HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-2002 Planning Commission Meeting PacketCITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
• Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 7:00 PM
7:00 I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Agenda
III. Approve Planning Commission Minutes:
1. March 4, 2002 (1)
2. March 14, 2002 (2)
7:05 W. Department /Commission Liaison Reports
1. Signage Subcommittee: (3)
2. Hwy. 36 Partnership Study:
3. Other Commission /Liaison Reports:
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.
7:20 VI. Public Hearings:
A. St. Croix Mall LLC - To consider requests for planned unit
development amendment and site plan review for exterior
improvements at 5909 Omaha Ave. N.. (4)
B. Continued - Anthony Lodge: To consider requests for
conditional use permit, for major auto repair and outdoor auto
sales at 14621 60th St. N (5)
C. Continued - McKean Square West: To consider a request for a
planned unit development: concept plan for Phase II, Boutwell's
Landing, located south of Norwich Pkwy. and Nolan Ave. N. (6)
D. Continued - Oakgreen Village Townhomes: To consider requests
for a planned unit development: concept plan, conditional use
permit and zoning amendment from 0, open space to. R -3,
multiple family residential for the construction of a multi- family
housing development, located north and south of 58th St. N. and
west of Oakgreen Ave. N. (7)
E. 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 St. N. and west of Oakgreen
Ave. N. (8)
LA-
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
F. Continued - Oakgreen Village Apartments: 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 St. N. and west of Oakgreen
Ave. N. (9)
10 :00 II. New Business
1. Joint Workshop with City Council
VIII. Old Business
1. Bylaws ( I °)
IX. Informational
X. Adjournment
Upcoming Meetings: May 9, 2002 - Regular Meeting - 7:00 PM
Council Representative: April - Commissioner Dwyer
May - Commissioner Liljgren
•
MEMORANDUM
D
EsCEDWIE
APRI 12002
TO: Kris Danielson
FROM: Ken Hooge
RE: Development Applications
DATE: April 11, 2002
We are submitting a revised site plan reflecting modifications as suggested in meetings
with the city staff and comments from the work session.
Changes from prior site plans:
Existing buildings and site
• Shows correct building footprints, parking areas, driveways, footpaths and trails
McKean Square East
• Emergency access road between cul de sacs
• Reconfigured tentative plan for Independent Living building
Oakgreen Village Townhomes
• Sedimentation basin is shown in the linear park
Oakgreen Village Villas
• Access road connects Oakgreen Ave. with future Novak Ave.
Changes to be made:
Existing site
• Clear indication of trails in the Haase Nature Preserve
• Show sidewalk on south side of 58 St. North
Partial list of issues to be resolved:
McKean Square West
• Required street width for cul de sacs as public streets in a PUD
• Sidewalk requirements /possible variance request
• Setback requirements /possible variance request
McKean Square East
• Joint Powers Agreement for services to buildings located in Baytown Township
• Location of future Independent Living building as determined by Joint Powers
Agreement
Oakgreen Village Apartments
• Tax Increment Financing
Oakgreen Village Townhomes
• Tax Increment Financing
• PUD street width
• Final site plan subject to availability of adjacent property
Oakgreen Village Villas
• Tax Increment Financing
• Final determination of access location
FROM. LEONARD, Y BR1 EN. ET AL __
UL t � 1/ 01. II 'J.)/ 14Q. - tLtauJu
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
MIAMI
THIS MEMORANDUM, ("Memorandum's made tlds alA day of
"ta .t+ ,, 2001, between WUDem J_ Keefer and Nary J. Keefer, husband
and wife ("SOII.) and Presbyterian Homes and Services, a Minnesota non -profit
corporation ("Buyer.
RECITALS
0) Seller and Buyer have entered into that min Option Agreement of even
date, ("Op1Ion for the purchase of the real properly ("Real ProAArtY'VooatAd in
Washington County, Minnesota, consisting of approximatelY'nineRew't point six eight
(10.88) +4- acres of property. The Real Property is legally described on Exhibit A
attached to this Agreement.
(11) SeMer desires to grant Buyer an Exdusive option to acquire the Real
Property Pursuant to the terms and condMon of the Opp.
(qj Seller and Buyer desire to place thh Memorandum of Option of record
against the Real Property.
NOW, 'THEREFORE, tn•conaidetation of the mutual ooverants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration as•reoibed in the Qptior►, the receipt and
sufficiency of which Is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
FROM. LEONARD, Q BRIEN.E7
•1.
effective as of the day and year that above Written.
SELLER:
• mi.
_.r �EDl„ 4_ tQ:.Qz i 1„A/ST.11:53/N0.4260507� 3
OBANT—QEDETBM, Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Option,
Vie Seller has granted to the Buyer an Option to Purchase the Real Property in
acoordnoe with the teams and conditions as contained in the Option.
2. 'rE, RI _OF OPT IM The Option grunted by the S to Buyer Is
irrevobable until June 30, 2002.
IN WITNESS WIjEREOF, eadrof the parties hereto have caused this
Memorandum of Option to be executed in the manner appropriOe to each, to be
BUYER:
1
PR E YTERIAN HOMES AND SERVICES, A
MINNESOTA NON. OFIT CORPORATION
By.: **;"C
(7/4
FROM_LEONARD, 0g B I EN _ET
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) .., •
CoUN'TY OF i1/4ewp...0m),,
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this a‘dit day
of l ,,,,,,, 2001, by William J. Kee and Mar M. Keefer. husband and wife,
as Saws.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss-
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of _ , 200i, by the of
Presbyterian Homes and Sentloes, a Minnesota non .profit corpolatio un er laws
of Minnesota on behalf of the notion.
This INSTRUMENT WAA5 DRAFTED BY:
Thorraas Zeppia, a11074X •
Zarcia, teVahn a Hauer, Ltd.
Attorneys at Lew
HillvAnd Oft* centre
O41 HHlWInd Road N.E. -suite 301
Fridley, MN 5502
Telephone: 7! -671 4721
Fax 763- 671 -7134
t Y1U tf i U i . J v/ 1.
. UL i �� wi ♦ w ♦sa• uv.av VVIK •
-3-
•
Notary Public
t.
VINV
E4NARD 9 I EN ET AL QED 4.0' ,,1 58 /ST, 11: 53/NO. 4260507724J, 5
FROM L . __ . ��. 02 .. �+ . mo w• � w� + •
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTI�N
The Northwest Quarter of the Nortirweit Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5,
Township 29 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota.
Also, the West 220.00 feat of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of said $dun 5. .
Also, that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
said Section 5 lying northerly and westerly of the plat of RAYTOWN WOODS 3R.D ADDITION,
according to thr plat on file to the office of the County Ret order, washinnton County, Miinncsota
and lying westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northwest coiner of Lot 1, Block 2 *raid BAYTOWN WOODS
3RD ADDITION-Nice South 83 degrees 57 minutes 34 seconds Wcst,.bearing oriented
to slid plat, along the northerly line afraid plat to the northwest corner of Novak Avenue
North as dedicated oo► slid plat and the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence North 06 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds East 128.06 feat; tl nceNorth 31
degrees 08 minutes 05 seconds East 222.78 het to the north Tine of said Southwest
Quarter of the Nortfiwwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and said line there tcnnate.
The total area of the described parcels is 19.68 acres, more or less.
Subject to a temporary oul de casement for road purposes u described in DOCLuintat No.
840490, on file and of record in said mice of the County Recorder.
H
L I
L rL —
IF
fO�
0
1, \
r.—
, 1111*)
*it
:iw
3A V 77321ON
LLI
W
0
W
0 -
■
it
P
rr
N '3AV N33110
1
.
—771 ,_,_1r) 1 ,_
L -
N 3AV Na1MMON
' ' ,L41"111' —/- _ Ai i ,. —W O
t
:v . ,, \
I `
_ I
rr _
- � I
— �1
- - -
I
L,
Y f
- r - - , I I I
� L - t �
I --
1 � I
E
L-
-
7 I
I I
1
L
•
}
L _ 77r 7-7-
I —'.
F 1j
-
W
CZ
C'X
LLI
z
z
0
1
hm
ti
LLI
ILLI
0
Parking Summary
Gross Sq Footage Parking Req'd
Retail: 85,700 gsf 429 @ 5:1000
Office: 217,219 gsf 1 ,089 @ 3 +1:200
Totals: 302,919 gsf 1,518 req'd
1,366 parking required w /10% reduction
(exterior floor area dimensions of
building minus 10 %)
1,353 existing parking — onsite (based on survey)
155 available at Bowling site (Proof of Parking)
1,508 total available
-36 parking stalls lost in proposed site
improvements
1,472 parking remaining after modifications (Proof
of Parking)
106 overage
•
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, March 4, 2002
Call To Order: Vice Chair Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present:
Commissioners Lilj egren, Powell, and Runk; Community Development Director
Danielson, City Attorney Olson, City Planner Richards, and Council Liaison McComber.
Absent: Chair Vogt.
Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Lilj egren, moved
to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 4 -0.
Department /Commission Liaison Reports: None.
Public Hearings: None.
New Business: None.
Old Business:
DRAFT
ENCLOSURE
1. Stillwater Area High School - Stadium Improvements: To consider a request for
conditional use permit amendment and variance for accessory building/ structures for
stadium improvements at Stillwater Area High School at 5701 Stillwater Blvd. N.
City Planner Richards provided a review of the applicant's requests and a summary of
the February 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, Richards provided
an overview of the February 27, 2002 Planner's report regarding the same, noting
conditions recommended for approval.
Council Liaison McComber asked for clarification regarding the original conditional use
permit and parking requirements underneath the ordinance. City Planner Richards
summarized the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance as applicable.
Council Liaison McComber asked for clarification as to whether or not tying down the
trash receptacles would be required. Jeff Carpenter, representing ISD #834, indicated
that the school district had no plans to tie down the receptacles at the time.
Commissioners' Dwyer, Liljegren and Runk expressed that they were not concerned
with the receptacles not being tied down. McComber asked that review of this
requirement be addressed at the annual review of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Carpenter stated that a parking and traffic management plan and an emergency
evacuation plan had been prepared for the Stillwater Area High School parking and
stadium areas. Mr. Carpenter noted that Police Chief, Lindy Swanson and SAHS
Principal, Lyle Koski were able to meet to discuss the proposed plans.
Mr. Carpenter walked through each of the plans with the commission and participated
in discussion, clarifying language and working on language revisions within the plans.
Items of discussion included, specific parking issues, neighborhood impact, traffic
routes, desire to not have Oakgreen Ave. as a bus/ shuttle route due to width of the
roadway and the neighborhood, facilitation of large events such as Drum Beauty,
security, accountability, parking restrictions and the need for continual enforcement of
them, and dual events being held in relation to attendees and parking needs.
