Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-14 CC Meeting Packet EnclosureMeeting Date: Agenda Item Title: Estimated Time Required: Agenda Placement: Originating DepartmentlRequestor: Requester's Signature: Action Re • uested: Comments: Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action August 14, 2001 Sigstad Carpets — Resolution to Approve Site Plan And Conditional Use Permit 5 Minutes New Business Community Development Ado rt Resolution with Plannin • Commission Recommendations. Please be advised that the Planning Commission, at their meeting of 8/9/01, unanimously recommended approval of the request from Sigstad Carpets to construct a retail facility in the City. The resolution of support with conditions of approval and supporting materials are enclosed for your review and consideration. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Administrative Recommendation: Total Cost:: Budgeted: Budget: Approve Denial No Recommendation S:ISHARED\Forms \COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST,doc A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE REQUEST BY GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 60 STREET AND WEST OF OAKGREEN AVENUE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW BE APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has received a request for conditional use permit and site plan approval to allow the construction of a 27,885 square foot, four- tenant retail facility upon on a 2.2 acre parcel of land located south of 60 Street North and west of Oakgreen Avenue; and after having conducted a public hearing relative thereto, the Planning Commission of Oak Park Heights recommended that the conditional use permit and site plan be approved with conditions. The City Council makes the following findings of fact and resolution: follows, to wit: and and RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1. The real property affected by said application is legally described as SEE ATTACHMENT A 2. The applicant has submitted an application and supporting documentation to the Community Development Department consisting of the following items: SEE ATTACHMENT B 3. The subject site is zoned CBD, Central Business District in which retail sales are a permitted use; and 4. The applicant has requested site plan approval to construct a 27,885 square foot, four - tenant retail facility upon the subject 2.2 acre parcel of land; and 5. The applicants have further requested the approval of a conditional use permit to allow a reduction from the off-street parking supply requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; and 6. Section 401.15.F of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that retail stores such as that proposed must provide one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area, resulting in a total of 125 spaces being required of the 27,885 square foot retail facility; and 7. The subject property was included in the Central Business District Urban Design Study which suggests an off-street parking supply requirement of three spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area; and 8. As a condition of site plan approval, the parking requirements specified in the Central Business District Urban Design Study would be satisfied; and 9. City staff prepared a planning report dated August 2, 2001 reviewing the request for the site plan and conditional use permit approval; and 10. Said report recommended approval of the of the site plan and conditional use permit subject to the fulfillment of various conditions; and 11. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 9, 2001 meeting, took comments from the applicants and public, closed the public hearing, and recommended that the conditional use permit and site plan be approved subject to the fulfillment of conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING: A. That the request for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for Greystone Construction, south of 60 Street and west of Oakgreen Avenue affecting real property as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A Be and the same as hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights with the following conditions: B. Site Plan approval to allow the construction of a two phase, 27,885 square foot retail building upon the subject site subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approve a conditional use permit to allow the proposed off-street parking supply. 2. Proposed Phase 2 development shall be subject to site plan review procedures as established by Ordinance and the CBD Design Guidelines. 2 3. To improve visual interest, the large wall expanses on the north building elevation be modified to provide a variation in color. 4. Jumbo brick shall be allowed for use on the proposed building consistent with the Medium Box Mixed Use precinct of the Central Business District Design Guidelines. 5. The site p lan shall be revised to illustrate a 6 foot wide sidewalk along 60 Street. The applicants shall be responsible for the construction of such sidewalk. 6. The freestanding light fixtures along the site's western boundary be relocated to the eastern side of the parking lot (along the west side of the building). 