110105 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 2005
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; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to
order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy, Pat Crough,
Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill
Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Roger Axel, Building Official (at meeting for Item 5.2 only),
Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC05-13 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, consideration of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(4)(h)(11)
Item 4.1
regulating acceptable parking and driveway surfaces in all zoning
districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, explained that
staff had worked with the Codes and Standards Committee over the last
several months on several minor code amendments recommended by
inspections staff.
Mr. McDonald stated that this ordinance amendment would clarify
acceptable materials for parking surfaces and require hard surface
driveways for newly constructed homes in the R-1 and R-2 zoning
districts. At this time, front yard storage for boat trailers, etc. requires
areas to be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage.
Many situations have arisen where years ago the property owner may
have laid down plastic with rock over the top and through the years the
plastic deteriorated and grass is now growing though the gravel. The
recommended code change is to include a list of acceptable paving
materials, such as bituminous, concrete, or pavers, and stating that a
covering permitting the growth of grass is not acceptable.
The current code does not require paved driveways in the R-1 and R-2
zoning districts. Some older homes have dirt or gravel driveways. Staff
was not recommending that the code change be retro active and force
those property owners to pave their driveways. McDonald pointed out
that there is no place in the current code that requires any new
construction to install a paved driveway. There are several scattered site
single and two-family dwelling unit redevelopment projects underway,
therefore, staff recommended the code be amended to require all new
construction to have a hard surface for driveway purposes.
The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the
changes and recommends approval.
Clarification was offered as to the surfacing material for a parking stall
next to the driveway, and upon ordinance adoption, a hard surface would
be required.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the portion of the ordinance relating to
driveways for five or more vehicles requiring approval from the city
engineer. McDonald noted that verbiage was in the current code.
It was noted that this ordinance would apply to all expanded driveways
and new construction. Any homeowner with an existing dirt or gravel
driveway who wanted to redo the driveway would be required to install a
hard surface rather than redo it with gravel. Commissioner Oelkers
wondered whether a driveway replacement would be required with a
point of sale inspection and was told no. McDonald added that the intent
was for new construction and parking areas.
Commissioner Crough suggested replacing the word “bituminous” with
“asphalt.” He questioned whether or not “hard surface” material should
be replaced with “impervious” material. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney,
stated that bituminous was the language currently in the code, but asphalt
could be inserted. Discussion ensued on different surfacing materials and
it was determined that the verbiage hard surface would be appropriate.
Construction specifications would be dealt with through the building
permit process.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-13. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 05-13, an ordinance amending the New Hope
Zoning Code 4-3(4)(h)(11) regulating acceptable parking and driveway
surfaces in all zoning districts, subject to replacing the word bituminous
to asphalt, city of New Hope, Petitioner,.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
2
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on November 28.
PC05-14 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, consideration of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) and
Item 4.2
4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating curb cut and parking setback requirements in R-1
and R-2 districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Ms. Kim Green, community development assistant, explained the two
proposed changes included side yard setback requirements and zero lot
line requirements. The amendments also clarify inconsistencies within the
code. Current code allows parking within three feet of the side yard
property line and five feet from the property line in the boulevard area.
The proposed amendment would allow a three-foot setback the entire
length of the driveway, including the boulevard area, in the R-1 and R-2
zoning districts, eliminating the jagged edge of the driveway. Current
code requires a three foot setback from the zero lot line for twinhome and
townhouse driveways, leaving a six-foot area between the driveways. This
results in several non-conforming properties in the city and awkward
landscaping. The proposed amendment would exempt twinhomes and
townhomes with zero lot lines from the three-foot setback requirements.
The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the
changes and recommends approval.
Commissioner Crough questioned whether or not row townhouses would
be included in this amendment. Chairman Svendsen explained that row
houses are generally more than two units and would not be classified as
an R-2 zoning district. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, added that
townhomes would be constructed under a planned unit development and
setbacks are addressed through that process. For the Winnetka Green
project, staff requested that garages and driveways be placed side-by-side
and the green space between the driveways be removed.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-14. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.2 Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 05-14, an ordinance amending the
New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) and 4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating curb
cut and parking setback requirements in R-1 and R-2 districts, city of
New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
3
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on November 28.
PC05-15 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, consideration of
an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code 3-25(b)(1) requiring
Item 4.3
fencing around swimming pools, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald explained that the current city ordinance was
established prior to the existence of above-ground pools. Staff wais
requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve an
ordinance that addresses fencing for these pools. Many above-ground
pools have railing systems that meet safety requirements. Currently a
four-foot fence with a four-inch gap is required around all outdoor
swimming pools. Fencing is required at a four-foot minimum from the
edge of the pool, which is difficult to enforce with above ground pools.
The proposed amendment eliminates the four-foot distance requirement.
It does require that the fence fully enclose a pool in the back yard. It
continues to require gates with self-closing latching mechanisms and
eliminates redundancy in the city code. The intent of the amendment is to
address the above-ground pools that are being installed in the city.
