060512 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 5, 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, Roger Landy,
Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt (left at 9 p.m.), Steve
Svendsen
Absent: Sandra Hunten, Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe
Also Present: 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 There were no Public Hearings on the agenda.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Chair Houle reported the Design and Review Committee did not meet in
Committee May. Mr. Weiss stated staff met with three potential applicants at the pre -
Item 5.1 application meeting last week and anticipate two of them moving
forward, an expansion of the convenience store for the gas station at
Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road, and converting the building at
5040 Winnetka to a self storage facility.
Commissioner Landy stated that his son -in -law owns the property at 5040
Winnetka Avenue North, the Victory Packaging facility, and would
abstain from voting if it was felt there would be a conflict of interest.
Codes and Standards Chair Houle stated that the Codes and Standards Committee did not
Committee meet and no meeting was scheduled at this time. Chair Houle inquired if
Item 5.2 Codes and Standards would be reviewing items from the list of potential
code issues that was provided several months ago. Mr. Weiss responded
that there may be a couple comprehensive plan changes that need to be
addressed first as they relate to Active Living Hennepin County (ALHC)
activities. The city is involved with this organization that includes 13
Hennepin County cities. The group encourages being active. Complete
streets is a component of active living, as well as the farmers market and
community gardens. The City Center code is also an active living aspect.
As part of the city's contract with ALHC, it receives money from
Hennepin County, who receives funds from Blue Cross Blue Shield and
the state. The city must adopt two different policies or comp plan
changes. The two areas would include transportation relating to complete
streets implementation and land use changes such as setbacks, parking,
and so on. One policy idea may be to study the city's parking standards.
Mr. Brixius interjected that the last time parking standards was studied,
the stall dimensions were changed. Mr. Weiss added that the city would
receive up to $7,500 through June 2013 by achieving ALHC's deliverables.
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 Stauner stated that parking lots were one of the major
impervious surfaces in the metro area as they relate to watershed issues.
Council Member Stauner explained that the new rules proposed by the
watershed commission would impact what the Planning Commission
does. Most significantly would be the expansion of review requirements.
Smaller projects would not require review by the watershed commission,
however, city reviews would have to meet commission standards. The
project at 62nd and West Broadway would be too small for the watershed
review, but under the new rules, this project would have to meet its
standards for infiltration and other storm water treatment. If the rules are
adopted, city staff and the Planning Commission would have to be sure
those requirements are followed. He stated that the watershed would
likely schedule a watershed -wide meeting of representatives from all
member cities.
Council Member Stauner reported on a program in Sweden that utilized a
rock base around the landscaping in place of curbing to the edge of the
parking lot. The benefit in an urban environment was that it provided
space where the tree roots could spread out and the rock base absorbs
water and serves as water filtration /retention. Runoff from buildings,
sidewalks and streets would be significantly reduced. The rock base may
be beneficial to a project like 62nd and West Broadway where there would
be tree screening along the parking area.
Chair Houle questioned if Bassett Creek and Shingle Creek utilized the
same rules for review, and he was told they use the same five acre
minimum.
If the new rules are adopted, Chair Houle wondered if every city would
apply the standards the same. Council Member Stauner stated he thought
that would be a discussion point for the commission. The infiltration
requirement was straightforward — one inch of rain infiltrated within 48
hours. The added requirement of the post construction perk test would
provide some policing of that requirement.
Chair Houle confirmed that cities would review projects under five acres
and the watershed commission would review projects over five acres.
Council Member Stauner added that commission charges $1,500 fee per
review. Due to the cost factor, smaller projects and single family homes
would be left for the cities to review.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 5, 2012
Commissioner Brinkman wondered when the review is normally
completed for a project. Chair Houle stated that most of the time the
review happens before the Planning Commission meeting and is included
in the planning report. Occasionally, the review takes place after the
Planning Commission meeting and is a condition of approval. Council
Member Stauner interjected that it is beneficial to all parties to have the
review of water treatment done early in the planning process.
Council Member Stauner stated that there are a lot of impaired waters in
Minnesota, and a lot of mandates are in process. There had been
discussion regarding the Lake Pepin TMDL (total maximum daily load)
and how that would impact the areas that drain into it. There may be
mandated sediment and nutrient requirements in the future.
Most developers are aware of the watershed's requirements and some are
meeting the requirements voluntarily. Ron Clark Construction is
proposing an underground system to treat the runoff rather than onsite
ponding.
Mr. Alan Brixius commented that New Hope's review process brings
attention to these issues early in the process. During the pre - application
meeting and at the Design and Review meeting, the developers are made
aware of city and watershed requirements. The city engineer needs to stay
abreast of what the new rules are so the developer can be educated and
be sure the appropriate information is submitted. Mr. Brixius reiterated
that New Hope has a very thorough step -by -step approach to the
planning process. If there is anything specific related to watershed
requirements, staff has the developer contact the watershed directly. Mr.
