030806 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 8, 2006
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, Jeff
Houle, Roger Landy, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve
Svendsen
Absent: Kathi Hemken, Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Jason Quisberg, Assistant City
Engineer, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development
Specialist, Kim Green, Community Development Assistant,
Carlos Espinosa, Community Development Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC06-01 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for
variance from the ground sign setback requirements of the Sign Code,
Item 4.1
8201 54th Avenue North, Roseville Properties Management Company,
Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the
applicant, Mr. Mark Rancone, Roseville Properties, submitted a letter that
stated he could not attend this meeting due to the change in the meeting
date. Mr. Rancone stated in the letter he felt this was a simple request and
the Commission could consider it at this meeting or postpone discussion
until a later date. Chairman Svendsen stated he felt the request could be
considered and the commissioners concurred.
Ms. Kim Green, community development assistant, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a variance to the ground sign location setback
requirements to place the ground sign at the property line and a variance
for the size of the directional sign at the easternmost access. The property
is located in an industrial zoning district. The Canadian Pacific Railroad
abuts the property to the south, single family homes are located across
54th Avenue to the north, and industrial properties to the east and west.
The total site area is 13.04 acres, and the building contains 369,000 square
feet. The primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan for this district is to
promote and enhance the industrial land uses through improvements
and/or expansion.
Ms. Green reported that the former property owner received variance
approval in 1999 to construct a 10-foot sound wall along the property line
on 54th Avenue to mitigate noise issues. The property owner also received
a variance from the noise ordinance for occasionally exceeding nighttime
noise levels. A significant amount of landscaping was installed along the
northern side of the sound wall as a condition of approval. The requested
sign variances would allow for the sound wall and landscaping to be
maintained, yet allow for sign visibility for directing truck traffic.
Approximately five years ago, the building was sold and within the last
year the new owner placed new signage on the site 15 feet from the curb
in the boulevard area, which is wider on the south side of 54th Avenue
than along most streets. Upon examination, the city determined that the
ground sign was placed in the boulevard area without a sign permit and,
therefore, did not meet the city’s setback requirements. The owner met
with city staff and agreed to apply for a variance. The existing sound wall
to the west and the landscaping to the east would obscure visibility of the
sign if it were placed at the required 10-foot setback from the property
line, and render the sign useless for directing traffic into the site. The
applicant met with the Design and Review Committee, who also
suggested a directional sign at the east end of the property. The
directional signage request is for 10 square feet rather than the permitted
two square foot sign.
The Sign Code does not require notification to surrounding property
owners or publication in the official newspaper of the city.
Ms. Green stated staff supported the variances due to the fact that there
are unique conditions at the site, including the sound wall and extensive
landscaping, and signs are necessary to assist with traffic circulation on
the site and to minimize the impact of truck traffic for the residential
neighbors to the north. The increased size of the directional sign would
increase visibility for directing trucks to the correct entrance, would not
impede access to public utilities, and would preserve the landscaping
along the sound wall. Staff recommends approval subject to the
conditions listed in the planning report.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public
hearing was closed.
Chairman Svendsen reiterated that the Design and Review Committee
was supportive of the variance request to place the sign at the property
line due to the extensive landscaping at the west entrance. A question was
raised as to why the sign could not remain in its current location and the
reply was that the sign was located in the city’s right-of-way and not on
the applicant’s property. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, interjected that
placing a sign in the right-of-way is illegal by city ordinance. The city
should not set a precedent by allowing one property owner to place a sign
in the boulevard area and then other property owners may want to place
signage in the right-of-way as well. The city should be consistent
throughout the city. Ms. Green added that other property owners had
2
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
already inquired about this. Mr. Sondrall clarified his answer by stating
that rather than making exceptions for signage in the right-of-way, it
would be better, to change the ordinance. Otherwise, the city would have
to develop criteria for why an exception could be made for placing
signage in the right-of-way. Commissioner Crough wondered whether
some of the mature trees on the west could be moved and replaced with
ground-level landscaping, which would allow greater exposure for the
sign.
