Loading...
071205 Planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON A VENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2005 City Hall, 7:00 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.ll1. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy (7:02), Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Bill Oelkers, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist, Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Charles Car Ison, Community Development Intern, Pan1ela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARIN G peos-os Chairman Sve11dsen introduced for discussion Iten1 4.1, Request for Item 4.1 conditional use permit/plmmed unit development and prelin1inary plat review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and 2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court Properties, "LLCI]oru1 Roder, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner was requesting preliminary plat review and a conditional use permit/planned unit development to allow the conversion of 60 apartn1ent units in five buildings into owner-occupied condominiums. Tl1e site is z011ed R-4 hig11 density residential and is surrounded by Terra Linda Park to the east, single family residential to the north, residential business to the northwest, community business to the west and Golden Valley single family residential to the SOUt!1 across Medicine Lake Road. The site contains 4.365 acres. Each building has three stories with approximately 3,400 square feet per floor, or 10,100 square feet in each building. 111e total square footage for all five building vvould be 50,500. The land area is made up of 170~ buildings and garages, 25% paved, 450/0 green space, and 13% city streets. The site was developed in the early 1960s. The buildings contain one and two- bedroon1 units. The applicant would sell the apartments as condominiums, using a phased approach to divide and sell each building. The initial phase would convert the 2700 and 2730 Rosalyn Court buildings, and the otl1er buildings would be converted within tl1e next 10 years. The plan to group lots together requires a PUD for the Common Interest Community plat. The POO designation also would provide flexibility to allow for the nonconforming setbacks that exist and city code states for a PUD that the existing overhead utility lines are to be buried. The use of the site will not c11ange, only the ownership structure of the residences. To ensure sufficient capital funding, the apartment buildu1gs will be folded into the property's maintenance until sold off as condominiums and ongoing maintenance can draw from a larger funding pool. In February 2005, a code compliance inspection was conducted prior to sale of the buildings and a Certificate of Compliance was issued. The topography of the site is flat and is surrounded by higher elevations to the north, west, and east. The site has a slig11t downward slope toward Medicine Lake Road on the south side. The five lots are arranged on a short street and cul-de-sac accessed from Medicine Lake Road. The Design and Review Committee felt the conversion would be a welcome addition to the city. The City Council strongly supports condominium conversion projects. The applicant was not asking for city assistance for the project. Mr. McDonald reported tl1e petitioner stated in correspondence that the conversion would have a long-term benefit of providing owner-occupied housing with responsible and caring residents havu1g an ownership stake in the property. Property ovvners within 350 feet of the property were 11otified, including the city of Golden Valley, and staff received no comments. Mr. McDonald pointed out the purpose of the planned unit development was to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to the traditional parcel by parcel approach to development. McDonald stated tl1at the prelin1inary plat had been submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review. Comments received were incorporated into the planning report and the approval would be subject to those recommendations. The Plaru1ing Commission should confirm whether the applicant desires to have the Con1mission waive its review of the final plat. Staff and cOl1sultants reviewed the apartment conversion plans and were supportive of the conversion. Comments u1cluded provision for drainage and utility easements, sidewalk easement on Medicine Lake Road, burial of overhead utilities, parking, sales office locations, compliance with fire code, lighting, signage and managen1ent of the property. TI1e Design and Revievv Committee met witl1 the applicant and indicated support for the project. The committee requested information regarding management and capital improvement funding. Revised plans and supplemental information were submitted as a result of those meetings. The site consists of five separate lots. Two lots share a driveway and parking area. Four of the lots are similar h1 size, and Lot 3 is larger due to the fact that a swimming pool "vas previously located on the lot. The pool \vas demolished in the early 19905. All lots front onto Rosalyn Court, which terminates in a cul-de-sac, and are accessed via Medicine Lake Road. Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 12,2005 Apartment building setbacks are compliant with the R-4 zoning district. Five of the six garages do not meet the side and/or rear yard setbacks. The applicant was not proposing any changes to further encroach into the required setbacks, therefore, these legally nonconforming structures are allowed to continue to be utilized. Mr. McDonald stated that proposed pricing for the condominiums would be based on the type and location of each unit and the upgrades made. The initial 24 units would be priced between $79,900 for a one-bedroom on the first floor to $98,900 for a third floor two-bedroom unit. Association fees would range between $157.90 for a one-bedroom and $178.48 per month for a two-bedroom. To create a funding reserve, the equivalent of two monthly association dues would be required upon sale closing. After all 60 units are sold, the operating income for the property would be $121,000 with a replacement reserve of $19,500. This would cover administration, gas service, insurance, repairs, and other operating expenses. The first phase, 24 units, would provide over $48,000 annually to fund the association expenses. Parking on site would be arranged through a shared use agreement, allowing guests and residents parking on any parking lot within the development. This arrangement would meet the city's requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, or 90 parking spaces. The development currently has 60 garage stalls and 60 surface parking stalls distributed across the five lots, or 120 total parking stalls. 