Loading...
07-01-02 PCITEM 3. 1. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Mike Darrow / Dan Licht RE: Otsego- Thomas Reger Building Relocation CUP REPORT: June 11, 2002 NAC FILE: 176.02-02.21 CITY FILE: 2002-23 BACKGROUND A Conditional Use Permit application has been submitted by Thomas Reger to allow the relocation of a detached garage. The property is owned by the applicant and is located at 14857 92nd Circle, NE (Lot 1, Block 6 Antelope Park) in the City of Otsego. The .location of the property lies within a R-3, long range service district. A CUP is needed pursuant to Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow a structure to be moved onto the proposed location as well as to make sure that it meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Photos Exhibit C: Site Plan ANALYSIS Existing Structures. The applicant currently owns the lot and single-family dwelling on the proposed site. The applicant does not have any other accessory buildings on the property. Building Relocation. The relocation of structures to lots within the City of Otsego requires compliance with performance standards outlined in Section 20-19-3 below: A. Upon relocation, the building shall comply with the applicable requirements of the State Uniform Building Code. Comment. A building permit is required prior to the relocation of any structure. Review and approval of the Building Official for conformance with the Uniform Building Code should be made a condition of any approval. B. The proposed relocated building shall comply with the character of the neighborhood in which it is being relocated as determined by City Council. Comment: The neighborhood is fully developed with single-family dwellings. The proposed garage has vinyl siding and aluminum soffits and will be consistent with the character of other buildings. C. The relocated use will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent property values. Comment: Provided that the structure has a similar character and site improvements and is in conformance with applicable performance standards, no depreciation is anticipated. D. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent principal structures as determined by the City or County Assessor. Comment. Not applicable. E. The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within six (6) months from the date of location on the site. Comment: Must be fully installed on its foundation. Accessory and Building Standards. Section 20-16-4 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum design standards for detached single-family accessory buildings, uses, and equipment. The basic requirement for an accessory building is that the building shall not occupy more than 10% of the area of the rear yard. Based on the photo exhibits and other information provided by the applicant, the existing structure appears in conformance with these requirements. Max. area of rear Max. floor area Side setback Rear setback Required 10% 1,000 feet 10 feet 10 feet Proposed 3.2% 280 square feet 10 feet 10 feet CUP Criteria. In considering CUP applications, the Planning Commission and City Council must also take into consideration the possible adverse impacts of the building relocation based upon (but not limited to) the following factors outlined in 2-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 Security. Section 20-19-3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a security be posted for the relocation of structures. This security is required in part to cover any costs that may be incurred due to damage during the relocation as well as encourage completion of the project. Such a security as determined by the building official should be required as a condition of approval. CONCLUSION The proposed relocation of the garage to 14857 92nd Circle NE is consistent with the requirements for building relocations. As such, our office recommends approval of the requested CUP, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for and approved by the Building Official prior to the relocation of structure. 2. The building must be fully installed on its foundation within 6 months from the date of the building permit. 3. A security is required by Section 20-19-3 of the Zoning Ordinance as determined by the building official is posted. 4. Comments of other staff. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Thomas Reger S The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment. This proposal is consistent with the planned low density residential character of the area. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The area is developed with low-density family residential uses, which is guided by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is typical of detached garages and will be compatible with present and future land uses and is for residential uses. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking loading, noise, etc). Comment: The relocated structure conforms with all applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The relocated garage may be considered an improvement of the property from its existing condition and is therefore expected to have a positive effect on the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The proposed garage should have no negative impact on property values 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: There will be no increase in traffic generation caused by the proposed garage. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's service capacity. NAC4�,. BABE MAP DAL1 PROVIDED BY PHakansonon�Ars ■. ■ Assoc.,Inc. PREPARED OCTOBER 4001 NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EXACT MEASUREMENT. TH O T S E G O ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD N s Y�ni.lw m 2 X 3� �� lu 22 "kki W 4 ,4"iQW a00�30 3 a ITEM 3.2. "Oki"" rasa AssackATID CoMsUILxA"Irs" ewe, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht RE: Otsego - Waterfront PUD; Market West REPORT DATE: 26 June 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 29 May 2002 NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.19 CITY FILE: 2002-22 BACKGROUND LandCor Construction, Inc. has submitted plans for development of Outlot C of the Waterfront development with three buildings with a gross area of 37,749 square feet. The PUD Development Stage Plan approved for the overall project showed the subject site, located northwest of Quaday Avenue and 9151 Street, being developed with a single building. The applicant intends to construct the two northern most buildings at this time and reserve development of the third for a future date. The subject site is zoned PUD District. As it is on the west side of the plat, the subject site in not within the WS Overlay District for the Mississippi River. Site and building plan reviews for development of each of the lots is processed as an amendment of the original PUD Development Plan. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Approved Development Plan/Landscaping C. Site Plan D. Building Elevations ANALYSIS Zoning. The PUD District established for the Waterfront project is based upon the uses and performance standards of the B-3 District. General retail uses are allowed as permitted uses in the underlying B-3 District. The proposed site and building plans are also subject to specific design standards established as part of the PUD District, which are reviewed in subsequent paragraphs. As an amendment of the original PUD Development Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance in evaluating the request: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Lot Requirements. The site plan suggests that Outlot C is to be divided into two lots. Lots within the PUD District are not subject to a minimum area or width requirement. Setbacks applied within the District are the same as those imposed in the B-3 District, unless modified as part of an approved development plan. The table below illustrates required and proposed setbacks. All of the applicable setback requirements are complied with, except where the parking area overlays the lot line between the two proposed lots. 2 Principal Building Parking Front Side Rear Street Required 65ft. 10ft. 20ft. 10ft. Proposed 80ft. 80ft. N/A 10ft. 2 Building Design. Building A is a two-story, 21,426 square foot building, with eight first floor bays intended for retail users and two second story suites for office or service uses. Building B is a single-story,10,323 square foot building with 12 bays intended for retail occupancy. Each of the first floor tenant bays in Buildings A and B have individual exterior entrances. The second story of Building A is accessed via staircases or staircase and elevator from entrances on the north and south facades respectively. A roof top terrace on Building B and covered plaza between the two buildings may also be developed. The facade treatment for the buildings is intended to create the appearance of several smaller buildings abutting one another as is the case in a traditional central business district. Building B has faux second story parapets and windows to create the appearance of a two story building. As viewed from the east or west sides, Building A appears to be three different structures and Building B appears to be four different buildings. Variation in building materials, colors, parapet height and design, building line setbacks, window and doorway designs are all elements used to differentiate the building segments. While the overall intent is consistent with the PUD Design Guidelines, it implementation is somewhat disjointed, especially on the east and south elevation. There should be greater consistency in terms of building materials or design elements between the buildings to create better connections between spaces. In the Maple Grove Arbor Lakes development, on which the design guidelines for this project were heavily modeled after, the "main street" buildings share more of the same design palette. Those buildings all have a CMU base with less significant variation in detailing between the different facades. We would suggest that more common design features be used on these buildings as well to better related to one another, as well as to the more suburban character of the site. Building materials include brick, stone, concrete accents, E.I.F.S and other accents as shown on Exhibit D-1. The PUD Design Guidelines would require 60% of each facade to be masonry material and limit the use of stucco or E.I.F.S. primarily to the second story. The north and south elevations of Building A should be reviewed to incorporate additional brick on the first floors. The future design of Building C is also an issue. This building will need to have a similar architectural treatment as Buildings A and B due to their proximity and integrated nature of the two sites. This would include designing Building C with varied facades designs and articulated front building lines to maintain the themes of the other two buildings. If such considerations are not contemplated for this building, it would support the question as to the context of the design for Buildings A and B. Landscaping. The site plan submitted with the application (Exhibit C) is inconsistent with the plans for landscaping previously approved by the City (Exhibit B-1). The applicant will need to submit corrected site plan with accurate landscaping along public streets. However, the overall design appears appropriate for the site, but a few additional measures should be taken: K Incorporate low level plantings and iron railings along Quaday Avenue and 911 Street to better screen the parking lots. An additional overstory tree should be added to the plan between the two entrance points (three total). Adequate landscaping and berms have been provided on the Parrish Avenue side of the property. Break-up long rows of parking where possible with landscaped bump -outs as shown on Exhibit B-2 based on surplus supply to reduce the amount and scale of impervious surface. (see discussion on