Commissioner Buggy questioned the reason for the directional sign to be
10 feet. Svendsen answered that it was the suggestion of the Design and
Review Committee to install the larger sign to better direct truck traffic to
the west entrance. Oelkers added that the committee felt it would benefit
the neighborhood to better direct traffic to the proper entrance.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-01. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 06-01, request for variance from the ground sign
setback requirements of the Sign Code, 8201 54th Avenue North,
Roseville Properties Management Company, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The petitioner must follow the city’s standard sign permit
application process and obtain a sign permit for the freestanding
sign;
2.The directional sign on the east end of the property is not to exceed
ten (10) square feet in size;
3.The applicant must submit plans to the city and receive approval
from the building official for the directional sign on the eastern end
of the property.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Houle, Landy,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken, Nirgudé
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 27.
PC06-02 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for
conditional use permit amendment to amend the existing conditional use
Item 4.2
permit regarding number and type of events to be held at the outdoor
athletic facility and to make several site improvements at the facility, 8230
47th Avenue North, Independent School District No. 281, Petitioner.
3
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that the
applicant was requesting a conditional use permit amendment to amend
the existing conditional use permit (CUP) regarding the number and type
of events to be held at the Cooper High School outdoor athletic facility
stadium and to make several site improvements at the facility. The school
is located in an R-1 single family residential zoning district and is
surrounded by single family homes and New Hope Elementary School to
the southwest. Schools are a conditional use in the R-1 district. The site is
approximately 35 acres in size.
The high school was constructed in 1963, and a conditional use permit
was approved in 1994 for the athletic facility. In 1996, a resolution was
approved to allow Armstrong to use the facility if an emergency arose in
Plymouth, and Plymouth approved a similar resolution allowing the use
of the Armstrong facility in the event of an emergency in New Hope. In
1999, the conditional use permit was amended for the construction of the
gyms, a joint effort between the school district and the city, tennis courts,
and a 2,500 square foot storage building, which was never constructed.
McDonald stated the petitioner submitted correspondence indicating the
school utilizes the outdoor stadium for various events not currently
addressed in the CUP. The original CUP listed the specific events to be
held at the facility. The activities promote organized and supervised
activities for athletics, physical education and recreation programs.
Correspondence from the school district stated it was the district’s
opinion, the requested CUP amendment would not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair
the property values in the area. Modifications to the existing outdoor
stadium public address system would be implemented in 2006 to decrease
the decibel level impact on the surrounding properties, based on the
acoustic consultant’s report. Pursuant to mailing notices to all properties
within 500 feet of the site, the school district conducted two neighborhood
meetings, one in December 2005 and one in February 2006 to inform the
neighbors of the improvements planned. During the football season in fall
2006, the acoustic consultant will take measurements of the decibel level
at varsity football and soccer games. The final report would be sent to the
city. The output of the public address system for soccer and lacrosse
games would be decreased from that utilized for varsity football, due to
smaller spectator counts. Typical spectator counts for varsity football are
from 1,500 to 3,000, and soccer events are from 150 to 600. Anticipated
spectator counts for lacrosse games should be approximately the same as
soccer.
Existing practices would be maintained for the property and parking lot
ingress, egress, and parking subject to the provisions of the current CUP.
The school district requested that the provision for use of traffic
barricades be deleted, due to the fact that this practice was discontinued
after the first two football games in 1996 after review with the New Hope
4
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
Police Department. Current parking capacity includes: Cooper 456, New
Hope Elementary 144, and old Highview 9, for a total of 609. Parking lot
capacity for the game events are adequate without the need for additional
on-street parking. The exception for adequate parking capacity is the
spring graduation, and the applicant requested to temporarily hood the
no parking signs for that day. When available, spectators could also utilize
the Crystal Evangelical Free Church parking lot at 4741 Zealand Avenue.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff received several
comments concerning the date of the Planning Commission meeting
being held the same night as the caucus, therefore, the meeting date was
changed and notices were mailed regarding the new date. One comment
was received supporting the increased use of the field and the benefit to
the community.