7. All site lighting is hooded and directed such that the source of the light is not visible from surrounding properties and rights-of-way. 8. The submitted Landscape Plan is subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. 9. The Landscape Plan be revised to illustrate the Amur Maple tree be located along the south property line in a consistent location (on both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development plans). 10. The Landscape Plan is revised such that the "GA" tree designation is referenced on the Plant Schedule 11. To compliment the visual appearance of the building, pavement cut out areas be provided near the main entrance, within which small trees or shrubs shall be planted. 12. The City Engineer shall approve all locations and design of driveway access to 60 Street and the unnamed City street. All temporary and permanent access onto 60 Street shall be approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 13. On the Phase 2 plan, a row end curb barrier be provided on the northern end of the parking stalls located in the southeast corner of the site. 14. On the Phase 2 plan, the two off-street parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site be eliminated and replaced with green area. 15. If snow is to be stored on site, the submitted landscape plan be modified to illustrate snow storage areas. 16. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to grading and drainage issues. 3 17. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues. 18. Details relating to the trash enclosure construction (i.e., height, color etc) be specified. 19. All site signage meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Such signage shall however be designed in a manner consistent with and complementary to the design of the building. C. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow an off-street parking supply less than that required by ordinance subject to the following conditions: 2001. ATTEST: 1. The City finds that the project is consistent with the CUP Criteria found in Section 401.30.E of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. All off-street parking stalls meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. 3. The parking requirements of the Central Business District Urban Design Study shall be satisfied. Approved by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 14 day of August Kimberly Kamper, Acting City Administrator David B eaudet,Mayor 4 Att a c 1 16 nt - he west 300 "feet (" the east n - feet att the north iqrrartet of - the nottheast—alarter, "5„ 1 ? r lePA of the rr Range 2(:), n Attachment 13 Application Materials and Supporting Documentation Received for Greystone Construction /Sigstad Carpets for a Conditional Use Permit and Site plan Review O Completed development application and appropriate fees. • Proof of ownership or authorization to proceed as applicant. • Parcel search including mailing labels for all properties within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. ® Property tax statement. ® Grading and drainage plans • Landscape plans • Signage plans • Lighting plans • Building plans with elevations O Paving and utility plans • Request to improve City street • Certificate of survey • Planners report and other department comments. PLANNING REPORT TO: Tom Melena FROM: Bob Kirmis /Scott Richards DATE: August 2, 2001 RE: Oak Park Heights — Sigstad's Carpet- Conditional use Permit and Site Plan Review FILE NO: 798.02 - 01.06 BACKGROUND Greystone Construction of behalf of Sigstad's Carpet has requested site plan approval to allow the construction of a 27,885 square foot, four - tenant retail facility upon a 2.2 acre parcel of land located south of 60 Street North and west of Oakgreen Avenue. In addition to the request for site plan approval, the applicants have also requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow flexibility from the City's off - street parking supply requirements. The building is proposed to be developed in two phases with the northerly 24,979 square feet of the building (comprising three tenant spaces) being constructed initially. The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business and was included in the Central Business District Urban Design Study. As a result, the recently adopted Central Business District Design Guidelines apply to the proposed development. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan (Phase 1) Exhibit C - Site Plan (Phase 2) Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit E - Utility Plan Exhibit F - Landscape Plan Exhibit G - Building Elevations Exhibit H - Floor Plan Exhibit 1 - Lighting Plan Exhibit J - Steetscape Elements Exhibit K - City Arborist Comments Exhibit L - City Engineer Comments PHONE 6 1 2- 595 -9636 )RTHWEST ASSOCIi D CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH 577 5 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5 54 1 6 FAX 6 1 2 -595 -9837 E -MAIL N AC WI LATER N ET. COM ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plana The subject property is designated as CBD, Central Business District by the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the CBD designation is to provide a focal point for the community in terms of retail, service and entertainment businesses as well as residential opportunities. As such, the CBD zoning designation and