Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-08 Planning Commission Meeting Packet CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 8, 2022 6:00 P.M. I. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance II. Approval of Agenda III. Approve August 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1) IV. Department/ Commission Liaison/ Other Reports V. Visitors/Public Comment This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns on or not upon the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. VI. Public Hearings A. Rickie Nelson: Review and consider request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway curb cut greater than 24-feet for the property located at 15242 64th St. N. (2) B. Sodie's Cigar—The Bainey Goup: Review and consider request for Site Plan/Design Guidelines Review with regard to proposed building expansion of Sodie's Cigar, located at 5946 Osgood Ave. N., within Stillwater Crossings. (3) VII. New Business VIII. Old Business IX. Informational A. Upcoming Meetings (4) B. Council Representative • Tuesday, September 27, 2022 —Commissioner VanDenburgh • Tuesday, October 25, 2022—Commissioner Husby X. Adjourn. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday,August 11, 2022 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance: Chair White called the meeting to order @ 6:07 p.m. Present: Commissioners Freeman, Husby, Van Denburgh, VanDyke and White; City Administrator Johnson, City Planner Richards, City Attorney Sandstrom and City Councilmember Liaison Representative Liljegren. II. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner VanDyke, seconded by Commissioner Husby, moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 5-0. III. Approval of June 9, 2022 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner VanDyke, moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Carried 5-0. IV. Department/ Commission Liaison/Other Reports: City Administrator Johnson noted that the Norell Ave. roadway project is nearing completion. V. Visitors/Public Comment: There were no visitors or comments to items not upon the meeting Agenda. VI. Public Hearings: A. Jaime Junker — JK&K Group, LLP: Review and consider requests for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use classification from low density residential to high density residential for the property located at 5676 Oakgreen Ave. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the August 4, 2022 Planning Memorandum to the request and discussed the process for a comprehensive plan change, provided an issue analysis and discussed the same. Richards clarified that it was the land use classification being discussed and not the project, also that the 150-foot-wide buffer, recognizing the neighborhood to the south, is owned by the City. Chair White invited the applicant to address the Commission. Jamie Junker— JK&KGroup, the applicant, introduced himself and acknowledge his appreciation of a good public debate. He shared his understanding of what he thought the property use was beyond the buffer zone, what his understanding of the process for review was, steps he has taken along that process, and his understanding from activity with regard to his request. Mr. Junker expressed that he felt he was not given adequate information by the City and cited several examples related to density. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Using the meeting report prepared by the City Planner and reviewing his development application along with other materials, Mr. Junker expressed that the report prepared for the request to be inappropriate in that it refers to the comprehensive plan in place versus a changed comprehensive plan, which is what he is seeking. Mr. Junker noted the merits of his request and project, noting that with inflation and the departure of the A.S. King Plant the cycle of planning review and change consideration should acknowledge the change needed. Mr. Junker noted his objections to the conclusions and recommendations of the planning report as they apply to his application, density, traffic, and data he felt was left out. Mr. Junker concluded with discussion as to the existing buffer zone and what it should be and discussed the houses along that zone that are actually adjacent to his property, those in relation to the power station, and matters of screening in place and areas that they will work with the City Arborist with regard to screening. He noted that he believed the properties on transition should receive scrutiny back and forth with the comprehensive plans until their final use and that through debate and discussion had at the meeting, it could be the evening of change. Chair White opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. and invited public comment, suggesting that rather than everyone addressing the Commission with the same comments that perhaps when one is given, those in the audience supporting the comment could raise their hands. Dave Benson — 5668 Novak Ave. N stated that the buffer zone purchase came about with runoff needs for the Boutwells Landing development and noted that when he attended the meeting with regard to that, they discussed keeping it as a park and the area low density. He added that while he is opposed to Mr. Junker's request, he does not feel traumatized by having an open debate and having a difference of opinion. Mr. Benson stated that he understands that Mr. Junker owns the property and wishes to maximize it and that he agrees with Mr. Richards report, would like to see it remain low density and does not support the request. Robert Deutsche — 15191 63rd St. N. a resident of 45 years, stated that he looked over the comprehensive plan, Mr. Junker's application and the property involved and stated that he didn't understand why the buffer zone would be behind the property rather than at 58th St. N. where all the other apartment units are. Mr. Deutsche feels like the request fits in. David Schell — 6375 St. Croix Trail a long-time resident of the City, stated that he was in favor of the proposal, in that condos are a great transition for seniors housing for their convenience and the kind of control that you can have over the housing. He noted he traveled 58th St. frequently and would be concerned with single housing and children playing at that roadway and also that he would like to see the housing fill some of the hole that Xcel Energy departing will leave. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 3 of 10 Tim Sheridan— 13991 56th St. N. stated that he is not in favor of the proposal and that there are already issues with traffic and school busses and their pick up and drop off at 56th St. N. and Oakgreen Ave. N. Jim Kremer— 5475 Oakgreen Place N. stated that he was on the Planning Commission for seven years and worked on the comprehensive plan for much of that time. He indicated that he lives about a block and one-half from the proposal area and feels that the proposal would affect his entire neighborhood. In an effort toward due diligence Mr. Kremer did attend a neighborhood meting held by Mr. Junker, read his proposal and other writings, his news release and articles, and reviewed portions of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Kremer feels that there have been several misunderstanding and vague information communicated about the application. Mr. Kremer noted that he never once had anyone ever suggest that density needed to be increased with the comprehensive plan review process. With regard to the development across 58th St. N., he noted that the density of the development was reduced in size and density from what they originally sought, that their traffic does not directly impact Oakgreen Ave. and 58th St. as their access is on Nova Scotia Ave., and that the buildings are built at a lower elevation that the site being discussed and that the proposed buildings at the site of discussion would actually be taller. Mr. Kremer pointed out that walking trails have been in place and developing within the City of years, stated that the existing property has not been kept up pristinely and that the along the trail in the buffer zone you can see that many of the trees are not in good condition. Mr. Kremer stated that he felt the proposal was not a good fit for Oak Park Heights and does not support the requested change and requested denial consideration. Alan Carlson— 5858 Oakgreen Ct. N. moved to Oak Park Heights from Minneapolis a year ago and is familiar with the challenges and complexities of development and high density. Mr. Carlson and his wife moved here for the different environment, though he does have family roots in the area. He stated that he believed townhouses and condos are attractive to a lot of older residents and that the request is an opportunity to increase housing stock that is attractive to older residents. He does not want to see the buffer change but feels that it should be viewed as a buffer between low density and something else, not necessarily low density and high density. He would ask that the Commission be open to changing the comprehensive plan and allowing a higher density. He feels that the request is an appropriate choice for the space. Natalie Sintek— 5660 Oak Cove N. lives across the road from the proposed project and stated that the request to change to the comprehensive plan seems to be for one project and that aspects for the long-term health and growth for the City and using the space to the advantage of future generations of the City need to be considered. Ms. Sintek noted that traffic is already an issue at the intersection which is crucial for safety and rescue personnel and an increase to it is not desirable. She is not in favor. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 4 of 10 Clyde Saari —6165 Beach Rd., N. expressed his support for the project primarily for the reason that it will help offset lost tax revenue from the closure of the A.S. King Plant. Mr. Saari stated that he felt that the project was consistent with what planning should be and that compromise should be sought for what is best for the community at large. Ann Sheridan — 13991 56th St. N. expressed her concern about traffic being a nightmare, noting that her son has already been nearly hit at the 4-way stop. She added that the speeding is currently horrendous and that adding more traffic will not help. She feels that the proposal conversation has been disrespectful and offensive - not fair and equitable and without compromise. She is not in support of the request. Stefan Sheridan— 13991 56th St. N. does not support the project. Dick Gacke — 13964 56th St. N. will be directly affected by the proposal. He noted maps and the comprehensive plan are readily available to view online and how there could be confusion with the maps in both the 2008 and 2018 comprehensive plans, depending on what you are asking about it. Mr. Gacke expressed that the project should not be presented as the saving of the lost tax revenue with the A.S. King Plant closure. He added that traffic is horrible, that he is not clear as to the number of units proposed, after attending two neighborhood meetings. He does use the trail in the buffer zone and appreciates the walking path on Oakgreen. Mr. Gacke noted VSSA being on the meeting Agenda and stated that the expansion was in planning for years and discussed when he moved into the City in 1999. He stated that the find the development beautiful but does not in that area. He does not support the request. Rita Fornell — 5652 Oak Cove N. said that they moved to Oak Park Heights because it was a nice quiet community, though they did not realize that Oakgreen Ave. was going to be so busy and is hopeful that something can be something about that one day. She stated that she does not feel the proposal is appropriate for the area and does not support the request. Chris Hendrickson— 13961 56th St. N. has lived in the City for 38 years and has seen a lot of development and change to the area, including a drastic increase in traffic and traffic noise. She stated that she uses the walking paths daily and that they are well used. She does not support the request and would like to see the area remain low density because she feels that to change it would drastically alter the whole feel of the immediate neighborhood. She agrees with those who have spoken to the traffic being bad. Lois Hall— 14201 53rd St. stated that she also has a professional building at 60th St. N & Oakgreen Ave. She expressed her support for the project, noting that with regard to traffic, she would rather see one access point versus more. Andrea Diebel — 5658 Oak Cove N. indicated that she lives just east of the site and expressed that she would take four households over 36 any day. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Jeanne Smith — 5656 Oak Cove N. also lives just east of the site and stated that her main concern was traffic increase to both 58th St. N. and Oak green Ave. N. as well as headlights from traffic leaving the site shining into the homes that back up to 58th St. N. She also feels that three-stories is excessive and that two-stories is keeping more with the flavor of the community. She opposes the request. Mark Pohl — 13990 56th St. N. lives directly behind the buffer zone, which he noted does not exist in the Winter — he is able to see lights at the condominiums over by Lowes then and most of the Summer. He is opposed. Nathan Diebel — 5658 Oak Cove N. stated that he and his wife are new to the community and have loved everything about the community so far. They chose to move to the City with plans to start a family and the proposal of condos raises safety concerns for him with regard to privacy and not knowing who those neighbors would be. He would like to see things as they are and is opposed. Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner VanDyke, moved to close the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Carried 5-0. Discussion ensued as to the potential impact of taxes with the A.S. King Plant closure and acknowledgement of those who supported and opposed the request and general vicinity of those to the project site. Commissioner Freeman noted that when the meetings were held regarding the comprehensive plan amendment, they were all open and public meetings and no one from the community showed up. He clarified that the existing plan is a current document that has been reviewed and approved by the City and Metropolitan Council. Current traffic volume and access on 58th St. was noted and discussed with regard to adding to it. Commissioner Freeman expressed that too many assumptions can be made about the tax revenue change with the closure of the A.S. King Plant can be made and that it is not a valid reason to change the comprehensive plan. Freeman noted that the comprehensive plan does not determine what type housing market for housing is required, He expressed that that he did not feel the plan needed to be changed and added that he is not supportive of the request. Chair White acknowledged addressed the comment that the rules should not be changed on the game of long-term investment and that he felt that is actually what they were being asked to consider doing considering the investment around the property based on the assumption of the comprehensive plan designating it as single- family zoning. He noted that he did also walk the entire perimeter of the property on the trails and agrees with what residents have said with regard to the buffer area. City Planner Richards reiterated that there was not a lot of community participation in the comprehensive plan amendment process and that it was not for a lack of effort — a survey was mailed to every household, open houses were held, meetings were well advertised, he attended the City Party in the Park with maps in 2019, and public hearings were held. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 6 of 10 Richards noted that he stands by the recommendation within his report based on the finding presented. Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Van Denburgh, moved to recommend City Council denial of the request as per the recommendation of the August 4, 2022 Planning Memorandum as per the findings presented within the same and noting concern with regard to the development location and access points being issues. Commissioner Van Denburgh thanked everyone who attended the hearing and spoke as to what was true for them, affected them - for or against the project and noted that he appreciated that those who attend did so, showing that the community is involved and that they care about their community. Carried 5-0. Chair White called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 p.m. B. Judd Andrews & Jay Andrews, Jr. — St. Croix Car Wash: Review and consider request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a car wash and no setback for the driveway on the E. side of the site and Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review for site located adjacent to Tire Pros, located at 14447 6e St. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the August 4, 2022 Planning Report to the request, provided an issue analysis and discussed the same, noting staff recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions noted within the planning report. Brief discussion ensued as to curbing at east property line and where the Speedway tanks are located. Chair White invited the applicant to address the Commission. Amanda Berndt — Duan Corporation introduced herself as the project architect and described sign design being worked on to the west side of the building for a resin sign with embedded LED lighting and tire tread graphic and responded to questions from the Commission as to traffic flow through the area, clarifying that traffic will not be moving from the TirePros site to the car wash. Chair White opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. and invited public comment. noting that two written comments were received about concern with regard to increased traffic at the intersection of Hwy. 36 and 60th St. N., Ms. Berndt advised the Commission that directional signage is being placed for traffic movement. There being no additional public comment, Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, moved to close the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Discussion ensued as to the conditions of the planning report requiring Planning Commission comment with regard to building materials and garage door transparency. Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, moved to recommend City Council approval of the request subject to the conditions of the August 4, 2022 Planning Report, specifically, that: 1. An access permit for 60th St. N. shall be required from MnDOT, with a copy provided to the City. 2. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization. 3. If the vacuum system creates noise issues for surrounding businesses, the City Council may require the Applicant to take additional sound dampening measures. 4. All lighting fixtures shall be full cut off and installed in compliance with the lighting standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The total height of the ground mounted light fixtures shall not exceed 25-feet. A revised photometric plan shall be required indicating the light intensity to all property lines. 5. The outdoor lighting shall be turned off one hour after closing, expect for approved security lighting. 