Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-12-2002 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
• CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 7:00 PM 7:00 I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approve Planning Commission Minutes 1. August 8, 2002 (1) N. Department / Commission Liaison Reports 1. Hwy. 36 Partnership Study: 2. Other Commission / Liaison Report(s): 7:15 V. Visitors /Public Comment This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. 1. Osgood Landing Presentation VI. Public Hearings: 1. DDD, LLC: To consider request for planned unit development amendment allowing site plan changes to allow for trash enclosure at 5525 Memorial Ave. N. (2) 2. Montanari Homes Inc.: To consider requests for site plan and design guideline review, conditional use permit and variance for parking and driveways at 13481 60th St. N. (3) 3. SC Mall LLC: To consider requests for planned unit development amendment and site plan review for landscaping and exterior improvements to building facade at 5909 Omaha Ave. N. (4) 4. Renton Homes: To consider a request for planned unit development: concept plan, general plan and site plan review for 9 unit housing development at Oakgreen Ave. N. (5) 5. Valley Sr. Services Alliance: To consider a request for planned unit development: concept plan for Phase II, Boutwell's Landing, known as McKean Square West, located south of Norwich Pkwy. N. and East of Nolan Ave. N. (6) 6. Valley Sr. Services Alliance: To consider a request for planned unit development: concept plan and general plan for construction of 8 townhome units in 4 duplex buildings, located at Nolan Ave. N. (7) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 7. Americinn Motel 85 Suites: To consider a request for sign variance at 13025 60th St. N. (8) 8. Continued - 401 Ordinance Amendment: To consider amendment to City of Oak Park Heights Ordinance 401 as it pertains to signage. (9) VII. New Business VIII. Old Business IX. Informational X. Adjournment Thursday, September. 12, 2002 - 7 :00 PM Page -2- Upcoming Meetings: October 10, 2002 - Regular Meeting - 7 :00 PM Council Representative: September - Commissioner Dwyer October - Commissioner Liljegren • 110 Thursday, August 8, 2002 ENCLOSURE • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Call To Order: Chair Vogt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dwyer, Liljegren, and Runk; Commissioner Powell arrived at 7:10 p.m.; Community Development Director Danielson, City Planner Richards, and Council Liaison McComber. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 4 -0. Approve Planning Commission Minutes: Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 2002 as amended. Carried 4 -0. Department /Commission Liaison Reports 1. Hwy. 36 Partnership Study: Mary McComber reported on recent meetings of the partnership committee and noted that they continue to review and discuss design alternatives. 2. Other Commission / Liaison Reports: None. Visitors /Public Comment: None. Public Hearings: A. Continued - 401 Ordinance Amendment: To consider amendment to City of Oak Park Heights Ordinance 401 as it pertains to signage. City Planner Richards provided an overview of the City Sign Ordinance and reviewed his report regarding the subject. He noted that the business community received notices, inviting them to the public hearing. Community Development Director Danielson reviewed the public hearing process and summarized activities relative the subject. She noted that copies of the agenda enclosure for the hearing were available for those who desired one. City Planner Richards described the enclosure format in response to commission request. He asked for feedback for requirements on highway corridor signage. Chair Vogt opened hearing for public comment at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Powell arrived at 7:10 p.m. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:13 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 2 of 7 Ray Marbla, Mailboxes Etc. - 5867 Neal Ave., N. stated that the back of his business faces 58th St. and the Stillwater Area High School. He is concerned about the lack of visibility for the businesses in this area. He stated that customers find id difficult to locate his business. He expressed that since the City allowed the buildings to be constructed, he felt they should provide the means for them to be successful. Chair Vogt asked City Planner Richards to comment. Richards commented on allowance for multiple signage for multi -tenant facilities and indicated that he expected to see more flexible wall signage requirements in the course of the signage ordinance discussion. Vogt queried Mr. Marbla as to the importance of signage illumination. Mr. Marbla indicated that he believed it would help them substantially as would additional signage possibilities. Commission discussion ensued regarding roadway signage, corridor signage areas, requirements, and examples of similar signage in other communities. Commissioner Liljegren, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to continue the public hearing to Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 2002. Carried 5 -0. Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to schedule a workshop on the issue for 7:00 p.m., September 5, 2002 at City Hall. Carried 5 -0. B. Steve as Lynn Thron: To consider a request for variance for construction of garages, for an apartment building at 14386 58th St. N. City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's request and two new proposals for garage construction. Richards reviewed his report and addresses relevant issues to each of the proposals presented. Steve and Lynn Thron, the applicants, addressed the Commission and presented them with a signed petition from the neighborhood, supporting their request. They stated that they would eliminate the blacktop in front and that they had spoken with a realtor, who lives in the neighborhood, who expressed that the garages would likely reduce the number of vehicles outside and that their construction would actually improve the neighborhood market values. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5 -0. Discussion ensued as to the practicality of the garages being constructed, ordinance and hardship requirements, pre - existing situation to the site and the lack of on- street parking. • • • • • • • • Carried 5 -0. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to recommend approval of alternate 2 - garage buildings without storage, subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall verify all easements and receive written approval from Xcel Energy for relocation of the utility pole and construction of the garages as proposed, subject to review and approval of the Building Official. 3. The applicant shall submit a plan for removal of a portion of the parking lot on public right -of -way subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. C. Continued: Oakgreen Village Villas: To consider requests for a planned unit development: concept plan and conditional use permit for the construction of a multi - family housing development located north of 58th Street and west of Oakgreen Avenue. City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's request and reviewed his report regarding the same. Richards and Community Development Director Danielson discussed issues related to roadway Dan Lindh - Presbyterian Homes described the general layout of the proposed project of approximately 22 -24 units, within five buildings. He discussed the opportunity to provide rental opportunities to the community and what anticipated rental rates could be expected. Mr. Lindh noted that one half of the units will have 2 car garages, that the buildings will be enhanced with brick and face out to maximize setbacks. He stated that they would be willing to construct a fence and that if approved, they would like to begin this fall. Charles Pingle - 5830 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed his concern about being assessed for roadway construction as a result of the proposed project. He also questioned whether or not the planned roadway would run underneath the power lines. Pat Estes - 5770 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed his concern about the traffic burden upon Oakgreen Ave. N. and stated that he didn't feel that it could handle more development. He inquired what happened to consideration for bike paths /walking paths to tie into the rest of the city paths. He asked that the commission give consideration would give consideration to the residents that are living in the area and how they are affected prior to approving the request. Patty Harms - Pondview Condominiums stated that she felt that the proposal suggested create too much traffic and that she is concerned about the density of people in relation to traffic, child play areas and pond overflow potential. In short she feels it is simply too much in to small of an area. Mike Brockman - Pondview Condominiums expressed his concern about the amount of traffic on the frontage road and problems with traffic congestion and safety at the intersection at Oakgreen Ave. N. and 60th St. N. He expressed concern with the rental structure and potential problems in such a development. He is concerned about the loss of trees and open space and would like to see more preservation. Dan Nuedecker - JSSH Architects addressed the matter of potential pond overflow and noted that the plan is to build a regional pond. The pond level would be monitored and raised or lowered as needed. He stated that they are trying to improve the area and that he believed the regional pond would actually service the area better than the existing pond does. Mike Brockman - Pondview Condominiums asked why the placement of the apartments at the site chosen and not another one owned by the applicant, where the roadway would be more adequate for the increased traffic. He also questioned why another pond piped into the existing pond and noted that he has never seen the pond overflow. Pat Estes -- 5770 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed his concern about the way the current residents have been treated with respect to development in the area and stated that he did not feel that low income housing next to a central business district was a good mix. Charles Pingle - 5830 Oakgreen Ave. N. stated that he was concerned about the location for the proposed project and stated that he changes to Oakgreen Ave. would need to be made in order for it to support the increased traffic created. Barbara Anderson - Pondview Condominiums stated that she felt the layout in relation to the surrounding neighborhood was a liability in the terms of safety and added that the location of the tot -lot could be improved for better safety. Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5 -0. Discussion ensued as to low income rental opportunity and how the site selected was chosen, engineering issues related to road access, anticipated occupancy date if approved, fencing, parking, construction access, compliance with Xcel Energy requirements, and the proposed project's fit with what has been viewed as the long range plan for the area Chair Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to recommend City Council approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The master plan of the CBD Design Guidelines to allow for residential townhomes in the Medium Box Mixed Use Precinct. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 4 of 7 • • • • 2. The preliminary /final plat shall be submitted as part of general plan of development review and approvals. • Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 5 of 7 3. The Parks Commission should comment on the preferred form of park dedication for this area. If a land dedication is preferred, the Parks Commission and City Council shall determine if the parcel under the Xcel Energy power line easement proposed by the applicant for dedication is appropriate. 4. The applicant shall dedicate an easement for 59th Street and all required drainage and utility easements as required by the City in the final plat and development contract. 5. The Parks Commission should comment on the trail requirements for this area and recommend the desired trail /sidewalk locations for incorporation into the general plan of development. 6. The current setbacks for the Villas project as proposed are acceptable. 7. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations for the proposed site as part of the general plan application. The drainage plans and any required drainage easements shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the applicable watershed authority. 8. Utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. A development contract between the applicant and the City shall be required as part of the general plan of development approvals subject to City Attorney and City Council review and approval. 10. A privacy fence of six (6) feet in height along with appropriate landscaping screening be incorporated as part of the general plan development along the north and east of the development. 11. A proposed construction access plan shall be submitted along with the general plan application. 12. The general plan application will meet all requirements of Xcel Energy related to their power line easement. Carried 4 -1, Powell opposed. Chair Vogt called for a seven - minute break, after which the meeting reconvened with Public Hearing D. for Renton Homes. Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 6 of 7 D. Renton Homes: To consider a planned unit development: concept and general plan, preliminary and final plat requests for construction of 12 townhomes within the Central Business District. City Planner Richards provided a summary of the applicant's request for a Planned Unit Development /Conditional Use Permit, preliminary/final plat and site plan/site plan review for a 12 unit townhome project on Oakgreen Ave. N. and reviewed his report regarding the same. Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment. Patty Harms a Pondview Condominium resident addressed the Commission on behalf of herself and other Pondview Condominium residents. She stated that they met with the applicant, Jeff Warren, just prior to the Planning Commission meeting and informed him that they were not interested in sharing a driveway with the proposed project. They feel that sharing a driveway simply creates too many nuisances and that based on their experience, restricted parking does not work. She noted that if the applicant opts to pursue their own drive, they may consider working to sell the land to them for the drive. She expressed that it was felt that the acreage is small for the size of the proposed project and that recreational sites such as yards and green space would be extremely limited. She noted that snow accumulation and removal would also present a problem. She stated that she did not see the benefit of a residential neighbor and expressed that she felt a business would likely provide more benefit to Pondview Condominiums. Mitch Johnson, representing Renton Homes stated that they contacted the Pondview Condominium Association Manger, Judd Orff some months ago to open dialogue regarding the proposed project and its related issues. He expressed that a great deal of effort was put into coordinating the roadways to work with those in place. He noted that the applicant has a purchase agreement for the property and that they are fairly locked into 12 units for the project to be feasible. He anticipated that an alternative access would be pursued, but that if it wasn't available he expected that the property would be sold and that it was quite likely that it would become commercial. Barbara Anderson of Pondview Condominiums stated that she didn't feel Oakgreen Avenue was ready to accommodate the extra activity being proposed. Lori Schud of Pondview Condominiums addressed the 2 -story design of the buildings and their garages. She stated that with the design proposed, Pondview Condominium residents would view the garages and the traffic for the new units. She feels that the landscaping could be altered so that both neighborhoods could benefit. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to close the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. • • • • • • • • • Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Commission discussion ensued as to possible impact upon future expansion of Oakgreen Ave., density and green space requirements, ponding, intersection and surrounding area, roadway access, power line easement, and project size versus size of site. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to recommend denial of the requests. Carried 4 -1, Vogt opposed. New Business: None. Old Business: 1. Party in the Park - Thank you. Community Development Director Danielson thank all those who participated in the annual Party in the Park celebration and noted that it was well attended by the community and considered to be a success. Informational/ Update: None. Adjournment: Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Carried 5 -0. • Respectfully submitted, Julie Hultman Community Development Approved by the Planning Commission: tcs,-041 WI cc NA 'At.A.11N01 "N invuvr xacomri ti,E 11 IL SIDH.LIHDIIV saiviaossv 3,3,1IINVS '14.(1,1:13 VIOS3N141/4 t11101101 31111,1 AVO ONICINVI GOODS() 1 -II !WPM MB 414 L9 i*C111 'OD 'NI IfINHAV C1000S0 ,C1rEtT mta St t S t c t 5 - O6 r - r S U ')Z I5s NJ 'M3L13 ?1O1iS =■ 3:1N3AV OIONLX31 t ft S,L3 I1LIH��?iV s3ivIjossv 3 \I1NVS `XUNQ ) d H O z L9 'all 'OD IfINTHAV G000SO VIOSTNNIN 'S HD1HH 3411Vd IVO ONI VTI QQQ0SO �ti 3ISIA32i a .L']! NV'Id aI .O vez. 11111 -- -- 1IIIII,;1T 11111 �iriuwwuMP I�Iq�f 111111111111 !111111111111 • • RE: BACKGROUND Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St,. LOWS Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952 595.9837 p €a ners @nacplannir g.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Kimberly Kamper FROM: Scott Richards DATE: September 5, 2002 FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.23 Attached for reference: Site Plan Approved Site Plan Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan Building 2 Floor Plan Building Elevations Landscape Plan Lighting Plan Project Narrative ENCLOSURE 2 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 site plan changes to allow construction of Building 2 of the project. The project, as approved in 2001, allowed the development to be constructed in two phases. The applicants have proposed minor site and building changes to include a slightly larger building to allow for trash storage. The parking lot would be redesigned to better accommodate access to the loading doors of the second building. The applicants are interested in moving forward with construction of Building 2 this Fall. The first building is in place and is currently fully leased. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project Request. The applicants have determined that it is not feasible to add onto the existing trash enclosure located on the north side of the parking lot or construct a new enclosure on the property. The proposed site plan indicates incorporation of the trash handling area in Building 2. The trash area has been added onto Building 2 at the inner corner facing west. That addition will add approximately 572 square feet to the building footprint. The trash enclosure for Building 2 had been planned on the south side of the building near the driveway entrance of 55 Street North. The applicants have indicated that location does not work from a practical or aesthetic point of view. The second aspect of this review is that the applicants are requesting to remove the eight parking stalls on the easterly side of the center parking island. This has been requested to allow for better access into the doors of Building 2. Parking. Building 1 requires 32 parking spaces. Building 2, with the larger footprint, would require 29 parking spaces for a total of 61 for the site. The site plan indicates a total of 76 parking spaces. If the eight stalls were removed as requested, the site would have a seven stall surplus for parking. Building Design. Elevations of the second building have been submitted incorporating the building addition. The building will be identical in appearance to Building 1 in terms of design and materials. Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plans. The proposed building addition does not increase the overall hard cover of the site. The submitted grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Lighting. Lighting plans have been submitted. The fixtures will be identical to those installed on Building 1 and are compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. The lighting plan should be revised to assure that the maximum light at the property line is .4 foot candles. The light fixtures installed on the northeast building side may not be necessary and the applicant should consider whether they could be removed. Landscaping. The submitted landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION Based upon the preceding review, it is recommended that the conditional use permit/planned unit development and site plan review for Building 2 of the DDD LLC project in the Kern Center should be approved with the following conditions: 2 • • • 1. The site plan has been revised to allow for a 572 square foot addition to Building 2 to allow for trash storage. 2. The parking lot site plan has been revised to eliminate eight parking stalls within the center parking island. 3. The grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. The lighting plans should be revised to comply with the lighting standards of the Zoning Ordinance or the fixtures are removed from the northeast side of Building 2. 5. The landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. pc: Kris Danielson 3 • .s r W > W W C.t Z Z ` - J • CL 0 W V (3 QG 0 W 0 Zit 00 0 ta. Z NMI I V J J a3 c.i d ce W W 2 W W z 0 N • M . u7 U N r W Z W 1 M N N O DO =aQ j � 0 N- J co QG C C .i c m .-. f• •- 01.4 4”gta • ,. s 1 4 8 L4 I %ES b i P.' r 1 V g I F- H 1 r r 1 al g ' U a I I • I L_.1 L g zz e:osauu!w 's14219H lied le() Z# Su!Pling 'i'l'l aa . .10j Supra pasodoid • gI I .•. L_ I I 9 L_J mom: Zzo I- CIO wm.- .61111 ,ZL rO9 -.>3f� • ,Nts- N 30VJ2ins ON)AIVd 3A08V • Megan reliitt W CC V 0z Ii. < T J W 0. W 0 ce U z a < A J J aa� W 2 < W 0 W G � 0M V m • 46 z 0) z a. to U) 0 U i i i , „as %id l ,(8',. ii Icc II' i 4 flog 'p i 1 i I 4 0 itIssa Iii 9 l e t i fif , litil/ 1 9 m • xorm steams .O -.Oz 813S °NNW r O-.Ol 6 .�e S 0 �c Q 0. dB N 1.3 a .1 8 tai Ira F m JMd'w -Z--3 i1 -000 :auuouaft › H 8 0 tb' p4 4-4 c!) ci U W W Z ` ci) 4.1 ci) 0 E —' o • f / 1 1 1 g o? ge t 1 tart C Lin tt u • `r- U M CO C� CD rn w wDD E. o u LJ C11 U W Z N tel • Lol t, o W CI! LLJ W --J S c• • m CD • • . . . t .. ter- u, • ut L N CJ) Lt LD P 1 CD -m Cif LC3 0 H LJ.t Cle -.0 c1 W Oc ge u t� o to u . -w 0.1 ▪ LJ Cl- • • LL 44C n 51 VI VI :2: o Lit C:7 4 0C Cit 2 P-4 W t-- W u gi LAJ U J D i= i.: EXHIBIT 2 0 a z 0 F • Q w1G cr 0 z J 0 7 W Z O V aS O co 0) z I W N I 00 NI, 0) 0 to 0) I 0) O U J 7- ct . w a Y�IIC�►.� Merl • 0 ZZ K � o§ 11t X =41 • e 8. a le) h it �� aN L i ii � :11 r ;!.!I ° rid ill tie! P LA) A.AAAltA Ex. 12" DIP WAIERMAIN ----- i ----' • W CC vv v a% all 33 t a- inn w § Pi g 5 0 (5% O :1 gn.g O 1 < I a 5; gMggX af2Pts • g g---g ge O < • _ o hug sk'q AM .... i t in ci 1 0 v.2 02 W g a6Z' 8 W'S ?QCW o O wale- p t E �O` � ZZ < z1' g. 3 !get'. . of w �z t B.�s c 0 :gut- I so ,_ 0 �< • gi 6rn t �s Pg tiw < o � Kg~ lW C W^ N � %1 s11 r r tr r rr r ca 4=:( •.111 d Si r7 -* N /o h• so r• s 2v • • 4� • 1 .P■ .. - Filename: ODD- LLCr2\DDD- LLC-2- A2•DM1G • . • • • • 1�r O 0 2 :„ 20 •: 1 J Of as 1 0 0 n. 2 nuui,l I1il111 5 ili1l ,.JC III +-. • 111 1M1113 \1t \ \'t_1_t_IDZU 111.17W. _ WOO \1�\ \11`1 7 _. , !11011►7►■1 ►+tsV110111.11k ►1121 w111011011LNs t ►� O l :0 r 1 II • " e • •r0'. ' r, - , � 4' -0` 6.-80 4 =•D". • 6 =�• 4'--d 6'-�d' . 4 •-C" =Q" - :- • 1 -4" 1 -4* 2 -8' 12' —O 1 ' - -4' 1 -4' c 3 s d. 0 2 P. 2 1 %VI 1 •• ea 52'• -O* •e. • f h ::}t. .'..t . t �Ls- .::PIY w S .s t w i •; . ..i •.•� »,- , •4 414.1 -4 •t,�.iw.. ?i�`"•"� +' • 110• -0" rci ose Buildin D L.L .C. BCJILDING • #2 • . . . Park ;Heights • .e 22 36' - O O • • 1.1.►116111sae ►K1161111.11.11L11.1a1► i ---�- 4 • --1 1 1 3 E• 73 • ge 02.- 01'1. =•gc y g '— w T e it:6 " ..— iiiill : 471 O • • a ��, •• :• •i 4 : µ,.pet..• • • -r 1 • : NL • • •• 1•• ••••••• • • • 1 :!' . • i • J•s t • 3batlMj :+�W>.• lSS.•i 7r• ^.iw. j > : S r :" j:vrri • ri". t..,Ar o • .•yi Ra''!••iKLS'ii }tP.111E••rji :,�y.pjl�c i•►L,.�S'C.• '�y:� .. . .; • • . . elosauuw-'s3y8iaH Ved yep zit DNIOIIflEI 071 aa U!pI!flg pasodoid vim' ,� :U!• •414.1i,* •40 •t te.:4 'Y 11 is:644s ..:.-••"'S .∎s • •=4,• • dB m it 4; L f T r_ NZ U) a ci CC CL • L -U i -h Jj 2 ILI• CB Z 0 w J W F— W • • •• • • WA0'YV— t— a OOO \Zf Tfl 000 :owoueru • OEM �1��•• � • Y ;. •• 1 V••s.•;'r••w r ••.0 M.a•a••••••• . • • • . , • • i • •∎:••• •••• a L • V st,.!01••4.4.• ••a l • • • • •.wrf►w•i F !¢ W" - • r . • •••• • • •• • • • • ■• • If ( • •,f • • • • •• • 1• • • 1 • ♦ 1 • •• • • S. glosauu!W 'suiglall. ' o Z# dwpImg aGO OI 2U!p1!flfl pasodoid 1 I 1 1 L L_•J •• M • • o �Q! E " CA CA Z l 1 • • • '�--, / I i / �.., / ( • ai . y... • ..s 1 ;.s �. • r•' ••• ,,•♦•A.• , .r.:. r M. • ds'aw :..►•s•r1S•s'.t - • t I 1 I I L L • • • •n• • • •_ • t . • • i • 1• • ill I: ii giE II I 1 Ai 0 § Wt h §§11. 1 tMO•f -Z- 311-000 \7. 371-•000 :.UI000LI W •11 August 23, 2002 City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: DDD, LLC Site Plan Revision To Whom It May. Concern: a list of reasons as to why we need to relocate the trash enclosure at our The following is y construction site located at Highway 5 and 55th Street. • it will be difficult for the trash ash hauler to access the dumpster on the north end of the building. we'd n entering the d . It would be in plain view po g arking lot, which is not what we P like people to see upon entering the lot. 4 It would be visible from Highway 5 and 55th Street. , • :• existing trash enclosure will not work due to Xcel Energy utility Adding on to the lines that run through that area. Moving these lines would be a major expense. h enclosure should be relocated to would not be seen from The location we feel the trash le l with the building which would make it . almost unnoticeab Highway 5 and blends in well wi g from 55th Street. It also would uld clean up the northeast corner of the building and allows very good access for the trash hauler. Your prompt review of this revision would be very much appreciated! Sincerely, DDD, LLC Officers: Stephen A. Continenza Charles A. Siedow Robert L. White Philip C. Ohs EXHIBIT 8 em 3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. PLANNING REPORT 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St: Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 962.595.9636 Facsimile: 962:695.9837 planners@nacplanning.com TO: Kimberly Kamper FROM: Bob Kirmis /Scott Richards DATE: September 5, 2002 RE: Oak Park Heights - Montanari Office Building: Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance FILE NO: 798.02 - 02.27 BACKGROUND Montanari Homes has requested a site plan /design guideline review of an office building at 13481 North 60 Street. The proposed building site is located on the south frontage road of Highway 36, between the Eagles Club and McCormick's Furniture. The property is occupied by an office building and numerous storage buildings. The property is zoned Central Business District and is included in the area of the Central Business District Urban Design Study. As a result, the Central Business District Design Guidelines apply to the proposed development. In addition to the site plan /Design Guideline review, the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow flexibility from the City's off -- street parking supply requirements and a variance from the required 10 foot parking area setback. The proposed office building is two stories in height and encompasses 11,776 gross square feet of building area. It is the intention of the applicant to occupy the second floor of the building. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Plan and Landscape Plan Exhibit B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit C: Utility Plan Exhibit D: Building Floor Plans Exhibit E: Building Elevations Exhibit F: Monument Sign Detail ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as CBD, Central Business District by the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the CBD designation is to provide a focal point for the community in terms of retail, service, and entertainment businesses, as well as residential opportunities. As such, the proposed office commercial use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. Within the CBD Zoning District, businesses or professional offices are listed as permitted uses. A conditional use permit is however, required to allow the flexibility from the City's off - street parking supply requirements. Central Business District Guidelines. In 1999, the City adopted a master plan for the Central Business District in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly, mixed use district. In order to guide implementation of the goals and policies of the plan, specific Design Guidelines for the CBD were developed. The proposed development will therefore be reviewed in regard to its consistency with such guidelines as referenced below: Precinct Designation. The Design Guidelines establish four precincts within the CBD; the Medium -Box Mixed Use Precinct, the Small Box Mixed Use Precinct, the Residential Precinct, and the Public Green Precinct. The subject property lies within the Medium Box Precinct that is intended to provide transitional changes between the big box development and the small box development within the center area of the CBD. Development Context and Character. The Design Guidelines state that buildings within the Medium Box Precinct should relate to the character of small box development via building scale and height, building material colors, horizontal lines, and architectural styles and details. The guidelines further state that buildings should form gateways to other precincts. The proposed structure is to be finished in a combination of face brick, rock face block and stucco. The building is two stories in height with a hip roof style. Entrances to the buildings are provided on the north and south sides of the structure where hip roof canopies are provided. The proposed structure is considered consistent with the guidelines in terms of building character. Building Setbacks. There are no minimum setback requirements imposed in the CBD District. The Design Guidelines, however, state that limited setbacks (10 to 15 feet) will be permitted along 60 Street. Of particular note is that the proposed building is set back 95 feet from 60 Street consistent with the setbacks of the adjacent McCormick's Furniture and Eagle's Club buildings. 