Loading...
020403 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 4, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, administered the oath of office to Mr. Timothy Buggy. Chairman Landy, on behalf of the Commission, welcomed Buggy to the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: None Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-01 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 5.1, Request for Concept/Development Stage Planned Unit Development, 7550 and 7600 Item 5.1 th 49 Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that the City was involved in this project with regard to the relocation of the utilities and by providing tax increment financing assistance. The petitioners met with the Design & Review Committee and a number of issues were discussed. Revised plans were submitted that addressed a number of these issues. There were still many items that need to be addressed; therefore, staff is recommending that only concept stage PUD approval be given at this time. For development stage approval, the plans should be almost perfect. The petitioner is aware of staff’s recommendation. The Commission should have a thorough discussion of the plans submitted and the issues identified by all of the consultants and staff. McDonald added that the petitioner would also be submitting a plat for review at the March Planning Commission meeting, and development stage approval could be given at that time providing plans are ready. McDonald pointed out that a letter had been received by the City from an adjacent property owner that should be entered into the record. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioner was New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, and the request was for the properties at th 7550 and 7600 49 Avenue North and Outlot A. The application was for concept/development stage planned unit development to construct an office/warehouse building and a preliminary plat to combine three parcels into one. At this time, staff was recommending concept stage PUD only; the preliminary plat had not been submitted yet. Brixius reported that the site consisted of two parcels and an outlot A, which would be combined into a single parcel, and the buildings would be connected between parcel 1 and parcel 2. Currently, there is an easement that runs through the proposed development site. The sanitary sewer and water main would need to be rerouted to facilitate the project. The adjoining properties include industrial to the north and east and southeast thth across 49 Avenue, single family to the southwest across 49 Avenue, and multiple family to the west. The total site size is 5.69 acres. The proposal is for a 103,000 square foot building footprint that would be linked to the water main would need to be rerouted to facilitate the project. The adjoining properties include industrial to the north and east and southeast thth across 49 Avenue, single family to the southwest across 49 Avenue, and multiple family to the west. The total site size is 5.69 acres. The proposal is for a 103,000 square foot building footprint that would be linked to the existing Navarre building (second floor is 11,000 square feet for a total of 114,000 square feet). The buildings would be located on two separate properties with two property owners. The buildings would be connected at the front entrance and at the rear (north) of the building to accommodate movement of goods between the buildings. A PUD would be required to provide two connections, joint parking, shared utility service, and a shared circulation pattern. Setbacks for the buildings are met with the exception of the building connections and the flexibility of the PUD would accommodate th that requirement. Access would be provided from 49 Avenue and via a private existing street between the Navarre building and another industrial building to the east. Access would be a circular movement entering on the east private street, rotating around the buildings along the drive aisle past th the loading area, and exiting to 49 along the drive on the west side of the proposed building. The parking lot areas would be accessed via either driveway. A number of items need to be addressed including: 1) The proposed wetland on the northwest corner of the property needs to be delineated to insure that the proposed drive aisle can be placed there without wetland mitigation. 2) The turning radius at the northeast corner of the existing building needs to be broadened to allow for a full-sized semi truck. 3) The loading area on the west side of the new building should show the turning radius for large trucks and how the traffic movement would occur around the parking stalls. 4) By ordinance, a 40-foot separation is required between curb cuts. The curb cut at the southwest entrance is shown to be approximately 15 feet from the apartment complex. A straight drive aisle/ entrance may be a better arrangement than moving the entrance just to meet code. A variance should be granted to allow this smaller separation. 5) The 20-foot drive lane along the north side of the buildings would not accommodate two-way traffic and should be posted “one-way only.” 6) The parking lot design provides 237 parking spaces between buildings one and two, which meets the requirements of City Code. With the construction of building two, an existing parking lot will be removed. Additional parking stalls are being suggested along the front of the buildings. 7) Joint circulation requires access easements across property lines and along the parking and driveway areas that are to be shared. The agreements need to be submitted as part of the PUD agreement and recorded with the property. 8) All parking areas should be properly surfaced and paint striped. The applicant indicated there would be concrete curbing provided along all perimeter drives and parking areas. The narrative submitted, however, indicated that the northern curb be eliminated to allow for drainage from the swale. At the Design & Review meeting, it was mentioned that another industrial property was allowed a sheet drain of the parking lot to a swale arrangement for better treatment of storm water. If Navarre chooses to request the elimination of the northern curb, the City would need to have detail showing the infiltration swale, otherwise, the curbing would be required. 9) The proposed building was illustrated to be a tip-up concrete building with a common entrance between the two buildings and another entrance at the southwest corner. 10) The buildings would be under separate ownership. In the event the lease arrangement expired, the buildings would need to have the capability of being fully separated. The applicant had indicated that this capability would be provided for. One comment offered was to retain the front entrance for the overall appearance and use a fire separation between the buildings. 11) There would be a separate address assigned for the new building. 12) The retaining wall along the west parking lot would be a significant structure in 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003 that the elevation difference between the apartments to the west and the new Navarre parking lot would be 13 feet. Details have been provided on the retaining wall, which need to be approved by a registered engineer. Issues raised at the Design & Review meeting included the drainage of the would be a separate address assigned for the new building. 