Weiss added that staff relies heavily on the city engineer to complete the
reviews. The engineer does the construction and post construction
inspections and follows through with infiltration testing.
Council Member Stauner stated that one of the new proposals is the soil
compaction standards and soil amendment, which is currently being
done in Washington state. The benefit to the developer is the offset of the
half -inch of credit for infiltration, which in New Hope with heavy clay
soils that may be significant. The new rule includes a requirement that the
developer submit a soil management plan in order to get the credit.
Currently, the city is does not require a soil management plan from
developers or contractors that do private or city projects.
Soil compaction impacts infiltration as a water management issue. Chair
Houle inquired if the soil management plan was to be applied during
construction to avoid compaction or for modifications to soils after the
project was completed for better infiltration. Council Member Stauner
stated that the rule had specific information regarding adding compost to
loosen the soil. The plan must address the soil compaction during
construction and the condition of the soil at the conclusion of
construction. If the soil is loosened, the sod, trees and plants grow better
because the roots can take hold. The goal of the soil compaction rules is to
Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 5, 2012
create a better soil environment to allow water to infiltrate and allow
plants to absorb the water and put it back into the atmosphere through
photosynthesis. A question was raised as to the softness of the soil and
the potential for ruts and unevenness due to riding lawn mowers or
landscaping equipment driving over the lawns.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether Bassett Creek and Shingle
Creek watershed differ in their review process and whether or not the
Planning Commission needed to look at projects differently depending on
the location. Council Member Stauner stated that the watershed review
process should be the same with the new rules. The one -inch infiltration
requirement would be the same everywhere, but the soil compaction may
be different. Svendsen stressed that the Planning Commission should be
kept abreast of the rules for both watersheds in the city.
Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned with the cost issue for
developers. Chair Houle suggested that the watershed commission put
together a couple hypothetical projects with estimated costs and how the
new rules would impact those projects, especially the composting
component. Stauner noted that the soil compaction was not a mandate,
but the developer would get a credit against infiltration if they complied
with the requirement.
Commissioner McKenzie pointed out that another large expense for
developers is water quality structures or ponding on site, as well as
maintenance or replacement later.
Council Member Stauner thanked the Planning Commission for the good
dialogue and useful information to provide to the watershed commission.
Item 6.2 Chair Houle introduced Item 6.2, Discussion of City Center Zoning.
PC12 -03
Mr. Eric Weiss stated that the review was started a few months ago and
this discussion would begin with the parking standards. Currently, the
code requires minimum parking standards. The major change for parking
for this district would be to cap the maximum parking allowed. Mr.
Weiss explained parking minimums and maximums for several different
uses that would be allowed in the City Center district. Any residential use
considered would be constructed with a minimum of 10 units per acre.
The parking stall size is 8' -9" wide by 19' long. Mr. Brixius interjected that
most stalls are sized at 9' wide. Commissioner Anderson questioned
whether there should be different sized stalls for compact cars or larger
SUVs and the response was the stalls are one size due to drive aisles. It
was suggested to keep the parking standards as proposed and revise later
if these were found to be insufficient. Flexibility is key to the entire
ordinance rather than having to approve variances.
Mr. Weiss continued by explaining that parking minimums may be
reduced by 25 percent if the principal use was within 800 feet of a public
parking facility or public transit park and ride facility; if businesses
Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 5, 2012
purchased stalls in a parking ramp; or demonstrated to the Planning
Commission and City Council that parking would be less than the
requirement. Developers could go above the maximum if there was
structured above or under - ground parking; a shared parking agreement
was executed; parking was provided behind the building; access would
be shared by at least two adjacent properties; or combining adjacent
parking lots and pedestrian access points. Flexibility would be capped at
25 percent either above or below the standard. Discussion ensued with
regard to removing the phrase "no surface parking or maneuvering
within a required setback or between primary structure and the front lot
line, except driveways" and adding "no surface parking or maneuvering
within five feet of the property line." Another item that would need to be
addressed is "no surface parking on corner lots at the point of street
intersections." Mr. Brixius added that the building setbacks to street side
is a build -to range of 10 -25 feet, therefore, the building could be 10 -25 feet
away from the street surface, which would not allow enough space for
parking. If parking in front of the building was desired, the build -to range
would need to be adjusted.
