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