111e parking was not delineated on the submitted plans, but should be illustrated. Access to Rosalyn Court is via Medicine Lake Road. There is a center island in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Four driveways provide access to garages and parking areas for the five buildings. A five-foot sidewalk runs along Medicine Lake Road, and concrete walks serve each building. The survey does not indicate dumpster enclosures on the property. The city requires waste storage to be screened. The applicant should provide a letter to the city describing the storage of refuse, and whether refuse containers are to be located within the apartment buildings or garage structures. Landscaping plans were not submitted. Green space is predominately turf grass, with some trees and other landscaping features on the site. Existing permanent signage will remain, however wording on the signs may change. Sales signs would be placed on the property during selling phases. Snow storage is not detailed on the plans. The property requires 90 parking spaces and 120 are provided. City code states that snow storage may occur on tl1e excess parking spaces if guest and resident parking requirements are maintained. Building-mounted lights are located above the entrances and parking lots are illuminated by building- mounted floodlights. The city may require additional lighting around the building and garages as a condition of approva1. The applicant indicated in correspondence that the present lighting of the complex was considered and deemed adequate by their independent consultant and insurance provider. They would encourage condominium purchasers to purchase garage door openers with security lighting. McDonald added that the plans were reviewed by West Metro Fire. West Metro provided a letter indicating that the applicant had complied with all of its recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 12, 2005 Existing easements include a 10-foot utility and drainage easement between Lots 4 and 5, between Lots 2 and 3, along the eastern edge of the property, the western boundary of Lots 3 and 4, and through Lot 5 east of the garage. The city engineer recommended the following additional easements: 1) 10-foot utility and drainage easement on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4, and 2) lO-foot utility and drainage easement on the common lot line betvveen Lots 1 and 2. Provide a utility easement across Lot 3 to enable access to the electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac. Applicant to verify the existence of easement over the storm sewer along the east line of Lot 1. Provide a five-foot wide sidewalk easement along the south lot line of Lots 1 and 5, which would allow the future relocation of the sidewalk if a turn lane was added into Rosalyn Court in the future. A turn lane is not required at this time. The citys PUD ordinance requires that internal overhead utilities be buried and this is added as a condition of approval. The city may consider this on a phased basis as the buildings are converted. McDonald explained that tl1e apartments are managed by Sabre Enterprises, and they provide the maintenance on tl1e buildings. While the buildings remain apartments, Sabre would continue to provide maintenance on the buildings. The board of directors indicated Sabre would provide management of the condominium association as well. As the association grows, the board may tern1inate the services provided by Sabre. Until half the units are sold, the present owner, Rosalyn Court Properties LLC, would be responsible for maintaining the entire complex. A question was raised as to whether "half of the units" for the association meant 30 out of 60 units or 12 of 24 units. Mr. Steve Sondralt city attorney, responded that half of the units would mean half of the initial units in the original association or 12 of 24 U11i ts. Mr. McDonald reported that the city felt t11is was a good project and the overall project would enhance tl1e city with increased home ownership. TI1e basic use of the site was not changing and the conversion was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff was recommending approval of the preliminary plat and PUD subject to the conditions as listed in the platming report. Commissioner Nirgude questioned who currently maintains the center island in the cul-de-sac and was told the property owner l1ad been maintaining this area. Mr. McDonald added that Rosalyn Court was a public street and the island would be treated as a boulevard, w11ere upkeep is the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. John Roder, 400 North 1st Street, Minneapolis, came to the podium to address the Commission. Mr. Roder confirmed that the center island was being maintained by the management company of the complex. Mr. Roder explained the reason for converting the 2700 and 2730 buildings first was due to lease requirements for current tenants. The intention was to convert all five buildings as soon as the units could be converted and sold, hopefully within two years. They were suggesting a lO-year time frame to complete the whole conversion, but hoped it would not take that long. They anticipated all units Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 12, 2005 will be sold. Mr. Roder indicated that currently are fenced refuse areas behind each building with regular pick up service. There may be some ground improvements completed with new plantings in the green areas away from the buildings for security reasons. Cleanup of overgrowth along the property lines was in process and would be cleared away. Retaining walls would be installed to aesthetically improve the area. Mr. Roder stated that he would like to see the power lines buried, but the cost may be $15,000 to $20,000 for the five buildings. He stated he wants to keep the costs under control and keep the units affordable. There are a couple model units available now and they are taking reservations for people interested in purchasing. The applicant stated he did not have a problem granting easements to tl1e city. He indicated there was a blanket easement in force from when tl1e building was constructed. His attorney would incorporate the city's easement descriptions into the appropriate documents. Chairman Svendsen inquired whether the applicant was formally requesting the Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat, and Mr. Roder answered in the affirmative. Discussion ensued on \vhether or not to request that overhead utility lines be buried. There are several other overhead lines along the perimeter of the property in addition to the utility lines. Existing utility lines come from the rear property lines into the back of the buildings. Mr. McDonald stated that city code required new planned unit developments to bury all utility lines at the expense of the developer. The city's planning consultant recommended that the apartment conversion be accomplished throug11 a PUD,however, this existing site may have special characteristics as opposed to a new development. The Planning Commission should make a policy decision and offer a recommendation to tl1e City Council. The city would need to adhere to the same policy with future existing site conversions. Chairma11 Svendsen mentioned that the utility lines along the west property line also fed the small strip mall on Winnetka A venue and the gas station. He questioned from what point the lines would be buried. Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, explained that the two lines from the pole to the buildings would be the only lines required to be buried with this application. The other services and the feed to that pole would still be overhead. Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether or not the same regulations apply to conversion condos as new construction condos and this was confirmed. City code requires that overhead utilities must be buried through the PUD process. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the applicant's anticipated cost of $15,000 to $20,000 to bury the utility lines. The city engineer indicated that cost projection may be high. Oelkers suggested that at $12,000, the cost to each unit would be $200, or at $18,000 the cost to each unit would be $300. It was noted that phone and cable lines are already buried. Mr. Roder stated Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 12, 2005 that the city's line across Lot 3 for a lig11t pole would also need to be addressed. Commissioner Brinkman stated that during a recent tour of the Winnetka Green project, he noticed that the units were quiet and wondered whether there were building code requirements that needed to be followed for conversion units. Mr. McDonald stated that there were specific fire wall requirements that had to be met between owner-occupied units versus apartments. It was noted that a sound wall was different than a fire vvall. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the CIC law indicates that the city cannot impose any special regulations on conversions that would prevent this kind of ownership versus an apartment ovvnership. Commissioner Hemken questioned what expenses made up the monthly maintenance fee. Mr. Roder stated that history of the buildings show monthly charges for gas, water, insurance, etc. Commissioners Oelkers and Buggy agreed that the fee of $158 and $179 were in line with fees for similar projects. The units have gas heat with hot water baseboard systems and new sleeve air conditioning units. All units will have new appliances, kitchen and bathroom cabinets, ceramic tile in the bathrooms, and all floor coverings. Discussion ensued on financing of the units for the buyer. Mr. Roder indicated financing would be available tlnough Wells Fargo and Faru1ie Mae approval was in process. Financing would be available through their organization as welt and they are also checking into FHA and HUD. They are trying to keep the payments as low as possible. Question was raised as to what may happen if an occupied unit \vas sold to another party. Mr. Roder indicated that tenants would be notified and have four months to move, as prescribed by the state of Minnesota. Handicapped or elderly tenants are allowed additional time beyond the four months. Mr. Roder stated that if the tenants choose to move, they have other complexes with units available, and the tenants would receive $1,000 in moving assistance. If tenants are interested in purchasing a unit, models are available or they can purchase their own unit, however, they would have to move out during the remodeling process. Mr. Roder added that some of the tenants from the previous owner still have several months left on their leases, and would be notified of the ownership opportunity well in advance of the expiration date on the lease. Commissioner Nirgude complimented the applicant on the nice job on the plans and the complex itself. He questioned how the rental property owners would become part of the condominium association. Mr. Roder indicated that he would be responsible for costs associated with the rental buildings and the association would be responsible for costs associated with the buildings with owner-occupied units for the day-to-day operations, such as mowing the grass. The association would have monies put into a savings account for capital improvements, such as roof, windows, etc. Mr. Roder stated that there are some items, such as gutters, that may need to be replaced in four or five years. At the time of sale, two months of association fees are collected and put into the reserve account. He stated he would continue on the board of Planning Commission Meeting 6 J ul Y 12, 2005 directors for three years. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on what changes would be made to each unit prior to selling. Mr. Roder responded that there would be no structural work done on the units. Flooring would be removed down to the wood, including carpet and pad, floor tile and wall tile in the bathrooms, kitchen cabinets, interior doors would be refinished or new depending on the price package the buyer wanted. Buyers would have two choices for carpet, kitchen cabinets, appliance package - stove, dishwasher, and refrigerator - in either white or stainless steel, sleeve air conditioner, vanity, medicine cabinet all new lighting, ceiling fan in dining room, plain or mirrored doors on closets. Window treatments would be an option, and the garage door opener would be an option. Security doors would be checked and locks changed on all units upon sale. Mr. Roder stated market research indicates that 80 percent of the buyers may be single, professional females. Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on the 11eating system in tl1e buildings and wondered whether the system would need upgrading. Mr. Roder responded that he would address some of the pump systems and thermostats and control valves prior to the next heating season. The boiler seems to be in good condition now. Commissioner Nirgude asked what other condominium projects Mr. Roder had been involved with. He replied that he had been involved in several other projects; however, this was the first one he was managing by himself. He stated he had been involved with apartment management issues for the last 10 years. He stated the company manages five complexes with approximately 25 buildings. They also so some outside management for commercial properties. Commissioner Nirgude expressed best wishes for the project. Commissioner Brinkman questioned the condition of the roofs on the buildings and it was noted that most were in fair conditio11. Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for comment from the audience. Mr. Tad Johnson, 2748 Lamphere Drive, came forward. He stated he and his wife, Kimberly, were excited about the project. The project was a market based idea witl1 no city money being used and it was giving people more options for condominium ownership. He felt the price was very affordable for a nice area of the Twin Cities metro area. He suggested that the maintenance company keep up with the outside lawn care. He inquired as to what the association fees cover. Mr. Roder gave the following totals: $9,300 for management services; $3,500 office expenses, such as mailing, legal, etc.; $19,300 insurance for buildings, grounds, liability (no unit contents is included); $24,900 for gas service for boiler, dryers, ranges; $25,800 for water, sewer, trash and recycling; $9,500 for small common area repairs; $3,900 for grounds maintenance such as mowing and snow removal; $700 for fire alarm monitoring; $4,700 for operating reserve, and $19,500 replacement reserve for roof, parking lot, windows, etc. for a total of $121,100 per year. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 12, 2005 public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-08. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner had submitted draft association bylaws, articles of incorporation, rules and regulations, which were all included in the planning report. Mr. Roder reported that his attorney drafted a letter which stated that his firm does condo conversions and he reviews all of the documents prior to giving that information to potential buyers. Mr. Sondrall added that he has spoken with Mr. Fredrich Krietzffian of Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, PA, Mr. Roder's attorney, with regard to the conversion documents and stated he was confident that everything would comply with state laws. One of the conditions of the site agreement would be a letter from Mr. Frietzman verifying that the condo association documents and the other information submitted by the applicant for purchase by the public meets the CIC laws and other laws that relate to this type of condo conversion. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the existing survey would be appropriate to file for the Cle. Mr. Roder stated 11is attorney had indicated they would take care of various clean up items such as the easements, etc. to get the plat to conform to current usage. Mr. Sondrall explained with regard to the CIC plat, specific items such as legal descriptions and standard requirements need to be met in order to make that plat work for documenting the ownership. A detailed outline must be submitted indicating all CIC lavvs are met. 111e mechanism for recording t11e phased plat would be through the PUD development agreement. An amended plat would be recorded each time a new phase is added to incorporate the new property in the association. Initially the applicant would record the first two lots and legal descriptions as CICs, and the balance of the lots would remain as they are. Details would need to be worked out as to the phasing of t11e project and what would happen if all the buildings were not converted to condos. SondraU confirmed that there was some risk involved with phasing and completion of the project. The worst case scenario would be an association with 24 units in it and three properties remaining rentals. Legal descriptions would be given to garages associated with each unit. Mr. Roder commented that they were trying to establish that the association would be viable for the long term. One way to do that was to establish that the buyers would not be buying the garage, but rather a license to the garage. The association would retain ownership of the garage, which would give the association collateral for a potential bank loan. Mr. Sondrall indicated he would review all legal documents. Commissioner Oelkers stated he liked the proposal, however, he was concerned this project would mimic a similar request from a few years ago to convert rental units into owner-occupied units, which has not yet happened. He mentioned the shared access and parking agreement discussed at the Design and Review Committee meeting, and he questioned what would happen with the shared parking agreement if only the first two buildings Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 12, 2005 would sell. Ms. Clarissa Klug, assistant city attorney, stated they would work out those details with the applicant's attorney. It would make sense to have a broad agreement that would run with the land, so if the phasing didn't occur, there would not be a piecemeal agreement. Oelkers expressed concern that there be ample parking available in the event only two buildings sell. Mr. Sondrall replied that each lot should have 1.5 spaces per units per code. Oelkers initiated discussion regarding the number and size of pets and it was noted that the bylaws specify the number, size and type of pets allowed, which was more restrictive than city code. Commissioner Buggy reiterated that purchasers would be getting a license for a garage, which was part of the common property. He suggested that if the garages were a common element to the project, the association should provide the openers as part of the overall package to potential buyers. Mr. Roder concurred with the suggestion, however, l1e did not want to force anyone to incur the extra cost. Commissioner Oelkers strongly encouraged the applicant to bury the overhead utility lines, so as not to set a precedent. Chairman Svendsen stated that due to the uniqueness of the supply to the property, the short runs, and layout of the site, his opinion was to waive that requirement of the PUD. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 05-08, Request for conditional use permit/planned unit development and preliminary plat review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and 2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court Properties, LLC/John Roder, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of plans by the city's building official. 2. Comply with city engineer's recommendations: a. lO-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4. A significant amount of drainage comes from the northwest comer of the property. This easement could protect that drainage way. b. lO-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. c. Provide utility easement across Lot 3 enabling access to the electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac. d. Verify the existence of easement over the storm sewer along the east lot line of Lot 1. This storm sewer was installed after the original plat. e. Provide a 5-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the south lot line of Lots 1 and 5 to allow future relocation of the sidewalk if necessary. 3. Comply with city attorney recommendations, per correspondence dated June 30, 2005. 4. Comply "Yith planning consultant recommendations: a. Burial of utilities lines are recommended to not be required for this specific proj ect. b. The applicant shall be required to provide 1.S parking spaces Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 12, 2005 per unit. c. The applicant shall provide an easement on the five parking lots and driveways to allow residents of one building to park on any lot, regardless of building ownership status. d. Management agreements shall be submitted and are subject to the review of the city. e. The CIC and related associations shall be large enough to accommodate the on-going maintenance of the buildings as well as provide for long-term capital improvements for the buildings. The overall budget is subj ect to the review and approval of the city. f. If only two (2) buildings are converted into condominiums, all buildings shall be required to be part of the association. g. The applicant shall illustrate how sales are to occur on site. h. A comprehensive signage plan shall be required. i. The applicant shall be required to provide lighting around all buildings and garages. j. The applicant shall provide trash enclosures to screen trash cans and dumpsters on the property, or evidence it will be otherwise handled in accordance with City Code. 5. Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire, including: a. The location of lock boxes, fire alarms, emergency lighting and related safety features. b. The location of fire hydrants. 6. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat. 7. Enter into development agreement with city, to be prepared by city attorney. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen V oting against: Houle, Oelkers, Nirgude Absent: Crough, Schmidt Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on July 25 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance. PC05-09 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for planned Item 4.2 unit development, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, site/building plan review, comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor dining, 7500, 7516, 7528 42nd Avenue North, Frey Development/Commercial Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners. Mr. Shavvn Siders, community development specialist, stated that this vvas a request for a planned unit development to allow the construction of two condominium units with three units in each building and one condominium building with two units on the northern and eastern portions of the site and one restaurant/retail building on the western portion of the site at 42nd and Quebec avenue, a conditional use permit, preliminary plat review, site/building plan review, and comprehensive sign plan. The property is zoned CB, community business. The parcel contains 109,900 square feet or 2.523 acres. Surrounding land uses includes industrial to the north, Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 12, 2005 community business (Sunshine Factory) to the west and south and the C.P. Rail line to the east. The total building area would be approximately 20% of the property, green area is 27%, hard surfaces include outdoor dining area at less than one percent, and parking/sidewalk/drive area at 53%. Mr. Siders gave a brief history of the site as to when the city acquired the properties and the contamination cleanup. Grants were received from the state of Minnesota and Hennepin County to help with remediation and Electronic Industries, the former property owner, covered the 25 percent cost sharing portion of the grant. Environmental remediation efforts are complete and development can begin. On site monitoring is occurring as well as ground water monitoring on the Gill Brothers Funeral Home site. Prior to the planning application, the developer submitted a development proposal for consideration by the New Hope Economic Development Authority, who was supportive of the project. On June 27, the EDA approved a purchase agreement with Frey Development and Manley Land Development. The property would be transferred once all necessary planning approvals have been received by the city, Helmepin County and the MPCA. Mr. Siders stated that the petitioner would re-subdivide the existing three properties into two lots - Lot 1 containing 55,894 square feet and a lot width of 163.05 feet; Lot 2 containing 54,005 square feet and a lot width of 156.85 feet. There would be a drainage and utility easement around the entire perimeter of the property that would be granted to the city for the installation of the city's utilities. Subsequent to plan submittal, the development review team met and was generally supportive of the project. Items discussed iI1cluded access to 42nd A venue, which is subject to Hennepin County review and the possible granting of an access permit, rear yard setback on north property line of 24 feet, drainage and utility easements, and parking with 133 stalls provided rather than 163 required by city code. The applicant is requesting a shared parking arrangement between the two lots. Staff felt this vvould work due to the difference in hours between the office use and restaurant use. The POO would allow some flexibility on parking and setbacks. The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner to discuss those items and as well as access from 42nd Avenue to be constructed as a right in only entrance, and landscaping enhancements. Revised plans were submitted as a result of these meetings. It was noted that the city currently owns the alley to the north of the property and it would be transferred Frey Development and incorporated into the plat. Mr. Siders explained that the Sunshine Factory had been utilizing a portion of the property for parking for the past several years. The Sunshine Factory was notified that once development occurred it could no longer use the property for parking and they are agreeable. The restaurant/retail building would contain approximately 9,600 square feet. Viva Italia, a full service Italian restaurant, would be the anchor tenant, and Planning Commission Meeting 11 J ul Y 12, 2005 was making application for a full liquor license., The restaurant would utilize approximately 4,500 square feet. The development on the eastern portion of tl1e site would contain a three-unit building on the southeast and northeast comers of the property and a two-unit building along the eastern property line between the three-unit buildings. Each building would contain one two- story unit. City code requires a 3D-foot rear yard setback for the office-condo building along the north property line be 30 feet and the developer is proposing 24 feet. Due to the industrial use to the north and extensive landscaping proposed for the north property line, staff was recommending favorable consideration of that request through the PUD. Water and sewer lines would flow into the site from Quebec Avenue near the northwest corner of the property and branch out to serve the buildings. Two fire hydrants would be located on the site, one on the west property line and one near the northern end of the tvvo-unit building. Storm drainage would flow to the north lot line into the storm sewer system then to the east lot line and then south for a distance and then east toward the railroad tracks. Water from the Quebec/42nd avenues intersection flows north to the lot line and into the storm sewer system. The developer would be paying storm water fees in lieu of on-site ponding. The developer would be providing several utility easements to the city in the event the city needed to gain access to any of the utilities. :MI. Siders described the landscaping plan. He indicated that Viva ltalia would occupy approximately two and one-half tenant bays in the soutl1ern portion of Building A. The remaining space would be occupied by otl1er retail uses. Two parking islands would be located on the site with 133 parking stalls. The outdoor patio area covers 958 square feet, which exceeds the city code by 13 feet, and must be reduced to comply. Ingress/egress access to the site was proposed from Quebec Avenue. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over granting any access permit from 42nd Avenue. Hennepin County had indicated it would prefer no access from 42nd A venue. The county would like additional right-of-way along 42nd A venue for a possible future right turn lane onto Quebec A venue. The developer indicated agreement with granting additional right-of-way. The city discussed with the developer that it would work with him and the county to obtain an access permit for a right-in only access to the property from 42nd Avenue. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council ask Hennepin County for consideration of this access permit. Due to tl1e nature of the retail use, it is important to have at least limited access to the site from 42nd A venue. A question was raised how the additional right-of-way requested by Hennepin County would impact the patio area. Mr. Vander Top indicated that the city and Hennepin County have worked together on many projects. A right turn lane at the comer would impact the layout of the plat and site. Traffic counts on 42nd Avenue would impact the decision for a right-in lane to the site or a right turn lane onto Quebec. The number of right turn lanes is very limi ted along this corridor. The standard requirement from a transportation engineering standpoint conflicts with other requirements in Planning Commission Meeting 12 July 12, 2005 terms of land use and the economic development of a property. The city would need to continue to work with Hennepin County for a right-in, and whether a right turn lane could be accommodated at some time in the future through dedicating a right-of-way and/or an easement. Mr. Siders added that the developer agreed to commit from $8,000 to $12,000 to construct a dedicated right turn lane southbound on Quebec Avenue onto 42nd. Snow storage areas were identified on the plans and the city may have to work with the developer to identify additional areas for snow storage. There are 29 spruce trees proposed to screen the north property line. Crabapples are proposed for the parking islands. Several varieties of trees are proposed along the west, south and east property lines. Plantings and a fence are proposed for the perimeter of the patio area. Large trucks would access the property from Quebec and smaller trucks serving the condominiums could access the site from 42nd A venue. The Quebec access point would line up with the north driveway of the Sunshine Factory across the street to help with the traffic flow. One hundred thirty tree parking spaces are provided and the city code requires 163. Staff suggests that would be acceptable through the PUD and the differing hours of operation for the uses on the site. West Metro Fire reviewed the plans and the developer had responded to all conditions with the exception of providing direct access to the fire connection on the north edge of the two-unit building. Therefore, one parking space may need to be eliminated leaving a balance of 132 parkiI1g stalls. Mr. Siders explained that the photometric plan complies with city code. Discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting entailed additional lighting at the rear of the buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks. The applicant provided some limited security lighting in that area. A condition of approval would include providing foot candle measurements for the patio area. One foot candle is provided at all entrances and exits to the buildings. There are two dumpster enclosures on the site; one is located just north of the mo-unit condo building and the second is located at the northwest corner of the retail building. Mr. Siders explained the retail building could contain five tenant bays and would be built to suit. The restaurant would potentially occupy the southern two and one-half bays with other retail uses in the northern portion of the building. Each bay would be approximately 27 feet by 69 feet. The outdoor dining area is proposed to have nine tables with four chairs each for a total of 36 patrons. The tables and chairs would be removed during the off season. The building fascia would be burnished block at the base, cultured stone and EFIS to the top. Wall signage would be placed on the east elevation for all businesses. The roofline would be elevated to hide the painted rooftop equipment. The south elevation would contain a wall sign for the restaurant. The western elevation indicates a wall sign for the restaurant. City code allows two signs and staff suggests that the third sign on the west elevation be eliminated, and the developer is in agreement. The footprint for each bay in Plaru1ing Commission Meeting 13 July 12, 2005 the three-unit office condominium buildings are 32 feet by 48 feet or 1,536 square feet, with the middle bay two stories and approximately 3,000 square feet. The buildings would be constructed with burnished block, cultured stone and EFIS. The Design and Review Committee recommended that the developer extend the cultured stone farther up the building, which has been done. In the two-unit building, the single story unit would contain 1,536 square feet and the two-story unit would contain approximately 3,000 square feet, with the same building materials being utilized. Mr. Siders stated staff was recommending approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Staff was also requesting that the Planning Commission eliminate the wall signage for the restaurant/retail building on the western elevation. Commissioner Landy questioned where the deliveries would be made for the restaurant. It was pointed out that delivery trucks would stop at the loading docks at the north end of the retail building and bring deliveries along the sidewalk on the western side of the ~uilding. Landy expressed concern with the parking during lunch time if the restaurant was busy. He was also concerned with the parking situation during tl1e holidays or special days, such as Mother's Day, when the Sunshine Factory would have an especially large group of people and parking on that lot was at capacity. Question was also raised whether a liquor license was available for Viva Italia and this was answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Anderson reported that on occasion patrons of the Sunshine Factory parked in his lot at Universal Color. Mr. McDonald stated that the Sunsl1ine Factory met parking requirements of tl1e city code without the additional parking. Tl1e owner of Sunshine Factory had previously indicated he was supportive of the new development. In years past, the Sunshine Factory had rented spaces at the industrial building to the north at 4301 Quebec. Mention was made that the applicant shifted the north condo building to the east to provide additional space for truck turning radius at the Quebec entrance. Mr. Bernie Frey, Frey