HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-2000 AdditionsADDITIONS TO AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Property Division — 3240 Twin Lake Road
Correspondence Pages 1 through 2.
1. CUP & Variance — Precision Tree
Correspondence Pages 3 through 16.
MAY -09 -2000 15:57
NRC 612 595 9837 P.02'03
N re.
a c NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Little Canada Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: May 9, 2000
RE: Little Canada - Preferred Builders Subdivision
FILE NO: 758.09 - 00.05
Preferred Builders has submitted a revised subdivision proposal for the 3 -lot subdivision
along Twin Lake Road, Twin Lake Trail, and Mitchell Trail. The City Council had
requested that the applicant prepare a cul- de-sac which would preserve access for a
possible future split of Tract A. The applicant has provided a drawing which adds a small
triangle of land to the cut - de-sac easement from Tract B. This additional dedication would
preserve the opportunity for a future subdivision by providing adequate width on Mitchell
Trail for the lot with the new home (Tract "A-2"), and adequate area for a new building lot
(Tract "A -1 ") along Twin Lake Trail.
In order to increase the size of the cul- de-sac without reducing the size of Tract B to less
than the required 15,000 square feet, the subdivision would have to be redesigned.
Moving the cul- de-sac to the east would help thls somewhat. However, more than about
five feet would require that land would be needed from 3244 Twin Lake Road and
potentially create a non - conforming setback from the existing home on that lot.
In summary, the proposed cul- de-sac provides adequate area and width for a subdivision
of Tract A, pending the Improvement of Mitchell Trail.
cc: Kathy Glanzer
Greg Schroeder
3775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612,595-9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET,COM
PAGE 1
MAY -09 -2000
3 ?'
S. o•
i•
k.
p.
ve7 t
all 1
Sena
4
.c9
G
T
scc
in r
4
ka
15 58 NAC
is
/
• `
• •, / '.
y y,
'1 /37. / / i r 0
• oe
•/ • 1 / r.�da�
/} ?y '
/
• /,
/ ;, /
•
'
♦rb
rr) 6 rra rr fty
r N ifa.t. Ne••r
12 595 9837 P.03'03
i
r,
4
1
loot t
"2
1*
4paa'-m
% • y 'c)
m A
r�
Par
PAGE 2
4
z
TOTAL P.03
MAY-09-2000 09:44
NFAC
MEMORANDUM
NRC 612 595 983? P.02/03
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
TO: Little Canada Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephen Orittman
DATE: May 9, 2000
RE: Little Canada - Precision Tree Conditional Use PermitNariance
FILE NO: 758.09 - 00.13
We have had an opportunity to review the revised site plan submitted by Precision Tree
for the parcel along South Owasso Boulevard. The property is zoned 1-P, Industrial Park.
The original site plan indicated a 4,000 square foot building and a proposed outdoor
storage area of about 23,000 square feet. Under I -P regulations, outdoor storage is
allowed by Conditional Use Permit, up to a maximum area equal to 75% of the size of the
building or 25% of the lot area, whichever is less. As a result, Precision Tree had
requested an outdoor storage Conditional Use Permit, and a variance to allow outdoor
storage area of significantly more area than permitted by the Zoning District.
The revised site plan has refined the proposed uses on the property. The building
dimension has changed to an initial building of 3,680 square feet, and a future addition of
3,360 square feet, an eventual total of 7,040 square feet. The site plan has adequate
parking, and also shows a "truck parking" area behind the building, and an outdoor storage
area delineated to be about 4,400 square feet in area. This area is approximately 120%
of the first phase building, and about 63% of the future building size.
The truck parking area is shown to be between the building and the outdoor storage area.
In the I -P District, °semi- trailer parking is regulated like outdoor storage. If this area is to
be used for the parking of general business vehicles, including construction trucks, the
limitations on semi - trailer parking would nottypically apply. Trailers, equipment, and other
materials which are not self - propelled vehicles would have to be contained within the
outdoor storage area.
