Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/08/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - RegularAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. AUGUST 15, 2018 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes July 18, 2018 3. Hearings A. Wat Prom Buddhist Temple parking lot Applicant: Wat Prom Buddhist Temple Location: 2544 Highway 100 S. Case No. 18-32- CUP B. Urban Park Apartments Applicant: North Shore Development Partners Location: 3601 Phillips Parkway Case Nos. 18-33-CUP, 18-34-VAR, 18-35-VAR, 18-36-VAR, 18-37-VAR, 18-38-VAR C. Westwood Hills Nature Center Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Location: 8300 Franklin Avenue Case No.: 18-31-CUP 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development office, 952.924.2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the administration department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JULY 18, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tatalovich, Alanna Franklin (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Meg McMonigal, Joe Ayers-Johnson, Gary Morrison STUDY SESSION 1. St. Louis Park 2040 Preliminary Survey Results Commissioner Carper had a number of questions about the statistics reported and asked if the responses could be reported by neighborhood, as the opinions on accessory housing units, duplexes, and other questions might vary by neighborhood. Staff responded they could inquire if the consultant could provide this information. Commissioner Eckholm said the cross section of neighborhoods that responded shows a lot more areas that are predominantly single family responded positively to the survey; whereas in an area like Blackstone, which is very high density, only 15 responded. He said this shows there should not be a concern about apartment dwellers taking over the survey. Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner, stated the survey questions are presented broadly. The city policy would be applied based upon land use category and by zoning districts, not individual neighborhoods, and our zoning districts apply to multiple neighborhoods and are mixed throughout the community. Chair Robertson commented that some neighborhoods have fewer zoning districts than others, so there is a difference. Ms. McMonigal spoke about lot size, lot coverage, access, separate buildings, owner occupied, and non-owner occupied as regulations that will also have to be considered. Chair Robertson said we need to be able to present how accessory dwellings impact property values as this is the primary question of property owners. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 2 Regarding the survey question about the right amount of affordable housing, Commissioner Eckholm said it would have been good to see a breakdown of where survey participants are living. Ms. McMonigal stated participants responded that the city needs more mid-size single family homes. Ms. McMonigal noted that there was pretty strong support for the transportation statement and mobility options. There was a discussion about mobility options. Ms. McMonigal noted there were strong responses to the climate action questions. Ms. McMonigal spoke about the interactive map and how it worked in the survey. She said the consultant will consolidate all comments and commissioners will be able to look at all the land use changes questions. She said review of the second part of survey will be held at the August 1 Planning Commission study session. 2. Retail and Service Size Requirements Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Administrator, introduced the topic. He said staff has explored and narrowed down options to address city council direction for planning commission discussion which include: 1) looking at the zoning of a lot of the C2 General Commercial areas to determine if it is the appropriate zoning; and 2) limiting the size of businesses within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial district. He said he hopes discussion will consider the context of the broader goals in the Comprehensive Plan that tie into this conversation. He gave a presentation. Chair Robertson spoke about PUD developments. He asked which C2 districts exist that don’t already have big box. He asked what we are trying to prevent if big box is already in those areas. Mr. Walther reviewed sizes of existing stores in the city. He spoke of city council’s stated concerns regarding larger stores. Commissioner Johnston-Madison spoke about smaller businesses in neighborhoods which have to be C1 and the need to maintain those businesses. These are being lost over time, perhaps because big box is so successful. She said if the city is promoting biking and walking it has to have businesses that people can reach in their neighborhoods. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 3 Commissioner Peilen spoke about her appreciation for small stores. She said, however, she has some issues when the city starts micro-managing size. She said sometimes a one-size solution isn’t always warranted. She said she has an issue with prohibiting expansion of a successful business. She spoke about the need to listen to the marketplace. Commissioner Peilen stated the issue regards a balance between good, sound planning and zoning and micro-managing. Commissioner Carper said he doesn’t understand hostility towards large retail, in particular liquor stores. He said he doesn’t think there have been problems with liquor stores. Commissioner Eckholm spoke about the desire to make things more human scale and the concern that there exists the ability to drop in a huge building which is allowed by code. Chair Robertson stated he doesn’t like picking on particular types of businesses. He said denying citizens access to potential economic savings isn’t good. Mr. Walther discussed the C2 areas map provided in the staff report. He reported staff’s findings regarding the current size distribution of retail, service and liquor businesses in the C1 and C2 districts. He shared images illustrating the relative sizes of existing businesses in St. Louis Park. He discussed some potential unintended consequences of rezoning properties that are currently C2. Commissioners discussed scale. Commissioner Eckholm said he is concerned about the size of any kind of store in an area where we want people as well. He said he also wants to see housing above commercial uses. He doesn’t want to see a large store being the only use taking up the space. Mr. Walther said one criticism he’s heard of Fresh Thyme is that it has fewer entrances and fewer businesses than hoped for a more walkable environment. Chair Robertson said for a mixed use development to have a single ground floor tenant does take away from vibrancy. He added, however, that if you have five blocks of mixed-use with local shops, then an anchor tenant works and a district is created. He said that is tough to define but sometimes it works. Commissioner Carper said sometimes an anchor store has the ability to develop the area around it. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 4 Commissioner Kraft said she agrees that every building can’t provide mixed-use. The whole area has to be considered. The Chair and Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, discussed PUDs. Mr. Walther asked if commissioners wanted to look geographically at the zoning map at areas to be reviewed. He asked how the commission wanted to explore size limitations. The Chair said he was interested in looking at the areas individually and the likelihood that the site will redevelop in the next ten years. Mr. Walther suggested prioritizing and first discussing locations where change may be eminent and locations that do not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and may be less complicated. There was a discussion about the Sam’s Club site, Miracle Mile and the Hoigaard Village areas. Commissioner Eckholm spoke about considering mixed use rather than solely retail shopping center use allowed in the C2 district, and the desire that if uses change it becomes a little bit better oriented towards our goals, even if it stays commercial. Mr. Walther asked if focusing on maps and aerials for the next conversation would be useful. Commissioner Peilen asked if it should be a more general zoning discussion, separate from liquor stores. Mr. Walther mentioned areas which appear to be closer to C1 purpose and character such as Historic Walker Lake, the north side of Excelsior Blvd. east of Hwy. 100, parts of the south side of Excelsior Blvd. west of Hwy. 100, Cedar Lake Rd./Louisiana, and Texa- Tonka. Commissioner Carper recommended working on the small areas first. Chair Robertson said liquor stores shouldn’t be removed from neighborhood nodes and should be allowed in mixed use and C1. Mr. Morrison spoke about timing and rezoning. Commissioner Kraft said she is interested in looking at specific sites in more detail but she doesn’t want to lose the bigger picture. She said she doesn’t want to lose too much Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission July 18, 2018 Page 5 C2. She said by following some goals we don’t want to lose a good mix in the community. Mr. Walther said staff could provide a list of those areas from the map that we might look at first. Regarding limitations on size, the Chair said he has a hard time limiting size for the sake of limiting. Mr. Walther explained how the city already does that with service uses being limited to 2,500 square feet in the C1 district. He mentioned a proposal in the draft form-based code which would limit size of businesses to 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Peilen said a blanket size limitation is a concern. Mr. Walther said to make a more pedestrian, bicycle and transit oriented environment is going to take a lot of effort and certain controls. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 15, 2018 Agenda Item: 3A 3A. Conditional Use Permit – Wat Promwachirayan (Wat Prom) Location: 2544 Highway 100 Case Nos.: 18-32-CUP Applicant: Mark Snyder, President, Construction Results Corp. 120-day Review: November 10, 2018 Recommended Motions: Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by city s taff. REQUEST: Requested is a conditional use permit to operate a religious institution at 2544 Highway 100, to expand the parking lot, and to export more than 400 cubic yards of material. SITE INFORMATION: Current Land Use Guidance: CIV-Civic Current Use: Place of Worship Current Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residence Surrounding Land Uses: North: Multiple-Family Residence East: Highway 100 South: Single-Family Residence West: Single-Family Residence Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 2 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) BACKGROUND: The Wat Prom Buddhist Temple is a religious institution that occupied the existing facility in November 2013. The building was constructed in 1968 as a church, and was occupied by the Wat Prom in 2017. As shown on the photo above, the existing temple is located in the center of the property. Additional site features include: • A 60-space surface parking lot and a private trail connecting Vernon Avenue to the parking lot on the north side of the temple. • 50,000 square feet of wooded area on the west side of the temple. • A community garden on the southwest corner of the property. • A lawn and small parking lot on the east side of the property. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 3 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) PROPOSED USE: The following is a summary of the proposed use. Conditional Use Permit – Religious Institution. The property has been used as a place of worship since it was constructed, and Wat Prom will continue to use it as such. Places of worship are religious institutions allowed in the R-1 Single-Family Residence zoning district by conditional use permit. The property does not currently have a conditional use permit. Therefore, it can continue to operate as is, however, changes to the property or building cannot be made without a conditional use permit. Phased development. Wat Prom anticipates three phases of development. A detailed explanation of each phase is outlined in the attached letter from the applicant. The phases are summarized below. The future service hall and meditation hall are shown to illustrate what will likely be proposed in the future. The size and scope of the phases were used to show that the plan meets current code requirements such as landscaping, parking and stormwater. It is expected that the final proposal for each future phase will look similar, but not exactly as shown in the proposal. Each phase will have to meet code requirements existing at the time each phase is propose to be constructed. So modifications to the plans may be required at that time. Each phase will be processed as a major amendment to the conditional use permit, which will require a neighborhood meeting, public hearing before the planning commission, and action by the city council. Phase 1 will begin immediately. Phases 2 and 3 will proceed as funding is available. Phase 1 would begin this fall: • Construct parking lot. • Construct storm drainage for all three phases. • Grade a flat green space west of the existing convention hall to use for outdoor activities. Phase 2 would occur approximately 10 years from now: • Construct a new service hall west of the existing building. • Remodel the existing orientation hall to create more office and classrooms. Phase 3 would occur up to 20 years from now: • Replace the existing convention hall with new meditation hall. Meditation Hall Orientation Hall Service Hall Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 4 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) ZONING ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the criteria considered while reviewing a conditional use permit for a place of worship. Religious Institutions zoning requirements. The property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence, and a Thai Buddhist Temple (Religious Institution) is allowed by conditional use permit with some conditions specific to this use. A summary of the conditions and findings follows: 1. All buildings shall be located at least 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district. This condition is met. All existing and proposed buildings exceed 30 feet from a lot line of a property located in an R district. The closest building is the proposed service center, which is proposed to be 85 feet from the south lot line. 2. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. This condition is met. The parking lot provides an off-street passenger loading area. 3. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in an R district. This condition is met. The plaza located between the service hall and orientation hall is approximately 100 feet from a residential property. 4. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. This condition is met. The property has access to Utica Avenue, which is a service road for Highway 100. Conditional Use Permit review requirements: The following items are to be considered while reviewing a CUP. 1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as a place of worship is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided “Civic” which allows place of worship. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. The property has been used as a place of worship since it was constructed in 1968. The additional on- site parking is expected to reduce on-street parking. The parking lot does not have direct access to Vernon Avenue, so traffic is directed to Utica Avenue which is the Highway 100 service road. Additionally, since an access to Vernon Avenue is not proposed, the temple parking lot cannot be used by vehicles as a short cut to and from Highway 100. The Wat Prom master plan proposes additional future buildings, the height of the buildings would meet the current maximum height allowed in the R-1 Single-Family Residence zoning district, which is 30 feet. The impact of the proposed parking lot will be mitigated and screened through the use of landscaping and retaining walls. For example, the proposed parking lot at the northwest corner of the property will be constructed into the hill so the parking lot will be up to nine feet below the grade along Vernon Avenue. A retaining wall will be constructed. One benefit of the retaining wall is that it screens the parking lot and vehicle head lights. A fence will be constructed above the retaining wall to provide additional screening and fall protection. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 5 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed plan, with staff recommendations, would meet the conditions required for a place of worship and parking lot improvements. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Services will not be impacted by the proposed place of worship or parking lot expansion. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The site design meets the requirements for a place of worship. Parking lot. The existing parking lot would be replaced and expanded to the west and south. This will increase the capacity from 60 to 204 parking spaces. The 204 parking spaces are sufficient to meet the code requirements for the future service hall, meditation hall and orientation hall. As noted above, the phases are shown as an approximation so the applicant and community are aware of the master plan for the site. The plan allows the applicant and city to estimate future parking needs. The number of parking spaces required for the future phases may be revised when the future phases are finalized and submitted to the city for review. The proposed off-street parking lot and adjacent on- street parking gives the applicant some cushion for the future phases, and allows for additional parking for special events. Building Required number of parking spaces Proposed Parking spaces Service Hall 136 On-site 204 Meditation Hall 13 On-street 21 Orientation Hall 26 Total 225 Total 175 There are currently two driveways onto Utica Avenue. The proposed parking lot will reduce the number of access points to one. The southerly access near the curve in Utica Avenue will be removed. Floodplain. The northern portion of the subject property lies partially within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. The existing and proposed parking lot lies within the FEMA floodplain. Two Letter of Map Amendments (LOMA) were recently completed for properties impacted by the same floodplain. The actual 1% chance flood elevation resulting from those LOMAs indicate that the floodplain is significantly lower than shown on the FEMA maps. If FEMA approves a LOMA at similar elevations, then the floodplain would be removed from this property. The applicant will need to submit a LOMA to FEMA to remove the property from the FEMA floodplain. FEMA approval of the map revision is included in the recommended conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 6 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) Landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan meets the city minimum requirements. Minimum number of trees required 40 Number of trees proposed 58 Open space: The master plan proposes using approximately 20% of the property for useable open space available for outdoor activities. The area includes the plaza between the service hall and meditation hall, green space between the service hall and orientation hall, and the community garden. Sidewalk: A sidewalk will be constructed along Vernon Avenue. It will tie into the existing sidewalk to the north and south of the subject property. Tree replacement. The tree replacement required for the removal of the trees is not met on the plan. Caliper inches required to be replaced 888 caliper inches Caliper inches proposed to be replaced 151 caliper inches Total caliper inches deficient 737 caliper inches Approximately equal to: 294 trees If the applicant is unable to meet the tree replacement requirement by planting the required number of trees, then they must pay $140 per caliper inch into the city tree fund for those trees not planted. The money will be used to plant trees on public land or right- of-way elsewhere in the city. If the applicant exercises the cash-in-lieu option for the full 737 caliper inches, then the total fee will be $103,180. Lighting: The lighting plan meets code requirements. The light fixtures are downcast and shielded. The average illumination across the parking lot is 0.5 footcandles. Grading: Extensive grading will be conducted along the north half of the property which will result in approximately 7,800 cubic yards of material being hauled off-site. The excess material is resulting from excavating into the hill along Vernon Avenue to construct the parking lot. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. Additional municipal stormwater, sanitary sewer or water improvements are not required. Stormwater. Stormwater will be met primarily with underground storage and treatment proposed to be located under the new parking lot. Additionally a small rain garden is proposed along the east property line. The plan meets the city’s requirements for water quality, volume and rate control. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 7 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, August 09, 2018. Approximately 35 people were in attendance. Representatives from Wat Prom gave a presentation about the history of the temple, events they hold throughout the year and introduced the proposed project. Those in attendance were generally supportive of the temple and welcomed them to the neighborhood. Below is a summary of comments received: • People were disappointed about the loss of the trees, and were interested in seeing how the proposed landscaping plan would screen the visual impacts of the campus and highway, and mitigate the noise impacts from the highway. It was explained that some of the trees on the south edge of the woods, adjacent to the community garden, would stay until phase 2 is constructed. • Neighbors expressed a preference for a wood fence along Vernon Avenue, and that the fence and landscaping maintain a residential feel. Some appreciated the variety of tree species proposed to be planted. One person requested additional canopy trees. • Questions were asked about the impact the parking lot lights would have. The applicant explained how the lighting is mitigated by three site design elements: o The parking lot being up to 9 feet below the grade on Vernon Avenue would mitigate the impacts from vehicle lights and parking lot lights. o The light levels from the parking lot lights have been minimized to provide for safety and security. o The perimeter landscaping will block some of the lighting. • There was discussion about pedestrian traffic between Utica Avenue and Vernon Avenue. A request was made to connect the Wat Prom fence on the north property line with the residential fence running north/south. Closing that space would prevent people from trespassing on the residential property to the north. The applicant was open to closing the gap. • A question was asked about how the temple would prevent traffic from driving through the neighborhood. The applicant responded saying they designed the parking lot in part to minimize traffic impacts to the neighborhood. o The size of the parking lot should reduce the occurrence of overflow parking in the neighborhood. o The parking lot is only accessible from Utica Avenue. • It was noted that the community garden would stay, however, it would not be available during the construction of phase 2 as that area would be needed for staging the construction of the building. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 8 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) STAFF RECOMMENDATON: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to operate a Religious Institution at 2544 Highway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits. a. Exhibit A: C4.1 - Paving & Geometric Plan b. Exhibit B: C2.0 - Grading and Erosion Control Plan c. Exhibit C: L101 and L102 - Landscape Plan d. Exhibit D: C3.0 - Utility Plan e. Exhibit E: Photometric Plan f. Exhibit F: C1.0 - Demolition Plan g. Exhibit G: A100 and A110 - Floor Plan 2. Concrete curbing and landscaped parking lot islands shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit. 3. Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit. 4. All utilities shall be buried. 5. The following must be completed prior to issuance of a city permit: a. A financial guarantee shall be submitted to ensure the completion of the landscaping, sidewalk, retaining wall and erosion control. b. Tree replacement fees in the amount of $103,180. The amount may be revised to correspond with additional trees planted on-site. The revision to the landscaping plan may be made administratively. c. A letter of map amendment be approved by FEMA. 6. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to: a. NPDES grading/construction permit. b. City of St. Louis Park erosion control, right-of-way permit, and parking lot permit. c. A stormwater management permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 7. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. b. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional reasonable conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the temporary on surrounding properties during construction. d. All construction vehicles hauling equipment and materials to and from the site shall utilize Highway 100 and Utica Avenue. Vernon Avenue shall not be used. 8. In addition to other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 9. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by property owner prior to issuance of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS: • Aerial photo • Letter from applicant • Development plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 9 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) AERIAL PHOTO Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 10 Subject: CUP – Wat Promwachirayan (Item 3A) Letter from Applicant Vernon AvenueService RoadState Highway No. 100 Vernon AvenueService RoadState Highway No. 100 HWL = 884.2' WAT PROMBUDDHIST TEMPLESt. Louis Park, MNDesignerAMDate7/12/2018ScaleAs NotedDrawing No.Summary1 of 1ScheduleSymbol LabelQuantity ManufacturerCatalog NumberDescriptionLampNumberLampsFilenameLumens Per Lamp Light Loss Factor WattageA4 Lithonia LightingDSX1 LED P6 40K T5M MVOLTDSX1 LED P6 40K T5M MVOLTLED1 DSX1_LED_P6_40K_T5M_MVOLT.ies197650.9163B2 Lithonia LightingDSX1 LED P6 40K T4M MVOLTDSX1 LED P6 40K T4M MVOLTLED1 DSX1_LED_P6_40K_T4M_MVOLT.ies186340.9163StatisticsDescription Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/MinTotal Area @Grade0.5 fc 3.0 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A UP VESTLOBBY CONTROL ROOMABOVEFAMILY SERVICE HALL BUILDING AREA :1ST FL - 18,588 S.F.2ND FL - 8,438 S.F.TOTAL = 27,026 S.F.SEATING : 546, DINING : 504 EXISTING BUILDINGTO BE REMOVEDAREA : 3,849 S.F.EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAINMECH ROOMABOVE ALTARMAIN ENTRANCERECEPTION UP 128'-0"ELEVCOATS MONKS ENTRANCE STUDY STORAGE COATS MECH/ELECT.T. JAN W. M. MONKENTRANCE 7'-0"7'-0"7'-0"TEMPLE BUILDING AREA :6,643 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING AREA :1ST FL - 3,486 S.F.2ND FL - 3,486 S.F.TOTAL - 6,972 S.F. 1 1/8" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date Lic. No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KEY PLAN 2544 Highway 100 South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 18234 cd's xxxxx Revisions No. Description Date Licensee 07-11-2018 xx xx xx/xx/xxxx WAT PROM BUDDHIST TEMPLE STUDIO ARCHITECTS Studio 55 Architects, LLP 10700 Highway 55, suite 275 Plymouth, MN 55441 763.544.8370 studio55architects.com TEMPLE FLOOR PLAN A100 STORAGE MEN WOMENUP UP VESTLOBBY RAMP UP 30" STAGE SERVICE HALL KITCHEN DRESSINGROOMLOCKERROOMLOCKERROOMCONTROL ROOMABOVET. T. DELIVERY OFFICEFAMILY SERVICE HALL BUILDING AREA :1ST FL - 18,588 S.F.2ND FL - 8,438 S.F.TOTAL = 27,026 S.F.SEATING : 546, DINING : 504 MECH ROOMABOVE DAYCARE UP UPLOADING DOCK T. T.MONK LOUNGERAMP DN 18"UP UP UP UP LIFT 128'-0"165'-0"NURSINGT.ELEV7'-0"7'-0"EXISTING BUILDING AREA :1ST FL - 3,486 S.F.2ND FL - 3,486 S.F.TOTAL - 6,972 S.F. 1 1/8" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date Lic. No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KEY PLAN 2544 Highway 100 South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 18234 cd's xxxxx Revisions No. Description Date Licensee 07-11-2018 xx xx xx/xx/xxxx WAT PROM BUDDHIST TEMPLE STUDIO ARCHITECTS Studio 55 Architects, LLP 10700 Highway 55, suite 275 Plymouth, MN 55441 763.544.8370 studio55architects.com SERVICE HALL FLOOR PLAN A110 VIEW OF TEMPLE FROM NORTHEASTVIEW FROM HIGHWAY 100 VIEW OF SERVICE HALL FROM NORTHEASTVIEW FROM VERNON AVENUE CONCEPTUAL IMAGES PROVIDED BY WAT PROMWACHIRAYAN OF MINNESOTA DATE PROJECT # PROJECT STATUS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 2018 BKBM Engineers All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. C I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Date Lic. No. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KEY PLAN 2544 Highway 100 South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 18234 cd's xxxxx Revisions No. Description Date Licensee 07-09-2018 xx xx xx/xx/xxxx WAT PROM BUDDHIST TEMPLE STUDIO ARCHITECTS Studio 55 Architects, LLP 10700 Highway 55, suite 275 Plymouth, MN 55441 763.544.8370 studio55architects.com CONCEPTUAL IMAGES A200 Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 15, 2018 Agenda Item: 3B 3B. Conditional Use Permit & Variances – Urban Park Apartments Location: 3601 Phillips Parkway Case Nos.: 18-33-CUP, 18-34-VAR, 18-35-VAR, 18-36-VAR, 18-37-VAR, 18-38- VAR Applicant: Ben Delwiche, KaasWilson Architects 60-day review: September 14, 2018 120-day review: November 13, 2018 Recommended motion: Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variances with conditions as recommended by staff. REQUEST: Ben Delwiche of KaasWilson Architects, on behalf of North Shore Development Partners, is requesting a conditional use permit for import/export of soil and material associated with construction, and five variances to build a second apartment building at 3601 Phillips Parkway. SITE INFORMATION: Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 2 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) BACKGROUND: Originally the site was railroad right-of-way. The current multi-family use was developed in 2003 by the same group that owns the property today. Phase I of Urban Park Apartments consists of 90 apartment units, including 23 affordable units at 50% area median income (AMI). The existing building contains a mix of one, two and three bedroom units and 72 underground parking stalls. The existing site has a housing density of less than 30 units per acre. A 67-stall surface parking lot is south of the existing building. The Cedar Lake Regional Trail runs along the southwest side of the property. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a second apartment building on the same parcel, south of the existing building and partially over the existing surface parking lot. Phase II of Urban Park Apartments would contain 61 studio, one and two bedroom units, as well as structured and surface parking. 15% of the total units in the two buildings would remain affordable at 50% AMI. 1. Phase II also includes enhanced outdoor amenities that will be available to residents of both buildings. The regional trail will remain open during construction, with the exception of temporary disruptions and detours, and the trail will be fully open after construction is completed. Conditional Use Permit – more than one principal building on a lot. Section 36-71(c) of the zoning ordinance states that there shall no more than one principal building on one lot except by conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit for excavating: A conditional use permit is required to import or export more than 400 cubic yards of soil. The proposed plan requires the export of approximately 5,100 cubic yards of material for site work and construction of the new building. It is anticipated that it will take 200 truckloads and approximately 40 trucks a day to remove the soil material. 2. Haul route. Leaving the site: north on Phillips Parkway, west on 36th Street west, to Highway 169. Entering the site from north: Highway 169 south to 36th Street west to Phillips Parkway. Entering the site from south: Highway 169 north to Highway 7 east to Aquila Avenue north to 36th street to Phillips Parkway. 3. Construction hours. City code allows construction to occur Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and allows construction on weekends from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. Construction duration. Construction will begin in January 2019, depending on the severity of the winter. Construction is anticipated to last approximately one year. 5. Regional trail access. Throughout the project, the regional trail will remain open and protected from construction, with the exception of temporary disruptions and detours. 6. Phillips Parkway. Access to and from Phillips Parkway will remain open during construction. Current land use guidance: High Density Residential Current & proposed use: Multi-family dwelling Current zoning: High-Density Multiple-Family Residence (RC) Surrounding land uses: North: multi-family housing and open space East: retail South: right of way West: multi-family and senior housing Site Area: 3.02 acres Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 3 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) Variances. Urban Park Apartments requests five variances in order to construct a second apartment building on the site: 1. Floor area ratio (FAR). The applicant seeks a variance to increase the maximum FAR on the site from 1.2 to 1.22. 2. Ground floor area ratio (GFAR). The applicant seeks a variance to increase the maximum GFAR on the site from 0.25 to 0.41. 3. Parking Reduction. The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the amount of required off- street parking by 35 spaces from 230 to 195. 4. Side Setback 1. The applicant seeks a variance of 27.5’ to reduce the side setback on the west side of the property from 54.5’ to 27.0’. 5. Side Setback 2. The applicant seeks a variance of 41.5’ to reduce the side setback on the east side of the property from 49.5’ to 8.0’. ZONING ANALYSIS: In addition to criteria for CUP and variance applications, the project needs to meet all other zoning regulations. The following table summarizes the zoning requirements for this development. Additional details on some of these items are discussed below. Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Multi-family residential Multi-family residential Yes Lot Area 3.02 acres No change Yes Height 6 stories or 75 feet Four stories or 47.625’ Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials Class I: 61% - 71% Class II: 29% - 39% Class III: 0% Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio Maximum 0.25 0.41 Variance Floor Area Ratio Maximum 1.2 1.22 Variance Off-Street Parking 1 space per bedroom (existing and proposed buildings): 230 spaces Surface parking: 73 Existing structured parking: 72 Proposed structured parking: 51 Total provided: 195 spaces Variance Bicycle Parking 1 space per dwelling unit + 10% of parking Total required for both buildings: 176 spaces Total required for new building only: 68 Existing garage stalls: 47 Existing exterior racks: 16 New garage stalls: 51 New group storage: 9 New exterior racks: 9 Total spaces provided: 132 Yes; see below Open Area/DORA Minimum 12% (15,770 square feet) 12.5% (16,390 square feet) Yes Landscaping For entire site: Trees: 151 Shrubs: 878 For new building only: Trees: 61 Shrubs: 344 Plantings around new building: New Trees: 78 New Shrubs: 458 Yes; see below Setbacks Front/North: height of existing apartment building Rear/South: 25’ Side/West: 54.5’ Side/East: 49.5’ Front/North: 205’ Rear/South: 50.5’ Side/West: 27’ Side/East: 8’ Variances for side yards Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 4 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) Mechanical Equipment Full screening required Full screening provided Yes Sidewalks Required along all street frontages Provided along all street frontages Yes Solid Waste Full screening required Located in underground garage. Yes Transit service None required Served by Route 17, Route 615, and Route 667 with express lines to downtown Minneapolis. Yes Stormwater Management Required on-site Provided on-site Yes Signage 100 total square feet with a maximum sign face of 60 square feet TBD TBD; see conditions of approval 1. Architectural materials. At least 60% of each building face visible from off the site must be of class I materials. The design of the Phase II building would match the existing building in scale, colors, materials and architectural design. Building materials for the new apartment building include brick, glass, CFB and metal siding. All building facades will meet architectural material standards when construction is complete. 2. Ground Floor Area Ratio (GFAR) & Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the RC zoning district, the maximum GFAR is 0.25 and the maximum FAR is 1.2. The applicant requests variances to both requirements in order to increase GFAR to 0.41 and FAR to 1.22. The history of the parcel as former railroad right of way and the narrow lot width (100’) create difficulty in meeting the maximum GFAR and FAR. Increasing the allowed GFAR and FAR allows a second apartment building on the site thus increasing the variety of housing units and the quality of amenities available to residents. 3. Vehicular parking. The city requires one parking space per bedroom for multi-family residences; therefore, the code requires 230 parking spaces for both apartment buildings on the site. There are 72 parking stalls located in the underground parking of the existing building. There will be 73 parking spaces located in the two surface parking lots, and 51 parking spaces in the underground parking of the new apartment building. This results in a total of 195 parking stalls on the site at the completion of the project. The applicant indicated that additional surface parking on the site was unworkable in order to create outdoor amenity space for residents and meet the designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) requirements in city code. The applicant requests a variance to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 230 to 195. Property management at Urban Park Apartments note residents currently have .82 cars per bedroom. Staff note that there are 24 on-street parking spaces available on the east side of Phillips Parkway, and recognize that these spaces are also heavily utilized by others in the neighborhood. While these spaces could have reduced the required off-street counts, staff chose to exclude them from the analysis. Two conditions of approval will be required for the parking variance: a. All off-street parking spaces on the site shall be made available to residents in both buildings. b. A parking management plan will be required as a condition of approval for the parking variance. 4. Bicycle parking. The city requires one bicycle parking space for every dwelling unit plus one bicycle parking space for every ten vehicular parking spaces in multi-family residences. With Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 5 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) the vehicular parking variance, 173 bicycle parking spaces would be required for both apartment buildings. The applicant proposes installing 52 wall mount bike racks in each space in the underground parking in the new apartment building. An additional 15 bike parking spaces will be provided by outdoor bike racks, for a total of 70 new bicycle parking spaces on the site. This numbers meets the requirement for the new building. There are 63 bicycle parking spaces serving the existing apartment building, therefore there will be 132 bicycle parking spaces at the completion of the project. As a condition of approval for the parking variance, staff recommend the applicant show proof of parking for the 44 bicycle parking spaces not currently shown in plan. 5. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA). The city requires a minimum of 12% of multi- family residential parcels to be designed outdoor recreation areas. The proposed site plan meets this minimum and provides a number of new outdoor amenities for the residents of both buildings: outdoor pool, rooftop deck, dog run, lawn games area, and new entry patios for both buildings. A portion of the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail runs through the site, which will remain open during construction and after the project is completed. A new trail head with bike racks and benches will be added by the applicant south of the project parcel. 6. Landscaping. City code requires 151 canopy trees and 878 shrubs on the parcel. Due to the narrow width of the site, meeting this requirement would be extremely difficult for any type of project. When considered alone, the new building requires 61 canopy trees and 344 shrubs. The applicant proposes adding 74 canopy trees, eight ornamental trees, 267 shrubs and 382 perennial grasses on the southern half of the parcel around the new building. No new plantings are proposed for the site around the existing building. The new planting counts meet requirements for the new building. The overall site meets landscaping requirements through existing plantings, new plantings, and alternative landscaping features discussed above. Plantings between the new apartment building and the regional trail will be similar to the plantings along the existing apartment building, in order to maintain the high level of greenery along the trail. 7. Tree Removal & Replacement. The zoning code uses a formula to calculate the number of replacement trees needed for a development based on the amount of caliper inches of significant trees on the site and the amount of caliper inches of significant trees to be removed. 425 caliper inches of significant trees will be removed during construction, 90 caliper inches are needed for replacement, and the applicant proposes planting 156 caliper inches of significant canopy trees as part of the project. 8. Setbacks. The project meets required front and rear setbacks. Side yards for buildings over 40 feet high in the RC district are 15 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 40 feet on one side and 20 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height in excess of 40 feet on the other. The proposed apartment building is 42’-7.5” tall, so this requirement adds two feet to required side yards. Additionally the width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased two inches for each foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 50 feet. The new apartment building is 245’-11.25” feet long. The building length results in an additional 32.5” for each side yard. Therefore the required side setbacks are 49.5” and 54.5”. The site is only 100’ wide. Without a variance, it would be impossible to build any new multi-family residential building on the site. The applicant requests two variances to reduce the side yards to 27 feet on the west side of the property and 8 feet on the Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 6 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) east side of the property. The new apartment building is placed on the site in order to maximize the distance between the building and the trail in order to allow room for landscaping along the trail. This distance will also allow maintenance vehicles and snow plows to service the trail without damaging the landscaping. 9. Screening of rooftop equipment. A combination of fencing and painting that meets the requirements of the zoning code shall screen any rooftop equipment. 10. Solid waste. Four bins, two for trash and two for recycling, are provided in the lower parking level. 11. Signage plan. The applicant intends to submit a sign permit application that meets all city requirements. Sign permits shall be reviewed and approved by staff before building permits are issued. 12. Site lighting. Average horizontal illumination in the parking lot shall be between 0.4 and 1.0 footcandles, as required by the zoning code. 13. Building readiness. Staff shared the draft building readiness ordinance with the applicant and recommended the project incorporate as many requirements from the ordinance as possible. The applicant will install a video surveillance system in the new underground parking structure, and is considering an emergency call station and enhanced radio coverage for the new underground parking structure as well. 14. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Four level 1 charging stations will be installed in the underground parking structure of the new building. 15. Fire safety measures. The turnaround for the dead end on Philips Parkway is greater than 150 feet. Fire code requires additional safety measures in the interior of the new building. The applicant has committed to incorporating the following features into plans to be submitted for building permits: a. Full NFPA 13 sprinkler-no extended coverage heads. b. Standpipe in each stairwell. c. Full NFPA 72 fire alarm with corridor smokes. d. Full key switch control of garage fans. e. Knox 4400 series recessed box with Tampere. f. Exit discharge to a public way. g. Explore posting signs on one or two stalls near the proposed apartment building stating “No Parking Fire Lane” to allow emergency response vehicles to access and exit the site. Multi-family dwelling zoning requirements: The property is zoned RC High-Density Multiple- Family Residence, which allows multi-family dwellings with conditions. A summary of the conditions and staff’s findings follows: 1. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. The lot is accessed from Phillips Parkway onto 36th Street West. The existing apartment building does not generate traffic at such a Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 7 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) level as to have a significant negative impact on neighboring properties, and there is capacity to handle the traffic generated by the second apartment building. 2. A minimum of 12% of the building lot shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area. At the completion of the project 16,390 square feet or 12.5% of the parcel area will be designed outdoor recreation area. The regional trail layout will remain the same during construction and after the project is completed, and a new trail head amenity will be built by the applicant at the southern end of the site. 3. The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the buildings. The distance between the two apartment buildings will be 303’-1 3/8” which is well over the 47.625’ required. 4. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots. The existing building will be 75 feet from the curbline of the new surface parking lot, and the new building will 45 feet from the curbline of the parking lot. 5. If parking is accommodated on the required public or private road system, it must meet minimum public street width requirements of the subdivision ordinance to allow on-street parking. On street parking, that currently meets minimum public street width requirements, already exists along the east side of Phillips Parkway and will not be altered as a result of this project. 6. Sidewalks with a minimum width of five feet shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. Sidewalks shall also be provided between the public street and parking areas to all building entrances. Sidewalks already exist along Phillips Parkway and 36th Street West. The new surface parking lot will have sidewalks connecting to both apartment buildings. Regional trail in place of sidewalk will be preserved along the east side of Philips Parkway. Conditional Use Permit general review requirements: The following items are to be considered while reviewing a CUP: 1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as multi-family residences is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided RH High Density Residential which allows multi-family residences at the densities proposed. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. There are no long-term adverse impacts anticipated to surrounding properties due to the proposed grading and proposed use. The impacts during construction and hauling activities will be within city requirements. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed plan, Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 8 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) with staff recommendations, meets the conditions required for a multi-family dwelling in the High-Density Multiple-Family Residence district. The proposed plan meets the conditions required for export and infill of materials. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Services have capacity to support the proposed apartment building. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The site design and landscaping plan meet city code requirements. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. On-site stormwater management improvements will be made as part of the site improvements. The utilities have capacity for the use. The proposed design is consistent with all city plans. Variance analysis. As noted above, the applicant requests five variances in order to construct a second apartment building. The following is an analysis of the criteria required by code to be considered when reviewing variances: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. a. GFAR and FAR variances. The height of the proposed building is consistent with surrounding structures, and less than the eight-story Knollwood Apartments on the other side of Phillips Parkway. No negative impacts upon the health, safety and welfare of the community are anticipated from granting these variances. b. Parking variance. The proposed off-street parking amounts will meet similar parking demand as what occurs at the existing apartment building. The site is well served by transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The parking variance will not negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community. c. Side yard variances. The decrease in side yards granted by the variance will still allow sufficient space between the new building and the existing building as well as adjacent properties, and will not have a negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The setback from the new building to the trail will be similar to the setback from the existing building to the trail, and therefore should not significantly impact the function nor the maintenance of the trail. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. a. GFAR and FAR variances. The intent of this provision is to reserve space on a lot for parking, landscaping, and outdoor recreation area, and control the scale of the building. With the granting of these variances the new building will still meet landscaping and DORA requirements, while permitting the construction of a functional apartment building. The proposed building is similar to the scale of other buildings in the area. Parking is provided underground to maintain open space. b. Parking variance. The proposed site plan reduces surface parking in order to help achieve the outdoor amenity space requirement in the code. The ordinance allows reductions in required parking when certain conditions exist. The presence of on- street parking, the regional trail, and transit will help decrease parking demand on Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 9 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) the site. A parking management plan will be required as a condition of approval of the variance. c. Side yard variances. The intent of the ordinance is to ensure sufficient space between buildings and uses to avoid negative impacts on neighboring properties. The reduced side yards will still allow sufficient space between buildings, the regional trail, and adjacent uses. 3. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. a. All variances. These variances allow the construction of a second apartment building on the site, which would otherwise not be possible due to the narrow lot width (100 feet). This second apartment building allows the site to help meet the 2030 Comprehensive Plan goal to “provide a broad range of housing and neighborhood development.” The second building contains a mix of smaller units than the existing building and offers more housing variety on the site. This project will also provide extensive outdoor amenities not previously available to residents. 4. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. All variances. Multi-family residence is permitted with conditions in the RC zoning district. The request for the five variances is due to the narrow width of the property, which is not created by the landowner but rather due to the history of the site as railroad right-of-way. The proposed apartment building is similar in size, character and side yards to the existing apartment building on site, and will not alter the essential character of the locality. Without these variances, construction of an additional apartment building would be impossible. 5. There are circumstances such as or including the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property. a. GFAR and FAR variances. The narrow width of the lot makes meeting the required GFAR and FAR extremely difficult. b. Parking variance. The narrow width of the lot limits the potential locations for parking while also meeting landscaping and outdoor recreation requirements. c. Side yard variances. Due to the narrow width of the lot, required side yards prevent the construction of a functional building on the lot. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. a. GFAR and FAR variances. Due to the narrow width of the lot, without these variances allowing more intensive coverage of the lot, no new multi-family residential building could be constructed on the site. With this proposal the parcel Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 10 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) meets the maximum density allowed in the land use designation and meets outdoor amenity requirements. b. Parking variance. Due to the narrow width of the lot, without this variance no new multi-family residential building could be constructed on the site that meets off- street parking requirements. c. Side yard variances. Meeting the required side yards would not allow for a functional building on the site. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. a. GFAR and FAR. The proposed apartment building will not impact the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. City staff found no threat of fire or to public safety due to the development. b. Parking variance. The proposed off-street parking, along with the new bike amenities, the proximity to the regional trail, and the historically low parking demand at the existing apartment building will help mitigate any impact to traffic on local streets. Streets have capacity for traffic generated by the proposal. c. Side yard variances. The reduced side yards will still allow sufficient light and air to adjacent properties. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. a. GFAR and FAR variances. The narrow width of the lot creates a practical difficulty for any additional development to meet maximum GFAR and FAR requirements. b. Parking variance. Granting the parking variance alleviates the difficulty of construction 35 additional off-street parking spaces on the narrow lot. c. Side yards variances. The narrow width of the lot creates a practical difficulty for any functional building to meet required side yards. PUBLIC INPUT: A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on August 8, 2018, in the existing building at Urban Park Apartments. About 10 residents were in attendance. No one present expressed disapproval of the proposed new apartment building. Many of the residents were concerned about parking on the site, both now and in the future. The property manager attended the meeting and mentioned management were working on implementing a permit system to prevent non-residents from parking in the off-street surface lot. The development team also explained the new underground parking and bicycle parking facilities that would be included as part of the project. One community member submitted a letter in opposition to the project. The resident raised concerns regarding loss of open green space, increased traffic and congestion, and lack of affordable housing vs. market-rate housing as proposed in the new apartment building. See the attached resident letter. STAFF RECOMMENDATON: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to build a second apartment building at 3601 Phillips Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the official exhibits. The official exhibits include: Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 11 Subject: CUP & Variances – Urban Park Apartments (Item 3B) a. Exhibit A: SD-000 Cover Sheet b. Exhibit B: SD-001 Area Map c. Exhibit C: SD-002 Construction Plan d. Exhibit D: SD-100 Site Plan e. Exhibit E: SD-300 Floor Plans f. Exhibit F: SD-301 Floor Plans g. Exhibit G: SD-500 Exterior Elevations h. Exhibit H: SD-501 Exterior Elevations i. Exhibit I: SD-502 Perspectives j. Exhibit J: C0.0 Title Sheet k. Exhibit K: Survey l. Exhibit L: C1.0 Removals Plan m. Exhibit M: C2.0 Site Plan n. Exhibit N: C2.1 Site Plan Enlargements o. Exhibit O: C3.0 Grading Plan p. Exhibit P: C4.0 Utility Plan q. Exhibit Q: L1.0 Landscape Plan & Details r. Exhibit R: SW1.0 SWPPP – Existing Conditions s. Exhibit S: SW1.1 SWPPP – Proposed Conditions t. Exhibit T: SW1.3 SWPPP – Narrative u. Exhibit U: SW1.4 SWPPP – Attachments v. Exhibit V: SW1.5 SWPPP - Attachments 2. All off-street parking spaces on the site shall be made available to residents in both buildings. 3. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to: a. NPDES grading/construction permit. b. City of St. Louis Park building, erosion control, right-of-way, and sign permits. c. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District stormwater management permit. 4. Prior to issuance of city building or erosion control permits: a. The applicant shall show proof of parking for 44 bicycle parking spaces not currently shown in plan in order to meet bicycle parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. b. A parking management plan will be submitted to, and approved by, city staff. c. Additional details on the stormwater treatment facility will be submitted to city staff for approval. d. The applicant shall coordinate with Three Rivers Park District on the design and amenities in the proposed trail head south of the property. e. A sign plan that conforms to all requirements in the zoning code shall be submitted for city review and approval. f. The city assent form and the official exhibits shall be signed by property owner prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Before construction begins, pictures shall be taken of the pavement in the turnaround on Phillips Parkway to document any additional damage caused by construction traffic. 6. In addition to other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. ATTACHMENTS: • Development plans • Resident letter Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Cover PageSD-000 Zoning Notes (R-C High-Density Multiple Family Residence): • 50 Units per Acre • A minimum of 12% of the building lot shall be developed as designed outdoor recreation area. (Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04) • The minimum spacing between buildings shall be the average heights of the buildings • All buildings shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the back of the curbline of internal private roadways or parking lots. • No structure or building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less, except as provided in section 36-78. • (2) The floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.2 and the ground floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.25. • The rear yard depth shall be a minimum of 25 feet except when the rear lot line of land on the R-C district abuts lands in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district, then the yard requirement shall be a minimum of 25 feet or the building height of the building in the R-C district, whichever is greater Proposed Bldg. Gross Area Level Area Level 4 13,434 ft² Level 3 13,574 ft² Level 2 15,122 ft² Level 1 15,120 ft² Level -1 15,895 ft² Grand total 73,145 ft² Proposed Unit Mix by Type Name Unit Type Count Gross Area Net Area Unit A1 1BR 20 763 ft² 704 ft² Unit A2 1BR 4 727 ft² 671 ft² Unit A3 1BR 2 808 ft² 743 ft² Unit C1 2BR 3 988 ft² 934 ft² Unit C2 2BR 4 1,172 ft² 1,111 ft² Unit S1 Studio 12 495 ft² 451 ft² Unit S2 Alcove 16 533 ft² 488 ft² Grand total: 61 61 EXISTING PARKING FOR 90 UNITS : 95 Surface Parking Stalls 72 Underground Parking Stalls 167 Total Parking Stalls (1.86 Stalls Per Unit) (1.03 Stalls Per Bedroom) COMBINED PARKING FOR 151 UNITS (Existing + Proposed): 73 Surface Parking Stalls 72 Existing Garage Stalls 51 Proposed Garage Stalls 196 Total Parking Stalls (1.30 Stalls Per Unit) (0.85 Stalls Per Bedroom) EXISTING UNIT MIX (90 Units): 23 of 90 Affordable at 50% AMI • STUDIO UNITS: 0 (0%) • 1BR UNITS: 32 (36%) • 2BR UNITS: 44 (49%) • 3BR UNITS: 14 (16%) PROPOSED UNIT MIX (61 Units): All Market Rate • STUDIO UNITS: 28 (46%) • 1BR UNITS: 26 (43%) • 2BR UNITS: 7 (11%) • 3BR UNITS: 0 (0%) COMBINED UNIT MIX (151 Units): 15.2% (23/151) of Units Affordable at 50% AMI • STUDIO UNITS: 28 (19%) • 1BR UNITS: 58 (38%) • 2BR UNITS: 51 (34%) • 3BR UNITS: 14 (9%) EXISTING DENSITY FOR 90 UNITS : 90 Units/3.02 Acres = 30 Units/Acre COMBINED DENSITY FOR 151 UNITS (Existing + Proposed): 151 Units/3.02 Acres = 50 Units/Acre URBAN PARK APARTMENTS PHASE II Drawing Index Sheet Number Sheet Name SD-000 Cover Page SD-001 Area Map SD-002 Construction Plan SD-100 Site Plan SD-300 Floor Plans SD-301 Floor Plans SD-500 Exterior Elevations SD-501 Exterior Elevations SD-502 Perspectives C0.0 TITLE SHEET V1.0 SITE SURVEY C1.0 REMOVALS PLAN C2.0 SITE PLAN C3.0 GRADING PLAN C4.0 UTILITY PLAN C5.0 DETAILS C5.1 DETAILS C5.2 DETAILS L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DETAILS SW1.0 SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONS SW1.1 SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONS SW1.2 SWPPP - DETAILS SW1.3 SWPPP - NARRATIVE SW1.4 SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS SW1.5 SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS P1 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN Summary Urban Park Apartments Phase II is a proposal to add 61 market rate apartment units to a 3.02-acre site in St. Louis Park. Currently home to a 67-stall surface parking lot and 90-unit Urban Park Apartments, the site was originally developed in 2003 by the same group who owns the property today. Phase I of Urban Park Apartments includes 23 affordable units at 50% AMI. Bound by Target, Phillips Parkway, West 36th Street and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail, the proposed Phase II would be constructed on the existing 67 stall surface parking lot and has been thoughtfully designed to complement the scale and asthetics of the existing building and surrounding landscape. The subject site sits in R-C High-Density Multiple Family Resident District and is across Phillips Pwky from Knollwood Place Senior Apartments and the Sholom campus. Exterior Design and Materials The design of Phase II complements the existing Urban Park Apartments both in scale and aesthetic. With four stories of housing above one level of underground garage, the proposed building matches the height of the existing building. Additionally, the color and rhythm of the exterior materials proposed for the Phase II are thoughtfully designed to complement, not exactly match, the materials of the existing building. The proposed building shall incorporate similar materials such as brick, metal panel, and cement fiberboard panel. Balancing the Unit Mix The existing 90 unit Urban Park Apartments was built in 2003 and features 1- bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom apartment units. Almost two-thirds of the existing building consists of 2 and 3-bedroom units. Phase II will offer many studio’s and 1-bedroom units. The proposed building has been designed to balance the overall unit mix of the entire site to better serve market demands. Affordable Apartment Units The existing Urban Park Apartments includes 23 affordable units at 50% AMI. After Phase II is constructed, there will be a total of 151 units on the site. This results in 15.2% affordable units on the site, which exceeds the 10% affordable goals set by the City of St. Louis Park. Additionally, Phase II will feature abundant amenities such as a pool, two community rooms, and a fitness center that will be available to all residents of the existing building, thereby enhancing the living environment of the existing community which further supports the need for high quality affordable housing. PROPOSED BIKE PARKING STALLS: 51 GARAGE STALLS 8 BIKE STORAGE STALLS IN HOUSE 9 STALLS ON EXTERIOR 68 TOTAL NEW BIKE PARKING STALLS kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Area MapSD-001 EXISTING 90 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING PROPOSED 61 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING TRUCK ROUTE FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TEMPORARY STOP SIGNS FOR TRAIL USERS DURING CONSTRUCTION SITE ACCESS FOR TRUCKS AND HAULING BIKE TRAIL TO REMAIN OPEN DURING CONSTRUCTION JERSEY BARRIERS AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Construction PlanSD-002 1" = 50'-0"1 Construction Plan N OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA TOTAL -16,390 ft2 (12% of Site) ENTRY PATIO 550 ft2 ENTRY PATIO 1,040 ft2 PUBLIC BIKE TRAIL 7,400 ft2 DOG RUN 800 ft2 POOL AREA 3,300 ft2 ROOF DECK 1,600 ft2 CEDAR LAKE TRAIL STOP 500 ft28'-0"25'-0"18'-2"27'-0"BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE ROOF DECK 750 ft2 LAWN GAMES 450 ft2 kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Site PlanSD-100 1" = 50'-0"1 Site Plan N UP UP UP Existing Building15,254 ft² Area Pool Above SD-500 1 TRASH STAIRS6 Stalls 13 Stalls 62'-0"302'-5 3/8"258'-11 1/4" 4 STALLS ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATIONS NOTE: BIKE PARKING RACK PROVIDED AT EACH AUTOMOBINE STALL ELEV BIKE FIXIT STATION 28 STALLSExisting BuildingSurface Parking Entry PatioEntr y Pati o 4 STALLS Pool 722 ft² Fitness 722 ft²Community Rm988 ft² Lobby LAWN GAMES SD-500 1 ELEV/MECH/ STORSTAIRSTAIR727 ft² Unit A2 763 ft² Unit A1 1,172 ft² Unit C2 727 ft²Unit A2495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 495 ft²Unit S1533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S227'-0" SETBACKBuilding Setback Line8'-0" SETBACK25'-0"18'-1 3/4"303'-1 3/8"258'-3 3/4"50'-6"62'-0"DOG RUN 28 STALLS 18 STALLSExisting BuildingELEV/MECH/ STORSTAIRSTAIRPool Below SD-501 1 1,172 ft² Unit C2 988 ft² Unit C1 727 ft² Unit A2 727 ft² Unit A2763 ft²Unit A1763 ft²Unit A11,595 ft²Roof Deck533 ft²Unit S2495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 495 ft²Unit S1495 ft²Unit S1533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Floor PlansSD-300 1" = 20'-0"1 Garage Plan 1" = 20'-0"2 Level 1 Plan 1" = 20'-0"3 Level 2 Plan Existing BuildingSTAIR808 ft² Unit A3 808 ft² Unit A3 SD-501 1STAIR763 ft² Unit A1 763 ft² Unit A1 1,172 ft² Unit C2 988 ft² Unit C1 709 ft²Elev/Mech495 ft²Unit S1533 ft²Unit S2495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 495 ft²Unit S1533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2Roof Deck BelowExisting BuildingSD-501 1 STAIR740 ft² Community Rm 740 ft² Roof Deck 763 ft² Unit A1 1,172 ft² Unit C2 988 ft² Unit C1 709 ft²Elev/Mech495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2495 ft²Unit S1763 ft² Unit A1 495 ft²Unit S1533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2763 ft² Unit A1 533 ft²Unit S2STAIRRoof Deck Below kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II Floor PlansSD-301 1" = 20'-0"3 Level 3 1" = 20'-0"4 Level 4 kaas wilson architects North Shore Development Partners, LLC St. Louis Park, MN Urban Park Apartments Phase II PerspectivesSD-502 VIEW FROM TRAIL LOOKING NORTH VIEW FROM PHILLIPS PARKWAY LOOKING SOUTH Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 15, 2018 Agenda Item: 3C 3C. Conditional Use Permit – Westwood Hills Nature Center Location: 8300 Franklin Avenue Case Nos.: 18-31-CUP Applicant: St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Division Owner: City of St. Louis Park Recommended motion: Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with conditions as recommended by staff. REQUEST: City of St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Division is requesting a conditional use permit for import/export of soil and material associated with construction of a new interpretive center at Westwood Hills Nature Center. Interstate 394 Westwood Lake Franklin Ave. Project site Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 2 Subject: CUP – Westwood Hills Nature Center (Item 3C) SITE INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The city opened the existing nature center to the public in 1981. The current interpretative center building no longer meets the needs of visitors. Programming, staff operations and public needs have outgrown the facility. The remote location of the interpretive center – removed from the parking lot and at the top an uphill walk – presents challenges to visitors with disabilities, parents with small children and other visitors with limited mobility. Providing more space inside the nature center and making the center accessible to the parking lot will allow a wider audience to enjoy the nature center for a variety of activities from passive to active. PROPOSAL: The city proposes building a new nature center south of the existing building. The relocation of the building and the reconstruction of the parking lot will make the interpretive center more accessible to all visitors. The proposed project will connect people to nature through the site and building design, while also exhibiting innovative energy-saving measures. Extensive stormwater treatment facilities will also be added to the site. These measures will provide a teaching tool for residents and provide long-term maintenance savings to the city. The existing building will be open with normal programming during construction of the new building. Once the new building is open to the public, the city will deconstruct the existing building and create a new outdoor gathering space on the site. Conditional Use Permit for excavating: A conditional use permit is required to import or export more than 400 cubic yards of soil. The proposed plan requires the removal of approximately 2,847 cubic yards of material and infill of 5,144 cubic yards of material (net volume 2,297 cubic yards) for site work and construction of the new building. It is anticipated that it will take 350 truckloads to remove and haul in the soil material and remove trees. 1. Haul route: Trucks will haul material west on Franklin Avenue, north on Texas Avenue S, west onto Wayzata Avenue, then to 394. 2. Construction hours: City code allows construction to occur Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and is allowed on weekends from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. 3. Construction duration: Construction is proposed to begin in January 2019. Material hauling is anticipated to last approximately 1 week, in order to complete this stage of the project before spring road restrictions go into effect. Conditional Use Permit general review requirements: The following items are to be considered while reviewing a CUP. 1. Consistency with plans. The use of this property as a community center is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, Current land use guidance: Park and Open Space Current Use: Community Center, Park/Recreation, Park/Open Space Current zoning: Park and Open Space Surrounding land uses: Park space around the site Single family residences around the park Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 3 Subject: CUP – Westwood Hills Nature Center (Item 3C) neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided “Park and Open Space” which allows community centers. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. There are no long-term adverse impacts anticipated to surrounding properties due to the proposed grading and proposed use. The impacts during construction and hauling activities will be within city requirements. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. Community centers are a permitted use in the Parks and Open Space zoning district. The proposed plan meets the conditions required for export and infill of materials. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Services will not be impacted by the proposed interpretive center. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The site design, landscaping plan and natural resources management plans meet city code requirements. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. On-site stormwater management improvements will be made as part of the site improvements. The utilities have capacity for the use. The proposed design is consistent with all city plans. Additional zoning requirements: In addition to the general CUP criteria, the application needs to meet all other zoning regulations. The following is a summary of general zoning regulations: 1. Vehicular Parking. Parking requirements for a community center are based on the uses within the building. The proposed building requires 51 vehicular parking spaces. The site plan provides 65 parking spaces in the new parking lot and ten overflow parking spaces along the driveway to Franklin Avenue, for a total of 75 parking spaces once the project is completed. 2. Bicycle Parking. Institutional uses require one bicycle parking space for every ten vehicular parking spaces. The nature center requires five bicycle parking spaces, and the plan proposes 12 bicycle racks, 24 spaces, will be provided on the site. 3. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. The city proposes installing one level 2 charging station that will serve two parking stalls in the new parking lot. Conduit for future electric vehicle charging will be installed to serve eight additional parking stalls. Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 4 Subject: CUP – Westwood Hills Nature Center (Item 3C) 4. Landscaping. As part of the construction of the new interpretive center, 293 significant trees (1,502 caliper inches) will be removed from the site. The landscape plan shows 197 trees (305 caliper inches) will be planted as part of the construction contract. Another 1,197 caliper inches will be replanted throughout the park through a phasing plan, with all the required trees replaced by fall 2020. The Westwood Hills Nature Center Natural Resource Management Plan governs tree removal, protection, and replacement activity for the entire park. Neighborhood meeting & resident feedback: An informational meeting was held by Parks and Recreation staff at the nature center on July 31, 2018. Eight members of the public attended the meeting. Residents in attendance were supportive of the project. City staff received emails that included letters to the editor published in the Sun Sailor from residents in regards to the new nature center. Please see the attached emails. STAFF RECOMMENDATON: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to operate an elementary school at 9400 Cedar Lake Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the official exhibits. The official exhibits include: a. Exhibit A: Survey Sheet 1 b. Exhibit B: Survey Sheet 2 c. Exhibit C: C001 Civil Notes and Abbreviations d. Exhibit D: C002 Sheet Reference Guide e. Exhibit E: C100 Erosion Control Plan Building f. Exhibit F: C101 Erosion Control Plan g. Exhibit G: C200 Site Demolition Plan Building h. Exhibit H: C201 Site Demolition Plan i. Exhibit I: C300 Site Layout & Surfacing Plan Building j. Exhibit J: C301 Site Layout & Surfacing Plan k. Exhibit K: C400 Site Grading Plan Building l. Exhibit L: C401 Site Grading Plan m. Exhibit M: C410 Enlarged Grading Plan n. Exhibit N: C411 Enlarged Grading Plan o. Exhibit O: C500 Site Utility Plan p. Exhibit P: C505 Structure Schedule & Sewer Details q. Exhibit Q: C600 Stormwater Management Plan r. Exhibit R: C900 Site Details s. Exhibit S: C901 Site Details t. Exhibit T: C902 Site Details u. Exhibit U: L001 Landscape Reference Plan v. Exhibit V: L110 Tree Removal & Replacement Plan - Central w. Exhibit W: L120 Tree Preservation & Removal Details x. Exhibit X: L210 Layout & Materials Plan - Central y. Exhibit Y: L211 Layout & Materials Plan – North & South z. Exhibit Z: L410 Planting Plan – Central aa. Exhibit AA: L411 Planting Plan North & South bb. Exhibit BB: L420 Plant Materials Schedule cc. Exhibit CC: L900 Site Details Meeting of August 15, 2018 Page 5 Subject: CUP – Westwood Hills Nature Center (Item 3C) dd. Exhibit DD: L901 Planting Details ee. Exhibit EE: A201 Overall Floor Plan ff. Exhibit FF: A400 Overall Exterior Elevations 2. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to: a. NPDES grading/construction permit. b. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District stormwater management permit. c. City of St. Louis Park building, erosion control, right-of-way, and sign permits. 3. Prior to issuance of city building or erosion control permits, the city assent form and the official exhibits must be signed by property owner. ATTACHMENTS: • Site Plan • Floor Plan • Building Elevations • Resident Emails Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor 1SIGN NO. SIZER1-124" x 24"1 7LEGEND1312"x18" 4 5.5' 4REQUIREDVEHICLE IDPARKINGR7-8mFOR VIOLATIONUP TO $200 FINENUMBEROFINSTALLSMOUNTINGHEIGHT(FEET)NUMBEROFPOSTSPLANSYM.TRAFFIC SIGNSAISLEHANDICAPACCESS NOPARKING27212" X 18"2IJPLAN LEGENDDOOR / EXITNEW MANHOLENEW DRAINAGE STRUCTURENEW HYDRANTNEW GATE VALVENEW CURB TAPERNEW SINGLE SIGNNEW DOUBLE SIGNNEW ISOLATION JOINTNEW CONTROL JOINTCONSTRUCTION LIMITSNOTES:1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND LEGENDS.2. INSTALL "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" SIGNAGE AS REQUIREDBY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK FIRE DEPT.ADA STALLS - 8' x 18'STANDARD STALLS - 9' x 18'PARALLEL STALLS - 8.5' x 23'TOTAL PARKING STALLSKEY NOTESB618 CURB AND GUTTERFLUSH CONCRETE CURBMOUNTABLE CURBCURB OPENINGDECORATIVE CONCRETE. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEE L210.PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BY OTHERS - N.I.C.WOOD CHIP TRAILPARKING SUMMARY PROVIDED46110751234567NSCALE IN FEET02040PROPOSEDBUILDINGFFE = 869.0STORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINSTORMWATERBASINGEN.13'13'12.67'8'8'8'9'MIN18'12'12'18'9'MIN9'MIN9'MIN9'MIN 8'8'8'9'MIN9'MIN18'12'18'12'R20'R20' R3'R5'R3'R3 'R3'R3'R3'6'6'6'18'12'20'R20'R20'R3'8.67'8'10.67'R25'R 2 5 'R3'R3'R3'R3'R3'R3'111113311122221112' 12'4STORMWATERBASIN8'WESTWOOD LAKE10' R 2 5 'R15'R5'R1 0 '55555666 '6'6'6'8'12'33233212'R10'R5' 7.73'R5'6'R5 '8'10.16'77" CONCRETE PAVEMENTW/ MACRO-FIBER REINFORCING4" AGGREGATE BASE (MnDOT CL 5)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADE3" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE ( MnDOT 2360)6" AGGREGATE BASE - ( MnDOT CL 5)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADESEE DETAIL 1/C9012" BIT. WEAR COURSE (MnDOT SPWEA330F)2" BIT. WEAR COURSE (MnDOT SPWEA330F)6" AGGREGATE BASE - (MnDOT CL 5)12" SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL (MnDOT 3149.2.B.2)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADE4" CONCRETE WALKREINFORCING - NONE4" AGGREGATE BASE (MnDOT CL 5)T.A. APPROVED SUBGRADESURFACING LEGEND:BITUMINOUSTRAILBITUMINOUSPARKINGCONCRETEWALKCONCRETEPAVEMENTPERVIOUSPAVERSPERVIOUS PAVERSBASE STONEGEO GRIDSUBBASE STONESEE DETAIL 2/C505HGA NO:DATE:NODESCRIPTION DATENOT FORCONSTRUCTIONNAME:DATE:REGISTRATION NUMBER: OPYRIGHT HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.CISSUANCE HISTORY - THIS SHEET1575-005-00I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATIONOR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA8300 W FRANKLIN AVENUE, ST.LOUIS PARK, MN 55426BCWMC SUBMITTALJULY 27, 2018BCWMC SUBMITTALC300 SITE LAYOUT& SURFACINGPLANBUILDINGSEE SHEET C301 SEE SHEET C301SEE SHEET C301 3A4104.525.56.512CAGE147.2CAGE145.2RAPTORCARE140WARMMEW145.1MEW147.1ELECTRICAL143GATHERING/EXHIBIT115ENTRYTERRACE150STAFFOFFICE110CONF /READING118LOUNGE116RENTALS104ENTRANCE102UTILITY/RECEIVING135VESTIBULE100WELLNESS107OUTDOORPATIO152WORKROOM1082A4111A4111A41076812.51.5HEDDDFAAAA411109.5MULTIPURPOSEROOM C125PROGRAMSTORAGE126DISPLAYWORK RM121GROUPENTRY133MEN132WOMEN131MECH142TELECOM117WELCOME103MGROFFICE109MECH106FAMILY1013.38'-4" 8'-4" 13'-3"1.713EXHIBITTERRACE151CAGE144.2WARMMEW144.114'-0"14'-0"19'-4"9'-8" 9'-8"33454567891010103121516MULTIPURPOSEROOM B124MULTIPURPOSEROOM A123STOR B124.1STOR C125.111.5EEB3157.5CCCBBA8.3914GFFCATERINGSTAGING122STOR A123.1HALLWAY12021CIRCULATION105WESTLOUNGE119COATS120.1COATS120.3ALCOVE130UTILITY141WETSTORAGE138STAFFSHWR/TLT134ENTRYTERRACE134.19TELECOM143.16A484WW2WW2WW2WW3WW3WW3WW2WW2WW3WW2WW3WW2WW2WW2WW2SDG-3LSDG-3LSDG-3LSW1SW1SW1SW1NOJUNE 22, 20181575-005-00A201OVERALLFLOOR PLANJUNE 22, 2018KEYNOTES - FLOOR PLAN#DESCRIPTION28 FLOOR DRAIN; SEE PLUMBING29 STOOP, SEE STRUCTURAL30 OPEN GRATE FLUSH WITH DECKING FOR OVERFLOW DISCHARGE31 RECESSED FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET32 FIRE DEPT KEY BOX; SEE ELEVATION FOR LOCATIONKEYNOTES - FLOOR PLAN#DESCRIPTION19 SSF-1 COUNTERTOP W/STEEL SUPPORT AND SSF-1 FASCIA, SSF-2UNDERMOUNT SINK, AUTOMATIC SENSOR FAUCET20 THERMAL FEATURE WALL: CUSTOM FORMED CONCRETE WALL WITH CUSTOMMIX AND TEXTURE; INCLUDES WALL AND BENCH; COORDINATE WITH COATHOOKS ON REVERSE21 <SDG-2L> SCREENWALL FENCE WITH 8X8 POSTS AT 6'-0" OC, SEE A402 FORELEVATIONS22 STEEL SHIPS LADDER <MET FAB-#>; PAINT FINISH23 WASHFOUNTAIN24 CUSTOM WD-1 MILLWORK WINDOW SEAT W/ STORAGE BELOW ANDUPHOLSTERED TOP25 WALL MOUNTED LCD MONITOR; SEE AV26 PROVIDE POWER/DATA/CATV INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DISPLAY SYSTEMMONITOR BY OTHERS27 DOOR ACTUATOR AND CARD READER MOUNTED TO 4X8 STL TUBE BOLLARD;HPC-1 FINISHKEYNOTES - FLOOR PLAN#DESCRIPTION10 EXHIBIT WALL: 5/8" PLYWOOD OVER WD FRAMING WITH BUILT INBENCHES/STEPS AND OPENINGS TO ACCEPT OPCI ANIMAL DISPLAY CAGES;GYP BD-1 FINISH TO ACCEPT EXHIBIT GRAPHICS BY OTHERS11 MODIFY AND INSTALL FRONT 1'-0" OF OWNER PROVIDED WD MILLWORKPUPPET THEATER12 WD-1 CUSTOM MILLWORK, SSF-1 COUNTERTOP W/DROP-IN STAINLESS STEELSINK13 OPERABLE WALL SYSTEM; STC-5214 CUSTOM WD-1 MILLWORK CREDENZA FOR AV EQUIP AND STORAGE;VENTILATED AT AV RACK; OPEN SHELVES ABOVE; SEE INTERIOR ELEVATIONS15 GATE; SDG OVER EXTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING OVER GALVANIZED STEELFRAMING; SEE ELEVATIONS16 NOTE: NO SLAB AT ANIMAL CAGES17 STEEL PIPE SUPPORT FOR GUTTER ABOVE; HPC-1 FINISH18 COAT HOOKS THROUGHOUT; SEE FINISH PLANSKEYNOTES - FLOOR PLAN#DESCRIPTION1DASHED LINE INDICATES EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE2 DASHED LINE INDICATES GUTTER ABOVE; SEE CIVIL DWGS FOR STORMWATERFEATURE AT GRADE3 PAVED TERRACE - SEE LANDSCAPE; COORDINATE STOOP AT DOORS WITHPAVING PATTERN4 TREATED GLUE LAMINATED WD & <MET FAB-4> STEEL COMPOSITE COLUMN;<MET FAB-2> CUSTOM STL BASE CONNECTION TYPICAL - SEE STRUCTURAL5 TREATED GLUE LAMINATE WD COLUMN; <MET FAB-2> CUSTOM BASECONNECTION TYPICAL - SEE STRUCTURAL6 ELECTRIC WATER COOLER WITH BOTTLE FILLER7 <MFP-1> RECESSED DOUBLE-SIDED ELECTRIC FIREPLACE UNIT; PROVIDEPLUMBED WATERLINE FOR MYST FLAME EFFECT8 STONE MASONRY HEARTH AND FULL HEIGHT FIREPLACE/FLUE ENCLOSURE9 CUSTOM MILLWORK RECEPTION DESK WITH CUSTOM BOARD FORMEDCONCRETE SURROUND (<CONC-23> FINISH) 3/32" = 1'-0"1OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 01 LEVEL 01100' - 0"BOT ROOF-VALLEY LP112' - 0"PAVILION LEVEL 0196' - 6"BOT ROOF-HP118' - 0"SDG-2LSMR-1AT WALLSMR-1MESH-13 A400SMR-1WD-3SMF-1BOT ROOF-WEST111' - 9"SMF-4SDG-3DLEVEL 01100' - 0"BOT ROOF-VALLEY LP112' - 0"BOT ROOF-HP118' - 0"SDG-2LMET FAB-1SMR-1SMF-1SDG-2LSDG-2DSIGN-1WDGL-1TYPSDG-3LWDGL-1TYPSDG-2DSDG-2DWDGL-1TYPSDG-3LWD-1TYPWD-1TYPWD-2SDG-2DWD DR-1WDGL-1SMF-1BOT ROOF-WEST111' - 9"SMF-4SMF-4SMF-4SDG-3DSDG-2L1 A40214A401WD-1TYPSDG-3LSMF-4SDG-3DSMF-1SMF-4LEVEL 01100' - 0"BOT ROOF-VALLEY LP112' - 0"BOT ROOF-HP118' - 0"SDG-2LSDG-2DWDGL-1TYPWDGL-1TYPWDGL-1TYPSDG-2LSMF-4SDG-3DSMF-1WD DR-1SMF-4SDG-3LMESH-1TYP AT MEWSSDG-3DWD-3WD-1TYPWD-1TYPWD-1TYPWD DR-1WD DR-1SDG-2DBOT ROOF-WEST111' - 9"SDG-2LSDG-3DSDG-3DSMF-4SMF-4SMF-4SMF-1SMF-1WD-1TYPSMF-43 A402SDG-2LLEVEL 01100' - 0"BOT ROOF-VALLEY LP112' - 0"PAVILION LEVEL 0196' - 6"BOT ROOF-HP118' - 0"SMR-1AT WALL BEYONDMET FAB-1SDG-2LTYPWDGL-1TYPWD-1BEAM, TYPSMR-1AT WALL1 A400WDGL-1TYPSDG-3DSDG-3DSMF-1GUTTER/FASCIASMF-4NOJUNE 22, 20181575-005-00A400OVERALLEXTERIORELEVATIONSJUNE 22, 2018 3/32" = 1'-0"4OVERALL WEST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"3OVERALL NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"2OVERALL EAST ELEVATION 1 Sean Walther From:Matthew Flory <livinginlenox@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 30, 2018 2:38 PM To:Sean Walther Subject:Fwd: Westwood Hills Nature Center could impact the health of residents Mr. Walther I am writing to see if there was any reasonable way for you to share this email with the members of the Planning Commission ahead of the August 15th meeting or if you would like me to send something to you that you could share with them. I am going to try to attend the public hearing as well. Thanks Matt Flory 3244 Edgewood Ave, SLP 55426 651-335-8926 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matthew Flory <livinginlenox@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:11 PM Subject: Westwood Hills Nature Center could impact the health of residents To: Jake Spano <mayorjakespano@gmail.com>, Steve Hallfin <hallfinslp@gmail.com>, thom miller <slp.thommiller@gmail.com>, Rachel H <rharris.slp@gmail.com>, Anne Mavity <AnneMavitySLP@comcast.net>, Timothy Brausen <timbrausenslpcouncil@gmail.com>, Margaret Rog <margaret.rog@gmail.com>, Karen Waters <waters.karen@slpschools.org>, gores.nancy@slpschools.org, tatalovich.joe@slpschools.org, beneke.jim@slpschools.org, casey.anne@slpschools.org, Kenneth Morrison <morrison.ken@slpschools.org>, Mary Tomback <tomback.mary@slpschools.org> Honorable Members of the St Louis Park City Council and School Board A recent HealthPartners blog noted that the outdoors are good for our mental health. However, a recent  Minnesota statewide health assessment on social determinants noted that regional parks are not always  welcome to all (pages 36‐37).  Generally speaking, this report notes that Minnesota’s regional parks are visited most frequently by white  people over 55. While white people rarely note safety concerns, populations of color are more likely to use the  parks for fishing, special events and picnicking, and are more likely to note safety concerns about being in the  relatively isolated spaces of regional parks. The report also specifically mentioned the need to improve park  accessibility for adults and children with disabilities. Fortunately, Westwood Hills Nature Center is already more than a regional park. We know that it is visited by  patrons of all ages, particularly younger children and families who are coming to the building for programs. I  know this because it is true for my family. Just a few weeks ago I got my 4 and 7 year old out of the house on a  2 spring day, to help them learn that Syrup doesn’t just come from Byerly’s. While we may not all remember  every step from tapping the tree to our table, we all three got a nice walk in the woods and came home with  big smiles and happy stories to share with my wife. And the next time we were there, Julia ran over to check  one of the trees to see how much sap was in the basin. I’m pretty sure she also dipped a finger in to test it for  sweetness. The proposal before the city also addresses some of the equity concerns raised in the State report. It suggests  a larger building, built at grade with an expanded parking lot. To me, this seems like a great way to address  accessibility and make the Interpretive Center seem less remote and safer to anyone who might be uncertain  about the winding trail from the parking lot through the trees to the top of a hill. More space could help  people imagine special events, but additional consideration might be given to highlighting the opportunity to  fish at Westwood and to make the docks feel less remote (eg way‐finding signs?). Maybe we should also look  at current programing or consider what kind of events might help draw people who are not currently coming? Westwood may not track the race and ethnicity of visitors, but we know that our school district is diverse and  that means the kids visiting on field trips from all four elementary schools are not all white. Some schools  appear to bring more of their kids to the Westwood Hills Nature Center than others. In fact, my daughter’s  school (Park Spanish Immersion) brought the fewest kids there in the most recent calendar year. If there is an  inequity between the schools, then we should address it head on, with the school principals, the school  teachers and the school board. School field trips are one way that all kids, regardless of income and  background could have a chance to experience Westwood. Not all families make a point to use our parks, but  once she found it my daughter was clear that she wanted to go back and I think more field trips could help  more families experience this hidden gem.  In fact, if we are going to talk about places that the City and the School District can partner, a new Westwood  Nature Center building, and the potential programming it could house seem like an excellent topic for  discussion. Maybe the Naturalists and Teachers could develop new programing to increase the educational  benefit of visits and its attractiveness to all four elementary schools (and dare I dream for middle and high  school kids as well?). Whatever happens in that building, the people who come for the programs are getting  outdoors and as HealthPartners noted, being around nature is good for our mental well being. We have a  chance to improve the health of our city and residents and we should all take that very seriously.  As you review the plans for the new Interpretive Center, please consider not only the cost of building  something new but the opportunity we might lose if we don't build it right. Building for the future should  focus on the physical space, but it could also include a discussion of what we could do with it‐ the opportunity  to meet the needs of people who are not already coming. Saint Louis Park is a great community but I think if  we work together, we can make it even better. Thank you for your time and your service to our community. Best wishes Matt Flory 3244 Edgewood Ave S, St Louis Park, MN 55426