Mr. McDonald reported that a conditional use permit amendment was
warranted when significant changes in the scope of the approved use
were made.
Staff and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans.
Comments included clarifying the number of events, both school and
community, traffic, parking, trash pick up, drainage, public address
system, noise, band practice hours, and lighting. The applicant submitted
a revised narrative, site plan, and acoustic plans as a result of those
meetings.
The plan is to modify the number and type of events that are allowed
under the current CUP, and to include all the events that are occurring or
may occur in the future. The specific changes include: football – change
from 4 games plus post season to 5 games plus post season; soccer (male
and female) change from 7 games plus post season to 16 games plus post
season; any legitimate daytime school activity – currently allowed – no
change; graduation – currently allowed – no change; lacrosse (male and
female) – new sport – add 16 games plus post season; track – change
verbiage from track events as previously scheduled to all track events;
band – not included in original CUP – change to add all band practices 7
a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekends, PA not utilized
for this; community events such as Relay for Life, etc. (no concerts)– not
included in original CUP – any community event with only two per year
utilizing the PA system; youth events – not included in original CUP –
change to unlimited youth events, with two events per year utilizing the
PA system; and baseball daytime sporting events – currently allowed – no
change proposed.
Mr. McDonald described the proposed site improvements to the high
school property, including replacing the existing natural turf with
synthetic turf, changing speakers, construction of concession/storage
building, replacing turf on junior varsity field, and utilization of New
Hope Elementary playfields for girls’ softball and soccer programs. The
applicant indicated that the new public address system would be
5
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
compliant with day and nighttime decibel levels. Parking is proposed to
stay as it is; however, staff recommends that an overall parking plan for
football games be included as a condition of approval. No changes were
proposed for landscaping or lighting. The applicant should provide
conceptual plans for the new turf proposed on the site. Grading and
drainage issues should be subject to the approval of the city engineer.
Trash pick up would continue as is done currently. No additional signage
was proposed. A 2,500 square foot concession/storage building was
approved with the 1999 CUP amendment, but never constructed. The new
plans show a smaller 1,440 square foot building to be constructed in 2008.
The majority of the building would be utilized for storage with two
overhead doors. The smaller portion would be used for concessions with a
concession door, counters, concrete stoop and roof overhang.
Construction materials would consist of concrete block foundation, James
Hardy siding, and roof with asphalt shingles. Dates for field upgrades are
as follows: 2006 – reconstruct stadium field with synthetic turf; 2007 –
reconstruct natural turf on junior varsity baseball field; 2008 – reconstruct
natural turf on varsity baseball field. Several CUP language changes were
proposed as explained in the planning report. Mr. McDonald explained
the CUP amendment was a policy issue as the zoning ordinance does not
regulate the number and frequency of events.
Mr. McDonald explained that the city engineer had reviewed the plans
and indicated that the field modifications were reviewed with the Shingle
Creek Watershed staff. Water quality requirements were addressed with
previous site improvements. There are some grit chambers on the site.
The school district is planning on adding a storm water storage tank to
control the runoff rate to the existing conditions.
Mr. McDonald stated that city staff was supportive of the amendment to
the conditional use permit and felt the changes were a great improvement
to the school and entire city, and recommended approval, subject to the
conditions in the planning report.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned what time the soccer and lacrosse
games were played.
Mr. Jim Gerber, director of facilities with the school district, responded to
Commissioner Brinkman’s question with regard to the time of day games
were played. High spectator games occur in the evening hours. Soccer
and lacrosse typically begin at 4:30 or 5 p.m., usually are a double header
for varsity games, and extend into the early evening hours. Football starts
about 7 p.m. and ends about 9:30 p.m. with the crowd dissipating by 10
p.m. A question arose with regard to overtime for football games. It was
noted that overtime had never occurred at a Cooper football game. If
overtime would occur, the ending time could extend past 9:30 p.m.