8773 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 955 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E -MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
PAGE 3
MAY -09 -2000 09:44
NRC 612 595 9837 P.03/03
Other items to be more fully addressed include the following:
Building Materials. The I -P District requires a masonry exterior finish on all exposed walls.
The applicants have indicated that they are considering "nova- brick" as an exterior finish
to an engineered steel - structure building. Nova -brick is a concrete masonry unit which
would comply with the District requirements. Building elevations should be provided to
verify compliance with the standards.
Phasing. The outdoor storage area would fail within the 75% regulation following full build-
out of the project as proposed. However, the initial building would support only about
2.700 square feet of outdoor storage. The City will have to discuss the phasing issues,
and a variance would still be necessary if the full outdoor storage area is included with the
first building phase.
Landscaping. The site plan shows "tree screening" and "green space" surrounding the
developed portion of the lot. A more detailed landscape and fencing plan would be
required as a part of any final site plan review and approval.
Paving /Surfacing. All parking and circulation surfaces in the I -P District are to be paved
and curbed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance standards for parking arias. In
addition, the outdoor storage area is required to be paved (although curbing is not
necessary). The applicant had previously requested crushed recycled asphalt for the
outdoor storage surface. This issue should be resolved.
Grading, Drainage, Utilities. No grading and drainage or utility plans for the site are
included with this concept plan. These should be prepared for City Engineer and Public
Works review if the project goes forward.
In summary, the site plan is adequate for concept -level consideration. If the proposal
proceeds to final plans, the applicant should submit building floor plans and elevations,
landscaping and fencing plans, grading and drainage plans, utility plans, and any other
details necessary to demonstrate compliance with I -P District regulations.
TOTAL P.03
PAGE 4
iryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
CU R B A N P L A N N I N G D E S I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Little Canada Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 5 October 1992
RE: Little Canada - Precision Tree -
Planned Unit Development
FILE NO: 758.09 - 92.31
BACKGROUND
The owners of Precision Tree are interested in moving their
business to 2929 Country Drive. This parcel is a part of the
Country Drive Study Area for which LEE Development has been
involved developing office /warehouse facilities. The site at 2929
Country Drive is occupied by a non - homesteaded house and an
oversized detached garage. Precision Tree wishes to occupy the
existing buildings and add an outdoor storage area for their
landscaping equipment. This property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit
Development District). The City should consider this project a
concept stage PUD process.
ANALYSIS
This application is similar to the Schmieg proposal for a sign
business on the Malsam property at 2825 Country Drive. In that
application, it was noted that the general use may fit within the
general land use plans for the site, however, quality of
development on the site was of primary concern. The same concern
is present on this site. The existing structures are not of the
quality which the City envisioned when it established the Country
Drive PUD area.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Lc ' • ' -- 3 • (612) 595- 9636•Fax. 595 -9837
PAGE 5
The Precision Tree site plan does not illustrate required site
improvements such as parking and landscaping, nor does it show the
screening necessary for any exterior storage area. Without these
site plan details, it is not possible to evaluate the acceptability
of this proposal. The Planning Commission should review the use
and provide direction to the applicants as to site plan
improvements necessary for further processing. This should include
a minimum of eight parking stalls, paved and curbed, a loading
area, landscaping, and screening proposals for the outdoor storage
area.
RECOMMENDATION
This proposal has been made without adequate site plans supporting
the application. We would recommend that the Planning Commission
review the use and act on the requirements for further
consideration. The minimum improvements are discussed in this
report.
pc: Kathy Glanzer
John Palacio
Precision Tree
Irene Fattalone
PAGE 6
$17,
).-7 .- ,..171-1.0,,,,;• 4, •
a
449.40
.200
(4)
_ L _
,ff>,
kn. 13 b
• ans..'
bt
Q
73 5,
)4N
300
(/7)
3
(.7.)
