Loading...
030414 Planningwo 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 PC 14-04, Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 7940 - 55 Avenue North, Centra Homes Redevelopment, City of New Hope, petitioner 4.2 PC 14 -02, Request for a text amendment to regulate mobile food units (food trucks) throughout the city, Citv of New Hope, petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Design and Review Committee - next meeting March 13, 2014, 7:30 a.m. (if needed) 5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting ? 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Commissioner Meeting Attendance - Ordinance 14 -04 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Approve February 5, 2014, Pl annin g Commission Minutes 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 4, 2014 Report Date: February 24, 2014 Planning Case: PC 14 -04 Petitioner: City of New Hope Address: 7940 - 55th Avenue N., 8000 - 55th Avenue N. Project Name: Centra Homes Redevelopment Project Description: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment I. Type of Planning Request A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment II. Zoning Code References Section(s) III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Planning District: IV. Background 4 -32 Administration - Amendments R -1, Single Family Residential Northwest corner of Winnetka Avenue and 55th Avenue High Density Residential to the north, east and west, Single - Family Residential to the south 16.94 acres NA Planning District 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as one with a variety of mixed uses, and promotes redevelopment in the area. The EDA purchased the former Winnetka Learning Center property, located at 7940 - 55 Avenue, from Independent School District 281 with the intent of redeveloping the property into a single- family housing project. On November 25, 2013, the City Council selected Centra Homes, Inc. as the preferred developer for the property, which would construct 34 single - family homes and 27 detached townhomes as part of the overall project. The property is currently guided for Public and Semipublic uses and Commercial uses, and needs to be re- guided to accommodate a housing development on the site. For this reason, staff is proposing an Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 1 3/4/14 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to re -guide the property from Public and Semipublic and Commercial to Low Density/Medium Density Residential. The underlying zoning of the property is R- 1, Single- Family Residential, which is consistent with the type of development that Centra Homes is proposing. The properties in question are: Site Address Property Identification Number UNASSIGNED 06- 118 -21 -44 -0054 7940 — 55 Avenue 06- 118 -21 -44 -0055 8000 — 55th Avenue 06- 118 -21 -44 -0056 V. Zoning Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to re -guide this area from Public and Semipublic to Low Density/Medium Density Residential. The amendment is needed to ensure that the proposed rezoning of the properties is consistent with the future comprehensive plan. Amending the properties to guide the area for Low Density/Medium Density Residential would be consistent with two of the housing goals as listed in the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. Analysis: Centra Homes will be building move -up single- fa��t housing to offer residents a housing option in the $350,000 price range. The development will also incorporate detached townhomes in the $275,000 price range, and will be a housing product that has not yet been introduced to the City of New Hope. Also, the addition of move -up housing is specifically mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as something to strive for. Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods. Analysis: The redevelopment proposal would create a new single - family neighborhood, building upon the strong character of single family neighborhoods in the area. B. Approval 1. Type of Approvals a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 2 3/4/14 VI. Notification A legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper. VIII. Summary The City of New Hope is proposing an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would re -guide the properties in conjunction with the Centra Homes redevelopment project from Public and Semipublic and Commercial to Low Density/Medium Density Residential in order to ensure that the land use guidance for the area is consistent with the Single - Family Residential Zoning Classification for the area. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments: • Location map • Land Use Change maps Planning Case Report 14 -04 Page 3 3/4/14 Location Map Current and Proposed Land Use Designations 7940 -8000 — 55" Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Current: 1 1 & 411, Proposed: L i i L l 1 �r r� [12' i E Wi g r Low Density Residential Low Density 1 Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Industrial Public & Semipublic Parks & Recreation Water Outside City Limits a Low Density Residential Low Density ' Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Industrial Public & Semipublic Parks & Recreation Water Outside City Limits RAO �i � 1 nsr1� .� /ULy iR•.; . �r PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 4, 2014 Report Date: February 24, 2014 Planning Case: 14 -02 Petitioner: City of New Hope Request: Text Amendment for Food Trucks 1. Request City staff has recently seen some food trucks throughout the city and has looked into how these types of food vending vehicles are regulated. The city's current ordinance doesn't specifically address food trucks, and staff feels that it should in order to ensure food safety regulations. The National League of Cities-has recently published an article titled, Food on Wheels: Mobile Vending Goes Mainstream, which outlines how larger cities are handling the up -an- coming popularity of food truck operations. Some key elements of this article suggest areas that each city should focus on when regulating food trucks. They are: Food Safety As indicated in the attached memo from the city's planning consultant, food trucks are regulated by Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 157, Food, Beverage, & Lodging Establishments. This chapter directly addresses food trucks which the statute refers to as "mobile food units" or MFUs. Also, all food establishments in the state are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4626, the Minnesota Food Code. These rules address mechanical systems, water supply and disposal, washing and sanitation facilities, waste disposal, food preparation and cooking areas, and food preservation /refrigeration. The proposed ordinance would require that food trucks obtain proof of licensure that demonstrates compliance with state rules and regulations. Although the licenses that the food trucks would obtain would permit operation at any given location for only 21 days per calendar year, New Hope may permit longer operation times through specific ordinance regulations. Locations Cities should