Xcel
Energy - A.S. King Plant, 1103 King Plant Rd. (4)
VII. New Business:
A. C. mmis i • n Vacan
B. ' ashin
VIII. Old Business:
A. Central Business District Update & City Council Action (6)
B. Commissioner John Dwyer Appointment Extension
IX. Informational:
A. Next Meeting: July 14, 2005 — Regular Meeting @ 7:00 p.m.
B. Council Representative: June — Commissioner Oswald
July — Commissioner Dwyer
X. Adjournment
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, June 9, 2005 — 7:00 p.m.
Commission Liaison:
St. Croix Crossing Update:
Other:
Interviews and A
19
oun ' Tax Forfeited Land 0
ointment Recommendation
ortuni
..
on
(5)
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, May 12, 2005
ENCLOSURE 1
Call To Order: Chair Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present:
Commissioners Liljegren, Oswald, Runk and was es cha. City Planner Richards, City Administrator
Johnson and Commission Liaison McComber.
Approval of Agenda: Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Oswald, moved to approve the
Agenda, as presented. Carried 5 -0.
Approve Minutes of April 14, 2005: Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to
approve the Minutes as amended. Carried 5 -0.
Department /Commission Liaison Reports /Other Reports
A. Commission Liaison: Commission Liaison McComber noted that the Commissioners
should have received the Government Training Service (G.T.S) brochure and encouraged
them to partake in the educational offerings provided by G.T.S.
McComber also noted that the City Council discussed the Central Business District at their
May 10, 2005 meeting and scheduled a joint worksession with the Planning Commission to
be held prior to the regular City Council meeting on May 24, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. She added
that the matter is further down on the meeting agenda, where it would be discussed further.
B. St. Croix Crossing Update: Commission Liaison McComber provided a brief update, and
announced that the next Stakeholders Group meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2005 from
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Stillwater City Hall.
C. Other:
Visitors /Public Comment: Chair Dwyer explained to the audience that this portion of the
agenda was made available to visitors who wished to address the Commission to items not on the
current agenda and also pointed out that there was a viewing copy of the materials received by the
Commission for the items on the meeting agenda for the evening.
There being no visitors to the meeting, Chair Dwyer moved to the Public Hearings portion of the
Agenda.
Public Hearings:
A. Oakgreen Village: To consider requests for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development:
Concept Plan for construction of townhomes, known as Oakgreen Village — Phase I and located
to north of 58th St. and west of Oakgreen Ave.
City Planner Richards advised the Commission that based on the comments of the Planning
Commission at their April meeting, the applicant requested the City Council take no action on the
concept plan and asked that it be sent back to the Planning Commission, where he would provide a
revised plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2005
Page 2 of 6
Richard further advised the Commission that the revised plan eliminate Nutmeg Ave and the second
easterly access point onto 58th St. N. The number of units is also being reduced from 149 to 120
units. The rest of the plan is expected to remain unchanged. As the anticipated submittal materials
were not received by the applicant, Richards recommended that the Commission open the public
hearing, take public comment and then discuss and continue the hearing to their June meeting.
Chair Dwyer opened the public hearing for comment.
Tim Nolde -- Anchobaypro, Inc., introduced himself and noted that the proposed plan was prepared
with consideration given to comments made at the April Planning Comnaission meeting and
reviewed the differences between the current plan and the previously proposed one.
Lisa Anderson —13991 60th St. Ct. N.: expressed het concern as to the 59th St. entrance being nearly
connected with the Pondview driveway, encouraging use of the roadway for cut - through traffic.
Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to continue the public hearing to June.
Carried 5 -0.
Commission discussion ensued as to private roadway system and the eventuality of street
maintenance issues, Novak Ave. construction and 59th St. construction and cost.
B. Ron Gullickson: To consider requests for garage Variance and Conditional Use Permit allowing
a tri -plex residential dwelling in an R -2 residential zoning district, located at 5480 Stagecoach
Trail, N.
City Administrator Johnson advised the Commission that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use
Permit for a dwelling which is currently operating as a tri -plex, which is an illegal use to the
property's R -2 zoning, which allows up to a duplex. Johnson added that the applicant is attempting
to bring the property into compliance as a triplex and has been wor king to acquire additional
property to the north of his, from Xcel Energy for possible expansion of the property use to a 4-
plex. City Administrator Johnson noted that just prior to the meeting, he was notified by the
applicant, that he and Xcel Energy had been able to connect and that Xcel Energy has expressed a
willingness to sell him some additional land.
In light of the events and to allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue a land purchase and revise
his application for the 4-plex conditional use permit he desires, Johnson asked the Commission to
consider continuing the public hearing to their June meeting rather than discuss the tri-plex request
only to have the applicant return next month with a new application for the property.
Chair Dwyer opened the public hearing for comment. There being no visitors to the public hearing,
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Oswald, moved to continue the public hearing to
June. Carried 5 -0.
•
•
1
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2005
Page 3 of 6
C. Pine Grove Gardens To consider requests for Concept and General Planned Unit
Development (PID) and Rezoning from 0, open space to R -3, multiple family residential
for construction of 26 residential units, within five townhome buildings, located south of
60th St. and East of Oakgreen Ave. N., to be known as Pine Grove Gardens.
City Planner Richards informed the Commission that the City Council, at their April 12, 2005
meeting, voted to reconsider their March 29, 2005 denying approval of Pine Grove Gardens
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment and redirect the application to the Commission,
allowing the applicant to redesign the plan in compliance with the R -3 zoning district requirements.
Richard reviewed the May 5, 2005 planning report as to the requests, provided an issue analysis and
discussed the same with the Commission.
Chair Dwyer opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and those wishing to speak to the
matter to address the Commission.
Todd Erickson of Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. — 5620 Memorial Ave. N. informed the
Comarnission that comments to the project had been considered and applied to the overall layout of
the current design plan. He reviewed the changes as noted within the planning report and noted
that the developer would like to extend only the decks into the 30 -foot setback area and not the 4-
season porches.
As to the outlots, Mr. Erickson stated that the developer does not wish to turn it to the
Homeowner's Association but prefers to maintain it as a separate lot for potential future use.
City Administrator Johnson addressed the concern of the possibility of the outlot turning into tax
forfeited status, which essentially turns it into a "no mans land" that the City would be expected to
maintain, along with the pond for a private development. Mr. Erickson stated that the outlot is
fairly large and that he fully expected to see it turn into another use rather than become a tax forfeit
parcel.
Greg Johnson of Oak Park Heights Development. LLC — 6750 Stillwater Blvd. N.: discussed
exterior materials they propose to use on the development, which is a vinyl type composition that
permits deep, rich colors and is of good quality. He noted that the material was in use at a project in
Forest Lake and encouraged the Commission to visit the project. He suggested that he could also
provide the commission with material samples.
Todd Erickson of Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. — 5620 Memorial Ave. N. discussed tree
preservation and landscaping elements to the project. Both Mr. Erickson and Mr. Johnson indicated
that they will work to comply with the requirements established to move the project forward and
that they were anxious to begin.
Lois Hall of Hall Family Chiropractic Clinic —13999 60th St. N.: sought clarification on the
development location and expressed concern as to new development in the area, making her older
business more vulnerable to roadway design change in relation to the potential MnDOT changes to
the area in that her property would be less expensive to purchase than newer constructed property.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2005
Page 4 of 6
Richard Gacke -13964 56th St. N.: expressed concern that the driveway lengths and visitor parking
spaces ratio proposed result in too little off - street parking. Mr. Gacke is also concerned about the
number of trees being removed and would prefer to see larger, mature trees preserved rather than
relocated to an outlot area, where future change is already being anticipated.
City Planner Richards addressed the issues of driveway length, garage size; he noted typical vehicle
sizes and referenced some standards used by other communities for driveway length.
There being no other visitors to the public hearing, Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner
Oswald, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5 -0.
Commission discussion ensued as to the proposed street system, roadway widths, parking space
requirements, privately owned versus publicly owned streets, decking setback encroachment, tree
preservation, landscaping, land use and conditions of planning report.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by, Commissioner Oswald, moved to recommend City Council approval
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Medium- Density Residential, Zoning Amendment to R -3,
Multiple Family District excluding Outlot A, and Planned Unit Development Concept and General
Plan approval, subject to the following conditions as amended from the May 5, 2005 Planning
Report
1. The final plat shall be subject to any comments or requirements of the City Engineer and City
Attorney. The City Attorney shall provide comment and provide a recommendation on the
proposed separate developable parcel designated as an outlot, with recommendation to be
included within the Development Agreement.
•
2. The applicant shall be required to pay a cash park dedication fee based upon the requirements
of Section 402.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant shall provide the City with a
property appraisal acceptable to the City Attorney.
3. The Planning Commission is agreeable to allow encroachments of decks into the required set
backs as provided for on the concept /general plan.
4. The Police Chief and Fire Chief shall comment on the accessibility of the project for emergency
vehicles.
5. The proposed trail locations and applicant's responsibility in construction costs shall be subject
to review and approval by the City Council.
6. The applicant shall submit a snow removal plan that shall be subject to the review and approval
of City staff.
7. The applicant shall provide updated grading, drainage and utility plans to the City reflecting the
revised concept /general plan. All final grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Public Works Director and City Engineer and review of the
Middle St. Croix Watershed District.
•
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2005
Page 5 of 6
8. The applicant shall provide updated landscape and tree preservation plans to reflect the revised
site plan. The final landscape plan and tree preservation plans are subject to review and
approval of the City Arbotist.
9. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan for the project subject to City staff review and
approval.
