Loading...
040406 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 4, 2006 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Paul Anderson, Tim Buggy, Jeff Houle Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Jason Quisberg, Assistant City Engineer, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Carlos Espinosa, Community Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC06-04 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for planned unit development (PUD) conditional use permit (CUP) to Item 4.1 accommodate a condominium industrial re-platting of the existing building, 4301 Quebec Avenue North, Tom Immen/New Hope One, LLC, Petitioner. Mr. Kim Green, community development assistant, stated that the applicant was requesting a planned unit development/conditional use permit to accommodate an industrial condominium re-platting of the existing building on the site. The site is zoned industrial, with industrial land uses to the north and east, high density residential (Kings Manor Apartments) to the west, and community business (Sunshine Factory) to the south. The lot is 3.13 acres in size and the one-story building contains 50,194 square feet or approximately 37 percent of the site. The green space on the site is 13 percent of the total area with 50 percent of the site paved. There are currently six tenant bays in the building. City staff has had some concerns over the last several years regarding the aesthetics of the building. New Hope One, the applicant, purchased the site and proposed making several site improvements to the property, including improving the parking lot, dock doors, landscaping, lighting, and replacing the fence on the western property line. The tenant spaces would be sold as industrial condominiums. The applicant indicated in correspondence that the condominiums would attract smaller industrial users desiring to own their own space, thus adding more stability to the property. Property owners within 350 feet were notified and notice was published in the official newspaper of the city. No comments were received by staff. Ms. Green explained the purpose of a planned unit development was to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for an integrated approach to development. The PUD was intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of lots and buildings, which promoted the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD process allows deviation from the strict provisions of the code related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, etc. through a conditional use permit. The applicant submitted a preliminary plat which was reviewed by the city attorney and city engineer. The engineer commented that the 10-foot drainage and utility easements should be provided along all property lines; the right-of-way along Quebec Avenue should be platted to complete the 30-foot width and an additional drainage and utility easement should be provided along the 30-foot-wide half right-of-way; and shared access across property lines were not acceptable unless appropriate easements are in place. The city attorney indicated the city has limited ability to comment on a common interest community (CIC) plat. The petitioner requested that the Planning Commission waive review of the final plat. The development review team was supportive of the request and offered comments including traffic circulation, parking, snow storage, fence, landscaping, lighting, dumpster enclosures, restrooms, signage, utilities, construction materials, sprinkler system, alarm system, and park dedication fees. The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant regarding the above issues and also requested screening of rooftop units. Ms. Green stated that revised plans were submitted. There are two existing access points on the site from Quebec Avenue. The plans indicate one-way traffic flow on the east side of the building and two-way on the west. Directional signage would be installed. The fire department requested that a 20-foot fire lane be provided around the building. No parking signs should be added to the bump-outs on the northbound east driveway. A do not enter sign would be located on the northern side of the eastern drive. There is no curbing on the site. Curbing would be added on the eastern edge of the parking lot and at the northwest and southwest corners of the property. The parking lot abuts the property to the north with shared access. City code requires 88 parking stalls for the proposed tenant mix in the building, including four accessible stalls near the building entrance. There are 96 parking spaces provided. Ms. Green explained the applicant proposed increasing a small amount of green space and adding plantings along the eastern property line, as well as a retaining wall and shrub hedge. The five existing trees on the east side would remain. The petitioner was not planning to add landscaping 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 on the western side of the property. Ms. Green stated that staff recommended adding over-story trees on the west side of the building. Snow storage and screening of rooftop units should be addressed by the Planning Commission. The revised plans indicate the fence located on the western edge of the property would be removed and replaced with a new six-foot chain-link fence with white slats at the property line. While this type of fence may be appropriate, staff originally recommended an eight- foot fence. If the applicant installs a six-foot fence, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider requiring additional landscaping near the property line for adequate screening. The revised plans indicated 15 light