Loading...
030403 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 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. ROLL CALL Present: Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: Anderson, Hemken Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, 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 4.1, Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Item 4.1 th Approval, 7550 and 7600 49 Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that Navarre was requesting development stage planned unit development approval to allow construction of a 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building, links between the buildings over the property line and preliminary plat to combine three parcels into one to accommodate the proposed development. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the concept stage PUD plans in February, subject to several conditions, including the submission of development stage plans, preliminary plat, begin the process for utility easement vacation, and submission of plans to the Watershed District. McDonald stated that the proposed preliminary plat consisted of combining three separate parcels plus a portion of one of the parcels that was a torrens property into one parcel. The total lot area consists of 256,825 square feet or 5.9 acres. Drainage and utility easements are to be provided as required. The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review unless the Planning Commission waives this requirement during review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner submitted correspondence requesting waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission, and staff recommends waiver of the final plat. The preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. The City engineer’s comments included: 1) The applicant should submit a list of all existing easements to be vacated along with the platting process, which is in process; 2) The railroad spur easement should be identified and documentation submitted to the City; 3) The north-south drainage and utility easement must be centered over the trunk sanitary sewer, and it appears the easement must be moved five feet west; 4) The right-of-way th for 49 Avenue should be 40 feet from the center line as is consistent with city collector roads, currently it is shown as 30 feet; 5) Drainage and utility easement must be modified in the southwest corner of the property to include the storm sewer, which is a minor modification; 6) Joint ingress and egress easements with adjacent properties must be documented with the agreements. McDonald added that there was a drainage and utility easement on the north side of the plat 35 feet in width, 30 feet in width on easement must be modified in the southwest corner of the property to include the storm sewer, which is a minor modification; 6) Joint ingress and egress easements with adjacent properties must be documented with the agreements. McDonald added that there was a drainage and utility easement on the north side of the plat 35 feet in width, 30 feet in width on the west side, 10 feet in width on the east side, and 25 feet in width on the front side of the property, not including the right-of-way. The City Attorney reviewed the plan and McDonald stated that most of the comments consisted of routine items. The most significant item was to identify the plat name. Hennepin County does not review plats that do not abut a county right-of- way. The only utility company that responded was Xcel Energy. A representative came to city hall to review the plans and project with staff, however, no written comments were submitted. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the report, including submission of revised preliminary plat including all recommendations of the City Attorney and City Engineer, and approving waiver of review of the final plat. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed a lengthy list of issues compiled from the previous Planning Commission meeting and comments and recommendations from staff and consultants. The applicant submitted revised plans that addressed the majority of those issues as follows: 1. The number of fire hydrants around both buildings was increased to five per the request of West Metro Fire. There are two additional th hydrants in close proximity to the Navarre site along 49 Avenue. 2. A sketch was prepared showing the resident driveway locations across th 49 Avenue with regard to headlights. 3. Soil boring information would be submitted at the time of building permit application. 4. The wetland delineation had not yet been submitted, but would be required with the Watershed application. Some of this information may not be available until spring. 5. Additional details on the retaining wall were provided and the City Engineer recommended that structural plans from a registered engineer be required prior to construction. 6. Parking lot and pavement section detail were added to the plans. th 7. Details on existing driveway apron and sidewalk along 49 Avenue were added to the revised plans. 8. Additional details on the pond outlet structure have been provided and the final plans would be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. The request for no curbing on the north side was eliminated. Concrete curb was added along the north drive aisle. 10. Information on depth of footings for the new building to be constructed over existing sanitary sewer line would be required at the time of building permit application. 11. The turning radius for trucks at the northeast corner of the existing building has been modified as discussed at the Design & Review meeting. 12. Regarding the loading area on the west side of the new building, truck turning radius data was provided with the revised plans. 13. Curb cut separation on the west property line has remained the same, and the applicant requested a waiver of the 40-foot setback requirement, which would amount to approximately 25 feet. Staff recommends approval within the flexibility of the PUD. 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 recommends approval within the flexibility of the PUD. 14. “One way only” signage along the north drive aisle has been shown on the revised plans. 15. 28 additional parking stalls have been shown on the revised site plan. 16. The potential future building separation issues would be addressed with agreements to be submitted at the time of building permit application and will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 17. Additional details and revisions have been provided for the landscaping/ screening at the top of the retaining wall. 18. Staff did not have an issue with the 20 percent green area requirement due to the fact that the total green area was just slightly under the 20 percent requirement. 19. The discrepancies in the landscape plan/schedule have been corrected. 