6. The landscape plan shall be subject to City Arborist review and approval. 7. Mechanical equipment that is located on the roof or visible from street level or from neighborhood properties shall be screened with materials that blend harmoniously with the building façade materials. 8. The reader board on the monument sign shall not exceed 35-percent of the total sign face. 9. Specifications for the 3-form exterior resin panel with LED illumination on the east elevation shall be provided. If the panel lighting is not full cut off, it shall not be allowed. 10. All signage shall be subject to final review and approval of City Staff for conformance with Zoning Ordinance standards. The sign lighting should be designed such that only the text and logo portions of the signs are to be lit at night. Staff shall approve the lighting specifications for signs at the time of permitting. 11. The Planning Commission was favorable to the building material selections and colors. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 8 of 10 12. The Planning Commission was favorable to the proposed transparency of the north elevation. Carried 5-0. C. Valley Senior Services Alliance: Review and consider a request from Kevin Lohry of Senior Housing Partners on behalf of Valley Senior Services Alliance for a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow a mixed-use development for property located at the intersection of Norwich Ave. N. and north of 58th St. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the August 4, 2022 Planning Report to the request, noting that the request is being reviewed for Concept Plan approval only. Richards provided an issue analysis and discussed the same, noting staff recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions noted within the planning report. Discussion ensued as to adjacent property ownership, trail connections, traffic increase at shared access with Stillwater Family Dental and how the new round about at Norell Ave. N. will affect traffic in the area, and proposed building signage. Chair White invited the applicant to address the Commission. Kevin Lohry — Senior Housing Partners introduced himself and others with him, in the audience — Kimley - Horn Engineer Mitchell Cookas, BKV Group Architect Chris Palkowitsch and Development Manager Sam Jagodzinski of Senior Housing Partners. Mr. Lohry provided a brief description of who Senior Housing Partners is and what they do and noted that concept plan is part of the Phase I request toward building a 79- unit workforce housing building. They feel that the lack of housing is part of their employee turnover and would like to reduce turnover and attract employees by offering a housing option. Chris Palkowitsch — BKV Group responded to the question as to unit sizes and the design plan for those proposed being as 26 alcove units that do not a standard bedroom size and described the unit layout. They are proposing eight 487 sf units and eighteen 536 sf units. Discussion ensued as to the alcove unit sizes and rental cost, whether or not the units were seen to be for workforce housing or the community at large, clarified that the units would not be senior housing but available to all ages, potential commitments to development approvals for restrictions to the development use, green space and buffer planting possible between site and the backside of Walmart, parking lot space reduction, and overall building design. Chair White opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. and invited public comment. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 9 of 10 Dave Benson — 5668 Novak Ave. N. asked for clarification that the apartment complex was available to rent from anyone and expressed concern that a disservice to those renting the smaller units might be made in that a family may move into the smaller unit because it is what they can afford rather than what suits their need in size. He is not opposed to the proposal but is concerned with cutting the square footage of the units and what happens if the project does not work out in the community. Valessa Caspers — 13950 56th St. N. stated that she was curious about the development as a whole and its impact upon traffic. She would like to see a bigger picture before decisions are made and was under the impression that workforce housing was meant for the workforce of Boutwell's Landing. Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner VanDyke, moved to close the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Carried 5-0. Discussion ensued as to the unit sizing and what can be done if it is found that there is not a market for them, history to the site and the land elements involved. Mr. Palkowitsch clarified that while Senior Housing Partners & Presbyterian Homes have not done such a building before, the alcove style buildings are being built all over the Twin Cities and nationally. Also, that the structures are designed such so that unit separation walls can be opened up and unit sizes altered. Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Van Denburgh, moved to recommend City Council approval of the request subject to the conditions of the August 4, 2022 Planning Report with condition 4 amended to add language with regard working on solutions aimed at ensuring income affordability, specifically, that: 1. The Planning Commission was favorable to the overall master plan, compatibility with surrounding uses and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. 2. The Applicant shall provide a preliminary/final plat to be reviewed as part of the General Plan. 3. Park dedication and connection charges shall be paid with the approval of the final plat and Development Agreement. 4. The Applicant shall address the sizing issue of the alcove units and work with the City toward solutions aimed at ensuring income affordability as part of the General Plan submittals. 5. The landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist as part of the General Plan review. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2022 Page 10 of 10 6. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization review and approval as part of General Plan approvals. 7. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer as part of General Plan approvals. 8. All lighting plans shall be subject to Staff review as part of General Plan approvals. 9. All signage plans shall be subject to Staff review as part of General Plan approvals. 