fixtures to be mounted on the building. City code allows 0.4 or less foot candles at the property line. The photometric plan indicated some locations exceeding light limitations. The applicant did respond to a request by the police department to provide pole-mounted lighting at the northeast and southeast corners of the parking lot. The photometric plans indicated that light levels at the west property line were at 0.9. Code requires that parking areas be at 1.0 and some areas of the parking lot are as low as 0.1. The light from the Xcel lights were not indicated on the photometric plan, therefore, a revised photometric plan should be submitted. Light levels for the Xcel Energy lights on the west side of the property should be reviewed by the building official. Ms. Green reported that the applicant requested two freestanding monument signs of 56 square feet each. The applicant would utilize the existing brick bases for these signs. Wall signs of up to 75 square feet per tenant were proposed as part of the comprehensive sign plan. Exterior and interior doors would be signed with the suite number. Snow storage would be accommodated along the west property line. Revised plans indicated that any snow in excess of available space would be hauled away by a third-party vendor with costs paid by the association. Association documents should be updated to include this provision. Revised plans indicated trash storage areas, with materials matching the existing building. The applicant proposes that individual owners handle trash within the building or provide enclosures at their own expense following the proposed design plans. No major changes were proposed for the floor plan, with the exception of a common corridor running east/west along the full width of the building to provide a second ingress/egress to all units. Each suite would be numbered, both inside and outside the building. Alarms must be registered with the police department by individual owners. Separate water meters would be installed in each tenant space. Overhead utilities extend along the western property line, but there are no overhead utilities servicing the building. Ms. Green added that the city attorney indicated that park dedication fees apply when there is replatting and an intensification of the use; however, 3 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 the petitioner disagrees that there would be an intensification of use. The fire department requires a 20-foot fire lane around the building. There is a transformer located on the west side of the building mid-way from north to south which reduces the fire lane to 15 feet. Ms. Green stated that staff supported the PUD/CUP due to the fact that it accommodated existing conditions on the site, it allows for small business ownership, and includes upgrades to the site. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the planning report. Mr. Jason Quisberg, assistant city engineer, stated that the plat indicated a 20-foot half right-of-way with a 10-foot easement. A 30-foot half right-of- way should be incorporated into the plat to be consistent with other areas of the city, along with a 10-foot drainage and utility easement that would extend beyond the right-of-way. The 10-foot easement should be extended around the entire perimeter of the plat. Mr. Quisberg noted that there was no cross easement shown on the plat along the north property line. The north entrance on this site could be utilized for access to the property to the north, which normally requires a joint access easement. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have an easement in place. The storm water fee would be $16,162.20 and must be paid by the applicant due to the fact that there is no storm water pond on the site. The fee is calculated by using the total property area less the building footprint and right-of-way times $0.20 per square foot, which is the typical cost of pond construction. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the width of the fire lane along the west side of the building. Ms. Green confirmed that the fire department requested a 20-foot width for the fire lane. Mr. Tom Immen, on behalf of New Hope One LLC, pointed out the distance from the building to the property line is 35 feet. He stated that there is a power pole in the green space across from the existing transformer which would limit the width of the fire lane. Commissioner Hemken questioned the plans for the fence along the west property line. Mr. Immen stated the current wood fence was approximately 4- 1/2 feet high and placed inside the property line several feet. It was his intent to replace the existing fence with a six-foot high fence. He reiterated that staff had suggested eight feet in height, but he would rather keep it at six feet. Chairman Svendsen wondered whether or not curbing could be installed so the width of the fire lane would be 20 feet as requested. It was suggested that Xcel move the power pole so the 20-foot width could be accomplished. Ms. Green interjected that there was currently no curbing along the drive lane on that portion of the property and none was proposed. The commissioners concurred that the fire lane should be provided to comply with the fire department’s requirements. Commissioner Crough questioned whether the petitioner should be 4 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 required to install a catch basin near the pond on the Sunshine Factory property. He stated he would support additional trees on the west side of the property as a buffer. Mr. Immen responded by saying that there are many trees that currently buffer the apartment building on that property. If they added more