Loading...
050112 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 1, 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; Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Sunday Onadipe, Tom Schmidt (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Absent: Ranjan Nirgude, Steve Svendsen Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 12 -04 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, request for an amendment to the New Item 4.1 Hope 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Map and rezoning the properties from R -3, medium density and CB, community business, to PUD, planned unit development district, southwest quadrant of 62nd Avenue and West Broadway, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the city and Ron Clark Construction and Design have been coordinating on a possible redevelopment of several properties on the south side of 62nd Avenue and west of West Broadway. The city has owned three of the former apartment sites for several years and just acquired the vacant gas station on the corner. A variety of concept plans have undergone review by staff, the Design and Review Committee, the Planning Commission, City Council, and by the public at an open house in April. Numerous changes have been made to the initial plan submittal. To facilitate the first phase of possible redevelopment, the city is proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of the site to PUD, planned unit development. To accommodate a project for this site, the developer would have to submit applications to be processed and approved for a subdivision /plat, planned unit development — development stage and final stage approval. The project site would consist of five lots, including 6113 West Broadway, an abandoned gas station; 7601, 7621, and 7641 62nd Avenue, vacant city owned lots; and 7661 62nd Avenue, which would be acquired by the developer and demolished. The site is in Comprehensive Plan District 2 which has been suggested for redevelopment due to small parcels with poor site design and land use compatibility issues. The remaining apartment building is in poor condition with no amenities or garages, and poses outdoor storage problems. The Comp Plan recommends redevelopment with a medium density residential use. One of the city -wide goals is to aggressively improve substandard and /or blighted areas. A residential goal suggests providing a variety of housing types and styles through infill development and increasing lifecycle housing opportunities, and providing affordable housing options and amenities, such as garages. Another goal is to maintain and enhance multiple family residential neighborhoods by redeveloping substandard properties and adhering to high community design and construction standards. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the Ron Clark proposal would fulfill the city's redevelopment goals through a public /private partnership, PUD design flexibility, and providing affordable housing utilizing high quality architecture and amenities. The PUD concept plan submitted illustrates 68 units on a 1.67 acre site. The PUD zoning designation is necessary to provide flexibility related to density, setbacks, parking and usable open space. The setback along 62nd Avenue would vary from five to 12 feet and give the project an urban feel. The setback from West Broadway would be 10 feet. The reduced setbacks would require enhanced landscaping /streetscape. City ordinance requires 2.25 parking stalls per unit and the concept plan indicated 2.05 stalls per unit. The reduced parking supply would be supported by the availability of bus transit and proximity to the Bottineau park and ride lot. The concept plan illustrates a very urban design and the reduction in green space can be compensated for with detailed landscaping addressing 62nd Avenue's streetscape, burying overhead utilities, sidewalk and pedestrian elements, fencing to separate this building and parking lot from the single family properties to the south, and other landscaping. The concept plan indicates 2,900 square feet of outdoor play area, including a half court basketball area and tot lot. There are several municipal parks and public spaces in close proximity to the project site. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the plan shows a four - story, 68 -unit building and includes a lobby and common area, community social room, and underground parking. The architectural elements of the exterior would be high quality materials and the entire interior would be sprinkled for safety. Extra landscaping would be installed to soften the exterior appearance of the building. Amending the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map would be a policy decision for the city. Redevelopment of the property offers an opportunity for revitalization of an under - utilized and blighted area. The Comp Plan amendment would change the guided land use to high density from the current medium density and community business zoning districts. The concept plan for this site has gone through a number of modifications to address concerns with design and intensity which were raised by city staff, the Design and Review Committee, Planning Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 1, 2012 Commission and City Council. Each revision was geared to improving on -site function and compatibility. Based on the Planning Commission's review, staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning map amendment with the findings as listed in the planning report. The Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning map amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends approval. Chair Houle invited persons in the audience wishing to address the Commission to come forward. Mr. Morris Mickelson, 6072 