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