Mr. Weiss reported that parking and loading may be located fronting a
public street, street intersection, sidewalk or path if certain standards are
met, such as landscaping yards seven feet deep along the public area and
up to 10 feet if parking facility contained over 100 stalls. Commissioner
Svendsen pointed out that providing the appropriate drive aisle width so
traffic is not blocked when deliveries are being made should be
considered. After some discussion, Mr. Brixius suggested that loading be
kept separate and keep this code section for landscaping appropriate for
parking areas. The existing ordinance specifies loading be a separate area
from parking or driveway areas. A common service area area could be
designed between buildings. There could be a more stringent
requirements to build to and yet allow flexibility if screening, segregation,
and non - interruption of traffic can be accomplished.
Additional standards include screening consisting of a masonry wall,
fence or hedge not less than three feet or 60 percent opaque, and
screening of loading areas six feet in height. Mr. Weiss suggested adding
"breaks in screening for pedestrian access every 75 feet." A tree should be
provided every 20 linear feet. After some discussion, the consensus was to
limit total parking or loading area fronting a street to 150 linear feet. Mr.
Brixius cautioned that the City Center area is to be a compact site,
therefore, allowances should be made so that everything would fit onto
the site. Every time a landscaped island or other feature is added, the
parking area is reduced. Appealing landscaping around the perimeter of
the site that hides the parking area should comply with the intent of the
code.
Mr. Weiss explained that on- street parking along public streets abutting
the use could be counted toward the minimum number of parking
spaces, but could not be used when calculating the maximum. Parking
requirements may be met on or off -site at a distance of 800 feet from the
Planning Commission Meeting 5 June 5, 2012
use. Parking located to the rear of the building may extend the entire
width of the lot, except for the area required for screening or landscaping.
Shared parking would be encouraged. A new requirement would include
bicycle parking standards, such as one bicycle space per 20 automobile
spaces or a minimum of two bike stalls, whichever is greater. Bicycle
parking must be provided within view of the front entrance of each
business and may be shared between businesses. As the city makes it
easier for people to bike to their destination, there will probably be more
people that do so. Discussion ensued on the appropriate ratio of bicycle to
automobile parking stalls and the consensus was to leave it at 1:20. Weiss
also mentioned that specific standards must be met with the construction
of parking structures.
Mr. Weiss stated lighting should meet current standards as well as a
maximum pole height of 20 feet which is more pedestrian scaled. Lighting
would be permitted if it is enhancing specific architectural elements or
adding visual interest. Lights should be shielded and could highlight
certain areas of the building such as entrances, art, and special landscape
features. The pedestrian areas should have higher illumination for safety
reasons. Mr. Brixius commented that lights should be shielded where
there would be residential above it. He wondered whether bulb or
architectural lighting that would have the luminary as part of the accent
would be acceptable. Stipulating no skyward lighting with any mixed use
or residential development may be enough.
Currently, developers can meet the green space requirements through
setbacks, but it could be argued whether grass provides anything for the
livelihood of the neighborhood for pedestrians. Usable open space would
be required depending on the size of the building. The space could be
located on the rooftop or enclosed on the ground floor. It should be
accessible to all the users of the building and have amenities such as
seating, plantings and be visible from the street or pedestrian areas. This
requirement may need to be refined due to the fact that if the space is on
the rooftop it will not be visible from the street. Floor area ratio (FAR)
credits are allowed for developments that provide the usable open public
spaces, which could include increasing the size of the sidewalk. Usable
open space may encroach into the setbacks when the street side or side
yard faces the street, sidewalk or path, when the interior side yard is set
back three feet from property line or when adjacent to a non - residential
zoning district. Mr. Weiss suggested adding the provision when not
interfering with the sight triangle setback.
Pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided so pedestrians are able
to safely cross where there may be conflicts with other types of traffic.
Landscaping must be consistent with the city's design guidelines. One
shrub should be planted for every 10 linear feet of foundation. A
suggestion was made to add irrigation of landscaped areas as a
requirement. Buffering from residential uses would prohibit utilizing
chain link or barbed wire fencing. Appropriate fencing types could
include wood, vinyl and composite materials. All current design
Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 5, 2012
guidelines would apply to the City Center district.
Mr. Weiss explained that signage would be somewhat more restrictive
than other areas of the city. Wall signs would be limited to 150 square feet
or five percent of the user's building wall area, whichever is less. Signs
could project into the minimum setback by two feet as long as clearance
was provided. Marquee signs would be allowed. A height restriction of 10
feet and 40 square feet in area would be applied to ground mounted
signs. Discussion ensued regarding sign height and the consensus was the
sign height would be limited to two stories. Mr. Brixius interjected that on
a multistory office building not every business has an individual wall
sign. If the business has its own exterior entrance, a sign would be
allowed. For a building with a common entrance, code would allow
building identification signage or a directory sign of businesses in the
building. Mr. Brixius brought up the issue of potentially having a large
business requesting a sign larger than 150 square feet. The reason most
ordinances go to a percentage of the building is to maintain some
continuity. A larger building gets a larger sign and a smaller building gets
a smaller sign, but proportionally for the sign face it remains equivalent.