2 • • • Building Appearance. According to the Design Guidelines, buildings in the Medium Box Precinct should exhibit facades that do not have long and flat continuous planes. While the facade designs are considered positive in that a variety of materials it is believed that the eastern and western facades of the building could be further enhanced by recessing or projecting certain building elements. Specifically, it is suggested that the centralized vertical elements of the facades be either slightly recessed or projected outward to add visual interest to an otherwise flat building surface. Building Height. The CBD Zoning District establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet. The design guidelines state only that building height should vary between two and three stories. The proposed building is 32 feet at its highest point of the hip roof and has two stories above ground. Building Materials. The design guidelines state that buildings should be constructed of authentic materials such as wood, brick, stone, cast stone, stucco or pour in place concrete. Accent materials may include metal, glass, block, copper flashing or similar materials. The building is to be finished primarily in stucco and glass with brick and rock face block detail features. The materials are considered appropriate for the Central Business District. The design guidelines further state that buildings should employ earth tones or neutral colors and that light and bright colors should be used as minor accents. The applicants have not identified colors or provided building samples. A materials board and colored elevations will be required for Planning Commission and City Council review on this matter. Walkways. According to the Design Guidelines, sidewalks within Medium Box Precincts should be at least eight feet wide along building fronts a and a minimum sidewalk width of six feet should be provided along 60 Street. The site plan illustrates six foot wide sidewalks along the north and south sides of the building (near building entrance points). In that the sidewalk will serve building access only and does not serve as a public sidewalk, the width is adequate. Lighting. The design guidelines state that lighting should be designed to reduce glare and be in scale with the surrounding buildings, and that pedestrian scale lighting, not more than 14 feet high, should be located on walkways, trailways and adjacent to store entrances. For parking lot lighting, fixtures must be in scale with their surroundings with cutoff fixtures located below the mature height of trees in parking lot islands. 3 The applicants will be required to submit a photometric plan which identifies both illumination levels and fixture style/height. The gp li htin plan will need to be g consistent with the Zoning Ordinance provisions for lighting which specify that no light source which cast light on a public street shall exceed one foot candle meter reading at the centerline of the street nor cast light on adjacent property at more than 0.4 foot candles as measured at the property line. Landscaping. The design guidelines strongly encourage site landscaping to enhance storefront entries and blank walls. Landscaping is further encouraged to screen dumpsters and off - street parking areas. The landscape plan will be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. Access. The site is to be accessed via a single 24 foot wide curb cut from 60 Street North which will alter the existing access to the adjacent Eagles Club. To accommodate such access change, written approval from the Eagles Club and an access permit from MnDOT will be required. Off-Street Parking Dimensions. All off- street parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to comply with the minimal dimension requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance imposes a minimum 10 foot setback for off - street parking areas. As shown on the submitted site plan, a zero lot line setback has been proposed on the south and west sides of the building while a one foot setback has been proposed on the west side of the building. As previously mentioned, the approval of a variance will be necessary to accommodate the proposed parking area setbacks. In considering the requested variance, it is the opinion of our office that the proposed setback can be justified as represents a continuance of a setback condition that presently exists on the site. Circulation. In regard to site circulation, the dead -end parking arrangement in the southerly parking lot is a concern. To address this concern, it is recommended that the lot be reconfigured to provide a loop type circulation pattern. Specifically, it is suggested that the four westerly stalls in the center row of parking be re- designated as "proof of parking" stalls. Parking Supply. As previously indicated, the applicants have requested a conditional use permit to allow a reduction from the off - street parking supply requirements of the ordinance. Off-street parking is considered within the CBD Urban Design Study which emphasize on- street parking and cross utilization of parking consistent with a downtown area. In this area of the CBD, there is no on- street parking allowed, although there is an ability to jointly use parking with the Eagles Club. 4 Use Ordinance Requirement Required S Spaces q p Office 10,690 s.f. x .9 w 9,621 s.f. 3 spaces plus 1 per 200 s S. uare feet 51 As shown below, the Zoning Ordinance requirement for the site requires a total of 51 off - street parking spaces. o of fice area excludes 1,086 square feet of designated ground floor storage space As shown on the site plan, the applicants are proposing to provide 47 spaces. Excluding the four parking stalls necessary to address the previously referenced dead - end parking arrangement, the supply would be reduced to 43 spaces. As part of the CBD Design Study, it is suggested that uses within the CBD provide not less than three off - street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Utilizing this requirement, the project would be required to provide 32 spaces. In reference to the Design Study standard, it should be recognized however that there are no on- street parking opportunities in the area. The applicant does however, have a joint parking agreement with the adjacent Eagles Club property which should adequately supplement the four stall parking supply deficit. Said joint parking agreement could be terminated by either party with a 30 day notice. Curbing. , As a condition of site plan approval, curbing must be provided at the perimeter of all off- street parking areas. Recognizing that the drive aisle along the easterly Y property line abuts the Eagle's Club parking lot, the City Engineer has recommended that a "valley" curb be provided in such location. • Building Coverage. The project site is a total of 31,150 square feet. Building coverage is 5,888 square feet or 18.9 percent of the lot. Snow Removal. The applicants should provide provisions for snow removal on the site. The landscape areas will not be appropriate for snow storage, thus all snow will be required to be removed from the site. Grading and Drainage. As shown on the submitted grading and drainage plan, no ponding has been proposed on -site. According to the City Engineer, ponding will not be required for the site if other measures are taken to ensure the storm water uali is not q tY affected before it leaves the site. Grading and drainage issues shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and applicable watershed authority. Utilities. Utility related issues and plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant will be responsible for verifying the utility locations and addressing any issues with the service for the Eagles Club. Additionally, the applicant must obtain a MnDot stormwater permit as a condition of site and building plan approval 5 Signage. The applicant has proposed one monument sign at the driveway entrance to the site. The sign is however, located within a utility easement and fails to meet the minimum 10 foot required setback. As a condition of site plan approval, the sign should be relocated to meet the required 10 foot setback. All site signage must be consistent with the signage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines. Trash. A single trash enclosure has been proposed in the southwest corner of the site. To improve accessibility of trash receptacles for service vehicles, it is suggested that the enclosure be relocated to the southeast corner of the site. Additionally, the applicant will need to specify details of the enclosure construction (height, materials, etc.). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION While a number of issues exist with the proposed site plan, it is believed that such issues can be dealt with satisfactorily via minimal site modifications. Recognizing that the proposed parking setbacks will not increase an existing level of non - conformity, approval of the requested variance can be justified. In regard to the off- street parking supply, it is believed that the existing joint parking agreement with the Eagles Club can adequately supplement the supply deficit of four stalls. Recognizing this and based on the preceding review, the following is recommended: A. Approval of the site and building plans subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approves a conditional use permit to accommodate a reduction in the required off - street parking supply. 2. The City approves a variance to accommodate the proposed parking area setbacks. 3. To accommodate the proposed access change, written approval from the Eagles Club and an access permit from MnDOT be obtained. 4. The centralized vertical elements of the east and west facades be either slightly recessed or projected outward to add visual interest to an otherwise flat building surface. 5. A materials board and colored elevations be submitted for Planning Commission and City Council review. 6. The landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist 6 411 7. The applicant verify the utility locations and address any utility service issues for the Eagles Club. 8. The southerly parking lot be reconfigured to eliminate the dead -end parking arrangement and provide a loop type circulation pattern. More specifically, the four westerly stalls in the center row of parking be re- designated as "proof of parking" stalls. 9. The applicants provide .a plan for snow removal on the site. 10. The City Engineer and appropriate watershed district authority provide comment and recommendation in regard to grading and drainage issues. 11. The applicants submit a photometric plan that identifies both illumination levels and fixture style /height. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance provisions for lighting. 12. The applicant obtain a MnDot stormwater permit. 13. The proposed monument sign be relocated to meet the required 10 foot setback. All site signage shall be consistent with the signage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines. 14. The trash enclosure be relocated to the southeast corner of the site. Details of the enclosure construction (height, materials, etc.) shall be specified by the applicant. 15. Curbing be provided at the perimeter of all off - street parking areas. Recognizing that the drive aisle along the easterly property line abuts the Eagle's Club parking lot, a "valley" curb shall be provided in such location. 16. No less than 1 ,086 square feet of the ground floor level of the building be reserved for storage. B. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow a reduction from the required off - street parking supply subject to the following condition: 1. The City approves the submitted site and building plans. 7 C. Approval of the parking area setback variance subject to the following condition. 1 . The City approves the submitted site and building plans. pc. Kris Danielson • • • • .• •••■••••••••••, •••••••••■••••••••■••••••,. ••••••••,, • •• • - • •••••ii*--*.• . ts • • • . ; • , . - 44.01frr- - c . • , •••• :•••'••• ; ';: • ' : -9e.24.32 ..• • •ek • • • •'• , tor,c ko2 • AI ULS q109 I ..., •••••:•••• •••••••••• •■••••••••■•••••• •: • ••• ••••• ••• NOR.T1-1 ••••••••,,,, 1 I,. $i • ptv 11! !i! 3111 NZ ‘• . v• `N. • - ' 4 1 . • • • .. 7 ••• •••■••■ •••• ••• •••••• ••••■ ••• •••••••.,••.,.•••.•■••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••■••••••• • ••••••• ••••• •••• • ••••■ •••••••••4 ••••••• •••••• ••••• ••• •••••••• ••■••• ••••••••••••• •••••••• •••• ••• ro-ir-go • 1 11140151AWil 31.1M Oagjo 1.1runuoyi I YAW, if iuva xoi: MI WPM Vid 1 9C 'AMI I • •• • ••• ••• 9C .A.VMH-DII-1 11,LITONETATtus 1.1109 ..... i . , . . .. •.•.....• .1a;9 OM rc bg urid adgospun kruuRui ••••••••• • • • • •• ••••• • I. •••••••••• ••• ••••••• • ••••••• •••••••• 19 •••• • •••••••••• •• • • 11 •••••••■••• • • ••••••• • • ••••• • • • •••• • • 1 410 NORTH • .1 1 4+; • • .11 I I 4 • I en em 4 L.' • to,- r 1 I .( ut I flI NI • r (..1 0 C.). (b6bbm a lb O 000 00 ri• rt at co co (1, u in in (I) Ui M P • 11 j x ur 0 " o TY • ' I ..• ? 7 . ."3 O. Q " • , • • • ••• •••••• • •••• Ai?, 1 ;4 • P • • • - rn 4 iN 1 • X .. noev.m,tat. • Moir •1101440140,441.....g •• • ••• 1 CV a* le yc" kwArif Pt 3 , Tv - I .:, .., :.., .., .. . .. ,.. ., g .1! 7 4 gal' iti i i ii' • 1 g §-,. r4 1: 4 2 40 . .. d ft ifillt k A rt 1 1i, ...: 2 ' WI 12 S7f, 4 ! ' 4 1 '4 a f J ....., IA i 2 e 4,-. t,. e 4 4; 1 t i 1 2 ! 1 :1 1 i; ; i % - 1. s a A 0 4 li : .4. 1 !1 ;71 li Ar.t: tk 4 t rill!' v .6 1kt iit. 0 4 it Ty 4 r. 44 k 3. il 2 tif Li 1 4. 1 ,, I if ti pwa 6. ?i ..‘'t f-. ; ii . Ifi l L. 1 •.: 1 1 0 4 .. . - ii , PI u..1 ) cl tl * 2 t S r i Ifill '1 gi - 4 . i 4. 0 14 1141 ite • .# itatiu fa I Le) • •••• ••••••• •••••• • ' • 41.6.-•••44.4•44. Otiritt4t4a0 • 4' • I . , ;' MtAwir • El • . ** • • .• • • • • '• *:. : ••• • • • • • • • : s ••••:.=•• • •• • .• • • • I — . it M .4 r z 1 • 0- , -. .-, .. I 1 kevisioNs: Cr1-11-02 01-26-02 I $ 11 ••••.............•••••••••■■•■•••.....•■••••••■ n • „••:, •••, Montanan Office Building •••■■•••••••••••••■•■ •••••■•.• ot ( D z 0 I I 0 0 L EL 1 L 63'4' lel 13 ■••••■■••••■•• ••••••••■■ ••••••••••■ ••••••••••• 6V-4" _••• .a.ry Seco' Plan ii4* f'-e• 13481 6Qth Oak Past :11401s, ••••■••■•• • ••••••••••■■••••••••• •••• • ••• •••• .:* CIPPIn v. s A M SNP & ASSOt•I AT s 9 ARC111 liCTS 'NM I P—XINCIll IN A Vit•ng. to SI kW PVIliw. KIN 1417. s 61 4 u .1 4 1.c1 9tiff t4P1 •rnutAiniotts .14 IVINHAV HOLONIXICI fflf J S J. 3 a .i. 1 II 0 11 V4 • ::'... s a 1 V 1 3 0 S S V V a ti. kJ. N v s 'A. ii ii.n ••••• • • • • • • • • •••• ••••• M.•••• • • 4 •••••• ••• T. • ••••••••• J • • ...... • • ••• . • • • • . • •• • • •••• • ••••••• •••• • ••••• 1 • • ••••••••••■•••••...... • ••••• • • . . . .' .. • • ••• • ••• . • ....... • .............. • ........ • • . • .. • ............ ..... .. • ...... • .......... ...... • • .... • • ......... ......• ••.• • ...• I •••••••••••,,,,••••••••••■••••••■•••.... - • ••• • •• • ••• • ••••• ..