off-street parking below). The landscaping areas adjacent to the buildings as shown on Exhibit C are preferable. The applicant will need to specify types, sizes, and quantities for this landscape design. Benches, trash reciprocals, and planters of the type specified by the PUD Design Guidelines should also be incorporated on the pedestrian areas adjacent to the buildings. Materials for the sidewalk areas adjacent to the buildings must be specified. The PUD Design Guidelines would require paver bricks, colored and/or stamped concrete, or a combination thereof. Sidewalk connections must also be made to Quaday Avenue and Parrish Avenue across the parking lots for pedestrian access. Access. The subject site has two accesses to Quaday Avenue, where divisions in the median have been provided for full turning movements. The location of the southern access shown on the site plan is not consistent with the approved street design for Quaday Avenue. The applicant will need to resubmit the site plan showing the correct access points for the subject site. The parking stalls that are directly west of the curb cut should be eliminated to avoid traffic conflicts with vehicles entering the site and those backing out of the stalls. Off -Street Parking/Loading. Off-street parking requirements for the proposed buildings are shown below. A total of 234 parking stalls are shown on the site plan, an overage of 60 stalls. In light of the number of excess stalls, a the size of the landscape areas at the entrances may be increased to better direct traffic and avoid conflicts. Landscape bump - outs may also be provided in the long rows of parking stalls along the north side of the site, Quaday Avenue, 91' Street, and Parrish Avenue. These bump -outs would be intended to minimize the visual impact of the parking area and reduce impervious surfacing, consistent with the landscape requirements outlined by the PUD District. An asphalt curb will be required at the edge of the pavement between the site of Buildings A and B and future Building C as an interim measure. ►.I Building Use Floor Area Requirement Required Stalls Gross Net Building A Retail 10,165sf. 9,148sf. 1 stall/200sf. 46 Office 11,261 sf 10,135sf. 3+1 stall/200sf. 54 Building B Retail 10,323sf. 9,291sf. 1 stall/200sf. 47 Building C Retail 6,000sf. 5,400sf. 1 stall/200sf. 27 TOTAL 174 The parking area has been designed for two way traffic on 24 -foot drive aisles. The parking stalls are designed as 9 -feet by 18 -feet, with adequate room in front of the curb for a two -foot overhang. The site plan will need to be reviewed to verify that the stalls are 9 -feet wide at a pavement comer where the curb extends along the side of the stall. No designated loading areas are shown on the site plan. The retail spaces in Buildings A and B would be dependent on loadings goods from the front during off -business hours. To avoid traffic conflicts, the City may require that all deliveries be completed prior to the opening time of the stores to the general public or after hours. Circulation of large trucks from the site may be difficult due to necessary turning movements at the south access point. This issue should be reviewed further. Signage. Signs for multiple tenant commercial buildings are regulated by Section 20-37- 6.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Multiple tenant commercial buildings with individual exterior entrances for tenants may display one wall sign per bay. The size of each individual sign may not exceed 100 square feet or the total area of all signs may not exceed 15 percent of the facade area, as would be required in the B-3 District for single occupancy buildings. The building elevations identify individual business identification wall signs above each tenant bay. These signs range in size from 15 square feet up to 28 square feet. The total area of these signs is significantly less than 15 percent of the area of the building facades. As part of the PUD approval, it is recommended that no individual wall sign exceed 32 square feet in order to maintain the appropriate scale. The south facing facade of the north building also has two wall signs mounted near the top of the building so as to be visible from 91 n Street. The purpose for these signs should be specified as to whether they identify a first floor retail tenant (which would already have a wall sign) or a second floor user. Allowance of the signs for a second floor tenant may be appropriate if it is for a service business (accountant, insurance, attorney, doctor, etc.) even a retail tenant. A second sign for a retail space on the first floor would not be consistent with the intent of the sign ordinance and we would recommend against it. 4 No freestanding signs have been proposed. The PUD Development Plan limits freestanding signs to one per site. Such signs, which may identify more than one tenant, are not to exceed 100 square feet and must be located at the site entrance. These signs also must be a monument type sign consistent with the design included in the design guidelines. Trash. An exterior trash location is shown at the northwest corner of the site. The enclosure must be constructed of similar materials as that of the principal building and further screened by additional landscaping. The trash enclosure is quite a distance from the southeast side of Building B, such that consideration should be given to a second enclosure which may also be accessible to Building C. Lighting. A detailed photometric plan showing the location and illumination field of all sight lighting must be specified, subject to review and approval of the City Staff. The fixtures must be those specified by the PUD Design guidelines. The taller fixtures should be located at the perimeter of the parking lots. The smaller street scale fixtures should be located on interior perimeter of the parking area at the edge of the plaza areas adjacent to the buildings to create more of a pedestrian environment. Grading/Utilities. Plans have been submitted