10. The Planning Commission is agreeable to the garage forward design and general architecture
of the project. The building and siding materials should be steel, concrete masonry board, or
an equivalent material approved by the City Council.
11. A development agreement shall be required subject to review and approval of the City Council
and City Attorney.
12. The homeowner's documents and declarations shall be provided to the City Attorney for his
review and approval.
Carried 5 -0.
New Business:
A. Annual Meeting: Election of Chair and Vice Chair & Commission Vacancies
City Administrator Johnson reminded the Commission that Commissioner Oswald announced his
intention to resign at their April meeting and also agreed to stay on until his seat was filled. He noted
that Chair Dwyer has completed two full terms on the Planning Commission and has served one term
each in the capacity of Vice Chair and Chair. Johnson pointed out that Planning Commission Bylaws
permit Dwyer a one-year term extension by City Council if so desired. At this point Johnson asked
Dwyer if he desired to seek a term extension appointment Dwyer indicated that he would be open to
a one -year extension if the City Council was willing.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to recommend that the City Council
grant a one-year term extension to John Dwyer. Carried 4 -0 -1, Dwyer abstained.
City Administrator Johnson noted that Commissioner Liljegren sought reappointment at their April
meeting and that the Commission recommendation for reappointment to a second full term was sent
to the May 10, 2005 City Council meeting and was approved.
City Administrator Johnson stated that Commissioner Oswald would be on board through June, that
Commissioner Wasescha is presently serving is his first full term and that Vice Chair Runk, if desired
by the Commission and by virtue of the Planning Commission Bylaws, may be elected to serve as Chair
or Vice Chair.
Johnson noted that the issues at hand for the Annual Meeting and Election of Officers was to
nominate and elected a Chair and Vice Chair, to direct advertisement of Commission Vacancy and to
establish an application deadline and date and time for interview of applicants.
Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Oswald, moved to nominate Vice Chair Runk to serve as
Planning Commission Chair, commencing with the June meeting. Carried 4-0 -1, Runk abstained.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by C oimnis sioner Oswald, moved to nominate Commissioner Liljegren to
serve as Planning Commission Vice Chair, commencing with the June meeting. Carried 4-0 -1, Liljegren
abstained.
Vice Chair Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to direct advertisement of Planning
Commission vacancy, with an application deadline of one week prior to the June Planning Commission
meeting and further moved that interviews be conducted at 6:30 p.m., or 6:00 p.m. if number of
applicants necessitate the earlier time, prior to the June Planning Commission meeting
B. Central Business District Update
Commission Liaison McComber noted City Council discussion of the Central Business District at their
recent goal setting retreat and their May 10, 2005; where they placed the matter, for joint discussion
with the Planning Commission, on their May 24, 2005 — 5:30 p.m. Wotksession Agenda for discussion
as to what is desired for the area and to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
Chair Dwyer expressed that he felt the Planning Commission and the City Council have not been on
the same page on the issue and stated that he thought a joint meeting on the matter was a good idea in
order to guide development of the area. Discussion ensued as to zero setbacks, design guidelines, what
was desired for the area, what the purpose the area was to serve for the community, buffer areas,
hybrid zoning, automotive /gasoline use for the area and related.
The Commission agreed to accept joint worksession invitation from the City Council. Chair Dwyer
indicated that he had a conflict with the date and time and would not be able to attend but that he
would send comments along in his absence.
Old Business: None.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2005
Page 6 of 6
Informational:
A. Commission Vacancy: Applications are being accepted and will be accepted until
June3 Interviews will be held at 6:30 p .m. on June 9, 2005.
B. Next Meeting: June 9, 2005 7:00 p.m. -- Regular Meeting
C. Council Representative: May — Commissioner Runk
June -- Commissioner Oswald
Adjournment: Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Vice Chair Runk, moved to adjourn at
8:30 p.m. Carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie A. Hultman
Planning & Code Enforcement
Approved by the Planning Commission:
•
•
•
ENCLOSURE 'te
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.25 55 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: June 2, 2005
RE: Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village: Revised PUD Concept Plan
FILE NO: 798.02 —04.17
BACKGROUND
Tim Nolde, representing Anchobaypro, Inc. and Valley Senior Services Alliance (VSSA),
has made application for a revised PUD concept plan approval for that area west of
Oakgreen Avenue and north of 58 Street. The area under application at this time
consists of approximately 11 acres and encompasses a significant portion of the Central
Business District. The Ci ty approved a roved a PUD general plan and preliminarytfinal
plat on March 9, 2004 for this area. A revised concept plan was reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the April 14, 2005 meeting. This plan was not acceptable to
the Planning Commission and was sent to the City Council with a recommendation of
denial.
The applicant has submitted the most recent plan that eliminates Nutmeg Avenue and
the additional access to 58 Street. The total number of units has been decreased from
149 to 120 units. The development would be phased with a total of 79 in the first phase
and the second with 41 townhome units near Oakgreen Avenue. Novak Avenue is
proposed in its previous location.
The applicant is requesting only concept plan review at this time. The Planning
Commission had opened a public hearing at their May 12, 2005 meeting and continued
the hearing and discussion to the June 9, 2005 meeting.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit 1: Oakgreen Village Concept Submittal Booklet
Exhibit 2: City Council Resolution, March 9, 2004 Previous General Plan Approval
• Exhibit 3: Oakgreen Village, Previous Approved Plans
Exhibit 4: Oakgreen Village, Proposed Concept Plan, April 2005
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Adjacent Uses. Uses adjacent to the subject site are listed below:
North of Site: Present Zoning — Central Business District
Present Use Highway 36 oriented commercial development,
Undeveloped areas and the Xcei Energy power line easement
South of Site: Present Zoning — 0, Open Space
Present Use — The Boutwells Landing development and
Undeveloped areas
West of Site: Present Zoning — Central Business District
Present Use — Undeveloped area, Wal -Mart and Highway 36
Oriented commercial development
East of Site: Present Zoning -- Central Business District
Present Use — Single family residences and Oakgreen Avenue
Proposed Project: The project narrative for the site describes the project as follows:
"The concept of this development is to create an attractive and affordable
community for the City of Oak Park Heights, while preserving the more
prominent natural areas on the site. The newly revised layout incorporates
better circulation and creates additional open areas for the development."
The general plan for the first phase of development in this area, approved in 2004, was
for 87 townhome units. Those plans are included in Exhibit 3. The concept plan for the
area included 203 overall units, 111 which were townhomes and 92 apartment units in
two separate buildings. The concept plan encompassed the area south of the Xcel
power line easement to 58 Street and from Novak Avenue to Oakgreen Avenue. The
plan recommended for denial by the Planning Commission is found as Exhibit 4.
The new plan includes 79 townhome units in the first phase. The second phase is the
easterly edge of the property near Oakgreen Avenue. That phase would include 41
additional townhome units where Tax Increment Financing (TIF) will be applied to assist
in acquiring the remaining existing homes.
The applicant has proposed three different styles of building units in the development.
The applicant plans to begin the first phase this year with site grading to be completed
and the construction of Novak Avenue North. The ponding outiots for both the existing
wetland and proposed pond would be completed. The first phase of buildings (Units 1-
15) would be started this year with the timing of the construction of the remaining units
and private streets depending upon unit sales.
The plans include right -of -way to be dedicated with the plat. The Planning Commission
and City Council should discuss the need for and the timing of 59 Street as part of the
discussions of the concept plan.
2
•
Comprehensive Plan. The 1988 Comprehensive Plan designates this area north of
58 Street and west of Oakgreen as Central Business District. The Central Business
District Urban Design Study designated this area for residential and a mixed use
precinct similar to what has been proposed in this concept plan application. The
residential area is concentrated on the east side of the site and is oriented around the
existing wetland similar to the CBD Plan. Additionally, the CBD Plan called for small
box commercial with residential development west of the proposed Novak. While not
identical to the Central Business District Urban Design Study Master Plan, the current
proposal is similar in general land uses for how the area would develop. Development
interests have also shared plans with the City incorporating this area into a large
commercial development. The City would need to revise its Comprehensive Plan to
accommodate large scale commercial development in this area.
Zoning. The City is currently in the process of considering the appropriate rezoning for
the CBD that includes this area. The City may choose to leave the subject area zoned
CBD or rezone the property to a general business district or to planned unit
development to accommodate the residential use. This application was received before
the City has made any changes to its Comprehensive Plan or zoning map. The new
zoning will need to accommodate the residential development if the concept/general
plan is accepted for this development.
• The actual rezoning would not occur until the general plan of development is approved.
The City will likely determine the fate of the CBD zoning and what will ultimately take its
place prior to the general plan review of this project.
Subdivision. A preliminary plat was not submitted with this application. The applicant
will need to provide a preliminary plat for Planning Commission and City Council review
as part of the general plan of development review.
Park Dedication. Park dedication is based upon the specifications of Section 402.08
of the Subdivision Ordinance. The residential area to be platted would be subject to
park dedication. The applicants have been advised that a property appraisal would
need to be provided to calculate the park dedication amount. A small tot lot park is
planned within the development that would be privately maintained by the association.
The Subdivision Ordinance indicates that a credit for such areas can be granted by the
City Council. This will be a policy decision of the City Council with input of the Planning
Commission and Park Commission.
CBD Standards. Section 401.301.E.6 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the CUP
standards for allowing residential use in the CBD. The standards are as follows:
Two family, townhomes and multiple family dwellings, provided that:
a. At least two parking spaces per unit must be provided for on site, or proof is shown of
arrangements for private parking nearby.
b. No physical improvements, either interior or exterior, may preclude future re -use for
commercial purposes.
c. Unit floor areas must comply with Section 401.15.C.6.
d. Compliance with conditional use requirements of Section 401.03.8.
e. The development does not conflict with existing or potential future commercial uses and
activities.
f. The density standards imposed as part of the R -3 Zoning District are complied with.