Rhode Island Avenue, came forward, and stated he felt the size and density was too intense for this site. He did not feel there was enough recreation area provided on site and stated he was very concerned with the additional traffic this project would generate. He added that in recent years 61st Avenue has become an alternate route to avoid the intersection at 62nd and West Broadway and was concerned this project would bring additional traffic to that street. He added that he did not receive a notice for the open house. He has lived in this neighborhood for 45 years and was worried about the impact on real estate values for existing properties if this project proceeded. Mr. Mickelson suggested reconsidering the project on a smaller scale. He stated that he was not opposed to redevelopment, but this size building was not appropriate in this location. Mr. Chris Hanson, 7680 61st Avenue, approached the podium. He stated he purchased his property about three years ago and had been attracted to the quiet, peaceful neighborhood. He stated that he was interested in a development that would bring in young, quiet families to the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson stated he was concerned with the flexibility of the PUD zoning which would otherwise prevent this development, as proposed, from moving forward. A four -story building would be too tall for the neighborhood, and green space and parking are limited. He questioned how storm water would be handled on site. Mr. Hanson stated he felt that changing the gas station property to R -3 zoning would be fine and constructing buildings on a smaller scale that would fit better into the neighborhood would be an acceptable project. Another concern is parking lot lighting that may shine into adjacent neighbors' homes. Burying the power lines and the additional landscaping along the south and west property lines were both good improvements. He stated he was against the current proposal, but a project on a smaller scale would be acceptable. He added he would like to see improvements to the other blighted properties along 62nd Avenue. There was no one else in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Planning Commission Meeting 3 May 1, 2012 close the public hearing for Planning Case 12 -04. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction, came forward. Chair Houle inquired who would own the building and Mr. Waldo replied that Ron Clark would be the owner and general partner. There would be a limited partner who would provide a portion of the equity. The financing for the project would be a 30 -year commitment and the owner would stay in place for a minimum of 20 years. Steven Scott Management would be the property managers for the site. A detailed background check would be completed for all tenants, along with a drug - free, crime -free rider on the lease. If a tenant violated the lease, they could be evicted immediately. The financing Ron Clark would utilize with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency requires submittal of a management plan, marketing plan, and tenant selection plan along with a 30 -year commitment to the MHFA to manage the property with specific criteria. MHFA does an inspection of the building each year of the 30 year period, meets with the management company, and verifies the files on all tenants. Ron Clark must have an initial $300,000 reserve fund established for operating and maintenance requirements, as well as set aside $30,000 per year strictly for reserves for reroofing, residing, painting, etc. Commissioner Onadipe inquired whether or not information regarding the management company or reserve funds was revealed at the open house for the neighboring property owners. Mr. Waldo stated that the mailing for the open house was for neighboring properties that abutted the south and west property lines. The only neighbor that came was the owner of the four -plex to the west. Commissioner Hunten asked about the tenant's financial criteria to rent a unit in the building. Mr. Waldo stated that the income level would need to be between $30,000 and $50- 51,000 depending on the number of bedrooms and the number of residents in the unit. Commissioner Hunten asked for Mr. Waldo's experience with other projects of this size and whether the amount of green space proposed would be sufficient. Mr. Waldo responded that the play area had been expanded to add a half court basketball court for older children and kept an area for smaller children on site. There are also several neighborhood parks in close proximity. The management company had indicated to Mr. Waldo, based on their experience, the amenities provided would be sufficient for the families expected to live in the building. Commissioner Hunten questioned if a smaller project would be financially feasible for Ron Clark or another developer. Mr. Waldo stated when utilizing a professional management company, 65 to 75 units is the break point for a project that functions well. Less than that makes the finances difficult and 80 -85 units requires a second management person thereby making the costs go up. He stressed that a smaller project could Planning Commission Meeting 4 May 1, 2012 be done, but financially it makes breaking even much harder. Mr. Waldo stated that they had not yet done a full engineering study because they wanted to see if the city was interested in a project of this size. They were looking at a storm tech system where all of the water would be stored under the parking lot. Commissioner Anderson wondered whether there would be another neighborhood meeting and Mr. Waldo responded that no second meeting was planned at this time. Mr. Jacobsen interjected that another public hearing would be conducted at the time of a project submittal regarding the plat and planned unit development. Anderson was concerned for the property owners along the south side of the project and that they had not received all the information provided at this meeting regarding management, property values, etc. Mr. Waldo stated that he would be happy to discuss the project with any of the home owners. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, inquired what the occupancy rate per unit would be including children. Mr. Waldo stated there would probably be families with one to three children depending on the size of the unit. Commissioner Onadipe interjected that MHFA has standard requirements for the maximum number of children per bedroom. Mr. Brixius questioned what internal amenities would be provided in the units and Mr. Waldo responded that the units would have washers /dryers, refrigerators, dishwasher, range, and microwave. The building would have a community room, exercise room, on -site office for the manager (who normally lives on site), and underground parking. The building would have an elevator and would be a no smoking building. Commissioner Hunten commented that she felt adjacent home owners were concerned with a potential drop in property values. Mr. Waldo stated that information taken from their studies indicated that improvements to the site through the use of high quality products added value to the neighborhood. New Hope has very high design standards. A high quality project with good management constructed in a blighted area in Rosemount improved property values in that neighborhood. Typically, the people renting the units have made a choice to rent or may have gone through foreclosure and cannot get a loan and are rebuilding their credit. Even with an income requirement for the units, foreclosure is not a reason to deny someone from renting. Commissioner Hunten commented that Steven Scott Management is a good property management company with high standards and a company that trains their agents. Mr. Ron Clark stated that the occupancy rate may be approximately 2.5 people per unit on average depending on the amount of bedrooms per unit. It would be a no smoking building and would be built to the city's high standards and Minnesota Green Star standards. He added that there Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 1, 2012 are several good studies on the affect of a building such as this on neighborhoods with regard to crime and property values and he indicated he would submit it to Mr. Jacobsen. Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to open the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mickelson stated he was not too concerned with the integrity of the renters or the property management company. He was mainly concerned with the density and what the people were going to do for entertainment as there were almost no amenities outside the building. He did not want people roaming throughout the neighborhood. He inquired of the snow removal plan and was told a large snowfall would be hauled off site. He mentioned again he did not believe all the neighboring residents received notice of the proposed project nor did they realize the size of the building. Mr. Hanson reported that he did receive a letter from Ron Clark Construction for the open house. The address the letter referred to was for the gas station. The public hearing notice he received noted a change to the zoning ordinance which led him to seek out more information on this proposed project. He suggested that the blighted properties to the west may hinder renting the units in this building and detract from the project. He reiterated that there were still a lot of people in the neighborhood that were not aware of the scope of this project and changing the zoning was only the first step in moving this project forward. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing for Planning Case 12 -04. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that property owners within 350 feet of the exterior boundary of the site were notified of the public hearing per state statute. Residents would have the opportunity to comment on the project at the public hearing for the plat and PUD. The mailing for the open house was mailed to properties directly abutting the site to give those property owners more one -on -one time with the developer. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the preliminary development numbers sent to the city's financial consultant for review indicated this could potentially be a $12 million development (total development costs including engineering). A project of that magnitude divided by 68 units is $174,000 per unit. The project would be a significant redevelopment for the northeast corner of New Hope. Chair Houle inquired if staff had considered a 40 -unit development versus 65 to 75 units. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city's financial consultant was reviewing numbers for different size buildings to see what could work financially. If a smaller project would work on this site and still have the same financial return, that information would be brought Planning Commission Meeting 6 May 1, 2012 forward. Redevelopment is more costly when land has to be purchased and buildings demolished versus starting a project with vacant land. Commissioner Brinkman wondered when a report would be received from the financial consultant. Mr. Jacobsen stated that this project was in the preliminary stage. The city is trying to move the Comp Plan amendment and zoning forward so the developer can apply for their financing resources. Mr. Jacobsen stated that if Ron Clark's financing application was not funded this year the project would not move forward in 2013. The developer would have the option to apply for funding again in 2014. Commissioner Landy questioned if the Commission approved the Comp Plan amendment and zoning map amendment and the project did not proceed, could it be rescinded or would the amendments be final. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, answered that generally the amendments would be final; however, the amendments could be made conditional on an approved developer's application. The planning consultant concurred. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 12 -04, request for an amendment to the New Hope 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the southwest quadrant of 62nd Avenue and West Broadway, city of New Hope, petitioner, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed project offers opportunity to redevelop an under- utilized and blighted area of New Hope. These efforts are consistent with the goals, policies and recommendations of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed land use change, through site design, is compatible with the adjoining land uses. 3. The proposed project will not overburden the city streets, utilities or services. 4. The PUD (planned unit development) site and building plans shall undergo more detailed review and analysis as the project proceeds through the development and final stages. The city reserves the right to require additional changes. and subject to the following condition: 1. Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be put into effect with the submission and approval of the final plat. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to Planning Commission Meeting 7 May 1, 2012 Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 12 -04, request for an amendment to the New Hope Land Use Plan and Zoning Map and rezoning the properties from R -3, medium density and CB, community business, to PUD, planned unit development district, southwest quadrant of 62nd Avenue and West Broadway, city of New Hope, petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Land use plan and zoning map change shall be put into effect with the submission and approval of the final plat. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: Houle Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider these amendments at its meeting on May 29, 2012. Chair Houle indicated the developer would be submitting an application for replatting and a PUD sometime later this year. Mr. Jacobsen added that the developer would be applying for funding in June and should know by November if it was approved. Houle suggested that neighbors talk to the mayor and council members regarding the project. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation and the City Council makes the final determination. Mr. Clark and Mr. Waldo will answer questions from the neighbors as well. Planning Case 12 -05 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, request for site plan review, variance for Item 4.2 second access, and conditional use permit for outdoor storage, 9151 International Parkway, Midwest Steel Supply, petitioner. Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the petitioner was requesting site plan review for a building expansion, a variance for a second access off of International Parkway, and a conditional use permit for outside storage. The site is located in the city's northern industrial zoning district and is surrounded by industrial properties as well as Victory Park located to the northeast across International Parkway. The parcel contains 2.25 acres. The existing building contains 11,523 square feet, and the proposed addition would be 1,033 square feet of office space and 15,000 square feet of warehouse. The petitioner, Midwest Steel Supply, is a metal service center and distributor and specializes in precision cutting of metal products, and has outgrown its current facility. The existing and proposed building meets all setback requirements. This is a small site and due to the difficulty of truck maneuvering for semi- trailer trucks, the applicant is requesting a second curb cut. City code allows a curb cut for every 125 feet. Midwest Steel's street frontage is 220 feet, therefore, a variance is being requested. The second curb cut will allow for safer site maneuvering without having to back out onto Planning Commission Meeting 8 May 1, 2012 International Parkway. Based on occupancy for warehouse and office space, a total of 24 parking stalls are required, which have been provided. Building materials will match the existing building, which is grey concrete block with a red band around the middle of the building at the same height as the office and around the top of the warehouse. The floor plan indicates storage of vehicles and trash inside the building, along with metal storage racks and an area for cutting metal. Landscaping will be completed along the front of the building. Several ash trees will be removed and the same number of new trees will be planted. A photometric plan was submitted which indicates compliance with city code. Details must be submitted on light fixtures, which must be hooded with 90- degree cut -off lighting. No new signage is proposed, however, the existing freestanding sign will be relocated due to the parking lot expansion. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for 1,325 square feet of outdoor storage to be located at the rear of the building expansion. The area will be paved with asphalt and surrounded by a fence. There is an existing fence that will remain at the rear portion of the property. Mr. Weiss stated a small storm water basin has been proposed at the south end of the property with two openings in the parking lot curb for drainage. A condition of approval includes a full review by the city engineer. Upon initial review, the city engineer felt the storm water basin may be too small for the site. The Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in the city's industrial properties and this proposal generally meets the requirements of the code. Conditions of approval have been placed on items not meeting code. The site has already been developed, however, the applicant agreed to provide additional landscaping. No pedestrian access would be needed as pedestrian traffic should be non - existent or minimal. The variance for the second curb cut would be a reasonable use and would be permitted if the street frontage were 30 feet longer. The property is small and narrow and further restricted by two railroad easements along the east and west property lines. This unique shape constitutes a practical difficulty. With regard to the request for a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage, the area would be screened from adjacent uses, surrounded by a fence, and paved with asphalt. The area meets setback requirements, would not interfere with parking /loading areas, or contain hazardous materials. The storage area would allow greater and higher use of the property and allow for business expansion. The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and was generally supportive of the proposal. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified. The owner of the business to the west came to city hall to review the plans. Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 1, 2012 Mr. Weiss stated that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Commissioner Hunten stated the site looked very tight for semi - trucks to come into the site and back up to the truck dock. Mr. Brixius interjected that the drive aisle is 24 feet wide or larger. Commissioner McKenzie inquired whether or not MnDOT had commented on the plans for the second curb cut on International Parkway which would be closer to the railroad tracks with regard to the safety of the railroad crossing. Mr. Brixius stated that staff could check with MnDOT. Chair Houle advised that MnDOT would make the final decision on the second curb cut in close proximity to the railroad tracks. He suggested a MnDOT review should be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner McKenzie initiated discussion on water drainage into the railroad ditch. Mr. Weiss stated that the city engineer would be reviewing all of the storm water issues related to this project. Chair Houle added, for the benefit of the applicant, that there may be issues with the railroad crossing and with the drainage on the site. McKenzie added that a permit may be necessary from the railroad (Canadian Pacific) for additional water in the easements. Mr. Brandon Walton, Midwest Steel Supply, Brian Houwman, architect, and Jerry Rako, president of Midwest Steel, came forward. Chair Houle asked the applicant to explain what the business does. Mr. Walton stated they purchase large quantities of aluminum, stainless steel and other metals and distribute it in smaller quantities with their own delivery trucks to local and national machine shops, medical industry facilities and defense companies. They also cut metal for their customers. They receive about five to seven semi -loads of metal each day. Mr. Houwman explained that currently trucks enter the site, pull forward, a forklift unloads the truck, and then it backs out of the site. The new site plan would provide the opportunity to drive into the site , turn around and back into the building for unloading /loading. Mr. Walton stated that the new warehouse addition would be constructed in the same place as an existing hard surface. All of the water currently drains off to the side and water from the new addition was proposed to drain to the side similar to the existing conditions. Chair Houle inquired whether or not there would be adequate space to enlarge the storm water pond, if needed, and the response was yes although another tree may need to be removed. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Planning Commission Meeting 10 May 1, 2012 close the public hearing for Planning Case 12 -05. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 12 -05, request for site plan review, 9151 International Parkway, Midwest Steel Supply, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Approval of Site Plan Review 1. Applicant to enter into site improvement agreement with city (to be prepared by the city attorney). 2. Applicant to provide financial guarantee /performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 3. The city approve of the variance request to allow two access points along International parkway. 4. Grading and drainage issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the city engineer. 5. New light fixtures shall be hooded with a 90 degree cut off lighting. 6. Review of site plan by MnDOT regarding the railroad crossing on International Parkway. 7. Review of site plan by railroad regarding storm water drainage into easement area. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 12 -05, request for variance for second driveway access, 9151 International Parkway, Midwest Steel Supply, petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. The city approve of the site plan review request. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 12 -05, request for conditional use permit for outdoor storage area, 9151 International Parkway, Midwest Steel Supply, petitioner, subject to the following condition: 1. Outdoor storage area shall be paved with bituminous or concrete surface. Planning Commission Meeting 11 May 1, 2012 Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider this request at its meeting on May 29, 2012, and asked that the petitioner be in attendance. Planning Case 12 -02 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.3, discussion of amendment to Section 4- Item 4.3 32 administration — amendments, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that staff was requesting an amendment Section 4 -32 of the city code by removing the phrase "the zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake." The Planning Commission discussed this at the March meeting and was agreeable to the change. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing regarding the amendment. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing for Planning Case 12 -02. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commission Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Item 4.3 approve Planning Case 12 -02, request for an ordinance amendment to Section 4 -32 administration — amendments, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, Onadipe, Schmidt Voting against: Houle, McKenzie Absent: Nirgude, Svendsen Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider this request at its meeting on March 26, 2012. NEW BUSINESS Item 6.1 Chair Houle introduced Item 6.1, Discussion of Shingle Creek 3rd Shingle Creek 3rd Generation Watershed Plan. Generation Watershed Plan Council Member Daniel Stauner, Shingle Creek Watershed commissioner, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He explained the watershed commission rules are part of the management plan and the commission was in the process of completing its 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan. The watershed had been reviewing the rules and making revisions. In particular, it has been suggested that the Planning Commission Meeting 12 May 1, 2012 infiltration rate be changed from 1/2 -inch within 72 hours to a one -inch requirement. There has been substantial discussion about changing the requirements for site plan reviews by going from the current five acre requirement for a commercial development or 15 -acre for single family development down to an acre or less and there has been some discussion for all developments to be reviewed by the commission. There has also been some discussion about redevelopment projects being reviewed separately. Information was given to the Planning Commission regarding the rules and minutes from several Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings for background discussion, and a glossary of terms associated with the watershed. Council Member Stauner stated that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission's joint powers agreement had a provision that terminated the commission on January 1, 2015, unless the commission re- enlists. The city must decide whether or not it would be better served by a watershed district, which is a county level organization. The commission is a city level organization. Hennepin County had proposed a super watershed district where several of the current water management organizations would be combined. New Hope is part of two organizations, Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek, which would then be combined with several others. The rationale being that there would be more consistency throughout and municipalities, which are split between two districts, would have less to deal with. Another issue would be the relationship between Shingle Creek and West Mississippi, which is a separate watershed commission. The 2nd generation plan called for the two to merge. One consideration is whether or not the joint relationship would benefit New Hope. Council Member Stauner stated he did not feel the city would benefit from Shingle Creek and West Mississippi joining together. Council Member Stauner asked for comments from the Planning Commission that he can take back to the watershed. Chair Houle wondered whether there were significant differences between the Bassett Creek's and Shingle Creek's review policies. Council Member Stauner stated there was not at this time. There was a certain amount of uniformity of the rules between the different watershed commissions. The biggest difference was the infiltration standard. Shingle Creek requires a 1/2 inch infiltration in 72 hours and a lot of the commissions have gone to one inch. Infiltration into sandy soil is easy, however, most of New Hope is heavy clay soil so the trend toward the one -inch infiltration is much more difficult to meet. Chair Houle questioned when the new requirements would take effect. Council Member Stauner answered that was under discussion. He explained the TAC is made up of public works representatives of the nine cities of the commission. There is not always unanimity but the commission usually follows their direction. Planning Commission Meeting 13 May 1, 2012 Commissioner Hunten reiterated that a bigger commission is not always better. Council Member Stauner added that one of the issues throughout water quality is whether or not to apply general standards or site specific standards. He added that there are variance procedures in the rules, which are rarely used. The key focus for the 3rd generation is on redevelopment, which for a fully developed city is an important issue. Council Member Stauner explained the watershed's goal would be to make water clean and drinkable. The watershed plan is mandated and must be updated every 10 years just like the Comprehensive Plan. When the commissions were established, the goal was primarily flood control. Over the years, the emphasis of the 2nd generation plan was to improve water quality. The 3rd generation plan is proposing implementation of strategies learned over the last several years. The reality being faced today is how to make bad water better. The total maximum daily load (TMDL) process is the level of pollutant that is allowed within a water body. For example, the TMDL allowed in Meadow Lake is 60 parts per million and in reality it is 240 parts. Through the TMDL studies, the hope is to find a way to