• 1 I • • • „ I...M... • I 7: - • :": 77= ..17.""". . • ••••••• ••••• •••••••••••• 1 MAI ' 4 rnnS '1109 11111 li r ... i :I !! CO- 11-LO 0 . Z '; MIJOISIMM :1 1 :Pf1 ATIMIS 1 thirpiTnsi oatijo puumuo i; 1 Eiiit;1-11-4(11 VII .1.7,nittwa 1 uuld 10 °0 - I 1 ; I 1 .:..:.:.: . I ii Cl !...1 I 1 I U ill ti! Ii ll!llPHi! I III IHI! if ! 111 • 11 plinary Elevations 01-2b-031 • • . • allINIMIL Li Li Montanan i Office Building 13481 606 Strut Oak Park Holghts, IAN •do•.•a••a•••aopro.••••••rr•••••r•n.•••••.••uo•••••••••• • .....0.......,,,,,,,.....,,,,,,,,....„,,,,,,,,,,„,„.•••••••••••••••••..••••••••••,••••••••••••■••.• V4*. to' • SANTINE & ASSOCIATES 'ARCHITECTS • ::1; 34341.11X1NOTON AMUR. N. SHORINInIC MN 55126 65 1 - 4 90-S 454 PCPS•061.•1$9 STIFF NM I M01A0110116 74 anNunv Nolotican toe S D a J. I 11 0 1/ :.1.* SRIVIDOSSY V liNIIWYS 'AC114110 1 1 1 1 .1.1 .011 .111 NregP1 Nnici 1S'1109 1 MIT gump opujo puuuluon ww. I it 1 6.1i 4 - I .1 • $ g :$110TIIAW11 1 'ON 4111111111 • •••••••••• • •••■• ** - i 110 • 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplarrning.com PLANNING REPORT To: Kimberly Kamper From: Anne Marie Solberg / Scott Richards Date: September 5, 2002 Re: Oak Park Heights — Andersen St. Croix Mall Planned Unit Development Amendment File No: 798.02.02.25 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. ENC1OS(Jp w4 BACKGROUND SC Mall LLC has requested a planned unit development amendment to allow improvements to select areas of the northwest quadrant of the St. Croix Mall. SC Mall LLC acquired the St. Croix Mall in 2000. While Herbergers and limited retail tenants remain, a majority of the St. Croix Mall is slated for office use by Andersen Corporation. The following applications were previously approved for the St. Croix Mall: 1979 City approved original St. Croix Mall PUD. 1985 City approved Conditional Use Permit for temporary bank drive - through facility. 1986 City approved PUD amendment to allow K -Mart expansion and other mall and site revisions. 1989 City approved a PUD amendment for a major remodeling of the mall. This approval was the basis for the existing facade and site plan. 1990 City approved sign plan for the upper mall to be effective September 1. 1992 City approved a PUD amendment to allow for the theatre expansion. 1992 City approved amendment of the sign plan for a monument sign on Osgood Avenue. 2001 City approved a PUD amendment and design guidelines review for Lower St. Croix Mall to change facade and design. 2002 City approved a PUD amendment to allow improvements to St. Croix Mall including a CUP for reduction of two (2) parking stalls. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Reference Survey Exhibit 2: Demolition Plan Exhibit 3: Site Plan /Landscaping Plan Exhibit 4: Parking Summary Exhibit 5: Elevation /Planting Detail 90° Parking Design Specifications Parking Required Parking Proposed Handicapped Parking required Handicap Parking Proposed Stall Width 9 feet 9 feet 12 feet Compliant Stall Depth 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Aisle Width 22 feet 22 feet 22 feet 22 feet ISSUES ANALYSIS Zoning. The property is zoned B -2, General Business. Retail and office uses are permitted within the B -2 District. The St. Croix Mall was originally approved as a Planned Unit Development in 1979; therefore, a PUD amendment is required before any site or building changes can be made to the property. Proposed Improvements. The following improvements are proposed: • Remove former mall entrance canopy. • Remove sidewalk ramps located near former mall entrance. • Improve facade of former mall entrance canopy area. • Remove existing signs and light standards in parking lot in northwest quadrant. • Patch, sealcoat, re- stripe and landscape parking lot in northwest quadrant. • Install new light standards in parking lot in northwest quadrant. • Landscape parking islands and medians in parking lot in northwest quadrant. Phasing of Mall Improvements. Only the improvements listed above are proposed at this time and a phasing plan for improvements has not been submitted. The City should work with Andersen Corporation on a phasing plan for future site improvements. Parking. The applicant is proposing to patch, sealcoat and re- stripe that portion of the parking lot located in the northwest quadrant of the St. Croix Mall. The proposed parking reconfiguration includes 214 parking spaces, 10 of which are designated for handicap access. The applicant continues to exceed the minimum parking requirements for the overall PUD by 81 parking spaces. The applicant's plan for continued improvement of the St. Croix Mall includes providing additional parking and a landscaped median along Omaha Avenue in 2003. Section 401.15.F.4.h of the Oak Park Heights Code governs design of parking facilities. The proposed parking lot reconfiguration is in conformance with the specifications set forth in Section 401.15.F.4.h. The City previously recommended parking improvements including new striping, curb islands, and landscaping. The application complies with the provisions of the Oak Park Heights City Code and is consistent with previous recommendations and City goals. Andersen PUD Amendment Page 2 • Building Materials. The plans indicate replacement of select portions of the exterior building finish. The applicant has submitted a photograph of the existing exterior building finish. The proposed exterior building finish is a mix of materials selected to reduce the mass of the existing structure and complement the existing rockface masonry. • • Signage. The City previously recommended removal of the pylon sign located in the northwest corner of this site. The demolition plans call for removal of such pylon sign. No additional signage has been proposed by the applicant at this time. Landscaping. The plans indicate a landscaped median adjacent to the mall and landscaping on various islands within that portion of the parking lot located in the northwest quadrant of the St. Croix Mall. All proposed landscaping must meet the requirements of Section 401.15.E. of the Oak Park Heights Code. The applicant must submit documentation indicating that all proposed landscaping meets the requirements of Section 401.15.E. of the Oak Park Heights Code. Lighting. The plans indicate the installation of new lighting standards in the parking lot located in the northwest quadrant of the St. Croix Mall. The City previously recommended that the applicant bring parking lot light fixtures into conformance with City standards. The proposed outdoor lighting must meet with Section 401.15.B.7 objectives of encouraging lighting systems that reduce light pollution and promote energy conservation while increasing night time safety, utility, security and productivity. While the plans indicate the location of the proposed lighting, they do not include a description of the type of illuminating device and photometric plans as required by Section 401.15.B.7.h. In addition, the applicant must submit documentation indicating that all lighting installed meets the performance standards set forth in Section 401.15. B.7.f.2. Refuse. A trash area is currently in place and no changes are proposed. Additional dumpsters may be placed on site temporarily for construction purposes. Utilities. Any changes to existing utilities or construction over existing utility service lines is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Construction Schedule. The applicant states that improvements will be completed sequentially, in coordination with various interior construction phases. Completion of all proposed improvements is scheduled for December 2002. Andersen PUD Amendment Page 3 CONCLUSION I RECOMMENDATION The application generally complies with City regulations and is a reinvestment in an existing development, which is consistent with City goals. We recommend approval of the PUD amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit photometric for proposed parking lot lighting in compliance with Oak Park Heights Code. 2. Submit lighting fixture specifications in compliance with Oak Park Heights Code. 3. Submit documentation indicating that all proposed lighting fixtures meet the performance standards set forth in Section 401.15.B.7.f.2. of the Oak Park Heights Code. 4. Submit specifications for exterior buildin g finish. 5. Submit documentation indicating that all proposed landscaping meets the requirements of Section 401.15.E. of the Oak Park Heights Code. 6. Placement of all fire hydrants and fire connections must be approved by the City Fire Marshall. 7. Grading and drainage issues are subject to review and approval of the City Y Engineer and review of the applicable watershed authority if required. 8. Any changes to existing utilities or construction over existing utility service lines is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. pc: Kris Danielson Andersen PUD Amendment Page 4 • i i, 4111 1 1 a I i 1 vi ki a _ . 1 , , .., Viii 1 1111 4 i d 113 1111 ,n -. f If J ; a e a _ i ``\ ' q ' I I. i 1 4 1 I 4I18 1 1 4 i . I - N.ii I h g 1 if ' 11 :j g . .!di IJ Ji! lid }fl;i I i 1L!. I A i 1 y" I b,. 4 ! � i ; . , nt ; I 4 gdg x I Il ik, iligggs!�1Ng .�: (,, killiT I I i lilt I 1 Iiiii hi I I 'hi ii . 1 lion % bb!!!iiiii; iii erg :. '\ iiiiial! Nei ki hiffilMilOgth e rr ,•: • Q ' N 3fN3AV OOOOSO Z 0 cd W V Z W W LL W DC OG 0 LL a (/) Z 0 0 U Z X w � O u >- w ft •p11 'ells d 'S iaae4�S l ie 00Z 146PAdoO 'SPlnCI 'VW E3:90 :3 300Z/ZZ19 'OMp•8 m\Eand BEd mEO\ofld Ved V0\11 oon:i I • 1 — 02001011SCM1Oak Park PUDIOak.Park PUD21A2B.dwg, 8122/2002 2:06:41 PM, DavidS, Copyright 2002, Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastie, Ltd. • rn 0 1/4 I I I I , I / I / I I I 1 I , / / / I I I ' I ' I I I I I I I I ' ' / I I / / / , I I I I / 1 / 1 1 1 L. _ - 1- 4 .- - - - 4.. I 1 1 I / 4 I / / 1 / -- - --,.. --I - - -1- - - / I / I I - e I ,P j I / I / / I • I / I x- , 1 , , , , , , , 1 , , , , , I I , - ,_ , OMAHA AVENUE N. / I I / I , I / / I I / I I 1 / I I I , / / I • • I / / / I I I I I I / / I I I 1 1 / I / / / / I / • / I / / I / I / / I / / I / / I / / • / / I --1---1 ---/-----4---1- , --4--/--1-1---1---A---Y / I I I • / I I / / / Ii' / I I / / / I I • 1 / / / / / / 1 / / I / / / / 1 / / / / / / / / / F / I / / I / I / / I / / F e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ •% \ \"••• -‘, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •, % '‘ \ % % A A A "■, A A A A % -% • • • • • • • • • • • • S. • • • • • • • • • S. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • • V • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • • • • • • S. • • • • • • • • I. • ,/ / / / I t / / / / / / I I. / / I I F / / I • • / / I F / / / F F / I / / / • I I / / I I / / I I • F I F / F F I / 1 / I / I F / / I / I I I F / I / / / I I / I I / / I / / / / • / / / / / / / / • / / I / / I / / / / • • • I / / I • • , ,P t I I / I / / / I , I / I / • 1 I / / / I / / • / / / / I / I , I ./ / / / / / • • I • I • I / I / I / / / / "" I i F F It / / % \ ..... \ • • % % % % % % \ \ \ % \ \ % \ \ . % \ \ \ \ • • \ \ 0 ,' • • • • • • • • • • • • S. • • • • \ \ \ \ \ • ••....3i V"...,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ • • % l' \ 1: \ % l\\ \ \ %\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ % ..0 4\ \ \ .... C -L-\---Nt S. -%---\- - -- ,, . ■ s-- ....__. • ,- • • • • • • • ■ ■ ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • N • • • • ■ % • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ '■ • I \ \ \ ‘ it % % % 't . % % % t % t % % % % % % % • , A ( I r I , / I / I , I. . , / , / / I I I / I , / , / / , , I / / / , , , / / , t / I / / ) 1 I / • / /./ / / • / 1 / I Lf I I I- O:1- I , I ,, , . I / I . 1 1 I 1 I , I I ; L -.I I 47 J.! I . 1 L -.1 r ■•.,....... % .L I I I 1 I I I -1 I • • • • • • • III I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I Ii 1 1 1 1 11 Rif 1 It I ,:z 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N.=1 r 1 I v 4 rip - Dt t • • • U /U /UZ lb: iu FAA Scheme A2 - 214 total parking spaces Lr UUZ EXHIBIT 3 Parking Summary — revised 9/5/02 Retail: Office: Totals: Gross Sq Footage 85,700 gsf 217.219 gsf 302,919 gsf Parking Req' d 429 @ 5:1000 1089 @ 3 +1:200 1,518 req'd 1,353 -36 +155 1,472 -25 1,447 81 Andersen / OPH MS &R 1,366 parking required w /1O% reduction (exterior floor area dimensions of building minus 10 %) existing parking — onsite (based on survey) parking stalls lost in proposed site improvements (4/02) available at Bowling site (Proof of Parking) total existing available parking stalls lost in proposed site improvements (9.5.02) parking remaining after modifications (Proof of Parking) overage EXHIBIT 4 m 11 11.11 C 4 I 1 J 1 . 1 `'. 1 f ..; 1 ii771.ii. I. !ii . 41 ! a i 141 1 11. .0 in 1 z''' wU Ell Z t ILJIJ El. 4 U ' C hn 1 i ! t 1 i li 8 1 : Iii za 0 0 • p z .. 1 I I 1 i II 1 w EL 0 'pi 'ensempou 7 JaieLPS I ZOOZ ItifipAdoo 'ewe° ivgd 90:LO:Z ZOOVZZ/9 13 AMYEWV\ZOnd VIM MeMand died memo' koozvi • ti 7 -i, i V 1 L s . mot `� �yli +...r ?`flrs:tk H 1 1 a 4 y,L ' �'ti`: -5''w `.asp c '� ,sk'" 'xjP �>i' r { �d-1 ; i . '. 'CF,'a'ent,aK9Pa " h1' `$a'.P h • >._ .,_, y a w 3 �,_� r�ytir��' Orr �' • ", x PLANNING REPORT TO: Kimberly Kamper FROM: Jason Lindahl /Scott Richards DATE: September 5, 2002 RE: FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.17 BACKGROUND Attached for reference: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com ENCLOSURE 5 Oak Park Heights — Renton Homes: Oak Park Square - Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision and Site Plan Review Jeff Warren, representing Renton Homes, has requested a planned unit development/ conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat and site plan/site plan review for a 9 unit townhome project on Oakgreen Avenue North. The proposed building site is located on the west site of Oakgreen Avenue south of Hall Family Chiropractic Clinic and east of the Pond View Condominiums. The total property under control of the developer will be approximately 0.83 acres and is undeveloped. Zoning for the property is Central Business District and was included in the area of the Central Business District Urban Design Study. As a result, the Central Business District Design Guidelines apply to the proposed development. In addition to the PUD approval and site plan review, the applicant also requests preliminary /final plat approval to allow the individual units to be sold as townhomes with commonly owned open space and drive aisles. Exhibit A: Landscape Plan Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Floor Plans Exhibit D: Building Elevations Exhibit E: Surrounding Area Parcel Map Exhibit F: Proposed Lot Layout Exhibit G: Proposed Grading and Erosion Control ISSUES ANALYSIS Project Description. Each unit will have two stories and include a two stall garage. Access for the townhomes will be from a private driveway with direct access to Oakgreen Avenue. The applicant has utilized the Central Business District Design Guidelines as a guide in developing the housing structures. The front of the buildings will feature porches and the building materials include lap siding, cedar shakers, and stone fireplaces. Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as CBD, Central Business District by the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the CBD designation is to provide a focal point for the community in terms of retail, service, and entertainment businesses, as well as residential opportunities. As such, the proposed townhome project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. Within the CBD Zoning District, two family, townhome, and multiple family dwellings are a conditional use. The approval also requires a conditional use permit / planned unit development (CUPIPUD) in that the project will have individual units sold with jointly held common areas. An association will be established to maintain the exterior of the buildings and the surrounding common property. Density. The Zoning Ordinance requires 4,000 square feet of lot area per unit for townhome projects. The lot area is based upon the total area in the project as controlled by the individual or under joint ownership. A nine unit ro'ect would require P 1 q 36,000 square feet of lot area. The total property of the parcel including the Oakgreen roadway easement is approximately 36,503 square feet or 0.83 of an acre. Subdivision. Preliminary /final plat approval is required to subdivide the site. All existing easements for Oakgreen Avenue and utilities must be identified on the plat. The applicant has submitted a proposed lot layout. The preliminary /final plat is subject to the review and approval of City staff. Park Dedication. The property subdivision will also require park dedication. At this time, the City does not have need for park land in this immediate area and therefore will require a cash dedication. The development will have a density of just over ten units per acre, thus requiring a cash dedication of 14 percent of the fair market value of the land. Therefore, the park dedication fee for this property will be $19,600. The Subdivision Ordinance requires the dedication to be deposited by the developer with the City prior to final plat approval. Central Business District Guidelines. In October of 1999, the City adopted a master plan for the Central Business District in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly, mixed use district. In order to guide implementation of the goals and policies of the plan, specific design guidelines for the CBD were developed. The proposed development will 2 • below: therefore be reviewed in regard to its consistency with such guidelines as referenced Precinct Designation. The subject area and the commercial property at the corner of Highway 36 and Oakgreen Avenue were not placed in one of the specific precincts identified in the Design Guidelines. The project will be reviewed under the residential precinct guidelines. Building Context and Character. The Design Guidelines state that buildings within the residential precinct should be characterized by pitched roof buildings, entry porches, underground or tuck -under parking, and appropriately landscaped front yards. The proposed plan is consistent with these guidelines. Building Setbacks. The Design Guidelines specify the following: Front Yard: Minimum 5 feet / Maximum 15 feet Side Yard: Minimum 0 feet / Maximum 5 feet Rear Yard: Minimum 10 feet / Maximum 30 feet The front yard (along Oakgreen Avenue North) would be consistent with the Design Guidelines. The north and south property lines would also meet the side yard standards. However, given that the site now has access along Oakgreen Avenue, the plan does not meet the suggested rear yard setback of 10 feet. The current design illustrates a three foot setback along the western property line for the southerly building. This building should be shifted east to meet the minimum five foot setback to comply with the Fire Code. Building Width. According to the Design Guidelines, buildings in the residential precinct should be divided into increments of no more than 24 feet in width. Each of the townhome units proposed range in width from 22 to 24 feet and feature an offset with the adjoining unit. Building Height. The CBD Zoning District establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet. The guidelines state that the building height should vary between two and three stories. The proposed building is approximately 32 feet and its highest point and has two stories above ground. Roof Design. The guidelines state that residential roofs should be pitched. The project is in conformance with this provision. Ground Level Expression and Entries. According to the Design Guidelines, buildings should have porches and balconies to identify the front entry and to create character to the building. The buildings are designed with porches that face north on the northern set of building and south on the southern set of buildings. Building Materials. The Design Guidelines state that buildings should be constructed of authentic materials such as wood, brick, stone, cast stone, stucco or pour -in -place concrete. Accent materials may include metal, glass, block, copper flashing, or similar materials. The buildings are to be constructed with steel lap siding, cedar shake accents, stone fireplaces, and an asphalt shingle roof. The Planning Commission should review the building materials and colors to determine consistency with the y Design Guidelines. Of concern may be the use of steel siding as a predominant building material. The applicant will be required to present building material samples for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Walkways. The Design Guidelines state that sidewalks in the residential precinct should be a minimum of six feet in width and that be placed along all public streets. The Parks Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council should determine if a public trail /sidewalk should be placed along Oakgreen Avenue at this time. Lighting. The Design Guidelines state that lighting should be designed to reduce glare and be in scale with the surrounding buildings. Light fixtures located on walkways or trailways should be at a pedestrian scale not more than 14 feet in height. For parking lot lighting, fixtures must be in scale with their surroundings with cut off fixtures. To date, the applicant has not submitted a photometric plan. The applicant must submit a lighting plan to be considered with the Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance provisions for lighting. The ordinance specifies that no light source which cast light on a public street shall exceed one foot candle meter reading at the centerline of the street nor cast light on adjacent property not more than 0.4 foot candles as measured at the property line. Additionally, details of the fixtures will need to be provided to assure full cut off. Landscaping. The Design Guidelines state that landscaping is strongly encouraged and that in the residential precincts, front yard landscaping is required and should have a combination of trees, shrubs, ground covers, and turf. The landscape plan indicates that existing trees will need to be removed and significant additional plantings have been added adjacent to the buildings and on the yard adjacent to Oakgreen Avenue. The City Arborist has indicated that a tree inventory will need to be completed for the property. The final landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. Access /Streets. As designed, the development will have access from Oakgreen Avenue North. From this access, the development will have a private common drive leading to each individual unit. This drive lane is approximately 35 feet in width with asphalt surfacing and cement curb and cutter. A MNDot access permit will required before Planning Commission recommendations /City Council approvals can be granted for this development. 4 • Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all townhome units are provided with two spaces per unit, both of which are in a covered garage structure. The building /site plan indicates that each unit will have a two stall garage, although the garages are designed at 21 feet in width and 18 feet long. The applicant has agreed to extend the length of the garages to 20 feet. Additionally, there will be two guest parking spaces in front of each garage door along with four common guest parking stalls. Staff recommends that the parking spaces in front of each individual unit be redesigned to be 20 feet in width. Snow Removal. The applicants shall provide provisions for snow removal on the site due to the limited open area. Grading and Drainage. The applicants will be required to provide drainage calculations for the proposed site. The property drains to the existing drainage pond north and west of the property. The pond has been adequately sized to accommodate this development. The drainage plans and the requirement for additional drainage easements will be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and applicable watershed authority and will require a MNDOT storm water permit. Utilities. Utility related issues and plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Sewer and water utilities are in place through an easement that traverses the subject property. Signage. The applicants have proposed two stone identification signs on either side of the entrance to the development from Oakgreen Avenue. The northern sign lies within what will become the right -of -way easement for Oakgreen Avenue. This monument must be pulled off of the easement and onto the townhome common property. Trash. All townhome projects will be individually responsible for storage of trash receptacles. Conditional Use Criteria. Section 401.301.E of the Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria for review of conditional use permits for townhome projects in the CBD District. The criteria are as follows: a. At least two parking spaces per unit must be provided 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.A.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. g- j. 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. i. Residential use be governed by all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Housing Code, and Fire Codes. 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 should review the criteria and determine if the project complies with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. City staff does not recognize any significant issues that would prevent approval of this ro'ect based upon the preceding J p p g criteria. Development Agreement. A development agreement between the applicant and the City will be required as part of the approvals subject to the City Attorney and City Council review and approval. Additionally, the City Attorney has requested copies of the restrictions and covenants and party wall/common area agreements as part of the project review and approval process. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding review, the project proposed is consistent with the criteria within the Zoning Ordinance and Central Business District Design Guidelines. City staff recommends approval of the concept/general planned unit development/conditional use permit, subdivision and site plan review for Oak Park Square based upon the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a preliminary and final plat in conformance with specifications of Section 402 of the Oak Park Heights Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The building positioned in the southwest corner of the site should be shifted east to meet a minimum five foot setback to comply with Fire Code. 3. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $19,600 to the City prior to final plat approval. 4. The Planning Commission should review the building materials and colors to determine consistency with the Design Guidelines. The applicant shall be required to provide building material samples for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. • • • 5. The Parks Commission, Planning Commission and City Council should comment • on the need at this time for a sidewalk on the west side of Oakgreen Avenue. • 6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements for lighting. Details of the light fixtures shall be provided by the applicant to assure full cut off. 7. The applicant shall provide a tree inventory subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. The landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 8. A MNDOT access permit for Oakgreen Avenue North shall be required before Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval of this project. 9. The interior dimensions of the garages shall be revised so that both parking stalls are at least 20 feet in length. In addition, the guest parking stall in front of the individual units shall be revised so they are at least 20 feet in length. 10. The applicant shall provide a snow removal plan subject to review and approval of the City staff. 11. The applicant shall provide drainage calculations for the proposed site. The drainage plans and any additional required drainage easements shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the applicable watershed authority. 12. A MNDOT storm water permit shall be required as part of drainage approvals. 13. Utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 14. All monument signage shall be relocated onto the townhome common property subject to review and approval of City staff. 15. A development contract between the applicant and the City will be required as part of the approvals subject to City Attorney and City Council review and approval. Copies of the resolutions and covenants and party wall /common area agreements shall be provided by the applicant subject to City Attorney review and approval. pc: Kris Danielson Mark Vierling . 4 • 1YAOThIdY OW SNINWid VOA SDNIMV/10 CRS.Od011d ON ninco us H109 3A1110 alvAnid • 49 411 Pi!! .1! 111 rill! 011111 . iiiiiiis . m a il 8 • i 11 1 i CE 1 I i t PA 1 1 T igg ° i s 5 t Of I I . 1111111111111 . 4 • 1YAOThIdY OW SNINWid VOA SDNIMV/10 CRS.Od011d ON ninco us H109 3A1110 alvAnid • 49 411 • • • .OAK PARK SQUARE TOWNHOMES ; `sairr c.140WIR ••• • ••••• away WWI THAT THIS RAN, SPECUSCATION. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED WOK OPAINDEDIft DIRECT SUPIIRVESION, MAT I AM AMY Reasmeto morn= oteat THE IAWS OP Tile STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATe 1.9826 RED NUMMI* ..* • -. • A, • • >o- pt . g) . thui (nal Eco ....t. n. i 7 an) , -- tn GI in o r ,..., F..... ....,- ,.-..„ u n i l i•- F-L d • o 1 1 ID — 71- •• - A- in • g -4 N X EP ny cl. .1. •J .9 m szo 0. r L in A. ... X 0 tt tn = ri in (2 gi g b <> • • ...,1 4" g ct .P Y Y it S (g in ".0 c 0 a■ c z Pi Z s 1 o 6 2 m fl 9 P. 4 :1 ...., it, m - ' r L r LJ PROPOSED DRAWINGS FOR PLANNING AND couNat. APPROVAL "-; - • - ::"' ,": • rn z ■••.•■•••••■••■•• ...••••• etts • at • • • • • • 11 • ••■••■•.••••.•■■••■••• •••• ■•• •■••••■ ••■•• PRIVATE DRIVE- 60TH ST. COURT NORTH ; . •.. • . fp : 37: • . . •.; : I '". • . •. • : • •• • .• • , 4. .•. 1 ::: . ....; ' : . 1 It % ..1 att . l' Ma+, L. t , e.. c. ' • f'. 1 . .... . : -..... . ... . .. ... ,,... ., . .,... 1 . .. 1 ‘ . intni ..." j aw... , .... ... pmi iiiv .: . . -••-......... . , :-.. 4 . . , www.ntlounivismicreccii - .....'? ... . % !,, . .1 . --. . . .. .... . :.:-. ... .4: : ...-.---. • •...• • • • OAK GiteEN itirftuivoRrti • • CD CD 4 4 S9NI V1 Q (13SOd O ld 1 • tu gh g 11 E n. rt ) a • • 1111111111111111111; fl iiii(I!I(IIIIIIIi 4IIIIIIiIIIIIIi►II!Il{I • Nan (lila MIllEill111:1301617 u$$.