9. Adequate open space and recreational space is provided on site for the benefit of the
occupants.
h. The development does not conflict or result in incompatible land use arrangements as
related to abutting residential uses or commercial uses.
1. Residential use be governed by all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Building
Code, Housing Code and Fire Codes.
j. Residential and non - residential uses shall not be contained on the same floor.
k. Residential uses shall be provided with a separate entrance, and separately identified
parking stalls.
The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review these issues as part of
the concept plan review. If the property is rezoned to PUD or left as CBD, the same
general standards would apply.
Project Density. Section 401.15.0.3 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the density
thresholds for residential properties. Townhome projects require 4,000 square feet of
land area per unit excluding right -of -way and wetlands.
The phase one development consists of a total area of 532,687 square feet which
excludes the wetland and right -of -way area. The 79 units planned for that area would
result in an area p er unit of 6,743 square feet. The calculations for the second phase
would result in an area per unit of 4,640 square feet.
Proposed Street/Access. The plans indicate a different layout plan from the previous
concept and general plans that have been reviewed by the City for this project. Novak
Avenue North would remain in the same location to connect 58th Street with 60 Street
(Highway 36 frontage road). Novak is provided an 80 foot/90 foot right -of --way with a 34
foot wide street that will widen at the 60 Street and 58 Street intersections to
accommodate turn lanes. Nutmeg Avenue has been eliminated. Access will be
primarily rimaril from a private street network.
The Planning Commission has previously discussed the need to provide adequate
separation between the residential uses in the east portion of the CBD and the
commercial areas to the west. The City Engineer has indicated that 100 feet of right -of-
way will give adequate area for significant boulevard tree plantings along Novak
Avenue. Additionally, the applicant proposes to preserve the existing pine grove near
4
• the Novak Avenue/58 Street intersections and plant a screen of trees between Novak
and the townhome units. The Planning Commission may want to comment further on
the need for additional separation and landscaping or a center boulevard planting within
Novak Avenue.
The plans also include a 50 foot right -of -way dedication for Oakgreen Avenue as
required by the City Engineer. This development, with the added traffic, will increase
the need to improve Oakgreen Avenue with shoulders and turn lanes. Utilities will be
placed within the Oakgreen Avenue right -of -way to serve this development. The City
Council should consider timing for the Oakgreen Avenue improvements with
construction of this development.
The plans include dedication of 60 feet of right -of -way for a future 59"' Street. The
Planning Commission and City Council should discuss this roadway and its necessity as
part of the overall plans for this area. The City will require the right -of -way dedication to
allow future roadway development.
The City Council will need to make a policy decision as it relates to the private street
network for this project. In the past, the City has not allowed significant private streets
to serve as access to this number of housing units. The private roadways are proposed
at a 24 foot width. Private driveways in McKean Square were allowed at 28 feet. The
City Engineer recommends that the private roadways increase to 28 feet in width.
• Temporary cul-de -sacs are proposed at the end of the private drives prior to
construction of the second phase. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should also
review the plans to determine accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the
development.
Private Driveways. The plans include the private roadways, most which are designed
with a "thru" design. In the southwest comer of the site, 15 units are designed on a
dead -end roadway with no turn around. The Police Chief, Fire Marshal, and City
Engineer should comment on the dead -end design for this portion of the development.
The plan has been revised to include 22 foot driveways between the front of the garage
and the private driveway area. The City Engineer will require a 28 foot private roadway
system. With the 22 foot driveways, the resulting design would significantly improve the
accessibility and visibility issues for this development.
Trails/Sidewalks. The plan includes an extensive system of private trails that would
intersect with the City's trail system. A continuation of the eight foot trail along the )(eel
power line easement is planned to extend to Novak Avenue. A five foot sidewalk is also
planned on the City right -of -way on the north side of 58 Street. City staff recommends
that the sidewalk not be connected, but end on either side of the wetland area,
connecting to the private trails that surround the wetlands. The plans show a City
sidewalk on the west side of Novak Avenue. The sidewalk will need to continue from
58 Street to 60 Street. The internal system of private sidewalks will provide access
throughout the development and around the private park facility. The Park Commission
should comment on the proposed private and public trail system that is planned for this
development.
Setbacks. Within a PUD, the base district setback requirements (CBD) are applied
only to the perimeter of the project. The CBD requirements specify no front, rear, and
side yard setback requirements. The PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies
that buildings should be located at least 20 feet from the back of a curb line from
roadways as part of the internal street pattern. Additionally, the ordinance species that
no building within the project shall be nearer to another building by one -half the sum of
the building heights of the two buildings.
With the exception of Unit 87 in the second phase, all of the perimeter setback
requirements would be met. The applicant will provide additionsl information as part of
the general plan review to determine if the building to building setback requirement will
be met. The separation between Units 26 and 27 and 47 and 48 is only 20 feet each.
Minor adjustments to the building setbacks may be required to comply with the PUD
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Traffic. The applicant should provide projected vehicle count information for the
proposed development. The City Engineer will require additional information and
analysis of how the development will affect the traffic on Oakgreen Avenue and 58
Street, as well as the proposed Novak Avenue. The applicant should provide this
information for Planning Commission review.
Tree Preservation /Landscaping. The applicant has provided preliminary information
on existing tree coverage and a landscape plan. The City Arborist will review the
detailed tree preservation plans and landscape plans as part of general plan of
development review. The existing conditions map indicates the tree masses that would
be removed to accommodate the development. The new project will provide
significantly more open space than the previous plans. The number of existing trees
that are preserved are roughly the same as previous plans due to the intensity of the
development.
Park. The applicants have provided a small park area that would be owned and
maintained by the homeowners association. More detailed plans of the park would be
required for general plan of development review.
Grading and Drainage. A drainage plan has been submitted with this proposal. The
City Engineer will comment on any issues with the plan at concept plan stage. A
grading plan has not been submitted but would be required before City Council review
of the concept plan.
Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted. The utility plans will be subject to City
Engineer review and approval at the general plan of development stage.
Parking. Two spaces within an enclosed garage are provided per unit. Fifty -seven
guest parking spaces are proposed in various locations throughout the development.
The plans also allow for 22 feet of driveway in front of each garage door. As indicated,
this may be compatible if the private roadways are increased to 28 feet in width.
Parking on one side of the street could be allowed on a 28 foot roadway.
6
•
Development Contract The applicant will be required to enter into a development
contract with the City should approval of the concept plan and general plan of
development be granted. As part of the contract, the provisions for street and utility
construction, as well as payment for area changes, would be included. The contract will
specify conditions of approval and issues related to phasing the development.
110 Architectural Appearance. The application materials include preliminary drawings of
the proposed townhome and four -plex units. The structures are basic townhome row
units with small porches, varying roof lines with brick and lap siding. The four- plexes
also have small porches and have lap siding. The Planning Commission and City
Council should comment in general on these changes for the more complete review that
will be done as part of the general plan of development review.
RECOMMENDATION /CONCLUSION
As part of its review, the Planning Commission should first look at the Comprehensive
Plan and determine from the goals and plans what is the most appropriate development
for this property. Previous plans have indicated a residential component of the CBD for
this area, but commercial developments may also be appropriate.
If residential use is preferred for this property, it should be noted that this is the last
• large parcel in the City that will accommodate that type of development. The City
should and can be selective in the type of development that it would allow there. The
current plan provides significantly more open space and is less dense than previous
plans. The primary issue may be the significant system of private roads that will be
required for this plan.
The Planning Commission may want to see a redesign with 28 foot roadways in the
development. This could impact building placement and slightly change the concept
plan. If the Planning Commission is favorable to the concept plan, it could be
recommended to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. A preliminary plat is submitted as part of the general plan of development.
2. The applicant provide a property appraisal, acceptable to the City Attorney to
calculate park dedication.
3. The Planning Commission, Park Commission, and City Council comment on the
small tot lot park and if credit for park dedication shall be granted.
4. The plat shall dedicate right -of -way for Novak Avenue, 59 Street, and Oakgreen
Avenue as required by the City Engineer and City Attorney.
5. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the design of
Novak Avenue including screening, landscaping and boulevards that may be
required.
6. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the acceptability
of the private street network for this development.
7. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the
accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development.
8. The private drives on the concept plan shall be increased to 28 feet in width for
City Council review.
9. The Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail
system.
10. All required setbacks to conform with zoning and wetland ordinance
requirements shall be incorporated in the general plan of development.
11. The applicant shall . provide vehicle count information and projections as required
by the City Engineer.
12. Detailed tree inventory, tree preservation, and landscape plans shall be provided
for general plan of development.
13. Detailed park plans will be required for general plan of development review.
14. Detailed grading, drainage and utility plans shall be provided for general plan of
development review.
15. Detailed architectural plans for the proposed buildings in the project shall be
required for general plan of development review.
16. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the need for
upgrades to Oakgreen Avenue as part of this development.
8
•
f:4 z
r o
P4s
O
L5)
W
z
3
Lari)
olowi likli J
1%1%4
Ii....