The consensus was to allow wall signage at five percent of the wall face.
Mr. Weiss explained that the ordinance includes permitted, conditional,
temporary and administrative uses. The ordinance traditionally has
specific language for administrative and conditional uses and staff
reviews the projects to see if they meet the standards for approval. Many
times, conditions of approval are added to an application that are not
specifically listed in the code for a CUP. Many other cities do not create
conditional requirements but rather just list the conditional uses and
include a clause outlining what will be considered when approving a
CUP such as design, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. Some cities do a
combination where the use is listed and other times, if there are certain
concerns such as noise, they will be spelled out in the approval process.
Under a CUP, the Planning Commission and City Council may attach
additional conditions that are deemed reasonable. Those conditions relate
to controlling the area, bulk, height, location, ingress /egress, and
considering different modes of transportation, fire protection, safety,
parking and loading areas, utilities, fencing, screening and landscaping,
and the design guidelines. Mr. Weiss explained that the conditional uses
should be listed in the ordinance but would not need to have specific
requirements listed under each heading unless there was a specific
condition for that use. Mr. Brixius reported that state statutes are set up to
allow permitted uses in certain zoning districts and conditional uses that
are acceptable if they meet certain conditions. If the conditions are met,
the use would be approved. Due to an activity or operation unique to a
property, certain conditions may be necessary to make sure the use is
compatible in the overall context of the district. A CUP is not
discretionary it is legislative, if the applicant meets the conditions, the use
is allowed. That is why, in the past, city code identified specific uses
because it was felt that under certain circumstances a particular use
Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 5, 2012
would be allowed if the applicant addressed items such as noise, traffic,
etc. Mr. Weiss added that if there currently was a use listed as conditional
with no specific performance standards associated with that use, it
should be moved to the permitted use section. Commissioner Svendsen
stated he felt that it was better to provide a more comprehensive list than
put out generalities. Mr. Brixius clarified that an application for a CUP
would go through the process but, if there were no conditions to be met,
then it would be the same as a permitted use. The city cannot arbitrarily
say it does not like the location of a particular use if it was not pointed out
in the ordinance or the plan. If an applicant proposes a use in a particular
location and the conditions are met, then the city would be obligated to
allow it. Specific uses could be identified in the plan or ordinance for
fronting certain streets according to the hierarchy of the superblock. Mr.
Weiss stated that the language of the ordinance could still be revised. The
public hearing would be scheduled for July or August.
Mr. Brixius stated the plan stipulates that the commercial core is
42nd /Winnetka avenues and questioned whether or not a free - standing,
multi - family residential use would be appropriate at that intersection or
should it be located along the periphery. Either the plan would need to be
more detailed regarding where specific types of uses would be located or
details needed to be spelled out in the ordinance. At this time, there is no
specific plan for the City Center area only a vision. Mr. Brixius clarified
that mixed use, a commercial /residential building, would be allowed at
the 42nd /Winnetka avenues intersection. The use in question was for a
free - standing apartment building and whether or not it should be allowed
on the main commercial corridor of the superblock. The commissioners
agreed that the main commercial corridor was 42nd /Winnetka avenues
and it should be protected as such. Chair Houle stated that he felt, due to
traffic counts, that 42nd /Xylon should be commercial and allow more
flexible uses at 45th /Xylon avenues. Commissioner Brinkman stressed
that a potential plan for the entire block should be worked out rather than
a piecemeal approach. Mr. Weiss stated that a market study to determine
the economics and overall plan would be important.
Mr. Weiss stated that a new concept for New Hope would be live -work
buildings with units in which living and work spaces are integrated into
the same unit, which can take various forms and different layouts. Group
care and daycare facilities, senior /disable housing, PUD, recreational
businesses exceeding 10,000 square feet, and veterinary care would also
all be allowed in this district by CUP. The recreational business verbiage
may need to be amended. Mr. Brixius wondered whether the daycare
facility was something that would fit in the downtown area. The street
access in the ordinance is existing language where daycares would be
located on an arterial or collector street, which would be Winnetka and
42nd avenues. The consensus was to eliminate the street access language
under daycare facilities.
The farmers market and outdoor seasonal sales would be combined in the
ordinance. Discussion ensued on the hours of operation relating to the 6
Planning Commission Meeting 8 June 5, 2012
a.m. start time and it was decided to redefine this section.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Item 7.1 to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 1, 2012, as
amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Svendsen inquired whether or not the CVS had been
approved with a condition that a paved walkway be installed from the
corner to the parking lot. He stated he has seen people cutting through
the grass area. Staff will check into this situation.
The next Planning Commission meeting will be on July 10.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:17
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 5, 2012