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