) lilli cti
0111111111111h 'ae
Q)
ii.4
iftki
• ift4
Q., 4)
�
Q) Z
Cr) ,'ftS:
(1111) rz,
4•4 N
( 11)
•
4Z
* -,, C44
CL)
�
L 4
, k . ■ 1 1 1 4 I I I j o " 1 4 4 \ % . d
e m • s k (Iii ' t
1 a I Id
•
•
4-4
rT
0
45 45 0
4---
cr) co "0
.L: c7) (D a) a)
c 09 c cn •• c :...-7.; ( a. ) ai 0) 0 U) >
CL D Ci3
CO — . C = ... C
(1) 15 C DO :3 '*... U) a
Cr3 _C .", CP )
( al Tts o
. 45 0...
co
= "0
= .c ...c
cn 0
CT) CO
C r
m o a) a)
a) E o o
,... , (1) " - 73 m .c - To c
..c as E = ,-• ...-Ci c a) _c c t a ) 4. ,,CD .E._ - 0 —
.....
i - ..). F-- cr)
c _1
a) u) a) ,(12 -o
c a in
c co
o N
o o a)
c'ii co •Fi)-
4 5 1 *5
(D Cr CU •...._
.. —
_c = 7, ........ 0 ........
•....
` - t
2 45 .5 c
•.....
4.'7_ a) • a.. a)c o > .....,
4 5 .2 o
a) o
7) a)
a) '46 t7- 6 t CD 0
,... co co >1 0_ -0 (1) (--6 -0 a) L. CD a) ____ •.__,
co 0 eL
>, 2 ..c > CI CD f•-- >s fa a) ci) u) w a) - ri 45 n -9- - r - r, >s 0
•_... C CD co
C Cl C a) CO k k?
•+•••• -4---; _c < 4 5 CD 2 c a) -5
E 8 cp •E co co ..-E - C --e 2 _c a) = > 0
al 4 6 co a)
o 0 a) c
L. D
o >,
u) 2 a)
o ( c c 0 )
al 5 c 0 0
o ,..• lefi 1 + — - 0 0 92 a) - 0
"0 0 E c1 CD
E D _ 4 ",, .Se C • ..... 0 Ca. 0 : i3 (4 4. (8 .?. N.
..c
u) 4.... c
=
C
F -.. ...._
ID ii= C CO •.....
•...._ 0 " 0
co c c -
co a.
iii 0 c V) (1)
a -o
a) 'E
= ( o
cs) c •... —
a) 22 a)
N 4 a,
**4. E co • :3 = c z
(D o 0 LO
1:3 cts ad_ . '` b"" 0)
c) ,..o = a) a i c = c •—
114 CL
a) 0)
co c m E 0) ca. k.5.1 >1 4 5 I 175 V) CD co .b- 0 •....
0 ......C i t
°C " 1 1
iiafti -o
yi: CD 76 > 0 a
715
....c., .>... -; o
a) a) o II
o c
CD 4-
..c .t.-2.
......
0) C C
> a)
CO C 0 - 5 c
N ---
a) co co
2 c o
o 4 o..
a) a)
ca . c
Prilli4111 1— ` 1:(j) C/3 (..) L0
...c
8
s1HOOH .avd AVO d0 utiO
• •
`nos1:rua `nem�id `zla� 0001 3
0
z
Z +
4.4
4.4
°P:44
E`
**410.
N‘.
‘Notiarateseistempassessamitani
---11 - ---Nrcom
4‘.44.44,
No
i
1
1
1
1 �-
1
1
1 tzt
1
1 '
1i p
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■-------
veir
ce
w
w
c w
O 0
CO
w 0
fn _
0 =
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
NaaxOxVo
•
pan.Lxa2[ryyRrxIftr `iug'uus��u�'ureuaa��'710
•
00
Q �
z �
z
w
1
°:1 - VOOZ a
•
.t IK rt rc I ti s alb
a la
1 1
1i
1 I g :
I hi ;
1%1/WMI:i ir I 4
l!M*Iii thilah 10 h
:Oh ; gi 1: It ;1 ! i I I!! lig
!! I Pi al! d
1 111! 11 111 o
21 gi
o
0 0
E v
3 0 A
gC-
15 !2 . 1 :
1'1
h fluI
0
w
ki zt.
Aga p
4 14 11 1 P
I I l
i g
igg%
it 4 MO! g ;0.
4 4i a 0% NOR EtS
u
iv
1
1
U
ti
wag
-5.
CS ON 0
c
;SA ma �v�
c s
cl;t . M1 �.
r
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
rrr
„„„„„„„„„
I I
I
I
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII
I I
I
II��
LLL
LLL
LLL
LLL
LLL
LLL
111111111111111111111
LLL
LL
LLL
LLL
LLL
LLL
LLL
OE
1
tch
b
lig
co U
1
1
11
i
n
J k
u
.11
mg
-U
-6\
IIIIIIIIIIIIII - T 1
II
11111111111
11IIIIIIIIIII.
- H
15v
1
VSSA
VIOS3NNIIN `SIHDI3H NIIVd VIVO
HflJON 3DV111A N33110)1'0'0
616,1■111.■■■11111LICIM
El
0
0
O
_I I
L
L
J E
E
r
J
I
1
1
0
r
L
L
r
LI
L
4-.61
8
0
Pl=t
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7 '?
0
0
0
zi?
0
4 r
■ 1111111111 1
IIIHhIHIHHH►
111 1
nnnnmmuL
•
VSSA
V10S3NNIW `S1HD13H )Ib`dd NbO
HflJON JV11IA N3Jd»IVO
•
9
10
113
9-
EL P1
POEM
110 ♦ G
IIIuIIuII
EL ' .4I
A
6
F.
;.o 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9_
•
CD
cr
a
09
-
Li
Li
9
9
6 . 1
a
cc
0
0
w
0
0,
co
HIIION 3DV111A N3311DNVO
VSSA
VIOS3NNIIN `S.LHD131A )111Vd NVO
T — 1
_J
1 — 1 1
L_ _J
0_
9
_J
r
L _J
—
/
/
\ I
0L
'1
'1
L
9
9
9
a
3
a
93
a
9 ! 3
.05
H I/
11
- 11 Li •
Ai11
[1
I I
Li
9_
-- ` 1 7
"
in
9
a-
J
z
Z
>
•
■M■
■ ENNUI ■
■ -■
■ -■
■
■M■
•E•
•��
■ -■
■ MINI ■
•IIMINI•I
T
.MUNI.
■ -■
OMEN
•
■ -■
■ -■
AMEN
h � . �a
■�.
• •
• •
irat
4
v
u
OC
VSSA
`d10S3NNIW `S1HD13H N`d0
HflJON JV11IA N3JD)IVO
•
u
i N
0
0_ 0
Q?
J p
o
7
}
EINEM
■IEMEN
•■•
•••
• •■I
M INIM MI
■ -■
■ -■'
MIME
■ ■■
■ -■
■ - ■ .
•■■'
■ -■
•■•
••■
■ -■
•■•
■ - ■ ,
••■',
••■
•■•
•••
•-•
■ ••
•■• I
■ -■
••■I
••1
■ ■■
VS SA
`dlOS3NNIW `S1HD13H Nbdd N`d0
HflJON DV11IA N3E'1VO
0_0
4
J p
J
z
}
•
■• 1
m■i
• . -i
_ U
m
1
•
•
•
follows, to wit:
and
and
C
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COIINCII,
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COIINTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIJNCIL THAT THE
REQUEST BY VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES ALLIANCE
FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PLAN
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR THE AREA NORTH OF 58 STREET
AND WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUE,
KNOWN AS OAKGREEN VILLAGE
BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Oak aark *eights -ias reserve a request from Valley
Senior Services Alliance for planned unit development general plan and preliminary /final, plat
approval for the area north of 58th Street and west of Oakgreen Avenue, known as Oakgreen
akgr een
Village, and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission
of Oak Park Heights recommended that the application be approved with conditions. The City
Council of the City of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact:
1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as
SEE ATTACHMENT A
2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting
documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items:
SEE ATTACHMENT B
3. The site is zoned CBD, Central Business District and a planned unit
development general plan and preliminary/final plat approval is required for the project; and
4. The City staff prepared a memorandum dated December 31, 2003
reviewing the request; and
5. The memorandum from City staff recommended that the request be
approved with conditions; and
EXHIBIT 2
r
•
6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their January 8, 2004
meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and
recommended that the applicant be approved subject to conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY P ULE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ilikl CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT Ti E CITY COUNCIL APPROVES. THE
FOLLOWING:
A The application submitted by Valley Senior Services Alliance for planned unit
development general plan and preliminary/final plat approval for the area north of 58t`
Street and west of Oakgreen Avenue, known as Oakgreen Village, and affecting the real
property as follows:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
Be and the same as hereby approved the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights subject to
the following conditions:
1. The preliminary/final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
2. The final plat must be revised to include additional right -of -way, as determined by the City
y
Engineer, for turn lanes at the intersections of 58 th Street North with Oakgreen Avenue
North, Nutmeg Boulevard, and Novak Avenue North.
3. Proposed street right -of -way widths, avement widths, and intersection designs ar
p gn are subject to
City Engineer review and approval.
4. The proposed "drop off lane" in the public street right -of -way in front of the apartment
building on Nutmeg Boulevard is subject to Public Works Director review and approval.
5. The applicant must comply with Xcel Energy's requirements, as specified in a March 26,
2003 letter to Todd Erickson from Xcel Energy, for construction of a and within the Xcel
el
Energy easement. The applicant shall resubmit the development plans to Xcel Energy to
assure compliance with all utility requirements. Written approval from Xcel Energy shall be
-�Y
provided to the City.
6. On the final plat, Nutmeg Street North must be changed to Nutmeg Boulevard subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer and Washington County.