411
•
r J
Planning Commission Minutes
March 4, 2002
Page 2 of 2
Continued discussion ensued as to the process to be followed for the request and
conditions as contained within the City Planner's February 27, 2002 report. Color
samples for the bleachers and the press box were provided for the Commissioners to
view. The applicant is looking at going with red, black or silver for the bleachers and
something neutral such as a gray or off white for the press box. Commissioner Powell
stated that he did not favor red or black for the bleachers.
Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to recommend that
the City Council approve CUP amendment to expand high school use, as conditional
within 0, Open Space District, subject to amended conditions within February 27,
2002 Planner's report. Carried 3 -1, Powell opposed.
Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to recommend that the
City Council approve CUP to allow construction of light poles to a height of 90 feet and
for fixtures without a 90- degree cutoff. Failed 2 -2, Liljegren and Powell opposed.
Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to recommend that
the City Council approve variance, allowing construction of bleachers to a height
greater than 16 feet. Carried 4 -0.
Chair Dwyer expressed his desire to send the lighting issue to the City Council with a
recommendation from the Commission. Commission discussion commenced as to
lighting height, amount of light needed to adequately serve needs, design, and heights
of poles at similar facilities.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to recommend that
the City Council approve CUP to allow construction of light poles to an adequate height
for fixture and intended use, not exceeding 90 -feet and for fixtures without a 90- degree
cutoff. Carried 3 -1, Powell opposed.
Informational/ Update:
Community Development Director Danielson noted that the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission is Thursday, March 14, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Danielson provided an
update as to what public hearings are expected.
Adjournment: Commissioner Runk, seconded by Dwyer, moved to adjourn at 9:33 p.m.
Carried 4 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Hultman
Community Development
Approved by the Planning Commission:
DRAFT
•
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, March 14, 2002
DRAFT
Chair Vogt thanked Community Development Director Danielson for providing the
overview and asked for a motion to adjourn the annual meeting.
Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren moved to adjourn the
annual meeting. Carried 5 -0.
Visitors /Public Comment: No comments were presented to the Commission.
ENCLOSURE
Call To Order: Chair Vogt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present:
Commissioners Dwyer, Liljegren, Powell, and Runk; Community Development Director
Danielson, City Planner Richards, and Council Liaison McComber.
Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren,
moved to approve the Agenda, as amended, with the additions of Development
Application Process as Item III under Annual Meeting Agenda, Mayoral
Comments /Joint Work Session Request under Regular Agenda -New Business, and
Department/ Commission Liaison Reports moved after Informational. Carried 5 -0.
Annual Meeting: Chair Vogt adjourned the regular meeting and opened the annual
meeting of the Planning Commission. He noted that the purpose of the annual meeting
is to elect the Chair and Vice Chair for a period of two years. As the Chair and Vice
Chair had been elected in 2001, there was no need for an election until the annual
meeting of 2003.
Development Application Process: Chair Vogt asked Community Development
Director Danielson to begin the presentation of the development application process at
the City. The Commission was provided with materials that outlined key steps in the
review process and Danielson noted the timing and submittal requirements involved.
Danielson encouraged the Commissioners to contact her at any time for any questions
they should have regarding aspects of the process.
Approval of Minutes: Chair Vogt reconvened the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission and requested review, comment and motion as to the meeting minutes of
February 21, 2002.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to approve the minutes
of February 21, 2002 as revised and distributed at the meeting. Carried
4 -0 -1, with Chair Vogt abstaining due to his absence at the February meeting.
•
•
Public Hearings:
Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 7:18 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 2 of 9
1. Montanari Homes: To consider requests for site plan review and planned unit
development: concept plan for a 9 unit office complex at 13482 60th St. N.
•
City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's requests for planned unit
development, conditional use permit, preliminary /final plat and site plan review.
Richards discussed parking requirements and relationship to design guidelines for the
Central Business District as well as fire suppression needs.
DRAFT
Mark Gossman, representing Montanari, stated that the building had been designed to
meet the standards established for the Central Business District and that in
accordance with those standards, 53 parking stalls were configured. He noted that
they have been working with Eagles Aerie 94 and that a non - binding shared parking
agreement has been attained between the two groups. He stated that he is willing to
work with the City Engineer and other staff in submitting utility plans and anything
else that is needed. He asked that the Commission consider granting approval with
any items remaining needed to be included within the conditions of approval.
Linda Peterson- McCormack Furniture, 13435 60th St. N expressed her concern about
the cost of relocating the power supply to the store as a result of the applicant having
power poles removed and questioned who would bear the expense to have the service
relocated to the store. Additionally, she expressed some concern about the setback
distance of the proposed project to the street. Beyond the concerns expressed, she
stated that she liked the package being presented.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to close the public
hearing at 7:30 p.m. Carried 5 -0.
The Commission discussed conditions of planning report, Central Business District
design requirements, the need for a preliminary plat, issues of accessibility and
parking, and the matter of power source relocation to McCormack Furniture.
Mr. Gossman displayed examples of the cement board and brick they anticipate using
for the project. He indicated that the conditions within the planning report are
manageable and that they are willing to address them and that they would be
agreeable to bear the costs associated with relocating power service to McCormack
Furniture.
Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to recommend that
the City Council approve the requests of the applicant, contingent upon the applicant
providing a preliminary plat for staff review no less than 10 days prior to the April 26,
2002 City Council meeting and additionally subject to the following revised conditions
per the City Planner's report:
1. A preliminary and final plat must be submitted for City review and approval.
2. Window openings within 10 feet of property lines must have fire suppression
devices acceptable to the Fire Marshal and Building Official.
� DRAFT
City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's request and noted that
interior changes required additional staff review prior to Planning Commission
consideration. Richards noted that the applicant is working on issues related to the
project and that at such time all information has been provided, the request will be
returned to the Commission for their consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 3 of 9
3. A materials bard and colored elevations must be submitted for Planning
Commission and City Council review.
4. Plans should be revised to show the south curb line of 60th St. N., the existing
trail along 60th St. N. and the proposed sidewalk connecting to the trail.
5. Decorative light fixtures that are not full cut -off are allowed only if the City
Council approves them.
6. Lighting must meet all City requirements and pole lighting must be 14 feet in
height.
7. The landscape plan must be revised to comply with City Arborist
recommendations found in a memo dated March 1, 2002.
8. An access permit from MNDOT is required.
9. A plan must be submitted that shows proof of parking to provide at least 52
parking stalls on -site.
10. The Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed parking stall
dimensions.
11. All now from parking areas is required to be removed from the site.
12. Grading and drainage issues are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer and review of the applicable watershed authority.
13. The applicant must provide any additional utilities information needed by the
City Engineer, and utility issues are subject to City Engineer review and
approval.
14. Any signage in addition to the proposed monument sign must comply with City
standards.
15. Trash enclosure details must be submitted for review and approval.
16. A development agreement between the applicants and the City is required
subject to the City Attorney and City Council review and approval.
Carried 3 -2, Commissioners Dwyer and Powell opposed.
2. Anthony Lodge: To consider request for conditional use permit, allowing
major auto repair and outdoor auto sales at 14621 60th St. N.
DR AFT Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 4 of 9
Tony Lodge discussed the changes he expects to make to the interior of the building for
a client, who wishes to perform major automotive repair. He stated that there is no
bodywork or painting to occur.
Bill Bisch - Motor Sport Automotive addressed the Commission as the client Mr. Lodge
referred to. He stated that he currently operates a small shop in downtown Stillwater
and that his nature of business is auto repair ranging from tire changes to major
repair. He stated that he will not be performing body repair or painting services, but
that he does repair lawn and garden equipment and that sometimes he will do this
type of repair outside the service door of the shop. Mr. Bisch stated that there is no
outdoor storage for his business.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to continue the public
hearing until April 11 2002. Carried 5 -0.
Community Development Director Danielson and City Planner Richards provided the
Commission with an overview of the process for concept plan, general plan and final
plan stages of a Planned Unit Development.
3. McKean Square West: To consider a request for a planned unit
development: concept plan for Phase II, Boutwell's Landing, located south of
Norwich Pkwy. and Nolan Ave. N.
City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's request and referred to
the planning report regarding the same. Richards noted various issues related to the
proposed project including private versus public streets, dwelling unit separations,
drainage and utility calculations. Richards expressed that staff believed a joint
worksession of the City Council, Parks and Planning Commissions would be beneficial
to discuss the projects overlapping issues.
Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 8:21 p.m.
Dan Lindh - Presbyterian Homes addressed issues regarding drainage and utilities. He
discussed visual elements of the project and made himself available to address
questions regarding the project.
Mary Futcher - 5676 Oakgreen Ave. N. inquired as to why the area of green space was
established and expressed she had been led to believe that the green space area was to
remain undeveloped. Chair Vogt explained that it has been understood that this area
was to be developed, since it was a part of the original proposal for Boutwell's Landing.
Lisa Pingle - 5830 Oakgreen Ave. N. inquired whether or not the entire project was to
be designated for senior housing.
Norma Anderson - 13902 56th St. N. inquired as to the heights of the buildings.
Richards indicated that they are expected to be less than 30 feet in height.
• Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to continue the
public hearing to April 11, 2002. Carried 5 -0.
The Commission discussed the number of units and the proposed layout based upon
the comprehensive plan, and the naming of the streets for the area.
•
•
D:,,
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 5 of 9
City Planner Richards stated that in light of the substantial changes to the concept
plan and passage of time since the original concept plan approval, he would appreciate
receiving a project narrative of target market, with configuration of units and other
element detail.
Dan Lindh announced that public meetings were being held at Boutwell's Landing on
Monday, March 18th and Monday, March 25th to discuss the proposed project
development. He noted that this was an open meeting and that letters had been
mailed to surrounding residents, inviting them to attend. He extended invitation to
anyone who would like to attend and welcomed feedback, questions and suggestions.
4. Oakgreen Village Townhomes: To consider requests for a planned unit
development: concept plan, conditional use permit and zoning amendment from
0, open space to R -3, multiple family residential for the construction of a multi-
family housing development, located north and south of 58th St. N. and west of
Oakgreen Ave. N.
City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicants' request and the planning
report regarding the same. Richards discussed issues as to comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning, street construction, TIF funding, and dwelling design. Richards
recommended the Commission continue this hearing to April, allowing the applicant to
continue addressing the issues, make needed changes and provide adequate
information for a thorough concept plan review in April.
Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 8:47 p.m.
Tim Nolde - Anchobaypro stated that the proposal is for for -sale townhomes and that
they are at the preliminary design stage. Nolde expressed that he will work to address
the issues noted by the City Planner and is seeking direction from the City Council on
the TIF request. He added that the thought a joint work session with the Commissions
and the City Council would be beneficial to have everyone at the same speed.