= it SOMA D01.11V1 II im utIli It 3M JOAN, &MOH MINd >1•10 40 Aln amswoi motive 11 ♦ RENTON HOMES OAKPARK SQUARE OAK' PARK I{BIGFi1'3, MINNESOTA O 0 0 MULTI— FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LOT LAYOUT OL OL OL OL h) • CONDO NO 54 'POND VIEW AM'S 0 OAKCREEN AVENUE NORM N01'06'E 247 N N 1 0 c 0 Lit 1M.£O.ioN IRONS 0111712 3825 Like Elmo Avenue North Lake Eknar, MN :5042 • Phone: (651) 770 -8448 Fur (651) 710 -2552 Nebsite.• proutorInc.com Dole 6/20/02 Drown By TAE Dog No RENTBAS Sign Name: Date, Print Name: Y k I hereby certify that this plan woe prepared by ma or under my duct supervision end that I ant a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the lows of the Stole of Minnesota. . Manse No. NO. CATsT et REVISION DESCRIPTION • DALE Al to to 3100 WW1 011 ,•••••••••••••• a NOILditi3S30 NOISN311 00.11 31911111.4 V 11101.111 03S13)1 • NOILWRIOANI 101 0351A321 g fi .• • 1 ,-0 . * lhi tI 1.110AY1 CBSIILIV 0 'ON t • z z Lu 0 acu viooeutel jo riols inn JO smol goo *pun Joeuitiu3 fouolosoitud pootmon Apo o I r a ll= j UZIA . MICkti .id !as r un JO au • I *WO mm 5 O z 0 Id -1 O • ' SY131N38 'ON 1 .0 'a whom zo/or/9 IPCI • 1110:11t1p021141,11 :OWN Zgq ( w ) 341 att-oil (In) :maid Mg MY WO Avi anua 0 43 alol SEIfi d: I/0 lig 111111111 k:M■N •••• ••■• ••• • •• IIION YIN3AY N3310)1\ SidY ARIA QM d 's 441.1 Old IONINO3 Noisoua • ONKIWID CISSOdONd INSIMOTJASKI 110M-11:1011 •••• ••• ••• •••••••••••........1 •• • •••• ••• • • • • ••• a ••• • •• •••• VIOSVINDI %LOIN XilVd XelVdNVO SaPIOH • •• • • •••••• • • • • •■ UNIT BREAKDOWNS Phase 2 Approved Concept Independent Living Cooperative 90 units Assisted Living 54 units Duplexes 108 units TOTAL UNITS 252 units • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595 0636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 p €anners©nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Kimberly Kamper FROM: Scott Richards DATE: September 5, 2002 FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.28 eNCLOSURE RE: Oak Park Heights — Boutwells Landing: McKean West PUD Concept Plan Rezoning to PUD BACKGROUND Application. Valley Senior Services Alliance (VSSA) has made application for rezoning to planned unit development and concept plan approval for that area south of Norwich Parkway and Nolan Avenue. The area consists of 36.79 acres and was included as part of the Boutwells Landing concept plan approvals in 1998. VSSA has proposed a significantly different concept plan requiring new review and approvals. The plan is also different from the concept plan for this area submitted in April of 2002. That application was withdrawn. Previous Approvals. The concept plan for this area was approved in December 1998. The unit breakdowns approved at that time included the following: Adjacent Uses. Uses adjacent to the subject site are listed below: • North of Site. Present zoning - PUD. Present use Autumn Hills Park, and existing twinhomes on Nolan Avenue. • South of Site. Not in City. Baytown Township. Present use large lot single family. • West of Site. Present zoning - 0, Open Space. Present use Environmental Learning Center for High School. • East of Site. Not in City. Boutwells Landing. VSSA has proposed a revision to the concept plan and general plan of development approvals to allow eight units in four two family buildings along Nolan Avenue. The application for this development has been timed to coincide with the McKean West proposal. Potential Expansion to the East (McKean East). In April of 2002, VSSA proposed placing the independent living facility and nine single family units in the area that is now part of Baytown Township. That application was withdrawn. The current site p lan for McKean West has included placement of Nolan Parkway on the far east edge of the property. The roadway could be utilized for future access to the east. The applicants are not seeking any consideration of the McKean East proposal at this time. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: ISSUES ANALYSIS Site Plan Revised Site Plan With Roadway Connection to West Existing Conditions Plan Approved 1998 Concept Plan Single /Duplex Unit Floor Plans Eight Plex Floor Plans Building Elevations for Duplexes and Apartment Buildings Building Elevations for Eight Plex Project Narrative Comprehensive Plan. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject area for the Boutwells Landing development. The Proposed Land Use Plan Map indicates that most of the 37 acres has been designated as low density residential. A portion of the subject site, where open space and a portion of the 42 unit apartment building are proposed, is designated in the Land Use Plan map as high density residential. In that 2 • PROPOSED UNIT BREAKDOWNS McKean West Buildings Units Single Units 17 17 Duplexes 21 42 Three Plexes 1 3 Eight Plexes 2 16 Ten Piex 1 10 Twelve Plex 1 12 Apartment I 42 TOTAL 44 142 the Comprehensive Plan anticipated the second phase of the Boutwells Landing. project, • the land use designations are compliant with the concept proposal and there are no issues with the plan. • Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned 0, Open Space Conservation. Consistent with the first phase of the Boutwells Landing development, the applicants have proposed a rezoning to PUD with the R -3, Multiple Family Residential district as the underlying basis for zoning standards. Due to the variety of densities, the PUD zoning and approvals will allow for a comprehensive approach to evaluating and addressing the application proposal. It will also allow for a coordinated approval for review and approval of a phased development. Subdivision. As part of the general plan of development approval process, a preliminary plat will be presented for review. The subject site is currently designated as Outlot B of Boutwells Landing. Proposed Project. McKean West is proposed with the.following unit configurations: The total density of the proposed development is 3.86 dwelling units per acre. The single units, duplexes, three plexes, eight plexes, ten plex, and twelve plex would all be rental units, similar to the first phase twinhome units. The apartments would be for senior rental. The plan indicates a historic school and church that would be relocated from elsewhere. The buildings would be placed near the 42 unit apartment complex. The two facilities would be utilized as neighborhood gathering areas for meetings and other social events. The buildings would need to be improved to be compliant with Uniform Building Code standards and all accessibility requirements. Parking for the facilities would be shared with the guest parking of the apartment complex. Access through the site is provided by an extension of Nolan Avenue that would loop back to Norwich Parkway. The main access roadway would be referred to as Nolan • Parkway. A loop road would extend off of Nolan Parkway. The plan has included a 3 future access road location from Nolan Avenue to the Environmental Learning Center, as indicated in Exhibit 2. The site is interconnected by a system of sidewalks along the roadways and a trail system through the center of the development. Some of the ponding systems within the development would be interconnected with a small stream. Nolan Parkway has been designed to provide possible future access to the east. The applicants have not indicated a timeline for development of McKean East. The project narrative indicates that the site plan has been designed for the existing natural environment of the area. Natural topography, existing trees, and designated wetlands have been preserved and incorporated with the building and roadway locations. The proposed plan provides the following: • Current site layout maintains all existing, surveyed oak trees with a planned 40 foot diameter "no build" zone. • Large stand of pines along the east property line being maintained. • Site layout preserves large tree and wetland area at the southern curve of Norwich Parkway directly across from existing park. • Providing 30 foot setback to delineated wetlands. • Roads designed to follow contours as much as possible and minimize mass grading and retaining walls. • Multiple building designs to fit different areas of the site. Two story, 42 unit building in existing, large open area; two story, 8 -12 unit buildings to fit between existing oak trees and step down the natural topography; townhomes in single, duplex, and triplex building designs. Streets. The existing portion of Nolan Avenue was constructed with a 34 foot street width and 55 foot right -of -way. The proposed site plan indicates a 25 foot roadway for Nolan Parkway. VSSA has proposed that the new roadways would be public. City staff indicated Y has ndicated that the Nolan Parkway roadway would need to be at least 28 feet in width with adequate right -of -way and easements for utilities. The Plannin g Commission and City Council should comment on the roadway width and right -of -way. The applicant has indicated that the narrower roadway could help to slow down traffic, provide more green space, create more of a neighborhood feel to the community, and result in less maintenance. No on- street parking would be allowed on a 25 foot street, parking could be allowed on one side of a 28 foot street if approved by the City Engineer. The Public Works Director has indicated that the portion of Nolan Parkway adjacent to the east property line should be pulled back at least 10 feet from the line to allow for snow storage. The City Engineer has also recommended that the intersection of Nolan 4 • • • Avenue and Nolan Parkway be redesigned to a 90 degree intersection. VSSA • representatives have indicated that these changes can be accommodated on the plan. • • Setbacks. Within a PUD, the base district setback requirements are applied only to the perimeter of the project. All of the buildings have maintained at least a 45 foot setback to the property line; most are 50 feet to 60 feet from the line. The PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that buildings should be located at least 20 feet from the back of a curb line for roadways as part of the internal street pattern. Additionally, the ordinance specifies that no building within the project shall be nearer to another building that one -half the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. All the buildings are at least 20 feet from the curb line of the primary roadways. Most of the buildings have at least a 20 foot separation, although some of the single /duplex units are closer, with a minimum of 15 feet separation. While the units may meet the Zoning Ordinance separation requirement, previous concept plans for this area indicated a 20 foot building separation. The front driveways for many of the single and duplex units are only 20 feet from the garage door to the curb. The sidewalks would be blocked if a vehicle were parked in the driveway making pedestrian /bicycle access impossible and hazardous. The buildings should be set back so that the distance from the sidewalk to the front of the garage is at least 20 feet. The Planning Commission and City Council should review the plans and comment on the proposed setbacks for the development. Park Dedication. Park dedication is based upon the specifications of Section 402.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The land and cash that has been dedicated to the City for Boutwells Landing included the area proposed as McKean West. That dedication was based on 90 units of independent living, 54 units of assisted living, and 108 units of duplexes. Additionally, the formula for park dedication changed as part of the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance approved in April of 1999. If McKean West is approved with the same number of units as currently proposed, the City may have received too much park dedication. The Park Commission and City Council should comment on the park dedication for this development. Grading and Drainage. Grading and drainage plans have not been submitted for this proposal. The plans specify preservation of the existing low areas and wetlands with a stream. The City Engineer has questioned how the water will be controlled on the site and where storm water will flow from the property. Submittal of drainage plans /calculations are critical to the project design and approvals. Utilities. A utility plan has not been submitted. A utility plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Trails /Sidewalks. The site plan indicates that sidewalks would be placed only on one side of the Nolan Parkway and the connecting loop roadway. Nolan Avenue and the 5 two attached cul -de -sacs have sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. If the buildings are placed only 20 feet from the curb, the sidewalks may not be useable if vehicles are parked in front of the garage door. The sidewalk/building setbacks issue must be addressed by the applicant. The trails and sidewalks will be constructed to the same width and standards of the Phase I development. The Parks Commission and City Council should comment on the specific trails and sidewalks for this J ro'ect as well as p for the overall housing complex. Architectural Appearance. Elevations have been submitted for the duplexes, apartment and eight plex. The buildings show a high level of design with significant detailing and variety of building materials. Many of the single and duplex units have been designed so that the garage doors do not face the street. The design will break up the appearance of only garage doors facing the street in certain areas of the development. The concept plan review does not usually address dwelling unit design. Specific elevation drawings and more details on building materials will be required for general q g plan review. Building Height. The building elevations presented to date do not provide enough detail to adequately address building height. The building height limit would be 35 feet. It appears as though none of the building styles presented would exceed the height maximum. Lighting, Signage, Landscaping. Detailed plans have not been submitted to date for lighting, signage, or landscaping. These plans would be submitted and considered as part of the general plan review. 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 charges, would be included. The contract will specify conditions of approval and issues related to phasing the development. RECOMMENDATION / CONCLUSION Based upon the preceding review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission hold on a recommendation related to concept plan approvals for this development. Specifically, the applicant should redesign the plan to address issues with roadways, sidewalks, and setbacks. Additionally, schematic plans for storm water, drainage, and utilities should be submitted for staff, Planning Commission, and City Council review. The Planning Commission /City Council should comment on the roadway issue and the adequacy of a 28 foot public roadway for this area. pc: Kris Danielson 6 • • r • • SIM mot .0 \\lit • air a No . 4 . 4.* 4* 4 414-_,0 • d i • ,T) ,T 0 Jr_ d) 1 -73 1 7-33L - -t-. 3 v . 6 „ 3 g Ia u w a, 11 I- moo W x w x xxw x F � � .was.Will .eam*•ea sm.•■s. ••■.• rssww..s■ rs• ilmils. wrss••■•►s.■■•••sssrss.s•••..s•••ss ••r•s•r • w••s• mom •w•• s• en•sssw••soo•s•amm•s•.•s sumo •w•+s, !roe s aim r• •••••s•••.