7. The applicant must either give the area for 59 Street to the City in fee without credit toward
park dedication requirements, or language must be included in the development contract with
the applicant that the City reserves the option for taking an 80 foot - wide right - of - way for 59
Street in the future without payment to the owner. The right -of -way dedication or option
shall be approved by the City Attorney and included in the development agreement. •
2
•
r
• 8. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, all existing wells must be identified, capped and
abandoned in conformance with Minnesota Rules.
9. If the house at 5830 Oakgreen Avenue North, on the subject property, continues to be
occupied after construction begins in that area, an acceptable sewage disposal solution must
be provided subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
10. If the townhomes east of Nutmeg Avenue are constructed before the apartments, the
applicant must continue the sidewalk to provide a connection to Oakgreen Avenue North at
the time that the townhomes are constructed,
11. Sidewalks and timing for construction are subject to review and approval by the Parks
Commission, City Council, and City Engineer. The sidewalks shall be included as Plan A
improvements as part of the development agreement. The final location of the sidewalk/trail
on 58 Street shall be addressed in the development agreement. The 58 Street
sidewalkltrail shall be paid for by the developer, including a reasonable escrow deposit for
five years of maintenance if such location is determined to be in the City right -of -way.
12. The Park Commission recommends a cash park dedication for Oakgreen Village North. Park
dedication must be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. The specific terms of the
dedication will be addressed in the development agreement.
• 13. The submitted photometric plan is subject to the review and approval of City staff. A
revised lighting plan, incorporating standard City street lighting, shall be submitted subject to
City staff review and approval. The City Council shall determine who will pay for fixture
installation, maintenance and operating costs.
14. The site plan does not include lights on buildings. If lights are proposed on the buildings,
they must be illustrated on the building plans, details submitted, and the photometric plan
must be revised to include them subject to City staff review and approval.
15. If signage is proposed, a plan and details must be submitted for City review and approval.
Two monument signs shall be allowed for the development, subject to final review and
compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance.
16. The landscape plan must be revised to comply with the City Arborist's recommendations
found in a report dated December 28, 2003. The revised plan is subject to City Arborist
review and approval.
17. Grading, drainage, erosion control, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer. Storm water issues are also subject to review and approval by the applicable
watershed authority.
18. The proposed vinyl lap siding must be changed to steel or Hardiboard lap siding subject to
final review and approval of the City Planner.
19. The applicant shall dedicate the wetland area north of 58 Street (Outlot IT) to the City.
20. The applicant is required to enter into a development agreement with the City in a form
acceptable to the City, and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
21. The site plans are subject to review and approval of the City Fire Inspector.
22. The applicant's traffic study for the Oakgreen Village development shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
23. The former Stillwater Auto Salvage Yard, located to the west of the proposed Novak
Avenue, shall be "cleaned up" including removal of all automobiles and hazardous waste,
fences, and buildings as described in a plan to be provided by the applicant and approved by
City staff The cleanup of the property shall be completed prior to the issuance of any
building permit, but no later than August 1, 2004.
2004.
ATTEST:
Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 9th day of March
Eric A. Johnson, City Administrator
David Beaudet, Mayor
4
r-T4
-t!
0.1
Il- ..L' -rnrrrri■i
1
I f
.' .' f r
ii i i 1 1 1 1 i i o
1
a
0
1
Ra
u 1
oc W ss
8 0 w�
T
•
.114111031W0 .130d
0
a
i
a
c
1
A; MIN *0 FA N7,
• ...! ■
111 PA
WailagaiteK
4114141i1a.
I X
ihi. VS.N. NIX%N. , X‘k‘,..
AINNI N vs gsvolomN lnknt.Istt' p eINsi NI
6.--1hk...-
4.4.411kqe hi .1.■■■■* .15
c■ONNs. a MINI,,ITC, INItte.1§i,■. %IL 1 .■ .‘7. 1 i*. NI4Ftriii 1
Z.4.11,'VIZZ.,. Nht iz.'-grA -:
ZWItleX '‘,-"MaI.X.:71 11 :01 - 1. :17 lv:
\
INN EN le*NIN 1 V 'I q -(*- 3 NNS N SIN a
. 1101011■M il. '4 " hAlkt■ NA." ,.. A IL .§ii. '. Itt e tt ■ ,..kit, A . _,■,.......,11■,-,..... ,e- it ,
V IVN " q1 1 4 1' N rK ONS 1 a fF -Nl i, (tN ANkili ' ,7 4 kbt 1
. SIN. h2 )t+:-; ‘..-.;StN4t), o..-9:4'k 1
ssi,k-.11Firom ig i . t 11
I,■■ ..?\, k:vbikk, Os MAO ''' S 1 44 ■i 4_ ki.a.,41 —1 kiLIN..• 4.:....::4-14
.....1 . Ntta...." •.' ,.... " - .7 '.. 4 ' " 1..... ""''' 1 4 ,
L.. t
1 1-. 71■6', - )k•,_ *:1 ''Skiise. \''.■ b2, kl t
RIVIAMIS NOKITTe-
L limo
114 ABS k l i M W M 1 I O W. A 0 C I NT 3 1, ■ . .. NO 0 Kih. h.. latzli-L. mak .. .,
-1"0-Ft4iSVIZ.u,\
•
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Dan Petrik/Scott Richards
DATE: May 26, 2005
RE: Oak Park Heights — Conditional Use Permit for Bahr Construction to move one
house 15431 58 Street North.
FILE NO: 798.02 — 05.05
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Rodney Bahr, has requested a conditional use permit to allow for an existing
detached single family home to be relocated onto a vacant lot at 15403 58 Street North. The
lot is within the R-1 District, Single Family Residential. The applicant relocated a house onto
4.1 the adjacent lot to the east (15431 58 Street North) last year. The current relocation
application is expected to be similar to the one completed last year.
Attached for reference:
exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
ISSUES ANALYSIS
ENCLOSURE. 3
t A S} i NiS,. f '*.' .c: � 'L �• vrL pis' 1 .1' •
N O R !HWES ' IL• � ' .d f
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763,231.2561 planners @nacplartining.com
Site and Landscape Plan
Grading Plan
Utility Plan
Building Foundation Plan
Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the lot for single
family residential use. The Village neighborhood containing the lot is an older area of mostly
one and two-story homes. Immediately across the street from the vacant lot are two single-
story homes dating from the 1950s and 1960s. Many of the trees located on the west edge of
the property will be preserved.
Zoning - The zoning map designates the lot as R -1, Single - Family Residential. The lot and
site plan meet the following requirements for this district: minimum lot size - 10,400 square feet,
minimum lot width of 80 feet, front setback of 30 feet, side setback of 10 feet and rear setback
of 30 feet.
Comment: The neighborhood consists of mostly one and two-story residential structures of
mixed age and style. The proposed house is a one -story home with attached •
garage and will not be at variance with the existing neighborhood character.
c. The relocated house will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent
property values.
Comment: The lot is currently vacant. The proposed house will have a new foundation
garage and will be an improvement to the lot and surrounding houses.
d. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent principal
structures as determined by the City Assessor.
Comment: The estimated market values of houses in the village area range from $115,400
to $168,6f30. The house to be relocated is similar in style and age to that which was relocated
to the adjacent parcel last year. Like the previous relocated structure, this one is anticipated to
have a higher market value than surrounding homes.
Occupancy - The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within eight (8) months
from the date of location on the site.
Comment: The applicant will be required to complete the project within eight rrionths.
Performance Security
A performance security shall be provided to the City as specified in Section 401.08 of the
Ordinance.
Comment: The applicant will be required to provide the specified security. .
CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDATIONS
The relocated house will be a positive addition to the lot and neighborhood at 58"' Street North.
Based on the issues outlined in this report, staff recommends approval of the requested
conditional use subject to the following conditions.
1. Upon relocation and additional construction, the building shall comply with the
applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code subject to approval of the City's
Building Inspector.
2. A performance security of $5,000 is to be provided to the City as specified in Section
401.08 of the Ordinance.
3. The relocated structure is ready for occupancy within eight months from the date of
location on the site.
3
4. A site plan showing an enhanced landscape plan is provided and approved by the City
• Arborist.
•
•
5. Approval of a grading plan by the City Engineer.
6. Submittal of a transportation plan showing the route for moving the structure and a
permit from the County for movement on county roads.
7. Review and approval from Excel Energy concerning clearance for movement beneath
power tines.
8. Approval of the City Engineer for utility connections and subsequent road patching.
9. The addition of a silt fence along the north side of the property during construction.
10. Deed of conveyance from previous owner to Bahr Construction for this property.
11.Any required State environmental permitting for the site shall be obtained by the
applicant and written copies provided to the City within ten days of receipt.
12.Applicarrt shall secure a licensed environmentsl specialist, subject to the approval of the
City Engineer, to be on site at all times during excavation to ensure that there are not
findings of inappropriate buried materials and/or tanks. Should any inappropriate
materials be found during excavation, all work shall cease and the City shall be
immediately notified. Upon completion of excavation, the specialist will provide written
comments to the City that no inappropriate, inconsistent or hazardous materials were
found.
13. Submittal of a plan for house movement through Oak Park Heights to the site that
addresses clearance under significant trees over the ROW. Such plan shall also require
pre - approval by the Chief of Police.
pc: Julie Hultman
• 'd 0N
hN
uz �
286
Z
Ov
Z �..