2969
1
r
(442)
OUTLOT 8
2945
75
13
N
12
31
Pf. la
•■••4■•
(36)
11-io 15o 1 70- 1.80
z Pr; -Tiff - 2.173)
1
8
624
17
w
. 39 at. 11
(a) -1
r. an 2.9 oL cut
34 tod-,
YORKTON .1*14 3.5 (7) to.
90 5 0 30.14 08) (3)
(4)
1.rai 44.
r c.; n r si •75"-29°C .1
ei) r;?)
e ci
I !, (94 .L.FJ
-
.
,)11: Obt:a
z.nka
290 5 1(7) • (8)
CoNOtT
C•.1,
r r •
tlfl ¶. e. No
2883
01 •
° (9, •,'9.
—•••F 1 TO)
af340
14 ?c2888...
crt : I, 3 0.4) t
..k.
4
2641.64
116
28711
5 nc.
178
14:
PAGE 7
AREA LOCATION
P ecisloM I ree St
-12923 Couhfry H1ri ve
I-
"FREc
ulr'E MIN T
Pox K in "J
11 A
lr/9i6HGE
c
3
PAGE 8
1569
Coin 7/C7 12/e/ ±."
SIT PLAN
Fir-A Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R B A N P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Little Canada Planning Commission
FROM: Allan Hunting /Stephen Grittman
DATE: 5 November 1992
RE: Little Canada - Precision Tree PUD
FILE NO: 758.09 - 92.31
BACKGROUND
The owners of Precision Tree are interested in moving their
business to 2929 Country Drive. This parcel is a part of the
Country Drive study area for which LEB Development has been
involved developing office /warehouse facilities. The site at 2929
Country Drive is occupied by a non - homesteaded house and an
oversized detached garage. Precision Tree wishes to occupy the
existing buildings and add on an outdoor storage area for their
landscaping equipment. This property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit
Development) District.
ANALYSIS
This application is similar to the Schmieg proposal for a sign
business on the Malsam property at 2825 Country Drive. In that
application, it was noted that the general use may fit within the
general land use plans for the site, however, quality of
development on the site was of primary concern. The same concern
is present on this site. The existing structures are not of the
quality which the City envisioned when it established the Country
Drive PUD area.
A site plan has been submitted since the last Planning Commission
meeting and is reviewed below.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. 16 • (612) 595- 9636•Fax. 595 -9837
PAGE 9
Parking. The site plan identifies the existing asphalt drive area
which is proposed for customer parking in front of the garage and
new asphalt for the storage area and employee parking on the back
side of the garage.
The site plan adequately provides for the required number of
parking spaces, however, the plan has deficiencies in parking stall
size and maneuvering area. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all
parking stalls shall be no less than 8 -1/2 feet wide and 20 feet
long. The proposed eight parking spaces are aligned at a 45 degree
angle and on the drawing, the stalls are not wide or long enough.
The site plan reflects stall sizes of approximately 7 feet wide and
17 feet long. The space designated for parking would only provide
room for three properly sized stalls.
The biggest concern with the customer parking is that there is not
enough room for cars to turn around and exit the site. The
driveway width closer to Country Drive is not wide enough to allow
a car to maneuver into or out of the parking stalls. The existing
asphalt may need to be widened to allow for maneuvering room.
The parking stalls in the equipment parking area are also
undersized. The layout of the parking area again may not provide
sufficient maneuvering area for the cars or trucks to turn around
and drive out. If any equipment besides vehicles are parked in
this area, maneuvering will really be restricted. A possible
alternative to this design would be to have 90 degree parking on
the south line of the parking area. This would provide a much
easier arrangement for entering and exiting.
Section 903.050.D.8. requires that all parking areas have a
continuous curb barrier around the entire parking lot. The
applicant will be required to provide curbing around the entire
lot.
Loading Area. The site plan shows one loading area on the back
side of the garage. The proposed loading area is smaller than the
required 10 foot by 70 foot by Ordinance standards. The Ordinance
does allow that the minimum requirements can be reduced by the City
Council.