20. The fire lane is shown on the site plan. There would be five signs posted along the north side of the buildings stating “no parking fire lane.” 21. The future parking on the north side of the building was converted to parallel parking and is shown on the revised plans. nd 22. The floor plan for the 2 story office in the new building would be submitted at the time of building permit application. 23. Additional lighting details have been provided. A few concerns remain, but the final plans would be subject to the approval of the Building Official. 24. Racking details would be submitted with the building permit application. 25. The Watershed application would be a requirement of approval. 26. Additional details on signage have been provided. McDonald reviewed several additional items regarding the development plans. 1. The final stage PUD would have two lots with two building links built between them as well as shared driveways, parking facilities, linked storm drainage systems and a new NURP pond. The applicant was seeking flexibility in the green space, setbacks, impervious surface coverage, and driveway separation. th 2. The access would be from 49 Avenue: the east access point located on the east side of the existing building in a counter-clockwise direction around the buildings and the west access point approximately th 15 feet from the residential curb cut off 49 Avenue. A variance of roughly 25 feet would be needed to allow this access area and could be approved within the overall flexibility of the PUD approval. th 3. Truck traffic would enter the proposed site from the south off of 49 Avenue. The plan shows a 20-foot wide fire lane to the north of the building which meets City Code. The current plan provides sufficient turning radius for small to mid-sized trucks. Previously there were some questions as to whether additional detail was needed for larger semi-trucks and trailers. The applicant submitted a revised narrative, which stated that United Parcel Service provides shipping/trucking service to Navarre. UPS uses 53-foot trailers with city cab over trailers, which are highly maneuverable. Empty trailers are dropped at the dock for loading and the tractor removes a full trailer for shipping. The bulk of this activity occurs after the first shift when the stalls opposite the dock area are not utilized. The most southerly docks would be limited to short bed truck and van type use so as not to infringe on the drive aisle. Some adjustments may be required, but the City Engineer and Building Official would approve the final plans. 4. The applicant was seeking flexibility in the setback to the east of the proposed site. The setback connection to the adjacent building would be allowed by PUD. The lot area and other setbacks meet City Code 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 standards. proposed site. The setback connection to the adjacent building would be allowed by PUD. The lot area and other setbacks meet City Code standards. 5. The applicant identified curb and gutter around the entire parking lot. The applicant was proposing to create 128 new parking stalls, and the combined parking between the two buildings would be 237. Appropriate ADA parking was identified, subject to final approval by the Building Official. 6. The building materials would be precast concrete panels with a textured surface. Prefinished metal cap flashing would be installed at the top of the precast panels. There would be an EFIS with prefinished metal cap flashing installed at the top edge of the building. Each floor would have a series of windows of insulated tinted glass in painted aluminum frames. The entry section would be insulated tinted glass. A wall sign would be placed directly above the entry on the south elevation. The center and west corner of the south elevation would feature glass panels similar to the entrance. The north elevation would consist of precast concrete insulated panels with three exit doors. The east elevation would be precast concrete insulated panels and the west elevation would be precast concrete insulated panels with a textured surface. The west elevation would have 12 semi-truck docks along the rear portion of the building and three exit doors. The front portion of the elevation would be glass treatment wrapped around to the front of the building. The applicant was proposing a paved courtyard between the two buildings. 7. Each building would be connected by two links. The links would be removable if the building’s use changed. Three roll-up fire doors would be installed on the existing building at the links. The existing exit doors along the building’s west elevation would be sealed. The rear link would have two ten-foot overhead doors. One overhead door would provide access to the link from the rear of the building and the other through the link to the courtyard. 8. Native prairie seed mix would be planted at the rear of the building and around the pond. Sod would be placed south of the pond completely around the periphery of the existing building. A total of 289 plantings would be placed around the buildings and the pond. The southwest corner of the building would have a circular planting area. The southeast corner of the new building would mirror the southwest corner of the existing building. The applicant would be required to provide additional screening from on top of the retaining wall. 9. Snow storage is shown in the northwest portion of the site in the pond area. 10. The fire department connection is shown on the west side of the building approximately 50 feet north of the front elevation. 11. In addition to the trash enclosure on the northeast end of the existing building, a new container would be placed at the north end of the site between the existing building and new building. The revised plans do not show a trash enclosure, only a container. The container is located between the buildings directly north of the northernmost building link. McDonald added that staff determined, due to the fact that the container would be between the buildings, an enclosure would not be required. 12. A five-foot concrete sidewalk would be constructed in front of the eastern portion of the building that would proceed eastward toward the center of the two buildings. The proposed new sidewalk links to a ten- foot wide sidewalk in the center bump out area connecting both buildings to the parking lot. The existing sidewalk in the public boulevard area would remain. 13. The existing monument sign in front of the existing building would remain and a new wall sign would be installed on the south elevation of the new building. The sign would be 24 feet by four feet and backlit 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 with neon. Sign materials and colors have not been identified. remain and a new wall sign would be installed on the south elevation of the new building. The sign would be 24 feet by four feet and backlit with neon. Sign materials and colors have not been identified. 14. The retaining wall 340 feet in length would be installed along the west edge of the property between the apartment complex and Navarre. The wall begins approximately 56 feet from the front property line and extends 215 feet northward, then follows the property line west 125 feet. The retaining wall would consist of two tiers. The lower tier would be approximately six feet in height and the upper tier would be approximately six and one-half feet in height, with one foot of each tier buried. A four-foot horizontal planting bed would be installed between the tiers. A landscape screen would be installed at the top of the wall between the property line and the wall. A three-foot wood post with a metal guardrail would be installed between the landscape screen and the property line. The posts would extend three feet into the ground. The wall would be constructed of eight-inch masonry block. Each tier would have a masonry cap. The Planner indicated that the applicant be required to provide additional screening on the top of the retaining wall. McDonald stated that staff agreed with the planting pattern provided by the applicant, however felt additional landscaping should be provided between the apartment complex to the west and the development. Based on the revised plans, the applicant should plant additional black hills spruce north of both existing garage locations. The applicant was proposing spirea on the retaining wall with an initial height of 18-24 inches. Staff would recommend that all species of shrubs located near the retaining wall be a minimum of 4-5 feet in height and because spirea species reach a mature height of only four feet, the Planning Consultant recommended that a taller plant species be substituted in that area. 15. Additional lighting and contours were provided. Six decorative fixtures would be installed at the front of the building and would match the fixtures on the existing building. Three 400 W HPS wall mounted units would be installed along the west elevation and one at the rear. Concern had been raised on the lighting at the rear of the building and at the pond, and final plans are subject to the approval of the Building Official. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the development stage PUD subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer, review and approval of the Building Official, West Metro Fire, Shingle Creek Watershed, revision of the landscaping plan per the Planning Consultant’s recommendations, execution of a PUD development agreement and submission of appropriate financial guarantee for site improvements, submission of other agreements regarding building links, joint parking, ingress/egress, and processing the utility easement vacation requests. Mr. Vince Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, stated that there would be a trunk sanitary sewer running through the site, which was a major city sewer facility. There would also be a trunk storm sewer that would be reconstructed as part of this project. The construction schedule included the applicant clearing the site of vegetation and completing the preliminary grading. After that time the building construction would begin. While the building footing construction was underway, the City would reconstruct the trunk sanitary sewer. The existing trunk sanitary sewer would need to be protected until such time that the City could relocate it. Building footings would be constructed over the old sanitary sewer while it was still active, therefore, measures would need to be taken to protect it during that process. The City would coordinate with Navarre’s engineer to determine when the storm sewer could be reconstructed. The applicant would be responsible for abandoning or removing the storm sewer. 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 when the storm sewer could be reconstructed. The applicant would be responsible for abandoning or removing the storm sewer. th Mr. Robert Glasgow, representative of Navarre Corporation at 7400 49 Avenue, came forward to address the Commission. Glasgow indicated that they would cooperate with staff on any details. He stated Navarre’s engineer felt the root system of the blue spruce as recommended to be planted north of the garage would interfere with the geofabric holdbacks and potentially harm the retaining wall. Glasgow indicated that there was th one additional hydrant adjacent to the 7300 49 Avenue property that had not previously been pointed out. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether an easement was required for the NURP pond and this was confirmed. The future parking at the north side of the building was clarified to be 12 parallel stalls and may be paved at the time of building construction. A question was raised whether that would interfere with the drainage from the NURP pond to the existing pond. The City Engineer stated that parking could occur in the drainage and utility easement. The most important issue would be to keep the drive aisle low enough so that in the event of a super storm, the runoff would overflow in the natural direction to the wetland and not flood Navarre’s building or adjacent properties. It was noted the high point of the north drive aisle would be at the property line, therefore, surface drainage would run to the west and east to existing or future catch basins. Svendsen commented that signage should be posted for vans only in the three shorter dock spaces on the west side of the new building. Glasgow indicated that with the single source shipping provider, there were regular drivers and it would be easier to direct them where to go. Signage could be added if required by the City. th Discussion ensued on the truck outflow from the west driveway on 49 Avenue and whether the turning radius was appropriate. This item should be clarified. Glasgow interjected that the easterly drive was the same dimension and there had not been any problems in the past. Mr. Bill Sikora, KKE Architects, addressed the ADA parking issue and stated that ADA requires two stalls for every 50 stalls provided, therefore, with the addition of 127 new stalls, five ADA stalls would be required. Due to the fact that there would be a couple additional stalls over the 125, a sixth ADA stall could be provided if required by the City. Svendsen questioned whether or not sprinkling would be provided for all the landscaping. Glasgow responded that the intent was to provide sprinkling in the front areas, not in the prairie grass area by the pond. No sprinkling was planned for the plants in the retaining wall area. O’Brien maintained that sprinkling should be provided in all landscaped areas. Sikora added that typically plantings have a one-year warranty and that the contractor would be responsible for watering until plants were established and for replacing any plants that died. Svendsen initiated discussion on the landscaping on the top of the retaining wall. He expressed skepticism that the guardrail as proposed would keep any children from playing in that area and possibly falling to the hard surfaced parking lot ten feet below. Svendsen stated he understood the petitioner’s reluctance to place larger plantings on the top of the wall and compromising the structural capability of the wall, but would like to see consideration given toward the safety concerns of the Design & Review Committee. Oelkers suggested planting a shrub with thorns that would deter children from playing in that area. He was less concerned with the height of the fence, and would rather see more fullness in the plantings. 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 Glasgow responded that they were very safety conscious and would look into alternative plantings. deter children from playing in that area. He was less concerned with the height of the fence, and would rather see more fullness in the plantings. Glasgow responded that they were very safety conscious and would look into alternative plantings. Discussion ensued on whether a variance would be required to waive the trash enclosure requirement due to the fact that the trash container would be located between the buildings. Glasgow interjected that the container was a compactor box. The same type of container is located by the east building. Navarre is considering locating both compactors in the same area between the buildings. Svendsen called attention to the fact that the lighting did not project out to the parking spaces adjacent to the NURP pond on the west side of the parking lot and the 12 new stalls at the rear. Glasgow stated that Navarre would be proceeding on a design/build basis with an electrical contractor and would address this issue with the final building plans. A question was raised on the height of the three-foot fence at the top of the retaining wall and if it was of sufficient height for the larger SUV type vehicles common today. Sikora replied that the fence would be similar to the type found along state highways with the large posts and continuous steel railing. The intent would be to keep vehicles from entering the area. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing . All in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner O’Brien maintained that he felt strongly about a sprinkler system for plantings in the retaining wall area and all other landscaped areas of the property and suggested that it be considered in the final plans. MOTION Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner O’Brien, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 03-01, Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Approval, 7550 and th 7600 49 Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Preliminary Plat 1. Submit revised preliminary plat that incorporates recommendations from City Attorney (3/5/03 and 2/28/03 correspondence) and City Engineer (2/26/03 correspondence regarding plat) and the NURP pond utility easement. 2. Approve waiver of review of final plat by Planning Commission. Development Stage PUD 1. Subject to recommendations of City Engineer (2/26/03 and 1/29/03 correspondence regarding site improvements). 2. Subject to review and approval of Building Official. 3. Subject to review and approval of West Metro Fire. 4. Subject to review and approval of Shingle Creek Watershed District. 5. Revision to landscaping plan on top of retaining wall, subject to approval of staff and City Engineer. 6. Execution of PUD Development Agreement with City and submission of appropriate financial guarantee for site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 Building Official). 7. Submission of other agreements regarding building links, joint parking, ingress, egress, etc. 8. Process utility easement vacation requests in conjunction with City. 9. Sprinkler system for front landscaping areas to be noted on plan. Oelkers questioned the one-way drive aisle and whether or not trucks could enter on the west driveway. McDonald stated that there would be one-way signage posted with a “do not enter” sign by the fire lane from the west side. Glasgow responded that most trucks would enter at the east driveway and circulation would be counter-clockwise around the building. There may be some trucks entering at the west driveway as well. Voting in favor: Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Hemken Motion passed. Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on March 10 and advised the petitioner to attend. COMMITTEE Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in February REPORTS with the petitioner. Design & Review Committee McDonald stated that Mid-America Financial Plaza would probably be filing Item 6.1 for a CUP for a school use and parking ramp for the April meeting. Staff expected that Chardon Court may submit plans for a four-story senior cooperative building for consideration at the May meeting. St. Joseph Church would be filing in April or May for its expansion and the church may submit a proposal to split off a section of its property south of the Kimball subdivision to create a new residential subdivision with six lots. Codes & Standards Landy reported that Codes & Standards did not meet, but a meeting would be scheduled in April to continue discussion on several issues. Committee Item 6.2 OLD BUSINESS Svendsen raised the issue of the proposed development of a pet hospital th with boarding on the city-owned property at 9200 49 Avenue. McDonald Miscellaneous Issues stated that the current zoning was not appropriate for a pet hospital. The dog day care ordinance under consideration was proposing to allow that use by CUP in an Industrial District and it may be appropriate to allow a pet hospital by CUP in an Industrial District as well. Chairman Landy stated that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on March 6 and he would be attending. NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded was made by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February Svendsen, 4, 2002, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed. Brauch questioned the status of the thrift store study and moratorium. McDonald replied that the City Council would review the thrift store study at a work session in March. 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003 Landy reminded the Commission of the upcoming workshop regarding storm water issues and easements on March 11, from 6 to 8 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTSChairman Landy announced that he would not be able to attend the May meeting. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, introduced Doug Debner, an associate of his firm. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2003