W - �
w W
c z
� Q
co °"
trl
m 'Q
0
I 1
rr.A
4
,7t „Oil,' j o1 I bL 1.;61
114WS aNatrtig -- '3AV 113113d
Z
I 1 %It" ; •
i I
1 to 1
1
�i � i
+,.4 r I I
d'' d'' I
\ / I
L ''''''.= .."'"== :-.'''...h-7--- ..._I •• i I
I 1 i
3 • iTZ4- r O JA1OS_- '
- -1,
l
1 gi
r
tli .
ks). (zv7d) y 00'001 s iYY
W
A�w
■ st
V `
2
- - -- 3
1
1
1
2
t r-
N 1
0S 0)(0
O 00 tD N
I 46 C .2 la t4
;WC2NN
0 0 t
t O t0
V A cco
a
0
•13
K a- u d ` -
Z Ab ei
O °C�. rroto to
rz, a0 (i., 0
CL 14 W ,- � . s
2<z oto
• Z •�
c 0
_ �
W • � � c
u� L
_.t 0Z -i46
< --1 n N 0U N
U m . _
o �aA
1.4.1 eijU
i J �4
` oz
U 2 ; v
z 0 ,
tA ▪ V) 7 ,-- - I : 0 6 k
W p> t 0v,
0
0
v
ON( A3ANfIS ONV1 3NO1S3NO3 VIVt 'sz •yew
•
1
1
t.r.)
0
0
1
0
N
75
o
0 z
0
-to
00
mho
O. 5 7
. • 04
X .....
5 as
-
• o
VI a A
g a.*
pi cpa
•r)
m
u
IV CD
0. 0.
cr
a. 3
O 0 0 0 0
2'2222
o ocloki
cD ozziTi
3 • z-„mxx
cl o o
o „,qzz
r- • •
p x in -Irs
2
0
r
z
'o
— - ;,, - ....
/ /
i."....;''••• • ••• • • ".. . •
--
-,
....'
,--- v --p
c. c
6
..4.. I (") ',..„
CA
C:1
• -1..r%
r
a
I
i
• ti)
a r
a —k
I
I Z....
I TtA •- . °I
ii
a
I
I
a
a
• • . „........... ..
1 l' , ) .4--1 1 ---- {
, 1 '``i
a
'v.-.
1 1
1
I
I I
1 1 ) o ti K7 . (A, rn Ill
......,
,c.;•-e----/:, d:---:::.„.\.._.
.....
.4
00
vi
1 •4 : ire It
....) tl ""`."*">. o —
-....
' t
, .
I ON a
ell'"•--
., II
8 9‘ c.)
a
a
i . V)
. .
Q
* I
1 I
.,
' ''''''.
IV
. a
GS ,
3.5 ....
1,....
....II----- 114. / < N,
.
‘......
N,
• - Ts I I t2.0 ---- ----......_....-64 I
. i
.0 ;..- t tl I
1 `'
l
Go I a i
... -4 41 ‘ I 1 4% I .0 I
I
:
a
. --. . ....
En : 1
. e\.„• a
a C 1 X
a
I 1 i i
a
!' .,1 ". 1 II Ir i 1
.
r- --
a- oo - C) I (03 I I N 1
,
(
\''','•• d
r• %.,...
I 4 4 0 0 II
1 i
.a.›. ■ 11 °., 3 I l i I an
a CTI 1
11 0 a 00 ,A C4`3.
0 ...
•:›- \ 1 ti) I I \ t■ 1
...10- ..
Cisco 1....,,,Q ..., ........
r:-
(21 c Tr
in ill tv
- - 1
\ ')
,:.
.,...
i
-11 : '-il f-tit
. .., ..
1 —
`i. Nk - ■ I
1 \
-..
.........., ...., i ,
1 ...
....
ami a. ) ...... ..... ...!*
I ..." "." I
— 79i 1° 4'
. • •• • .• ••• •• •••••
• • •••••••••
/ 99.09 111EAS.
•••
11111
.111. r NS NI MIS MUM NI IIII IS MIMI ge NM
,10 .1 •
••••
two 1 •7 0 0 ,
‹. 0. rm. a... mei.
PELLER AVE. N
.••••• ••••■•
SO
E
▪ •
x
0
86.0
AP NI MI MI IN NI WI In IN NS IIMI 1111 IR Inn
99.
L
••••••••••...
0111 W FetV.
A, irkplAhN
III oil Or le in in Ns
min 7
z00
-1 Zr)
Z
11.4
co
0 0
> Lju
oo
m
—1
r
z
... • I. • . . •
•
-•••,„■
1 \ i
1 I
■i
03 X
r') 1 ...1
CD
i ;31
0
N/ iftri
Oa
ryN
'''f--
•
-VI
co
".1.
/ ‘ I
/ t
I ,j
/
1 '!
i i
1
. , ■
i I
i .
I 1
• •
(
??
z
n c?)
Om
z
• v)
c o
n
z L
o n
z 0
0
r
Z
L
4p ■
� }
1
1
1
E mmg
- i `
z O cz
0 vi
- Z
Q �,�
r�
o - I
N �
a t.
oo Y'
�
r
ed
a. tin
'd 591 '
icko
— Was 6117 ri,
>0%. 01; A V II VG
1
_34.3'
1 e z
•-' 30 �' —4.- ■■w■■■■■ ■1A*ttlwar■■ i • t (A -1 SM04i�1 `
1 H 1 ` i
�"� tis ! `9 D�
o ° a : ›- \
0, 'r n r1
Qi* 43 �I I;
f •
—a 0 4: .
`I1
wr -- • g SR
A
L
1
i.�
0
z
i
tamemik
1
ti
ko a
wiL—
I a
-- i
g`E o
I t91 tll
OU t :
1
o
1
D'Z
1
a)
i
(Lind) owl -SYVV) 60'66/
�w�...r.wa.�1 d I +`�����.w�+NNrn..r.�+iA1rM•1
�« o�f� P -•
ti ■
w r m S C
* - to y a7
;7; To' ch
_c .e ° D
0 u"
Q
Obt
2
O '
• <z
� OZ
U �-
Q o�
V °° 0
LU C p V
- Z
V z
Zd
1 Z
U o
O
ed d 0
a 0
tu w ce
H OC 0
< =w
0 I- rc
i < ce n
z W ,::,
< 0 Lu
a
z — z (X
u. Qo
4 N. }" d
o�
wQce
z u.
u.i 6
zz `f'o
:
vi 6Z0
z
0
O I i > >:
u.y) =
O
;
iRERE
g§§§§
W U
0
Z?
c
W ce
Z
Ce
Z
e- W
og
° u
b
roc
E3
O
V1
01
L
F
W
ONI A3h811S 4Ntl1 3NO1SNO3 Wtlfl L l 'Sb'� °W
z
R6SiD6Ne FOR:
.w*11.w01...11..w+*+w /1.11
M
M6 (6R D651GN S5R.V1G6
(VW 25, - 31333
FAX: ( ` 3F - at,F
S
**.►.co k,otrNoTe**•*
ALL IOCOWS WSSIIRWSD
weywumissemonveso
we. WWI, Ama w..wryll.Ir
•.. 4.044......40 400.144014O .M1LM4r1.
f04.1.+AM► PIM.. war rw.
r1A1R'M sswar e M ma 444r4R Q
r.4 041POS NY Ia.r wa10404.44 w
4041A 44 OAff 44X1 OOMPO PROOPO.4.w 1..t
par rag a M 4■10.4010 AMP ww►>Orr
.Iww► wrr
wow, , 111warms 'wows
An.4r ow ar •11r W.ema
ALTMO644it 'Nifty IFI=ORT MAS WNW MOOS IN PREPARING 111eSe PLANS AND CH6CK:N4 THOM MORACCKRACYp T Fig CONTRACT CM MKST CittroK AU . ogrA s ~. MM9NS0NS AND tie RBSPONSISUP FOR.71119 SAMS POR ALL CiOVVRN1N4 COWS AND
tWLDINq PRACTICAL THSS6 DRAWINtA CONFORM TO 46NORAU.yACC6 o 111411.24NCj PRAOTIC6s: N4OW V ILSTATE LOCAL CODES vAWI' vvibiLy. The D6segg6R. ASODOSICN SOR.V106, SFkALL. NOT'S MELD UAW ronAN (URRAILS. AU.
BRAE[. COMPLY WITtf ALL APPLICADLE STATe AND LOCAL COMM DO NOTSOALe DRAWINGS. %SS ONLy TH6 PRJNT7lD DIMONSWNS. W1T1tTM6 WINDOW MANWACTIANSWALL. 1MMDOW SILis AND AP7•l.ICA1L6 CARESS
RE@NIRBMENrs. ALL. 1MMONSIOF SA*t TAg8H P��NA STUDS OF A ftDO� tl�dkly DIMONSION OF L.PC/4TIONS g )• S' t s)) � 6� oNAcol . CON RAtroTRSFb1LLveRwy ALL McCHANICAL. AND 61.10T ieJoAL R.6�N1R mwrrS
AND CLIWARJN CSS. COQ HALL. Vilintry ALL
DTs
541-05
c.op
AMTMOR.I.Z16D Sy:
Desenr lloN Of Ct+AN45
MEMO
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007 * Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 • Fax (651) 439 -0574
June 3 2005
Summary:
•
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Eric Johnson, City Achninistrator
RE: Xcel Energy -- Fill Permit CUP Request -- Road Construction
Xcel Energy has submitted a plan to construct a new roadway near their northerly entrance, please see
Exhibit 1- the area is zoned Industrial. The purpose of this new roadway is to better facilitate the
movement of material and personnel between the main power plant area and the "lay down" area lying to
the north without being encumbered by railroad tracks and the coal trains that can stack across their current
drives denying them access to the lay down area. The lay down area is utilized to store equipment and will
eventually hold a 4,000 square foot warehouse -type facility. . .