improve water quality. Many times there are downstream TMDL's happening that have a huge impact on the state as a whole. Council Member Stauner stated that, due to space requirements in redevelopment projects, underground water storage systems are becoming more popular. Chair Houle commented that the logical first item of business for the watershed should be to determine if the commission was going to continue beyond 2015 rather than spend time on revising the plan and then have the commission dissolve. Council Member Stauner responded that the nine cities would have to ratify a new agreement, but so far there has been no discussion. Chair Houle questioned the funding sources for the watershed. New Hope contributes approximately $25,000 per year. Council Member Stauner explained the funding formula is based on the total area within the watershed and the tax capacity which varies from year to year. Total funding from all the cities is approximately $400,000, along with grants received. The commission charges a fee for plan reviews. The watershed commission can only levy for capital improvement projects. Shingle Creek has a cost share program whereby it gives the cities 25 percent of the cost of a project, such as the ponds on 45th Avenue and at the Winnetka Green redevelopment project, which was a watershed -wide levy. Shingle Creek is the only watershed in terms of budgeting and has a cap on how much its budget can be increased without prior approval of the city councils. Commissioner Anderson inquired about staffing for the watershed commission. Council Member Stauner stated that the commission has one administrator to handle phones, mail, minutes, records, etc., an engineer Planning Commission Meeting 14 May 1, 2012 on an as needed basis, and legal counsel. Council Member Stauner stated that there would be either a joint powers watershed management organization or a watershed district. The district would be at the county level. From a city standpoint, the advantage to a district would be that there would be no cost to the city, but the city would not have the same input due to the watershed district being governed by a board appointed by the county. Commissioner Hunten recommended continuing with the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission rather than go to the district level and not becoming partners with West Mississippi. Council Member Stauner stated that the Hennepin super district may have more appeal on the state level than the commission realizes, and would fit into the redesigning Minnesota initiative. The downside of local control is the fact that there are local politics involved. Commissioner McKenzie wondered about the differences in authority between the watershed district and the commission. Council Member Stauner stated that they both have basically the same statutory authority. The difference being that the watershed district is governed more by statute rather than a joint powers agreement. There are certain requirements in the statutes that the commissions have in their plans. The difference being that the districts potentially have more enforcement mechanisms. Commissioner Schmidt wondered if a decision to stay a commission or go to a district had to be a unanimous decision among the nine cities and the answer was no. A problem could arise over what authority the commission may have over the non - member city. Council Member Stauner stated he wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of the rules due to the fact that the Planning Commission was serving as the citizen advisory commission for New Hope's portion of the 3rd generation plan. Originally the watershed thought that the CAC would be made up of representatives from each of the cities to provide input. Chair Houle stated he thought it would be good for the nine cities to meet together to get all opinions rather than only give New Hope's opinion. Council Member Stauner stated he would take that suggestion back to the commission. Commissioner Hunten expressed disappointment in the process. Council Member Stauner commented that he was directed to provide information on the rules and what the watershed does as that is relevant to what the Planning Commission does. Commissioner Anderson wondered whether Council Member Stauner was going to continue on the commission until 2015 and he replied he had served on the commission for seven year and his current term would expire at the end of this year. New Hope's alternate member may Planning Commission Meeting 15 May 1, 2012 continue serving on the watershed commission. Mr. Jacobsen asked the Planning commissioners to send comments to him which he would forward to Council Member Stauner to take to the watershed. He added the current plan is on the Shingle Creek Watershed website. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Chair Houle reported the Design and Review Committee met with the Committee representatives from Midwest Steel. Mr. Jacobsen stated the committee Item 5.1 would be contacted regarding a meeting in May. Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt stated that no Codes and Standards Committee Committee meeting is scheduled at this time. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED Item 6.2 Chair Houle stated that due to the late hour the continuation of the City Center Zoning discussion regarding City Center zoning will resume at the June meeting. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 7.1 to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 3, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen commented that the closing for the Kmart property is scheduled for July, if Integrity Auto has moved out by then, with demolition potentially by late fall. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 16 May 1, 2012