Chairman Svendsen wondered whether or not lighting would be utilized
during community events. Mr. Gerber responded that lighting would be
the same hours as other events.
6
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on where junior varsity (JV)
and 9th grade football and soccer games would be played. Mr. Gerber
stated that traditionally JV games end by 6 p.m. and games are played on
the JV field where there are no lights. These games are covered under
legitimate daytime activity.
Mr. Gerber added that one of the primary purposes of requesting the
amendment was to allow the district the opportunity to accommodate
additional sporting events, such as lacrosse, and address the number of
games held on the stadium field. Under the current CUP, there are no
afternoon games held on the stadium field, but on the adjacent JV field.
Some of those games could now be played on the synthetic turf stadium
field to save and increase the quality of the natural turf JV field.
Commissioner Crough questioned where the girls softball and soccer
games were played and Mr. Gerber replied that those programs are
played on the west side of the New Hope Elementary School site. The turf
on those fields is scheduled for replacement in 2008/09. It takes
approximately 12 months to reconstruct the turf and allow time for the
turf to get reestablished. During that time, some of those events would be
held at other locations throughout the district.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification on the type and
construction of the synthetic turf. Mr. Gerber stated that there would be
about an eight inch gravel base with a drain tile system in it, then a two
and one-half inch thick layer of carpet mat with fibers about two and one-
half inches, which is then infielded with a combination of rubber and
sand, which gives it the cushion benefits as compared with the older style
of turf system.
Commissioner Anderson requested an explanation of when the public
address system would be utilized and the impact on adjacent residents.
Mr. Gerber stated that the PA system would be used for the varsity level
games. He indicated that at the first neighborhood meeting in December,
there was concern expressed about the output from the PA system and
the fact that it was an impact on adjacent properties. The district hired a
consultant to test existing output conditions and model what
improvements could be made to reduce those impacts. The outcome
indicated a significant reduction in the decibel levels by changing
amplifiers and replacing/adding/redirecting speakers and staying well
within Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines for noise. Girls’
lacrosse is a new varsity program being added at Cooper in the fall of
2006.
Commissioner Anderson questioned how many of the events would be
utilizing the public address system. Oelkers commented that both boys
and girls teams have been playing soccer. The chart in the packet showed
seven games (boys and girls together) combined as opposed to 14 games
separately, therefore, the increase is only two games. Mr. Gerber
7
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
explained that boys play lacrosse as a club sport and within two years that
would be changed to varsity level. Currently, boys’ and girls’ teams play
back- to-back games at various locations. He clarified the number of
games – currently, seven home games for both boys and girls for a total of
14 games, played back to back. The district is adding one game each for
boys and girls in the event league rules change to allow more games. The
number of soccer games would parallel lacrosse. The number of football
games was changed in the event that the league may schedule three
games played on the home field one year and five the next year on the
home field. Mr. Gerber explained that one issue discussed at the
neighborhood meetings was the public address system and a second issue
was the amount of traffic impacting the community. Most of the games
being added are very low spectator counts. In the last year, paid
spectators for soccer games ranged from 15 to 65, compared to football
games at 2,500. The new PA system would have two levels of
amplification. One for the larger football crowd where a higher output is
needed, and the output for most of the games would be set for 50 to 60
spectators.
Chairman Svendsen clarified that the schedule indicated seven games,
which was actually two games played back-to-back. He added that the
state mandates equal opportunity for both boys’ and girls’ games.