Commissioner Powell inquired about tax increment financing. Other commissioners
briefly explained the TIF process is a funding issue to be considered by the City
Council.
Dan Lindh - Presbyterian Homes stated that the form of tax increment financing being
sought is not the standard kind and that the City would see an immediate tax gain
with an increase over a period of time.
Mauritz Anderson - 13902 56th St. N. expressed his concerns about pond locations
and water levels, retention of trees, the quality of overall design and the safety of
creating a path to Oakgreen Ave., when it was determined that a sidewalk was not
feasible.
Dick Gacke - 13964 56th St. N. concerned with retaining the 150' green space area
between his neighborhood and the proposed project area. He stated that he met with a
number of his neighbors and provided the commission with written concerns. They
would like to see the 150' green space developed as a park and has limited access to
58th St. N., where traffic is already heavy.
•
•
FT
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 6 of 9
Velessa Caspers - 13950 - 56th St. N. is opposed to the layout. She is concerned with
the amount of light that would spill into her neighborhood and the volume and mix of
traffic using 58th St. N. and the pathway running parallel to it.
Commissioner Lilj egren reported that he had received a phone call from Mr. Parker of
56th St., who expressed his concern about the amount of lighting spilled into the
neighborhood as a result of the proposed project.
John Hauer - 13938 56th St. N. is concerned with the pond levels and how heavy rains
are going to effect them.
Paul Futcher - 5676 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed that he felt neighborhood respect and
community spirit is important. Speaking on behalf of himself and for his
neighborhood, Mr. Futcher stated that the neighborhood feels very strongly about their
green space and they would like the City to support them to keep it intact.
Lisa Pingle - 5830 Oakgreen Ave. N. stated that she likes the feel of her home and
neighborhood and does not want to feel like she is living in a city. She indicated that if
the area has to be built, it is very important that it be done to protect the quality of the
homes and neighborhoods surrounding it.
Thomas Houle - 5676 Novak Ave. N. expressed concern about creating more ponds
and asked why this was being considered given all the trouble they have had with the
existing ponds.
Chad Pingle - 5830 Oakgreen Ave. N. stated that he doesn't want to view high density,
multiple housing right outside his door. He is concerned with the Oakgreen Avenue
issues and costs of connecting to city services. He would like to see tax increment
funding approved so that the homes could be purchased and to allow for a better
design of the proposed developments.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Liljegren, moved to continue the
public hearing to April 11, 2002. Carried 5 -0.
The Commission discussed the issues to be resolved, including those of Oakgreen Ave.
It was suggested that the streets be considered as public streets if the homes are to be
sold privately.
Chair Vogt called for a 5- minute recess at 9:20 p.m.
5. 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 St. N. and west of Oakgreen Ave. N.
City Planner Richards provided and overview of the applicants request and reviewed
the planning report regarding the same. He noted adjacent uses to the proposed
project site and how the proposed project fit as per the guidelines of the Central
Business District. Richards noted that the dwelling units proposed are rental units.
•
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 7 of 9
He discussed elements of the project including street access, utility and storm water
design. Community Development Director Danielson noted that the City will need to
amend its stormwater management plan to allow for construction in this area. The
stormwater management plan was developed prior to the Central Business District
master plan concept that depicts shared stormwater ponding underneath the Xcel
Energy power lines.
Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 9:28 p.m.
Tim Nolde - Anchobaypro feels that the location is the proper place for a residential
neighborhood and that he is willing to work with the design guidelines. Rents for the
units are expected to fall with a range of $400 - $800 per month.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Lilj egren, moved to continue the
public hearing to April 11, 2002. Carried 5 -0.
The Commission discussed to rental housing versus private ownership, the mix of
rental within owner occupied neighborhoods, affordable housing, and the importance
of having a balance between the rental and owner occupied housing units in the
community.
6. Oakgreen Village Apartments: 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 St. N. and west of
Oakgreen Ave. N.
City Planner Richards provided an overview of the applicant's request and reviewed the
planning report regarding the same. He noted that a total of 100 units are being
proposed within two buildings and they are being proposed as rental units. He noted
issues of street construction, building orientation, park dedication, building height,
g g
and plans for grading, drainage and utilities.
Chair Vogt opened the hearing for public comment at 9:41 p.m.
Wally Johnson - Dominium stated that the higher heights of the buildings allow for 9-
foot ceilings within the units. He stated that construction of both buildings would be
simultaneously and that construction is estimated to be complete by 2003. Mr.
Johnson described the grade differential at the site and how they have worked with it
respect to underground parking, building design and layout of required number of
parking spaces.
The Commission discussed issues of landscaping, tree inventory, sanit ary sewer
options, utility planning, building orientation and the possibility of a variance being
required for the building height.
Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to continue the p ublic
hearing to April 11, 2002. Carried 5 -0.
' Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to recommend that the
City Council approve scheduling of a joint worksession with the Parks Commission, the
Planning Commission and themselves to discuss McKean Square and Oakgreen Village
proposals, with the City Council determining the date and time for such worksession.
Carried 5 -0.
7. Set public Hearing for amending zoning ordinance 401 as it pertains to
signage.
Community Development Director Danielson stated that the committee had concluded
its meeting and that a summary report of their finding was being prepared and would
be made available to the Commission as part of their April meeting agenda. She stated
that the Commission could then begin consideration of the committee's
recommendations with a public hearing in May.
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to schedule a public
hearing at the Commission's May 2002 meeting for consideration of zoning ordinance
401 as it pertains to signage. Carried 5 -0.
New Business:
1. Mayoral Comments / Request for Joint Worksession:
Commissioner Runk expressed concern about the Mayor's statements that the
Commission is not doing its job at the recently held land use workshop. Runk said he
had shared his own concerns about the Mayor's comments with some members of the
City Council and some of his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Runk stated that he
feels the Commission is doing its job and doing so lawfully. He stated that he does not
appreciate being reprimanded for doing something he feels is being done properly and in
the manner this reprimand was delivered. Runk would like to have the five members of
the City Council collectively address the Commission and advise them as to what they feel
the Commission is not doing correctly or legally.
Commission Liaison McComber stated that she was not aware that the Mayor had made
statements to the Planning Commissioners present at the workshop.
Commissioner Liljegren stated that he was in attendance at the same workshop and felt
that they were being told that the Commission was not doing its job, as they should be.
As a new member to the Commission, he felt awkward and taken off guard by the manner
in which the sentiment was communicated to himself and Commissioner Runk, wherein
they were both advised by the Mayor that they had a legal obligation to fulfill.
Commissioner Lilj egren stated that the thought the Commission was a recommending
body and that beyond legal requirements of meeting, the City Council dealt with the
direction and assumed legal responsibility for the final approval and directives.
Discussion ensued as to what would be the best manner to communicate with the City
Council and receive some feedback regarding what is expected of the Commission and
what, if anything, the City Council is not being done properly.
...wr a .-• Jr VVi11ii11w7.1V11LL I CJW11, Attu v cu LC) USK k,Ummission
•
•
Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to ask Commission
Liaison McComber, express the Commission's concern to the City Council at their
meeting of March 26, 2002 and to request a joint work session with the City Council for
the purpose of a discussion regarding this situation with the workshop scheduled for
April 11, 2002 prior to their regular meeting. Carried 5 -0.
Old Business: None.
Informational/ Update: None.
Department /Commission Liaison Reports:
1. Signage Subcommittee: The subcommittee has concluded their review and a
summary report of their findings will be included for discussion on the April 1 lth
Agenda. Public hearing for commission recommendation was scheduled, earlier
in this meeting, to be held at the May Planning Commission meeting.
2. Hwy. 36 Partnership Study: Open house was held at Stillwater Area High
School on March 13th. Approximately 100 people attended and completed
surveys expressing their opinion regarding the improvements. The next meeting
of the partnership study is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., March 20th at the
Washington County Government Center.
3. Other Commission / Liaison Reports: None.
Adjournment: Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Runk, moved to adjourn at 10:15
p.m. Carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie Hultman
Community Development
Approved by the Planning Commission:
Planning Commission Minutes
March 14, 2002
Page 9 of 9
. Box 2 007' .• 70ak Park Heights, MN . 55082 -2007 • . .Phone: 651/4394439 •
Oak Park Heights Sign Committee :Members
From - Kris Danielson, Community Development Director
Sincerely yours,
Summary Report and Presentation to the Planning Commission
Dear Sign Comm
Thank you. so much for your willingness ness to serve the City .in its review
g y of the
current sign ordinance. The commitment of time and energy you have made in
volunteering for this committee as well as the insight you provided during g Y p the
review process was invaluable to the .committee's
, success.
Enclosed with_ this memo you will find a final copy of the summary
recommendations the committee will make the Planning Commission at its
meeting of April 1 2002. The meeting begins at 7 :00 PM and the Sign
Committee's presentation will be shortly after the meeting is called to order.
look forward to seeing you at the meeting as not only wilt it be an opportunity ` ..
. . i g - . Y for
the Committee to present its recommendations, but for the Planning Commission
g
and staff to acknowledge our efforts and express appreciation p our as well.
Please contact me at. (651) 439 regarding
-4439 with any questions you may have
Y
the summary report .or regarding the Planning Commission meeting. . n
g , , g 1 look - ..
forward to talking with you soon.
Kris Danielson
Community Development Director
Cc: Kim Kamper, Acting . City Administrator
Planning Commission
Tree Ci
U.S.A.
ax: 651/439 -0574
•
•
MEMORANDUM
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, S, NC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
TO: Oak Park Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang 1 Scott Richards
DATE: April 2, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights -- Sign Ordinance
FILE NO: 798.10
A summary of comments made by the Ad -Hoc Sign Committee regarding issues that
they had previously identified follows. The Committee made the following comments
after review of the Oak Park Heights Sign Ordinance and sign ordinances of cities
located throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Ad -Hoc Sign Committee Summary Comments
1. Number of Signs Allowed Per Business
ENCLOSURE 3
a. The committee favored the Burnsville regulations that limited the number
of wall signs at two per business. They also were favorable to allowing
additional wall signs by a conditional use permit, with the condition that
added wall signs require a freestanding sign of only six feet in height
(monument sign).
b. The committee was favorable to allowing small building identification signs
at the rear entrances to buildings to aid in deliveries. The committee felt
that identification signs did not need to be illuminated because a security
Tight at the back door would provide sufficient visibility.
c. The committee wants to limit numbers of freestanding signs and allow only
monument signs whenever possible.