12) The retaining wall along the west parking lot would be a significant structure in that the elevation difference between the apartments to the west and the new Navarre parking lot would be 13 feet. Details have been provided on the retaining wall, which need to be approved by a registered engineer. Issues raised at the Design & Review meeting included the drainage of the apartment complex parking lot and the stability of the wall over time, and the need to provide a barrier at the top of the wall to prevent any cars from accidentally driving over the wall into the loading area below. The applicant indicated a metal guardrail on wood posts would be provided along the top of the retaining wall. This safety barrier would be sufficient, however, it does not address the need to screen the industrial area from the residential complex. City Code requires proper screening between residential and industrial properties. Staff suggested either a fence screen or landscaping along the top of the wall. 13) The proposed building footprint would contain 103,000 square feet and cover approximately 42% of the site area. On the plan, the green area was identified as being 20%, however with the paved courtyard between the two buildings, the green area would be reduced to 19.2%, which is below the industrial standard. Flexibility could be given on this issue through the PUD. 14) The proposed landscape plan identified a number of items discussed at the Design & Review meeting. The applicant changed from trees/shrubs around the pond to a native prairie seed. Additional plantings have been provided at the front of the building. There are some plantings shown around the retaining wall, however, it should be determined whether these are sufficient in height and density to provide screening. Plantings have been provided between the building and the parking area along the west property wall, which should break up the building massing. Staff review identified a number of errors between the plant list and the landscape plan; the applicant should be sure the counts match on list and plan. 15) The applicant provided demolition plans and the th route for removing the existing building’s demolition debris (49 to Winnetka to Bass Lake Road to Highway 169). 16) An additional fire hydrant would need to be provided on the west side of the proposed building. The hydrant on the northwest corner of the existing building would need to be relocated across the northern drive aisle to provide proper fire separation. Mr. Vince Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, explained that is currently an easement for sanitary sewer and storm sewer that runs across the vacant property. The 21-inch trunk sanitary sewer that runs from north to south on the vacant parcel provides sewer service to a large portion of New th Hope – north of 49 Avenue and east of Boone. The sewage in this line flows by gravity through this trunk sanitary sewer to the south part of the City to a Met Council lift station on Medicine Lake Road. There is also a smaller 8-inch sanitary sewer that goes to the east and around the Navarre building that provides sewer service to the existing Navarre building as well as to the industrial building immediately to the east along the railroad tracks. A storm sewer also runs through the vacant lot and provides service to the industrial property to the west and to the apartment complex. These utilities are in conflict with the proposed location of the new building. VanderTop stated that the City would be responsible for coordinating the reconstruction of the trunk sanitary sewer around the proposed building and th back to the existing alignment on 49 Avenue. The 8-inch lateral would be th reconstructed along 49 Avenue, and the applicant would be responsible to reconnect the existing sewer service to the Navarre building, and the 8- inch line would be extended to the industrial building to the east. The City would also reconstruct the storm sewer line along the north property line th and back south to 49 Avenue. Storm sewer service would be reconnected to the apartment complex and to the industrial property to the west. 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003 VanderTop indicated that a retaining wall would be located along the northeast portion of the apartment complex parking lot adjacent to the new Navarre parking area. A significant amount of dirt would be removed from the site, anywhere from 25-30,000 cubic yards of material. The reason for removing the material was so the floor elevation of the proposed building would relate more closely to the existing building, due to the fact that the two buildings would be connected. The operations would be shared between the two buildings and it would be important to have the floor th elevations similar. The driveway from 49 Avenue would slope down in both directions to the loading dock area. From a storm water standpoint, the storm water would be collected from the front parking lot area as well as the westerly parking area to a pond in the northwest corner of the site. The pond would be sized based on city water quality and quantity standards. This application would be submitted to Shingle Creek Watershed for review, due to the fact that the development area would be over five acres. Brixius stated that with the long list of staff recommendations, it would be premature to give development stage approval, however, the concept stage was consistent with the discussion thus far. Development stage approval would be withheld until the balance of the items were addressed. Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion on the green space issue and it was determined that the reduction was an internal impact rather than an external issue and could be approved as part of the PUD flexibility. The reduction in space between the driveways should be approved as a variance because it would have an impact on the adjoining property. The courtyard drains to the north into the storm sewer and then east to the pond at the north end of the existing building. Chairman Landy questioned the age of the existing utility trunk lines. VanderTop replied that the sanitary sewer was probably constructed in the 1960s and the storm sewer was constructed in the early 1980s. The condition of the trunk lines was acceptable, and if not for this project, the City would probably not be replacing it at this time. The estimated cost to the City is approximately $201,000 and would be paid with TIF funds. Mr. Robert Glasgow, representative of Navarre/New Hope LLC came forward to answer questions. Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion on signage for one or two-way traffic at the driveway entrances. His concern was that the radius of the entrances was not sufficient for truck traffic without infringing on the grassed areas. Glasgow responded that the truck traffic, while the buildings were under lease with Navarre, would be for trucks to enter the receiving area via the private drive on the east side of the existing building, proceed along the northerly drive, and exit out the west driveway. Currently UPS is the only truck service for Navarre. One-way signage would be provided along the northerly drive aisle. Svendsen asked for clarification on the fence to be located at the top of the retaining wall. Glasgow reported that it would be much like the metal barriers along highways. Mr. Bill Sikora, KKE Architects, responded that the barrier proposed at the top of the wall would be either 6” by 6” or 8” by 8” wood posts set into the ground, typical of a freeway traffic barrier. A continuous metal bumper would be hung between the posts, which may bend if someone drove into it rather than possibly break if it was constructed from wood. 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003 Commissioner Oelkers was concerned that that the rail would not be of sufficient height to prevent children from jumping over and falling down to the parking area below. He questioned whether there would be a fence constructed for screening. Brixius pointed out that there may not be enough room between the property line and the top of the wall for a lot of landscaping. A fence for security and screening may be the best option. Sikora explained that a fairly dense hedge or shrub could be planted at the top of the retaining wall. The ultimate height would be about five feet. There was a concern, even with a fence, that someone could walk along the top of the block on the outside of the fence beginning at the west entrance to the property. A wood fence would provide screening and security, but was also a maintenance concern. A cyclone fence with slats would provide security, but does not always look the best. The applicant indicated they would continue discussion on this item. At present, the petitioner was proposing a traffic barrier with a landscaped screen. Glasgow added that the apartment garages were a visual barrier to the loading docks and parking area and the parking area was recessed 13 feet. The proposed landscaping by the traffic barrier should provide adequate screening. Brixius interjected that the landscape plan showed sparsely spaced plantings and thought should be given to more dense plantings. It was pointed out that proper maintenance of the plantings in that area was an issue. A continuous hedge along the top may be best and the intermediate step may contain seasonal type plantings. A suggestion was made to utilize river rock. Commissioner Barrick questioned why the courtyard area was paved and not a pervious surface. Glasgow responded that staff had recommended impervious, due to the fact that there would not be much sunlight in that area and drainage would need to be controlled. The fire inspector stressed the fact that access be provided for the area for emergency personnel, which would be accomplished through the north link. Barrick asked for clarification on the distance between the driveways of the apartment complex and Navarre and whether there would be enough space for snow storage/removal. Brixius noted that there would not be enough space for snow storage by the driveway. Snow storage would need to be addressed with the development stage plans. Sikora stated that the driveway for the apartment was 10 feet from the property line and Navarre’s west driveway was 16 feet from the property line. Svendsen questioned whether the proposed parking on the south side of the existing site would be constructed with this project or at some point later. Glasgow stated they would like to have that parking constructed right away and they were in discussions with the property owner. There would be sufficient parking for the site without that proposed parking area at the south side of the existing building. Chairman Landy stated that the Commission had received correspondence from Hoyt Properties, 5000 Winnetka Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, and asked that it be entered into the record. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner O’Brien, to close the public hearing . All in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Oelkers, to approve Planning Case 03-01, Request for Concept Stage Planned th Unit Development 7550 and 7600 49 Avenue North, New Hope 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003 LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Item 5.1 to approve Planning Case 03-01, Request for Concept Stage Planned th Unit Development 7550 and 7600 49 Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit revised Development/Final Stage PUD plans for Planning Commission review that address the recommendations included in this report from the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, Building Official, West Metro Fire and other city staff. 2. Submit preliminary plat. 3. Process utility easement vacation requests in conjunction with City. 4. Proceed with Watershed District approval. Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion passed. Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on February 10 and advised the petitioner to attend. COMMITTEE Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in January REPORTS with the petitioner and had a good discussion on the proposed project. Design & Review McDonald stated that he would like to bring the plans back to the Design & Committee Review Committee on February 13, and then bring revised plans back and Item 6.1 the preliminary plat for the March Planning Commission meeting. McDonald stated he was not aware of any other applications for the March meeting. The City had been working with several other potential projects: Chardon Court, 5000 Winnetka and Mid-America Plaza. In response to a nd question on the recently plated property on 62 Avenue, McDonald stated that once a certain number of units are sold at the Lincoln Manor Townhomes, he believed that the Association would approach the City for a Housing Improvement Area and proceed with the remainder of the improvements on the property. Codes & Standards McDonald reported that a meeting would be scheduled before the end of February to continue discussion on several issues. Staff would be meeting Committee on a couple of items before presenting the information to the Committee. Item 6.2 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues Landy reported that the City Center Task Force met at the end of January for its initial meeting. In February the task force would be touring several existing redevelopment projects in neighboring communities. Discussion ensued on the article Ten Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips. NEW BUSINESSBrauch suggested a change in the January 7 minutes on page 3 to read, Motion “…be structured so that the business could be profitable.” was seconded made by Commissioner Hemken, by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 7, 2002, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed. 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003 McDonald reminded the Commission of the upcoming tax increment financing workshop on February 11, from 6 to 8 p.m. Due to the subject matter, the City Manager would allow Council members and department heads to attend. Another workshop was scheduled for March 11 on storm water issues. ANNOUNCEMENTSThere were no announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2003