trees to the west side of the building, the trees would only buffer a driveway to an apartment building. It was noted that power lines would be directly over the area of the suggested trees. The reasons for not constructing an eight-foot fence include 1) the adjacent parking lot is at a lower elevation, therefore a six-foot fence would be sufficient; and 2) an eight-foot fence would be harder to maintain. It was confirmed that the fence would be chain-link with vinyl slats. The fence company indicated that this product would be durable even in winter with snow piled against it. Mr. Immen confirmed that if there was not an adequate amount of space for snow storage that the snow would be hauled away. Chairman Svendsen pointed out building design features as noted by the building official with regard to corridor two-hour fire rating, and each tenant remodel would be required to obtain a permit. The trash enclosure would be addressed at the time of tenant remodel. He stated that the Design and Review Committee was in agreement that each tenant be responsible for their own trash enclosure, either inside or outside, utilizing pre-approved plans. Commissioner Nirgudé questioned the fire alarm system and it was noted an interlinked system should be installed that would notify all tenants if there was a problem in another area of the building. Chairman Svendsen clarified that all rooftop units should be screened by enclosing the units. Mr. Immen added that the nearest apartment building was approximately 120 feet away with a dense row of trees between the buildings. The existing building had make-up air units which would probably be removed during re-roofing; therefore, the number of units on the roof would decline. For one potential buyer, a typical gas-fired hanging unit may be installed. Mr. Immen stated that typical new HVAC units were not too loud. He proposed that all non-HVAC units would be screened and sound insulated. Chairman Svendsen reiterated that standard HVAC rooftop units located on the roof could be painted of a similar color as the building. Any other mechanical units not associated with heating, ventilating and air conditioning would have to be screened for sight and noise reduction. Discussion ensued on curbing around the entire site as required for all other projects. Mr. Immen reiterated that the parking lot abuts the parking lot to the north, which would be difficult. They did not intend to curb the south or west sides of the property other that at the corners near the new green space areas. Curbing would be installed on the east side. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt there should be curbing along the 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 entire west property line, per code. He noted a six-foot fence would be reasonable. He also felt the power pole should be relocated to provide a 20-foot fire lane. Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on park dedication fees. Mr. Immen responded that he felt the fee does not apply. There is no intensification of use of the property, due to the fact that this is an existing structure designed for six occupants. Therefore, he felt there was no applicability to park dedication. Mr. McDonald interjected that the park dedication fee ordinance was adopted approximately two years ago. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt the fee was appropriate. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, added that his correspondence laid out general requirements for charging the park dedication fee. The property could potentially bring in tenants that would utilize the park systems in a way that had not occurred by this property in the past, through increased use of softball fields for park leagues, and general increased employees at the facilities and parks. The ordinance takes into account the fact that commercial/industrial users may not utilize park facilities as often as residential properties and are charged accordingly. In the event the applicant and city cannot come to an agreement, there are procedures to follow in the Minnesota Statutes. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on the definition of industrial condominium. Mr. Immen replied that the condominium would be a separate ownership, similar to residential condos. The purchaser would own that portion of the building and anything inside that space would be theirs. They would also own a common interest with other parties for the corridor, parking lot, etc. and share the expenses. It was noted that the space could be leased to another party. Mr. Sondrall confirmed that any property owner could lease their property. He felt it would be unreasonable that the owner would not be allowed to lease the space to a tenant. Mr. Immen interjected that some potential buyers are looking at purchasing two units to accommodate future growth with the intent of subleasing on a short term basis. The unit prices range from $60 to $70 per square foot. The Zoning Code regulates the type of industry allowed in the industrial area. Mr. Immen added that there currently are two interested prospects. Commissioner Nirgudé questioned whether or not the lessees would be part of the association. Mr. Sondrall stated that typically only the owner would be a part of the association and have a vote. The owner would have to deal with any problem with a tenant. The city could not micromanage the ownership of these industrial uses. Commissioner Nirgudé wondered when work would begin on the building and when closings on the property might take place. Mr. Immen stated that site work would begin after Council approval and closings on one or two of the units could take place by the end of July or early August. Chairman Svendsen asked whether the petitioner was requesting that the 6 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 Planning Commission waive review of the final plat, and the petitioner answered in the affirmative. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-04. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on the conditions of approval regarding curbing, 20-foot fire lane and park dedication fee. All commissioners concurred that these items be included in the conditions for approval. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 06-04, request for planned unit development (PUD) conditional use permit (CUP) to accommodate a condominium industrial re-platting of the existing building, 4301 Quebec Avenue North, Tom Immen/New Hope One, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant to enter into a PUD development agreement with the city, to be prepared by the city attorney. 2.Applicant to provide financial guarantee/performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 3.Approval of plans by building official. 4.Comply with city engineer recommendations (March 29 and 30, 2006 memos), including payment of a storm water fee in the amount of $16,162.20, in-lieu of on-site storm water ponding, curbing required on west side of property. For the record, no cross easement on the north property line was noted and none was required. 5.Comply with city attorney recommendations related to the plat (March 30, 2006 correspondence). 6.Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply with recommendations, including those provided in the March 14, 2006, letter from West Metro Fire. 7.Planning Commission to waive review of final plat. 8.Comply with planning consultant and staff recommendations including: a.Site circulation signage improvements shall be installed, including “No Parking,” “Do Not Enter,” and other signage as required by the building official. b.Snow storage shall not occupy required parking stalls, and will be limited to the west property line of the site. c.Condominium Association documents shall describe a need to hire snow removal firms as needed when indicated snow storage is overwhelmed. d.Lighting design on the west property line shall be revised to 7 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 provide compliance with light trespass regulations (0.4 foot- candles at the property line). e.Location and photometric readings shall be provided for Xcel lights on western side of property. Applicant shall verify lighting levels on the northwest and southwest portions of the parking lot. f.Applicant shall complete all building improvements as described in application materials. g.Condominium Association documents shall be revised to explicitly state that any emergency/police alarm charges will be the responsibility of individual owners and must be registered with the city. h.Condominium Association documents shall require new standard HVAC rooftop units located on the roof to be painted a similar color as the building and other new mechanical units not associated with heating, ventilating and air conditioning be screened for sight and noise reduction in accordance with the standards provided by city ordinance. i.Trash handling plans must be submitted to and approved by the building official for each unit, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. j.Fence detail stall be reviewed and approved by city staff. k.Species of trees on west property line shall be identified. l.Applicant shall demonstrate that landscaping islands are not interfering with vehicle sightlines. m.Applicant shall increase the driving lane on west side of building to provide a minimum of 20-foot fire lane around the entire building. 9.The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $7,825 at the time of building permit application. Ms. Green stated that the city engineer was suggesting but not requiring a cross-easement with the property to the north at this time. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Buggy, Houle Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on April 24 and asked the petitioner to attend. PC06-03 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for planned unit development (PUD) conditional use permit (CUP) and Item 4.2 site/building plan review to allow the re-plat and redevelopment of the site with the construction of four buildings containing 16 office/warehouse condominiums, 7100 27th Avenue North, Christopher A. Rohr/Rome Companies, Inc., Petitioner. 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, stated that the petitioner was requesting a planned unit development conditional use permit and site/building plan review to allow the replatting and redevelopment of the site in phases with the demolition of the two existing buildings and the construction of four buildings containing 16 units of office/warehouse condominiums on one lot. The proposed buildings on the site would total 63,800 square feet including the mezzanines. Grading on the site would remove 24,000 yards of dirt and relocate an additional 16,000 yards of dirt. A new storm water pond would be constructed in the southwest corner of the site. The property is located in an industrial district with industrial uses to the north and west and the cities of Crystal (residential uses) to the east and Golden Valley (industrial uses) to the south. The site is 5.18 acres in size. Approximately 2.4 acres on the western portion of the site is currently unused. The proposed green space would be 34 percent of the site, buildings 26 percent, and paved area 40 percent. In correspondence, the petitioner indicated the existing buildings were approaching the end of their economic life. The proposed units would range from 3,200 to 5,000 square feet. They indicated, if approved, construction would begin in spring 2006 with occupancy by the end of the year. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and notice was published in the city’s official newspaper. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the purpose of a planned unit development was to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for an integrated approach to development. The PUD is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of lots and buildings, which promotes the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD process allows deviation from the strict provisions of the code related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depth, etc. through a conditional use permit. Special requirements can be established for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow commercial or industrial PUD projects which are compliant with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district in one or more buildings in relation to an overall design. Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city staff and consultants, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comments. The petitioner requested that the Planning Commission waive review of the final plat. The development review team and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans, offered recommendations, and revised plans were submitted as a result. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the developer preferred to relocate current tenants, demolish the existing buildings, and construct the entire project 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 in one phase. If temporary space could not be located for existing tenants however, the project would be constructed in phases: first the demolition of the north building, preparing the west half of the site, constructing building 1 on the west, relocating tenants to that building, demolishing the second building, and constructing three additional buildings. Per city code, the project is required to provide 71 parking spaces and 115 are shown on the plans. Seven ADA parking spaces were identified on the plans. Access through the site would be from and ingress/egress on Nevada Avenue to an egress, right turn only onto Louisiana Avenue. The drive lane would be designated as a fire lane. The existing curb cut on Medicine Lake Road would be removed. Directional signage would be provided on site. Truck circulation patterns on the site are tight and the applicant should comment on the use of semi trucks on the site. Single- unit vehicles would be appropriate with the proposed site layout. Sidewalks five feet in width are provided on site; however there is no connection to the sidewalk on Medicine Lake Road. Revised plans indicate the center lane through the property would be signed as a fire lane-no parking. A 20-foot wide/20-foot deep hammerhead turnaround would be provided north .of building 2. Storm water management would require approval by Bassett Creek Watershed and the city engineer. Revised plans included relocation of fire department connections, with the exception of building 3, which should be relocated per the request of the fire department. Fire hydrants were relocated on the site per the request of the fire department. All buildings would be fully sprinkled with all fire connections located on the main drive aisle. Each tenant space would utilize a separate water meter. Proposed landscaping would comply with city code and includes evergreen, birch, and maple trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses. Landscaping on the east property line was improved to provide better screening from the adjacent residential properties in Crystal. A total of 334 trees and bushes were proposed, along with 166 flowers incorporated into the landscaping design. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan between buildings 1 and 2, in the ponding area, and the parking area near building 3, and appear to be adequate. Twenty lighting fixtures are proposed for the parking areas, as well as 23 building mounted light fixtures. Additional full cutoff fixtures would be provided above each rear man door. A monument sign, lit from below, would be located at the corner of Louisiana and 27th avenues. A secondary sign would be at the property entrance off Nevada Avenue. Both signs would be similar in design. Freestanding signs must be located 10 feet from the property lines. Individual wall signage would be provided for tenant identification. Building identification signage would show the address. Trash handling on site had not been addressed with the revised plans and should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended the installation of dumpster enclosures, possibly near the hammerhead or by 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 the snow storage area between buildings 1 and 2. Due to an abundance of parking on site, several appropriate spaces could be converted for trash enclosures. Trash handling could occur inside each unit. Mr. Jacobsen reported that rooftop units should be screened from view or painted to match the buildings. Revised floor plans include landings outside the doors and sprinkler room locations. Sides of the buildings would be made of precast concrete panels with various exposed aggregate or a ribbed texture. The fronts of all buildings would consist of exterior finish insulation system panels, glass doors and windows, corrugated metal panels and metal I-beam canopies. Tenant signage would be located on the I-beam canopies. The applicant should