The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the
changes and recommends approval.
Chairman Svendsen questioned fencing for a spa. Mr. Brixius explained
that through the building permit process there are specifications for
capacity and depth requirements that designate what would need to be
fenced. Any spa or pool with a depth of 24 inches or more triggers the
fencing requirements.
Discussion ensued on the new temporary, inflatable pools. Mr. Brixius
replied that the ordinance specifically deals with pools requiring a
building permit.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-15. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.3 Hemken, to approve Planning Case 05-15, an ordinance amending the
New Hope City Code 3-25(b)(1) requiring fencing around swimming
pools, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
4
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on November 28.
PC05-16 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.4, consideration of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Code 4-30(c)(11) Council review
Item 4.4
and 4-30(c)(12) Council action on planning applications, city of New
Hope, Petitioner.
Ms. Kim Green stated that this ordinance amendment deals with council
action on planning applications and the extension of the 60-day rule. In
1996, the city adopted an ordinance requiring the council to make
decisions on planning applications within 60 days of receiving an
application, per state law. The city can extend the period for an additional
60 days to adequately review and make decisions on applications. The
current ordinance allows the city to automatically extend this time period
to 120 days for all applications. Recently the Minnesota Supreme Court
ruled that the 60-day extension is not automatically allowed. The
proposed amendment eliminates the automatic extension. Extensions can
be handled on a case-by-case basis and applicants notified as needed. The
applicant can waive the time deadline, if desired.
The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the
changes and recommends approval.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-16. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.4 approve Planning Case 05-16, an ordinance amending the New Hope
Code 4-30(c)(11) Council review and 4-30(c)(12) Council action on
planning applications, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
5
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Council on November 28.
PC04-28 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.5, approval of
Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Item 4.5
Chairman Svendsen stated that the Planning Commission could review
the Comprehensive Plan updates in two separate parts – the
properties/projects that are completed or under construction that are to be
deleted from the text and maps, and the potential City Center
redevelopment.
Mr. Al Brixius, planning consultant, explained that the Planning
Commission initially reviewed this update in November 2004. The
Council considered the proposed amendments in December 2004 and
expressed concerns with the density definitions and land use
classifications on the Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map.
Since that time, city staff met and discussed densities with the
Metropolitan Council. In May 2005, staff presented the density
information to the Council and was directed to revise the existing density
definitions. The Council also directed staff to reclassify the northwest
quadrant of the City Center area to mixed use on the Commercial
Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map.
Mr. Brixius stated that the land use amendments were for projects that
were under construction or have been approved. Land use changes are as
follows: Winnetka Green from commercial and low-medium density to
high density residential; Winnetka Townhomes from commercial to high
density residential; Hillside Terrace from public/semipublic to low density
residential; PPL condos and apartments from public/semipublic to high
density residential; and City Center area from commercial/industrial/high
density/public/semipublic to commercial mixed use. The CVS Pharmacy
site was not previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan, however,
boundary changes took place with the sale of the site to CVS and a portion
of the school district property and a single family home incorporated into
the commercial site and is reflected as a commercial use on the Land Use
map.
The Residential Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map was
updated by deleting project sites for Winnetka Green, Winnetka
Townhomes, Hillside Terrace, PPL Condos and Apartments, and 4301-
4415 Nevada Avenue from the redevelopment category and adding the
City Center area as commercial mixed use. The Commercial
Redevelopment Target Area map has been updated by changing the
configuration of the CVS Pharmacy site, adding Midland Shopping Center
and City Center. These changes reflect approvals the city has already
granted for plats and planned unit developments. No major modifications
are being requested beyond these project sites.
Mr. Brixius stated that the City Center area was identified for
redevelopment. The commercial mixed use land description recommends
6
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
the pursuit of redevelopment of select City Center commercial sites. The
promotion of commercial land uses is the city’s first priority, however, the
city will also consider the introduction of complementary, alternative land
uses that will enhance the area and provide support for the commercial
use. The properties bordered by Xylon, 42nd, Winnetka and 45th avenues
have been designated commercial mixed use. This area is intended to
provide for community commercial opportunities but would also allow
for medium to high density housing options. Any change in land use
would require city approval of a redevelopment master plan. Through the
redevelopment review, the city would define the balance between
commercial and residential land uses and the range of residential
densities that may be allowed. Brixius pointed out that mixed use
definition would amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for that
redevelopment to occur and if no redevelopment would take place, the
current land uses would be consistent. If the city wants to pursue
redevelopment, the master plan would have to go through a formal
review process by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
commercial mixed use designation would provide a range of land uses
that would make a project financially practical and allow redevelopment
to occur if the city chooses to proceed.
The existing Comprehensive Plan identifies the following densities: zero
to four units per acre for low density, five to 10 units per acre for medium
density, and 11 plus units for high density. Gaps fall between low and
medium and again between medium and high density. The recommended
revised verbiage for densities is as follows: low density one up to four
units per acre, medium density four up to 10 units per acre, and high
density of 10 plus units per acre.