proposed retail commercial use are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. Within CBD zoning Districts, retail sates are listed as permitted uses. Phasing. As previously indicated, the 27,885 square foot building is proposed to be developed in two phases with the northerly 24,979 square feet of the building (comprising three tenant spaces) being constructed initially. Such phasing plan responds to a need to provide on -site stormwater ponding on an interim basis (until hook up to the municipal stormwater system is possible). The inclusion of such ponding feature also responds to a directive of the Central Business District Urban Design Study. While this report shall address issues associated with Phase 2 development, such future phase will be required to proceed through the Site Plan Review process. Central Business District Design Guidelines. In October of 1999, the City adopted a master plan for the Central Business District in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly, mixed -use district. To aid in the implementation of the goals and policies of such plan, specific design guidelines for the CBD were developed. The proposed development will therefore be reviewed in regard to its consistency with such guidelines as referenced below: Precinct Designation The design guidelines establish four precincts within the CBD; the Medium -Box Mixed Use Precinct, the Small Box Mixed Use Precinct, the Residential Precinct and the Public Green Precinct. The subject property lies within the Medium Box Precinct that is intended to provide transitional changes between the big box development and the small box development proposed south of the site. 2 Development Context and Character The design guidelines state that buildings within the medium box precinct should relate to the character of small box development via building scale and height, building material colors, horizontal lines and architectural styles and details. The guidelines further state that buildings should form gateways and pillars to other precincts. The proposed structure is to be finished in a combination of materials. The majority of the building is to be finished in light brown brick with dark brown rock face block being provided at the base of the structure. A dark brown cornice has been proposed to "cap the building" The building appears to satisfy an intent of the guidelines by providing features that relate to small box development. The use of false second story windows is also considered a positive design feature by creating a more intimate scale than what would otherwise exist with standard big box development. One concern, which does exist in regard to the building character, is the large, uninterrupted expanses of brick on the north side of the building. To create a more intimate scale that relates to the west side of the building and improves visual interest, it is suggested that variations in color in such areas be provided. The specific acceptability of the proposed building materials will be addressed in the "Building Materials" section of this report. Building Setbacks There are no minimum setback requirements imposed in the CBD District. The design guidelines however, state that limited setbacks (10 to 15 feet) will be permitted along 60 Street. Since the adoption of the guidelines, it has been found that a 40 foot utility easement exists along the south side of 60 Street. As a result, compliance with the limiting setback directive will not be possible. The proposed building is provided a 57 foot setback from 60th Street and an 81 foot setback from the unnamed future street to the west. Considering that the referenced utility easement makes strict compliance with the setback guideline problematic, the proposed building setbacks are considered acceptable. Building Width According to the design guidelines, buildings in the medium box precinct should exhibit facades that do not have long and flat continuous planes. Staggering the facades of the individual tenant spaces and providing columnar elements to the building facades have satisfied this guideline. 3 Building Height The CBD zoning district establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet. The design guidelines state only that building height should vary between 2 and 3 stories. At 20 feet in height, it is debatable whether this design standard has been satisfied. Considering however that the intent of the directive has been achieved by providing false second story windows, the proposed 20 foot building height is considered acceptable. Building Materials The design guidelines state that buildings should be constructed of authentic materials such as wood, brick, stone, cast stone, stucco or pour in place concrete. Accent materials may include metal, glass, block, copper flashing or similar materials. As noted previously,, a variety of building finish materials have been proposed including jumbo brick, rock face block ) and (CMU's) glass. g Generally, such materials are considered satisfactory. Because however, the design guidelines specifically prohibit the use of jumbo brick, an alternative material (consistent with such guidelines) should be substituted (i.e. standard brick). Colors The design guidelines state that buildings should employ earth tones or muted