2. Front/Rear of Business, More for Corners?
a. The committee was favorable to allowing two wall signs with additional
signs allowed by a conditional use permit as discussed above.
b. The Apple Valley regulations for rear entrance identification signs was
considered appropriate except that the committee considered a smaller
sign area (maximum of two square feet) to be appropriate for
identification.
c. The committee wanted to require commercial business illuminated signs
near residential areas to be turned off at certain hours. One time limit that
was discussed was that signs should not be illuminated after 11:00 P.M.
or close of business, whichever is later, for rear signs facing residential
areas.
3. Square Feet Allowed Per Business
a. The Burnsville regulations, with an increasing percentage of allowable
sign based on building facade, was favored.
b. The committee recommends that the Planning Commission consider
whether a cap should be set on allowable sign area.
c. The committee did not want to set the standards for freestanding signs
based upon design or allowable speed limit of the adjacent street. The
group favored requirements that followed zoning districts with a separate
standard for the Highway 5 and 36 corridors.
4. Temporary Signs
a. The committee discussed the need to continue permitting temporary signs
and how to provide effective enforcement. This can be a staffing issue for
a small City such as Oak Park Heights.
b. Specific recommendations were not made about the example regulations.
The Burnsville, Woodbury, and Roseville regulations should be utilized
when re- writing the Oak Park Heights standards.
c. The committee discussed allowing holiday signs to be displayed for not
more than 60 days, which is an increase from not more than 30 days.
Other cities allow holiday signs to be displayed 60 days.
2
•
•
•
t
1
•
5. Height Standards
a. The committee agreed that the height of freestanding signs should vary by
district and that separate standards could be rovided for the Highway 5
p g Y
and 36 corridors.
b. Due to visibility of the Highway 36 frontage, the committee was favorable
to further limiting the sign height in this area. Allowances could be made
to increase sign height in areas where visibility is limited by a roadway
overpass or topography. Special provisions could be allowed via a
planned unit development approval to allow freestanding signs that
exceed district standards. If taller signs are allowed, the committee would
rather see a taller sign that includes multiple businesses rather than a
taller sign for each individual business.
c. The committee agreed monument signs should be used wherever
possible and limited to six or eight feet in height.
6. Highway Signage Versus Commercial Areas Near Residential Areas
a. The committee was favorable to a setback for commercial signage from
residential areas but also felt all businesses should be allowed some
signage, even if the business is located near a residential district.
b. Limitations should be placed on illumination of signage with hours of
operation specified in the ordinance. One time limit that was discussed
was that signs should not be illuminated after 11:00 P.M. or close of
business, whichever is later, for rear signs facing residential areas.
7. Single User Versus Multi- Tenant Signage
a. The committee reviewed the Burnsville and proposed Lakeville standards
for multi- tenant signage. The committee was favorable to allowing
freestanding signs for shopping centers and business parks that identify
the major tenants.
b. Multiple tenant signs may be allowed on separate building facades within
a maximum square foot allowance for the tenant and building as a whole.
3
8. Area Identification Signage
a. Burnsville and Lakeville regulations related to area identification should be
reviewed. The committee was favorable to freestanding and monument
signage for large retail and business centers.
9. Residential Area Signage
a. The committee discussed the provisions for home occupations and the
current regulations that prohibit any type of signage. The committee
favored allowing small, professionally done, non - illuminated signs for
special home occupations. Permitted home occupations, where the
general public does not come to the premises, would not be allowed signs.
If signs for special home occupations are allowed, the committee favors
copying the language currently used to allow signs for bed and breakfast
facilities in Oak Park Heights. The committee also felt that the annual
licensing of home occupations could include making sure the signs are in
. g
good condition.
b. The committee favored more specific regulations on garage sale signs
following examples from other cities' ordinances. The committee favors
adding language about enforcement, possibly including a $10 fine.
g
Section 10 -30 -12 of the Burnsville Ordinance provides an example of
enforcement language.
10. Special Signage Allowances
a. The committee suggests car dealerships should receive no special
consideration for additional signage. The committee agrees that sign
g
enforcement is important relating to car dealerships.
11. Gas Station
a. The committee favors Woodbury's regulations, which allow signs relating
to pumps, services, and gasoline price in addition to the signs allowed by
the underlying zoning district. They raised as an issue whether there
should be a limit on the total square footage of these signs or whether it
should vary depending on the size of the gas station building.
4
•
•
•
•
12. Central Business District (CBD)
a. The committee favors the current regulations, which prohibit lon signs in
pY g
the CBD, and does not recommend any revisions.
13. Reader Boards
a. The committee favors calling reader boards "changeable copy signs,"
g pY 9 ,
which are defined by Burnsville as follows:
A sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be
changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
A sign on which the message changes more than ei ht (8) times er da g per day
shall be considered an animated sign and not a changeable copy sign for
g pY g
purposed of this Chapter. A sign on which the only copy that changes is
an electronic or mechanical indication of time or temperature shall be
considered a "time and temperature" portion of a sig n and not a
changeable copy sign for purposes of this Chapter.
This definition clarifies how often the message can change before it is
g g
defined as an animated sign.
The committee discussed the need to limit size and number of changeable
copy signs, especially considering the continued demand by fast food
restaurants, hotels, and gas stations. They would need to be included in
the overall sign number and allowable square foot limitations.
Changeable copy and public information service signs could be further
limited by minimum distance separation requirements.
b. The committee favors calling time and temperature signs "public
p g p c
information service signs," which are defined by Burnsville as follows:
A sign designating the current time and/or temperature on the exterior of a
building or pylon so as to be viewed by the passing p ublic from a public
right of way.
The number and size of public information sig ns would need to be within
the total sign allowances for the site.
c. The committee discussed some of Burnsville's regulations regarding
g g g
changeable copy signs and favors requiring changeable copy signs to
g g pY g
meet an eight -foot clearance requirement or be enclosed with a vandal -
proof encasement.
5
d. The committee favors requiring electronic changeable copy signs to use
white light for messages because red lights are hard to see in daylight.
14. Lighting Standards for Signs
a. The committee raised as an issue whether the hours of illumination should
be limited for all business signs or just for business signs adjacent to
residential districts. Burnsville states, "Signs in all B -1 and B -2 Districts
may only be illuminated during business hours, or until eleven o'clock
(11:00) P.M., whichever is later."
15. Architectural Lighting Verses Signage
a. The committee discussed that when lighting is used to illuminate
architectural features, downlighting should be encouraged where possible
and all lighting should be compliant with photometric limits.
b. The committee liked that the Burnsville Ordinance is specific about types
of architectural lighting and amounts allowed.
The Burnsville Ordinance states on page 70, "Illuminated architectural
features or portions thereof, not defined as signage or a canopy sign, shall
be applied at the rate of one - third (1/3) the architectural feature area
toward the maximum allowable sign area permitted under Table A in
subsection 10- 30 -15(A) of this Chapter. Illuminated architectural features
shall include, but not be limited to, wall -, roof- and window - mounted neon,
the wall surface between multiple rows of neon, illuminated sign bands,
backlit canopies, awnings or wall banding features, etc."
c. Some of the lighting described in the Burnsville regulations should not be
allowed in Oak Park Heights. Page 4 of the Oak Park Heights Design
Guidelines includes the statement "Also prohibited are building color
wraps, neon and internally illuminated awnings." The Planning
Commission should discuss which types of architectural lighting should be
allowed.
d. The committee suggested that the Sign Ordinance address the issue of
lowering the intensity of sign or architectural signage lights when the
business was closed. This should be balanced with the need for security
lighting.
e. Architectural lighting that uses the high intensity white lights should not be
allowed. The lighting with a pink or yellow color is less objectionable.
6
•
•
•
•
16. Format of Sign Ordinance
a. The committee suggests the format of the Burnsville Ordinance is easy to
follow.
b. The committee suggests in some areas the City's language needs to be
clarified about whether the sign limit is per use, property, building, tenant,
premises, etc. and clarify what those terms mean.
17. Variance Standards
a. The committee does not suggest any changes to the variance standards.
18. Submittal Standards
a. The committee favors being more specific about what needs to be shown
on the sign plans, for example materials, lettering, colors, and illumination.
b. The committee discussed that Stillwater requires photographs of the
building face and the building faces of any adjacent buildings and
discussed that when the building does not exist yet photo simulations are
helpful.
19. Neon Signs
a. The committee favors limiting neon window signs to 25 percent of the total
area of the window in which they are displayed, which is consistent with
the current limit on all permanent window signage.
b. The committee suggested that if neon exterior signs are prohibited, the
prohibition should not include back -lit channel letters that have neon
bulbs.
c. Traditional or reproduction historic signs on Central Business District
businesses may be acceptable subject to City review. An example would
be a marquee sign on a theatre.
pc: Kris Danielson
7
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights -- Andersen /St. Croix Mall: Planned Unit
Development Amendment
FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.09
• BACKGROUND
ENCLOSURE 4
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
SC Mali LLC have requested a planned unit development amendment to allow
improvements at the St. Croix Mali. A reduction of two parking stalls from the required
number has also been requested, which requires a conditional use permit.
In 1999 the Kmart store space was converted to office space for Anderson at the mall.
Except for Herbergers and limited retail tenants, the remainder of the mall is now
proposed for Andersen office use.
The following list describes applications that were previously approved for the St. Croix
Mall:
• 1979 City approved original mall PUD.
• 1985 City approved a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary bank drive -
through facility.
• 1987 City approved PUD amendment to allow for expansion of the K -Mart and
other mall and site changes.
• 1989 City approved a PUD amendment for a major remodel of the center.
Current facade and site plan was based on this approval.
• 1990 Sign plan for the upper mall was approved and made effective on
September 1.
• . '1992 City approved a PUD amendment to allow for the theatre expansion.
• 1992 City approved a change to sign plan for a monument business sig n on
Osgood Avenue.
• 2001 City approved a PUD amendment and Design Guidelines review for Lower
St. Croix Mall to change facade and signage.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Site Information Plan
Exhibit B: Perspective Drawing
Exhibit C: Partial Demolition Plan
Exhibit D: Detail Plan of Courtyard
Exhibit E: Elevations
Exhibit F: Project Narrative
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 Mali 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:
• 4,385 square foot enclosed computer deployment/receiving area
• Exterior seating area for proposed interior employee cafeteria
• Exterior courtyard
• Partial covered parking and walkway canopy
• New entry and maintenance area canopies
• Entry signage at relocated facility entry
• Demolition of existing retail exterior entry pavilions
Phasing of Mali Improvements. Only the improvements listed above are proposed at
p p
this time and a phasing plan for improvements has not been submitted. The City should
work with Anderson Corporation on a phasing plan for future site improvements. City
staff would like to see the following improvements made at the mall over time:
• Parking improvements including new striping, curb islands, and landscaping.