• ••w weary •• .1 H 3 a 0 I- i F- m W 1 3 R eltaW361VV3ka Nr14 :11423 MO O 1 C1334 gal alfi ritl.t tr 404 'am 'gave Tor MIL WI t na am F r atad MITIMICI UMW WIC I WPM', ILTSQUICX1 ro asovro aaiVGWL9 941411/00411 9r C'S tttp Q tiouriviagt= avow wag so I aIGIVZ∎ t V Jai AA • vma 4WD • UPC NC =CV SIMPC � stictdri o1ua9 aaVa W14 I 9V C41 WA CA.I h�3 1 hi si i i li i 11 14 trIVOSClic nri WNW MOUS PHA surer r • • SIM mot .0 \\lit • air a No . 4 . 4.* 4* 4 414-_,0 • d i • ,T) ,T 0 Jr_ d) 1 -73 1 7-33L - -t-. 3 v . 6 „ 3 g Ia u w a, 11 I- moo W x w x xxw x F � � .was.Will .eam*•ea sm.•■s. ••■.• rssww..s■ rs• ilmils. wrss••■•►s.■■•••sssrss.s•••..s•••ss ••r•s•r • w••s• mom •w•• s• en•sssw••soo•s•amm•s•.•s sumo •w•+s, !roe s aim r• •••••s•••.• ••w weary •• .1 H 3 a 0 I- i F- m W 1 3 R • • rn iraiv—illa .40., Alltlit. „,„ . or•- km„,11 1 - -111 ' kdt,/ vier. N am a `�►' ,�► . • 0,,,,...---s,,‘,. i . airy r ' vat#J MK e , 7 1 t 6P tal PgiA A ,t, ..„4„,,,,•__,,„.....,, 4 all golt7. kr/4.144 IV 1 illhia , 4 16, 1 11r \ t ;?! � I:all:0\ AlkitiT‘4‘1 It oar ( OA i \ , ,_ 41.1.AILN .411 , tr*.*:44',V'?.1r V f ' 41.001,..KA No. 40 ( ” 44 - r,.,..- X11► fir► ; ./ v ♦� _ � � lir� �` r , fir- r• - -,.,--„of 7 ,, r s 4 ,,,, i. OW )fre,:r elvi.... / ,,/' '''''' ..-. , / ( 1 ]).- IF K§ re v 1 - i - � 6 O m rr-r x X x m ]). .r-z (D(P( 2 2 ' -i o N N u u u u u , ..._. t k ft .....NA ^ . -. 1.32 ..‘ :l en 17 4 —, 2 :4 =.4 ... (LI (1 -,:, t ip, ,.-, a X .Y • . • •y • • • • • 14 I 11 rig 110 Ilrg 1 • 1 : • :3 ...:.. . . :1 ...3.4 . a q-14 5. • : ;..).'•>' : . ci,t6 • st • • o I. J. 1 .a -a .N �IGt PZt0 —LOL "N .4 "II RN rata ZOOZ /U /ZO.i•a d1P 0. .001 a .,I Nd'1d SNO1i[CINO3 JNI.1SIX3 ISEIM 3}IVflOS NVEINIAJ - ONIUNV1 S11EIM1flO3 tstt -ut-ut Virg 1$o opt !o0lF •ja .xau eon[ WOW 1101111111011110/ N/q YJIoestu I o tto *OI bURYLW Roo! Y110z' S 3 i V 13 0 � � r cr' 1 AUTUHri RI176E !ST 4() L .,. ...,.... 1 � ! f I r I r' 1 rr I ..'' I kT'TOY WOODS ; .�•► , r ; 1 I 1 ! ! 1 r � ! r I t lsT `''�' ti I / I I I N 1 / ": "411 ' *Y"' '' is I I i t 1 s IS I. 1 r f t ti OUT.-4T A EXHIBIT 4 ExiSTlNd T 11;1044%11 N p Ca Fil W 46 r gb a 0 4 g 4 u INN Dill t • W 0 , .-.__, v e I l lr Ali MIN UN U mul ..... s S► III... ,, i i -..a ...lr., l r,NMI v 'srsi 11►v k .............. ` AM .....s "a. 'NM N ' 111 It, t NM 's• iw MO ,, •1Zts.I - • _ •. P i1111.11._ ?Y Iii .. ; • -- ---- -, ti ) iii# ► t ' r.� i ✓�:' 1 f A►r :my t tri tr oti t=4 tri t:4 tti r an � " rte sr l _ J gm f ' .........."... IT f i#� r ear ma i 441 , mg WM Mr p , 1 ION r. I sue— M�� Mil - -7i 6,13, ,IIIIIII , t.'+ „t t,, ti! 1 it . . ti ;� - �1�� .. •���i ;� isil A at i111 t il•s ,�..1Ill1s• • Innovations in Senior Living Communities SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS Concept Plan Review McKean West at Boutwells Landing Oak Park Heights, MN This is a synopsis of the proposed McKean West Concept Site plan for the Boutwells Landing planned development As part of this concept review we are requesting several variations to requirements that were established for the existing Boutwells Landing. Below we have listed the requirements that are not changed, and following that the variations requested and the reasons we believe these modifications enhance the overall site plan. General Concept The overall site plan has been designed with the natural environment as the guide. Natural topography, existing trees, and designated wetlands have been designed into and around for building and road locations. • Current site layout maintains all existing, surveyed oak trees with a planned 40' diameter "no build" zone. • P Large stand of Ines along the east property line being maintained. • Site layout preserves large tree and wetland area at the southern curve of Norwich Parkway directly across from existing park • Providing 30' setback to delineated wetlands • Roads designed to follow contours as much as possible and minimize mass grading and retaining walls • Multiple building designs to fit different areas of the site. 2 story, 42 unit building in existing, large open area; 2 story, 8-12 unit buildings to fit between existing oak trees and step down the natural topography; Townhomes in single, duplex, and triplex building designs The attached plans meet these existing requirements for the conditional use permit • 30' rear set back • 60' buffer setback at exterior property lines • 20' distance between buildings • each dwelling unit has 2 enclosed parking spaces and 2 surface spaces in front of the garage Requirement variations and reasons for request: • 25' wide road (reduction from 34' width) - will help slow down traffic; provide more green space; create more neighborhood community; less maintenance EXHIBIT 9 2845 North Hamline Ave. ❖ Suite 100 + Roseville, Minnesota + 55113 z• www.seniorpartners.com ❖ (651) 631 -6300 ❖ Fax (651) 631 -6301 + 800 -891 -9126 • 20' setback to road (reduction from 30') -- creates larger masses of green space instead of smaller, linear spaces; with many side entry garages the buildin g to street relationship has been softened and provides more area of landscape that use to be driveway; creates more community • sidewalk on one side of street (both sides currently) -- less hard surface; sidewalk P rovided for the "outer" ring of homes, trail provided on interior of site m inimal traffic so crossing to sidewalk side safe (and slower traffic if narrower road). • • • C NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. BACKGROUND 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.96 36 Facsimile: 952 595.9837 p €anners @nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Kimberly Kamper FROM: Scott Richards DATE: September 5, 2002 FILE NO: 798.02 -- 02.29 eNCLOSURIE RE: Oak Park Heights — Boutwells Landing: Eight Unit Planned Unit Development, Amended Concept Plan /General Plan of Development Review, Rezoning to PUD, Subdivision r Valley Senior Services Alliance (VSSA) has made application for an amended concept plan and general plan of development review for a portion of the McKean West development of Boutwells Landing. The area under consideration is south of Norwich Parkway on Nolan Avenue. The proposal is to add four buildings with a total of eight units on the existing roadway. Nolan Avenue is currently constructed with 10 two family unit buildings. A cul -de -sac was added to the end of Nolan Avenue to allow a temporary turnaround area. The most current concept plan for the remaining portions of McKean West indicates that Nolan Avenue will not be extended in order to preserve an existing wetland to the south. The access road (Nolan Parkway) for the remaining area of McKean West will extend from the southeast side of Nolan Avenue. The concept plan for this area must be amended in that the approved plan did not include development south of the temporary turnaround cul -de -sac. Additionally, the extension of Nolan Avenue is proposed to continue through the cul-de -sac to the southwest. The planned unit development zoning classification must also be extended into the 0, Open Space Conservation area to reflect the current plan. VSSA would like to begin construction of the eight units this Fall. All of the units are to be rental under the same provisions as the other phases of the Boutwells Landing project. Attached for reference: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: ISSUES ANALYSIS Site Plan Revised Area Plan With Roadway Connection to West Existing Conditions Plan Approved 1998 Concept Plan Building Floor Plans Building Elevations Building Elevations Proposed Grading Plan Proposed Utility Plan Landscape Plan Boutwells Landing Plat Project Narrative Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for the Boutwells Landing development that anticipated low density residential development for the subject area. The development proposal is compliant with the plan. Zoning. The subject site is partially zoned PUD and partially 0, Open Space Conservation. It is proposed to rezone the subject site as well as the entire McKean West area to PUD with the R -3, Multiple Family Residential District as the underlying basis for zoning standards. Subdivision. The Boutwells Landing plat for the area will need to be extended to address the area of the additional development. A preliminary /final plat will need to be submitted to the Planning Commission /City Council as art of this development review. p p Streets. The cul -de -sac at the end of Nolan Avenue was constructed as a temporary turnaround. As part of this project, the cul -de -sac would be constructed to the same standards as the existing cul-de-sac on Nolan Avenue. Sidewalks would be constructed to surround the cul -de -sac and provide connection with the existing sidewalks. Staff has raised issue with the future road intersection (Nolan Parkway) that will extend from Nolan Avenue. It is recommended that Nolan Parkway be realigned as to provide a 90 degree intersection. The applicants have indicated that the change could be made by moving one of the buildings to the north. The revised area plan (Exhibit 2) indicates a future roadway extension from the end of Nolan Avenue to the Environmental Learning Center of the Stillwater Area High School. This roadway extension has been an important aspect of the concept planning for the area. • Building Layout. The proposed building design has changed from the existing two family units constructed along Nolan Avenue. Four of the units will be designed so that the garage faces the avenue. The other four units will extend from shared driveways. The buildings will be set back from the sidewalk so as to allow for at least 20 feet to accommodate vehicle parking in front of the garage stalls. All of the garages provide two stalls each and are in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Building separation will be at least 20 feet from all existing and proposed structures. The buildings are also oriented to provide adequate setbacks to the wetland to the south. Park Dedication. Park dedication is based upon the specifications of Section 402.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The land and cash that has been dedicated to the City for Boutwells Landing includes the area proposed as McKean West. That dedication was based upon significantly more units that what is currently proposed. Additionally, the formula for park dedication changed as part of the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance approved in April of 1999. The Park Commission and City Council should comment on the park dedication for this development. Grading and Drainage. A grading plan has been submitted for this development. The plans indicate that the existing wetland to the south will remain. The grading and drainage plan is subject to City Engineer review and approval. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for this development. The utility plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Architectural Appearance. Elevations and floor plans have been submitted for the proposed buildings. The buildings show a high level of design with significant detailing and a variety of building materials. Single and two family units are not subject to Design Guidelines requirements. The PUD process allows for the City to comment on and make suggestions related to building design. Staff has no issues with the two family dwelling building design as proposed. Building Height. The proposed buildings will be at 20 feet or lower in measured building height. The building height limit is 35 feet. All of the buildings are compliant. Lighting. Street lights currently exist for Nolan Avenue and the cul -de -sacs. If any of the lights are to be moved, a plan would need to be submitted subject to City Engineer/ Public Works Director approval. The buildings will be provided with porch lights consistent with other phases of this development. The lights have been compliant with all Zoning Ordinance standards. 10 Signage. No additional signage is proposed for this development. Landscaping. A landscape plan has been submitted subject to City Arborist review and approval. Tree preservation plans /protection plans will need to be provided subject to City Arborist review and approval. Development Contract. The applicant will be required to enter into an amended development contract to address any issues with the necessary street/sidewalks improvements rY mprovements or required change to street lights. The contract will also address any project or area charges and park dedication requirements. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding review, staff recommends that the request for the planned unit development, amended concept plan /general plan of development, rezoning to PUD, and subdivision for the construction of eight housing units on Nolan Avenue in McKean West be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary /final plat to include the area designated for development be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. 2. The cul-de-sac street and sidewalk shall be constructed to the same standards as what exists on Nolan Avenue subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 3. The applicants shall redesign the intersection of Nolan Avenue and Nolan Parkway to provide a 90 degree intersection subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. The City Attorney, Parks Commission, and City Council should comment on the park dedication requirements for this development. 5. The grading and drainage plan is subject to City Engineer review and approval. 6. The utility plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. If street light locations are to be moved, a plan will be submitted by the applicant subject to City Engineer /Public Works Director approval. 8. The landscape plans, tree preservation, and tree protection plans are subject to City Arborist review and approval. 9. An amended development contract shall be entered into between the City and the applicant. pc: Kris Danielson • m z W : :1> 7) - 673tocia , 1>< r rn rn It , (I II Y u • E 1') c 2 N Q. To a x 41 11 pp i r RR gbl giRti °!11 PPM .001 . 1 EP] mon NV1d SNOIiIQNO3 JNIISIXEI iSM HVflOS NV)IUI — 9N1CINVI S11HMIflOEI NUM11111.1M1 10111-01-RA •*•I OMAN food t • QNR MA At11 $,u yA0111014Y1 NYaao i MI TAUM ULNY 'LLY l =."° S311113OSStl }J3UANS 0 a • • .41 % • , •;'l ti r r ,. tr RID 6E S A'2 001.471` • alQ "\'<fi \ -7 • • ~ 1 L •• r t ♦` ` ✓ fir/ 1 t S 13AN(TOIAVY\1001:7S /t1 e se r f r / r 1 I / i Air me OUT1 ' A EXHIBIT 4 �dt d 4 4 r 0 { +: i',a��la�1�i��tia' + ��a 1,1 I1 +; 9r;! r,! r,r :;:':;! ,it 111Msr4u_.m- €14 co PP 041 441 404 i Agh„ IiigE 64 X9 g ,. Ile AMENDMENT TO CONDIOAL USE PEN PROPOSED GRADING PLAN eourweas LANDING aA vaNuE NORTH H MN 1 41 PC IOU a 2 .z4 Ogl: )ii !Pi 1 014 Igh gA IN g t!! g I Dig x op gii 4 1 1 W I ill P e !1: ii 1 1 PI II; 11 I 40; ° a g m gg a i! g o SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS 2845 NORTH HfAMUNE AVENUE ROSEVIU.E; MN 55113 R-Eti ag §m Rp !m F1: lap ;1g: 5 e 1 g 1 1 I a 01 4 A 9'; 5f P47 4 °2 4 40 9s m /AP e 21 R4 T f q g: ° I 210 VI IP !pg 1 1:1 11 EM g; lq IR 1- ^ 1 4 gi F ; Cal !3 115 1r" ”pf s1 li; 1 40: ‘ g 91 IP 1 g At § : TT X NOR i A 0 0 AMP.. st; RIO t i s� a t '4 a lj i 1 >. 