colors and that light and bright colors should be used only as minor accents. The proposed building is to finished in light brown and dark brown colors with light blue and pale green awnings. Thus, the colors are considered consistent with the design guidelines. Walkways According to the design guidelines, sidewalks within medium box precincts should be at least 8 feet wide along building frontage and a minimum sidewalk width of 6 feet should be provided along 66th street. While the submitted site p lan illustrates a sidewalk along the future unnamed street to the west, the sidewalk along 60th street is shown as a future improvement. As a condition of site plan approval, the site plan should be revised to illustrate (and the applicant should be responsible for the construction of) a 6 foot wide sidewalk along 60 street. Streets As noted on the submitted site plan, a new street is to be constructed to the west of the subject site. The design guidelines call for a specific street design that incorporates a sidewalk, lighting and street trees at either side of the roadway. The City will be responsible for the construction of the yet to be named street (see Exhibit J). 4 Lighting The design guidelines state that lighting should be designed to reduce glare and be in scale with the surrounding buildings and that pedestrian scale lighting, not more than 14 feet high, should be located on walkways, trailways and adjacent to store entrances. For parking lot lighting, fixtures must be in scale with their surroundings with cutoff fixtures located below the mature height of trees in parking lot islands. As shown on the submitted lighting plan, two 25 foot high Tight fixtures have been proposed along the site's western boundary. Because on- street lighting will be provided along the eastern side of the unnamed street, it is recommended that the parking lot fixtures be relocated to the eastern side of the parking lot (along the west side of the building). Such lighting should complement the design of the building and be hooded and directed such that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent properties and rights -of -way. In addition to the freestanding fixtures, wall mounted fixtures have been proposed on the north, east, and west sides of the building. Such fixtures are considered acceptable. Landscaping The design guidelines strongly encourage site landscaping to enhance storefront entries and blank walls. Landscaping is further encouraged to screen dun psters and off - street parking areas. The submitted landscape plan calls for a variety of on -site plantings on the north and west sides of the site. While the plan will be subject to detailed review and comment by the City Arborist (see attached Exhibit K), the following supplemental comments are offered. O When comparing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 plans, the Amur Maple tree along the south property line is shown in two different locations. It is suggested that tree be located consistent with the Phase 2 development plan. • While specified as proposed plantings along the unnamed street, a "GA" tree designation is not provided in the plant schedule. This should be corrected. • To compliment the visual appearance of the building, it is suggested that pavement cut out areas be provided near the main entrance, within which small trees or shrubs may be planted. 5 Use Ordinance Requirement Required Spaces Retail Store (Phase 1) 24,979 x .9 = 22,481 sf 1 space per 200 square feet 112 Retail Store (Phase 2) 27,885 x .9 = 25,097 sf 1 space per 200 square feet 125 Access. Ultimately, the subject site wilt be accessed via two points from the future unnamed street to the west. On an interim basis and subject to MnDot and City approval, access will be provided from the north from 60 Street. According to the site plan, the site's northernmost access from the unnamed street lies approximately 67 feet south of 60 Street North. As noted on attached Exhibit L, the City Engineer has recommended that a minimum access separation of 150 feet be provided from 60 Street. Based on informal discussions with the City Engineer however, some compromise on the access spacing recommendation is anticipated. Parking Lot Dimensions. All off - street parking stalls and drives aisles have been found to comply with minimal dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Site Circulation. Generally, the proposed site circulation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 development appear well conceived and function well. There are however, a number of concerns that should be addressed as summarized below, • On the Phase 2 plan, a row end curb barrier should be provided on the northern end of the parking stalls located in the southeast corner of the site. O Can the Phase 2 plan, the two off - street parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site should be eliminated and replaced with green area. Such modification will eliminate an awkward vehicular backing maneuver. Off-street Parking Supply. As previously indicated, the applicants have requested a conditional use permit to allow a reduction from the off - street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance. This is considered with the CBD Urban Design Study that emphasizes more