• Removal of the parking lot access to 57 Street.
• Trail construction along the south property line and connection to Swagger Park
. gg
to the west as identified in the City's Park and Trail Plan.
• Removal of the pylon sign structure in the northwest corner of the site.
• Removal of the monument sign on Osgood Avenue.
• Bring parking lot light fixtures into conformance with City standards.
Anderson /St. Croix Mall Report
Page 2
•
Use
Floor Area
Ordinance
Requirement
Required
Spaces
Proposed Spaces
Retail
85,700 x .9 = 77,130
1 per 200 square feet
386
Office
217,219 x .9 = 195,497
• 3 + 1 per 200 sq. ft.
980
Total
272,627
1,366
1,400 — 36 = 1,364
Parking. As shown in the following table, 1,366 parking spaces are required and 1,364
parking spaces are proposed. A reduction in parking may be allowed by conditional use
permit. We recommend approval of the conditional use permit because the number of
proposed spaces is very close to the number of required spaces, and the applicant has
estimated that up to 700 Andersen employees will be located at the site, which is much
less than 980 spaces required for the office use.
Building Materials /Design Guidelines. The application narrative explains that
proposed exterior building finishes are a mix of materials selected to reduce the mass of
the existing structure and to complement the existing rockface masonry. Proposed
materials are illustrated on the elevations and include pre- finished corrugated metal and
Andersen "Fibrex" pre - finished cladding. Proposed canopies also help to break up the
mass of the building and are consistent with the City's Design Guidelines. The canopy
in the receiving area is mostly within an Xcel Energy easement and is therefore subject
to review and approval by Xcel Energy.
Signage. The existing retail exterior entry pavilions are proposed to be demolished and
new entry signage is proposed at the northwest corner of the building as shown on the
elevations. Minor signage is also proposed for the new south employee entry. New
signage is proposed to be pin - mounted black anodized aluminum and will not be
illuminated. Overall, the signage area for the mall is being reduced. The proposed
signage will be incorporated into the approved sign plan for the mall.
Landscaping / Green Space. The area of green space is being increased and
landscaping is being added by converting part of the parking lot south of the building
into a landscaped courtyard.
•
Lighting. Staff has identified a small number of non - conforming wall lights. The
applicant has agreed to retrofit the building wakk lights to be full cutoff.
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 project narrative states that the improvements will be
completed sequentially, in coordination with various interior construction phases.
Completion of all proposed improvements is scheduled for December 2002.
Anderson /St. Croix Mali Report
Page 3
CONCLUSION / 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 and conditional use permit to allow reduced parking subject to the
following conditions:
1. The portion of the receiving area canopy within the Xcel Energy easement is
subject to review and approval by Xcel Energy.
2. Ali mall building wall light fixtures must be retrofitted to be full cutoff.
3. Grading and drainage issues are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer and review of the applicable watershed authority if required.
4. 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
Anderson /St. Croix Mali Report
Page 4
•
•
ufl ;Phakr
I
•
t14, r
N AV 0009V0
I
' :
45
i 4
ri
i
)
■C z f --....—di, r--
. . L
-
. to ....II 1
i
,....,.. .
1
•
t
:1AV VitYINO
( ri
J
=
I
•
`11
4
•
le t
0
0 .
z < 8
Luz
z<
-op
uz
W LU
44 0
a.
wi
Z
WI+
arnormaarsormerwast)
411111•11111011111111141.
•
ivy A .1 i e.t.j.jt/si L.* iv \u‘s,j 'j v.-
0
> 1
co II .
1 t
. ,
., 1
.._ -
y I
1 N
Itici 1
F.; ii LP:. i::Erf
•
i` ,�. t � i�t ,r , \AA, � ' l )tu°• w t s 4 Am
;11
.\\:\
\ t -\ ,\ NTV \A\\'‘.\\,,
\\
&`'
P'
1-)Cr
,.r.rr .+mow► = =
11
I I
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
)
—
wi / / %/ /1 /
‘ 1 1 / i f 1 1
1 !/ '/ /
1 / Ii /"
4 1 / N.
‘ 1 /
�r 1 /
�a‘ t
W 11 \ / , t
!I ,�,/ 1 `
i // \s, j
/' / X 'Y� ,, t .
z A , / fi. / /
t' l 1 ' !
1 1 / /
, a
t 1
,...,-----7 \ t
!
b Is
',..... ,.. j ', 111- ‘4 ,/ I N;\
'''''' ■., ,,,"` .....,..., I V- i
'' . . ..-. ,'`....4,.. i / ,
-' \ 1 z:,..„:„..7:„........7,
-.,..,,, gi ,
ti
r
J
• •
z
z
0
n )
I
m
0
0
m
0
rn
rn
0
0
0
z
N
0
z
m
0
c
z
0
n
z
0
rn
\\,
'4 \ ► *'lett'!1 , €).0. P.k1. f ;F % - t.' 1
' /7(( 11 !4' I 004,1
§,
5
1
1
1
1
1
\ \N
''\\\
Nvz
UV,
Fi "*- 14.„i
Sri D z
rs
00
•
ti d
ttpi
-O
W
Z
0
N
I; if
f
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
I t
:I
q
D;
g
co
3
•
REQUEST FOR
PUD AMENDMENT
PROJECT NARRATIVE
SC MALL LLC
SHARED SERVICES CAMPUS / ST. CROIX MALL
OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
Meyer, Scherer, & Rockcastle, Ltd.
21 March 2002
t ECIROWIE
MAR 2 2 2002
EXHIBIT F
Applicant Information
Owner: SC Mall LLC
100 Fourth Avenue North
Bayport, MN 55003 -1096
Contact: Rebecca Maras
651.264.7856
rmaras @andersencorp.com
Architect: MS &R, Ltd.
119 North 2n St.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Contact: Marc Partridge, AIA
612.359.3259
marcp @msrltd.com
SC Mall LLC
PUD Amendment
General Background
Facing an urgent need foX office space, Andersen Corporation commissioned MS &R to
"reinvent" an existing Kmart retail store at the St. Croix Mali, converting it for office use
in 1999. SC Mall LLC subsequently purchased the entire retail Mall. They are currently
designing the remainder of the Mali for Andersen office use, creating improvements in
efficiency, collaboration and identity in a Shared Services campus. Up to 700 Andersen
employees will be located at the site; several retail tenants will remain at the Mall for the
foreseeable future.
• Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development, (PUD). B -2 zone.
• Allowable use: Office and Retail are both allowed under the PUD.
. PUD Requirements: Requirements are the same as those in zone B -2 and City of
Oak Park Heights general zoning code and design guidelines.
• Acreage: 22.79 acres not including the Kmart parcel (3.88 acres)
Proposed Improvements
Exterior improvements to portions of the building and site, including:
• 4,385 sf enclosed computer deployment/receiving area
• exterior seating area for proposed interior employee cafeteria
• exterior courtyard
• partial covered parking and walkway canopy
• New entry, maintenance area canopies
• Entry signage at relocated facility entry; demolition of existing retail exterior entry
pavilions
Page 2
•
These improvements, in conjunction with interior renovation currently ongoing, are
expected to satisfy the requirements of Andersen Corporation for the foreseeable future.
No additional modifications or changes to site, vehicular circulation or amenity are
anticipated at this time.
Construction Schedule
The above improvements will be completed sequentially, in coordination with various
interior construction phases; completion of all proposed improvements is scheduled for
December 2002.
Proposed Building Finishes
New exterior building finishes are selected as a mix of materials to reduce the mass of the
existing structure and to complement the existing rockface masonry, of:
• Prefinished corrugated metal
• Andersen "Fibrex" Prefinished cladding
See building elevations for distribution of materials.
Proposed Landscaping
Emphasis of the plan must be the perimeter of the site, the immediate perimeter of the
building, and public boulevard areas. Landscape criteria shall meet OPH zoning code
section 401.15.E.10 for plant size and spacing requirements.
See Landscape plan for distribution and species.
Proposed Signage
Exterior signage, mounted on the building exterior, is proposed for the relocated entry at
the northwest corner of the facility; minor signage is also proposed for the new south
employee entry. New signage will be black anodized aluminum, pin mounted, non-
illuminated letters.
Correspondingly, existing exterior retail mall "pavilions" will be removed to provide an
environment more consistent with an office facility, significantly reducing the overall
signage area for the facility.
See building elevations for sign location and extent.
1
Watershed District
Although no Watershed issues are anticipated, this submission is being sent concurrently
to the Middle St. Croix Watershed and Washington County Soil and Water District for
their review.
SC Mall LLC
PUD Amendment Page 3
Parking Summary
Gross Sq Footage Parking Req'd
Retail: 85,700 gsf 429 @ 5:1000
Office: 217,219 gsf ' 1 @ 3 +1:200
Totals: 302,919 gsf 1,518
1,366
OPH Submittal Requirements
Please see drawings for the following:
Schematic drawing (Perspective Rendering)
Property Survey (Plat Map)
Grading and drainage plan
Existing site conditions plan
Site development plan
Landscape plan
Signage plan
Lighting plan
Building plans, elevations
parking required w/10% reduction
(exterior floor area dimensions of
building minus 10%)
1,400 existing parking
-36 parking stalls lost in proposed site
modifications
1,364 parking remaining after modifications
see A2
see Al
see A4
see A3
see Al
see AS
see AS
see A4
see Al, A4, AS
SC Mali LLC PUD Amendment Page 4
Parking Summary
Gross Sq Footage Parking Req'd
Retail: 85,700 gsf 429 @ 5:1000
Office: 217,219 gsf 1,089 @ 3 +1:200
Totals: 302,919 gsf 1,518 req'd
1,366 parking required w /10% reduction
(exterior floor area dimensions of
building minus 10 %)
1,353 existing parking — onsite (based on survey)
155 available at Bowling site (Proof of Parking)
1,508 total available
-36 parking stalls lost in proposed site
improvements
1,472 parking remaining after modifications (Proof
of Parking)
106 overage
•
•
BACKGROUND
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAIdR - :
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 962.696.9636 Facsimile: 962.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights -- Lodge Properties LLC Conditional Use Permit for
Outdoor Used Auto Sales and Minor /Major Auto Repair —
14621 60 Street North
FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.06
Anthony Lodge, representing Lodge Properties LLC, has requested a conditional use
permit to allow for minor /major auto repair and outdoor used auto sales at 14621 60
Street North. The property is now unoccupied but most recently was the location of
Karmann Jack's and the Pizza Man. In August of 1999, the City Council granted a
conditional use permit for the subject property to allow outdoor used auto sales and
minor auto repair.
