Loading...
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