Exhibit 2: Shows the current site conditions
Exhibit 3: Shows the proposed roadway
Exhibit 4: A discussion of the tree replacement between City Arborist Kathy Widin and Xcel Staff
Karen Sharappo.
Exhibit 5: Xcel Submittal Letter -- dated May 31s 2005
Upon review of the submitted information, there appears not to be any detrimental social, economic or
environmental impacts; and that Staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved as
requested by the applicant with the following conditions:
1. Xcel Energy must provide a specific wetland inventory / wetland-survey as well as a "Notice
of Wetland Conservation Act Decision" which must state that the wetlands, (if any) that are to
be filled in, are "incidental" and not naturally occurring wetlands; Or the Notice of Wetland
Conservation Act Decision must make an alternate determination that the wetlands are subject
to wetland restrictions and Xcel Energy shall submit for City review a full wetland inventory
and remediation plan for review. Xcel must then implement such plan with conditions as
specified by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any roadway construction
activities.
2. Final drainage plans and design shall be subject to the final review and approval of the City
Engineer.
3. Xcel Energy shall submit drainage plans to the Middle St. Croix Water Management
Organization for final review, once comments are provided Xcel may then potentially
proceed. Comments received shall be pro vided to the City prior to the. commencement of
roadway construction
ENCLOSURE
END.
4. Xcel Energy shall submit drainage plans to Minnesota DNR, Ms. Molly Shodeen for review,
once comments are provided Xcel may then potentially proceed. Comments received shall be
provided to the City.
5. Prior to roadway construction Xcel Energy pay the City the required tree replacement fee, as
calculated by City Arborist Kathy Widin, of $2,000.
6. Barbed -wire must be eliminated from the proposed gate /fence.
1
. .
MIMINIMOSION
CO
co
0
Hl N
0
w
0
z
W
w
t3
1 ' 6 , I1lIfI 111
^ llll I 1 111 1 i// / / ///
I III I I ,-/ /// / R� / / lN 1
11 1111114/m
(11\ 11►► ► ►, I ! _ I li , /l /r / ► l ...-- - --I dt / / / / / Z.. . / .y.
' / I / i i : ,>
„-----_:----- I's' ‘‘• ' / / / /
■ \ ... ..... g ( / / ,..-- 1 , „. ../.-- .../.7 "- fr - ..- I . /
I 11 I 1 1 I ///;;'//
// / ct — -/-/-t 7 "/ ---- %/).
5 -:-.-- .7:: ------ ..- 7 op V.:- . , lq / ,. \ / // / / /--////" /
7 : ." --. :- 2- 2. - ;..t_- S ----; , - - - - -I > 2 1 , / ,,' - ',./,/ /
/ / // / /
cr
•
___. -. . , „, / i ,/ / / / /141'/
- — — —__ _ :-.-__..-_L_),.. 411;;;/' : V // ---- j / / /
/ / ' t , / , , li e ,
............., ...- -, .... - ...-ii6V :// . - ...... - ...., .
, i ■#//
400
. >C N r ,,IF*01
■ / r \.- , i, / 0 \\
t
111111111mi 1 I I 1 1 \ f j / I
1 co
6 r /111111 11 0/1/1/ / /‘ /
1 1 I ..1 i \ ./ / / e , / / / / k....... /
I 441 / 11111111 ; 1111 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 il l ; 1 1/4. s , IS Will / i
. )-' ''' 1 /I 1 III //
1 1111111111 1
/ I ji / I/ /
/)(
I 14110 i i
,1 fil ...:.
\ 1 ,.., i
V\ ::\,: tit: 1 k‘ \\ . \ im 1
11:11.
vitiiiii
4 "\,1411111
4
\ 1 64), I d i
■ tco / /4, "/
g i
, '
, 1...
( L j ‘
co
/ / . \
1 / I 1 1-----'rA r\ ..,
I / / 0 , ., A)
/ / 1 1 /
/ (/ )
‘ :-... - - \ _,.. --, 4 ‘11 1 /, // 1 I . I 1,1 7 I :)( E ,,'
,---- \.\ / / / / I I 1 r,
1® �c ^ // ! 1 , /
_ � I
/ / /� / / i / // 1 /
/ / 1 /
/ ///
/// ' / / ,/
/ •l //
/ / / / / / I /iii
/ / / ///
/. / . ///
0
0
J
� y� i 1 I
�x / 1
// 1
/\ m // `
/ /. �
�
/ 1
< \/ '/ r 1
/ i // I o 1
✓/ $ ,- — -- 1 —1
-- i 1 .., 1 )</ /
0 e-
3
z
G
s.
1 / / ,
m
x
•
J
0
U)
/ /5k /
;sssss3tb0ASSS$4404.1$s$f3WILAS :44111$
!� klNdaSR!$
•--r
Z
E
A N o
N a
z
r)
V J
m
st
4
ig
fO
a
1—W
w
o
0 0
z F"
0 0
«�
cc
p w,„
a O OAS
O z
c 1 Q
~ °°"
w O
cc
O 0
ac s
w
w U
N
N
z
Hl
N
z
0
■
U
z
0
/
1 I
o
w � . 2
L'
N w
' O
zwN
4.21 5:24).
• /
/ J /
;I ►. ` -� ' ��w' �= = r r 1 as. W ^f sts •t4
ti
n
0'
Woma'
2NC�"1Cf • —
won,.
/ / / .
/ / / ✓ �
� _ ___ - ----- _ / / / / / , • / // ;
./ // , W /
— � — mo d / / / / //� ,, 40
/ . ' /
0
• /
)e-t70-1 v i
0
': m 1111111111 1 1 l "''
• NIIlIIIII
1 1 , f 1 / • / /// I/ / //
//
f 111111 1 1 i s , x/ "4 //
, � 11111111l� I I 1 _ // /
I I ` 1 I "III
i IlN11111t 1 `° l A / I I /
1 rl itll 1 1 /,I /// /
� � 1 1111111111111 I1 1 Ct I I .. V 6e Ff ; I / 1/
f 11111U11I1I1 I I \ • $s• 2 ��� . m °' / /
li"IIIIIIIll111111 1 1 1 / I in I i IIIIII111111111 1 1 �� tl l l l l
1 J111i 1 111111111 1
1 �' 1 1
IIiI tlIII1 I 1 I I I I
1 III ` I ...1 / 111
1 1 ■
■ ` /! r/Il//
11111111 1 1 �� fI lI I l t
■
1 11111111 1 \ \ 1 Il��
1 ` ,11111111 1
1
1 4 1111111 1 ` 1 � / • /±� �! �.
t,'- `111111 1 �L
1 ./ / 1 111
Ire 1 I W �, / Ill II
Os
1 I I � illllil 1 )( 1 1 } 1 /1
IIi !
■ ■ /// �i / !/
■
• „lI/ /11
_ � � /
•111 1 V I I I I I I — - / // / / -• •� :.
III{ �I I 1/1 I I 1 / 1 1 ,•. ..
h �\` 1 I I I I I c - /- .�: ; .. •.
z d '�11 I II // ) � , • I / 11 1 // / 1 �-
V
` / 1 / r
i /
` \ //— ` 1
// /
1 /
LJ;
\
- ".. )( \
1 \
w
a
u) es
z W�t�1�
: z
Q
(r az
0 air►
W (J O
z ig,,
� 3
m
• .,
u. �r
c ' WW
WCCw
Xt- VI
m
m
/
1 / 1 / / /� /
/ 1
— • -- --� — — / // f, /
..,. _ ...... -- — -- — _ • ; —_--- — ..'
— — -..- ...• / ,
/ ,..—uitS / /
/9'7) .
. / < -4: );%-/>:/// 1 , - / /
via,5/ r• '
// / i / /w ...„
, / /. < ////\ // \::/; r '6 1 ' i ' : L : /
zi
J
N
/
/
O 1. 3
r I '///
r •
V
1 ' , � / /i / /
/ / / I L
1 ////// / �
/ / r- , / >/ / / ///
11 v / / /
/ / \/////
11 /////// ,/
' /— / / / /,
/ /// /
//// ///0 / /
///, / /0/
/
///,/
1 /
/ //
W ^ /
l / Z" W-
/
/ // 1 1/
/ / /
//
/ /
/
arl
i Q
l9� d WQ
8 i . `'
0
m cc
to z • °
m
��00
f 1-
2r >>-
1 I 1 At g z 8-6
ifl O z
(7 J
fl,
I al Ywolx
0
Ili WW
U
1.! Q
l!1
sssssssss1IIN0IS30*$$$*S**$
sssSSS31VOASs *a ** ** ** s3HilASSSSSSs
11
N
9
N
Graham, Jared J
From: Sarappo, Sharon A
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:26 AM
To: Girtz, Russell
Subject: FW: FW: Trees to be Removed at King Plant
OMMOMmimmalimmummlimMil
I met with Kathy on May 19 and let her know that our preference is to provide Oak Park
Heights with a check for tree replacement rather than re -plant trees on the King Plant
site. I provided Kathy with a map of the area where the trees are to be removed.
Original Message
From: kdwidin @comcast.net [mailto:kdwidin @comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:19 PM
To: Sarappo, Sharon A
Subject: Re: FW: Trees to be Removed at King Plant
EKHIBUT
Sharon -
Thanks for sending me this information. Yes, this is sufficient for the project and I
do not need to make a site visit. Is Xcel planning to plant new trees on the site? I
thought that is what they did for the last tree removal at the King plant rather than
sending the city a check for replacement trees. The city would probably prefer re-
planting by Xcel on site or even planting the replacement trees near the 58th St. cul -de-
sac by the ash landfill. Let me know what they would like to do.