The City Council amended the B -2 District provisions in October of 1999 to allow for
automobile repair major as a conditional use. The owner of Karmann Jack's then
applied for and received a conditional use permit to allow major auto repair including a
body shop, painting of vehicles, and mechanical repair for the subject property in
November of 1999.
After conducting an annual review of the Karmann Jack's operation at their December
11 and 27, 2001 meetings, the City Council revoked the conditional use permits for
outdoor used auto sales and minor /major auto repair. The Council found that the
business identified as Karmann Jack's was no longer operating at the subject property
and there were numerous violations of the approved conditional use permits.
The subject property is zoned B -2 District in which open and outdoor services, sale and
rental, auto repair minor and auto repair major is an accessory use limited only to new
and used automobile dealerships. The intent of the ordinance is that the new and used
automobile sales is the principal use and the auto repair minor and major is intended as
an accessory use.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Site Plan /Elevations
Floor Plan
Findings of Fact to Revoke
Karmann Jack's Site Plan
Karmann Jack's Floor Plan
Comments from Kathy Widen, City Arborist
Statement from Motorsport Automotive Ltd.
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area
for commercial use. The Zoning Map has included this area within the B -2 District. The
site has been and is proposed to be used for businesses that are permitted, conditional,
or accessory in the B -2 District.
Preferred Project. The applicant has proposed a division of the existing building into
three tenant spaces. While no tenants have been identified for the tenant spaces
labeled A and B, the tenant C space would be leased for used auto sales and major
auto repair. The applicant has indicated the potential tenant would provide used cars
for sale and conduct major auto repair work, to include general automotive and small
engine repair work. No painting or body work would be conducted as part of this
p
operation.
Three spaces at the front of the lot would be dedicated for used car sales and the repair
work would be conducted from the two existing and one new service door at the south
side of the building. No other changes would occur to the building other than the
replacement of signs.
The applicant has proposed no changes to the existing site. City staff will need to verify
that all of the site improvements were completed as part of the required approvals
granted to Karmann Jack's.
Parking. The site plan indicates a parking lot that includes 49 parking spaces, two of
which are disability accessible. Auto repair uses are required to provide eight stalls,
plus one stall per 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. Based upon this
requirement, nine stalls would be required for the auto repair portion of the building.
The other two tenant spaces consist of 2,100 square feet each. If the office space
requirement is applied to the other space, 13 stalls will be required. If the tenant spaces
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 2
•
•
•
•
•
are used for retail, 10 spaces will be required. The 49 parking spaces on site would be
adequate for auto repair and retail /office uses.
The applicant has indicated that tenant space A could be utilized for a sandwich shop.
If indoor seating is to be included, the parking would need to be re- verified at that time
to determine if a restaurant use could be added.
Signage. Section 401.15.6.9 specifies sign requirements for multiple occupancy
business signs. Multiple signs on one wall are allowed if the businesses have an
exclusive exterior entrance. Two wall signs are proposed, one 45 square foot and the
other 15 square feet. The proposed sign area is significantly less than the allowable
150 square feet. The Planning Commission should consider whether the vestibule
arrangement of the one entrance would preclude the allowance of three wall signs. The
existing freestanding sign structure would be utilized. The said sign structure would
allow for the three separate signs. The Planning Commission should comment if this
existing situation should be allowed to continue or if the sign faces should be
incorporated into one sign as allowed by the Ordinance. The total square feet of
freestanding signage proposed is 91 square feet. A 150 square foot freestandin g sign
n
would be allowed.
Environmental Issues. Any structure that includes a major auto repair will require
special treatment of the other tenant spaces, especially if one of the other tenants is
food related. The major auto repair will need to be totally separated and the ventilation
systems cannot be shared between the major auto repair and other tenants.
Additionally, any storage of materials would need to be totally separated. The building
interior has been reconfigured such that a wall completely separates the auto use. The
applicant's major auto repair tenant will be required to obtain all licenses required from
Washington County to include a Hazardous Waste Generators License and possibly an
air discharge permit.
Building Code. The ventilation system and internal building separation wall will need
to be addressed with the Building Official. Any improvements required to the building to
comply with the Building Code and the Washington County requirements will need to be
completed before any auto repair occurs. The building improvements are subject to
review and approval of the Building Official.
Exterior Storage. Approval of the conditional use permit will include a condition
indicating that there will be no exterior storage of automobile parts, containers, or
related items on the site. All storage related to the use shall be internal to the building.
Any cars to be stored outside of the building shall be in full working order.
Lighting. The subject site includes existing light structures in the parkin g lot and on
the building. The Tight fixtures will need to be replaced or retrofitted to comply with
PY
Section 401.15.B.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 3
Sales Area. The outside sales area of the automotive use is limited to 30 percent of
the gross floor area. The auto business will consist of approximately 1,800 square feet ip
of the overall building area. Thirty percent of that gross floor area allows for 540 square
feet of outdoor sales or three parking stalls. The outdoor used car sales will be limited
to a maximum of three vehicles for sale at one time.
Design Guidelines. The improvements made to the building as part of the approvals
for Karmann Jack's were consistent with the Design Guidelines for buildings in the B -2
District. The applicant will need to provide elevation plans for the south facade as part
of the building permit application, subject to City staff review and approval.
Landscaping. The City Arborist has reviewed the landscape plans and visited the site
to confirm conformance. As indicated in the attached memo, there are issues with the
existing landscaping material on site. The final landscaping and replacement of any
plant materials on site will be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist.
Criteria. In evaluating the requested conditional use permit, Section 401.03.A.7 of the
Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the
possible adverse effects of the proposed use, with their judgment based upon, but not
limited to, the following factors:
a. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The conformity with present and future land uses of the area.
c. The environmental issues and geographic area involved.
d. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
e. The impact on character of the surrounding area.
f. The demonstrate need for such use.
g. Traffic generation by the use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the
property.
h. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools,
streets, utilities and the City's service capacity.
i. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained (in the
Zoning Ordinance).
The Planning Commission should comment on the above listed criteria and evaluate
whether the proposed use would be in conflict with any of the Ordinance provisions.
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 4
•
•
•
•
•
Section 401.30.E, numbers 6 and 10 provide conditional use permit criteria for
automotive sales and major auto repair. The criteria for both conditional use permit
requests are identical. The criteria for review are as follows:
a. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Section 401.15.E of this
Ordinance.
Comment: There are no residential uses that would need to be screened in that
the request is surrounded by commercial uses and Highway 36.
b. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the Tight source shall not be
visible from the public right -of -way or from neighboring residences and shall be in
compliance with Section 401.15.B.7 of this Ordinance.
Comment: The applicant will need to replace or retrofit the existing non-
conforming light fixtures. Any changes or additions to the current exterior lighting
g g
will require conformance with Section 401.15.B.7 of this Zoning Ordinance.
c. Sales and storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced and all paved areas
are surrounding by concrete curbing.
Comment: The previous owner made the required upgrades to the arkin lot.
p g
d. The architectural appearance, scale, construction materials, and functional plan
of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the existing nearby commercial
and residential buildings, and shall not cause impairment in property values, or
constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the site.
e. Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand
for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's ability to provide
utility, police, fire, administrative, or other services to the site.
Comment: There are no issues related to service demand.
f. All islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped.
Comment: Not applicable.
g.
Comment: As per the requirements of the previous approvals, the exterior
n
changes to the building have been approved in compliance with the Design
Guidelines.
A strip of not Tess than ten feet shall be landscaped at the edge of all parking/
g p g
driveway areas adjacent to lot lines and the public right-of-way.
Y
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 5
Comment: The site plan complies with this condition.
h. All automobile repair activities shall be conducted within the principal structure
and the doors to the service bays shall be kept closed except when vehicles are
being moved in or out of the service areas.
Comment: This provision will be made a condition of approval of this request.
i. Facilities on a site contiguous to any residential district shall not be operated
between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, unless otherwise allowed by formal
action of the City Council.
Comment: Not applicable.
Provisions are made to control and reduce noise in accordance with Section
401.15.B.11 of this Ordinance.
Comment: Control of noise so that it is compliant with Zoning Ordinance noise
requirements shall be made a condition of approval for this request.
k. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic,
shall comply with Section 401.15.F of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
Comment: The existing access point is acceptable to the City Engineer.
I. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City shall be installed.
Comment: The existing drainage systems are acceptable to the City Engineer.
m. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized
and shall be in compliance with Section 401.15.G of this Ordinance.
Comment: The signage plan will be followed as tenant space is leased and sign
permits are requested.
n. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance are considered
and satisfactorily met.
Comment: The Zoning Ordinance criteria are listed herein and should be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council with this request.
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 6
•
•
•
•
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
The proposed auto sales and minor /major auto repair are generally consistent with the
conditions for such uses in the B -2 District. Based upon the factors outlined herein, our
office recommends approval of the requested site /building plan and conditional use
permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The outdoor sales area shall be limited to not more than three parking stalls.
2. All automobile repair activities shall be conducted within the principal structure
and the doors to :the service bays kept closed except when vehicles are being
moved in or out of the service bays.
3. The landscape plan and existing plant materials are subject to review and
approval of the City Arborist.
4. The bituminous parking surface and concrete curb are subject to Zoning
Ordinance requirements and the review and approval of the City Engineer.
5. The exterior lighting to include wall mounted and freestanding light fixtures shall
be retrofitted to conform to Section 401.15.8.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. There shall be no exterior storage of automobile parts, parts cars, or related
items on the site. All storage shall be internal to the building. Any cars to be
stored outside of the building shall be in full working order.
7. All noise created from operations on the site shall be in conformance with
Section 401.15.B.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
8: The automotive repair and any food operations shall be totally separated
including all ventilation systems and storage of materials in conformance with the
requirements of the Washington County Department of Health, Environment and
Land Management, and the Building Official.
9. The applicant shall receive and retain a Hazardous Waste Generators License
from Washington County, if required.
10. The applicant shall receive and retain an air discharge permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, if required.