10. The Fire Marshal and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development, subject to their approvals. 11. The Planning Commission was favorable to the possibility of proof of parking and urban heat island mitigation. 12. The Planning Commission was favorable to the Concept Phase-One building appearance, colors, and materials. Carried 5-0. VII. New Business: None. VIII. Old Business: None. IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: Noted. B. Council Representative: • Tuesday, August 23, 2022—Commissioner VanDyke • Tuesday, September 27, 2022—Commissioner Van Denburgh X. Adjourn: Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner Husby, moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Julie Hultman Planning & Code Enforcement Approved by the Planning Commission: EncInJit--a! T P C 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231.5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPC@PlanningCo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: September 1, 2022 RE: Oak Park Heights - Conditional Use Permit for Driveway Curb Cut - 15242 64th Street North TPC FILE: 236.05 — 22.01 BACKGROUND Rick Nelson (Applicant) has made an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a curb cut of more than 24 feet at 15242 64th Street North. The Applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit in July of 2020 for an attached garage and house addition. The driveway is now ready to be completed and the Applicant has requested a 60 foot curb cut. The property is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District. Single-family and two-family dwellings and their accessory structures are permitted uses in that District. EXHIBITS The review is based upon the following submittals: Exhibit 1: Project Narrative Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Building Plan Exhibit 4: Air Photo of Property Exhibit 5: Site Plan Approved — July 2020 Exhibit 6: CUP Resolution Approved — July 2020 Exhibit 7: Site Picture PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project description and justification for the Conditional Use Permit from Rick Nelson is as follows: We would like to pour a driveway that is wider than the standard 24 ft. Our garage width is 30 ft facing the street. To make the appearance more esthetically pleasing, we would like to have straight lines. If we do the standard 24-foot curb cut and then widen the driveway out from there it does not look good. I would like to have a driveway that is all concrete instead of a driveway that is 2/3 concrete and 1/3 rock/gravel. Our family is growing, and the additional space is what we need. In 8 years, our oldest will be turning 16 and have his own car. The two-bedroom ADU/Apartment above the garage will be for guests and/or visiting family members. As can be seen from the site photo, a surmountable curb is in place along the length of the property. The site plan indicates that the proposed driveway will extend along the entire length of the garage to within five feet of the property line. The air photo shows that the right of way of 64th Street is 60 feet wide. The property line is 6.2 feet from the front of the house and 22.7 feet from the front of the garage. The area of the boulevard from the property line to the curb of 64th Street is approximately 17 feet. A significant portion of the new driveway will be on City right of way. Note in Exhibit 5, the approved site plan under the 2020 Conditional Use Permit indicated a 24 foot curb cut. ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Land Use Map. Zoning. The property is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District. Single-family and two-family dwellings and their accessory structures are permitted uses in that District. Section 401.15.F.4.h.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: Curb Cut Size. No curb cut access shall exceed twenty four feet (24) in width, or thirty two feet (32) when accessing a State highway, except by conditional use permit. The intent of this requirement is to maintain a residential look to the street and neighborhood. A 60 feet driveway is not compatible with the neighborhood and exceeds what is normally allowed for a single family house. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend that the curb cut for the driveway be no more than 30 feet, which is the width of the garage. That would be more consistent and keeping with the residential nature of the neighborhood. The Applicant would be allowed to keep the parking pad on the side of the garage, but a 15 foot grassed boulevard area would need to be maintained to limit access directly onto 64th Street. The criteria for reviewing the Conditional Use Permit request is reviewed later in this report. Drainage/Utilities. The City Engineer reviewed the drainage for the site as part of the 2020 approvals and has no additional comments regarding the driveway. 2 Conditional Use Permits. Application for a Conditional Use Permit shall be regulated by Section 401.15.1.e.5). of the Zoning Ordinance. A Conditional Use Permit may be granted provided that: The conditional use permit criteria, found in Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, are found as follows: 1. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal comprehensive plan. Comment: The use of the property as a single family dwelling is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. Comment: A 60 foot curb cut in this neighborhood is not consistent. 3. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. Comment: No environmental issues result from this request. 4. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The 60 foot curb cut is not consistent with the neighborhood and could depreciate the surrounding area. 5. The impact on character of the surrounding area. Comment: There would be a negative impact of a curb cut that is not consistent with the neighborhood. In reviewing surrounding properties, most of the curb cuts are between 24 and 28 feet in width. A 30 foot curb cut, as suggested by Staff, is consistent. 6. The demonstrated need for such use. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated the need for the 60 foot curb cut. 7. Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: There should be no issues with traffic. 8. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City's service capacity. Comment: There should be no impact on public services or facilities. 3 9. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Comment: The request is not in conformance with the performance standard related to curb cuts. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the request for the for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a curb cut of more than 24 feet at 15242 64th Street North, City Staff would recommend that the request for a 60 foot curb cut be denied, but a 30 foot curb cut be allowed at the front of the garage with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer will review and approve the drainage for the site and placement of the driveway. 2. The final curb cut, and driveway design shall be subject to approval of City Staff. 3. An area of boulevard, at least 15 feet wide shall be planted with grass and maintained from the west property line to the curb cut. 4. Any other conditions of the Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff. 4 aI Rick Nelson 15242 64th Street North Oak Park Heights Mn 55082 We would like to pour a driveway that is wider that the standard 24 ft. Our Garage width is 30ft facing the street.To Make the appearance more astatically pleasing we would like to have straight lines. If we do the standard 24-foot curb cut and then widen the driveway out from there it does not look good. I would like to have a driveway that is all concrete instead of a driveway that is 2/3 concrete and 1/3 rock/gravel. Our family is growing and the additional space is what we need. In 8 years, our oldest will, be turning 16 and have his own car.The two-bedroom ADU/Apartment above the garage will be for guests and or visiting family members. Thank you. ito,(\ .ei,,,c)ose_ c'\\re,LQ, pi &C 4-2- S(L_Ia . (Dy-\, S+ tJ Oak ,\\a8 h ikk ss i i 1 I d V 1._ tat __ ii ....._'-(-ig 0 k ) 1 cac d Z 1 I S O o ...„( .-T---------- cL i 5f6le- 14- { n NO153U 1YjjN]QI53 �q illi015y1 'Z i .241 € \ `l as 2l ! ',s �� m, J Jilin cg I I I. d ' Haig ,ii:tL 1,{d l ,IIL {r. ,i= zf i r =3 a.� Lit firth Iva& 82v,.x, f,1:1te t \fig; n 101 \.\ \�\\\\7.---- \‹-‘' ' \\ - , O O ONil ' .\\ \ \\\ \�\ \\\, 1111r Ill � i-72: \ \\\,\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\,":\\Nxi\\\,;:\'\1: ,,,\- .......,E; , 1. \� \ \\ z Z \ \\\ , \ \::\,,\,::::,'\\,\ \ \ \\ \ , 222\1' \\ \,\\ y:\. 7_ ,„ \\‘vvy I 1p. a, i r ..! 0 t' 1 P VY IL P A r Q o: :01 /� . Q 'P V' Z • O e n O ,g "o` ( -- o4 . k ' IL .9 + 4 k e e k LOt • • 4 i O 0 "o': iol fi ' f ilt t { ilik L i r ,,. ,.., ,„ t IF".' 0 ' 106.Sour . '''.. i „ ,.4, ..r - .. ... ... ,,,,,,....„,, rt }�'�" ."C y f�yS qtr f,# 7r% sT -9 7.�`," {r ` Y1i > tsr4� ' Y' . . `►M' e. $ t''.�'i='`� 0 x I `LL • .. w. `FY'.H�riP .p IV 0'`. ' J � .. 4rI - . •. MO i09 •� t S i (H iMt !.:% 4 sl ' .AA�,, { ,� t.f . ti ` r . , . , .„, tV c;40:,-,-_, . g� ;1¢ ; , it .' irI .MYfTaFv k. ry r x. ., — r r..._r _ f d - , _/ _ s tiQ _ y d M - -ASR -w t hdig , x . 4+ 5 a • *, g 1 , NOaonalsNo3 60d ION I' -lricrt- ''I" _,,,.., h g lib] 1; -AINNIA1113bd 1 li L1 - rill Jail LA iiiii g tl a�� if is t6 Rt i 14 og li ! I 1; i i 1 Min 11 d i 11 i i r ,./ o �y ' 1o �t r- -1, 1 a J -4,16+41° ----------44--f ) 01011410 ro r � d� �Q o s �d �I f ' P 1 IL li, ' .I0.1 .n 2 4. -,,,,,. - . , 7.,_._.L.._,. 4. . TT"rr L J-- J 11111� I I age 46 of 114 En(if (10 RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-34 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST BY RICK NELSON FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND HOUSE AT 15242 64TH STREET NORTH BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request by Rick Nelson (Applicant) for a front yard setback Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an attached garage and house at 15242 641'' Street North; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended the application be approved with conditions. The City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact and resolution: 1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as follows, to wit: SEE ATTACHMENT A and 2. The Applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items: SEE ATTACHMENT B and 3. The property is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District in which single family and two-family dwellings and accessory structures are a permitted use; and 4. Section 401.15.C.1.d of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard setback, 10-foot side yard setback and 30-foot year yard setback in the R-2 Single Family Residential District; and 5. The Applicant proposes to remove the existing garage, add a 1,200 square foot garage and house addition, as well as a living unit in the second story for use by family members; and 6. The existing house is set back 6.2 feet from the right of way of 64`h Street and is a legal nonconforming structure. The Applicant has proposed that the garage will be 22.7 feet from the right of way of 64`h Street. Section 401.15.A.10 of the Zoning Ordinance states that if the garage and addition had been proposed at 30 feet, an administrative approval could be granted but in that the addition is proposed at less than the 30 foot setback, a Conditional Use Permit is required; and 7. Section 401.15.C.1.e.5 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a required yard on a lot to be reduced by a Conditional Use Permit if conditions are met; and 8. City staff prepared a planning report dated July 16, 2020 reviewing the request; and 9. Said report recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit in that it was in conformance with the criteria for issuance of Conditional Use Permits found in Section 401.15.C.1.e.5, and Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Said recommendation was subject to the fulfillment of conditions; and 10. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their July 23, 2020 meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and recommended the application with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING: A. The application submitted by and affecting the real property as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A Be and the same as hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer will review the drainage for the site. The final grading for the proposed structure shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 2. All required utility and drainage easements will be provided with documentation to the City. The lot combination approval will need to be filed with Washington County. 3. If the unit is rented to non-family, it will need to comply with all Zoning Ordinance requirements for a two-family unit. 4. Any exterior mechanical equipment associated with the garage and addition shall be screened. 