080614 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 6, 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; Wade English; Greg Gehring; Roger Landy;
Christopher McKenzie; Tom Schmidt; Steve Svendsen
Absent: Jeff Houle; Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron
Chirpich; Community Development Specialist; Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney; Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant; Chris
Long, City Engineer; Debra Somers, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 14-09, request for a
Planning Case 14-09
Preliminary and Final Plat, rezoning of certain property from CC, City Center
Item 4.1
District to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a Site Plan Review, to allow
the construction of a retail grocery store, convenience store/gas station, and
future retail/office building, known as Hy-Vee, Inc., 4300 Xylon Avenue
North, Anderson Companies, Inc., petitioner
Director Sargent stated that the applicant was requesting a Preliminary/Final
Plat. The applicant will be creating three lots and an outlot during the platting
process as follows:
Lot 1: 90,000 sq. ft. for the grocery store
Lot 2: 4,500 sq. ft. for the gas station/convenience store
Lot 3: Future office/retail building site
Outlot: City Plaza
Director Sargent indicated the applicant proposed to rezone the parcels from
City Center (CC), City Center District to a PUD in order to have flexibility in site
design and layout.
The applicant is also requesting a Site Plan Review which is required when
modifications, additions or enlargements to a building occur.
Director Sargent reviewed some background information. He informed the
Commissioners that the property is the City Center and the visioning process
began in early 2010. The New Hope City Center vision was adopted on June 13,
2011. Kmart Shopping Center was purchased by the Economic Development
Authority (EDA) in July 2012, and the City Center Zoning District was created in
November 2012. Director Sargent noted that Kmart and the Wells Fargo Bank
1
drive-through buildings were demolished in 2013.
Director Sargent continued by stating that in December 2013, City Council
reviewed proposals from three master developers for possible uses on the
Kmart site. He further stated that after deliberation and discussion, the City
Council entered into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Hy-Vee in
March 2014. The EDA approved the term sheet and authorized preparation of
the purchase and development agreement with Hy-Vee on June 23, 2014. He
noted that on June 23, 2014, the City Council approved supporting the
convenience store and gas station use in conjunction with the development of
the Hy-Vee grocery store.
City staff worked with Stantec, the city’s engineering consultant, on the design
of new streetscape improvements along Xylon Avenue. Staff would like to see
some of the streetscape elements incorporated into the Hy-Vee design.
Director Sargent informed the Planning Commission there were no park
dedication fees collected because the applicant is not creating any more lots than
what already existed.
Director Sargent explained the applicant proposed to rezone the property from
CC, City Center district to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Originally the gas
station uses were not specifically allowed in the City Center District. City
Council gave support of the gas station use on June 23, 2014. He added that the
PUD District would give flexibility on specific uses and overall site design.
Director Sargent stated that a Site Plan Review was needed to ensure the
proposed development met the intent of the zoning code in relation to the
placement of the building, landscaping, parking, the design guidelines, etc. He
reported that when considering the zoning analysis, staff took the underlying
City Center Zoning District and applied it to the Hy-Vee parcel so staff could
use it as a basis of regulating some of the proposed zoning elements, such as the
number of parking stalls needed, setback of buildings, landscaping, densities,
etc.
Director Sargent stated that the future pad would not be discussed at this time
as the city has not received a proposed use for the site yet. Once a use comes to
staff it will be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Regarding PUD flexibility, Director Sargent pointed out that the City Center
District required buildings to be placed 10-25 feet from the street in order to
achieve a downtown feeling. Staff approves of the proposed location of the Hy-
Vee grocery store, which would be contingent on PUD flexibility.
Director Sargent indicated that PUD flexibility was encouraged to allow for the
proposed placement of the convenience store as well.
Director Sargent indicated the City Center District was very specific on the types
Planning Commission Meeting 2 August 6, 2014
of the regulations for parking. He explained that a motor fuel station or gas
station was not part of the City Center district, thus staff took that regulation
from the zoning code and applied it to the property. The number of stalls Hy-
Vee would be required to have is between 322-602 stalls. Staff can give credit for
elements such as an adequate snow removal plan and things of that nature in
proximity to public transit to justify lowering the parking requirement need.
Director Sargent indicated that the applicant proposed 565 on-site parking stalls,
which falls within the parking ratio range. In order to be granted the reduction
in required parking, the applicant would have to demonstrate adequate snow
removal by providing a detail snow removal plan.
Concerning circulation, access, traffic, emergency vehicle access, Director
Sargent stated there were 3 access points off of Xylon Avenue. He explained that
the northern-most access point would be used for deliveries and would run
along the backside of the property. The turnaround area was designed to
accommodate large semi-trucks or any type of delivery vehicles. The PUD
flexibility allowed driveway opening to be increased to 37 ft. in width to
accommodate larger vehicles accessing the site.
Director Sargent commented that the second of the three access points along
Xylon Avenue would be used for main east/west access corridor along the front
of the store. Future City Center plans call for this “street” to extend further east
to gain access onto Winnetka Avenue.
Director Sargent continued by stating the nine parking spaces in front of the
restaurant would have to be removed because of the need of a fire lane. He
further stated that staff felt this is in the best interest of the city and with the
recommendations from the West Metro Fire Department that there needs to be a
fire lane in this area. The driveway opening being increased to 40 feet in width
was the best use of PUD flexibility to accommodate traffic turning/access into
the site from one of the major entry points into this property.
Director Sargent reported that the southern access point, closest to Xylon and
42 Avenues, would be used for an ancillary east/west access corridor for the
nd
gas station and future office/retail building. The driveway lines up with the
northern Wells Fargo Bank driveway per recommendations of the traffic study.
He further reported that staff had concerns regarding the turning radii used for
large trucks accessing the gas station property, especially tight turns with snow.
Staff did get an amended version of turning radii detail plan, which will be
reviewed.
Currently, there is one access point off of 42 Avenue. That access point would
nd
serve as the main north/south corridor through the Hy-Vee site and has a right-
in, right-out turning configuration onto 42 Avenue or into this property.
nd
Director Sargent stated the main sidewalk would connect pedestrians from 42
nd
Avenue to the front entrance of the store. Ancillary sidewalks will help with
Planning Commission Meeting 3 August 6, 2014
connections from Xylon Avenue to the front of the grocery store and from Xylon
Avenue to the gas station/convenience store. He added that this configuration
had sidewalks on both sides of a landscaped median.
Director Sargent described the extensive landscape and screening plan around
Hy-Vee which meets all the minimum requirements. There was excessive
screening along north property line to help buffer the back of the building from
the residential property. Staff spoke with one of the managers of the complexes
to the north and he/she liked the idea of a buffer there. Director Sargent
mentioned that staff would like to see the types of shrubs and the number of
shrubs Hy-Vee would use and incorporate these into this plan as part of the
conditions of approval.
Director Sargent explained the lighting plan. He further explained there were
acceptable light levels throughout the development, although light levels were a
little short along the sidewalks.
Director Sargent mentioned that staff would continue to work with Hy-Vee to
incorporate some of the landscape elements as well as the pedestrian-scale
lighting elements into the plan that would be consistent with the Xylon Avenue
streetscape improvements.
