The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-05-22 CC Packet Enclosure ' Te Oak Park Heights Encl 11 Request for Council Action Meeting Date May 22, 2012 Agenda Item Oak Park I- Ieights — Stillwater Motors -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment & __ Design Guidelines Review -- 5900 Stillwater Blvd N Time Req... :20_ Agenda Placement Old I:3usiness Originating Department /Requester Administration Jennifer Pinski i 1 Requester's Signature �—. A,. .._.._. - .............._..._...-.- . . Action Requested See Attached Background /Justification (Please indicate any previous action has been taken or if other public bodies have been advised). See attached. Page 35 of 46 TPC 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 783.231.5840 Facsimile: 783.427.0520 TPC @Plan ni ngCo. corn PLANNING REPORT TO: Eric Johnson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: May 16, 2012 RE: Oak Park Heights — Stillwater Motors — Conditional Use Permit • Amendment and Design Guidelines Review — 5900 Stillwater Blvd North TPC FILE: 236.02 — 12.01 BACKGROUND The City Council, at its April 24, 2012 meeting received a request from Daniel Raduenz, representing Raduenz Dealership Properties LLC to indefinitely extend the timeline for review of the application for the Stillwater Motors dealership located at 5900 Stillwater Blvd North. The applicants wanted additional time to review alternative building designs with Chevrolet. The application includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and Design Guidelines review. The Conditional Use Permit amendment is requested to allow for an extension of the timeline for required improvements to the dealership. The Design Guidelines review is required to allow retrofit of the building to be consistent with the current banded image of Chevrolet. At that meeting the City Council continued the consideration of the application until such time as an alternative design had been provided by Chevrolet. Please find attached the new option and a view of how the building footprint would be changed. ANALYSIS OF NEW OPTION The new option provided by Chevrolet is not significantly different than the original submittal made with filing the application. The differences are that the north and west facades of the building would not be changed to white. Additionally, a front colonnade would be added on each side of the front entrance in front of the existing windows. The front entrance would be significantly altered by increasing the width of the structure. The blue and silver panels would become a major building material as opposed to just an accent. Page 36 of 46 The March 8, 2012 Planning Report outlined the reasons why this design does not comply with the Design Guidelines. The points made in that report are true for the new option. Please see the review in that Planning Report as attached. The Planning Commission was not favorable to that option but has recommended an option that is acceptable to them as well as City Staff. The option recommended by the Planning Commission is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Please see a review of the Planning Commission's recommendation as follows. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission addressed this application at their March 15, 2012 meeting. They did not have an issue with the extension of the timeline for the required improvements, but were in agreement that the remodel of the building to fit the Chevrolet image was not consistent with the Design Guidelines. The applicants asked for additional time to review the plans so that they could bring forward a plan that would be consistent with the Guidelines. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing and consideration of this matter to the April 12, 2012 meeting. Revised elevations were submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April 12, 2012 meeting. Option 1 as presented by the applicant at the meeting consisted of changing out the front entrance and south and east facades with the blue and silver panels. All the areas that are now the metal panels would be changed. Option 2 changes out only the front entrance and the panels on either side of the front entrance to the blue or silver color. The Planning Commission recommended Option 2 in that was more consistent with the Design Guidelines than the more extensive changes presented in Option 1. EXHIBITS The review is based upon the following submittals: Exhibit 1: Option 1 — April 12, 2012 Exhibit 2: Option 2 — April 12, 2012 Exhibit 3: New Option Exhibit 4: New Option Site Plan Exhibit 5: Existing Facade Pictures Exhibit 6: Letter from DJ Raduenz — April 24, 2012 Exhibit 7: March 8, 2012 Planning Report CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Please find attached a draft approval resolution for the City Council. The resolution endorses Option 2 (April 12, 2012) and approval of the extension of the timeline as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council should consider the most recent submittal in light of the favorable recommendation received from the Planning Commission for Option 2. Staff would 2 Page 37 of 46 recommend that the new option not be considered for approval in that like the original submittal, it is not consistent with the Design Guidelines. The City Council could act on the resolution for approval of Option 2 as recommended by the Planning Commission and the extension of the timeline as attached, or send the most recent option back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 3 Page 38 of 46 4.4 I NI TE '' IN 11' ;' an I � "'tea �' ® e 8 , w i��i��'�j ri K 1310 iA3HJ -f.W ' 7,21.1 *RI ral i I r __ ii,—,,T,T,,-.„...., i .,._, , :i i r i ,,,,, uwww ism , .. ..,--,-464 . 1310 LIA3H3 ■411rY 11 :111 r .,.. , ,.. . , :nu . . air ":,.. - ,),,, ' ,,, ..., 4 -'-: - - -..- -r - -- ., 1 'r' , 13 ..•w . I , L s I I _____ ] ), -7r 7 I--T-4, _ ,_____, o—__,, ,=. _, — , J 11: L ____„ ---, 1_J II- �. I. o [I 0 I I mom IN - — o o L __J 4_,- i. I = . fi , r � � ° i ______ _ _ -D _____, u _ , i) I C , D : D D D ❑ ❑ ') F -----' —� I �;a ri r�' I 1 vi c ■ CI CI j \ J ;. I II e Page 42 of 46 y+ .Y —"'l ....,1 7 r H' l` KEY PLAN A- SOUTHEAST FACADE X _ '411114 - 411 B- EAST FACADE C- NORTHEAST FACADE D- NORTH FACADE T r *,- 4040.4 , i , - -dam. .1V-7.1ki.--S'IMPII ,.....— _ j r1 E- NORTH FACADE F- NORTHWEST FACADE G- WEST FACADE .. l _ l' 1 L 1 .�, rrr iii I, - * is 1" a. ua t•: ter . . -. . , -- -?.° o H - WEST FACADE J • SOUTHWEST FACADE K- SOUTH FACADE Page 43 of 46 S et ie atetteir MOTORS.com 2! j CHEVROLET { BUICK April 24, 2012 • FAMILY OWNED SINCE 1922 • 5900 Stillwater Boulevard North • P.O. Box 337 Mayor and City Council Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 City of Oak Park Heights RE: Stillwater Motors Stillwater Motors was scheduled to come before you and the City Council this evening for review and action on the proposed building changes, as recommended by the Planning Commission. We would respectfully request a continuance on this application until a future date, which will be determined. As allowed by Minnesota Statute 15.99, Subd 3, we indefinitely extend the timeline for review of this application to allow the City adequate time to review additional building designs. Stillwater Motors desires to pursue another option which is consistent with Chevrolet's specific branding requirements. In conversation with Oak Park Heights City staff, we have been led to believe that any potential change to the concept, which has been approved by the Planning Commission, will need to go before the staff at a scheduled Wednesday morning meeting. The appropriate documentation for this meeting is required to be in the hands of the City no later than noon on the Monday prior to the staff meeting. Upon review of the staff, they will determine the process for moving forward, which may consist of either a return to the Planning Commission or directly to the City Council. Thank you for your assistance in the review of this project. Stillwater Motors aqi Daniel J. Raduenz Cc: Dr. Eric Johnson Mr. Scott Richards SERVICE & PARTS OPEN 6 DAYS A WEEK Page 44 of 46 COLLISION REPAIR CENTER