take into consideration where food trucks are allowed to operate. Limiting operations to non - residential zoning districts focuses operations to places where vehicle and pedestrian traffic is expected. Staff recommends allowing food truck operations in all commercially and industrially -zoned properties. In addition, food trucks should be allowed to operate on commercial properties within a mixed -use district, but not on residential properties. Exceptions to these regulations include the allowance of ice cream trucks to operate in residential areas, as well as allowing schools and churches to utilize food trucks for special events. Staff recommends allowing food trucks to operate on the public right -of -way in residential districts with administrative approval for such occasions as neighborhood block parties. In general, food truck operations should be restricted to private property, with no operation on the public right -of -way, with written permission of the property owner required as a condition of licensure. Operation on city park land may be granted at the city's discretion. Consideration should be made regarding how close the city should allow food trucks to locate from bricks -and- mortar (permanent) restaurants. The proposed ordinance calls for a 100 -foot separation between the food vehicle and the front door of a permanent restaurant, but this distance could be altered after deliberation by the Planning Commission and City Council. Attached is a radii map that shows 50, 100 and 200 -foot distances from current restaurants in the city. Hours of Operation It is important to regulate the hours of operation for food trucks as a measure of public safety. It is recommended to restrict hours of operation between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., unless otherwise approved by the city. The Planning Commission first heard this ordinance amendment request at the February 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission voted to table the request for the March 4 meeting in order to address the following items: 1. The ordinance should distinguish between food trucks where products are prepared in the vehicle and food delivery vehicles such as catering vans and restaurant delivery vehicles. 2. An exemption from transient merchant permitting should be provided for food trucks participating in city - sponsored events such as Duk Duk Daze as well as non - profit fundraising /community events such as school celebrations, church fundraisers, and block parties. 3. Reduce the distance between where food trucks may operate in proximity to permanent "bricks and mortar" restaurants from 200 feet to 100 feet. 4. Allow ice creams trucks to utilize noise amplifiers to identify themselves in residential areas. The attached ordinance has been revised to address these issues. II. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance establishing guidelines for food trucks in the City of New Hope, with consideration made regarding the distance that such food trucks should be located from permanent restaurants. III. Attachments • Alan Brixius memo to Curtis Jacobsen • Radii map • Draft ordinance NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Curtis Jacobsen FROM: Emily Shively /Alan Brixius DATE: February 24, 2014 RE: New Hope — Food Truck Regulations FILE: 131.00 — 13.08 BACKGROUND The planning commission reviewed a draft ordinance regulating food trucks at their meeting on February 5, 2014. This memo addresses the issues that were raised during the discussion and a revised draft ordinance is attached for review. ISSUES The commission tabled the proposed food truck regulations in order for staff to provide revised language to address the following issues: The ordinance should distinguish between food trucks where products are prepared in the vehicle and food delivery vehicles such as catering vans and restaurant delivery vehicles. An exemption from transient merchant permitting should be provided for food trucks participating in city- sponsored events such as Duk Duk Daze as well as non - profit fundraising /community events such as school celebrations, church fundraisers, and block parties. The attached draft ordinance has been revised to more specifically define mobile food units as vehicles where food is stored, cooked and prepared for sale to the consumer and an exemption from permitting has been added for food trucks at city or non - profit sponsored events. Food trucks at such events will still be subject to the standards outlined in Section 8 -6. Two issues have yet to be resolved: Should ice cream trucks receive an exemption from noise standards to announce their presence in residential districts? Should food trucks be required to obtain a license to operate in association with the farmers market? The current city code contains a provision that prohibits the use of music or noisemaking devices by anyone obtaining a permit under Section 8 -6. Ice cream trucks are currently subject to that restriction. The proposed ordinance amendment Section 5 amends Section 8 -6(f) allowing ice cream trucks to have noise making devices to announce their presence as they travel through residential neighborhoods. The planning commission discussed giving food trucks an exemption when operating at the farmers market. The current city code Section 8 -6(e) establishes specific exemptions from transient merchant licensing. The exemptions currently include; a general exemption, Non - profit organizations, Farm Produce / Horticultural and Fireworks Sales. While exempt for the transient merchant license "outdoor sale of seasonal farm produce at a temporary sales site "; are required to obtain a permit under a separate section of the ordinance (Section 8 -31). The planning commission wishes to consider allowing MFUs at the city's Farmers Market and at fund raising events at schools or churches without requiring MFUs to obtain a city license. The attached ordinance amends Section 8 -6(e) exemption to add provisions 5 and 6. Provision 5 exempts MFUs from city licensing when attending a short term fund raising events sponsored by the city or a local non - profit. Provision 6, exempts MFU from city licensing when they are part of a city sponsored Farmers Market. CONCLUSION The planning commission should review the revised draft ordinance amendment and make a recommendation regarding the outstanding issues. 2 4 � -,.. , - 4 A Food Truck Regulations Food Service Buffer Analysis Distance From Entry 100 feet 200 feet .. 300 feet - -- City Boundary y � . 0 7 .7 �. ZONING R -1 R -2 R -3 R-4 R -5 R-B mod, ♦ , R-0 PUD CB 1 LB 05P W f """3 " `� p 11e�111wn1 •M011111�0 1 11 , 11!4#11461! INC i' 11 Y} v . a A 1 q mom. ,1 ! t , e 1 _ ��� � � �'"*' ° • Map Date: December 31, 2013 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 (BUSINESS AND AMUSEMENT REGULATION; LICENSE PROCEDURE) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATED TO CHANGES TO SECTION 8 -6, REGISTRATION OF SOLICITORS, PEDDLERS, HAWKERS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO REGULATE MOBILE FOOD UNITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 8 -6(c), Definitions, of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Mobile Food Unit: A food and beverage service establishment that is a vehicle mounted unit in which food is stored, cooked and prepared for direct sale to the consumer, either: (1) motorized or trailered operating no more than 21 days annually at any one place or operating more than 21 days annually at any one place with the approval of the regulatory authority as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 4626.0020, subpart 70, or (2) operated in conjunction with a permanent business licensed under Chapter 157 or Chapter 128A of the Minnesota State Statutes at the site of the permanent business by the same individual or company, and readily movable without disassembling for transport to another location. The following are also considered mobile food units for the purpose of this Ordinance: Food Cart: A food and beverage service establishment that is a non - motorized vehicle self - propelled by the operator. Ice Cream Truck: A motor vehicle utilized as the point of retail sales of pre - wrapped or prepackaged ice cream frozen yogurt, frozen custard, flavored frozen water or similar frozen dessert products. Transient merchant means a person, whether as owner, agent, consignee, or employee who engages in a temporary business out of a vehicle, trailer, box car, tent, other portable shelter, store front, or from a parking lot for the purpose of displaying for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering goods, wares, products, merchandise or other personal property and who does not remain or intend to remain in any one location including mobile food units Section 2. Section 8 -6(d), Form of Registration, of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: Mobile food units are required to meet the following additional standards: 1. MFUs must be licensed by the Minnesota Health Department and must adhere to State regulations for food trucks as provided in Food Code Chapter 4626.1860 Mobile Food Establishments; Seasonal Temporary Food Stands: Seasonal Permanent Food Stands. Evidence of the State license must be provided to the City as part of the local license application. 2. MFU operations are permitted in the CB, LB, and I districts and on commercial or mixed use sites in R -B and R -0 districts. MFUs may operate in residential districts, public parks, school sites, church sites or in conjunction with a block party or special event where a temporary use permit has been obtained per Section 4 -3(h) and subject to the conditions of this section. Ice cream truck vendors may operate in all zoning districts, but must adhere to the described hours of operation. 3. MFUs must be located on private property, and the applicant must provide written consent from the Property owner. Ice cream trucks are allowed to operate within the public right -of -way in residential districts. MFUs may be located in a public park or within the public right -of -wax in residential districts with approval from the City. 4. MFUs shall not be located within 100 feet for the main entrance of any other permanent food establishment on a separate lot. The setback shall be measured from the vehicle to the main entrance of the buildin . 5. MFU operations are not permitted between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. except by approval from the City. 6. MFU sites shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner, and shall adhere to the following site requirements: a. Trash and /or recycling collection and cleanup must be provided. b. MFUs must provide independent power supply which is screened from view. Generators are permitted. c. MFUs shall be located on an asphalt or concrete surface. d. MFUs must close during adverse weather conditions when shelter is not provided. e. MFUs may not occupy parking spaces where the remaining parking will not meet minimum standards required by Section 4- 3(e) of the New Hope City Code. 7. Ice cream truck vendors are required to undergo a criminal background check prior to operating in the community at the cost of the applicant. 8. If MFU sites are found to be in non - compliance with any conditions as provided in Section 8 -6 of the Ordinance, the City reserves the right to revoke the MFU transient merchant license. Section 3. Section 8 -6(e), Exemptions, is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: JQ Mobile food units associated with city sponsored events or non - profit events not to exceed seven days where a temporary use permit has been obtained per Section 4 -3(h) are not required to obtain a transient merchant permit for the duration of the event. MFUs participating in these events must comply with all other standards in this Section. Mobile food units associated with city sponsored Farmers Market may be exempt from transient merchant licensure at the city's discretion. All MFUs operating at these sites must comply with all other standards in this Section. Section 4. Section 8 -6(f), Registration Requirements, is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (1) Duration. Each registration shall be valid only for the period specified therein, and no registration may extend beyond the 31 st day of December of the year in which it is granted. Mobile food units may operate for more than 21 days in one location for a duration approved by the City. Section 5. Section 8 -6(f), Prohibited Activities, of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (1) Loud noises and speaking devices. A person registered under this section may not shout, cry out, blow a horn, ring a bell, or use any sound amplifying device upon any of the streets, alleys, parks, or other public places of the city or upon private premises where sound of sufficient volume is emitted or produced there from to be capable of being plainly heard upon the streets, alleys, parks, or other public places, for the purpose of attracting attention to any goods, wares, or merchandise which such person proposes to sell. Ice cream trucks travelling through a residential district may have outdoor music or noise - making devices to announce their presence. (3) Private property. Registration under this section does not permit a person to conduct the activity on private property without the ongoing permission of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. Mobile food units shall not be located within 100 feet from the main entrance of any other permanent food establishment on a separate lot. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication. APPROVED this day of 2014. 3 Kathi Hemken, Mayor ATTEST; Valerie Leone, City Clerk Memorandum To: New Hope Commissioner and Commission Staff Liaisons From: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Date: February 24, 2014 Subject: Commissioner Meeting Attendance The City Council has requested that the City Code be reviewed in its entirety beginning this year to update or eliminate outdated language. One of the first chapters under review is Chapter 2 that deals with city commissions to make the chapter sections consistent specifically as it relates to meeting attendance criteria. Council is appreciative of commissioners who are willing to volunteer their time to the betterment of the city. Council also recognizes the need to have full participation by all commission members on a regular basis. At its meeting of February 10, 2014, the New Hope City Council adopted an ordinance amendment updating chapter 2 of the city code. An absence /failure to serve provision has been added to expressly indicate three unexcused meeting absences within a calendar year will result in an automatic removal from office. The rule would not be enforced for extenuating circumstances. If you cannot attend a commission meeting, please notify the staff liaison or the commission chair of your intended absence and the reason. Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks! City of New Hope ORDINANCE NO. 14 -04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE CHAPTER 2 REGULATING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, COMMITTEE VACANCIES, REMOVAL OF MEMBERS AND COMPENSATION The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1 . Section 2 -7 "Committees." of the New Hope City Code is hereby renamed "Commissions" and amended to read as follows: Sec. 2 -7. Committees /Commissions (a) Creation of committees /commissions The council may create such committees/ commissions standing or special, as it deems necessary. Such committees /commissions shall consist of as many members, and perform such duties, as council may require or as set forth in Chapter 2 of this code (b) Committee /Conunission members cnzd chairpersons. The chairman of each committee commission shall be designated in accordance with the bylaws of each committee /commission or as set out in Chapter 2 of this cod . Each oon oc member shall serve as appointed by the anless tuiless excused by a majority of the members of the council. (c) Vacancies and removal of member. This section shall be apulicable only to o the following commissions: section 2 -13 "Planning commission ", section 2 -25 "Human rights commission ", section 2 -28 "Traffic control and safety commission ", section 2- 35 "New Hope Citizen Advisory Commission" and section 2 -40 "New Hope Chemical Health Awareness Commission? (1) Vacancies. Any vacancy on any committee /commission identified in New Hope Code U-7(c) shall be filled by the city council for the unexpired tern. A membership on the committee /comunission shall become vacant upon: a. Death. The death of a member, b. Disability. Physical or mental disabilily rendering the member incapable of service: —1— C. Appointed, In the case of a commission representative or staff member the resignation from employment or when no longer a member of the commnission from which the appointment originated-, d. Resignation. Resignation. in writing directed to the committee /commission chairperson; e. Absence /failure to serve. A member's unexcused absence without good cause from three meetings, regular ar or special, during any year shall be deemed a failure to serve and resignation by the member and shall automatically constitute a vacancy and the member's removal from the committee /commission without any fm -thee action by the committee /commission or the city council. An excused absence for good cause inay be granted by the chairperson of the committee /commission, mayor or city manager, (2) Removal from office. a. By committee /commission. Any committee /commission, by a two - thirds vote of its members, mgy petition to the council to remove any member when, in its discretion, the best interests of the city would be served thereby, after first ig ving the person so named an opporgLmty to be heard before the /committee /commission and the council. A member shall be removed by a majority vote of the council, b. By the Council. The council, by a majority vote of all its members, shall have the authgik to remove ggy member of a committee /commission when, in its discretion and on its own initiative the council concludes the removal of the member shall be in the City's best interests. C. Unexcused Absences. Three unexcused meeting absences, as described in 42- 7(c)(1)e. of this code shall result in the automatic removal of a member without further action by the members, a hearing or vote by the council. (d) Compensation Members shall serve without compensation, but m.ay be reimbursed for expenses authorized by the council when representin the city, subject —2— to the approval of the city manager. (Ee) Committee /Commission reports. Any matter brought before the council for consideration may be referred by the presiding officer to any such committee /commission for a written report and recommendation before it is considered by the council as a whole. Each eemmi#ee -report shall be signed by a majority of the members and shall be filed with the clerk prior to the council meeting at which it is to be submitted. Minority reports may be submitted. Each committee /commission shall act promptly an d faithfully on any matter referred to it. Section 2 . The following sub - sections of Chapter 2 "ADMINISTRATION" are hereby repealed and deleted in their entirety: §2 -13(g) "Compensation" under Planning Commission; § §2 -25(g) and (h) "Vacancies and removal from office" and "Compensation" under Human Rights Commission; § §2 -28(d) and (e) "Vacancies and removal of members" and "Compensation" under Traffic Control and Safety Commission; § §2 -35(e) "Vacancies and removal of members" under the New Hope Citizens Advisory Commission; § §2 -40(e) and (t) "Vacancies and removal from office" and "Compensation" under New Hope Chemical Health Awareness Commission. Section 3 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 2014. Kathi Hemken, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope - Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of C;WSERSISAMDOCUMENTSICLIENTSWBW HOPE CMLIi4.04 AMEND CHAP 2 DIDOC 2014.) Dim CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 5, 2014 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Mikel Dumonceaux, Greg Gehring, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Wade English, Jeff Houle, Ranjan Nirgud6 Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Jeff Sargent, Community Development Specialist, Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction and Design, Link Wilson, Kaas- Wilson Architects, Debra Somers, Recording Secretary ELECTION OF Chair Svendsen opened the floor for nominations for 2014 officers. OFFICERS Commissioner Landy nominated Chair Svendsen for chair, Commissioner Schmidt for second officer, and Commissioner McKenzie for third officer. Seconded by Commissioner Brinkman. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 14 -03, request for a Planning Case 14 -03 preliminary and final plat approval, as well as a Final Development Stage Item 4.1 Planned Unit Development (Site Plan Review) for the construction of a 68 -unit apartment building known as Compass Pointe, 6113 West Broadway, Ron Clark Construction and Design, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, explained that the petitioner was requesting preliminary and final plat approval to combine the properties at 6113 West Broadway and 7601 -7661 62nd Avenue. He stated that a site plan review was required when modifications of or additions or enlargements to a building occur, and reviewed the zoning code references for the site plan review. Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners and audience that the property was currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), and was located in the southeast corner of 62nd Avenue and West Broadway. He reported that adjacent land uses included Commercial to the east and Residential to the south and west. He added that the residential property to the north was located within the city of Brooklyn Park. He stated that Planning District 16 of the Comprehensive Plan guided this site for high density residential housing, and identified its location on a map. Mr. Sargent briefly reviewed that in May, 2012 the City Council approved the rezoning of the property from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. He explained that the PUD zoning allowed for flexibility in the Zoning Code pertaining to setbacks, density, height and lot area to ensure good overall site design. He added that in May, 2012 the City Council had also approved the demolition of the former Swift Service Station located at 6113 West Broadway. Mr. Sargent reported that Ron Clark Construction and Design had requested a Site Plan Review, which was required to approve a proposed 68 -unit apartment building at 6113 West Broadway. He explained that amenities to the Compass Pointe project included a four -story development, heated underground parking, workout facility, community room, outdoor grilling area, basketball court and tot lot. He displayed an artistic rendering of the building and grounds, along with a detailed overhead site plan. He also displayed interior and exterior pictures of a recently completed Ron Clark Construction project located in Savage, Minnesota. Mr. Sargent reported that Compass Pointe was workforce housing that would utilize tax credits to help finance the construction and operations of the building. He explained that residents must have a verified income to meet Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) requirements, and must pay their own rent. He noted that this development would rely solely on the tax credits for its financing. He informed the commissioners and audience that the MHFA compliance period would last 30 years, and would include substantial operating and replacement reserves to ensure the project is maintained at a high standard. He stated that the complex would include full -time management on site, and noted that potential residents would need to pass a credit, criminal and housing history background check. Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners that the City had held informational neighborhood meetings in late 2012 and early 2014. He noted that neighboring property owners had shared their concerns, which included: • The size of the building in relation to lot size. • The lack of proposed green space. • The height of the building. • Too much traffic would be generated by the development. • Single - family homes would be a better fit. Mr. Sargent stated that Ron Clark Construction used the feedback from those meetings to make revisions to their plan. He explained that they redesigned the south elevation of the building to eliminate eight of the fourth floor units and give the appearance of a three -story building. Mr. Sargent displayed a site plan of the property and pointed out the two entrances to the building, one off of 62nd Avenue and the other off of West Broadway. He added that a two -way driveway was proposed throughout the development, and noted that the site would also include adequate parking space size and drive aisle widths. He mentioned that there were traffic concerns from Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 5, 2014 the neighborhood, and reported that a traffic study had been conducted by Wenck Associates, Inc. Conclusions to the study consisted of: 1. Development would add 33 net trips per day during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 39 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 425 daily trips. 2. Development would generate less than half the number of trips than were generated by the previous users. 3. All study intersections would have adequate capacity with existing geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development. Mr. Sargent reported that pedestrian access would include a sidewalk connected to the entrances along the south side of the building with the sidewalk along West Broadway. On -site parking was then briefly reviewed. Mr. Sargent stated that the Zoning Code required 2.25 parking stalls per unit, one enclosed and 1 1 /4 open stalls. He informed the commissioners that the developer had negotiated with the City for 2.05 parking stalls, and noted that this figure was based on similar buildings with a similar number of units and land size. He added that the PUD zoning would allow for this reduced number of stalls. Mr. Sargent also noted that this development was located on a bus line, which could help alleviate the need for parking. Mr. Sargent reported that the developer was proposing 68 underground stalls and 50 open parking stalls. He stated that the developer would initially utilize 22 proof -of- parking stalls, which would remain green space, until a need was determined for the additional parking. It was also noted that bicycle parking would be available near an entrance along the south side of the building. Mr. Sargent reported that landscaping and screening for the site would include 58 trees of varying species, 48 shrubs, and an 8 -foot privacy fence along the west and south property lines. He added that a landscape maintenance plan would also be required. Mr. Sargent discussed the lighting plan. He explained that the Zoning Code allowed for a light intensity of no more than 0.4 foot candles along shared property lines, and noted that the applicant's photometric plan was in compliance. He then explained that the Zoning Code allowed for a light intensity of no more than 1.0 foot candles at the right -of -way line, and noted that the applicant's photometric plan exceeded those limits. He stated that options for the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this matter included requiring the applicant to resubmit a lighting plan that meets code requirements, or consider the location and need for lighting along those streets and allow an exception to the 1.0 foot candle requirement as a PUD flexibility. He mentioned that the Police Chief was supportive of extra lighting for safety reasons. Regarding signage, Mr. Sargent reported that the applicant would incorporate Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 5, 2014 one monument sign near the 62nd Avenue entrance, which would meet City standards for height and size. He also stated that the applicant had proposed two projecting wall signs on the northeast and southeast corners of the building. He noted that the PUD exception would allow for these signs for both type and size. Mr. Sargent next discussed grading and drainage, and noted that drainage would flow toward the southeast portion of the lot and would be collected into an underground storage facility. He added that a maintenance agreement for the upkeep of the storage facility would be required. Regarding design guidelines, Mr. Sargent reported that building materials met the intention of the design guidelines, with use of brick, stone, glass, vinyl siding, lap siding, and CMU panels. He stated that the overall design of the building would utilize residential architecture to help blend into the neighborhood. He displayed artist drawings, which identified building color and materials. Mr. Sargent reviewed that the applicant was seeking approval of a preliminary and final plat for the property. He stated that the applicant had submitted all necessary paperwork to the City, and had also submitted plans to Hennepin County. Mr. Sargent stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the final plat outlining all public site improvements and developer responsibilities. Public improvements would include, but not be limited to: a. Burial of overhead utilities b. Curb cut installation and removal of unused curb cuts c. Installation of sidewalks along West Broadway d. Replacement of sidewalk along 62nd Avenue e. Utility connections 2. Payment of park dedication fee in the amount of $8,400.00 Mr. Sargent reported that staff also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan review with the following conditions: 1. The City Council would need to approve the adjusted building setbacks. 2. The terms for installation of the proof -of- parking must be outlined in the PUD agreement. 3. Applicant shall provide a snow removal plan to be included in the PUD agreement. 4. Bicycle parking shall meet the following conditions: a. Provide a detail of bike racks for an evaluation of capacity. b. Remove bike rack from green space /snow storage area and Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 5, 2014 provide hard surface for bike parking. c. Provide additional bike parking on west end of building. 5. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian sidewalk through the activity area to the western fence opening. 6. The applicant shall provide a management /maintenance plan for an underground storm water storage system to be incorporated into the PUD agreement. 7. Drainage and utility plans will be subject to City Engineer comments. 8. Landscape components shall include: a. Any landscaping that dies or shows stress shall be replaced by the property owner in accordance with the approved landscape plan. b. Any planting or site improvements located in public easements may be removed by the City in conjunction with City projects. Replacement of the improvement and /or landscaping shall be the property owner's responsibility. 9. The applicant must provide a detail of the eight -foot boundary line fence for City approval. 10. The City Council needs to approve the building signs as part of the PUD flexibility. 11. The City Council needs to address the light intensity at right -of -way lines by: a. Reduce light intensity to City standards; or b. Approve the light intensity as part of the PUD. 12. In conjunction with the final plat and final PUD stage, the applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement that outlines the conditions of approval, improvement responsibilities, and provides security for all improvements. The PUD agreement shall be recorded with the property title and be assigned to all future owners. Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction and Design, took questions from the commissioners. Chair Svendsen noted that there appeared to be one tree in a parking space in the northwest corner of the proof -of- parking area. Mr. Waldo replied that he would look into it. Commissioner Brinkman wondered how far apart the proposed lighting would be on the north side of the building along 62nd Avenue. Mr. Waldo consulted briefly with Link Wilson, Kaas- Wilson Architects, before responding that that the bulk of them would be 85 feet apart, and one would be at 100 feet. Commissioner Brinkman wondered what the total length of the building would be. Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 5, 2014 Mr. Waldo replied that it would be 338 feet. Commissioner Brinkman referred to the side of the building facing 62nd Avenue, and wondered how far from the ground the balconies would be located. He expressed concern over security. Mr. Waldo stated that the lowest balconies would be five feet from the ground and the highest ones would be seven feet from the ground. He stated that he had discussed security with Steven Scott Management, who felt the balconies would be secure. Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether there would be cameras along that side of the building. Mr. Waldo replied yes, and noted that cameras would be located both inside and outside the building. Commissioner McKenzie inquired about snow storage and snow removal in scenarios that included green space in the proof -of- parking and parking in the proof -of- parking area. Mr. Waldo stated that an average seasonal snowfall of 20-30 inches would be stored on site with the proof -of- parking area. He added that once that level is reached, the additional snow would need to be removed from the site. Commissioner McKenzie referred to the proof -of- parking, and wondered what would happen to the sidewalk if the space were converted to parking stalls. Mr. Waldo replied that the sidewalk could be removed and re- routed as necessary. Commissioner McKenzie expressed concern that the west parking stall in proof - of- parking area two appeared to encroach into the sidewalk. Link Wilson, Kaas - Wilson Architects, responded that there was adequate space according to his measurements. He added that another option would be to move one stall from area three to area two to allow for more sidewalk space. Commissioner McKenzie commented that the proof -of- parking in area 17 looked fairly steep. Mr. Wilson replied that there was a three -foot differential, and there would be a need for a retaining wall along the western slope. Chair Svendsen mentioned the proposed fence along the east driveway, and wondered about the sight line looking south onto West Broadway, Mr. Wilson stated that the fence would stop 25 feet from the property line, and Planning Commission Meeting 6 February 5, 2014 should not interfere with sight lines. Commissioner Gehring mentioned the basketball court's proximity to the garage entrance and expressed concern over the height of the ornamental fence that divided them. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gehring, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Jane Norman, 6041 Sumter Place, expressed concern about children crossing West Broadway, and also children playing in the street at 62nd and Sumter. Maurice Mickelson, 6072 Rhode Island Avenue, stated that he had collected comments from his neighbors regarding this project, and asked that copies be distributed to the City Council and Planning Commission. His comments included: • The project is too large for this site. • Backyard ambiance and views would be destroyed for those living on the north side of 61St Avenue. • The proposed eight foot privacy fence and landscaping would provide an unflattering backdrop. • The proposed vehicle entrances and exits seem very marginal, especially during times of heavy snow cover. • Real estate agents have informed some residents that their home value might be negatively affected by this project. Mr. Mickelson also wondered whether any variances had been given for the site. Mike Bailey, 7660 61St Avenue North, expressed concern over the utility lines along the south border, and wondered who would be paying to have those lines buried. Maureen Carlson, 6101 West Broadway Avenue, wondered who would pay for the sidewalk along West Broadway, and also wondered how large the play area was. Motion Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Waldo responded to Ms. Norman's concerns regarding children crossing West Broadway. He noted the stoplight at 62nd Avenue and West Broadway would continue to provide a safe crossing for children. Regarding children playing in the street at 62nd Avenue and Sumter, Mr. Waldo felt that the tot lot and basketball court provided play areas for children within the complex. He added that Steven Scott Management could also address that if needed. Chair Svendsen noted that Mr. Mickelson had given several comments and had Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 5, 2014 also inquired about variances. Mr. Sargent explained that a variance was a specific process which allowed for a petitioner to deviate from strict adherence to the code. He stated that because the site had been zoned for a Planned Unit Development, the nature of that zoning district allowed for flexibility through site plan approval, and no variances would be required for this property. Mr. Sargent also noted that he would forward Mr. Mickelson's comments to the City Council and Planning Commission. Chair Svendsen then noted that Mr. Bailey had asked for clarification on the costs associated with burying the utilities along the south border of the property. Mr. Waldo stated that Ron Clark Construction would be responsible for burying all overhead utility lines along 62 Avenue. He added that it was also their goal to bury all utility lines along the south property line at their expense. He related that they would need to meet with the property owners along the south line to discuss potentially burying the lines from each residential property, and determine what cost, if any, those property owners might face. Chair Svendsen reviewed that Maureen Carlson had wondered who would be paying for the sidewalk along West Broadway, as well as the size of the tot lot. Mr. Waldo replied that the developer would be replacing any portion of the sidewalk that might be damaged during construction or would be considered substandard. Regarding the size of the tot lot, he noted that it was just under 3000 square feet. He added that the developer was considering fencing that area for additional safety. Chair Svendsen wondered whether the City would need to enter into a developmental agreement. Stacy Woods, assistant city attorney, replied that a developmental agreement would be required. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, noted that it was already listed as a recommendation, and reviewed that staff was recommending two agreements: the development contract, which would expire when the project is completed, and a PUD agreement, which would outline all zoning approvals recorded against the property. Ms. Woods also pointed out that the City Attorney would need to review the final plat prior to approval. Chair Svendsen suggested that the final plat also be reviewed by the state Fire Marshal prior to approval. Planning Commission Meeting 8 February 5, 2014 Commissioner Schmidt referred to the four -foot fence along the back of the basketball court, and wondered if any thought had been given to installing a net above it to keep balls from entering the driveway. Mr. Waldo did not feel a net was necessary, but noted that the height of the fence could easily be changed to five or six feet. Mr. Brixius referred to Commissioner McKenzie's comments regarding the proof -of- parking along the west property line, and suggested that a condition be included that code requirements regarding slope and design must be met if installing parking. Condition 11b, light intensity, was briefly discussed. Most commissioners favored increasing the light intensity for that area. Mr. Sargent stated that the Planning Commission could include that as part of its recommendation, if desired. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 14 -03, request for preliminary and final plat approval, as well as a Final Development Stage Planned Unit Development (site plan review) for the construction of a 68 -unit apartment building known as Compass Pointe, 6113 West Broadway, subject to the conditions as listed in the packet as well as the following conditions: 1. Approve the light intensity as part of the PUD. 2. City Attorney reviews final plat prior to approval. 3. Fire Marshal reviews final plat prior to approval. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Dumonceaux, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: Gehring Absent: English, Houle, Nirgude Motion approved. Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its meeting on February 24. Planning Case 14 -01 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, Planning Case 14 -01, request for a text Item 4.2 amendment for density increases in the R -O, Residential Office and R -B, Residential Business zoning districts, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, stated that the City of New Hope was proposing an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code in relation to increasing density allowances in the R -O, Residential Office and R -B, Residential Business zoning districts. Mr. Sargent explained that the City was asked to review the current standards by an applicant rezoning the property at 9390 -9398 27th Avenue. He stated that Planning Commission Meeting 9 February 5, 2014 the zoning code currently allowed for one unit per each 2,200 square feet of land area in the R -O and R -B zoning districts. He noted that the proposed amendment would allow for densities to increase to one unit per 2,000 square feet of land, or approximately 22 units per acre. He added that the amendment would still allow for density bonuses based on performance standards. Mr. Sargent explained that the Metropolitan Council had recently released the 2040 projections for New Hope in relation to population, households and employment. He noted that growth projections in those areas ranged from approximately 31% to 38 %. He informed the commissioners that staff surveyed surrounding cities to determine their maximum allowances: • Golden Valley: A minimum of 15 units per acre in the Mixed Use District. • Brooklyn Park: 18 units per acre for one - bedroom units, otherwise the highest allowed is 13 units per acre. • Plymouth: Regulates density with minimum lot area and building height requirements. • Crystal: Up to 22 units per acre. Mr. Sargent reported that the Codes and Standards committee had met on December 10, 2013 to discuss increasing density in the R -O zoning district, and noted that the committee was receptive to the idea. He also mentioned that the R -B zoning district shared the same purpose statement, and lot and setback requirements as the R -O. He stated that a current outline of the areas zoned R -O and R -B had been included in the commissioners' packets. Mr. Sargent stated that staff recommended approval and asked that the Planning Commission review and offer comment on the proposed changes to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. There was no one in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 14-01, request for a text amendment for density increases in the R -O, Residential Office, and R -B, Residential Business zoning districts, City of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Dumonceaux, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: English, Houle, Nirgude Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its meeting on February 24. Planning Commission Meeting 10 February 5, 2014 Planning Case 14 -02 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, Planning Case 14 -02, an ordinance Item 4.3 amending the City Code in relation to the use of mobile food units in the city of New Hope, City of New Hope, petitioner. Jeff Sargent, community development specialist, explained that the City did not currently regulate mobile food units (food trucks) within the city. He added that regulation of these vehicles would help ensure food safety, and stated that the proposed ordinance would take food safety, the location of food trucks, and hour of operation into consideration. Mr. Sargent explained that the proposed ordinance would require Minnesota state licensure under Chapter 157, Food, Beverage and Lodging Establishments. He stated that the amended ordinance would allow for the location of trucks in Commercially and Industrially zoned properties only. He noted that exceptions would include: • Ice Cream trucks would be allowed in residential areas. • Exception for schools and churches for special events. • May locate in Mixed Use Districts (commercial only) • Must be located at least 200 feet from the front door of a "bricks -and- mortar" restaurant. Mr. Sargent then briefly reviewed a map identifying the food service buffer analysis at 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet. Mr. Sargent informed the commissioners that hours of operation would be between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Mr. Sargent reported that the Codes and Standards committee had met on December 10, 2013 to discuss the amendment and was generally in favor of the regulations. He added that staff recommends approval, and recommends that the Planning Commission review and offer comment on the proposed changes to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Chair Svendsen noted that the Duk Duk Daze festival was open until midnight. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, reported that city clerk, Valerie Leone, had provided additional input on the licensing, and commented that community- sponsored holidays or festivals could be granted an exemption. He also mentioned that other communities he works with were not interested in requiring food truck licensing for short -term fundraising events rum by churches or schools. He suggested an exemption from licensure in those instances, provided it would be a condensed period of time, 21 days or less. Mr. Brixius also mentioned that the city clerk had expressed concern over whether food delivery trucks or catering trucks would need to be included in the licensure. Mr. Brixius suggested that mobile food units be defined as those that store, cook and prepare meals for direct sale to customers. Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 5, 2014 Chair Svendsen mentioned the farmer's market, and expressed interest in acquiring an exemption if a restaurant were located nearby. Mr. Brixius replied that community- sponsored events, such as the farmer's market, could be given an exemption. He added that there would be no minimum distance requirement between food trucks at the farmer's market, which would allow for several trucks at the same time. Commissioner McKenzie wondered if food trucks could be located on roadways. Mr. Brixius felt that New Hope's major roadways could not accommodate food truck parking due to traffic volumes, but noted that several commercial parking lots throughout the city could be utilized. He added that this ordinance could be revised to allow food trucks to operate in public right -of -ways with City approval. Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, added that this would be a trial period, and noted that not many food trucks currently operated in the city. He reminded the commissioners that the ordinance could always be amended, and stated that the City originally took interest in this matter because a food truck had been operating at the Shell Station on 49 Avenue. The commissioners discussed the proximity of food trucks to "brick -and- mortar" restaurants. Following a show of hands, four commissioners favored a distance of 100 feet and two commissioners favored a distance of 200 feet. Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Gehring, to Item 4.3 table Planning Case 14-02, an ordinance amending text regarding mobile food units, citing the need for potential revisions. All present voted in favor. Motion approved. Following a brief discussion, it was suggested that the planning consultant make the suggested revisions to the ordinance amendment and include this planning case on the next Planning Commission agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Item 5.1 NEW BUSINESS Mr. Jacobsen reported that there were no new applications at this time. Commissioner Brinkman noted that several commissioners had attended the recent developers' presentations regarding the city center site, and asked for their feedback. Commissioner Landy stated that he was opposed to the idea of relocating city hall to the comer of 42nd and Xylon avenues, and felt that it should be utilized as a commercial or retail space. Planning Commission Meeting 12 February 5, 2014 Commissioner Brinkman commented that he supported a partnership between the City and the school district, but not at that location. He felt that development should appeal to younger people, and stated that he would be supportive of a community center and a brewery -type restaurant. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Item 7.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to approve the amended Planning Commission minutes of December 3, 2013. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. As a common courtesy, Chair Svendsen suggested that the commissioners let City staff know if they will be able or unable to attend a subcommittee meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, pum Penny Spitzer Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 13 February 5, 2014