Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-06 NAC Planning ReportMEMORANDUM RE: BACKGROUND Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: ISSUES ANALYSIS RT. r FILE NO.: 798.02 — 03.02 Attached for reference: TO: Judy Hoist FROM: Cynthia PutzYang / Scott Richards DATE: February 6, 2003 Site Plan Approved Site Plan Building 2 Floor Plan Building 2 Elevations Building 2 Area Landscape Plan Lighting Plan Site Plan Requiring a Variance (to be rejected) C 0 5775 Way Boulevard, Suite 055, St. LOUIS Park, MN 55416 elarThone: 969.596.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 p annersanacplanning.corn Oak Park Heights — DDD LLC Office/Warehouse Building Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Amendment And Site Plan Review DDD LLC is proposing an amendment to their conditional use permit/planned unit development to allow for building and site plan changes that increase parking area and decrease the size of Building 2. The project, as approved in 2001, allowed the development to be constructed in two phases. A revised plan to allow a slightly larger Building 2 and redesigned parking lot was approved in the fall of 2002. Project Request. The applicants believe additional parking is needed at the site; therefore they are requesting approval of a revised plan that includes a smaller Building 2 and increased parking area. The trash handling area in Building 2 that was approved in the fail of 2002 has been retained in the revised plans. The size of Building 2 has C been reduced from 1 3,672 square feet to 7,604 square feet. The total number of parking spaces has been increased from 68 to 99, which is an increase of 31 spaces. The applicant also approached the City with a concept that would extend the parking lot to the east property line and eliminate the ten-foot parking setback. This would require approval of a setback variance. Staff cannot support a setback variance because no physical hardship exists, and all parking requirements are met without a variance. If the City is interested in reviewing a variance request, a public hearing would need to be scheduled to receive comment on that request. Parking. Based on the information the applicant has provided, Building 1 contains approximately 7,050 square feet of office floor area and 10,150 square feet of warehouse flooring. There is a mezzanine level in one of the units that increases the office area within the building by approximately 2,700 square feet compared to the information originally submitted (3,000 sq. ft. gross minus 1O% = 2,700 sq. ft. floor area). This resufts in a parking requirement of 46 spaces for Building 1. The site plan indicates that Building 2 would contain 2,280 square feet of office floor area and 5,324 square feet of warehouse floor area. This results in 21 required spaces for Building 2 or a total of 67 spaces for the entire site. A total of 99 parking spaces are proposed, resulting in a surplus of 32 spaces. The applicant has indicated that they would like to supply this additional parking to allow more flexibility in case there is more demand for office space in the future. if ail of Building 2 was occupied by office uses, a total of 87 parking spaces would be required for the entire site, and there would still be a surplus of parking spaces. Building Designs Revised elevations of Building 2 have been submitted. The revised plans show that one of the entrances to Building 2 has been eliminated. Also, rather than the facade being stepped back once in the middle of the building, the facade is articulated on both sides of the single entrance. The facade areas on either side of the entrance are both sixty-two feet long. The City Design Guidelines state that a building more than 30 feet in width should be divided into increments of no more than 30 feet through articulation of the facade. The Design Guidelines recommend achieving this _ g through combinations of the following techniques: divisions or breaks in materials window bays, separate entrances and entry treatments, variation in roof lines, awnings, and building setbacks. We recommend that the applicant explore incorporatin g one or more of these features in the design of Building 2. Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plans. Grading, drainage, and utility plans have been submitted and are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Lighting. A revised lighting plan has been submitted that indicates that all lights will be shielded /directed away from adjacent properties and street rights -of -way. The applicant fixtures will _ pp has stated that light fixtures will match the light fixtures on Building 1. 2 Landscaping. The submitted landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. RECOMMENDATION 1 CONCLUSION Based upon the preceding review, it is recommended that submitted plans that include parking up to the east property line be rejected, and the conditional use permit/planned unit development and site plan review for Building 2 of the DOD LLC project in the Kern Center should be approved for the version that includes a ten-toot parking setback with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should explore incorporating additional vertical features in the facade of Building 2. 2 The grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the Gity Engineer. 3. The landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 3 CN1 Q z UMW ea =NJ LL)tv . - uLt;P::* -k 7 iisEHE'greein I 2`.! !RI-, ags- e is .F - " g a Tih §,a . < . 541' LI .FIglIA , , „ "e " r ''t5** E ° Kg 4 - z .1 Lc! -01,s g ci L Col .2 P s40.21.t.q,t,J„.,b 084b-1.6..e vil°Z-P' t.us "N? „ Hp - 8 elv 81.0§i-vo .-6u. ai c3 FA E A 1.1§.4.m.L5 - 6 T. F v§ 1 "' Z.9-0ZWIME ' ,ortfr-- • • . . M 6£ frO,ZON 092I • 0: Aik, ect E PAdi 4 " I 141 g33 10,!IF' d11111 1 11 ccs a 1 (ID "Y - NOS 303, r-oacKuNc.P.k3 z-aon Chi It z Mit . „ • 44'4, z0v531.-1 ulosouum 's4q2jaH >tJgd MulD z4t su!puno ••1 000 .10j Sulpilna posodoid NN 4" _Lc >/ ' 0 _Li I L_J 3NMS $)y AO Av. Sal 0 Z < la Et_ CZ < 0 < 141 C' Z o n 2 0 • O. E(Akt. 9 1r tn • — (7) n Q I -,5 •r ,05 11 -,5 ,t r / r Da r r ,r-,5 ,0 -,Y , @ -,r ,tm,�,8� ,a�r r -S .D-,Y Elosauu 's 'Ind ? Z# DNIa11119 sYT1 ciao Sun: T rig pasodoid g 44P ‘..,/ 3,1 • .0 - r r a .t^ ^, • .0 - ,L d1 ie �]F 0 bop, - N0,5.0.--Z - Oau\ -Gas, :ar••ouall} w g m FLOOR PLAN sstro 'oNt1,'insto ssm ow.v - insNi 031Y111SNi a31,lnSN1 071YlnSHt 031,11 SNt 031Y10SN1 03LYlnSH1 SS, OHILY1115Ni 031111r.1 03.1nSNi a31VlnSHi a3l,lns4t 031,111$41 0008 1i =13 H UIIIUH I ®n ®0 0NEM ©0 111:11111110 ®MEN' 111 OEM „ }fit L .t /£ _tlr i 1 111 O ^.Oix.a -,9l' .D -tlx 0 • BLOT VZOL I0; 001 • BCDL V£03 KO, 0ZDL 3ZO; I 3Z0; OZQ ZQ L OE1110 -,5 •r ,05 11 -,5 ,t r / r Da r r ,r-,5 ,0 -,Y , @ -,r ,tm,�,8� ,a�r r -S .D-,Y Elosauu 's 'Ind ? Z# DNIa11119 sYT1 ciao Sun: T rig pasodoid g 44P ‘..,/ 3,1 • .0 - r r a .t^ ^, • .0 - ,L d1 ie �]F 0 bop, - N0,5.0.--Z - Oau\ -Gas, :ar••ouall} w g m FLOOR PLAN fl� elosauuiyv 's}tiSpH Ind >1E0 # ENta11f18 •Y71 aaa Su!p1!n8 pasodoad • 6 `" o w i ..J 6 '�P'£r —H 1153a3a— L— �p4�u£ sapa�} L--000 :awauak3 0 p p Q i � 7 LLI LLJ N \ } � � R�� % \ ' . «_s• ' ��,: ?- ';'nom ��J�I,?T . w§' � \® \tom c, : - - � . � 1 /q w. I �� |% 9a Ra .f`r, i•.S72 © � , \ c; \ Q� /A � a \/' ® 3 N e;osauunN Ved )ep Z# Su!pI!ne • :•11 ❑OCi .1oJ BuipI!ne posodoid 5 5 5 ce di; - 5 5 sa 0 '6f# -lb F V 4 -y p ,i4 a in a v xa F m 1 ;[q il 11! ss21 0 .P.17 °Wat53038— E -000\v “Pia Z -0a0 z L) ,3 - Fi g I- Li III ." • 1 " Vs655w.H558 : d s I g I g kr,w 56:0 sr t- ug 2 . Nwggri'§§,gim .!1 ,a6 b p9, I g 1 pjig t,- g v.2 21 1:4 •lt.Ert f55 - :41 § e6 ;6 - i2:1 6:611411111ihl z 6 "7: gN .5 9, a ?. 11,,,',-Lo ill Ea payti g43 z ▪ 6 a 3 d ± elosauulw e s14SPH )fld ) IRO Z# SuPIPEI aaa JoJ Su!pre pasodoid z z 11 8 8 8 8 4ID z-oog ,awous,4 8 .5 8 8 8 a