11. All signage shall be subject to Section 401.15.G.9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
12. The applicant shall provide building plans and elevations for the improvements
subject to review and approval of the Building Official.
pc: Kris Danielson
Lodge Properties LLC Planning Report
Page 7
•
Z
EXHIBIT 2
TOTAL P.02
and
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT TRE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMJTS FOR
KARMANN JACK'S INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 14621 60 STREET BE REVOKER
WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has documented violations of the
conditional use permits issued to Karmann Jack's in August 1999 and November 1999, for
property located at 14621 60 Street, and after conducting an annual review at their December
11, 2001 meeting, the City Council of Oak Park Heights makes the following findings of fact and
resolution:
1. The subject property is legally described as follows, to wit:
SEE EXHIBIT A
2. A conditional use permit, approved by the City Council on August 24,
1999, was granted to the applicant for the subject property at 14621 60 Street to allow outdoor,
used auto sales and minor auto repair subject to the following conditions:
a. The outdoor sales area shall be limited to not more than 30 percent of the gross
floor area of the principal structure.
b. All automobile repair activities shall be conducted within the principal structure
and the doors to the service bays kept closed except when vehicles are being
moved in or out of the service areas.
c. The applicant specify the proposed colors for the building facades and canopies,
subject to review and approval of City staff.
d. The proposed neon accent on the building facade is removed.
e. The landscape plan is subject to review and approval of the City Arborist.
f. The bituminous parking surface and concrete curb are improved, subject to
Zoning Ordinance requirements and the review and approval of the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT 3
and
3. A conditional use permit, approved by the City Council on November 23,
1999, was granted to the applicant for the subject property at 14621 60 Street to allow major
auto repair to include a body shop, painting of vehicles, and mechanical repair subject to the
following conditions:
and
a. The conditions for approval of the CUP for automobile sales and minor auto
repair approved by the City Council on August 24, 1999 shall apply to the CUP
for major auto repair.
b. Approval of the CUP is subject to finalization and publication of the Zoning
Ordinance amendment to allow major auto repair as a conditional use in the B -2,
General Business District.
c. Any changes to the exterior lighting will be required to conform to Section
401.15.B.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. All automobile repair activities shall be constructed within the principal structure
and the doors to the service bays shall be kept closed except when vehicles are
being moved in or out of the service areas.
e. There shall be no exterior storage of automobile parts, parts cars, or related items
on the site. All storage shall be internal to the building. Any cars to be stored
outside of the building shall be in full working order.
f. All nose created from operations on the site shall be in conformance with Section
401.15.B.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Completion of the parking lot and curb /gutter improvements, subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
h. The automotive repair and food operations shall be totally separated including all
ventilation systems and storage of materials in conformance with the requirements
of the Washington County Department of Health, Environment and Land
Management and the Building Official.
i. The applicant shall receive and retain a Hazardous Waste Generators License
from Washington County.
j. The applicant shall receive and retain an air discharge permit from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
2
4. The business identified as Karmann Jack's is no longer operating at the
subject property; and
5. The owner is in violation of the conditional use permits in that there is
storage of non- operable vehicles, automobile parts, and trash in violation of the conditions of the
conditional use permit approved November 23, 1999; and
6. Reports have been filed by the City Building Official and City Police
Officers documenting the outside storage violations; and
7. The City Council held an annual review of the conditional use permits at
their December 11, 2001 meeting, with proper written notification to the property owner in
compliance with Section 401.03 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
8. After reviewing the violations of the conditional use permits and
determining that the business known as Karmann Jack's no longer occupies the subject property,
the City Council approves the following:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE
FOLLOWING:
A. The conditional use permits approved by the City Council on August 24, 1999 and
November 23, 1999 for Karmann Jack's at 14621 60 Street North and affecting the real
property as follows:
Be and the same as hereby revoked.
2001.
ATTEST:
SEE EXHIBIT A
Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 27 day of December
Kimberly Kamper, Acting City Administrator
David Beaudet, Mayor
3
1
••
leeeseee
■•■•■••••
'N '19 L14.09
. .
to
0
• •
.0
m
e) P
0
0 W
11111111111
E
2
s-:
• • ',o
. •
•
R.
•
0
w
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
Q
J
a-
tx
0
0
J
IL
un
F-
M
1
X
W
ILIAC
Fro : "K.D. Wdin" <kwidin @mmmpcc.org>
To: <srichards @nacplanning.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 9 :27 AM
Subject. Landscape • sca a Plan - Tony Lodge /old Karmann Jack's site
-
•
Scott/Dan -
the landscape plan submitted for the old
I have reviewed th p P by Tony Karmann Jack's
site b Ton Lodge and visited the site again
3/1/02.
I have the following comments:
not the final approved The plan submitted is pp ved landscape plan
what is existing on site. The final plan• indicates has a
and does not match w g icates m
• and I wrote a memo 5/ 11 /00 which i my
revision date of 5/9/00 a • • ,
revised plan. I later visited the site and
acceptance of the re p
inspected the installed plantings. 3/1/02
During my visit to the site 3/1/02, I noticed several
problems which will need to be remedied:
most planted trees are expose
1. Root balls of m exposed (no mulch or p h or two
soil Root balls need to be coverd with an inc
soil over ar0
it and 4 inches of wood chip mulch.
of the parking lot is very weedy and this
2. The area north p g A better
area
should at least be mowed during the growing season.
n would be to re -seed the open areas with a
more attractive optic
turfgrass mix.
b s which are dead by time of leaf -out in
3. Any trees or shru
May should be replaced.
Kathy Widin
Municipal Arborist
City of Oak Park Heights
3/4/2002
EXHIBIT 6
MOTORSPORT AUTOMOTIVE, LTD.
Bill & Julie Bisch, Owners
501 North Main Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
651 - 275 -0960
Motorsport Automotive, Ltd. has been a successful business for over 13
years. Currently located in downtown Stillwater and looking to relocate due
to development of the property.
Operations include general auto repair including small engine service, brake
repairs, water pumps, exhaust, engine replacement, rebuilding of
transmissions, tune -ups, etc. This includes major auto repair but not auto
body work.
Over 95% of our work is by appointment which limits vehicles on site.
Vehicles are normally dropped off the day of the appointment and picked up
immediately when the job has been completed. Whenever possible, vehicles
are kept inside to minimize outdoor exposure.
All waste material is handled by a licensed contractor. Washington County
Health & Land Management inspects the shop at least once per year for
proper waste management and documentation.
EXHIBIT 7 •
•
MEMORANDUM
ENCLOSURE 6
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
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights — Boutwells Landing: McKean Square West
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review
FILE NO: 798.02 -- 02.05
Based upon the April 1, 2002 joint City Council, Planning Commission and Parks
Commission meeting related to the Boutwells Landing project and other Oakgreen
Avenue projects, the following issue points should be discussed by the Planning
Commission at their April meeting. Additionally, most of these issues were reviewed in
the March 7, 2002 planning report.
1. McKean Square East. The City Council discussed the possible Joint Powers
Agreement with Baytown Township for the area identified as McKean Square
East at their April 23, 2002 meeting. If no agreement on a Joint Powers
Agreement or an Orderly Annexation Agreement can be reached with the
Township, VSSA will revise the McKean Square West concept plan to include the
independent living facility. Other changes to the McKean Square West plan
would be required on the east side related to proposed parking lots and the
roadway system.
2. Streets. Representatives of VSSA have indicated that Nolan Avenue would be
constructed to the same standards as the existing portion of that roadway. A 55
foot right -of -way and 34 foot street width will be the standard for the street.
Norwich Circle, the private roadway in the first phase of development, was
constructed with an easement of 50 feet and a 34 foot roadway. The three
private streets proposed in McKean Square West would need to be constructed
at the minimum public or private street standards. The public versus private
street issue should be discussed by the Planning Commission. It is likely that a
change from a private to public street designation would have little effect on the
current layout of the proposed buildings.
3. Setbacks. Previous concept plan approvals for Boutwells Landing specify a 20
foot separation between buildings. The current plan specifies a 10 to 15 foot
separation of units. Requiring a 20 foot separation could significantly change the
current building layout and type of units proposed. The applicant may use more
side -by -side units instead of the single family cottage units.
4. Roadway Access to West. The Planning Commission should comment on the
proposed one access point to the School District property to the west. The
question is whether this one access point is adequate for future development or if
it should be eliminated.
5. Architectural Appearance. Although building design is a general plan of
development item for review, the Planning Commission could comment on the
design of the units proposed.
6. School and Church. The Planning Commission should comment on the
placement of the school and church structures and any issues related to access
and parking.
pc: Kris Danielson
2
•
•
MEMORANDUM
ENCLOSURE 7
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5776 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.596.9636 Facsimile: 962.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village Townhomes: Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit Concept Plan Review,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning
FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.02
The following issues should be discussed as it relates to the proposal for the Oakgreen
Village Townhome project on either side of 58 Street at Oakgreen Avenue. The issues
have also been discussed in the March 7, 2002 planning report.
1. Comprehensive Plan. A portion of the area to the south of 58 Street is subject
to a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation from parks
facilities /open space to mid density residential. That area would also need to be
rezoned to an R -3, Multiple Family Residential District.
2. Streets. The public versus private street issue must be considered by the
Planning Commission. The same issues with private streets and street width, as
to be considered for McKean Square West, must be addressed for the townhome
project. The revised concept plan for the entire project indicates a 60 foot right -
of -way width for the west side of Oakgreen Avenue. This will significantly affect
the site plan as it relates to the potential for additional townhome units.
3. TIF Financing. The applicant has requested the City to consider tax increment
financing for the project to purchase the remaining single family properties along
Oakgreen Avenue. The City Council is currently working with the applicant in
consideration of this proposal.
4. Building Orientation. The applicant has proposed a series of townhome
buildings accessed by narrow driveway access. The designs are not consistent
ID with the preferred building layout identified in the CBD Design Guidelines. The
Planning Commission should review the CBD Design Guidelines and provide
direction to the developer on appropriate layout and building design.
5. Development South of 58 Street. A revised plan has been submitted for the
building orientation and roadway access south of 58 Street. The City Engineer
has indicated a preference for driveway access that would line up with the street
to the north. Roadway separation from the intersection of Oakgreen Avenue and
58 Street is also a consideration.
pc: Kris Danielson
2
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
pc: Kris Danielson
ENS ,L )SU R "
k-
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 962.696.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village Villas: Planned Unit Development/
Conditional Use Permit Concept Plan Review
FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.03
The Planning Commission should consider the following issue points related to the
Oakgreen Village Villas at their April meeting. The issues were reviewed in the March
7, 2002 planning report.
1. CBD Planning. The project is to be developed north of the Xcel Energy power
line easement. The Central Business District Urban Design Study indicated that
area was to be designated for commercial development. While the master plan
was developed as a concept or guide for land use, the Planning Commission
should comment on this issue.
2. Streets. The site plan has been changed to show the access cess roadway extend to
the east to Oakgreen Avenue. This roadway could be used for access ccess for the
Pond View Condominiums and future development. With traffic p ffic issues on
Oakgreen, an access to the west with a connection at the future Novak '
vak Avenue is
also an option. The issue of public versus rivate streets is also a '
p consideration.
3. Building Orientation. The proposed site plan consists '
p p primarily of buildings
and driveways. The Planning Commission should comment
on the layout and
the appropriateness of additional residential development in
. p an area of
transitioning land uses.