Mr. Gerber indicated that lacrosse is a spring sport. At this time the
games are played back-to-back, however, at some time in the future that
could be split to separate days.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the acoustical study
completed by the district. Mr. Gerber showed maps indicating the areas of
greatest output with the current system and areas of output that would be
drastically reduced with the new system. Output from the new system
would comply with MPCA requirements at the property lines for noise
pollution. Speakers would be reoriented on the field, and additional
speakers would be added to help reduce the decibel level output. Based
on the models prepared by the consultant, the school district is confident
significantly reduced decibel levels would be achieved. Next fall after the
first football and soccer games, the consultant would be modeling the
noise output from the PA system after each of the first two games and
then make any other reductions as necessary to make sure the numbers
stay within the modeling information proposed. Commissioner Houle
asked for an explanation of the decibel levels. Mr. Gerber answered that
the MPCA sets a 65 decibel L10 or 60 L50 for daytime up to 10 p.m. and 55
L10 or a 50 L50 after 10 p.m. The L10 means that sound level cannot be
maintained for more than 10 percent of one hour. The district hopes to
achieve a decibel level that would meet the nighttime levels during the
day. The model was based on football games where the crowd noise is
significantly higher, therefore, the PA system output needed to be set
higher. Soccer and lacrosse games would have a decrease in the output
required by the amplifier which would further decrease the decibel level
impacts on the surrounding area. Mr. Gerber indicated that some of the
8
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
equipment would be reused – about half of the speakers. New speakers
would be purchased to get better distribution to further cut back amplifier
output. The amplifier would probably be replaced due to the fact that new
components may not operate efficiently in an older system.
Chairman Svendsen questioned whether commissioners were comfortable
with the explanation of the 65 L10 decibel level. Commissioners Landy,
Brinkman and Schmidt stated in the past they could hear the PA system
where they live and were comfortable with the proposed reduction. Mr.
Gerber indicated that after the testing next October, the district would
have an output meter to monitor the output levels.
Chairman Svendsen stated that a letter had been sent to Mayor Opem
from Mark and Kathleen Duffey, 4833 Zealand Avenue, due to the fact
they could not attend the meeting. Excerpts of the letter included “we are
totally in favor of the city approving this amendment. Our house is
directly across the street from the field. We have two students at the high
school and a 6th grader at RMS. The use of this facility is extremely
important to the school and its students. Not just as a parent of Cooper
students, but as a member of the community, we feel the more activities
the students can be involved in the better especially when they can
represent their school. I hope the city can pass this amendment. We
would be extremely disappointed if this amendment does not go
through!”
Chairman Svendsen asked whether anyone in the audience wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Raymond Moles, 11200 46th Avenue North, Plymouth, came forward
and stated he was the commissioner for the Armstrong/Cooper Youth
Football Association and the Armstrong/Cooper Youth Lacrosse
Association. He stated the associations supported the proposal. The youth
utilize Lighted Field in New Hope and a few years ago the youth had the
opportunity to play at Cooper stadium for the traveling league. Over the
last four to five years, the youth program has had over 1,500 players. Most
of the players on the Armstrong and Cooper teams have come through
this youth program. About 42 percent of the attendees come from New
Hope and Crystal. The turf fields are safer for the kids and have greater
durability. When Lighted Field is being resurfaced, that has a dramatic
affect on the youth programs. In spring the fields are wet, which makes
for unsafe playing conditions on the fields for the youth. A turf field
would be great for the youth to use for the spring lacrosse program and
the football program. Mr. Moles stated he had worked with the Parks and
Recreation Department for many years and the staff had provided
officiating.
Mr. Ron Long, 4410 Goldenrod Lane North, Plymouth, stated he was a
former teacher in District 281 and he coached for 10 years at Cooper and
at the old Robbinsdale High School. He worked for five years with the
youth association. He was now a realtor and stated that New Hope is
9
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
affordable for people with children. It is important to provide athletic
programs for the youth in the area.
Ms. Patsy Green, 5936 West Meadow Lake Road, approached the podium.
She stated she is a New Hope resident and appreciates good facilities in
New Hope, Cooper parent and supporter of the Hawks and would
appreciate the city’s support of the CUP amendment, and member of the
school board. Ms. Green thanked the commissioners and extended
appreciation for what they do.
There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission; the
public hearing was closed.
Chairman Svendsen extended appreciation for the youth organizations
speaking in support of the requested amendment. An important aspect of
the youth program is that it is a feeder program for high school athletics; a
place where youth get interested in sports.
Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-02. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the youth associations
utilizing the stadium. Oelkers stated that, in his opinion, the youth
association should be allowed to use the stadium. The stadium should be
utilized as often as possible. Mr. McDonald added that the youth
association’s use of the stadium would fall under the heading “unlimited
youth events.”
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 06-02, request for conditional use permit
amendment to amend the existing conditional use permit regarding
number and type of events to be held at the outdoor athletic facility and
to make several site improvements at the facility, 8230 47th Avenue
North, Independent School District No. 281/Cooper High School,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall submit concept plans for all storage buildings
with detailed plans to be submitted with the building permit
application.
2.Any change in the amount of events as outlined in the applicant’s
narrative shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit.
3.Comply with city engineer recommendations, including the overall
grading and drainage of the site.
4.The building official shall verify sound levels at the property line.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Houle, Landy,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
10
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
Absent: Hemken, Nirgudé
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 27, and asked the petitioner to attend.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in February. McDonald added that an application had been
Committee
submitted for the redevelopment of the Egan McKay property for the
Item 5.1
April Planning Commission meeting, and staff was expecting plans for
4301 Quebec to convert the warehouse to condominiums. The next
meeting will be held on March 16 at 7:30 a.m.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Buggy stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had
not met in January or February. Mr. McDonald added that there was no
Committee
new items to discuss at this time.
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Chairman Svendsen stated that the Commission was invited to provide
input to the City Council on the potential development of the city-owned
property near 52nd and Pennsylvania avenues.
Railroad Property Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, stated that staff
and the City Council were requesting input from the Planning
Discussion
Commission regarding the potential development of the vacant city-
owned property near 52nd and Pennsylvania avenues. The property is
wooded with low-value vegetation and abuts the Canadian Pacific
railroad tracks to the south, with single family homes to the north. The
site is 7.97 acres in size with about seven developable acres. The site is
zoned R-1, and the city’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as a
potential development opportunity. The police occasionally have
responded to transient persons living on the property over the years.
The city has received several proposals from developers over the past 10
years, but has not pursued the development of this parcel of land.
Proposals from developers included Scherer Bros. Lumber with 18 single
family homes in the mid to late 1970s, city plans for 14 homes in the same
timeframe, Bill Oelkers/Alan Chazin Homes in 1998 with a plan for 40 lots,
and Eagle Crest Developers/Land for Sale, Inc. for 30 single level
townhomes in 1999. In 2002 the Livable Communities Task Force was split
on whether or not to develop the property. In 2004, Ryland Homes
proposed 30-35 single family, attached homes on the site. Each time a
development proposal was submitted, the former council members
determined that the property should remain green space. During 2005, the
city received inquiries from two development firms, Ryland Homes and
Kingman LLC/Peter Long, therefore, at staff’s recommendation, the City
Council expressed interest in possibly selling the property to a developer
to expand the city’s tax base, sale of the land would provide funds to
11
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
construct quiet zone improvements on Winnetka Avenue, and to provide
opportunities for upscale, single-family housing. The Council directed
staff to prepare a request for qualifications/proposals to solicit
development proposals for the site. The Council also discussed the
possibility of the city becoming the developer. Staff was preparing for the
request for qualification/proposal process and to possibly become the
developer. City consultants prepared information on potential lot layouts
and costs if the city would become the developer.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that if a land sale occurred, the sale agreement
could incorporate required improvements on Winnetka Avenue to allow
for the establishment of a railroad quiet zone. There is also a small tax
forfeited parcel to the west of the site. If this parcel would be included in
the development, it could potentially be utilized for utility purposes.
Feedback from the Planning Commission would be passed on to the City
Council.
Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on whether or not the property
would accommodate upscale single family housing with the railroad
tracks abutting the lots. A pricing index for upscale housing was
discussed as being well over $350,000. The consensus was that people
willing to spend that amount of money or more for a home would
probably not want to drive through neighborhoods of much lesser priced
housing to get to their house. The city should determine if it would be
willing to sell the lots at a lower price of $50,000 for market rate homes or
try to sell the lots for $75,000 to $90,000 for higher end housing by a
railroad track and next to industrial uses. Commissioners indicated they
would not purchase lots in an area such as this. Commissioner Buggy
stated he felt it would be very difficult to make this a single family
development. Oelkers added that the topography of the site would be
very difficult for a development. He added that he felt Ryland did a great
job on the development at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. That
type of housing may be appropriate for the railroad property. He stated
he would support single-level townhome, possibly senior, housing.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he was very concerned with the city being
the developer as that is not the expertise of staff or the council. He
stressed that the city should not give away its assets. If the property was
sold for a large amount of money and used for the good of the city, such
as upgrading parks, etc., that would be a good thing. He stated he did not
want the city to become a land developer.
Commissioner Landy questioned whether it would be feasible to build
upscale single family homes in that area with the noise from the railroad.
He concurred with Oelkers that city staff did not have the expertise to be
the developer. Landy did not feel high density housing would be
appropriate. It was pointed out that this would not be a good area for
children being so close to the railroad tracks.
12
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether a product like Winnetka
Green would work. Oelkers pointed out that the noise from traffic along
Bass Lake Road or Highway 169 was bad as well. Commissioner Schmidt
didn’t think any development should be started prior to the quiet zone
being implemented, however, it was mentioned that the Council was
thinking that funds from the sale of the property would pay for the
improvements to Winnetka. Mr. McDonald interjected that the city was
working with Hennepin County to determine the costs for the
improvements, which would be approximately $130,000.
Commissioner Buggy reiterated he felt single family housing would not
work, but possibly twinhomes or townhomes could work. He stated every
property had its price and every location had its value. For a developer to
make any money on the project, they would want to purchase the
property at a discounted price. Oelkers added that due to current land
prices, the city should be able to get good money for the property per
unit. Land developers and builders look at the per-unit cost. If 40 units
could be constructed, the city would get more for the land, which would
be five units per acre or medium density. Commissioner Crough stressed
1) the Council should not burden city employees with being the
developer, 2) put property on the open market and developers could
determine what would sell, and 3) luxury homes would not be
appropriate for the area because in the appraisal business, the homes
would be discounted 50 percent due to the railroad.
Mr. McDonald summarized the comments from the Commission:
It was not be opposed to the project, but would like a professional
?
developer or RFP process,
The city should not act as the developer,
?
One level townhomes or twinhomes,
?
Get a decent price for the land, do it in conjunction with quiet
?
zone improvements, and
medium density.
?
Winnetka Center Mr. McDonald stated that the mayor requested that staff keep the
Planning Commission up to date on the City Center happenings.
Improvements
Winnetka Shopping Center has been or is in the process of being sold to
Dave Kloeber, owner of Unique Thrift Store. City staff met with Mr.
Kloeber and he informed staff that he would be making significant
improvements to the shopping center, such as exterior façade including
removing the overhang drive-thru at Unique Thrift, bringing in a new
bank and creating a drive-thru for the bank, bringing in new tenants,
potentially splitting the property and creating an outlot with buildings,
etc. Staff asked Mr. Kloeber to put his plans in writing along with a
timeframe, and develop specific sketches. This would have a big impact
on how and when the City Center redevelopment proceeds.
Commissioner Buggy wondered where the city was with regard to
redevelopment of the entire City Center area. Question arose about the
selection of the task force, and Mr. McDonald stated there were many
13
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
volunteers, however, selection of members and implementation of the
group had not yet moved forward.
Buggy stated he felt in the last few years the city has missed many
opportunities to improve the nature and community of the city and the
City Center area. He thought the move by Mr. Kloeber was a calculated
move to keep his store where he wanted it. Commissioner Buggy stated he
was disappointed that the city had not moved forward sooner with the
rejuvenation of City Center.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt it was due to a lack of the Council’s
understanding of the reality of today’s marketplace. The Council seemed
to have the conception that multi-family housing is bad. Multi-family
housing is what drives the new construction real estate market.
