110712 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 2012
City Hall, 7:05 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Vice Chair Brinkman called the meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Sandra Hunten, Roger
Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt, Steve
Svendsen
Absent: Jeff Houle, Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager, Steve Sondrall, City
Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Jeff Sargent,
Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 12 -03 Vice Chair Brinkman introduced Item 4.1, discussion of amendments to
Item 4.1 the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, New Hope Design Guidelines and
New Hope Zoning Ordinance, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that this meeting was the
public hearing to consider a number of Comprehensive Plan amendments
as well as a zoning code amendment. The City Center Vision Study
represented the city's vision and recommendations for redevelopment of
the City Center area, which is located around the intersection of 42nd and
Winnetka avenues. The Vision Study incorporateed the city's
comprehensive plans and development interests in this area.
Mr. Brixius explained that the City Center study began in 2010 with
funding by a grant from Hennepin County. Staff and consultants worked
to identify goals for the area, develop a comprehensive vision for the city
as a vibrant commercial area of mixed uses. The Council and Planning
Commission met several times during 2010 to develop a vision and set of
guiding principles for the redevelopment of the City Center area. The City
Center area should be the focus of civic, business and cultural activity
and the city's transportation network. The area should express the
identity and character of the city. Redevelopment should be compact,
efficient, and transit oriented. The streets, buildings and space design
should reinforce a cohesive identity. Redevelopment should capitalize on
existing key assets, which include great location with excellent access to
Minneapolis and nearby suburbs for employment, housing,
transportation with easy access to interstates, state highways, county
roads and local streets, including the Bottineau line, existing successful
businesses and facilities to make the area a hub of activity for area
residents.
Mr. Brixius reported that the City Center area is currently underutilized
with extensive surface parking and some vacant commercial properties.
Connection and circulation within the super blocks are poor for
pedestrians, bicycles, cars and transit users. The area does not attract
enough shoppers, diners and visitors. It does not generate enough
income, jobs or tax dollars and is not prepared for the future
redevelopment. The Vision Study was intended to outline what the city
was trying to achieve and prepare for reinvestment in the area.
Key elements of the Vision Study include: building on the area's assets,
creating a vibrant destination that attracts residents and visitors, includes
diverse uses that support each other, lifecycle housing options, supports
businesses and services, improves diverse transit options, and provides
public and private spaces to encourage people to come, linger, and have
fun. The City Center super block includes the former Kmart site, both
shopping centers, the School District offices and bus garage, and YMCA.
It is bounded by Boone Avenue on the west, Quebec Avenue on the east,
45th Avenue on the north, and 40th Avenue on the south. Initially, the
study incorporated all the businesses along 42nd between Winnetka and
Louisiana, however, the super block stops at the railroad tracks on the
east due to the other properties fitting within the CB zoning classification.
Mr. Brixius further explained that the Vision Study should be formally
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, which would give the city
the authority to implement its goals, objectives and recommendations.
Amendment 1would be the adoption of the Vision Study as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and the amendments within the Plan that
establishes it as a foundation for any implementation, expenditures, or
zoning changes. The super blocks have been changed from a commercial
use to a mixed land use. The City Center zoning classification would
allow for a broad range of uses beyond commercial development.
Amendment 2 would rewrite the Comprehensive Plan "mixed use" land
use description and create language that is applicable to the City Center
commercial site. The broader goal statements of the Vision Study have
been incorporated into the mixed use land use area. The general intent
establishes the area as a vibrant year -round destination that includes
retail, commercial, and residential uses. The area includes public and
community gathering spaces and be the commercial hub of activity with
first floor commercial development. It would include housing with both
free - standing and mixed use residential buildings. Multi -modal
transportation would be introduced in the area. There would be a desire
for sustainable and energy- efficient building designs. The city should take
a lead role in the redevelopment and work closely with the developer.
Amendment 3 expands the City Center District as a redevelopment target
site within the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 7, 2012
Amendment 4 would rewrite the Planning District 11 description to
include the recommendations outlined in the Vision Study. A site master
plan was incorporated into the study for any redevelopment, due to
interconnecting neighborhoods, access control, shared parking, etc. Each
site would be developed independent of one another, but must have an
interconnection with the adjoining properties. The master plan would
give the city greater control. The developer would need to work with
Metro Transit to determine if there would be opportunities for bus stops
or introduce additional ridership to the system. The city and developer
would need to work together with the county with regard to right -of -way,
street design and function along Winnetka and 42nd avenues and access
into the super block.