•
MEMORANDUM
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanrii ng.com
TO: Kimberly Kamper
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: April 4, 2002
RE: Oak Park Heights — Oakgreen Village Apartments: Planned Unit
Development/Conditional Use Permit Concept Plan Review
FILE NO: 798.02 — 02.04
pc: Kris Danielson
ENCLOSURE 9
Based upon the April 1, 2002 joint City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks
Commission meeting, the following issue points should be discussed by the Planning
Commission at their April meeting. Additionally, these issues were reviewed in the
March 7, 2002 planning report.
1. Streets. Access for this development would be off of the proposed Novak
Avenue that would extend from 58 Street to the south frontage road of Highway
36. The CBD Design Guidelines provides specifications for public streets in this
area. The Planning Commission should comment further on the street and
streetscape elements for the CBD.
2. Building Orientation. The applicant had indicated the topographic reasons for
orienting the buildings as proposed on the site plan at the March Planning
Commission meeting. The Planning Commission should comment on the
acceptability of the building location and orientation.
3. Building Height. The Planning Commission should generally comment on the
acceptability of exceeding the 35 foot building height for this project.
•
April 4, 2002
For Planning Commission Discussion /Consideration
Re: Planning Commission Bylaws
Enclosed with this cover memo please find a copy of the Planning Commission
Bylaws are y g ssion Bylaws.
The B
y e also included in the Commissioner's Guide for reference. Commission
Liaison McComber has asked that the Bylaws be laced on the agenda f
p g for the Planning
Commission's consideration.
Bylaws exist for both the Parks and Planning Commissions and were '
g amended in 1999 to
be consistent between the two commissions as well as to add clarity to Commission
the Annual Meeting
Terms, Absenteeism, and th y
Meeting.
Please contact me with any questions you may have.
Kris Danielson, Community Development Director
•••••••
ENCLOSURE —1
ARTICLE 1 - ORIGIN AND POWERS
A. Authorization. The City is authorized and empowered to establish a Planning
Commission by the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes 462.354.
B. Establishment. The Planning Commission was created in an advisory capacity
by action of the Oak Park Heights City Council on April 14,1998 by the adoption
of Ordinance 210 and the amendment of Section 401, the Oak Park Heights
Zoning Ordinance.
ARTICLE 2 — DUTIES AND OBJECTIVES
A. Advisory Capacity. The Planning Commission is designed to serve in an
advisory capacity to the Oak Park Heights City Council.
B. Objectives. The objectives of the Planning Commission are to make
recommendations to the City Council which will guide the development of land,
services and facilities within the City, so as to promote the public health, safety
and general welfare.
C. Public Hearings. The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings for
variances,, conditional use permits, subdivisions, PUD permits, and other
applications to the City in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance and shall
make recommendations on said applications to the City Council.
D. Special Public Hearings. The Planning Commission may hold such public
information hearings as the City Council deems necessary and may make
recommendations on applications for building permits or site plan review when
requested by the City Council.
ARTICLE 3 — MEMBERSHIP
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
A. Voting Members. The Planning Commission shall consist of five citizen
members who are eligible voters residing within the Oak Park Heights City limits
and who are appointed by the City Council.
B. Ex- officio Members. There shall be a City Council person designated by the
Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, to be a liaison to the Planning
Commission. Such City Council person shall serve without voting power and in a
capacity as ex- officio to the Planning Commission. The Mayor, with the consent
of the City Council may also appoint non - voting, ex- officio members to represent
other groups or organizations from the community.
*C. Terms. The five members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the
City Council. All such appointments shall initiate and be established by resolution
of the City Council. The term of each member shall be for three years with initial
terms being staggered by the City Council resolution of appointment. Unless
extended by special order of the City Council for a period of one year, no
member shall serve more than two consecutive terms on the Planning
Commission.
*D. Absenteeism. If any voting member fails to attend three consecutive meetings
or a total of four meetings (or 25 percent) during the calendar year, the City
Council shall be notified with a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commissioners shall notify the Chairperson or City staff when an
absence if anticipated.
E. Removal. Any member of the Planning Commission may be removed at any
time by a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council with or without cause.
F. Compensation. Compensation of Planning Commission members as selected .
by the City 'Council shall serve without compensation except as otherwise
established by resolution of the City Council.
G. Training. The Chairperson and the City staff shall meet with each new
Planning Commissioner to explain Planning Commission procedures. Within the
first year of appointment, each new Planning Commissioner shall attend a
Government Training Service, Planning Commission training session at City
expense.
H. Resignation. A member who wishes to resign shall submit a written
resignation to the Chairperson, who shall in turn forward the same to the City
Council.
I. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring within the Planning Commission shall be filled
for the balance of the appointment by the City Council.
* Amended June 6, 1999
2
1
46
ARTICLE 4 — OFFICERS, DUTIES AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. Officers. The officers of the Planning Commission shall be Chairperson and
Vice - Chairperson.
B. Duties of the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings,
appoint Planning Commission members to committees, appoint Planning
Commission representatives, rule on procedural questions (subject to reversal by
a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those members in attendance), meet with all newly
appointed members, exercise the same voting rights as other Planning
Commissioners and carry out such other duties as are assigned by the Planning
Commission or by the City Council.
C. Duties of the Vice - Chairperson. The Vice - Chairperson shall act in the
absence or inability to act of the Chairperson, and in such instances shall have
the powers and functions of the Chairperson.
D. Terms. The Planning Commission officers shall be elected from among its
appointed members for the term of two years. No member shall serve as
Chairperson or Vice - Chairperson for more than two consecutive terms. The
election shall occur at the Planning Commission's annual meeting.
E. Vote. Candidates for office receiving a majority vote of the entire membership
(three -fifths (3/5)), shall be declared duly elected.
F. Date of Office. Newly elected officers shall take office at the annual meeting in
March.
G. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring in the offices of the Planning Commission
shall be filled immediately by the above election procedure.
ARTICLE 5 — MEETINGS
*A. Annual Meeting. An annual organizational meeting shall be held the second
Thursday in March of each year. Election of officers shall be conducted at that
time.
*B. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Planning Commission shall be
held at 7 :00 PM on the second Thursday of each month in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The regular meeting date of the Planning Commission may be
changed by resolution of the City Council.
* Amended December 28, 1999
3
ARTICLE 6 — PRE - MEETING PROCEDURES
ARTICLE 7 — PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
4
C. Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called at the discretion of the
Chairperson, after consultation with City staff.
D. Notice of Meetings. Notice in writing of all regular and special Planning
Commission meetings, setting forth the time, place and agenda of such
meetings, shall be mailed by the City staff to all Plannin g Commission members
at least five days in advance of each meeting.
E. Site Investigation. Prior to each meeting, all Planning Commission members
shall endeavor to visit any properties to be discussed at the meeting.
F. Planning Commission Representative at City Council Meetings. Each
Planning Commission member shall in turn represent the Planning Commission
at regular City Council meetings.
A. Agenda. The agenda for each meeting of the Planning Commission shall be
developed in writing by the City staff and shall be available at the City Hall prior
to each meeting.
B. Withdrawal. If a petitioner or applicant desires to withdraw a matter from an
agenda, such request must be submitted to the City staff in writing, and if any
public notice has been given, all persons appearing at the noticed hearing on
said petition or application shall be entitled to be heard.
A. Time. The time of each public hearing shall be stated on the agenda, and no
hearing may begin before this time. Each hearing shall begin as soon as
possible after this time.
B. Presentation. If a public hearing is required for a request by a petitioner, the
petitioner or an appointed representative shall state the request, explain the
proposal and answer questions of the Planning Commissioners. If no petitioner
is involved, the Chairperson or the City staff member shall explain the purpose of
the hearing. The Chairperson may impose reasonable restraint upon the number
of times one individual may speak.
C. Termination of Hearing. The Chairperson may close a public hearing after
hearing those present who care to speak, or any member may move to continue
the public hearing until a specified date. If a hearing on the petitioner's request is
closed, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City
Council within 30 days following the close of the hearing. If a hearing is
continued, mailed notices of the continuation may be requested by any voting
member.
ARTICLE 8 -- MEETING PROCEDURES
A. Rules of Order. Unless otherwise specifically designated, Roberts Rules of
Order, as most recently revised, shall govern the meeting procedure.
B. Quorum. A majority of the voting membership (three -fifths (3/5)) shall
constitute a quorum for meeting purposes.
C. Conflict of Interest. Whenever a Planning Commission member shall have a
direct or indirect personal or financial interest in an application or petition before
the Planning Commission, that member shall declare such interest and excuse
himself /herself from the discussion and vote.
D. Agenda. The order of business at regular meetings generally shall be as
follows:
1. Call to order.
2. Roll call of members.
3. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting.
4. Public hearings.
5. Informational hearings.
6. Old business.
7. New business.
8. Adjournment.
E. Appearance of Petitioner. No application or petition shall be given final
approval unless the applicant or petitioner appears personally or by
representative at the hearing called thereon, or unless he /she makes satisfactory
explanation or presentation in lieu thereof.
F. Tabling. A tabling motion, if passed, has the effect of laying a matter over until
the next regular meeting, unless otherwise specified.
5
G. Reports. Any matter may be tabled for a technical report or study which the
Planning Commission may make or request of the petitioner, the City staff, the
City Attorney, the City Engineer or other sources. Such report shall be presented
to the City staff for forwarding to the Planning Commission at least five days prior
to the meeting at which said matter will be heard again.
H. Non - Agenda Matters. No binding or final action may be taken on any matter
not on the written agenda except by unanimous vote of the members in
attendance or four -fifths (415) vote of the entire membership.
ARTICLE 9 — COMMITTEES
A. Planning Commission Committees. The Planning Commission may establish
committees of its own membership for a specific purpose and duration.
B. Ad Hoc Committees. The Planning Commission may request that the City
Council appoint other members of the community to Ad Hoc Commission
committees, which may be created by the Planning Commission for a specific
purpose and duration. At least one voting member of the Planning Commission
also shall be appointed to each such committee.
ARTICLE 10 — RECORDS
A. Minutes. The City shall supply a secretary at all regular and special meetings of
the Planning Commission who shall be responsible for taking full and complete
minutes and record all such meetings. The City staff shall be responsible for
keeping a record of all Planning Commission resolutions, transcriptions, minutes
and findings.
B. Open Meetings. All meetings shall be a matter of public record.
S:Shared /Planning /Bylaws
6
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
r
?fliva 44-oil)1
/1L /f7
(3 (J
/37-26)
APRIL 11, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
GUEST REGISTER
ADDRESS (Please Include City)
72 „4/
110-1-5 (3A
LK-
•
3" a
c o