on- street parking and cross utilization of parking consistent with a downtown area. As shown below the ordinance requires a total of 112 off - street parking spaces for Phase 1 of the retail facility and 125 spaces for Phase 2. The applicants are proposing to provide 69 spaces for Phase 1 and 75 spaces for Phase 2. As part of the Central Business District Design Study, it is suggested that uses within the Central Business District provide not less than three off - street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Utilizing this requirement, Phase 1 would be required to provide 67 parking stalls while Phase 2 would be required to provide 77 stalls. Thus, 6 Phase 2 development would be required to provide an additional two off-street parking stalls. Regardless of whether the parking supply suggestions of the design study have been satisfied, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary as such suggestions have yet to be formally adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance. To avoid the processing of similar conditional use permits in the future, the City should consider an amendment that would establish the design study's off-street parking guideline as an actual ordinance requirement. Snow Removal. Some question exists as to whether, as part of Phase 2 development whether adequate area exists on site to accommodate snow storage. If snow is to be stored on site, the submitted site or landscape plan should be modified to illustrate areas intended for snow storage. Grading and Drainage. As shown on the submitted grading and drainage plan, a stormmwater pond has been proposed in the southeast corner of the site (as part of Phase 1 development.) Such pond must be subject to approval by both the Watershed District and City Engineer. Grading and drainage issues (including those related to stormwater ponding) shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Utilities. Utility related issues shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Signage. Specific signage plans have yet to be submitted. As a condition of site plan approval, all site signage must meet the signage requirements of the Ordinance and design guidelines. Site signage should however, be designed in a manner considered compatible with and complementary to the design of the proposed building. Trash. A single trash enclosure has been proposed in the southeast area of the site. As part of Phase 2 development, the enclosure will be relocated from the south side of the building to the east side of the Phase 2 addition. The applicant will need to specify details of the enclosure construction (height, color etc.) as a condition of site plan approval. Loading. As shown on the submitted site plan, four loading spaces have been proposed on the east side of the building. While the location of the spaces dictates that such spaces may be accessed via a one -way circulation route, ample area does exist to accommodate turning maneuvers in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 designs. Development Agreement. A development agreement between the applicants and the City will be required as part of the approvals subject to City Attorney and City Council review and approval. All aspects of the agreement including the payment of assessments related to standard utility construction shall be additional conditions of approval for the proposed development. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office believes the development proposal satisfies the intentions of the of the Central Business District Design Guidelines and therefore recommends the following: A. Site Plan approval to allow the construction of a two phase, 27,885 square foot retail building upon the subject site subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approve a conditional use permit to allow the proposed off-street parking supply. 2. Proposed Phase 2 development shall be subject to site plan review procedures as established by Ordinance and the CBD Design Guidelines. 8. To improve visual interest, the large waif expanses on the north building elevation be modified to provide a variation in color. 4. An alternative to jumbo brick, consistent with the CBD Design Guidelines (Le. standard brick), be substituted as an exterior finish material. 5. The site plan shall be revised to illustrate a 6 foot wide sidewalk along 60 Street. The applicants shall be responsible for the construction of such sidewalk. 6. The freestanding light fixtures along the site's western boundary be relocated to the eastern side of the parking lot (along the west side of the building). 7. All site lighting is hooded and directed such that the source of the light is not visible from surrounding properties and rights -of -way. 8. The submitted Landscape Plan is subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. 9. The Landscape Plan be revised to illustrate the Amur Maple tree be located along the south property line in a consistent location (on both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development plans). 10. The Landscape Plan is revised such that the "GA" tree designation is referenced on the Plant Schedule 11.To compliment the visual appearance of the building, pavement cut out areas be provided near the main entrance, within which small trees or shrubs shall be planted. 