Development, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. He stated that representati ves of Mohagen Hansen Arc11itectural Group and Thatcher Engineering 'Yvere in attendance. Mr. Frey stated this type of development had been constructed in Bumsville and Eagan and vvere very successful. The site at 42nd and Quebec was a great location. Mr. Frey explained that they intended to start site work as soon as the closing took place which could take until October and then depending on weather the project vvould be complete within six to seven months. Chairman Svendsen mentioned that due to this being a super cleanup site, the center island needed to be water impervious so no contaminated soils come up and the trenching for any utilities had to be hauled away. The majority of the restricted area was in the southeast corner and the buildings were Planning Commission Meeting 14 July 12, 2005 designed so not much trenching would be needed. The buildings would be slab on grade so the footings are not too deep. The southeast comer of the property would need to be raised two to three feet so fill will be brought in to the site. Mr. Prey stated that 18 borings have already been done and there are a couple areas with environmental concerns. The :MPCA will have a technician on site as well as their own teclmician during the digging process. They are confident the expense would not be too great. Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the parking island in the northwest comer of the property. Mr. Frey indicated that the island looks good and separates the two uses. The number of parking stalls did not change significantly with or without the island. Mr. Frey added that if the restaurant was successful, there would be a lot of cars and parking might be tight. It was their experience that many times the office/condo employees leave during lunch time. Users of the office/condos are sales reps, professional people, such as dentists or doctors, where patients come and go throughout the day. Mr. Prey explained that as a developer they would like to see access to the site from 42nd A venue. He stated he was not fond of the idea of a turning lane onto Quebec due to the impact on the patio. Svendsen maintained that the Design and Review Committee was supportive of a right-in, right-out access from 42nd A venue. Question was raised as to shifting the 42nd A venue access to the east, and it was noted that the grade in that area 'Vvould be a problem. Commissioner Brinkman wondered about the traffic noise at the intersection while patrons are utilizing the patio. Discussion ensued on the right turn lane and the impact on the patio and whether the restaurant/retail building could be shifted to the north. Mr. Frey responded that if the building shifted to the north, parking stalls would be lost. Mr. Vander Top added that, based on the recent correspondence from Hennepin County, he felt the county may not approve a right-in only access. If land was dedicated for a westbound right turn lane, the building would have to shift to the north and lose parking north of the building or the patio would have to be eliminated. With the parking concerns, that would not be a viable option. He suggested the response to Hennepin County be from the standpoint that for the economic viability of the development the city would like to see a right-in from 42nd Avenue, with no right-out onto 42nd Avenue. The city would not look favorably on a right turn lane at this time. If the Commission doesn't agree, his response to Hennepin County would be different. Commissioner Nirgude commended the developer on the plan and thought it was a great addition to the city. He stated he felt the city engineer should pursue Hennepin County's permission to construct the right-in turn lane. He acknowledged there may be parking problems at times, but thought vehicles could park on the side streets if allowed by the city. Nirgude added he was not in favor of the right turn lane onto Quebec A venue. Commissioner Houle questioned the safety factor of vehicles slowing do'Wl1 to make the right turn into the property and offered that it may be safer to construct a right turn lane at the intersection if the traffic counts dictate it. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting 15 July 12, 2005 Vander Top stated that from a traffic engineering standpoint it made the most sense to close the 42nd A venue access to the property and have a full right turn lane onto Quebec, which would be the county's preference. The turn lane would be a minimum of 12 feet wide. A right-of-way dedication would be 15 feet. The depth of the stalls north of the restaurant would be 18 feet. Mr. Siders interjected that his understanding of the Hennepin County letter was that the county was not looking for the construction of a lane at this time only dedication of the property. Hennepin County would probably fund a future roadway construction project. Mr. Vander Top clarified that there was a proposal that a southbound lane on Quebec be constructed and be partially funded through this development, because the benefit would be for this property and the Sunshine Factory as well as the industrial businesses to the north on Quebec Avenue. It was noted that the six feet on the west side of Quebec was all in the right-of-way and would not affect parking at the Sunshine Factory or the tree on the comer. Vander Top showed illustrations of the existing intersection configuration and proposed configuration. Due to the fact that the east curb along Quebec would be removed to install utilities, it was suggested that the curb line move to the east to accommodate a wider roadway. The curb line on the west side of Quebec could be moved six feet to the west, allowing for a 16-foot northbound lane and a 12-foot left turn lane, an II-foot through lane, and an II-foot right turn lane. The dimensions are narrower than preferred but would significantly increase the stacking distance for both left aI1d right turns. This could be accomplished without changing the existing signal mast locations. Question was raised whether there would be a southbound left turn lane, and a right/through lane. Commissioner Houle clarified these modifications were being driven by the city, per the recommendations of the transportation planner at Bonestroo and Associates, and the city's experience of how the intersection operates. Commissioner Oelkers questioned where the taper of the right turn lane would start and how the grade would affect it. Vander Top indicated that the taper would probably begin just west of the office/condominium building and the grade would strongly affect the turn lane. Oelkers initiated discussion on the possibility of moving the Quebec curb cut to the north. The easement along the north lot line is 10 feet into the property and he questioned the possibility of moving the easement to the north five feet, and in turn shift the entire site to the north five feet to allow enough land for the right-of-way. Mr. Siders suggested that the Commission consider a rear yard setback of 19 to 24 feet for the north building. Mr. Frey concurred with the suggestidns, but asked to see the right turn lane drawn in, and he questioned who was financially responsible. The patio area may be able to be adjusted a couple feet to allow ample room for the requested right-of-way. Commissioner Houle maintained that the site is too dense and was very concerned about the shortage of parking. He stated he liked the office and restaurant components, but felt there may be a serious problem with parking not only in the evening but also during the lunch hour. His opinion was that the exterior expression of the office/condo buildings appeared more like retail than office. Commissioner Anderson inquired of the rooftop units and whether the units Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 12, 2005 . would be visible. Mr. Frey explained that the parapets should hide the rooftop units. Discussion ensued on the height of the buildings and parapets and it was determined that the units would be sufficiently screened. Commissioner Brinkman suggested that the developer remove Building C to allow for additional parking. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-09. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A question was raised as to the cost of improvements to the Quebec Avenue intersection and Mr. Vander Top stated that the rough cost estimate without signal modification would be $35,000. According to staff at the Public Works Department, there have been problems at this in tersecti on. Any improvements would benefit several businesses along Quebec A venue. Chairman Svendsen stated that conditions of approval should address the third wall sign for the restaurant, a response to Hennepin County for the right turn lane onto Quebec A venue, a right-in only or a rig11t-in, right-out access from 42nd Avenue to the site, and waiving review of the final plat. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 05-09, Request for planned unit development, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, sitelbuilding plan review, comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor dining, 7500, 7516, 7528 42nd Avenue North, Frey Development/Commercial Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide performance bond (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 2. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated June 30 and June 16, 2005. 3. Comply with city attorney recommendations on plat dated June 27, 2005. 4. Approval of plans by building official. 5. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply with recommendations. 6. Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat. 7. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including: Preliminary Plat. A. The plat is subject to the review and approval of Hennepin County. B. The plat shall identify required drainage and utility easements. C. Shared access and parking easements shall be required and are Planning Commission Meeting 17 July 12, 2005 subject to the review and approval of the city. D. The Planning Commission recommends right in only access to the site via 42nd A venue. The Commission suggested that staff review this option with Hennepin County and discuss the options available which include reserving the necessary right-af-way for the future construction of a right turn lane via 42nd A venue onto Quebec Avenue. Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit. A. The applicant shall reduce the outdoor patio dining area by thirteen feet (13) in order to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. B. The applicant shall provide a detailed patio plan for city approval. This patio design shall include: table arrangements, circulation patterns, trash receptacles, fence details with ingress/egress gates and lighting details. c. The access from Quebec shall align with the curb cuts on the site west of Quebec Avenue. D. The applicant shall illustrate on the site plan truck movements through the site to the satisfaction of the city. E. The applicant shall provide the loading area designated for either lot. F. The grading, drainage, and utility plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the city. G. The applicant shall provide additional lighting for the outdoor patio. H. The color rendering shall be subject to the review and approval of the city. L The applicant shall be required to apply for a sign permit for all signs within the site area. J. Eliminate the proposed sign on the western side of the restaurant! retail building. Comer units are permitted two wall signs, the applicant has proposed three for the comer unit. 8. Pay fee in-lieu of on-site storm water ponding in the amount of $47,257. 9. Pay no less than $8,000 and no greater than $12,500 to share the cost of adding a right turn lane on Quebec Avenue. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Svendsen V oting against: Houle Absent: Crough, Schmidt Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on July 25 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance. PC04-28 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for approval Item 4.3 of Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Planning Commission Meeting 18 July 12, 2005 Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, introduced the planning case and after some discussion and several questions by the Commission, and due to the late hour, Mr. McDonald suggested that this matter be tabled and brought back to the Commission at a time when the planning consultant would be in attendance. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.3 table Planning Case 04-28, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan update, city of New Hope, Petitioner. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Svendsen V oting against: None Absent: Crough, Schmidt Motion carried. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in June with Committee the petitioners. McDonald stated that one application was submitted for a Item 5.1 variance for garage expansion into the front yard setback for the August meeting. Commissioner Schmidt was invited to attend that meeting. Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee Committee did not meet in June. McDonald added that staff and consultants would be Item 5.2 meeting mid-July and the committee \vould probably meet in August to finish discussing the transit shelter ordinance, initiate discussion 011 the 60- day rule for approving planning applications to comply with state law, and several other minor code amendments. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 7, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reminded the commission that the August meeting would be held on Wednesday, August 3, due to National Night Out on Tuesday evening. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:58 p.m. ~.~~ectful1y submitted, '. ) / <\: 1 ...--r........ ( I~ ~ .t' . {/. ~ /' -7 ,~'1,;-Vk. ..0/:7. i-fii-1:.~ /1; ! '-' . t;..' V .-"--......~ Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 19 July 12, 2005