Kathy Widin
Arborist
City of Oak Park Heights
> Kathy,
> I am forwarding this e -mail to you for your review. Do you need a site visit of
> the area, or is the information I am providing sufficient to comply with the Oak
> Park Heights tree ordinance. Please let me know.
> > Original Message
> > From: Sarappo, Sharon A
> > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:32 AM
> > To: New, Nick (UE)
> > Cc: Girtz, Russell
> > Subject: Trees to be Removed at King Plant
> >
> > Nick,
> > I completed a survey of the tree removal area on the King Plant site on April
> 25, 2005. According to the City of Oak Park Heights tree ordinance # 1307 a
> significant tree (Section 1307.030) is "A healthy deciduous tree measuring at
> least 8 inches dbh (54 inches above the ground), or a healthy coniferous tree at
> least 10 feet in height..." This changes to 4 inches for oak and ironwood, and
> 2 inches for pagoda dogwood or serviceberry. Cottonwood and silver maple are
> significant at 12 inches dbh or greater when growing near a river, but 20 inches
> at upland sites. Box elder, buckthorn and Siberian elm are not significant at
> any size.
> > Based on the definition outlined above, the following trees, which will be
> removed for the new road between the laydown area and the coal pile, are
> considered significant:
> >
> > green ash - 11" dbh
410 > black willow - 12" dbh, 10.5" dbh, 12" dbh, 9" dbh, 13" dbh, 10" dbh, il" dbh,
> 10" dbh, 14" dbh
> >
> > All the aspen in this area are diseased and are, therefore, not under
> consideration.
> > The two scotch pine to be removed are too small ( under 10 feet tall) and are
1
> not considered significant.
> > The Ordinance requires replacement of one new tree for every two significant
> trees. The replacement trees must be 2.5 inches in diameter and cost roughly
> $400/each. We need to replace the significant trees with a total of 5 new trees
> at $400/each for a total cost of $2000. The check should be payable to the City
> of Oak Park Heights
> > I believe that Byron Nordell is handling the payment to the City for tree
> removal.
> > Please call me if you have any questions or need anything further.
> >
> > Sharon Sarappo
> > Senior Environmental Analyst
> > Xcel Energy
> > (612) 330-6743
> >
> >
> >
2
XceIEnergy
May 31, 2005
Mr. Eric Johnson
City Administrator
Oak Park Heights, MN 55330
RE: Road Construction and Installation
Dear Mr. Johnson:
In response to you letter dated May 20, 2005 enclosed are our responses.
Expostr 5
1. Attached are 3 full size and 20 11x17 copies requested topographical drawings.
These show the proposed road alignment and road cross - section.
2. We have completed a tree survey in the impacted area and found the following:
a. 1 green ash - 11" dbh
b. 9 black willow -- (12" dbh, 10.5" dbh, 12" dbh, 9" dbh, 13" dbh, 10" dbh, 11"
dbh, 10" dbh, 14" dbh)
c. All the aspen in this area are diseased.
d. The two scotch pine to be removed are under 10 feet tall.
Xcel Energy will calculate the value of these trees per the Ordinance and will submit
payment after the trees are removed. This information was discussed with the City
Arborist. An e-mail is attached that documents the communication.
3. We are currently assessing the area impacted by this change as related to the
Wetlands Conservation Act. We will submit the determination at a later date.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
9&%4A-
Russ Girtz
Engineering Manager
King Rehabilitation Project
ashin
•
•
•
May 3, 2005
Tom Melena
Oak Park Heights
City Hall
PO Box 2007
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Dear Mr. Melena,
Becka Ault
Tax Accounting & Research
If you have any question, please feel free to contact me at 430 -6167.
Assessment,
Taxpayer Services and
Elections Department
ENCLOSURE
Enclosed is a classification listing of non - conservation land located in your city. The parcels
described in the listing Forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non - payment of property taxes.
As required under M.S. 282.01, we request that you approve the parcel(s) for public auction or
request conveyance to your city for public use.
We require a certified copy of the City Council Resolution authorizing any action taken. If you
request that a parcel be conveyed to your city, you must also complete the form "Application by a
Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax - Forfeited Land" and mail it to this office. This
application will be contingent upon DNR's approval of the classification and sale or repurchase
by a prior owner.
The enclosed list does not indicate parcel(s) with special assessments. Please review this list
and indicate any amounts involved that are not listed on this notice. Special assessments that
were canceled at forfeiture will be paid to you out of the proceeds of the sale of the property to
the extent that funding is available. Special assessments that were levied after the forfeiture
should be certified to this office on the list provided. They will be the appraised value and paid
from the sate price.
Please be advised that, if the City Council fails to respond within sixty (60) days of the date of
this letter, the sale will be deemed approved.
Government Center • 14949 62nd Street North P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 -0006
Phone: 651 -430 -6175 • Fax: 651 -430 -6178 • TTY: 651- 430 -6246
www.co.washington.mn.us
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action
MAP
NO.
#1
CITY
Oak Park Heights
2005 AUCTION LIST
April 29, 2005
PARCEL ID
NUMBER
34.030.20.31.0116
8/21/1990
DATE OF BUILDING OR
FORFEITURE VACANT LAND
Vacant Land
•
•
tio
..1
•
R21 W R2OW R19W
R22W R21W R2OW
Vicinity Map
278
Scale in Feet
This dram g M tln mull at • ao mpidion
and npoduelion of land mends as Only
appear in wAsus Washington County Aces.
The dewing should ea used Ire rafoona
purposes any. WaahMgla+ County is nal
nisponsibls for any inane racha.
Swig: Wasting. Conway Swva . Mx
Phony (est) 4304275
Penal data based on N2400 idonmdbn
anent thee.* Mardi 31. 2005
Mali prinlaet May 2. 2025
•
•
does ordain:
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
UPON CERTAIN LANDS WITHIlN THE CITY OF
OAK PARK HEIGHTS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
AFFECTING THE CONSTRUCTION,
RECONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT LOCATION, BUILDING OR
LOCATION OF ANY STRUCTURES PENDING STUDY
AND AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 400 AND SECTION 401
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
OAK PARK HEIGHTS DEALING WITH ME POSSIBLE MDDIFICATION TO
THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OVER
LANDS NOW ZONED AS "CBD" WITHIN TEE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
The City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota
Section 1. Moratorium.
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-
PREAMBLE
IVOLOS1.tRE
SECTION A. There is a need to study the existing zoning structure of the City of
Oak Park Heights so as to address the location, development, construction and reconstruction of
properties within the Central Business District of the City and to determine these and other issues
and to realistically assess the manner of regulatory controls that may be needed to be adopted by the
City of Oak Park Heights affecting the location of a central business district within the City to
provide for the public health, safety and welfare of all individuals and to assure that current
planning is adequately addressed within the central business district The City Council for the City
of Oak Park Heights will be studying all such related issues and has directed the City Planner to
conduct sriidies and provide a report to the City Council on the issues affecting the central business
district, its zone, uses and options to better assess use issues in those areas now zoned "CBD ".
Additional time is required, however, for this purpose before proposals for
amendments to the City Zoning regulations can be prepared and considered by the City Council and
the public within hearings called for specifically on those purposes.
DRAFT
The City, therefore, finds that a moratorium is required to protect the planning process and to
prevent the construction within certain designated areas of the City of improvements, facilities, or
other structures under circumstances as would be detrimental to the proposed present or future
owners of the said property and as it affects the future or present uses within the central business
district. The City further finds that it is necessary to preserve within this process lands as now
situated and to provide for reasonable studies in consideration of implementation of the central
business district and extensions of the boundaries of same. At the present time, the necessary study
period in the implementation is anticipated to be able to be completed by September 13, 2005.
SECTION E. Moratorium Established and Scope.
1. In accordance with the findings set forth within the Preamble of this
ordinance and pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 4 there is hereby established
a moratorium on the location, construction, development, erection or placement or reconstruction or
enlargement of any facilities, buildings or structures within that portion of the City of Oak Park
Heights defined below and on future development or use of said property for all such purposes.
2. During the period of time of the moratorium application for final site and
building plan approvals, building permits and all other permits and approvals related to such work
shall not be acs: epted' by the City, neither the City Planner nor the City Council shall consider grant
or approval of any such application required for such work and no building permits for such work
shall be issued.
SECTION C. Applicability.
The moratorium shall be applied upon real property assigned and zoned within the
central business district identified in the annexed Exhibit 1, the same being incorporated by
reference herein.
SECTION D. Exceptions.
The moratorium shall not apply to (1) the lawful use of an existing structure; (2) the
repair or maintenance of any existing facility or structure provided that the work does not enlarge or
expand same; (3) work upon any facility or siructure necessary to preserve the health, safety, life or
property in the face of an emergency; and (4) construction location development of any facility or
structure which has received all necessary permits and approvals from the City of Oak Park Heights
prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION E. Section E Penalty.
Any person, corporation or other entity that constructs, erects, reconstructs, enlarges
or locates or expands a structure facility in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be subject to any legal and/or equitable remedies available to the City of Oak Park
Heights.
•
•
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and •
•
•
after its passage and publication according to law and shall remain effective until September 13,
2005 unless further extended by order of the City Council.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County,
Minnesota, on this 14th day of ruse, 2005.
Attest:
Eric Johnson, City Administrator
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
B
David Beaudet, Mayor