8 12.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to access - related issues. 13.0n the Phase 2 plan, a row end curb barrier be provided on the northern end of the parking stalls located in the southeast corner of the site. 14.0n the Phase 2 plan, the two off - street parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site be eliminated and replaced with green area. 15.1f snow is to be stored on site, the submitted landscape plan be modified to illustrate snow storage areas. 16.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to grading and drainage issues. IT The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues. 18. Details relating to the trash enclosure construction (ie. height, color etc) be specified. 19.A11 site signage meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Such signage shall however be designed in a manner consistent with and complementary to the design of the building. B. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow an off - street parking supply less than that required by ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The City finds that the project is consistent with the CUP criteria found in Section 401.30.E of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Alt off - street parking stalls meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. g ,pAilif irig""' 11‘‘ j 41411HUNCERAV rr.., tmom r diratiCa1110111ii ,,,111 1 9111 11101 IMPORT OP"' HIM 1 .11:1111: •al Him m :, 2 !!! 111111 I 01141113 11111111111 11M11 11111411111111111111 1111I 11 131 tZIA 111111111111 11111M 1111111MIA I I:Will 1 11 1 : 1 1:1 11 1171 HMI turi 111111 11113 ISA MI11 11M1 .2, jn biLi tttLt "MI 1M 1M11 11311 itt tLiit 111111 13111 111111 111 'n 1111111 111 MINIM 1111113111 111111 1111111 011111011111 kts 1111111111M11111 111111. jig! Rim mutual' twat 111111 11111111111 111111111111 ttuifluiltt 111111111111 1111111311111111111 111111111111 11111111111i HIM 11111111H11111111111111 MI11111111 Fah IL 1 11111111 13111111111 1111 1111111 M111111111 mullionl ItitIitthhlt minim tiffilmiti 1M11111111 MI1111111 H1111111111 min 111111111111 111111111111 1111 1111 itt 1111 M I 1111 2 0) 0 0) cu (,) E r ▪ ,T1 t(D 2 0 CO u) CD Exhibit A - Site Location sio@iNolv Jeuun wea ZO CC tiH 1 - L I s 1 0 mm(, 1 c 1m mo 11: Mut N EnZ£ >z uJz 0 z < < § NOIIVADIA - SLH >11V..€ >IVO CIVIGOIG 1 2 -1,99 1,CC rt ..1_92110 CGHVNNII 11 77 C:) 9 sioGiNoiv Jeuun wea 0 0 4 MAI n oi CS • ' , - a a a IL: L L IL L1 0-i 41 k.0 if) ,{i)-• (0 2 cn 0 'd_LOGANNIH - 51H >rerd.,1 >IVO IU 0 iL iz . 0 ?,E 111 < - T ri) [n 0 z IT) U)j u41 N uiu 4 n 0 z z 1\1011\1"3 9 • • • •••• • ••••• • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •-• • •-••• ••••• •••• ••• ••• •••• •••• • •• •••••• 0 1E a a Skl3fiL0 03A0&11 3E1 01 wQd r — p0 0 a UT hi 0 HWYA3HE 1 1 V 1 +'1 T 7 h 4. 4. 2 5 c 0) 0 c w C31 c-;i D 3 2 nb hYA 1E1 Nmeawmvoaauzesrmommoirawwmxoxgawwgi.-- -- --' ` g = 0 " ` =���=.~�~.~ . ' _—. —_ ~ ~ .---_— _La=relv` CEv.1.591s| < 1� Eli rn 0 � 0.! slooNoN rieuun mnea / 0 11 Mikiel 0 NV1 '?,100 V_LOGNN11 ›i•ei'd.=1 >IVO C1'7`.1.515 / 0 z 1 L ti 0 0 '? IL Mr. (Vdd. LT,t1 fl q li 0 ... .,.., , - , , . • , .: - - . ' ii fill in, Iiil ,iio 0. ,...„...._ .._ g 4 1 ..j.Iii!liii!,i0 ,. el i i j - g P r . ., fi11” fiV ! tr. • I. :=.• 6 192L1; ^ n Mhirit NOW'/\1 V_LO5DNN11-4 - G_LH >1 >1% _LAct?Tvi'D (=IVISOIG . • .. / • -.. , • . ._., . I" , •• i . . , ! 1-,h1q11!, '1'•:::- i ii i 1 0, 1 1 "' • ! iii-,,, -. '... ),,I i i ( , ,, ( 1, , (,.. ; ( -4 ) ; 7,i - :1 1 I ' ' I 'ilij i lHil l i i , .t- 1.!.0 : ill ,i -,, v 1.1 , MI 1,11111d ;iw ii ! 1 ".,!,': .., . l I .: iL, P : (I'M', : i . :) , • .-:. (V-- , A :i IA 11.5r. '1 1 IL'!”: '' ' i 1 :1)111:1151,:i - ii ....1Iiii.11)..,.111 ( 1 -• i l 1 1 .„ .. , ., 1 0: ii -/... . :: 1 : (.,,,,.:, ,.. i I . i " : 14 ■ • . ( ((61 , , . , i 1 i .{ i ' ' 1 I ' inill I 3 tt L :...,/: 7 .,= ; . \U:(7? ' :,',' , - : 1! ill i ii f i : t1 1II 1 .6 i 3 - th taw i u.1 9 8 1 1 Landscaped buffer strip • .:j *Pedestrian-scale Iighting •Special paving Rai1ing *Ornamental wail *Landscaping Exhibit J Streetscape Elements NAC From: "K.D. Widin" <kwidin @mmmpcc.org> To: <srichards @ nacpianning.com> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10 :28 PM Subject: Sigstad Carpet - Landscape Plan Scott - I have reviewed the landscape plan for Sigstad Carpet and have the following comments: 1. Frontage on 60th St.: The bicolor oaks are fine except that there may be an issue by the frontage road with overhead power lines. If the oaks will be planted within 20 feet of the lines they should be moved to the west . planting area to replace some of the lindens. Trees within 20 feet of the lines should be smaller ornamental trees. There is quite a bit of frontage g on 60th St. and the Design Guidelines for the Central Business District state that street trees should be planted no more than 30 feet apart. The City would like to see more trees planted along 60th St. and these should be small stature trees such as flowering crabapples (PrairieFire, 'Profusion' and 'Indian Magic' are good varieties). If planted p approximately 30 feet on center there should be room for six trees along fronta e. There ginnala g b e are too many ginnala maple shrubs planted along the frontage. By replacing some of these with trees, the number of maple shrubs P s will be reduced. The City would prefer to see the shrubs on the frontage planted in more staggered or clumped groupings rather than a straight line. 2. Parking Lot and Entrance Areas: I would not recommend using tree -form ginnala maples in the median extensions for the parking lot. There are enough ginnalas elsewhere already and the clumps will get too big for the site and hang into the parking area, obscuring lines of sight. 