Developers can make more money on housing than commercial,
therefore, denser housing is what is constructed. Former Governor
Ventura changed the tax system and residential real estate brings close to
the same amount of tax as industry. Other neighboring cities are booming
because they take the initiative to move forward.
Discussion was initiated on whether or not the city could require Mr.
Kloeber to match the exterior façade of the New Hope Mall. McDonald
interjected that one of the tasks of the new City Center Advisory Group
could be to develop design guidelines for the city’s commercial corridor.
At this time there is very little language in the code to address design
issues for commercial buildings. Mr. Sondrall stated that if a building
complies with minimum building code requirements, cities cannot
implement stricter building codes than the state. The city should
determine whether a design code would be in conflict with building
codes. Some cities utilize an architectural control committee that imposes
specific requirements as part of the covenants of the development.
McDonald added that if Mr. Kloeber had to come before the Commission
for a zoning application or platting request, the city could offer
suggestions for façade treatments. The requirement would have to be
related to a legitimate governmental interest. The former City Center Task
Force developed a book of design guidelines, which were never adopted.
The Council indicated interest in modifying those guidelines and
implementing them in the future. The new advisory group may have
additional input in that document. Commissioner Landy reiterated that
the design guidelines were intended as a draft document for discussion
purposes.
Commissioner Houle stated that in working with cities around the
country on developments, many cities have a much stronger design and
review language component than New Hope. Most cities have a lot of say
over colors and materials and the developer must go through a design
and review process. He felt the current New Hope zoning code was quite
lenient and granted a large amount of latitude to developers and builders,
and the city had very little input regarding the aesthetics. Mr. Sondrall
stressed that the city had to make a connection between the land use and
14
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
the interest being promoted. For residential housing, the city requires
minimum lot sizes and building sizes, which leads to the valuation issue.
Question was raised how a neighboring city was able to regulate the
facades of specific buildings in its developments, and it was determined
regulations were placed on the developer through the planned unit
development. The city cannot impose restrictions on the façade of
Winnetka Center or any other building if only a building permit was
required. Mr. McDonald stated that Columbia Heights had adopted
commercial design guidelines and three properties have been
redeveloped along Central Avenue that all have a unifying theme.
Mr. McDonald stated the comments from the Commission and would be
passed on to the City Council.
Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Schmidt, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 6,
2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Svendsen stated by ordinance the Commission was required to
Elections
elect officers for the current year at the first meeting of the year. He
opened the floor for nominations for the positions of chair, vice-chair, and
third officer.
Motion by Commissioner Landy to nominate Steve Svendsen for chair,
Kathi Hemken for vice-chair, and Bill Oelkers for third officer, seconded
by Commissioner Oelkers. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioners were assigned to the subcommittees as follows: Design
and Review – Steve Svendsen, Bill Oelkers, Jeff Houle, Paul Anderson, and
Ranjan Nirgudé; Codes and Standards – Kathi Hemken, Tim Buggy, Jim
Brinkman, Pat Crough, and Tom Schmidt. Mr. McDonald added that the
Council had discussed transit issues and the committee would be moving
forward on that this year. Roger Landy agreed to be the alternate for
either committee and would serve on the Comprehensive Plan update
committee meetings when review of the plan begins later this year.
Discussion ensued on the new modular home at 60th and Winnetka
avenues. Mr. McDonald stated that the property had a temporary
certificate of occupancy and several items remained to be finished in the
spring. McDonald added that the zoning code has specific minimum
requirements for the width and length of homes and that the modular
home meets those requirements. The Codes and Standards Committee
could discuss these types of homes in the future if there was interest in
changing the code. Code amendments can be recommended by staff, the
Council, or the Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald informed the commissioners that they could attend the
land use planning workshops offered through Government Training
Service and that staff would coordinate the registrations and payments.
There are funds available in the planning budget for commissioners to
15
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006
attend this training.
McDonald reminded the commissioners of the joint Council/Commission
meeting on March 20.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:04
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
16
Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2006