Landscaping. The site plan identifies the existing and proposed
landscaping and screening for the site. Proposed screening
includes a fence along the north and west property lines and pine
trees along the front property line. The fence material must be of
wood or masonry. A chain link fence with slats does not constitute
a proper screening fence. All new plantings will be required to
conform to the size requirements of the landscape section of the
Ordinance.
2
PAGE 10
According to 903.020.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, fences that
extend into a front yard must be of construction to provide maximum
visibility. The Ordinance does allow, by conditional use permit,
variations to the fence requirements which would allow privacy
fencing to extend into the front yard. This question can be
adequately addressed under the PUD application process.
According to the submitted site plan,
adequately screened and landscaped.
Signage. The site plan does not identify
signage is proposed, a signage plan must
for review.
Existing Buildings and Construction Materials Conformance.
Appropriate projects are generally understood to be in conformance
with S -3 or I -P (Industrial Park) uses and a higher degree of site
design and building material. While these objectives were viewed
as absolute for the provision of TIF, they were considered
desirable for all development in the district. The City's interest
in review of these issues is to ensure that its investment in the
TIF supported development is not compromised by substandard
projects. It is not necessary for projects to comply with the site
layouts prepared by the Kandice Heights developers. However, it is
important to be sure that projects do not interfere with the
ability for others to comply. In addition, if the City acts to
permit additional investment in a particular property which may
require acquisition for a larger project at some future date, that
acquisition will have to account for the additional investment made
in the property.
The house and garage and their residential architectural style is
out of character with most modern commercial construction. As a
result, the policy question which the City must address is whether
or not this project will obstruct further development of the
district.
the site appears to be
any proposed signage. If
be submitted to the City
This was particularly important in the Malsam /Schmieg application
in that they intended to expand the buildings which would have
increased the cost of the site for any future acquisitions.
The Precision Tree application does not propose to
renovations to the buildings and therefore the
improvements made to the site for this application
substantially increase costs on the site and would
detriment to possible future costs.
Our office does believe that if at some future date, expansions are
proposed to the site, that all structures including existing should
be built in full compliance with the design and architectural
objectives of the district.
make any
necessary
will not
not be a
3
PAGE 11
CONCLUSION
The City needs to decide, if approval is given, whether it is
willing to absorb the additional investment in the property as part
of potential future acquisition for a larger conforming project.
If not, the project should be denied for reasons relating to non-
compliance with the intent of the Planned Unit Development
District, the City's Development District Plan, and the goals and
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City must also be
careful not to unduly restrict the potential reuse of the property
by another party.
If the City decides that the redevelopment of the property, as
proposed, is acceptable, we would recommend the following:
1. A revised site plan be drawn showing the proper sized parking
stalls and a pattern that addresses the maneuvering concerns
noted in this report.
2. If signage is proposed, a signage plan be prepared and
submitted to the City for review.
3. The City Engineer review the plans for drainage concerns.
4. A CUP be applied for the opaque privacy fence to extend into
a front yard.
pc: Kathy Glanzer
John Palacio
Precision Tree
Leo Richert
Irene Frattlone
4
PAGE 12
CtC
. -
- • • • --1.-e-ilityl.-1•111,
504
•
r
aleirdrcet,5
jz14.20
L;141
rA
,laolt-JA A IteA
FIST 64 rimis
1.1J 1 11
1
•
• •
--f.. tk
Twausei,.:
1-1(c( Ferics.-=_
pee>.
s "
c*
s4T
7
PAGE 13
CCON-1 tc-Na
. Uhl trer4:1;WiT
at- 015N9-.
1:7-..5C-115. 110 tit
as: 1'12: 3d-C.Y1
-7
MINUTES
CUP FOR
OUTDOOR
STORAGE
2929 COUNTRY
DRIVE
PRECISION
TREE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 25, 1992
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular
meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada,
Minnesota was held on the 25th day of November, 1992 in
the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515
Little Canada Road in said City.
Mayor Raymond G. Hanson chaired and called the meeting
to order at 7:30 P.M., and the following members of the
Council were present at roll call:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member
ALSO PRESENT:
City Admin.
City Attorney
City Planner
Cable TV Prod.
Recording Sec.
Mr. Raymond Hanson
Mr. Bill Biesener
Mr. Rick Collova
Mr. Jim LaValle
Mrs. Beverly Scalze
Mr. Joel Hanson
Mr. Tom Sweeney
Mr. Steve Grittman
Mr. Bill Bruce
Mrs. Kathy Glanzer
Mr. Biesener introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -11 -426 - APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE
NOVEMBER 18, 1992 SPECIAL MEETING AS SUBMITTED
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle.
Ayes (4) Biesener, LaValle, Hanson, Collova.
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Hanson opened the Public Hearing to consider an
application for Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor
storage in conjunction with a landscaping business
submitted by Precision Tree for property at 2929
Country Drive. Hanson noted that the property in
question is zoned Planned Unit Development. Hanson
pointed out that given the economy, there has been a
lack of development in the area. Hanson suggested that
perhaps it is time for the Council to take a look at
Page 1
PAGE 14
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 25, 1992
the requirements of the PUD District and loosen those
requirements so that the property owners in this area
can do something with their properties.
Blesener asked if the applicants understood the
requirements of the PUD and what the City is looking
for based on these requirements.
The applicants, John Olson and Lawrence Grohowski,
stated that they understood the requirements of the
PUD.
Blesener noted that the proposal does not require a
great deal of site improvements other than blacktopping
and fencing. Blesener stated that his concern would be
that the applicant put a large investment in site
improvements into the property which would prevent a
developer from coming along in the future and acquiring
the site for a development similar to the Kandice I and
II projects.
Olson reported that Precision Tree may wish to build a
building on the site in the future. However, they
understand the PUD requirements and would be prepared
to conform to those requirements.
Blesener asked if the operation would be similar to
Precision Tree's operation on County Road D.
Olson replied that it would.
Hanson asked if there was anyone from the general
public present wishing to comment.
Bob Rudy, 2942 Condit, asked how many pieces of
equipment would be at the site at a given time.
Olson replied that if all equipment was idle, there
would be ten vehicles at the site. However, this has
not happened in the last ten years, and Olson estimated
an average of 2 to 3 vehicles at the site and stump and
brush chippers in and out of the site.
Rudy asked how the property would be accessed.
Olson replied that access would occur from Country
Drive and not Condit Street.
Page 2
PAGE 15
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 25, 1992
Rudy asked if a fence would be installed along his
adjoining property line.
Olson replied that there would be a fence in that
location.
Rudy stated that he had a few concerns with the
proposal, but understood the property owner's desire to
sell the property.
LaValle pointed out that Precision Tree's operation on
County Road D is a very clean operation that has not
been a problem for the City.
Olson stated that he foresaw no problems with the
neighbors or the City over his operation.
There was no one else from the general public present
wishing to comment on this matter.
Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Blesener, the
public hearing was closed.
Blesener stated that if development were booming in the
area, he would not support this application. However,
the City and property owners have been trying to
attract development to the area for the past 3 or 4
years. Blesener noted that the applicant is not
proposing to put a major investment into site
improvements, therefore, Blesener did not believe that
the proposal would stall any future redevelopment of
the site.
Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -11 -427 - APPROVING THE APPLICATION
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS AS REQUESTED BY
PRECISION TREE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2929 COUNTRY
DRIVE SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN THE
PLANNER'S REPORTS DATED OCTOBER 5, 1992 AND NOVEMBER 5,
1992 AND CONTINGENT UPON ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE
PROPERTY TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Blesener.
Ayes (4) LaValle, Blesener, Hanson, Collova.
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Page 3
PAGE 16