clarify color, metal type, finish, and wear characteristics, as well as maintenance and snow load/melt characteristics. Overhead doors would consist of glass and aluminum construction. The police department recommended the building exterior be of a graffiti resistant finish or coated with a graffiti- proof coating. Mr. Jason Quisberg, assistant city engineer, stated that due to significant grading this property would be at a lower elevation than the adjacent properties to the north and Louisiana Avenue. The existing retaining wall along Medicine Lake Road is located in the right-of-way and owned by the county. The county suggested this wall be removed through grading the site, if possible, and coordinated with the county. The proposed retaining wall to the west of the existing wall is shown to be located in the right-of- way. The installation of a wall in that location would make it property of the county, who would prefer that the wall be moved out of the right-of- way. If not, the property owner should enter into a maintenance agreement with the county. Grading would direct storm water to the pond at the southwest corner of the property. The pond meets city requirements for water quantity and quality. The storm sewer calculations and design would need to be submitted to Bassett Creek Watershed for approval. Service for sewer and water connections would be provided from Nevada Avenue and extended east through the property with each building served off the main line. All utilities in the project are private with maintenance the responsibility of the property owner. Water service would be located outside each building with all units having a separate meter. All fire connections and hydrant locations were reviewed by West Metro Fire and are shown on the plan. The main ingress/egress to the site would be from Nevada Avenue, with an egress right turn only onto Louisiana Avenue, due to the fact that the exit is close to Medicine Lake Road. Grading of the site did not allow that driveway to be located farther to the north. An emergency turnaround was provided in the north parking area per the request of West Metro. Mr. Quisberg recommended that the turnaround be located 20-25 feet south to better align with the dock entrance, however, grading may prohibit moving the turnaround. This may need to be reviewed with West Metro again to be sure it meets their needs. Hennepin County had suggested a right turn lane for westbound traffic from Medicine Lake Road onto Nevada Avenue. The revised plans incorporated a future right turn lane layout within the plan 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 and sufficient right-of -way has been dedicated to make construction feasible. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city attorney had indicated in correspondence that the park dedication fee would apply to this project due to an intensification of use. He stated staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he was concerned with traffic flow at the east access. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that the east exit was designed for vehicles leaving the site by a right turn and merging onto southbound Louisiana Avenue. The interior island between buildings 3 and 4 had been rounded per the request of West Metro. Mr. Christopher Rohr, president of ROME Companies LLC, (Rohr, McKoskey, O’Shaughnessy and Egan) stated the company consisted of four individuals, including Tom Egan, one of the principals of the firm, who was part of the family that owned the site for many years. ROME would be the developer of the site. Mr. Rohr clarified that 24,000 yards of dirt would be moved. However, only 8,000 would be moved off site, with the other 16,000 relocated on site. He stressed that this project would not be intensifying the use of the site, but would be de-intensifying the use. Currently there is 24,000 square feet of office space on the site and the proposed project would only have 13,000 square feet of office. There would be fewer employees on the site after it is fully built out. Mr. Rohr felt that he was providing a park-like atmosphere due to the intense landscaping proposed for the site and the pond. He stated he felt he was going above and beyond with the enhancement of the site at the gateway to the city. With regard to the turn lane and retaining wall, those items were still being discussed with the county and engineer. The engineers were working on retaining wall details and grading of the property. Mr. Rohr stated they “gave up” 10 feet of property to expand the right-of-way along the south property line to 50 feet. A revised photometric plan would be provided. Mr. Rohr stated that the planning team had worked hard on the project and he hoped the Planning Commission would recommend approval. He thanked city staff and consultants for all their help. A question was raised whether or not this project was affiliated with the Egan property to the south of Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley. Mr. Rohr stated that Tom Egan was not affiliated, business wise, with Egan McKay. This property is currently owned by MOE Properties LLC, McKoskey, O’Shaughnessy and Egan. Commissioner Landy disclosed that two of the property owners were clients; however, he was not retained as their accountant. Chairman Svendsen stated that one of the fire department connections was in front of an ADA parking stall, therefore a no parking sign should be installed at that location. Revised plans would be submitted with the building plans. Mr. Rohr stated he met with the property owner to the 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 north to coordinate site design and landscaping along the