1 would recommend Japanese Tree Lilacs to replace the ginnala trees in the 3 locations shown. The Jap. tree lilac is more resistant to de -icin g salts and will not get as big as the ginnala. 1t would help to soften the facade of the building if there were a few planting areas with small trees and shrubs in pavement cut -outs near the main entrance. The burning bushes and red chokeberries are o.k. in the locations depicted. 3. West Side Planting: I would recommend the use of Tilia americana ('Redmond') instead of the littleleaf lindens. There are more girdling root problems with Tilia cordata and they will not be as long-lived Y g d in the landscape. The 'Patmore' ash are fine (should `GA' on landscape plan be 'PA' . ). The Goldflame spirea are fine in the locations depicted. 1 would recommend that the ginnala shrubs on the west side be replaced with something like dwarf bushhoneysuckle (Dierviia lonicera). More diversity in the landscape will enhance the longevity of the project. We are seeing more Acer ginnala invading natural areas in Minnesota now because of their Page 1 of 2 Exhibit K -City Arborist Comments widespread use and copious seed production. 4. Planting Detail - Why are trees set in with 113 of root ball above rade? Is that to compensate for nursery stock having roots too deep in (lie ball? Often the bails which are planted high don't get covered adequately by soil and mulch and the roots dry out. only plant trees that high if soil is heavy clay and there are drainage problems. Back -fill soil should consist of at least 1/2 soil from the site rather than 1/3 as listed in Landscape Notes. Kathy Widin Municipal Arborist City of Oak Park Heights Page 2 of 7/30/2001 NAC From: "Postler, Dennis M" <dpostier@ bonestroo.com> To: "Kris Danielson (E- mail)" <kdanielson @ cityofoakparkheights.com> Cc: "Thomas M. Melena (E- mail)" <tmelena@cityofoakparkheights .cote; "Kimberly Kamper (E- mail)" <kkamper @ cityofoakparkh eights.com >; "Jay Johnson (E- mail)" <jjohnson @ cityofoakparkheights.com >; "Jim Butler (E- mail)" < jbutler @cityofoakparkheights.com >; "Judy Hoist (E- mail)" <jholst@ cityofoakparkheights.com >; "Mark Vierling (E- mail)" <mvierling@ eckberglammers.com >; "Scott Richards (E- mail)" <srichards @ nacplanning.com >; "Katharine D. Widin (E- mail)" <kwidin @ mmmpcc.org >; "Shimon, Karen S" <kshimon @ bonestroo.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:02 AM Subject: Sigstad Carpets -- CBD Kris: I will not be able to attend this morning's site plan review meeting. I have been able to give the Sigstad Carpets site plan a cursory review, and have a few cbmmentslquestions for you. My comments differ depending on whether this is being considered a "stand- alone" development or truly part of the overall CBI) development plan. As stand alone development (which this site plan depicts, other than providing for the future street to the south) : The sanitary sewer and water main service locations are acceptable where shown. I would recommend review by the Fire Department to verify adequate fire protection (hydrant coverage). • It is assumed that the existing sanitary sewer and water main that runs along the north side of the property are encompassed by utility easements, and as such, we would not recommend site improvements being proposed within this area. If improvements (parking lot) are allowed, we would recommend that the developers agreement specifically state that should these utilities require maintenance at any time in the future, it will be the developers /owner's responsibility to restore any surface improvements (parking lot, landscaping, etc...) at their cost. • I would recommend that the proposed northerly driveway be a minimum of 150' from the 60th Street North intersection, particularly if this street is to be part of the CBD street circulation plan and separate left and right turn lanes might be required. * The storm pond being provided is probably adequate for this site (we would need to see storm water runoff calculations and a drainage area map). As part of the CBD Development: Much more "bigger picture" development analysis is needed to see how this site fits in to the overall CBD development. * The side street needs to be reviewed for alignment, grades, and width (turn lanes) . * We had envisioned sanitary sewer and water main, and possibly some street storm sewer, within this side street to serve parts of the CBD (see comment above re: driveway location and turning lanes) * The stoic water ponding should be reviewed on a more regional basis. Instead of having a large number of small individual site ponds, the CB D's storm water ponding scenario under the Xcel Energy high lines would seem a better overall ponding scenario for individual sites to drain to. Page 1 of Exhibit L -City Engineer Comments