The land use map would be introduced as a graphic in Planning District
11 which would illustrate where specific types of uses could occur, such
as commercial, mixed use, public space, and housing.
Mr. Brixius stated the primary purpose of the Design Guidelines was to
reinforce the community's vision for development, maintain high quality
architecture and site planning, encourage creativity, and protect public
and private investment in buildings and infrastructure. The guidelines
are mandatory; however, there are many ways to achieve the intent of the
guidelines. Unlike the zoning ordinance, a variance would not need to be
processed. The city may permit alternative approaches that meet the
objectives or waive the guidelines when physical conditions of the site or
building make compliance difficult. Components that were removed
from the zoning ordinance and were added to the Design Guidelines are
facade treatments including distinct modules, canopies, awnings and
balconies, and window and door openings. The primary facade of
buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller
increments following specific guidelines. Canopies and awnings are
permitted on exterior building walls and must be constructed of rigid or
flexible materials to complement the streetscape, may extend out no more
than five feet, shall not interfere with landscaping, and must have a
minimum clearance of eight feet. Balconies may project up to five feet
over a required setback and have a minimum clearance of 10 feet above
grade. For commercial or mixed use buildings, ground -floor window and
door openings shall comprise 30 percent transparency fronting a public
street and 20 percent for a side or rear street. For multifamily residential
buildings, a minimum of 25 percent ground -floor transparency on the
primary street and 15 percent on the rear facade would be required.
With regard to zoning ordinance section 4 -17, Mr. Brixius reported the
purpose of the new CC, City Center District was to encourage a mixture
of residential, commercial, office and civic uses in the City Center area to
enhance its function as the heart of the community. The list of existing
permitted uses allowed in the CB district was revised The administrative
uses would include famers markets, festivals, outdoor sales, drive -
through service lanes, and home occupations and performance standards
Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 7, 2012
were established. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the proposed
ordinance stated that no permit shall be approved between the months of
November and April and inquired if seasonal sales such as Christmas
trees would be allowed in the CC district or at Midland Center during
those months. The consensus was to delete this condition.
Under conditional uses, Mr. Brixius reported that free - standing
multifamily housing was identified as a conditional use to regulate where
it could be located in the CC district. Live -work buildings are a new
concept and would allow residents to live and work in the same building,
either upper /lower units or in the same unit. The balance of the
conditional uses listed for this environment may require special criteria to
be certain they can co- exist, such controlling noise, odors, etc.
The zoning ordinance spelled out lot area /width, maximum height for
principal and accessory buildings, structure setbacks - street -side and side
and rear yard setbacks, FAR (floor area ratio), and green space for the CC
district. Existing buildings in the CC district would be exempt from the
build -to range requirement. Buildings on corner lots would need to meet
the build -to range on both streets they abut. Buildings on interior lots
would meet the build -to range on streets on which they have direct
frontage. Patios, outdoor seating areas, or usable open space integrated
with a building design may exempt a portion of the building from the
build -to range, if a connection between public sidewalk and internal
building, sidewalk and parking is provided. The concept of the build -to
range was generated through the Vision Study to make the buildings the
dominant feature. The setback, sidewalk, plaza and landscaping would
occur between the building and the street. Parking would not be allowed
in that area other than access to a larger parking area. A question was
raised as to on- street parking and Mr. Brixius responded that on- street
parking may only be allowed on internal streets. There would be no on-
street parking along 42nd or Winnetka. Some type of structural parking
may need to be introduced in the future.
Mr. Brixius explained the maximum residential density would be 50 units
per net acre. The maximum density may be increased by up to 25 percent
if two amenities as listed in the code are provided and up to 50 percent if
four or more amenities are provided. Amenities include parking, housing
above the ground floor commercial or civic uses, building placement,
building ground coverage, exterior wall finishes, indoor recreation,
rooftop outdoor recreation such as swimming pools, and nearby transit
service. Mr. Brixius mentioned that he didn't feel there had been much
attention given to the current transit ridership and projected increases.
Parking requirements were structured that the maximum would need to
be provided unless it could be demonstrated that other conditions would
be met.
Initially, a minimum and maximum ratio was proposed and a developer
could choose which would be applicable. The CC district is less restrictive
than the current code. The ordinance was written that the developer
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 7, 2012
would have to meet the maximum ratio unless one or more specific
conditions could be met, including the principal use located within 800
feet of a parking facility, shared parking, payment in lieu of parking for
use of existing municipal parking stalls (city parking structure), or
demonstration that less parking would be required for the use. Surface
parking would not be allowed within a required setback or on a corner lot
near an intersection. Parking and loading facilities may be located
fronting a public street or sidewalk if certain landscaping or screening
conditions are met. Commissioner McKenzie initiated discussion as to
ADA parking standards and the distance to the building entrance. Mr.
Brixius indicated that generally site plans illustrate the handicap stalls as
those closest to the building. He stated he was not aware of a distance
requirement. After some discussion, the consensus was to require ADA
parking on site.
Bicycle parking was designed with a graduated arrangement. The ratio
would be one bike stall /20 car stalls for buildings up to 40,000 square feet
with a minimum of four, one /30 for buildings 40,001- 80,000 square feet
(approximately 12 bike stalls) and one /40 for buildings over 80,001 square
feet (approximately 14). Commissioner Svendsen wondered if those ratios
should be applied to all of New Hope as there may be employees in other
areas of the city that ride a bicycle to work. Mr. Brixius agreed and
suggested the Codes and Standards Committee consider this issue in the
future. Discussion ensued on the space required for a bike stall or rack
and the location in proximity to the building entrance. Mr. Sondrall
concurred that flexibility should be allowed in the code as to the size and
type of the bike racks. A suggestion was made to change the verbiage in
the code from bicycle "space" to "stall."
Mr. Brixius stated that the concept of City Center was to have easy access
with good internal circulation for a variety of travel modes. The
pedestrian sidewalk connections would be required between buildings
and to on -site facilities. Sidewalk connections are required to provide
direct connections from all buildings to other existing sidewalks, trails,
parks and greenways. All sidewalks shall be finished with a hard surface
and maintain an open width of at least five feet. Commissioner McKenzie
initiated discussion on increasing the size of the sidewalk to seven feet if
it abuts a retaining wall. Mr. McDonald inquired if sidewalks were
required to have ADA access at the intersections. The commissioners
concurred with both suggestions. All crosswalks across public or private
drives shall be a minimum of five feet wide and be constructed with a
distinctive paving material. All sidewalks shall be designed for pedestrian
movement and should be unencumbered by objects that inhibit
pedestrian circulation. Mr. Brixius stated he would clarify that condition
"e" be five feet of unencumbered sidewalk width.
The loading requirements are covered in the General Provisions Section 4-
3. Exterior lighting would follow the requirements of the Design
Guidelines along with additional criteria for the CC district. Light poles
would be limited to 20 feet in height, or approximately one and one -half
Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 7, 2012
stories. Lights would need to be shielded with 90- degree cutoff and
downcast. Light fixtures mounted on structures are permitted when used
to enhance architectural elements and provide visual interest. Lighting
should highlight entrances to buildings.
The CC district encourages useable open space for public congregation
and recreational opportunities for all new commercial and mixed -use
buildings with a gross floor area of 20,000 square feet and greater. Open
space would not be required for smaller buildings. For buildings 20,000-
39,999 square feet, one square foot per 150 square feet of gross floor area
would be required, and for buildings over 40,000, one square foot per 100
square feet of gross floor area.
With regard to landscaping, a minimum of one deciduous or evergreen
shrub would be required per 10 linear feet of foundation. The periphery
of all parking lots shall be landscaped and screened per code. Mr. Brixius
stated that the code did not specify where the planting should be located
only that a one was required for every 10 linear feet, so there would be
flexibility to group the plantings.
The CC district poses unique signage requirements. Wall signs would be
limited to 150 square feet or five percent of the building wall. Wall signs
could project up to two feet into the minimum setback measured from
the building with a minimum overhead clearance of eight feet from the
sidewalk. Marquee signs would be permitted. Ground signs would be
permitted subject to specific requirements including a maximum of 10
feet in height and 40 square feet in area, located behind the right -of -way
and out of sight triangles, set back five feet from the property line, no
free - standing pole signs, and no off - premise signs. Murals would not be
allowed. Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion regarding an
identification ground sign for the City Center area. Mr. Brixius responded
that standards could be established for an area identification sign. Off -
premise signs that list individual businesses are not allowed. Mr. Sondrall
added that the city could erect governmental and directional signs.
Mr. Sargent questioned whether or not the idea a comprehensive sign
plan, where all businesses in a building would have the same type of sign,
had been addressed. Mr. Brixius suggested that all of the signage
requirements for the CC district be removed from the proposed zoning
code section 4 -17 and inserted into the city's sign code. The general
provisions of the sign ordinance would apply, as well as specific sign
requirements for the CC district.
Mr. Brixius stated that the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were
necessary to make this implementable. The city was required by state
statute to have the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code in agreement.
To move ahead with the City Center district, the Comp Plan should
formally adopt the Vision Study including the revisions to the Comp
Plan, planning district maps and Design Guidelines. After that, the
Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 7, 2012
district would be finalized in text form and another public hearing would
be required to amend the zoning map. Mr. Brixius explained that the first
drafts of the Vision Study were overly restrictive and, by moving some of
the requirements into the Design Guidelines, the city can offer flexibility
to the developers.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether or not this would be the time
to add another property along Medicine Lake Road as a redevelopment
opportunity on the target area map. The consensus was to focus on City
Center at this time.
Mr. Brixius reiterated the changes discussed: 1) under the administrative
permit uses, remove the section relating to no seasonal sales between
November and April, 2) include on -site disability parking standards
versus off -site ADA parking, 3) change bike "stall' to "space," 4) change
the five -foot sidewalk requirement to seven feet when abutting a solid 24-
inch retaining wall or obstruction, and clarify the section relating to
maintaining a five -foot unencumbered sidewalk, 5) ADA ramps on
sidewalks, and 6) remove signage from the CC district and insert it into
the sign code and add area identification sign locations.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen
to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion 1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 4.1 approve the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, including an amendment
to the proposed land use plan to show the City Center District super
block as mixed land use to facilitate the land use recommendations of
the Vision Study, Planning Case 12 -03, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgude, Onadipe
Motion approved.
Motion 2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 4.1 approve amendments to the New Hope Comprehensive Plan including
1) an amendment to the mixed use land use description to formally
adopt the Vision Study as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan and
outline the Vision Study goals within the Comprehensive Plan; and an
amendment expanding the Commercial Redevelopment Target Area
map to include the City Center District super blocks, 2) an amendment
to Planning District 11 language to include recommendations that are
consistent with the Vision Study goals; and amendments to the
Planning District 11 Generalized Land Use Plan; and 3) updates to the
New Hope Design Guidelines which take the language from the City
Center District draft ordinance and blend them with the existing design
Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 7, 2012
guidelines, Planning Case 12 -03, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgude, Onadipe
Motion approved.
Motion 3 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 4.1 approve an amendment to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance adding
Section 4 -17, City Center District Ordinance, Planning Case 12 -03, city
of New Hope, petitioner, with the following changes:
1. Section 4- 17(d)(1)1 - administrative uses, remove #1 relating to no
permit to be approved between November and April,
2. Section 4 -17(g) - include on -site disability parking standards versus
off -site ADA parking,
3. Section 4- 17(g)(3) - change bike "stall' to "space,"
4. Section 4- 17(h)(1)c - add five -foot sidewalk to seven feet when
abutting a solid 24 -inch retaining wall or obstruction, and clarify
Section 4- 17(h)(1)e - relating to maintaining a five -foot
unencumbered sidewalk,
5. Add to appropriate section - ADA ramps on sidewalks,
6. Section 4 -17(m) - remove entire signage section from the CC district
and insert it into the sign code (Section 3 -50) and add area
identification sign locations.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgude, Onadipe
Motion approved.
Mr. Brixius stated that the city attorney would put the changes into final
ordinance form for Council consideration.
Mr. McDonald suggested that the Planning Commission and City Council
meet at a work session prior to the Council meeting to review and discuss
the entire document.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee did
Committee not meet in October.
Item 5.1
Mr. McDonald stated that one pre - application meeting was conducted
and staff would notify committee members if a November meeting was
needed.
Codes and Standards Mr. McDonald reported that the Codes and Standards Committee had
Planning Commission Meeting 8 November 7, 2012
Committee not met.
Item 5.2
NEW BUSINESS There was no new business.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 15, 2012. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Chair Brinkman welcomed Jeff Sargent, community development
specialist, and stated the Commission looked forward to working with
him.
Commissioner Schmidt mentioned that the Taco Bell on Bass Lake Road
was closed. TCBY is also closed.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired about the access from the sidewalk to
the CVS Pharmacy at Midland Center. Mr. McDonald stated staff would
look into this matter.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 9 November 7, 2012