Director Sargent mentioned the applicant would need some PUD flexibility with
the proposed signage. Staff encouraged the allowance of additional signage on
the back of the convenience store to help make the rear of the building more
aesthetically appealing. Staff, after review of the elevations on the front of the
building, agreed it had a proportional use of signage for the building, especially
for the types of uses in the building.
Director Sargent stated the applicant has proposed the use of monument signs
on Lots 2 and 3. These monument signs must meet the minimum setback
requirements, which is a condition of approval. There is some PUD flexibility for
all signs and sing plans will be reviewed and considered through the PUD
process.
Regarding the grading, drainage, and erosion control, Director Sargent reported
the applicant is proposing an underground storm water retention facility located
in the northeastern corner of the lot. A maintenance agreement will be needed
for this facility.
Director Sargent reviewed the design guidelines. The building materials meet
intent of the design guidelines. The applicant will use of precast exposed
aggregate, brick, EIFS, metal and glass. Differing articulations and parapet
heights throughout and this give the grocery store the appearance of a multi-
tenant building.
Director Sargent pointed out the snow removal area located on the western
parking lot. A comprehensive snow removal and management plan would need
Planning Commission Meeting 4 August 6, 2014
to be submitted in order to justify the reduction of parking spaces for the
property.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
proposed Preliminary and Final Plat approvals with the following conditions:
1.Hennepin County approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat.
2.The City Engineer approval of the width and location of all drainage
and utility easements.
3.The Preliminary and Final Plat provides a drainage and utility easement
over the underground storm water retention system. The applicant
shall provide for city approval a maintenance plan for the long term
maintenance and upkeep of the underground storm water retention
system.
4.The site grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
5.The Planning Commission waives the requirement for their review of
the Final Plat.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
rezoning of the property from CC, City Center District to PUD District with the
following conditions:
1.The city approves the land uses identified in the site plan. Any
additional future land uses must be allowed under the CC, City Center
Zoning District.
2.The city approves the building setbacks as shown in the approved site
plan.
3.Site Access. The applicant shall address the following site access issues
in a revised site plan, or other document as part of the final stage
submission for city review and approval:
a.Submission of cross access easements between the three lots in the
subdivision.
b. The right turn lane design from 42nd Avenue shall be subject to the
review and approval of Hennepin County and the city engineer.
c.The applicant must provide a cross easement in favor of the city to
allow the extension of private streets through the properties to the
east. This must preserve the opportunity to extend the main
driveway at the front of the grocery store east to Winnetka Avenue.
d.The site plan shall be revised to improve semi-truck access and
egress through Lot 2, utilizing recommendations as outlined in the
Northwest Associated Consultants staff report.
4.The city approves the curb cut locations and widths as shown on the
site plan.
5.Parking. The applicant shall address the following parking issues
through a revised site plan or other documents:
a.Applicant must provide a comprehensive snow plowing, snow
storage and/or snow removal plan for the entire PUD area to
qualify for the reduced number of parking stalls.
b.Drive aisles serving 90 degree parking stalls must be a minimum of
Planning Commission Meeting 5 August 6, 2014
24 feet in width.
c.The city approves the parking lot lengths abutting the public streets
as shown on the site plan.
d.All parking lots throughout the PUD shall maintain a minimum 10-
foot setback from all street rights-of-way.
e.Parking lots abutting public streets shall be screened with
landscaping approved by the city. The city will work with the
applicant to incorporate streetscape elements from Xylon Avenue
that may include such features as wrought iron fencing along Xylon
and 42 Avenues rights-of-way. Corresponding easements will be
nd
negotiated for the placements of these elements.
f.The applicant must remove the nine parking stalls adjacent to the
south side of the building and located in front of the restaurant
entrance. West Metro Fire and Rescue Department will designate
the area in front of the restaurant as a fire lane to ensure adequate
access to the restaurant in case of a fire.
6.Bicycle parking shall be provided on Lot 2. The convenience store entry
and sidewalk detail must show the location and number of bicycle
spaces.
7.Gas Sales: The plan set addressing the gas sales operation must meet the
following conditions:
a.The fuel pumps and canopy must be shifted to the northeast of the
current location to improve truck access and egress through Lot 2.
b.The façade of the gas canopy is limited to 3 feet in height.
c.All canopy lighting must be recessed into the canopy. No light
source may extend below the canopy ceiling.
8.Outdoor sales displays: The applicant shall revise the site plan to
illustrate locations and sizes of anticipated outdoor sales displays. Said
areas must meet city zoning standards. Sales displays shall be limited to
approved locations.
9.The lighting plan and landscape plan shall be approved with the
understanding that changes to both plans may occur given the final
approval of the Xylon Avenue streetscape design.
10.Additional lighting shall be provided along the internal sidewalk to
provide a minimum 2.0 foot candle light level.
11.Landscape Plan: The landscape plans must be revised to address the
following:
a.Landscaping along both 42 Avenue and Xylon Avenue must be
nd
coordinated with the city streetscape designs. A wrought iron
fence/decorative fence may be an additional element included in
these plans that would require easements from the applicant.
b.The L2 and L3 landscape details must identify the plant species and
numbers by location.
c.The landscape plan must provide additional landscape screening
along the drive-through service lane on Lot 2.
12.Building Design: The city approves the building designs based on the
building elevations with the following flexibilities and conditions:
a.The city approves the side window coverage of less than 20 percent
Planning Commission Meeting 6 August 6, 2014
based on the approved building elevations.
b.The applicant provides details of screening of rooftop equipment
from adjoining properties and public streets.
c.In addition to screening, the rooftop equipment shall be painted to
match the building.
d.The applicant shall address the back of the convenience store facing
Xylon Avenue by screening the drive service lane, increasing the
parapet height to match the front façade, consider tenant wall signs
on the west side of the building.
13.Sign Plan: The city approves the comprehensive sign plan as shown on
the building elevation, canopy elevation, and the monuments sign
details as part of the PUD with the following conditions:
a.The city approves the wall sign, locations, numbers and sizes as
illustrated on the building elevations for the grocery store.
b.The city approves the wall sign, locations, numbers and sizes as
illustrated on the building elevations for the convenience store.
c.The city approves flexibility to allow wall signs on the west side of
the convenience store.
d.The city approves flexibility for the number and location of the gas
canopy signs as illustrated on the canopy elevations.
e.The applicant must provide additional information on the size and
location of the proposed monument signs to ensure the sign can be
located to meet the required setbacks, will not obstruct traffic sight
lines and will be coordinated with the streetscape landscaping.
14.As this PUD proceeds to the Final Stage, the applicant will be required
to provide a final plat and final development plans that incorporate the
conditions of approval tied to the development stage. Additionally, the
applicant must provide for city review and approval all cross access
easements, association documents that outline maintenance and shared
costs for shared private streets, utilities, and storm water facilities. The
city will also require development and PUD agreements that will be
recorded against the property along with the final plat. All elements
related to the Final Stage PUD, and all required easements and
documents shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
15.The applicant shall comply with all requirements as outlined in the
West Metro Fire and Rescue memorandum dated July 20, 2014.
16.The applicant shall comply with all requirements as outlined in the
Stantec memorandum dated July 31, 2014.
Staff and representatives for the applicant were present to answer any
questions.
Chair Svendsen asked Director Sargent if he had spoken to Fire Inspector
Shelby Wolf, with the West Metro Fire and Rescue about her reasons for
requiring a fire lane in front of the restaurant area.
Director Sargent replied that, in speaking with Fire Inspector Wolf she stated
Planning Commission Meeting 7 August 6, 2014
that anytime there is a brand new building and the department can pick the
easiest access into that building they want to take advantage of that
opportunity. She further stated that it is consistent with big box retailers to
have a fire lane across the full front of the store.
Chair Svendsen questioned whether the fire lane was necessary even though
the Commission has another case coming up that does not have that
capability.
Director Sargent stated it could be the fact that the next case is a smaller
building that has three separate tenants rather than a big box retail site that is
more consistent with how those areas are addressed for fire lanes.
Chair Svendsen clarified that the final stage of the PUD may not be approved
tonight by this Commission but would go to the City Council for its final
approval.
Director Sargent confirmed that was correct. The Planning Commission will
approve the development stage with the understanding that the final stage
will ultimately be approved by the City Council and staff.
Commissioner Brinkman asked who would make the decision when someone
wants information about Lot 3, the proposed office/retail space.
Director Sargent reported it was being taken care of through the development
agreement with Anderson Companies or Hy-Vee to develop that site within
three years. If it is not developed in that time frame there are contingencies in
that development agreement that allows the city to step in and repurchase the
property.
Commissioner Brinkman asked if a person wanted to inquire about putting a
restaurant in the Lot 3 area.
Director Sargent replied that ultimately the development agreement would
have some contingencies to direct what types of uses everybody agrees could
be allowed on that site. For the actual construction of the site, Anderson
Companies would be required to come back to the Planning Commission for a
site plan review.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned the two areas going east-west from Xylon
to Winnetka Avenues and asked where these go through near Applebees.
Director Sargent clarified there is only one access point coming through the
middle to Winnetka Avenue. The city essentially does not know where that
road will be located until the City hears from the next developer for the next
phase of City Center. The second east-west access point would truncate at the
access point that is currently near Applebees.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 August 6, 2014
Commissioner Brinkman wondered there would be bicycle parking.
Director Sargent noted that the plans do not show any bicycle parking at the
convenience store and staff would like to see additional installed there. Al
Brixius, City Planner, mentioned the city asked Anderson Companies to
spread the bicycle parking around so it was available at each site.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether or not the lighting on the
sidewalk from 42 Avenue to the grocery store was correct.
nd
Director Sargent mentioned that staff has minimum requirements specifically
for the amount of illumination that should be cast on the sidewalk and there
are some areas on this plan that do not meet that minimum requirement. Staff
would like more lighting added so there is at least 2.0 foot candles on the
sidewalk.
Commissioner Brinkman stated that to get to the sidewalk from 42 Avenue,
nd
there would be a lot of walking traffic on 42 Avenue; would there be lighting
nd
out there as well.
Director Sargent stated that staff is working on the pedestrian-scale lighting
along with the Xylon Avenue streetscape and would incorporate those
elements on 42 Avenue.
nd
Mr. Brixius had one other lighting request on the east side of restaurant in the
outside dining area. Additional landscaping to screen the back of Winnetka
Center was also requested.
Phil Hoey, 2005 East Main, St Charles, Iowa was recognized. Mr. Hoey
introduced the Hy-Vee team.
Chair Svendsen noted there appeared to be a tree in the proposed road that
goes through to the east towards Winnetka Avenue North (“Winnetka
Avenue”) and asked Mr. Hoey to work with their landscape designer to save
the tree.
Chair Svendsen pointed out that the elevations noted for the grocery store
were wrong compass orientation on the plan. Mr. Hoey will have this
corrected.
Chair Svendsen asked Mr. Hoey’s opinion/comments on the nine parking
stalls in front of the restaurant.
Mr. Hoey explained that the restaurant is a newer concept for Hy-Vee. Market
Grill would be full service restaurant that will be competing with Applebees,
Granite City and other sit down, high quality restaurants. Those same
restaurants have “to go” service, pickup service, up front parking and other
elements. It becomes a critical component for Hy-Vee competing in that arena
Planning Commission Meeting 9 August 6, 2014
to have that parking up in front of our building.
Mr. Hoey continued by stating the nine stalls would be used for people to
come in to pick up products and/or pick up their food to go. Hy-Vee would
like to be able to serve those customers. Mr. Hoey understands the concern
about the safety from the fire department. He thinks there is an adequate fire
lane that has been provided in front of the building. Mr. Hoey would like fire
trucks to get to their building in an emergency and Hy-Vee wants to make
sure to accommodate that service. The Hy-Vee team believes there is plenty of
room to accommodate that service.
Commissioner Landy asked what time of day the trucks arrive to unload and
if the trucks shut their engines off during deliveries.
Mr. Hoey stated that trucks arrive at different times throughout the day and
night. Where the store director can he will work with the community to make
sure he is a good neighbor.
Commissioner Landy commented that the city and planning commission have
been looking at the Hy-Vee property for a long time and have had various
ideas of what the property should look like. One of the main ideas was to
include some sort of pedestrian mall coming from Winnetka Avenue all the
way through to Xylon Avenue. Commissioner Landy noticed this type of walk
was not in the final plan but he asked if Hy-Vee would be amicable to
something similar.
Mr. Hoey responded by stating that a pedestrian mall connection was planned
for and is a part of the city requirements were that Hy-Vee provide an
easement for that connection. Mr. Hoey thinks it is important for their
business as well.
Commission McKenzie noted there was a plan for future expansion of the
main building and asked Mr. Hoey to speak to that.
Mr. Hoey replied that Hy-Vee is a 90,000 sq. ft. store. Hy-Vee would like to
think and plan ahead for future expansion. The Market Grill is a newer
concept and Hy-Vee would like to leave themselves open for whatever the
next new concept may be. Mr. Hoey continued by explaining that the store
will operate as four separate businesses with the Market Grill, the food store,
the pharmacy, and the Hy-Vee wine and spirits. He wants to be prepared for
whatever the next great thing may be and put it in New Hope.
Commissioner McKenzie, referring to the contention with West Metro Fire
and Rescue concerning the nine parking stalls asked if Hy-Vee had an altered
plan or could the nine parking stalls be placed elsewhere and still have the
same function.
Mr. Hoey stated his team looked at alternatives. Hy-Vee understands both the
Planning Commission Meeting 10 August 6, 2014
staff’s position and the fire chief’s position. Hy-Vee team has looked for other
alternatives but has not been able to come up with any other ideas thus far.
They did look at space on the east side of the building but felt it would be too
far from the restaurant. Mr. Hoey believes that the present location of the nine
stalls is the best location.
Commission McKenzie asked Mr. Parks what he anticipates the maintenance
of the underground retention system to be, and will the system design work as
well in twenty years as it does today.
Mr. Parks from Westwood Engineering explained the system is a low ground
vault which is kind of a half moon shaped pipe. It is a StormTech product and
ranges in size between 2½ feet to 4½ feet. Hy-Vee is looking at the larger
chambers but is has not been entirely engineered, so it may end up being a
large diameter, perforated pipe such as a 4-5 foot diameter circular pipe. The
system is imbedded in rock with a couple of feet of rock below it. Within the
sand is a perforated drain tile pipe that provides some storage and additional
storm water treatment as the water goes through the sand.
The system Westwood has monitored the longest is at the Cub Foods in
Lakeville, Minnesota. Westwood has a video camera that is used to monitor
the system once a year.
Commissioner McKenzie asked if there were long term examples of the half-
moon system and was there long-term silting of the drain tile and losing
infiltration.
Mr. Parks stated that the long-term operation of the system becomes simply a
maintenance clearing issue. He could not point to any long-term examples of
the StormTech system that he has designed that was for more than 5-6 years
old.
Director Sargent added the city has requested an easement over the system so
if maintenance is not performed by Hy-Vee, the city could step in and do the
maintenance for them.
Commissioner McKenzie highly encouraged staff and the city engineer to
consider the long term and ease of maintenance on these systems. It may not
be as easy other systems on the market.
Commissioner McKenzie inquired about Hy-Vee’s sweeping maintenance
plan.
Mr. Hoey indicated the store manager is responsible for the keeping up the
maintenance. If the manager is not properly maintaining this lot he will have
to pay to have it repaired and he is very incentivized so that those costs stay
low.
Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 6, 2014
Chair Svendsen invited the public to come forward and address the
Commission.
The following persons addressed the Planning Commission:
Mark Jennings, 6020 Virginia Avenue North;
Robert Durand, Plymouth Minnesota;
Susan Beaubaire, 4617 Ensign Avenue North;
Rick Riley, 8001 37 Avenue North.
th
Concerns included the following:
1.Is the drainage system designed to withstand a 100-year flood event?
If it does not hold up, who would be liable for the damage?
2.How does the sign request compare to what Kmart had for their
signs?
3.Screening of Hy-Vee property versus existing mall (behind Hy-Vee)
with landscaping.
4.City staff said surveys done; has not seen public results of those
surveys.
5.What are the proposed hours of operation for the store?
6.Proposed estimated customer count per day.
7.City’s survey results concerning Hy-Vee.
8.When considering the landscaping, would be feasible to incorporate
native Minnesota plantings or edible plants?
9.Has the applicant considered moving the restaurant to the west side to
help with the nine stall parking question and the views are nicer.
10.Future parking to the west, what is it, why is it and whether or not the
restaurant nine parking stalls could be put there.
11.Concerning city ideas and the past vision from the old commissions,
how many Planning Commission member were around then (yes
Chair S & Landy and around when did first go)?
Chair Svendsen wrote down all questions from public. He called the petitioner
forward and addressed each question as follows:
Chair Svendsen read Mark Jennings first question asking if the drainage
design was adequate for a 100-year floods.
Mr. Parks indicated that a significant 100-year flood event could be 6-7 inches
of rainfall within 24 hours. If this were to happen the water would puddle in
the Kmart side then overflow to the south to 42 Avenue. The proposed site
nd
has similar characteristics with the water standing in the parking lot and when
the level rises to a certain height, the water still goes to 42 Avenue. However,
nd
the site will discharge a significant less volume and discharge rate than
presently occurring due to the storm water vault and the additional green
surface.
Mr. Parks pointed out that the storm water management design meets all rules
from the city and the watershed in terms of how Hy-Vee will handle storm
Planning Commission Meeting 12 August 6, 2014
water discharges.
Director Sargent spoke to Mr. Jennings question concerning the amount of
signage. He has no data as to what the percentage it was to the Kmart
building. Staff looked at the amount of Hy-Vee’s signage and felt the signage
is adequate and adequately proportioned.
Mr. Brixius mentioned that by the city’s ordinance the applicant would be
entitled to up to 15% of the building face for signage. For the grocery store it is
at 6.5% based on 623 sq. ft. of combined signage. The flexibility Hy-Vee is
asking for is the multiple signs.
Mr. Jennings question concerning the possible screening the back of the Hy-
Vee property at the existing mall was addressed by Director Sargent. There is
some concern with the back of store on the property to the east.
Director Sargent stated that staff would be speaking with the owner of the
existing mall to find out what considerations he can make to the back of the
existing mall to dress it up. There are no requirements from staff to screen
buildings adjacent to Hy-Vee. Staff feels Hy-Vee’s landscape plan for
screening from adjacent residential zoned property is adequate.
Chair Svendsen stated that Mr. Jennings next question concerned survey
responses are not a part of this commission’s responsibility.
Director Sargent responded and explained that there were two surveys; one
survey was through the open house. Director Sargent believes the response
from that survey was around 80% in favor of Hy-Vee and the remainder either
did not want to see Hy-Vee built or had some indifference of opinion on it.
Director Sargent stated that the results of online survey showed 75% of the
respondents being for the project, and the remaining 25% being either in the
middle or did not want the project to proceed. The number of results the city
received for the open house survey was approximately 100; and close to 200
surveys were received from the online survey.
Chair Svendsen read Mr. Jennings question concerning the hours of operation
for the grocery store and different elements.
Mr. Hoey replied that Hy-Vee is basically a 24-hour operation, with the
exception of the liquor store.
Chair Svendsen asked Mr. Hoey if Hy-Vee has done any customer count
projections. Mr. Hoey did not want to share that information as it is
proprietary.
Chair Svendsen explained to Robert Durant, that his questions were mostly
business orientated questions rather than design related and referred Mr.
Planning Commission Meeting 13 August 6, 2014
Durant to the City Council to answer his questions.
Chair Svendsen stated that Ms. Beaubaire ‘s question concerned landscaping
and the inclusion of native Minnesota plantings and possible edible plantings.
Mr. Hoey indicated their landscape engineer was not present tonight. Mr. Parks
indicated that Hy-Vee would like to use native plantings. All of the trees Hy-Vee
plans to use, such as boulevard trees, ornamental trees, a variety of pines trees,
spruces, and conifers are all native to Minnesota; however, it does not include
native grasses.
Chair Svendsen referred Ms. Beaubaire to the city forester who has a list of
acceptable plantings that all applicants will work towards.
Chair Svendsen continued to address questions from the public specifically Mr.
Riley who asked if it was feasible to move the restaurant to the west side of the
building where there are better views.
Mr. Hoey addressed Mr. Riley’s question by stating Hy-Vee tried to design their
building in a way to fit into whatever is going to happen in the future. Hy-Vee’s
hope is that in Phase II or the next redeveloper beyond Hy-Vee would develop a
project that would tie in nicely with what is going to happen.
Chair Svendsen asked if Mr. Hoey had any comments about the future
expansion to the west.
Mr. Hoey could not answer cannot answer questions about the future expansion
to the west because he does not know. Mr. Hoey indicated he would like to have
the flexibility for the future.
Chair Svendsen indicated that the last question goes to the Commission
regarding the past commissions that worked on the vision ideas and all the time
and effort put into that project.
Commissioner Landy stated that the city had to switch its thinking to something
other than an Excelsior and Grand concept because that concept no longer
works. Commissioner Landy feels that Hy-Vee is probably the best concept for
the property. Hopefully the city can redevelop the other two parcels with
something similar to what commissioners previously wanted. Commissioner
Landy believes Hy-Vee will draw a lot of people.
Chair Svendsen asked if there was anybody else in the audience that would like
to come forward for the public hearing, he asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further discussion from the
Commission or other questions to staff. There was none.
Planning Commission Meeting 14 August 6, 2014
Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8-0
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman to
Item 4.1 make approval of Planning Case 14-09, request preliminary and final plat,
rezoning of certain property from CC, City Center District to PUD and a site
plan review to allow construction of a retail grocery store, convenience store,
gas station, and future office/retail building known as Hy-Vee, Inc., 4300
Xylon Avenue North, is subject to everything that was put in our packet and
staff’s additions.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, English, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
Chair Svendsen stated this Planning Case would go forward to the City
Council on Monday, August 25, 2014 at 7 p.m
Planning Case 14-07
Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, Planning Case 14-07, Request for
Item 4.2
Preliminary and Final Plat, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a 4,600 square
foot multi-tenant retail building with drive-through and outdoor patio, known
as Winnetka Commons, 3540 Winnetka Avenue North, Aric Lasky, petitioner.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich, community development specialist, stated that the
applicant is proposing to add a 4,656 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building at the
existing Winnetka Commons shopping center. The applicant would subdivide
the current lot to create this new lot for the purposed development. The
requested Planned Unit Development (PUD) would allow for flexibility and
shared parking, storm water, and access arrangements. The proposal includes
filling in an existing storm water retention pond to make room for this new
building.
The types of requests for this development include Preliminary and Final Plat,
Site Plan Review, and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the PUD.
Mr. Chirpich explained that the applicant proposed to subdivide the existing
parcel to create two new lots. The new parcel would be located in the
northwest corner and cover approximately .83 acres. The new parcel will share
existing access and parking with the Winnetka Commons shopping center.
Mr. Chirpich stated the new parcel would require cross access and parking
easements, which would have to be recorded with the county.
Mr. Chirpich continued that by stating the proposed building would be
partially positioned over an existing drainage pond. This pond and
Planning Commission Meeting 15 August 6, 2014
surrounding area is covered by a city owned easement. The easement would
have to be officially vacated through City Council action.
The pond would be replaced with an underground storm water storage
system to be located under the parking lot. This new system would be subject
to newly created cross easements and would require an approved facility
maintenance plan.
This project will increase the density of the site due to the lot subdivision and
would require a park dedication fee. The maximum fee for commercial
subdivisions is $2,500 per acre. The proposed development of .83 acres will yield
a fee of $2,075.
Mr. Chirpich indicated the proposed development will share existing access
points on 36 Avenue and Winnetka with the other parcels. Truck maneuvering
th
details for fire and delivery trucks have been provided by the applicant
illustrating acceptable site circulation for these larger vehicles. Mr. Chirpich
stated that the drive-through service lane is an administrative use in the CB
district. Its design is subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
The city’s Design Guidelines direct that primary building entrances be linked to
public walkways. The site indicates one direct sidewalk connection to Winnetka
Avenue. The sidewalk connection presents the following concerns for staff.
1.The sidewalk is shown at 3 feet wide and code requires a minimum of 5
feet.
2.The sidewalk crosses the drive-through lane just after the service
window. Staff was concerned pedestrians would not be seen for the
folks that are exiting that drive-through service lane.
The site limits the available locations for pedestrian access. To reduce safety
concerns the following options may be considered:
1.Provide a wider sidewalk (5 foot minimum).
2.Redesign the landscape plan to open sight lines where the sidewalk
enters the drive-through lane crosswalk.
3.Add signage for the crosswalk.
4.Elevate the pavement within the crosswalk to act as a speed bump.
Mr. Chirpich informed the planning commission that in considering this
pedestrian access it must determine if the recommended improvements are
sufficient. If not, the city may forego this sidewalk connection to Winnetka
Avenue. Staff feels it is an important part of the way the site functions in total.
Mr. Chirpich added that the site design does not provide a sidewalk connection
to the front of the building from 36 Avenue.
th
Mr. Chirpich reported that the property is zoned CB, which is the underlying
district used when assessing property. The overlay of the PUD would provide
some flexibility.
Planning Commission Meeting 16 August 6, 2014
Mr. Chirpich expressed the following concerns from staff:
1.Setbacks in the CB district are intended to promote store fronts that are
closer to and facing the street. Staff feels that the southerly shift away
from 36 Avenue is sufficient. This orientation is a different set of
th
circumstances than just looking at the base setbacks for a CB district.
2.The setbacks in the CB district are intended to push the fronts of
buildings towards the sidewalks to create the front loading of
storefronts and pedestrian interchange. This layout has the back of
building with the addition of a drive-through service lane pushed up to
this intersection so it is not meeting the intent of these reduced setbacks
within the district. This is why staff has some concerns related to the
setbacks even though the applicant is technically meeting the CB district
requirements.
3.At the Design and Review Committee staff did discuss this with the
applicant and they did make some changes. The applicant shifted the
building from 36 Avenue in a southerly direction and staff feels that
th
shift was adequate.
4.Although the proposed building layout meets the setback requirement
of the CB district, staff would still like to see the building pushed farther
to the east.
Staff felt the service lane would create an issue for snow storage and
5.
removal by blowing snow from the drive-through service lane onto the
sidewalk on both streets. For this reason staff would not deliver on the
intent of that setback.
As far as parking, Mr. Chirpich indicated that the requirements call for one off
street parking stall for each 200 sq. ft. of adjusted building space. Parking is
calculated for this project by looking at the total site. Using the appropriate
calculations the applicant is required to provide 212 parking spaces. The site
design currently provides a total of 241, exceeding the standard by 30.
Bicycle parking is required for all commercial land uses within the CB district.
Code requires a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces plus one additional space per 30
automobile parking stalls. There are currently no bicycle parking spaces in the
shopping center. The applicant is proposing 12 new bicycle parking spaces to be
disbursed through the entire site.
Concerning landscaping, Mr. Chirpich reported that seven mature trees that line
Winnetka and 36 Avenues will be removed. The applicant has proposed the
th
planting of seven new deciduous trees on the site. The landscape plan also calls
for the planting of several deciduous shrubs along the north and west property
lines hugging the drive through lane, which would provide screening of the
building, parking, and drive-through lane making that corner more attractive.
Various other shrubs, grasses, and perennials would be planted throughout the
site to compliment the larger elements. Staff feels the overall landscape plan
meets the city’s intent.
Mr. Chirpich, in discussing the fencing and screening, stated that elevation
Planning Commission Meeting 17 August 6, 2014
details show adequate screening of the proposed trash enclosure. Materials used
on the enclosure match those of the primary building; however, the setback
indicated on the site plan for the enclosure does not meet code and will have to
be moved 2 feet further from Winnetka Avenue. Roof top equipment will be
screened by building parapets. The outdoor dining patio will be screened with
fencing. The proposed fencing and screening meets the requirements of the city.
Mr. Chirpich reported that the photometric plan submitted by the applicant
shows a compliant lighting layout as it relates to light levels. The applicant will
have to produce cut sheets that detail the exact fixtures once selected to ensure
full compliance.
As far as the signage is concerned, Mr. Chirpich indicated that The applicant
intends to re-locate the existing monument sign serving the shopping center to
the north end of property. The three individual retail spaces would have wall
mounted signs on both the front and back of the building. There would also be a
wall mounted sign on the northwest corner of the building. The signs on the
back of the building would help promote a faux store front effect along with
some other elements incorporated to the building design to dress up the both
36 and Winnetka Avenues.
th
Mr. Chirpich informed the commissioners of the storm water and drainage
system. The applicant proposed to remove the existing surface level storm water
detention pond and replace it with an underground corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) detention system. The storm water and grading plan must be approved
by the city engineer and meet watershed district requirements. Access
easements would have to be created for the new system, and a maintenance
plan detailing the operations of the system would have to be approved by the
city.
Mr. Chirpich explained the design guideline compliance. The applicant has
created visual differences on the building by using a combination of EIFS, glass,
metal, and concrete masonry units. These materials are acceptable for use, but
the applicant would have to indicate on the plan the percentage breakdown of
each material on each elevation to ensure full compliance. The color scheme
proposed will blend in with the existing shopping center with the use of similar
colors.
The accessory outdoor dining area is an administrative use in the CB district.
Mr. Chirpich noted the proposed dining area includes three tables and a
screening fence. The design generally meets requirements, but to receive a
permit the applicant would have to provide additional details regarding the
storage of any removable outdoor furniture and provide refuse containers if the
patio is self-service.
For snow storage, Mr. Chirpich explained that the applicant proposed to
designate ten percent of their parking lot for snow storage. The additional
parking provided in the design will help provide more snow storage. If there is
Planning Commission Meeting 18 August 6, 2014
demand for additional parking during the winter snow will be hauled off-site or
melted with commercial equipment. The snow melting option would be
reviewed against the design of the underground retention system. The applicant
would be required to provide a narrative that describes events or benchmarks
that would trigger melting or hauling.
Mr. Chirpich recommends that the proposed building and site design generally
meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, city code, and design guidelines.
However, during staff review for a CUP for PUD, a recommendation was made
that the building be relocated to increase the setback from Winnetka Avenue.
The applicant feels strongly that this adjustment is not warranted. Because of
this disagreement, staff does not recommend approval of the proposal.
Staff offered the following options for the Planning Commission to pursue:
1.Table the application pending submission of a revised site plan to
include the setback adjustment.
2.Recommend denial of the application.
3.Recommend approval with the following conditions:
a.The applicant shall pay park dedication in the amount of
$2,075.00 prior to recording the final plat.
b.The plat and title is subject to the review and approval of the
City attorney and Hennepin County.
c.The existing drainage easement for the storm water pond being
filled in would be officially vacated and recorded with the
county.
d.The city engineer and public works director will review and
approve the location and widths of the proposed drainage and
utility easements.
e.The grading, drainage, and storm water treatment plans shall
be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and
Bassett Creek Watershed District.
f.A cross easement for drainage must be created and recorded
against the properties for the underground storm water storage
system.
g.The applicant must submit for review and approval by the City,
an underground storm water facility maintenance and upkeep
plan that outlines the terms for maintenance, repair, and
cleaning of the facility, as well as the distribution of costs
between the two lots. This agreement will be recorded against
the properties.
h.The City Fire Inspector and City Engineer shall review and
approve the utility plans, hydrant locations, and fire connection
location.
i.The applicant shall provide lighting cut sheets illustrating the
light fixtures, and pole heights of all exterior light fixtures.
j.The applicant shall enter into a development agreement
prepared by the City Attorney that outlines all conditions of
approval and secures all site improvements.
Planning Commission Meeting 19 August 6, 2014
k.The applicant must obtain all required permits and inspections
prior to opening.
l.Shared access and parking easements will need to be provided
over applicable areas on both lots and such documents shall be
approved by the City attorney and recorded against the
properties.
m.A maintenance agreement outlining the terms for sweeping,
snow removal, parking lot maintenance, and repair must be
submitted for city review and approval by the City Attorney
and recorded against the properties.
n.The applicant must provide detail on the selected bike racks.
o.The applicant must provide a revised site plan addressing the
pedestrian access recommendations.
p.Building materials must comply with the standards of the New
Hope Design Guidelines.
q.The trash enclosure must be setback a minimum of 20 feet from
the west lot line.
Chair Svendsen asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Brinkman was concerned that staff didn’t recommend approval
of the application.
Mr. Chirpich indicated that at this time staff had not reached an agreement on
the setback question. Staff chose to leave the space open for the Commission to
weigh in on the setback issue.
Mr. Brixius commented that for this specific recommendation staff and Public
Works personnel looked at the site from a development preview aspect. Staff
looked at a 10-foot setback between the drive aisle, the service aisle, and the
edge of right-of-way for Winnetka Avenue. He pointed out that concerns were
raised over the width of Winnetka, snowplowing and cleaning out of the
sidewalk as to whether Public Works would have sufficient area to store snow
in that location. Presently, the city uses a large easement to store snow this
area. Mr. Chirpich added that staff is concerned that pushing snow or blowing
of the sidewalk, crews would be blowing the snow into the applicant’s service
lane and the applicant would reciprocate by cleaning their service lane out in
the other direction.
The recommendation that was made by staff to the Design and Review
Committee was to shift the building east 10-15 feet. Presently, there are six
parking stalls on the east side of the building and the loss of those six stalls
would not result in the city becoming deficient in parking by code standards.
Additionally, staff felt that with the elimination of those stalls the applicant
could install a sidewalk off of Winnetka Avenue. Staff believes these changes
would satisfy all the conditions that are necessary. The applicant does not
agree with those recommendations.
Planning Commission Meeting 20 August 6, 2014
Chair Svendsen asked if there were any other questions of staff.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the city or the county plowed Winnetka
Avenue; does the county have any say in the snow storage/removal along
Winnetka and has the county seen the plat for this project.
Mr. Brixius believes the county plows the roads. The county would review the
plat because it is adjacent to a county road but Mr. Brixius was unsure if the
county had reviewed the plat.
Mr. Chirpich remarked that the issue is not who plows Winnetka Avenue but
more so the width of Winnetka Avenue and clearing of the city sidewalks.
Chair Svendsen mentioned that the applicant is a new ownership group to this
shopping center and past practices are no longer in place.
There being no further questions of the Planning Commission, Chair Svendsen
asked the applicant to come forward.
Kendra Lindahl with Landform, 105 S Fifth Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ms. Lindahl indicated she had members of the architecture and engineering
team with her. Ms. Lindahl expressed that her team was extremely
disappointed that staff’s recommendation went from giving the Commission
options, to giving a recommendation for denial.
She stated that Landform has worked hard to balance the private property
rights with the public’s needs. She continued by stating that part of the
challenge the applicant may be facing is a misunderstanding of what a
drainage and utility easement is used for. Ms. Lindahl noted that a drainage
and utility easement in favor of the city is to allow the city to come in and
maintain the pond should it fail. But that existing pond is sized for the
development not for public street snow storage.
Ms. Lindahl stated that the applicant certainly wants to work with the city and
they do have a snow removal plan that maintains the snow on their property.
The applicant believes the sidewalk snow removal and the removal of snow in
the drive lane can be accommodated. She added that the applicant has
complied with or exceeded all ordinance requirements.
Ms. Lindahl explained that this is a really nice looking building, and it is going
to help drive redevelopment in this corridor. She added that the baseline from
the applicant’s perspective is that this project exceeds all requirements.
The applicant submitted a letter stating it cannot accommodate the city’s snow
storage on this pond; it is not designed for it. Ms. Lindahl continued by
explaining that the applicant certainly would work with the city to make sure
normal maintenance can occur but she want to be clear that this is not a
storage area; the pond is for the applicant’s site. She stated that they increased
Planning Commission Meeting 21 August 6, 2014
the setback four to six times what is required under the ordinance to address
the snow removal.
Ms. Lindahl advised that the applicant would widen the sidewalk to five feet.
Ms. Lindahl reported that the applicant is a little limited on space at the corner
of Winnetka and 36 Avenues due to several utility boxes. However, she
th
stated the applicant could make a sidewalk fit.
Ms. Lindahl asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the
project based on the finding that the applicant meets or exceeds all ordinance
requirements.
Chair Svendsen questioned the pedestrian access from 36 Avenue, noting
th
that neighboring residents often access the properties in wheelchairs.
Ms. Lindahl responded that the applicant certainly agreed with Chair
Svendsen but when the building was shifted east to accommodate the green
space, the applicant lost the ability to install access from 36 Avenue.
th
Commissioner Schmidt inquired as to how many spaces would be lost.
Ms. Lindahl replied that under what staff was recommending the applicant
would lose six parking spaces.
Commissioner Schmidt did not think that six was a large number.
Ms. Lindahl replied that the number is not large yet the proximity of those
spaces is really important for the business to succeed.
Commissioner Schmidt replied that a customer using those six parking spaces
would still need to walk across the drive lane to get to the three new
businesses.
Chair Svendsen asked Ms. Lindahl to explain the grade issues to the north. He
feels the grade issues would be on the Winnetka Avenue side of the property.
Mr. Brixius commented that staff did recognize the adjustments offered by the
applicant and there is a correction to be made. The adjustment of 17 feet is off
of 36 Avenue. The adjustment of off of Winnetka Avenue is 3 feet so the city
th
only has 13 feet off of the Winnetka Avenue sidewalk.
Mr. Brixius stated that a sidewalk connection could be brought to the front of
the building. The six parking spaces are not going to be well viewed from
eastbound traffic on 36th Avenue that is entering the site at that location.
Backing out into that major traffic drive aisle is a concern.
Mr. Brixius stated that the subdivision cannot occur without the PUD
approval or the vacation of easement. The applicant is asking the city for a
Planning Commission Meeting 22 August 6, 2014
considerable consideration in allowing this development.
Mike Bowman, Landform Engineer stated the location of the sidewalk chose
worked best for the grades of the site. He stated that the area to the northeast
was relatively flat. Based on Landform’s survey the connection in the
northeast corner is actually three feet lower than the building and cannot be
made ADA compliant. The applicant feels the location shown is very close to
the existing crosswalks on Winnetka and 36 Avenues. There are no
th
crosswalks on the northeast side of 36 Avenue.
th
Commissioner Schmidt replied that there should be sidewalks on both sides of
the drive lane to the shopping center.
Mr. Bowman stated that in this case, the grades would not allow an Americans
with Disabilities (ADA) compliant sidewalk in the area; the sidewalk would be
above the 5% threshold required by the ADA.
Ms. Lindahl responded that applicant could look at the sidewalk again with
the understanding that the sidewalk on the east side could not be ADA
compliant. The applicant could put a crosswalk at the drive-through entrance.
Ms. Lindahl indicated that the applicant’s bigger concern is what feels like a
taking of the property without compensation. She commented that the
applicant would not have a snow storage problem. She thinks the 13 feet and
17 feet of green space between the drive aisle and the property line are more
than adequate for the applicant’s snow storage. Mr. Lindahl commented that
the PUD allows sharing of parking in this center, to allow redevelopment and
expansion of business in the community. She added that the applicant does
not feel it can shift the building anymore and have a viable project.
Chair Svendsen asked Ms. Lindahl to explain why she feels the city is taking
part of the applicant’s property for the city’s snow storage.
Ms. Lindahl indicated that the applicant has the green space on their site and
they exceed all ordinance requirements so it is unclear why the city would not
stay with its setback requirements but is asking the applicant to push the
building further back from the street.
Mr. Brixius spoke of some issues. He stated that the applicant needs a PUD to
make the property subdividible. The property without PUD approval would
not meet the city’s requirements because it does not have direct access. He also
mentioned that the need for the increased setbacks would aid in snow removal
from the sidewalks along Winnetka Avenue.
Mr. Brixius also commented that the removal of the six parking stalls would
be beneficial as vehicles would not have to back into a major drive aisle. Until
staff is satisfied that the site functions for both the city and the applicant Mr.
Brixius does not believe staff is ready to make a recommendation of approval.
Planning Commission Meeting 23 August 6, 2014
Chair Svendsen asked if the Commission had any other comments for the
applicant.
Commissioner McKenzie asked if the applicant has been on-site on a Saturday
morning in the spring when the parking lot is full.
Ms. Lindahl mentioned that the project team has had folks there in the spring.
Mr. Bowman commented that the parking lot does get quite full, that is why
the applicant is trying to maximize the parking.
Chair Svendsen opened up the public hearing to anyone in the audience.
Mark Jennings, 6020 Virginia Ave N;
Rick Riley, 8001 37 Ave N.
th
Concerns included the following:
1.Is the drainage system designed to withstand a 100-year flood event?
2.Proposal for the maintenance of the new landscaping.
3.Trash containers for the rest of the shopping center because there are
some deficiencies.
4.Notification of the renters within 350 feet
5.Parking, especially on weekends when it blocks the alley behind the
center.
6.Where do the park dedications funds go to.
7.Got rid of a natural area and added a parking lot.
8.Why a park dedication fee for this application but not for Hy-Vee?
9.Loss of wildlife area?
Chair Svendsen asked Mr. Bowman if he had adequately research the 100-year
flood events.
Mr. Bowman informed that the applicant would be actually storing more
water with the underground system than the pond did. The applicant would
not be discharging any higher rates, it would be lower.
Chair Svendsen asked if Mr. Bowman could answer questions about the
maintenance of landscape and how that would be accomplished.
Ms. Lindahl mentioned that the owner would have a maintenance agreement
between the two properties for both the parking and landscaping. The
applicant would have one company maintaining the landscaping for the entire
center. The applicant would have private agreements for the maintenance that
would be submitted to the city for review.
Chair Svendsen asked if Mr. Lindahl had a comment on the trash enclosures
on the new project.
Ms. Lindahl understands there are some challenges with the existing center
Planning Commission Meeting 24 August 6, 2014
and she has talked with the new land owners and this is something they are
willing to work on.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was a plan in place to remodel the
existing center to match the new building.
Ms. Lindahl was not aware of a plan at this point.
Chair Svendsen stated that the parking lot fills up quickly especially in the
spring.
Director Sargent responded to this comment. The applicant meets all the city’s
minimum requirements and has an excessive amount of parking of 30 stalls
even with the proposed development. The number of parking stalls on-site
should not be a determining factor when making a recommendation.
Chair Svendsen asked Director Sargent to speak to the notification
requirements.
Director Sargent explained that the city’s legal requirement is to notify all
property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. A notification was
given only to property owners not individual renters of property.
Director Sargent answered Mr. Jennings about legal notification. The city’s
requirements are to post notification in the city’s legal newspaper, which is the
Sun Post. Mr. Jennings could call the Sun Post and ask why he is not getting it
delivered. He added that the city does have extra copies at city hall.
Director Sargent responded to the question regarding park dedication fees.
The ordinance is to accommodate new users of a property. In this case, the
developer cannot set aside land and there is a cash option which is more
typical because land is scarce in a first ring suburb. Those calculations are per
the ordinance, and in this case it is $2500.00 per acre for commercial.
Director Sargent stated that the reason why this property requires a park
dedication fee is because a new parcel is being created. Director Sargent
indicated that to use the money from park dedication There are specific
requirements that must be met when using the park dedication money. It can
be used for new park land, maintenance and upkeep of parks, but it cannot be
used to buy new structures. The money is put in a general fund for park use
and then distributed, as need, to where it can be used per city ordinance.
Staff was concerned that this area could possibly be a wetland. The applicant
obtained a wetland delineation for this area and it was determined that it was
not a wetland but was a man-made structure; for that reason the pond could
be removed with no mitigation of the pond.
Chair Svendsen replied to Mr. Riley’s question concerning the pond. The
Planning Commission Meeting 25 August 6, 2014
seven trees removed around the pond would be a one for one replacement.
Chair Svendsen responded that as far as the empty space in this shopping
center, he is sure the applicant has a plan of what they are going to do and that
does not concern this Commission at this time.
Mark Jennings pointed out that his question concerning customers parking in
the back of the center where you cannot get through on weekends was not
addressed.
Chair Svendsen stated that the parking issues in the back of the center is
something the applicant needs to talk with the lease holders about and that is
not part of the application.
Motion Motion by Commissioner McKenzie, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Svendsen asked if there was any additional discussion at the Committee
level.
Commissioner McKenzie had a question for the city engineer.
Chris Long, city engineer.
Commissioner McKenzie stated that his questions were based on a memo
dated July 31, number 5 underneath the utilities portion that seem to conflict
with what was said of the applicant’s engineer. He quickly summarized as
follows:
In summary, part A, the 72” diameter CMP storage detention system does not
match the supporting HydroCAD analysis and should be updated. The details
of the underground system need to be provided. The proposed plans do not
show pre-treatment of the parking structure.
Mr. Long believes the applicant does a HydroCAD analysis that provides
documentation about how the storm water goes in and flows out and there
were some numbers that were conflicting on that. The storm water team is
generally in support of the system.
Commissioner McKenzie asked what storm sewer design this system was for.
Mr. Long replied that he does not know but he believes it is for 100-year
overflow, he is not sure what level, perhaps a 10-year and a 100-year event or
maybe a 5-year event, but it would be overflowing to 36th Avenue.
Commissioner McKenzie asked Mr. Long to give his opinion if this size
adequately.
Planning Commission Meeting 26 August 6, 2014
Mr. Long responded that it appears to be sized adequately according to his
storm water team.
Commissioner Landy understands why staff brought this to the Planning
Commission. He respects the system that is in place. Commissioner Landy
does support the staff in what they do, so he was not supportive in approving
the project.
Mr. Brixius commented that when staff looked at this, they thought it was an
opportunity to put some additional economic development. The issue remains
the setback off the street. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff
recommendation on shifting the building, Mr. Brixius strongly recommends
either it is approved with the condition that staff gets a 7 foot shift to the east
with the provision of a sidewalk on the east side of the building, or to table the
proposal so the applicant can submit a revised plan that follows the
conditions.
Chair Svendsen explained to the Commission that there are three ways to
progress.
Commissioner Schmidt would like to know what the applicant would like the
Planning Commission to do.
Ms. Lindahl stated that she does not want the Commission to deny the project.
Since the applicant exceeded all the ordinance requirements she would like
approval with the conditions in the staff report. Ms. Lindahl does not believe
there is room for compromise with staff so she does not think tabling the
application is helpful.
Ms. Lindahl would ask that the Planning Commission would either approve
the project as recommended or recommend approval with the condition that
the building be shifted an additional 7 feet to the east. Ms. Lindahl’s team
would look it and probably make the same argument to the Council.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 14-07 with the seven conditions as stated in the
proposal with the 8 condition of shifting the building 7 feet to the east and
th
the 9 condition of the sidewalk access from 36th Avenue to meet ADA.
th
Voting in favor: Brinkman, English, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
Chair Svendsen stated this Planning Case would go forward with the nine
conditions added to the City Council on Monday, August 25, 2014 at 7 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting 27 August 6, 2014
Mr. Brixius mentioned that there needs to be a motion for approval of the
preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report
and approval of the PUD.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie to
approve the preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions outlined in
the staff report and approval of the PUD.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, English, Gehring, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Houle, Nirgudé
Motion approved.
COMMITTEE REPORTS Director Sargent responded there would be nothing for the September 18
Design and Review
Design and Review meeting. Centra Homes ran into some storm water issues
Item 5.1
in designing the pond. Staff does not know if they will be coming back to the
Commission in September or when they will be ready.
Codes and Standards Nothing to report.
Item 5.2
NEW BUSINESS Director Sargent mentioned that the City Council would like to have some
dialogue with the Planning Commission. The next available time would be at
the September 15 work session meeting. Chair Svendsen and Commissioners
Landy and Brinkman volunteered.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 7.1 approve the April 10, 2014 and June 3, 2014 Planning Commission minutes.
All voted in favor.
Motion approved.
Director Sargent explained that the City Council approved an ordinance that
would allow the number of Planning Commission members to go down to ten.
If the number ever went below ten, staff would go through a process of getting a
tenth person back on the Commission.
Director Sargent announced that Commissioner Dumonceaux resigned today as
he would be moving out of New Hope.
Chair Svendsen questioned the status of Scout and their CUP for outdoor
storage. Director Sargent stated he would check on that application.
ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting 28 August 6, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Deb Somers
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 29 August 6, 2014