2 5. The exterior of the proposed garage and addition shall be finished with siding to match the current home exterior. 6. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit for the structure. 7. Any other conditions of the Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff. Approved by the C. Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 28"'day of July 2020. Ma M Qomber, Mayor /ay. � n, City Administrator 3 ATTACHMENT A Conditional Use Permit Front Yard Setback Reduction Rick & Tianna Nelson 15242 64th St. N. Washington County Parcel ID Number: 34.030.20.32.0001 Legal Description: Lot 1 thru 3, Block 1, McKenty's Addition to Stillwater ATTACHMENT B Conditional Use Permit Front Yard Setback Reduction Rick & Tianna Nelson 15242 64th St. N. Application Materials • Application Form • Fees • Plan Sets • Written Narrative and Graphic Materials Explaining Proposal • Mailing List from Washington County (350'1150' from subject property) • Proof of Ownership or Authorization to Proceed • Property Tax Statement(s)/Legal Description(s) Planning Commission Public Hearing & Recommendation: July 23, 2020 Required Approvals: CUP City Council 4/5 Conditional Use Permit - Lapse of Approval: Unless the City Council specifically approves a different time when action is officially taken on the request, the conditional use permit shall become null and void twelve (12) months after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration, or use requested as part of the conditional use. An application to extend the approval of a conditional use permit shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval. (401.03.C.4.a and b) I4- - - - - - - '' ''',:''''„,, ,,, ' '- ' ''—'- - , :mss _. _ _..,_ _ • NA' y .t g y,� , s r ,..„. Lii '"toinbThill At ' _ >. q< I �._-.fix. _. .. ..:: ' ''' {tel m• a 1 iii rwr i 1. = ; ^= ...,— oz 4.. e j\ciezkal) TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231.5840 Facsimile. 763.427.0520 TPC:t.PlanningCo.corn PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: September 1, 2022 RE: Oak Park Heights — Stillwater Crossing's, Sodie's Cigar — Site Plan/Design Guidelines Review — 5946 Osgood Avenue North TPC FILE: 236.02 — 22.09 BACKGROUND Cletis Bainey of The Bainey Group, Inc. and Midwest Retail Ventures LLC have made application for Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review for the building at 5946 Osgood Avenue North. The application consists of requests for Site Plan/Design Guideline review for an addition to the Stillwater Crossings Shopping Center. The addition will be 470 square feet at the south side of the building for an expansion of Sodie's Cigars. The building addition will match the existing building elevations. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District. The retail use is permitted use in the B-2 General Business District. EXHIBITS The review is based upon the following submittals: Exhibit 1: Applicant's Narrative Exhibit 2: Existing Site (AS-101) Exhibit 3: Floor and Elevation Plans (A-101) Exhibit 4: Site Pictures PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant's narrative for the project is found as follows and in Exhibit 1. The intent of the expansion project is to accommodate a growing membership base by offering an additional lounge room and separating the retail space to allow for members to access the lounge area only after business hours. The interior remodel involves removing a couple walls and relocating a couple doors to separate and secure the retail space. The existing store entrance door and entry vestibule will remain unchanged. Members will have card access to the rear entrance after store hours, at which time the new connecting door between the retail side ad lounge areas will be locked; egress is not required through this door as the occupant load in the after-hours membership area totals 50 occupants. The existing area behind the retail space will be opened up to serve as one of two lounge areas and will have a dry bar with fridge, microwave and base cabinets and microwave. Other new millwork items include retail display shelving, storage shelving in the utility room, and additional membership boxes with essentially operate similar to lockers. Mechanical and electrical work will be design-build and will look at balancing the needs of the retail and after-hours membership areas. Lighting will be designed to code and as budget allows above and beyond to enhance both retail and member exclusive environments, including a new exterior light at the rear entrance door. One new rooftop unit is anticipated to serve the addition. Exterior utilities currently located against the south wall will be pushed out with the addition, with its new location just south of the existing south curb. ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated as Commercial on the Proposed Land Use Map. The continued use of the site as a mixed-use shopping center is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District. The retail and membership area use are permitted in the B-2 General Business District. Changes to the exterior of the building and the site improvements require Design Guideline and Site Plan review. Setbacks. The building setbacks are compliant with this addition. No changes are proposed to the parking lot. Parking. Section 401.15.F.9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires six spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a shopping center. The parking calculation for the existing building is as follows: Suite 9000 and 9010 — 2,548 sq ft x .9 = 2,293 / 167 = 14 Suite 9020 — 2,579 sq ft x .9 = 2,321 / 167 = 14 Suite 9040 - 944sgftx .9 = 849 / 167 = 4 Suite 9050 — 4,078 sq ft x .9 = 3,670 / 167 = 22 Suite 9100 — 3,325 sq ft x .9 = 2,992 / 167 = 18 Suite 9120 - 973sgftx .9 = 876 / 167 = 5 Total 77 Stalls The current building requires 77 parking stalls. An addition of 470 square feet would require three stalls for a total of 80 parking stalls. The shopping center currently has 94 parking spaces, four of which are disability accessible. There is a surplus of parking. 2 Landscaping. The addition will result in the removal of landscaping and a patio area. No significant trees are being removed. Lighting. The Applicant has indicated that a wall light fixture will be added at the rear entrance door. Light fixture specifications will need to be submitted and the fixture will shall be full cut off, consistent with Section 401.15.6.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities. No changes are proposed to the parking lot or site that would require City Engineer review and approval. Signage. An additional sign is to be added on the south elevation. The Applicant shall provide details on square footage and how the sign will be lit. Mechanical Screening. The Applicant has indicated that a roof top mechanical unit is to be added. All mechanical equipment shall be required to be screened as provided in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Design Guidelines Architectural Guidelines Façade Treatments The addition is designed to match the existing building. The same design, materials, and colors are to be used. Ground Level Expression There is no change to the ground level expression. Transparency Additional windows are being added, increasing the transparency of the building. Entries The main entry will not change. Roof Design The roofline is broken with varying parapet heights giving interest to the building appearance. Building Materials and Colors The building materials of the addition are to match the existing building. Franchise Architecture The building is not a franchise design. 3 Site Design Guidelines Building Placement The building location is not changing on the site. Parking Areas The parking area will not be changed. Storm water There is no impact to storm water with this plan. Pedestrian and Common Space A patio area will be removed to accommodate the addition. The sidewalk at the front of the building will remain. Landscaping A landscaped area will be removed. Trees/Shrubs No significant trees are being removed. Utilites/Service/Loading/Drive-Through/Storage Areas The existing utilities will be moved to the south wall of the addition. Li htin Addressed elsewhere in the planning report. Signage Addressed elsewhere in the planning report. Pedestrian/ Bicycle Routes A bike rack is currently located on site. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Subject to the preceding review, City Staff recommends approval of the Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review for the building at 5946 Osgood Avenue North, subject to the conditions that follow: 1. All light fixtures shall be full cut off and be consistent with Section 401.15.B.7 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to lighting requirements. 2. The Planning Commission shall comment on the building design and building materials. 4 3. All mechanical equipment on the roof or on the site shall be fully screened in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. All signs shall be designed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for size and internal illumination. pc: Julie Hultman 5 err* 1 SODIE CIGAR EXPANSION NARRATIVE The intent of the expansion project it's to accommodate a growing membership base by offering an additional lounge room and separating the retail space to allow for members to access the lounge areas only after business hours. The interior remodel involves removing a couple walls and relocating a couple doors to separate and secure the retail space. The existing store entrance doors and entry vestibule will remain unchanged. Members will have card access to the rear entrance door after store hours, at which time the new connecting door between the retail side and lounge areas will be locked; egress is not required through this door as the occupant load in the after-hours membership area totals 50 occupants. The existing area behind the retail space will be opened up to serve as one of two lounge areas and will have a dry bar with fridge, microwave, and base cabinets with countertop. Other new millwork items include retail display shelving, storage shelving in the utility room, and additional membership boxes which essentially operate similar to lockers. Mechanical and Electrical work will be design-build and will look at balancing the needs of the retail and after-hours membership areas. Lighting will be designed to code and as budget allows above and beyond to enhance both retail and member exclusive environments, including a new exterior light at the rear entrance door. One new rooftop unit is anticipated to serve the addition. Exterior utilities currently located against the south wall will be pushed out with the addition, with its new location just shy of the existing south curb. c; y if a 12 i o I §JI r iia 1hh 1 e froo 1 4 II 11 ii 1 I I 1j iii i 43s I 3 Iia1 IAIli 1 I 111kk i 4) ;n c L - `3s m i N9 i f ! id 0 Z1 I R 6 ; }T 11 1 1 1 \ I • _ it u 71 1 1 ' IllimioN 1 it I -. $fit = . i g ill A'; ! a lid -: lv i Ali i II 0 ti Y 1- Ii i;'11 zs 1 i < f t°I 1 II_ '1,„,,..:,,..„.....' 1/ 111 I ' i§ - . Seo; : i 1± L__J .1107 A Pad 11 a h 1 a _ �_ 1 l -- , 1\1 1 i s 11 ns NI �. @ 6 �� 611 ill 111111 I I i .... ,_ 71, r 11 imiiimt -_ H �,■ 1 I E1L� , a f G! i WI 4 / rk 1 I r li I11a ( t I l i ' I i i it' i I 1 1 11 LI JF 1 hl IC g _ it K E li :tj :413 • e f1. i E4 _ I_i 11 bill1 4) I I Old 1 IIs MN .a. a I le 11 I I .110 t 4 $Y f1 v .-11,04:14x;.:- ' norr% ,k • t .s fr I I,..• - .-!..., .. ._ • .iikille--, . ak E_ ' � 4 � � { • '? ak 2 -.t' +: ,,-.7seyam« �t'.:- w.. -- .- S 4 t, is �`.L' , r '- -4-• 4''-i -un5 y y.* . -. . ,. ti g'„ r- ^ , CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL & COMMISSIONS MEETINGS & WORKSESSIONS All meetings take place at City Hall unless otherwise noted Thursday, September 8 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, September 13 5:00 p.m. 60`hSt/Norell Ave Project Ribbon Cutting (Norell Ave Roundabout) 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Monday, September 19 5:30 p.m. Parks and Trails Commission Meeting Tuesday, September 27 6:00 p.m. City Council Worksession 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Tuesday, October 11 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Thursday, October 13 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Monday, October 17 5:30 p.m. Parks and Trails Commission Meeting Tuesday, October 25 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting POLICY NOTE:Items in ri>d are expected to be SOCIAL EVENTS in nature and not an official City Council meeting. No official action or discussion may be undertaken by City Council Members who may attend such events. The City is listing such events so as the public is generally aware that there may be occasions when City Council members may desire to attend functions that are purely social-events.