Chairman Svendsen questioned whether the Bass Lake Road Apartments
site and the redevelopment project at 42nd and Quebec avenues had been
identified on the maps and this was confirmed.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the city-owned, vacant land
north of the railroad tracks near 52nd and Pennsylvania avenues. That
area is identified as single family and is not identified on the Residential
Redevelopment Maintenance and Target Area map due to the fact that it
is vacant land and not a redevelopment opportunity. Mr. McDonald
added that the City Council had recently expressed interest in the
development of that site. Oelkers questioned whether low density land
use was practical for that property due to the fact that it is adjacent to the
railroad tracks. Brixius stated that as part of the overall amendments, the
Planning Commission could make a recommendation for an alternative
land use.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 04-28. All voted in favor.
7
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Motion carried.
Mr. McDonald commented that the Planning Commission should vote on
the Comprehensive Plan amendments so it could move forward to the
City Council and the Comprehensive Plan would be in agreement with
the developments that have been approved. McDonald explained that in
2006 he hoped to get the Planning Commission more involved in
redevelopment projects at the beginning stages. For the Bass Lake Road
Apartments redevelopment or any new development, he would
recommend that the developer provide plans for Planning Commission
review early in the process for input before formal planning approval.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
Item 4.5 approve Planning Case 04-28, approval of Comprehensive Plan update,
city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on November 28.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did not meet
in October. McDonald added that staff was not aware of any applications
Committee
for the December Planning Commission meeting. He stated he was
Item 5.1
expecting an application for redevelopment of the Egan McKay property
in December to be considered in January.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee
had reviewed the code issues on this agenda.
Committee
Item 5.2
Mr. McDonald initiated discussion on whether or not staff should require
a certificate of survey for residential variances. He added that it was a
requirement of the city code, however, the city council had previously
recommended that homeowners be spared the extra expense of providing
a survey. This issue was last discussed in 1998 and the commission was
split on whether or not to require homeowners to obtain a certified survey
of their property. Staff felt at that time that the Council would not support
the additional expense and delay to residents if a survey was required.
The current cost for a residential survey varies between $500 and $1,000.
The Codes and Standards Committee discussed this in September and felt
there were sufficient safeguards in place to ensure proper as-built
compliance without requiring a certified survey. The committee agreed
with the current policy to give discretion to the building official to waive
the survey requirement for variance requests on R-1 properties.
Mr. Roger Axel, building official, indicated that a certificate of survey was
8
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
not always necessary if the homeowner could verify the location of the
property lines. The requirement should be decided on a case-by-case
basis. A suggestion was offered that staff let the commission know if the
requirement was waived. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt strongly
that a survey should be required for all variance requests. McDonald
indicated that he and the building official felt that a request for an
addition in a rear yard may not need a survey, whereas a survey should be
required for a request for an addition in a side yard where the
measurements are close. Chairman Svendsen stated he felt a survey
should be required and the expense was justified. A question was raised
whether there had been a problem not requiring the surveys. If no
certified survey was submitted, the property owner would be required to
locate the property irons and verify the property lines and placement of
the structures on the site. Commissioner Anderson was concerned with
the expense to the homeowners. Commissioner Crough pointed out that
mortgage lenders nearly always require a current survey so the
homeowner would need to provide and pay for a survey anyway.
Commissioner Hemken stated that in the Berg variance request, she
didn’t think he would have proceeded with the project if the expense of a
survey had been required. She stated she would leave the decision up to
the building official. Mr. Axel stated that there are safeguards in place that
would warrant a survey on a case-by-case basis. If there was any question
where the property line was located, he would require a survey.
OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the fence and pond at
Winnetka Green. After the city had approved the project, he wondered
Miscellaneous Issues
how the city could legally make changes to the project. Mr. Sondrall
replied that changes could be renegotiated in the contract. Oelkers
maintained that the change to the contract affected 175 parties. Sondrall
stated that the contract was with Ryland. Discussion ensued on the
homeowners association and whether leadership had been turned over to
the residents. Oelkers stated he felt the city was exposing itself to potential
issues and that concerned him as a commissioner. Specific plans were
approved and 175 families were purchasing homes in the development
with that understanding. Now it seemed that a few people were asking for
changes and the changes were being done without listening to the families
that live in the development.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Anderson, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September
6, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
The consensus was to approve the 2006 Planning Commission schedule.
Mr. McDonald informed the commission that the Metropolitan Council
required that cities update their comprehensive plans every 10 years. New
Hope had been notified that its plan needed to be updated by 2008. In
2006, the city will begin the process for updating its comprehensive plan.
Staff and the Council will need to determine how a committee would be
formed for the review of the plan. A new subcommittee of the Planning
9
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005
Commission may need to be formed for the review of the Comprehensive
Plan, and Commissioner Landy indicated he would be willing to serve on
that subcommittee.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald reported that Shawn Siders had resigned and the city was
interviewing for the community development specialist position.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:03
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
10
Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005