for grading of the site and installation of utilities. All grading and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Final Plat. The subject site is currently platted as Outlot C of the Waterfront subdivision. Prior to City Council action, the applicant must submit a proposed final plat for the subject site in the form of lots/blocks. The final plat should also include an outlot for any area identification sign contemplated for the Parrish Avenue and 911 Street intersection. The final plat is subject to further review by City Staff and approval of the City Council. CONCLUSION Although the proposed development of Outlot C differs from the layout approved with the overall development plan for the Waterfront project it is still consistent with Zoning Ordinance provisions and the PUD District. The changes reduce the overall scale of the building and site to one more compatible with the other sites within the project. Additional input is required from the Planning Commission and City Council related to the building design and context. While the building designs meet the intent of the PUD Design Guidelines, the variation in facade design may be disjointed. To improve the relationship between the varied facade segments, we would recommend use of a common base material and more consistency (but not repetition) of the detail elements. Such measures would also serve to relate these two buildings to anticipated construction of a third single tenant building on the same site. Options for Planning Commission and City Council action are outlined below: C� A. Motion to approve a PUD Development Stage Plan for Outlot C of Waterfront Addition, subject to the following conditions: A final plat is to be submitted for Outlot C, subject to review by City Staff and approval of the City Council. 2. The applicant submit a revised site plan with correct access points and landscaping islands at the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the buildings. 3. The building facades are revised to provide for more consistent (but not repetitive) architectural treatments with greater use of masonry material on the first floor, subject to review of the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council. 4. The landscape plan is revised to address the following: a. Incorporate low level plantings and iron railings along Quaday Avenue and 91' Street to better screen the parking lots. An additional overstory tree is to be added to the plan between the two entrance points (three total). b. Provide landscaped bump -outs and islands within the parking area as recommended by City Staff. C. The applicant will need to specify types, sizes, and quantities for this landscape design for the areas adjacent to the buildings a shown on the plans prepared by Reprise Design, Inc. Benches, trash reciprocals, and planters of the type specified by the PUD Design Guidelines must also be incorporated on the pedestrian areas adjacent to the buildings. d. Materials for the sidewalk areas adjacent to the buildings must be specified and are to include paver bricks, colored and/or stamped concrete, or a combination thereof. 5. Sidewalk connections must also be made to Quaday Avenue and Parrish Avenue across the parking lots for pedestrian access. 6. The site plan is reviewed to confirm that all parking stalls are at least 9 feet by 18 feet and that adequate space is available for delivery truck turning movements. 7. A temporary asphalt curb will be required at the edge of the pavement if the parking lot is constructed in phases. 7 8. Signs are subject to the following conditions: a. Wall signs for individual tenants with dedicated exterior entrances shall be limited to not more than 32 square feet and shall be located above the related entrance. b. The two proposed signs on the south facade of the north building are allowed only if they identify a second story retail or service business use. C. Only one free standing sign shall be allowed and if installed shall be of a monument style design not to exceed 100 square feet located at the site entrance from Quaday Avenue. 6. A second trash enclosure is provided in proximity to Buildings B and C. All trash enclosures are to be constructed of materials consistent with the principal buildings and screened with additional landscaping, subject to City Staff review and approval. 7. A lighting plan showing fixture type and location with proposed illumination patterns is submitted, subject to review and approval of City Staff. 8.- All grading, drainage, utilities and easement issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and pay all required fees or securities required by it, subject to review and approval of the City attorney. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and PUD District. C. Motion to table the request. pc. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Robert Fields f EF I NAC D I I 7 r O D ; ; • ° 1 I -- CE i i 1 ,.b WTUM 0 0! I D i % r, (111111111111111111111111��„_ a•� 3 o a 3 0 °oy I I 0 1 - --- j I i }z. i j I i I ,,,.•=1•• I i ._..— Jm WT oY a ra 1a i i I t d I I I Iii - I a/ r rat t I / 3� IOL\ rrxw "• • • DM 70 '• • � Y \OTSEGOS WATERFRONT Joy Olvr1 Assoc%Na he w..a . •ue o - b OTSEC.O. 11N aw wti. •-.... � wr A s r, rrr to � •• r r. r er,w.I� L.`..••.•.....•.� °� EXHIBIT A-2 CONCEPT PLAN NY -7d 3dV3SONVl — r moM .r..��.., .... i. ,+.....- .... Jll ANVdN100 ONVI 003S10 F NII '093S10 m 1NObUli31VM 003SIO = W J �i �a of c �c+a neo n mno H. ^I Sav a• �on S r u o e g �- • ai® Y� 8 `� a sus sus �s m'sS _ e7 MARKET WEST ME OCE NG QUADAY AVENUE �..;.. ••,.•:.� .•ry wi ++.• w ..r • r . +rw •.ww•� I e�73 i� �i. e OTSEO. UWNCSOTI -w1�rW r� til S "•�`�•� i1Ril DESIGN F R E E SI ECPEUNUTLOT SOUTH — TIMID- -221M IN IN Ram jmm I !ill ;11 Bill U1 Ilia, EVA ----M 11l all, 00000©oo ucwrtc w >•+. w •wNfar. ES 1 1�,� ii4 i DESIGN , ,,,,, p g MARKET WEST X RETAIL/ OF/ICE BUILDING 9175 GMAGAI AVENUE OTSEGO. MINNESOTA o 1 ACRE OUTLOT SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS