040312 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 2012
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Vice Chair Brinkman called the meeting to
order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy
(arrived 7:03 p.m.), Christopher McKenzie, Sunday
Onadipe, Steve Svendsen
Absent: Jeff Houle, Ranjan Nirgude, Tom Schmidt
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Eric
Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING There were no Public Hearings on the agenda.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that city staff had met with three potential
Committee applicants, in addition to Ron Clark Construction, that may submit their
Item 5.1 applications by Friday.
Codes and Standards Vice Chair Brinkman stated that no Codes and Standards Committee
Committee meeting is scheduled at this time.
Item 5.2
NEW BUSINESS
Item 6.2 Vice Chair Brinkman introduced Item 6.2, PC 12 -04, discussion of Ron
Ron Clark Construction Clark Construction's proposal and stated Item 6.2 would be discussed
first due to the developer's attendance at this meeting.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city had been discussing a multi - family
residential proposal with Ron Clark Construction for some time. They
were waiting for the city to come into ownership of the vacant gas station
so that lot could be combined with the three vacant city -owned lots to the
west. They are considering the purchase of the fourplex to the west to
combine all the lots into one and construct a higher density development.
Several modifications have been made to the plans since they met with
the Design and Review Committee a couple months ago and staff again
last week. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the city would be bringing forward
a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning change at the May
meeting due to the fact that those changes benefit the city as a whole
regardless of whether or not Ron Clark redevelops the property or
another builder.
Mr. Michael Waldo, Ron Clark Construction, and Mr. Link Wilson, Kaas
Wilson Architects, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Waldo stated they had previously met with the Design and Review
Committee, with the Council at a work session, and again with staff last
week. The most recent plans are a result of those meetings. Mr. Waldo
stated that the company has constructed a lot of townhomes, attached
products, apartments and condos. The New Hope location is excellent
and a great opportunity for a quality product at the north end of New
Hope. The design guidelines of the city call for high quality materials and
they would meet all of those standards for this project. Sixty percent brick
and stone construction are much higher construction standards than
many other communities.
Mr. Waldo stated that project parking has changed from 1.7 stalls per unit
to 2.05 stalls, one underground and one surface. City standards are 2.25
stalls per unit. There are also two or three guest surface stalls. In
combination with the amount of transit nearby the parking should be
sufficient with eight one - bedroom units in the project. He indicated they
would complete a traffic study to confirm their numbers.
Mr. Waldo stated that they have doubled the amount of green space from
the original plans. The two areas of the building that extended out to the
south have been removed, which reduced the number of units from 74 to
68 and increased the green space and parking. The four stories are
important to make the project feasible. The architecture and building
materials will make this a statement building for the corner. The project
will have an urban feel with reduced setbacks.
Mr. Wilson stated placing the building closer to 62nd Avenue will
provide more distance to the single family homes to the south of the
project area. The shadow line would be along the north side of the
building and not affect the homes to the south. He added that they utilize
sustainable building practices. They would try to create a gateway coming
from Brooklyn Park into New Hope. The tot lot would be fenced and be a
great place for the children to play. There are three entrances to the
building along the south side with sidewalks around the entire site. The
eastern entrance would be in close proximity to the bus shelter at the
intersection. Mr. Wilson mentioned a neighborhood meeting would be
held on April 17 at city hall and full elevations will be available at that
time.
Mr. Waldo stated that project amenities will include a fitness room,
underground parking, community room, and easy access to transit.
Steven Scott Management will manage the property.
Mr. Waldo stated that this would be a tax credit project and they would
be applying to MHFA for tax credits to bring in additional equity. The tax
Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 3, 2012
credit program allows 75 percent equity and 25 percent debt allowing
them to spend more on the units, which will include washers and dryers.
The units would be high level quality apartments with affordable rents.
For example, a one bedroom unit would rent for $785 including utilities,
two bedrooms at $945, and three bedrooms at $1,091. There will be rent
restrictions on the units. A family of four would have income limits of
$50,400 and a family of three would be approximately $46- 48,000. Full
market rate rents would be $1,400 to $1,500 for two bedrooms. Under the
tax credit program, these rents may be higher than current rates in New
Hope based on their research.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired how high the garages would be above
grade. Mr. Waldo responded that from a safety perspective the first floor
would be about five to 5 1/2 feet above grade. From a view perspective,
that height keeps the decks above the traffic line. The under - ground
parking would go down about six feet. There would be no windows in the
garage level.
Vice Chair Brinkman questioned the distance from the sidewalk to the
building. Mr. Waldo responded that there would be five to six feet from
the sidewalk at the northwest corner of the building and at the northeast
corner there would be about 12 feet. From the curb to the building, the
distance would be 22 to 25 feet. The decks would project out about four
feet and would be in line with the pop -out areas on the building.
Commissioner Onadipe inquired of the total height of the building. Mr.
Link stated the distance from grade to fascia would be 42 feet or four
floors above grade and to the peak of the roof it would be about 52 feet.
There are 140 parking stalls provided for the 68 units, or 2.05 spaces per
unit. Commissioner Onadipe clarified that the fitness room, community
room and management office would be located on the first floor. He
stressed that the main concern for him was still the density and whether
or not 68 units would be appropriate for the size of the site. Mr. Waldo
stated that to make the project viable, four stories was the minimum. He
felt that the building materials they use will make the building seem less
intrusive.
Vice Chair Brinkman confirmed there would be three access points along
the south side of the building in addition to the garage entrance. First
floor balconies would be five to six feet above grade, but no access to the
individual apartments from the outside.
Commissioner Svendsen confirmed there would be approximately a five -
foot buffer with a fence, shrubs, and over -story trees along the south and
west property lines. The fence would be five to six feet in height and
constructed of cedar or vinyl. The buffer area may increase a couple feet
depending on the types of trees or shrubs. Mr. Waldo stated that they
would coordinate with the property owners to the south and potentially
replace all of the individual fences to provide one consistent fence along
the property line.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 3, 2012
Commissioner McKenzie asked where snow storage would be located.
Mr. Waldo suggested snow would be stored in the green space at the
northwest corner of the property and possibly on the north side of the
east driveway. If there was a lot of snow, it would have to be removed
from the property.
Vice Chair Brinkman inquired about the fourplex to the west. Mr. Waldo
stated that they were trying to acquire that building and the plans
included that parcel.
Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the tax credits. Mr.
Waldo stated that income limits would be placed on all units. He
explained the public - private partnership where lending institutions
purchase tax credits and they get community redevelopment points and
tax credits. Ron Clark Construction would get tax credits, the lending
institution would pay Ron Clark for 10 years of tax credits up front as
equity into the project and then Ron Clark would get a first mortgage
from MHFA or a lending institution. They may need some soft funds for
the project as well and that could come from the Met Council or city TIF
funds. The end result would be four properties back on the tax rolls for
the city.
Discussion ensued on potential clean up of the gas station if new testing
would indicate a leak. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city engineer was
writing specifications for the demolition of the building and removal of
the tanks and the city would be obtaining demo quotes in the near future.
The site had been cleaned up in 1999 and new tanks were installed. In the
event there would be a new leak, the MPCA may or may not require clean
up of the site. The Ron Clark project would have underground parking
above the location of the tanks and a ventilation system would be
installed in the garage for the car exhaust, which would also eliminate
potential vapors from any contamination. Mr. Link added that this type
of housing with a parking garage is good if there was an environmental
problem due to the ventilation system already required. A sealed slab
would be installed in the garage.
Commissioner Hunten questioned whether a groundwater evaluation had
been completed. Mr. Jacobsen replied that Hennepin County did an
environmental evaluation prior to the city purchasing the site. The
groundwater flows to the east toward SuperAmerica, who has a
monitoring system due to contamination on its site and the active wells
are pumping out the contamination. Commissioner Hunten wondered
whether there would be any potential health problems for someone living
on this site. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the drinking water comes from
Minneapolis. The MPCA would check the property and sign off if okay
for residential construction. Until the tanks are removed, it is not known
whether there is a new leak or not. If there is contamination, the city
would be eligible for petro fund cleanup funds at a 90/10 split.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 3, 2012
Commissioner McKenzie wondered what experience the developer had
with adding such a large amount of impervious surface to a site. Mr. Link
stated that they have utilized a storm tech system under parking lots on
other projects. The lot could be paved with regular asphalt or a pervious
concrete. The water would be directed into a series of pipes underground
before being released into the city's storm sewer system. They have also
utilized pervious pavers or a large culvert under the parking lot. Mr.
Jacobsen interjected that there is sandy soil at this location. The new CVS
project at Midland Center utilized the storm tech system under the
parking lot.
Commissioner Onadipe stated that earlier plans indicated different roof
heights on the building and asked for clarification as the current plan
illustrates one roof line. Mr. Link responded that the facade would have
great architecture to it. The previous plan was for a four -story building
along 62nd Avenue with two three -story sections bumping out to the
south. He added that even though the current building is smaller with six
units eliminated, only four stalls were lost in the garage.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether the project would be
profitable with 58 units as he stated he felt there would be objection from
the neighborhood with four floors. Mr. Waldo stated the project would
not work financially with the elimination of one floor of 18 units.
Mr. Jacobsen reminded the commissioners that the developer was here to
explain the project and help the Commission understand why the
properties would be rezoned. The discussion at the May public hearing
would be for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning the
properties for a higher density. The building and site plan review will be
considered at a later date.
Commissioner Hunten asked that the developer provide elevations and
more detailed plans for the April 17 neighborhood meeting.
Commissioner Onadipe requested that the developer provide a cross
section of the building for the neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Waldo questioned the Planning Commission if it was comfortable
with a four -story building on that corner as they felt strongly they could
make the project aesthetically pleasing. He added that with the MHFA
program and tax credit financing, the project would be monitored for 30
years. They would have to set aside, at the time of closing, over $300,000
in operating reserves and additional reserves each year for replacement.
Commissioner Landy questioned if the fire department had reviewed the
plans and whether or not the department's fire trucks could
accommodate a four -story building. Mr. Waldo stated he would provide
the fire department with preliminary plans. Mr. Jacobsen added that the
building would be sprinkled.
Commissioner McKenzie stated he was concerned with the lack of
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 3, 2012
overflow parking and no recreation area for older children. Mr. Waldo
responded that 62nd Avenue is striped for parking from this lot west to
Winnetka Avenue. The play area would be divided into a tot lot and an
area with a half - basketball court for older children. There are two larger
parks within three blocks east or south of the site with basketball courts,
tennis courts and ballfields. McKenzie cautioned that he would not want
older children spilling into the single family neighborhoods. Mr. Jacobsen
added that there was a charter school across 62nd Avenue in Brooklyn
Park that has a playground. McKenzie expressed concern that the school
may not want to provide a play area for the project. He also inquired who
would pay to have the utility lines buried and was told the developer
would pay for burying the lines. He stated he was still concerned with
snow storage on the site. He inquired where trash would be stored and
how it would be removed. Mr. Waldo replied that the garbage containers
would be kept in the garage and there would be a trash chute for the
residents.
Commissioner Hunten wondered whether all multi - family projects were
required to provide play areas. Mr. Jacobsen stated that multi - family
projects were required to provide something for the tenants, but was not
sure of the age requirement. The Project for Pride in Living project
constructed about five years ago does provide a play area and a portion
of the unused parking lot for basketball. There is a community garden
and a storm water pond with a trail around it. The Winnetka Green
project upgraded a neighborhood park.
Vice Chair Brinkman thanked the developer for providing information on
the project to the Commission.
Item 6.1 Vice Chair Brinkman introduced Item 6.1, PC12 -03, discussion of City
City Center Zoning Center zoning.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated that for the last two years the city had been
studying the City Center area as part of the Hennepin County funded
Transit Oriented Development study. From that study, a vision was
created and adopted for the City Center area. The vision outlined that the
area would be the heart of the city for civic, business, and cultural uses, as
well as the transportation hub of the city. The area should be friendly,
welcoming, positive, diverse, and active. The redevelopment should be
compact, efficient, and economically and environmentally sustainable,
and the design should build a strong, cohesive identity. The area should
include a diverse mix of uses including commercial and higher density
residential with connections to green spaces and civic uses.
According to a 2011 community preference survey conducted by the
National Association of Realtors, 19 percent of those surveyed are looking
to live in the city and 12 percent are looking for a bedroom suburb. In
recent years, more people are looking to live in a mixed use suburb where
there are places to eat, shop, and things to do. In the last decade, more
people are leaning toward a smart growth community rather than urban
Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 3, 2012
sprawl. People are looking for transit options and shorter commutes.
People that are buying homes are looking for privacy from neighbors and
in recent years are looking for a short commute to work and places to take
walks.
Mr. Weiss pointed out the proposed City Center district zoning map and
stated that there was discussion about cutting off the east side of the
original CC district proposal at the railroad tracks. There are more auto
oriented uses east of the tracks. Commissioner Hunten agreed with
cutting the east edge at the railroad tracks.
Mr. Weiss explained a strong purpose statement was desirable from a
legal standpoint and to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial,
office and civic uses, and connect the vision to the zoning code. The
district is designed to:
1. Provide a diversity of housing opportunities and land uses with a
mix of medium and high- density housing along with commercial,
entertainment, employment, and civic.
2. Increase opportunities for residents to live in close proximity to jobs
and transit connections.
3. Provide development that is convenient and safe for multiple travel
modes.
4. Development that is aesthetically pleasing and uses high - quality
building materials, landscaping and architectural design.
5. Encourage a sense of activity and liveliness.
6. Provide parking in an efficient manner.
7. Provide public gathering spaces and green spaces.
8. Encourage appropriate transitions between uses.
9. Encourage sustainable design practices.
10. Create a unified district and implement the goals outlined in the City
Center Vision, Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines.
Mr. Weiss explained that all development projects would be completed
through the site plan review process, except for minor improvements to
existing buildings. An applicant could pursue a planned unit
development for greater flexibility in design.
Mr. Weiss reviewed the use table for each district regarding permitted,
conditional, temporary and administrative uses. The Commission did not
make any changes to the residential or civic /public uses. For commercial
uses, the Commission determined to remove auto repair from the CC
district. This would be an issue if the district boundary was not cut at the
railroad tracks. Also deleted from the CC district was convenience with
gasoline and funeral home /mortuary. The commissioners agreed with
separating conference centers and hotels. Under accessory uses, auto
washing was removed. There was some discussion on drive - through
lanes and home occupations, but both uses will remain. Mr. Weiss stated
that specific standards for the administrative, conditional, and temporary
uses have not been established at this time. Staff will establish these
requirements following this meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 3, 2012
The existing CB district has no lot width or lot area minimums, and the
CC district will not either, thereby providing flexibility, encouraging
density and reducing the price of development. The structure height
maximum in the CB district is 48 feet or four stories while the maximum
in the R -4 and R -5 districts is 72 feet or six stories. The taller maximum
was chosen for the CC district as a way to encourage density and to be
consistent with other housing districts. The maximum height for an
accessory building is 20 feet.
Mr. Weiss explained that one of the biggest changes to the CC district is,
instead of a front yard setback, there would be a street side build -to
range. A setback is a minimum where you can build and a build -to range
has a minimum setback of 10 feet and maximum setback of 25 feet. Some
cities are going 0 to 10 -feet as the build -to; however, New Hope wanted to
provide a little more green space and space for snow storage. The side
yard setbacks have been adjusted for uses adjacent to non - residential or
multi - family where the structure setback would be five feet and adjacent
to single family the setback would be 20 feet. On a corner lot, the setback
would be 10 feet. Rear yard setbacks would be 10 feet to non - residential
or multi - family and 20 feet to single family residential. The setbacks have
been reduced in the CC district to provide property owners and
developers a larger building envelope and to bring buildings closer to the
public realm.
The front yard is currently defined as "that boundary abutting a public
right of way having the least width." This definition may not be the best
solution to meet the desired development outcome of creating a main
street or pedestrian- friendly neighborhood. The street side shall be
determined to be the yard facing the primary street, which is defined as
the street as outlined in the hierarchical order — main street > minor
arterial > City Center collector — as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. For example, with the Ron Clark proposal, West Broadway would
be the front yard under current regulations. With the new CC district
definitions, 62nd could be the primary street, thus that is where the build -
to range would be. The new definition is important for corner lots.
Another new concept is Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which is a ratio of total
property size to the developed footprint. The proposal is for a minimum
of 0.5 FAR for everything except civic uses. Minimum green space would
be 10 percent for residential and five percent for commercial and mixed
use. Met Council is recommending 0.5 FAR for suburban town centers
along bus routes. They will use this minimum for their funding sources
and New Hope would need to use this requirement if using outside
funding sources.
Mr. Weiss explained that the city's financial consultant proposed 30 -50
units /acre to make redevelopment economically viable. Met Council's
standards for TOD recommend 15 units per acre minimum for bus
service.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 3, 2012
The proposed CC district maximum densities may be increased
depending on the number of amenities provided — 25 percent increase for
two amenities and 50 percent with four or more amenities. Amenities
could include: 80 percent of parking in structured facilities; housing
provided above ground floor or civic uses; buildings placed at street
ROW and parking is screened; 50 percent of building is in buildings with
four or more stories; durable exterior wall finishes consisting of glass,
brick, stone or stucco on 80 percent of wall face; indoor recreation and
social rooms; rooftop outdoor recreational facilities such as swimming
pools, tennis courts, or gardens; and transit service available within 300
feet of entrance. The city currently has similar density bonuses.
Where there are double frontages, building should be oriented to the
primary street, but buildings are permitted to follow the street side build -
to requirements on both fronts. All above - ground utility structures should
be located behind the minimum setback unless part of the approved plan.
Driveways may cross the street side setback, but shall be perpendicular to
the street for pedestrian safety.
Mr. Weiss stated that the verbiage for architectural standards may need
to be revised. The intent is to have entrances to buildings on the street
side rather than patrons having to walk around the building.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested adding rooftop dining in addition to
sidewalk dining. The noise ordinance may need to be revised if the
establishments would offer music.
Mr. Weiss stated that all non - residential buildings fronting on a street
shall be designed so the first floor street facade includes clear glass and
doors. Uses shall be visible from and to the street on at least 50 percent of
the length and 40 percent of the area. At least 50 percent of the windows
shall have lower sill within three feet of the grade. He added that the
planning consultant was concerned that these minimum standards may
be difficult to meet particularly for larger retail uses. Commissioner
Onadipe commented that the city needs to start with a number and then
work with the architects during the plan review process. Residential
buildings would require windows and doors on at least 25 percent of the
length of the first floor. Staff will continue to review this matter.
A building more than 45 feet in width shall be divided into increments of
no more than 20 feet with some type of facade modulation, vertical
division, storefronts, roof lines or articulation interval. Canopies,
awnings, and cornices are permitted but may extend no more than four
feet from the building. Minimum overhead clearance is eight feet.
Balconies may project up to five feet over the street side or side corner
yard setbacks and shall be a minimum of 10 feet from grade.
Mixed -use development must provide a range of building types. The
primary exterior materials, except for service area, must be brick, stone,
Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 3, 2012
decorative masonry, or similar materials or a combination thereof.
Painted or unpainted or concrete block, aluminum, vinyl or fiberglass
siding or roofing, and precast concrete are prohibited. Staff recommends
removing the requirements that developments shall provide sensitive
transitions between new development and residential areas and that new
buildings must be constructed of durable materials as these requirements
are covered elsewhere. The city should encourage creativity, imagination,
innovation and variety in architectural design as long as the general
intent of the code is met.
Mr. Weiss stated that open houses are scheduled for April 18 with the
business networking group and for one hour prior to the May 1 Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission will finish its review on May 1
and the public hearing would be held at the June 5 meeting. The Met
Council requires that neighboring communities, school district, and the
watersheds review the amendment. The Met Council is currently
reviewing the draft and is supportive. After the review period, the City
Council will consider the amendment and then it would be submitted to
the Met Council for formal review. After approval by the Met Council,
the City Council can formally adopt the plan amendment by the end of
the year.
Item 6.3 Vice Chair Brinkman introduced Item 6.3, discussion of the weed
Weed Ordinance ordinance.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that the Planning Commission had been directed to
review the city's existing weed ordinance and recommend changes. When
the city receives a complaint, the assistant weed inspector /city forester
drives by the property to confirm the complaint and sends a notice to the
property owner. The existing code language allows for a 10 -day waiting
period after notification before the city can take corrective action if the
property owner fails to do so. After checking the property a second time,
the city's contracted mowing service is contacted. Once contacted, there
may be a few days time before the property can be mowed. There could
be two weeks lapse from the time of complaint until the property is
mowed. The proposed change is to shorten the notification period to
seven days. The commissioners were also asked to consider a permitting
process for native plantings on private properties similar to Golden
Valley, Crystal and St. Louis Park. The Citizen Advisory Commission
considered all the changes as suggested by the city forester and has
recommended approval.
Discussion ensued regarding the medians and who was responsible for
the maintenance. Generally, the medians are on county roads. However,
the city should develop a maintenance plan for maintaining the medians
on city streets.
Commissioner Anderson initiated discussion on maintaining the
sidewalks and picking up trash in front of businesses and snow plowing
the sidewalks during the winter. Mr. Jacobsen stated that all property
Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 3, 2012
owners are required to keep sidewalks clear of snow. Mr. Weiss explained
the idea of a business improvement district where businesses join
together and contribute funds for maintaining the area with regard to
snow, banners, flowers, and so on. Mr. Jacobsen added that this may be
something to consider for City Center.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend the
proposed changes to the weed ordinance as suggested by the city forester
and as recommended by the Citizen Advisory Commission.
Item 6.4 Vice Chair Brinkman introduced Item 6.4, discussion of Shingle Creek's
Shingle Creek 3rd 3rd Generation Watershed Plan.
Generation Watershed
Plan Mr. Jacobsen stated that due to the city receiving a revised schedule
yesterday from the watershed, discussion on this item could take place at
the May meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 7.1 to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 2012. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen reminded the commissioners of the open house on May 1 at
6 p.m. for the public to review the City Center zoning code changes.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:05
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 3, 2012