Loading...
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