north property line. Svendsen stated he appreciated all the changes the petitioner made following the Design and Review Committee meeting. Svendsen confirmed that the HVAC units would be covered on building 3 due to residential properties across the street in Crystal. Mr. Rohr clarified that the site would be of a uniform design and all buildings would be treated the same. Discussion ensued on construction phases and the number of units. Mr. Rohr stated that the market would determine the final number of units to be constructed, as one purchaser may require all the units in one building. A large office use would require more parking, therefore, a building footprint may need to be modified. There may be internal loading docks, or a user may be required to build a trash enclosure to meet city requirements. Pricing may be from $120 to $140 per square foot. It was noted ceilings would have 24-foot clearance with 30 feet total building height. Commissioner Nirgudé questioned how loading and unloading would be handled. Mr. Rohr stated that each unit would have a roll-up door where a trailer could back up to the space. In the case of a heavier user, the roll- up door would become an internal dock where the truck would back into the building to load/unload. For the most part, the users of these buildings would be light industrial. Trucks would probably be limited to one time per week with daily UPS and/or Fed Ex deliveries. Commissioner Crough questioned what would happen to the radio transmission tower on top of one of the buildings and Mr. McDonald stated that city code required any unused antenna towers to be removed within 12 months of cessation of use. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-03. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen commented that he felt this was a great project and thanked the petitioner for all the work incorporating recommendations from the Design and Review Committee. He stated he felt the park dedication fee should be paid by the developer. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 06-03, request planned unit development (PUD) conditional use permit (CUP) and site/building plan review to allow the re-plat and redevelopment of the site with the construction of four buildings containing up to 16 office/warehouse condominiums, 7100 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 27th Avenue North, Christopher A. Rohr/Rome Companies, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1.Developer to execute PUD development agreement with city, to be prepared by the city attorney. 2.Developer provide financial guarantee/performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 3.Approval of all plans by the building official. 4.Comply with West Metro Fire District recommendations (March 14, 2006). 5.Comply with city engineer recommendations (March 16, 28, and 29, 2006) and submit pond maintenance agreement. 6.Comply with city attorney comments on plat (March 14, 2006). 7.Planning Commission agrees to waive review of final plat. 8.Payment of park dedication fee of $12,950 at the time the building permit is issued. 9.Comply with planning consultant recommendations: A. If a phased development approach is necessary, submit additional plans for construction staging and phasing to minimize impacts to relocated tenants, subject to review and approval of the building official and Fire Department. B. Relocate western monument sign to comply with Sign Ordinance requirement of monument signs located ten (10) feet from the property line. C. Install dumpster enclosures for trash handling. Any enclosure must match the color and materials of the building. If trash is to be handled internally, a plan must be established for this practice. D. Applicant must provide additional information on accent metal used in building design. Specific information regarding type, color, and wear characteristics will be required. E. Resubmit photometric plan to incorporate additional building mounted lighting at the rear of each building. F. Work with New Hope Police Department to identify anti- graffiti strategies including graffiti-resistant building finish, colors, and graffiti removal plans. G. Relocate Building 3 Fire Department connection to south end of building. H. Provide sidewalk connections from development to city sidewalk. 10. Screen rooftop units on all buildings. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Buggy, Houle Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City 14 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006 Council on April 24, and asked the petitioner to attend. Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners in March. The next meeting would be held on April Committee 13 at 7:30 a.m., and staff expected revised plans to be submitted for the Item 5.1 42nd and Quebec redevelopment project. Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had not met in March. Mr. McDonald added that there were no new items Committee to discuss at this time. Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 8, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen stated he felt the joint meeting with the Council was well received with good information shared. The consensus of the commission was to continue meeting together at least one time per year. Svendsen added that the chair of each commission were to present quarterly updates to the Council. Commissioners indicated they were encouraged by their discussions with the Council. Commissioner Oelkers thanked staff for the good PowerPoint presentations on the planning cases. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 15 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 2006