1 Iti:Pi qg NO 11 P $11 0 t 1 o €14 co PP 041 441 404 i Agh„ IiigE 64 X9 g ,. Ile AMENDMENT TO CONDIOAL USE PEN PROPOSED GRADING PLAN eourweas LANDING aA vaNuE NORTH H MN 1 41 PC IOU a 2 .z4 Ogl: )ii !Pi 1 014 Igh gA IN g t!! g I Dig x op gii 4 1 1 W I ill P e !1: ii 1 1 PI II; 11 I 40; ° a g m gg a i! g o SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS 2845 NORTH HfAMUNE AVENUE ROSEVIU.E; MN 55113 R-Eti ag §m Rp !m F1: lap ;1g: 5 e 1 g 1 1 I a 01 4 A 9'; 5f P47 4 °2 4 40 9s m /AP e 21 R4 T f q g: ° I 210 VI IP !pg 1 1:1 11 EM g; lq IR 1- ^ 1 4 gi F ; Cal !3 115 1r" ”pf s1 li; 1 40: ‘ g 91 IP 1 g At § : TT X NOR i A 0 0 AMP.. st; RIO t i s� a t '4 a NUtLdIdUS svjs UN a ..• • ••••••••••••••.....■••■•••• • • • 1 agis 3NTIVVY11 aztoN Stye =wow DNISMEI 10IN3S INIC49311111WZi - NY1J anon GE0c1014 1S11 11 01 INDICKIN • t • 41 ••••• • ■ • • t • FLUION 311N3AV NY1ON ONIONVI sal3MMOG FWD= NIVRINIff .0011.1.1. co Ig f AUG 2 3 2002 121 ) ‘- • - , 0•,- ". :, . •,....---", 4 ,... , •,,..., , ... • ...... , , , l' ,. %1%. , „ / r i d , ) --/ C Ii ik :iii 1. 1 N EXHIBIT 10 .1.1=11...11111■11.011. >S � 'S - - - - -, a 4,, __ co WETLAND $ .,,, Np ,, S/8.4, 8 4 < 1 .5/1 $ 7 1 / N01 °48'12' W -- 132203-- -- --- 1322.93 -- SO1°52'03 "E r n n°A, PI 1 XOCa c0 W P db bets acm A A Z OD _ * co Poo vim. J 4+ � ^ 4 q". • \--.‘■ cP EXHIBIT 11 9C .2.‘. \. 14 3 \� • � Nom, S. ciV L L 1 i • Innovations in Senior Living Communities SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Boutwells Landing, Oak Park Heights, MN This is a synopsis of the proposed amendment to the Boutwells Landing conditional use P ermit to construct 8 tovvnhorae units in 4 duplex buildings along existing Nolan Ave. The attached p fans meet all existing requirements for the conditional use permit .including: • 30' setback from road • 30' rear set back • 20' distance between buildings • sidewalks located on both sides of street ■- * each dwelling unit has 2 enclosed parking spaces and 2 surface spaces in front of the garage Additional items: • The street, Nolan Ave North, is existing, as are all utilities. • The new homes will be compatible with the existing homes on the street in color, materials, and design proportions. • Many of the garages have been modified to provide side entries in place of garage entries all facing directly on the street 2845 North Hamline Ave. + Suite 100 + Roseville, Minnesota + 55113 + www.seniorpartners.com + (651) 631 -6300 + Fax (651) 631 -6301 + 800 -891 -9126 Location Type Sign Area Front Wall Sign Backlit Box Sign 30 square feet Side Wall Sign Backlit Box Sign 30 square feet Front Freestanding Sign Monument Sign 27.5 square feet • PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: Scott Richards /Aaron Jones DATE: September 5, 2002 RE: Oak Park Heights — Americinn Sign Variance FILE NO: 798.02 - -02.22 BACKGROUND Americinn, located at 13025 60th Street N within Oak Park Heights has made • application for a sign variance regarding an additional wall sign on the east side of the existing buildings' tower. When built, the Americinn was approved for one monument sign, and one wall sign. However, the building was built with two wall signs, both located in the upper tower area. City ordinance allows for a maximum of one wall sign not to exceed a total of 150 square feet. Americinn is required to obtain a variance in order to keep two wall signs and hardship must be demonstrated to warrant such a variance. Attached for Reference: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Site Signage. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.5 95.9837 planners©nacplanning.com naoplanning.com Site Plan Building Elevations EN1OSURE g' Variance Criteria. Section 401.15.G.11 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria for the granting of sign variances. The criteria and analysis for the Americlnn request is as follows: 1. That particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved exist. 2. That the condition involved is unique to the particular parcel of land involved. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value of income potential of the business involved. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. 5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. The applicants have indicated that the existing topography of the area limits the visibility of their motel. Existing road elevations make it difficult to see from the west. East and north facing signs on the tower are required to properly identify the business from Highway 36. Staff finds that the additional wall sign is justifiable. This additional sign provides for better visibility from the road. The overall amount of wall signage, even with the proposed wall sign, will be less than the 150 square feet allowed in total wall signage for this property. The revised sign ordinance, as currently drafted and being reviewed by the Planning Commission, would allow for multiple wall signs for a business such as Americlnn. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION City staff recommends that a variance be granted to allow for a second wall sign on the east side of the Americlnn at 13025 60th Street N. Approval of the request is based on the following findings: 1 The existing topography of the site and surrounding properties limit the visibility of the motel from Highway 36. 2. The lack of visibility of the structure and signs is unique to this parcel of land. 2 3. The sign provisions of the Zoning Ordinance limit the business to one wall sign thus restricting the owners ability to advertise a business with limited visibility. 4. The rantin of the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to g 9 the surrounding area. Approval of the request is conditioned on the following: 1. One backlit box wall sign, not to exceed 30 square feet, shall be allowed on the east elevation of the Americlnn building. 2. Any other conditions of the Planning Commission, City Council and City staff. pc: Kris Danielson 3 ,111. 1 , tJ u V.T.Ri I l 22:-11 m 41,114 Wil 4 Wily ; qifi = ei-d-.4 4 - __ i g f . tn 1 11 ila hill g e tee . 6 e=r .4. - g .t !gl ce 15 eee dde ?r nr.41 n.T.L. ., i $1 . i # wc T-aai v - 2 0 q t rt A g 1 i :- 13 1 1 i ' 1 1 41 1 1 110 11 4! g g il . 11 a lil wit i.-3 pi_ a l x a. I rt API w w Z 1 I _ 4 y i; 11 ' gg 1 14 A. a q g I g fli 1,1 i g. a p e 2 . . 1 % 4! V 1 4 1 WI azW .. . .2 . . .5§; SCALE: 1"=30 • 13. ••••••■••••.• .... 1 g?, 1 •••••••••••1.■•■••• ..■•••■•••••■•••.••■•••■■■•.•■••.••■•••.•••■ ov a street 1 1 ig 1 ---- ---:„....„_____/ _ ______ --- , , / — -- / / , , 1 1 / /1 1 , 1 , 1„1 1 , , / • / / / , , / / 1 1 / / , , / / , , / , / , , / ' / / / , / , , i / / 1 / , , ,1 / / , 1 / / , / / / , / , .,- / 1 , / , / , , / / , 1 2 ,/ Il i / 1 1 / i / 1 1 .. ....\ i 1 / ( 1 / — 1 / / / __/ I 1 / / / , / 1 1 / / / / 1 / i / 1 1 1 = / / / / 0 / / c_ - 7 - / / //_.! 7 / i / ,F4.42. c= - 1 11 1 i I./ •••• 1 / 2EL6-6G9•10 'FAINIOOSS PH M1 6661 EO :6G :Ef va 6nv ani 9MO ••••• •••• ••••• / ! I /1 / 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 11 1 11 I 1 I II k \ \ 1 II \ \ 1 \ \ _J 111 \ \ I \ \ \ \ ..._____ 1 ! ij • • EXHIBIT 1 PROPOSED BUILDING MI I ■ f ■i ll Ill . IN 11t lill 1 It ■ I ill ■ ■ •11 mil . iii till (!iiilllil ■1 ■ II, l il Ili ■H, ., liti 11116101 11111111111 Ill ll 11 11111illi • Et .1, ■6ili j ',Ili ■i ■� NI., I l v "1 at 'tZ' , w ) , Iso ..peuesps same v1 $ .wee . P1 •w ... wlnwv vrn p•e - imp App • MN wi r�iiM Misall •1: EXHIBIT 2 • • • Memo City of Oak Park Heights To: Planning Commissioners From: Community Development Date: September 6, 2002 Re: 401 Ordinance Amendment - Signage TREE CITY U.S.A. N1OSURE q 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439 -4439 Fax (661) 439 -0574 With respect to ongoing discussion of the provisions of this section of the 401 Ordinance, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider scheduling of another work session to further address the issue. LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (G51) 439 -2878 FAX (G51) 439 -2923 James F. Lammers Robert G. Briggs * Mark J. Vierling •4- Thomas J. Weidner •+ Susan D. Olson + David K. Snyder Timothy M. Kelley To: Oak Park Heights Council Staff and Commission Members Re: Reminder of Open Meeting Law Requirements Dear Mayor and Council and Commission Members meeting gathering. Writer's Direct Dial: (651) 351 -2118 September 9, 2002 Paul A. Wolff (1944 -1996) Lyle J. Eckberg Of Counsel •Qualified Neutral Arbitrator *Certified Real Estate Specialist +Qualified Neutral Mediator Since we have been receiving a number of inquiries, I thought it appropriate to pass along a reminder as it affects Minnesota's requirements of its open meeting law as set forth in Minnesota Statute §13D.05. The purpose of the Minnesota open meeting law is fundamentally to prohibit secret meetings where the public interest can not be fully informed and fully knowledgeable about actions that are being taken. Most cities and council people generally recognize that the open meeting law applies to prohibit the exclusion of the public from meetings where a majority of the council is present in order to discuss and vote on public business. The open meeting law, however, has been construed to have application beyond the aspects of gatherings of majorities of councilpersons and also have application to other discussions in what would be other discussions between councilpersons in what would normally be considered by many people to be a non- Generally, keep in mind that any off line discussion or non - meeting discussion that would occur between individual council people that is designed to avoid public disclosure of their discussion with the intent to forge a majority decision would be a violation of the open meeting law.- Moberg v. Independent School District #281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (1983). In short, serialized communications between council members, with each member contacting another and then contacting another, for the purpose of forging a decision sequentially Mayor and City Council September 9, 2002 Page 2 between the council to a point where a majority view is forged is a violation of the open meeting law. That is not to say that social or chance gatherings between councilpersons can not occur. Clearly, the open meeting law allows social and chance gatherings of council people to occur, both at social gatherings, chance meetings, grocery stores and community events and things of that nature, but it is imperative that the councilpersons, under those circumstances, not use those opportunities to initiate deliberate discussions of council business with a view towards securing a vote or defining a position that will be taken in a regular council meeting. The Minnesota Supreme Court has openly acknowledged the Minnesota open meeting law and has indicated that its provisions will be liberally construed to favor the public. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332. N.W.2d 1. The . requirements of the Minnesota open meeting law are openly applicable to workshop and non - council meetings. Op. Atty „ =, 471 -e, Oct. 28, 1974. The concept of workshop or non - council meetings dedicated to specific topics where the council can receive information and discuss (although not vote) on topics are meetings where discussions are critical to the decisions that will be ultimately formed by the City and indeed many views will be formed in the minds of council members on those topics. That is not to say that the workshop or off line meetings are illegal inasmuch as they are clearly useful and are a predominant tool of many cities in the formation of ideas, concepts and policies. It is, however, to remind you that all of those workshop sessions and meetings dedicated to single function or topic purposes are open meetings and must be acknowledged and published as same so that the public can have the opportunity to observed and listen to the discussion within those meetings if it desires. The open meeting law also requires that with regard to any special meeting that would be called by the City for purposes of discussing council matters that you must make sure that a notice has been posted providing the date, time, place and purpose of those meetings on the principal bulletin board of the public body or, if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of the meeting room. The notice must also be mailed or delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notices of special meetings of the city, with that notice being mailed at least three days prior to the date of the meeting. Councils are occasionally required to call emergency meetings because of urgent circumstances occurring within the community. Although the three day notice requirement is not required for purposes of emergency meetings, cities are nonetheless required to make a good faith effort to provide notice of any emergency meeting of each news medium that has filed a written request for notice if the request includes the news mediums phone number. Within each city the offices of your City Clerk or City Administrator would have a master list of those individuals who have requested notice of special meetings and those news medium who have requested notices of emergency meetings. Mayor and City Council September 9, 2002 Page 3 Compliance with the terms and provisions of the open meeting law are individuall y enforced against members of a city council and it's commission members inasmuch as the law that provides that any person who intentionally violates the provisions of the open meetin g law are subject to personal liability in the form of civil penalty in amount not to exceed $300.00 for a single occurrence, which penalty by law may not be paid by the public body. In those rare circumstances where persons have been found to intentionally have violated the section on three or more occasions involving the same governing body, that person is required by state statute to forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in any other capacity within such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office that they were then serving. Additionally, the statute goes on to allow district courts the opportunity to award attorney's fees, court costs and disbursements to the prevailing party up to $13,000.00 in any action brought under the open meeting law statute dealing with violation issues. The open meeting law itself can on occasion conflict with the terms and provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, which classifies documents within the State of Minnesota as either public, private, confidential or nonpublic. Therefore, it is important that the city offices coordinate with the city attorney's office on issues of disclosure of public, nonpublic, private and confidential documents prior to the discussion of the content of any of those documents within any public meeting. Finally, it is important to note that the provisions of the Minnesota open meeting law does not only apply to elected officials. The provisions of this law do apply to park commissions, planning commissions and other appointed/advisory boards who meet for purposes of reviewin g material and performing delegated tasks or passing recommendations along to the city councils. It does not however, apply to candidates for public office. Naturally, should either or any of you have any questions with regard to the open meeting law, government data practices or an y other similar issues throughout the calendar year, you are invited to call the office and we would be happy to review the situation with you and the city clerk's office at any such instance. MJV /sdb Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling