080206 Planning
~
U~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Case 06-08 Request for rezoning from eB, community business, to R2, single and
two-family residential, prelirrtinary plat for property to be known as
Louisiana Terrace, and variance for lot area to allow construction of two
zero-lot line twinhomes, 5551 Louisiana Avenue North, Terry Veigel,
Petitioner (continued from July II, 2006)
4.2 Case 06-10 Consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Sign Code
Section 3-40, city of New Hope, Petitioner (continued from July II,
2006)
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting August 17, 7:30 a.m.
5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
A. PC06-03, 7100 27th A venue, time extension for filing of final plat - approved
B. PC06-14, Holy Trinity Church, site/building plan review & CUP amendment-
approved
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July II, 2006
7.2 Discuss Design Guidelines
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
. Petitioner must be in attendance
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City COlillCil on land lise. The
Planning Commission vvill recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based llpon
the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and vvhether the proposed use vvill, or will not, adversely affect the
surrolmd:ing neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land llse proposals to enable. you to learn,
first-hand, vvhat such proposals are, and to permit you to ask qllestions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recorrunendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid :in )TOlIT understanding and to facilitate your comments and qllestions, the Planning Commission
willlltilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendatio11s and answer any qllestions from tl1e
Plannmg Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. 'The chair will open the pllblic hearing, asking first for those vvho "Yvish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit foy :individllal questiol1s/comments if a large
l1Llmber of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
.:J. vVhen recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come for-vvard and to give
t11eir full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/cormnel1ts are for the record.
6. Direct YOlIY qllestions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine vv110 will anS\iver YOl1r
qtlestions.
7. No 011e vvilI be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had tl1e opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At tl1e close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission vvill discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. USllally
this meeting is within one to tvvo weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the reql1est the petitioner vvill be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Curtis Jacobsen} CD Specialist
Kirk McDonald, Director CD
Date: July 27, 2006
Subject: PC 06-08, 5551 Louisiana Avenue North
At the July 11 Planning Commission meeting a motion was made to table for one month Planning Case
06-08, request for rezoning from CB, community business} to R2, single and two family residential,
preliminary plat for property to be know as Louisiana Terrace, and variance for lot area to allow
construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes} 5551 Louisiana Avenue North} Terry Veiget Petitioner. The
motion was unanimously approved.
The intended purpose of this action was to allow the petitioner and his developer to resolve the drainage
issues discussed related to the backyards of all four units proposed for the site. Please refer to the July 11
Planning Commission packet and the minutes of the July 11 meeting.
The developer} Peter Wegier, Cressland Homes, LLC, and his engineer, Hedlund Engineering, have
completed a prelirrtinary storm sewer analysis and rough cost estimate for the installation of the storm
sevver. They have also completed percolation testing on the site to aid in further analysis if relying on
infiltration as a means of handling the storm water to the site.
The Design and Review Committee met in special session on July 20 to revievv the storm sewer and the
infiltration plans for the site. The city engineer} in reviewing the data, felt confident that the Tear yard
basin could be made considerably shallower and reshaped to handle storm water runoff on the site. Prior
to this meeting the city had also received a fax from Dr. Robert D. Johnson, of Bass Lake Dental Group
stating that he had personally observed the site since the 19705 and had never seen any standing water
on the site.
The Design and Review Committee was supportive of a shallower ponding area in the backyard with the
following conditions:
1. No clays to be used in the ponding area.
2. Submittal of revised grading plan.
3. Submittal of a revised Plat showing revised drainage easement.
4. Requiring a percolation test to be completed after construction activities to assure that the
infiltration rate has not been affected by the construction process.
1
Attachments:
. Revised plans 7-27-06
. Storm sewer calculations provided on 7-20-06
. Engineering memo 7-19-06
. Letter from Robert D. Thompson 7-17-06
. July 11 Planning Report (partial attachments)
Please bring your July 11 Planning packet and plans.
2
Jnf Bonestroo
Memo -=- Rosene
1\11 Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Project Name: 5551 Louisiana Avenue Client: City of New Hope
To: Vince Vander Top File No: 34Gen
From: Brad Schleeter Date: July 19, 2006
Re: Infiltration basin design based on on-site percolation test
Per the recommendation in the stormwater review comments dated July 5tn, 2006, the developer's engineer
had an on-site percolation test conducted to estimate the rate of infiltration of the on-site soils. The results
of this test indicate on-site infiltration rates of 2 incheslhour. Revising the previous analysis to include the
tested on-site infiltration rates, we offer the following comments:
1 . Based on an infiltration rate of 2 incheslhour, an analysis to determine the shallowest acceptable
depth of the proposed basin. Assuming the 876 contour area remains as submitted on the grading
plan dated 6/20/06, the pond bottom can be raised to 875.0 and still provide 2-feet of freeboard to
the lowest grade of the adjacent home to the south.
2. Assuming an infiltration rate of 2 inches/hour, the characteristics of the basin are as follows:
Table 1: Basin Characteristics
2.8" - 24 hour event, 2-yr event 6" - 24 hour, 1 OQ-yr event
Condition Bottom of Maximum Pooling Drawdown Maximum. Drawdown
Basin Depth Time Pooling Depth Time
(feet) (days) (feet) (days)
Modified Basin {~7 5.0 0.2 0.51 1.2 l'
lAssumes that runoff collecting within the infiltration basin will be in direct contact with the on-site soils. The addition of
organic topsoil and sod will reduce infiltrative capacity of the basin and extend the drain down times.
3. As mentioned in the previous stormwater review comments, the submitted plans must identify what
practices (timing of excavation, traffic limits, construction runoff protection, etc.) will be incorporated
into the design to maintain the existing infiltration rate.
I :\34\34G EN\U s er\Plan n in g\2006\5 551 Louisi an a Twin h om e\ VTV _ BP S ^Sta rmwater _ Com mentsO 719 06.d oc
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
Jul 17 OS lO:33a Robert D ThomFson
--- .... - 763-533-0010
p.2
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
4401 Xylon Avenue North
NeVvr Hope, MN
1 7 July 2006
Dear Mr. McDonald,
I am writing in regard to the proposed rezoning of the empty lot b hind property at
7123 Bass Lake Road in New Hope. I understand that potential dr 'nage i;; ues on that
property have been raised. As the owner of Bass Lake Dental Gro and <1 server ofthe
property in question since 1970, I can state that I have never seen ny 5tai ing water on
that lot, even in the spring when the ground is still frozen.
I have to think that whatever runoff is created by development of t at pro erty can be
handled without resort to holding ponds and/or direct storm sewer onned' ons. Properly
draining fill material to compliment the existing sandy soil would eem t1 be sufficient.
I support the proposed development and rezoning and would think that J city would
enjoy the increased tax revenue.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Thompson
~ ~~O;~~ 'NI'I punlP:)H ':J f1DpUD~ 'OJO,oU/}lS OO:~.:~;~OrH;~f9L:~;. 8;;~IHJ~I' (1!l9) ,ouo'ld ~ ~ ~
m a -- < 'H'L~~',.f/:1I'ifY7J1T?Y D~~bg~DON~I/~~~~ PJ~~?~';;8~~J~~~~~~ ~ Z
~ ~ - i> f/ t/lL, itt;!, "M"""" SMIIflNI9fB SNINNY'" ':r7"7 'SJINOH ([NY"ISSJIIKJ . II l '> ll:'
~ :g ~n 001 al LO ~IJ:> ...d ",.oll Jopun JOO"lfiu3 IDU~~~:;;J~rlpoou:;li /, ~~n jO w~M~ll~~: .IJOJ (JJ!l't'd3lJd _ ~ :g
~ """ ..." 00 ", .. .,., p~ ""...... ,..... 'w ..00 ~ .w 11 p.,,'''' PO, ON n 70 a H NrIJ .r..LI'II.Ln II
AO 31.,.0 SNOISI1\JUSlllJVrtJlJ podoJ Jo 'uonooUJoodn 'uold 01'11 1D41 J1~:IL~~~~~ 'AO (JJl/Yd3Ud :!T:JVClClS'.L VNVISlflOT ::nUl milS
~ 0
(.) !II >- :z ..
~r ~ ffi ill to c::: ~
I\i~ II) ~2ffi ~~~ ~ <Cg C
~Ioo Q.) )- ~ ~ ~:lj -. ~ '~/1I' 0'':: N
ftllIl Ih ~ ~ :::<; 1- ~ ~ "'-< ~ I-
~.. It: !:: l::~~t5~<(~ ~ <,,,,,,,,oCr) II
Iij :.0. 's ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ .;. ~ J' "S ,..,," ~ .r--7 ~ ~ '-
oS! "" 7. 7. 7. Z ~ ~ 0 "" a..., . X" ~lig->01.m .,", ~. _ '.1 .
~ '-=: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 g; b 0.:5 ~Efj" ''6 ll"Oo.s :5l1J O:;JIlH~n..s", ,'~. : -0
t;. .. a a a a ~ · ~ !t; ~,,> M~1l'~",' !<l -,~ c.-. !"';;, ...! c, i 0
~ ~ · &; j~I ,,j~!i]~~~Po" ~~i!~~~~~: wE : <n .
~t Ih ... 11 II :.:>:; ll.t'g :rd8B15 "~~:5::~ :88 2!l-i!t1S8n "I- r~"'" I- '. J
.~ ~ 8: .3 il :!En..",:J-3,t12o"Oij" ~"'.!l.!1...,,~~i::' ~ 0
~ :t:.::i m , ".i~ ,5~1l,';o~.~"dJ~1!.~]~~~],\H 0 z;
· "-- a -- 11 'V' ~ 5~b'[!~ii~~~.cll~F~ ~~;~,g'6 !l,g5!.~ Il~l! . mr
· PIl. U ~ I ~ g'~'O ~~ e ~~,t ll.8~~l8:5li ]8~~~8-g ~83!:~
" N ==J &~t.nI 0.6 iI o:J o~ .5-~~_ {. e III 0 QZ I) U D o~ 6
~p ~ "" ~ l:l;: ~ Jj<u.5;;:,Eo..u:.o<J::f-::Jou::J tJ olf fi,8f-o..::>F-~mf-I-~u
~~ ~ -:;: f:l I! ~:? ~ ri ~:ri :ri
~~~g.
~, Q,)
---- ~
-.-- ~ I
a I
-...II
I
I
--
- - - - - --=---
--~~-, I 1
-:;:::;::~~:;::-- I I
- I I
-1-+-
--~ - -1\
I \
~ \
: I-;:::==i J I
: __L-~_-l--- \ I
J ~ - DH1{n\r~~! \
f \ DHI1:>I:d \
I \ \
: ~---- -----
"~ () 1Cr) "t :
[-----1 j-- ':1/ :
I I ~=) I
I '. I
m ~j i ;>: LL--________JJ ~~--
i~j iii W III .
~l.-J~o ~~!
~ f-- . t~ "1' '" I
~ ~~l "<0 . ,:.?~J
0'0 l;j O?- <$>' b 1.-,:3
d
:~l
llJ
~~!
(Ii
!
::nOHIHrUlfl UN!I::I:':] i
I
I
I
ur,~~~~~~~DgJ!~.!}~Yf:~~ !
~1O dd:ln~o,
.. ,., ",,,,m- ," "".",\ ",\m".O\ ","-~ I
~ I OLt'V~ ~J, 'on 'N~ uD;Dpull 'O,{DJJJDr 0009 "ot (lIm) ;)(D.:I ~ I ~
~ ~tIDO ~f '(I e::ff(:OJDIDtlfilS OOOg~1~~~:~~I}~g~~ g~::~~?nt~~:~~~~~i, B ~
~ @. 'ONJJ.3,lUnS ON/UENJ:JN.:! tJN/NNVld ':J'7'7 'S:ilNOH ([NV1SS:iI'tI:J ~ I ~ 4) ~ ~
~ i'i ~fl Do/al/.o .III:! ,od .".U olll )0 ..,01 .'1 JOpun Jo.(DAmS puol P;~~~~lU';:!I~~~ ".1~I~ 'uo.:/ aJUVd3Ud ili :g
· '" "'" ~ ".' .,,, ,m, "'. m,.,^"~,, ,.." 'W .,., ~ ow '1 ....." .~ aNn 70.51 H NV'U SNOI.L[(JNoa flNI.LSnUI II
All ll.VO SNOI5V13USlIUV/'GU tlolldl.r.mop JO 'l1odOJ 'IIOld ',{ONn. OI'Il IDIIl Jll::~IL~~~I~~~; ',1,0 lI3!IV.ml<l :iI:JVU'tI:fI..l VNVISlfl07 :nJ.lt 11311S
~~ I
C-) !b [ >- Z I
· ~ : rrg
ftr,_ ~ CI) 6 ffi i <to, ~. I
~ III ~ ~ ill : Zii! ~
ft.iii III SS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....; ~ "
~ Iil .;: Q la ~ " ~ " ~ ~ z:z r--::r, 0:::::: z ~ ':-
!48 Q~ ~ 13 I!: I!: ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ . ~ 0 lI)
rcllll ~ OIl: ~~~~~~~~ 'J~ 3
ar--. ~ ~ ~li'i~~j;ij;i!;i~ W.....IO Ul
~ ~ ?3BBB~H.H3J! " Ll.. 0
· ~ !:: OCt)
~~~ III' OZo
"'.. "a u " l:l ~ Iii I l'I
~ ~ I I
__~~.s ~ ~L
~)cJ~ ~ III
:::.. ~
~) m
C) ~
~I I
I
I
[
---- I
IY I:Y~~ \~ ,__ ~:: - _
- - - - -// _I ~,..,.~ ::.L-- _ _ ~ __::::::;:-
--rlM~~-=-=-=-=g~~'- ._,..;~:... :'I'lM ~-= =: =1'lM= = = = ~l~~ = = = = f~~':-=-:':::___vM---YM---
55--
=s'S~!;S'~'SS~ss-=--====--:"ss' ~~: ~~;,,~~': :~,\ \~,"SS\n';\:'d:"(;~S{fn-1 . 'S5~S5-" "755 ~5S::=~~'" - I
I I -'- ~J " ,. --' ( .. ., · . ,.~ I I '" I t/~ Ms 041 10 t/l 35 DIn _ _ = ::;::::;: ==j
to'I"I. 3:~.t_~:~,o,~... ... '. ','. JO t/~ N Dlfl SO DUll ln03 :::;::::::::= = =::=:::;: - - i I I
(------------------------ -- - _h _____ _L ~ I
--rr--~ I (\
lk -. " '- " I., J -' .-" .\ I
~-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-,1 I " I ';";'::: ~ \ 1
I, \ L. _ _ -'
~-=- I! ' ~ -\ _I - ,
to 1 . 'OJ- _ L- L- _ I
!~! :~l 4 - - . . r~ - I
~ ~ ~-:) ~I/ ~ ;, \~ :m\~;W;~~ \ ,
1lJ... ~-=11 III !f I . !f . 10 _ _ _ I
-~~j ~~rl ~ q, - r--:,,--~--- .
r - - - - -I nil" :5 ~(~j iii I L ~ /,,~ I
. :l OJ I -- 'OJ-
1 II ," tl~ :::-
n Jtf:~i ~~~: __u-H- ::: - ~ ii ~- I
. ~~ elu , lJ)Q
~J~ fo ::J ~ .... c-- :-:_:-'1
. .... ..: ~ 1 ::; ~~I /,:- t - J '(IV:) :
~ III .-: } ,,~ '1 <'1',':3 1
~ "p~;\ -:-("~-- ~~;~ ~-~ - - - - .: - - - -Ii ",~;79 ;'~SI;-t7i .s-;" >~~> '1- - ~ ~ h - ~~ - ~ ~-_I
. u r I, I, I '0 t/l 35 041 10 t/~ N Dtjl JO .;'!l'~9~ ln03 DIll 10 DUn lnoM I (j~ ~ I ' '" ., I
f" ::: \ ~ - -I "I ...", SlJ'lId 111 I tl
I!!ci: 11,--, t-,'U' I fl:~! 1 UHll:;I;':3 I
i~3 ~}~ : r ( , --; q; I ' /) I I
L ~_I I -- IK" ~<'I"'L_______I I
- .---1 SnONIW{UI!] ONllSI;"" i'-' I ... .
I I "
m.mrllflH I l I
"MlSI;';3 ! _ ___ ____ _________l j
-------J (/-- '\ (/
=:~~~~::J l========:===d b=====================
I
,I
I
i
n"p'~,," or-moo ;n"o /"II-X
::~:::~~g~g:~g~~:g ::~::~ I
n"p'nloOZOIDO:n"O I"U-X
1fI"~l:WDOOZ'~Z 1~:OI'O
pt'O;;J :M:3;ln~Cll
n"p.(t("U)P"3-d.J\.I~,.,,^n,,p\0r.0 190\ :1:~UI..nJO
~ OLSfil" 'oN 'on 'NI'l punlP"H '0 lJopuot! 9009-g0v (m9) ;Xo.:l i'i g ~ I
~ .Jt."-r"l, ,t..'O'O.9{)ff!' , 1'0i~-' '~I )'" J"10u6,S OO!l!l-i~~~s?!i~~ ;~~~~~ (lZCG~g~~g(~~\~~~ci~ g , CD!
o ; I . I OhfJO )joD uld SOOZ pJOhOln08 ":"JdoO g<;6 -E:.
i ~ V ) I ~ '"'''''INnS 'NtIJENl9N3 mNNN'" '0'7"7 'SiIlVOH <<NV'ISSiIIIO . II ! '" l;;
~ 13 ~Il o/a/~o 1I:> JOd .""11 Jopun JOOU,fiU3 ,0u:,~~~~~~J';lVipt~u~~~is..:,~~' ~ow~"~\~:Jl ,II0A 03!lYd3l!d ~ :g
::: ~Il 00/0r./11O ~II:> Jod ."011 puo uOJol^.JodnG l:>GJIP ~w Jopun JO ow ^~ pOJodo,d DON. aNn 703 H NV7cI JloLfS ~ ~
All JiYO SNOlSVI3lJsmlY;'CI!! pOdol 10 'UOllooU/oodD 'uo,d GJln 104\ Jl~:tl~~~~ 'An 03l1Vd3l1d 9:JVUU:fI.L VNVfSlflOT 81lU iEIIS
~ ~ >Z
~, ~ g ~:Q
~ s : ~
"II) 9 +1 : 0
ftI Ill. ~ lil"l":lI'! ,<(::;:) a
~.. '!II ?: l3 000 1 Z a:: N
ftj. " ~ Iii <( '. 'I-
:"llI ~ .S ~ r--r -: ~ ,0 II
Iii: G iii:: g +1 ;::CDIl)-t..: ~ LZ ' ~O ,<'l ..-
1:1 ~ ~ ~ t ~~ ~ ?> .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -6
.. ~ N d ~ ~ !:J) ..., ....OJ ......Jio:: u
'-I ~ ~ '" lfJ r-- ~ ~~ t1:~t1: W' C) (f)
~ ~ 1111 1111111111 ~ tGlG ~~~ JLL
~p ~ ~ ~ '~~
~....~~ ~ :::i ~ : t"1: '~ '
-,0 8 '~,
II aU Clr
~p ~ .. ~ ~
~- ~ -s e:s g'~ g ~ llcl
~. -S N ~ 'c::: ~ ~ l:..J I
~. u ~ ~-g ~~g ~
.....J' ,.. ~ ij :g ~:: .'( Eo-;
~~. t: ~ al: e ~ ~ c: ~
~ ~ ~ ~~z ~
a ~
~I
--
~ .. I
--~- - --_-1
. -'" --... --... ~... -... -'" -". ~'" -'" -'" ---......... _. " -. "-
n-11\ n \-/ i,,: \-/: -;:~:t~i~-~
I E _1_ "'.. ,-" I , V t . " j..., ~ I I"" .
o
- S~ '" ~i ~ ,:~;:? si '" Si~
s'a; s'a
~K-JO~-
O'Ol
t;; *.J
llJ o~
<?-
ci
:~1 0
1I: ~:!
\~i ;;~
;.: lU
lJ! III
:;nON!H(UHi ~)NI1:;f:.:;J
DNI(rJ!(Hl I'
f)Nil :;1:0
--.----------......\
( \
,:::::; = = = = = = = = = = = :::i
c.Mp'r:>J1~ GlOWO :(11,1;0 IDlJ-X
o"p"OOQ01:0100,r..u I'II-X
w<lor'r'goor.'~7. Inr:OlOU
un-Id Il-H!i :lnD-(nl
O"p'( tr"7.7.)' liS -dd\ P\ 11..'d\ 6"r\olQ I 00\ 'I :OUI".'O
~ ~N~~~ 'N" ,oo,"'H " I.'a'"'o"" oo::~~~"tlS~f'!o';;~ '"6-6''' CIS') ;000", II ~
W 0 g. Z'L '-. --... o~Blf~ooN~~u;g~~ PJ~~~~;8~~J~~~~~~ ~
~s v/f)~" """"'- ~ OMNNYTd ':;"1'7 'sanOH UNY7SSa1I:; III ." ~!Z
~ :g ~n aD a LO '<;110 JO ""Oil Jopon JOOUllil/3 lou~I:~o;~J~YlP~~UllDris,.;I~~ tw~M~ll~::l :110,/ 113lNd3lJd m l3
If ~n' O/O~ 00 '<;110 .rod ""Oil puo UOlojhJodno lOOJIP ,(w Jopun JO ow ,(~ pOJodoJd oOM ON n 703 H NV7cI 10U.LNO:J NOIsoua/tJNI(JnItJ ! ~
AD 3J. VO StJOISI'J~5lM'rGlI podoJ Jo 'uollDomoodo 'uold 01'11 lDlll JIl~~lt~~~~~~ 'AD mlNd3lJd :fl:J nIU:JI.L VNYISlfl 07 '31l11m/1S
~I
(j .ll! to >- Z I
~I a ~ i ocg
,.1 fI) ~ ~ I <C ~ . I
~l ~ 0 l'ii1 .Zr: f:J .
Ai. Q,& fto,j "'ll1 ci ! _ (/) "
~. I.~ 8 ffi to 'I ft r-<':a;;z I
Pill ~ ~ g : ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . : -8 ~
~ '" , iii I;; ~~~ ~.~u~ ,,~ !-'15 ~
t .s ~ ffig& c5 G ~ ill ~1 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ :'tl ~ ; Wu.. 0 I
;:"-l d 0.>-15 ~ o c;J::l!'uJl:: D R:jl;:j ,
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l5a 8 OotHH'OW~~~ ~V) i~b
~ ~:i ~ I:J U1~3 ~~~~~~~~~~ &:l :.1"'\ Z .
· '- a ~ ~ ~E~ ~:i ?3 ~BB~H3l[g: g: ~ ~!5 . L&..
· a U ~ C1 gl;jfn ffi~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~s ~~ r I 1\1 ~ ~
~. ~ (U t!i:I; ~~m ~~ I. ~, ~ ~
>- ::) n: ~ Ci '. I U1 x q ""-i 1i
~ (j t ~ g ~~~ ~~ ~ \ II ~ ~ ;:l ;:l ;
::J.;:~. ~ r;q Vi 52 j ~ I!-I ti t!i \ ~ x 'W liill e...; E--i 1 l
filii wn. me> ~ I III I \::I C ..
~ ~ r:q ,...,. I...:j / I' E... E-i .llll ~b
, ~ ~ N I') n IB ~
a ~ til i! ~
-..II IU I' "
~ ~f ~
~ .!.I!~ it V:i
g ;~I! jfl
&I~ ll! l::l
V) ~li~ jib I ~
~I~I li.q ~
I;.).~~z~ Q:5 6' ~~
"-.. tft'ill hll I~ ~ ~
~ J" .!J!1 -y.n- Ii ...p:
~ ~.It. ~h ~ii6 l~
~ f~ ,il./;
"<1;1 ~ "I
~ <::>~ cD ___
~ n~~ ~ ~~~ -F - -
o. ~ I; .~,. t:l~ ~ '<! ... ,'] ..
~ - - ~-7 _1-~~~.-t:I.~ ~~ !::I~ _ __;:::;:::;:::
)L _ _ _ =-= - - - - """1J~~'-:2. - - - - _J-~~~ ~ J:f, = = = = = = = = :::X= = = = :;;;;: = = = = = = = *'" ;::: ;::: :;:::: ::::: - -
~t".>1l<j
...-...~.~.._~.~_... ...~..._...-..._...-... ...~...----..._...
i
I
\
~o~~
~I '.. ~I\
- -' -f~~~~l
. ~"p'Dd010~OIDO,r,..O jDII-X
~"D'OUDqO~OlgO '0"0 j"l/-X
o"&;r~.~;"gi~l~g;g:g ::~:~
wdlC ~~'I~og~t~JJ':\'~:\~~
OMP'(t .X~~ )pnJO-rl.^ ulQ"Jd\O"P\OWl DO\ ,,:OUjUJO
~ 'cj5 b ((l2~=) <2Joj- _' r;;f-.::: 'nil J+'Y7.IIC?f~??J -?rlOVS~1
of? ... C1LV 90,..... .
rQOO J)r:::::: ? dTJ}-~/l+~ +S.'~3 a+ -j- -?"?-,/O J
00 it - ..
'O"D . 00 [) 51 ~ -:::.. -Y\ CJ ~f::o-^otr; ? 2ft- -;) 1- ...,. .NJ"V\ OJ
-'C}ooh L 'ooo-z, ~ h'V\J C\? . 'Xl? Z
00 fI- ov V 17 V
9(:/55 hbtt~ Q?$~"71 At;)!-J.n ~ /""""':; 7~1''''1"''''J::) -1\?d oo')S ~ 59'Z.
I ;)roliOdi!~d l<
~liV!l O~ l: oINn
'"Il 00:; -hOllIl x w'un"
lO"LIl)( ~D'llll)( HZ 1:~1:
l~J D:; ~UY~m Ch'iO
on If";ro.~\ 9l'#~X~Lii~~J)( Ol'ffil~U't!l (~Hx
J01:.WI:< En%JlfX m:!: ~li: bU~~~x 1'71: u.Jgx
H~~~~)( 001
. Ll~p'ilL!lX "V;:0ax
: Gd~V;;IfJ IT;; e,;:
co! ::I3S4
~W1J Z~~~ll Zt~~l< M:l 10~\: lI?iiiY"
I" L; Jil " '"' '" '" ""w. , "j '"
"L;~,* I '.' '~~~;~.~'~------~~l ,,~~"f'~i: "'\\~' :ii~' ~4!'
. I 1; I
. I I l I
" I I) I
I i f
I I "
I . \ 1:;)3
mill f _ __ I illl~:&lx I:;:'~\~x oirt5~x
::1& on . ::H, I O..;;Lp I I': I . .~. " L OIZ f> {' .LIl:WJ!F..s~g x
ZIl'!fi'il~I~~ : ;'i~f'l L__'~=_':'~_'-:~~~-=~____j ltt'mX
~\Mg .
m - r--------------------'l .1rt'J;~~~x
Od"e ~ I ~ ~r- .H..__._,..... - "1 Iml ;lll
"'''Ij :'l~jrb:r'c, ,.~ , i .< ~" "'~i'
I .Jg L.c:~ I! (1,L -S
../ . OLl I 5Ll; I --:d b C' 0 I ~ n \ \ \
: I .,' 0 &: ! (1, \ ~\l~til)( I ...-g? r.(::, S
I ----rul;t....l (jIGI.) .11-\(1..... !ill: I '71;(j:~ --- -1~"'\ l!J.m"
::Id:l" Zlll111l< "--"::..' 7Li~X J .Ill:
e~~Lff OI~ I I ;i..,"';'~~.l tb \ I ~~x::; ~ \\
(ill . . . ~~ll'1ih r u .tr.-s ~!J!l
. I '--"-1Il.. -__.._1 UIl 0" '!:....!~lU3X
~'llzg :. -b.--,.".,<n;...,...-- \17. I ~, .0. DIJL
T'll~~ I f"r-. "- ..' ...-........ .', - -.. .--.----. . _.,.~_~.r~ .
\' t~~ l1:i91-U llSV1fs'~ :.:. ~t. {., . ..- ~ ." it
. :m tG""11t~rg 6 .:l!I'E~~~:ro · ~\,fJ ~ Y ::lmS~~-\!1;~ I!o:l ~x
:l<! :lEI . ~G'Ull - lot ~()1"':fI!1l u, i'if~W ~, v~ "j1.l/1S. G LtgeLIlX
.o~W 11:1!!C::'J OR l!!l:l ~~ l!O:J :lll ~..... llNn - ~ "', <, il!~ lrqJ
/./ I r l~'Ull" ~tlJ/.G Ilr.xlfu.lJ.!(l .I. lS-l.Lllx o:roftlO!mfo!l~~~~lC_~i!ln
o ,,'7 . : "'"iii '" '~.tl :1\1 ''''u><i:,: ,:w.,:::, "~~,' ~ ''''''''
A \ '0 .:, l). H] ~~~~.~~ l;tlh1~~" ~oll~nx ^~x !i~l1:'itl;!i1"
. t"l-' Q I 11-5! .'" '~1:lX Al$lli-:s1()h1'(/j j;'l:~x Ciu<<l5l:m
\/1 1 r; x t l!lIlx ~rL G'~ljij.l1_11X UI (llUSx
;? 'f,J . 0) l/ I:mL:-;;1 G&l
o
::m
lXillLll)C 1
!11 :Jcnll
,/' :l~:!rt~l(
'Pil
rC) ~V)\ .
,0 )
e;, '\/ \
o\a I\.r
^\'~ ," PJ!flg
, \ uom
~ 1.llI513:'ru1f& x
lil~X
-.,. _... -. -. t.'~ .,. -,. \:r.:ol... - ..g...z,-. -. -,.. ~'" -... -... -... -'-- -" -'" -'" _"'_
""MJ:. ....7::1 ;'\11 ~ 73
"Il- 8 -:. ,11,{j: -1..t .~J\....t 1-
/-;.8 ~ I' I "Z~'tJ
~1'2J , ./Z
I
-;.J-,::" I
.J l.tJ / I I
otolc1jO
,
~ 9l.S.'~1 'oN 'on 'Nl'i LrIu&pul1 '0 ,(o;Jjor 0009-!iO~ (lSO) :KO.1 i'i I ~
m 'lJ}'J;lh' :"loa ~~ :,,;nlo,,015 0099-r.Ol< (L90) :QUPlld IlleS-BCl< (LS9) :"UPIld ~}
~ 0 . I" YL. " 'V ' r v "r l) o~Btg~oo N~/;~~~ PJ;"~~;;B ~~;~~~~~~ ~ z I
'" ~ / tJNtl3WfJS ONl833NION3 ONINNV7d ":J"7"7 'S:illVOH ([NrISS8U:J ~ I ~ ....... ~;:!
~ [g ~n o/a. LO ~",^au "'11 I" OMOI '" Jopun JMo^"ns 1'"01 p;~~~~~~~pjOo o~~~ '1IOJ (l]!IVdJ1M ~ :g
If ~II 0 O~ no All:> JVd ',^"U lOin pUO UOI"IAJ"~n" l""JIp Aill Japun JO OIU A~J)OJDdo)d 00'" ON 0703' H .LV7cl .AWNIlVI7JlUcl/J,Jl:ilHSU:fIAO:J Ji ~ I
All 3lVO SNOISII\3USX!/VrmJ uondl-'''oop )0 '!JodoJ 'VOid 'AOAJnO Dim 1041 11~~~ll~6~1~~ 'An (l]!IVdJUd :il:JYUU:il.L YNYISlfl07 'Jlm .L3311S ~
~I
U !Tl->;'~ ~
~; ~ ,~Q
~~ CI) A'.'.b!s
Q) ~=.t. . I
~,. . ~ . z:~ i ~ i
.. Cb +' ! _r (/) : II
tij.,.- ~.s ~~ Lm.E 22: r--r'. ~Z ~. I
Q !'I.': 0.... Ql c"O:it , ! ~O ....
~ ~ ~ ~l():t-~,~ g 2 ~ '_. "D .E2
"'-i 0 co 0 :J" '- Q) ~ . ....J 0:: 0
· ~ ~ +,:ZO~b.I ~ ~ :W.'o ~
:lIii Q 5Ul<V+' Q). ~ 0..; . u. 0
lInp " ~ a.~:5 ~ '0 ~ ~ :., ~ ; OC!-
::e~- ~ ~ '. -0 Q) '0:5 :v . , ~ ~ . ^ c:
. ~ a .c.c :J-e"'- 0 ~ ~ ~ . ~2,:
""- r-.. ~ :~"*~ g~Z ~ t3 ~ '~
ffp(- 0" E::: 0.....4-Q/00>5. ~ ~ ~
......~ +' 0>lC) ..c: +' c: 'C;; 0 ~ ~ s
Ih..'~ ~.s ~ .i1~.;:: ~ J! :~ g ~ ~ >; ~ ~
~.. "s f'I\ t.:i c.... 0 3= -] OJ ~ ~~t..>~
,.~ U Qt ~ ~ ~1n JJ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ '" 1::\ U) <V 0 L. 0 2 '. ~ 0..; ~ t: E:: VJ I
__';:= I.;j .... ~ CI) g (f) :E _~ >; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...~ a; ~ ~C:~~~ ~ ~~ ~ tni3~B~~
~!'h ~ ON 4- c: 4- 0 :J 0 ~ ~~;;-;:-l;i~
~~ ~ "-l {/).q' 00 0 I- <( ()
~ ~ I
Sj
!
j
--
- - - -- ." - ~ -
.. -... -... -... -... -... !HbO;'! :if":';' '!H\::!;;![),(~;I,:.,~= ':' T'" -.. ... -...
to'lSI ] tt 1'l.OON 10 10/1 N Plll jO pUll lRO]J
~ H~tlON JIA V VNVISIl107 ~
~ - --
- - - O'L\: IfLC g'LC t'ge ~ -
,------------1 ,----- ------,
s I I g !'II 19
I I I I
I I I I
~ I l : : "
; I J , I i:i
:5 ql 'I I :5
'0 ~: I : : ~ 0
- I I I I 5
~~ : ~ ~ ~ :;: ':;, OJ ~ ~ : i
~~: ~ r-- l~ I <I> ~ :"0
~~ w: (=)': J : w :
05 19 I ./ --.. I I I 8 .5
~~ ~ sL____________.Js SL-------r____.J s ~ 0
:e:5 ro I ro::J
C /// en (f)
~ 1llOWPSD3 -<lIlIin "i OUDIIIDJO ..- ,/ ~
,/ ~ ,~/,
I 0 #<",,-
I :;>:; '_...',
I {l'Li: g'Lr g'Li: <9' 9'LI: ':....,,--,
lZ'lSI 3 .1't,1'Z.oo N _ ~ ~
LZ ~ 'BIll '9 lIon''''s jD 1'/1 MS IIlll ',"'-
JO 1'/1 35 lIl.fi In lo-/ I N 041 ,0 ,9'ml 100] 04\ JO IIUIl lllllM I::>....
1\)
"'".....':'
.. \_~""t
f','P"p'" OGOI90'r..O /"II-X
6"p'",nQOGOI9o,r.'n 1"1/-)(
utdll'l'DOO~'H 1"1""'00 I
'Old "d:tnn.\'Ol
""'=')"'-''''''.'''''~\'''''''''''''''N' .
~ I I 0099-90>("') "" · ~ I
- DODO-GOl>- (Hm) :OUO'ld OlS::O-OS::.. (11;9) a>uo'ld Q J ,
!i! 7:l LgS Nf'I 'uoli"3 mOgs NI'I 'ljod!:"9 ,J) ,
::< a OApa >toO Uld gaOl pJOADIMe ^oJdGO ssa ~
'8 ""''''- ~ &mINV7d ':J'7'7 'S:!llfOH aNV7SS11iI:J ~ I ~ <:0 ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~n oolalLO ^IIJ Jod ""O/J ~., ,..,,.,~ LJf :lJO~ a:UJV<OlJd ~ :g
n: ~Il OO/Ol; 00 '110 .IOU ",..O/J U I" II 1113171 NV7cI :fIcIV:JSaNV7 5 ~
t1. All -mo SNOlS1h3USllllVI'GlJ 'NOll.VDUIl.1l33 'All <J3lJVd3lJd :!lOVHUJl.L VNVISlfl07 '3l11l. !DIlS g . I
I.a~
(.) .s
~r ~
QS ~ ~
... CIl ~ "
~. 9.-i 2Z ~. '_
!lIl. ~ ~ ~-5
.-. 11: ~ !i! · ~ tj
~ ~ h
~. Q)~ ~<-l<-lin III
'-J~ :t ::a
..... ~ a fr u
~~~~ ~~l
~ ~'i ~ ~ ~
~. ~ !
~ ~ d
C) ~ I
-..a
j!
:2
~
;!l
II _
/j
- - - -.-7 - '_ _ _
::':=~="==-='===~=-"'BRJ~='-;:;?' .., -- .
-========='1
I
)
---/--
- ~ !
I
,. - .,,' ,,:-:/.-
,- ,---:==1
I-~ \---
_L-.L---
\ ~ !
. I
I
. t_--------
... '-. 8LO- _.
~~~
..........--------,,\
( \
I
f>"'~.ftlnOlOlno'f>"C1 /"U-X "
fiMp'odolOlOLOO:GMCI /olJ-X
UMp'..OQOZOLOO:GMO /olJ-X
GMp'pOXO OWIOO 'GMO jDU-X
IUdO, : I'OOOZ',Z 1"1' '"1"0 I
lUtJllll' urjo~r:f'LJ'Dl:lnrnol
nOlO ,( trxn )OU01-dd\ """'" Jd\ f>Mo\OlO I 00\ :1 :r>UIMOJO
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: July II, 2006
Report Date: July 5, 2006
Planning Case: 06-08
Petitioner: Terry Veigel
Address: 5551 Louisiana Avenue North
Request: Rezoning, prelirrtinary plat, and lot area variance for twinhomes
I. Request
The petitioner' is requesting rezoning of property from CB, community business, to R2, single and two-
family residential, prelirrtinary plat for property to be known as Louisiana Terrace, and a variance to
the lot area requirement to allow construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes, pursuant to Section 4-6,
4-6(f)(1), 4-36, and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. (The original 60 day time frame
for this application has been legally extended until September 1, 2006.)
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-6 R2, Single and Two-Family Residential
Section 4-6(f)(1) R2, Lot requirements - base lot
Section 4-36 Administration - Variances
Chapter 13 Subdivision and Platting
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: CB, Community Business
Location: On Louisiana A venue, south of Bass Lake Road, west side of the road just
prior to entering Crystal.
Adjacent Land Uses: The property to the west, north and east is community business district, while
the property to the south is single family residential in the city of Crystal.
Site Area: 25,011 sq. ft. total, (151.94 X 148.95 X 151~22 X 148.43)
Building Area: 1,672 sq. ft. for the house and garage footprint per unit, total of 6,688 sq. ft.
Lot Area Ratios: Impervious surface: 8,856 sq. Ft. 40%
Green area: 13,699 sq. ft. 60%
Plannillg District: No.6; The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as community business.
Specific Information: This site is reasonably level, though it has acted as a drainage route for runoff
from neighboring lots. Consequently, a large drainage basin in the rear yard
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 1 7/5/06
will have to be construGted. The emergency overflow for the site will be along
the south property line and may increase the amount of water at or along th,; .
property line ~ that area.
IV. Background
This site has remained vacant and undeveloped due to the difficulty of locating a commercial business
on such a small lot. Drainage for a commercial property with more impervious surface is an issue that
would likely require extension of storm sewer to the site from Bass Lake Road for use as a commercial
property; a residential use is less intense and therefore provides more area for on site ponding and
infiltration. This area is a transition area from the commercial property in New Hope into the single
family residential properties in Crystal to the south.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner and his selected developer are proposing to build two twin homes for a total of four
units on this site. They note the difficulty of developing the site for commercial purposes with its small
size. They believe this use will act as a nice buffer between the commercial properties. to the north and
the single family residential housing to the south.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified including the City of Crystal. Staff has
received only one comment from the attorney for the property ovvner to the north. They question what
the city's comprehensive plan calls for on the site and they worry about future complaints related to noise
and lights from the gas station they operate to the north, on the comer of Bass Lake Road and Louisiana
A venue. Please refer to attached narrative from the petitioner for more detailed information.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Comprehensive Plan Direction
The applicant requests rezoning from the current CB zoning to R-2, single- and two-family residentiaL
In terms of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, the property is located in Planning District 6, which
states:
. An aggressive strategy for enhancing the commercial character along Bass Lake Road is
recommended.
0 Expand commercial land use patterns
0 Assemble and redevelop smaller commercial sites to create larger commercial lots for
contemporary retail, service, and office uses.
The proposed rezoning does not match the strategy identified in the comprehensive plan, and will
require an amendment to the comprehensive plan to allow rezoning. Such an. amendment may be
justified, as the commercially-zoned property adjacent to the applicant includes viable businesses and
are not likely to seek redevelopment soon. In addition, the applicant has unsuccessfully sought
commercial property development of the site, but has been limited by the small site size and access
constraints.
If the city feels the project is a high-quality addition to the city that enhances the surrounding area, it
may pursue a comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide the property from cornmercialland use to
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 2 7/5/06
medium-density residential land use. This process will require the city to process an amendment to its
comprehensive plan, which will include review by the Metropolitan Council for consistency with
regional plans. This process will require a public hearing. A medimn density (4-8 units/acre)
reclassification would allow the development of twin homes but would not allow multifamily housing.
Upon amending the comprehensive plan/ the city could rezone the property if desired.
B. Rezoning
The property is proposed for R-2, single and two-family residential. Existing zoning is CB/ community
business. Criteria for a variance require specific conditions to be met, such as a mistake in the original
zoning decision. The city designated the parcel as CB zoning to encourage retail presence on the site, or
to facilitate redevelopment of adjacent commercial property. The adjacent property does not currently
require or anticipate redevelopment soon. The parcel is tOQ small for contemporary retail site
requirements, so the property owner has not been able to find a commercial user interested in the site.
For these reasons, a residential use may be most appropriate.
The Design and Review Committee discussed the possibility of directing the applicant to request R-3
zoning to elirrtinate the need for a lot area variance. However, such rezoning could allow additional
density that may be inappropriate for the site.
C. Zoning Code Criteria
Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to
prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific
parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration
and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code.
The proposed R-2 zoning requires a lot area of 6/000 square feet per unit. The applicant proposed
approximately 5/600 square feet per unit, which does not comply with code requirements and therefore
requires a variance of 400 square feet from the Zoning Ordinance. To grant a variance, the applicant is
required by Minnesota Statute to demonstrate that a hardship exists on the property. Criteria for a
variance :includes:
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of
this Code. Physical hardships may include' lot shape/ narrovvness, shallowness, slope, or
topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this
Code.
The parcel is too snlall to develop effectively as commercial propertyf but near commercial properties,
making it less attractive for singlejanlily homes or other uses. The size/ geolnetry, arld context of the site
lend it to twinholne development.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 3 7/5/06
TIle parcel is one of few remaining vacant parcels in New Hope. 771.e characteristics of the site are not
generally applicable to nearby properties.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous ovvner.
The property owner has tried to develop or sell the property under the existing zoning without success.
The condition has not been caused by the existing owner.
4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of
fire, or endanger the public safety.
c. It is the minimum action required to elirrtinate the hardship.
d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district
The requested variance is n1inor- only 400 square feet per lot. TIle twinhome development will serve as a
buffer fro1n existing commercial properties to the existing single-family neighborhood, and should not
create additional impacts on the existing neighborhood 'loith respect to lightf air, fire hazard or public
safety.
Subdivision and Platting
The purpose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota
Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best
interests of the city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with
those of the city at large.
Per routine policy, the prelirrtinary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment.
Comments received include the following:
Utility companies - no response.
City Engineer - see attached correspondence and comments dated March 16f 28, and 29, 2006.
Hennepin County - see attached correspondence and comments dated March 29, 2006.
City Planner - Prelirrtinary Plat - The applicant submitted plans for re-platting the property. A
preliminary plat was submitted with revised plans. Four lots are proposed for the property, with an
average size of 5,609-5,653 s.f. each. The lots have an average width of 76 feet per twinhome, 38 per
unit. The lot width conforms to the requirements of the code. The total site is 22/533 s.f., or 0.517
acres.
Sec. 4-6. R-2, single- and two-family residential district.
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 4 7/5/06
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the R-2 single- and two-family residential district is to provide for
low density single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, accessory and
complementary uses.
(b) Permitted uses, R-2. The following are permitted uses in an R-2 district:
(1) Single-family detached dwellings.
(2) Two-family dwellings.
(3) Boarding (house) home--Foster children. Subject to applicable county and state
licensing requirements.
( 4) Day care in home. Subject to applicable cormty and state licensing requirements.
(5) Public parks and playgrounds.
(6) Essential services.
(7) Group home, single-family.
(f) Lot requirements, building heights, and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall
be observed in the R-2 zoning district subject to additional requirements, exception, and
modification set forth in this Code.
(1) Lot area.
a. Base lot.
1. Single-family. 8,400 square feet.
2. Two-family. 12,000 square feet.
3. Other uses. 15,000 square feet.
b. Lot area per unit.
1. Single-family. 8,400 square feet.
2. Two-family. 6,000 square feet.
(2) Lot width.
a. Single-family. 70 feet.
b. Single-family--Corner lot. 90 feet
c. Two-family. 75 feet
d. Two-family--Comer lot. 90 feet.
e. Other uses. 90 feet.
f. Other uses--Comer lots. 100 feet.
(3) Building height. 2 1/2 stories or 32 feet, whichever is greater.
(4) Setbacks.
TABLE lJ."J"SET:
Front: Front: Arterial or Side: Side: Side: Arterial or
Comer
Local Community Rear Interior Side Local Community
Street Collector Street (a) Yard Street Collector Street (a)
25 feet 30 feet 25 10/5 (b) 20 feet 25 feet
feet
(a) See subsection 4-3(c)(6)b of this Code.
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 5 7/5/06
(b) Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot side yard setback is permitted for an
attached garage and any living space constructed above the attached garage footprint.
(Ord. No. 05-04, S 2, 3-14-2005)
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met on May 18 and was supportive of the request. Please refer to
attached planner's report for summary. The following comments were made on the plans:
. Show building setbacks on plans
. Clarify basement floor elevation - top of foundation, basement floor
. Curb cut - maximum 28 feet at property line
0 Provide storm water calculations - This property is low spot in area and runoff water ponds on this
property
. Discuss potential swale in rear yards and retaining wall along south lot line
. Provide five foot drainage/utility easement on north, south, and east lot lines, between Lots 2 and 3,
and 10-foot easement on west lot line
. Relocate sewer/water connections for Lots 1 and 4 so don't cross property lines
Q Water and sewer connections are located in street
. Sewer access charges (SAC) fees due on four units x $1,550 = $6,200
e Payment of storm water fee (to be determined by city engineer)
G Payment of park dedication fee ($1,500 per lot = $6,000) upon submittal of final plat for city
signatures
. Developer to provide narrative re: price, building materials, for sale units, market rate, background,
previous projects
e Provide landscaping plan and perimeter foundation plans
. Developer required to provide screening between residential property and commercial properties
e Police Deparbnent recommends placing a fence on "vest property line adjacent to parking lot
.. Provide fence on north property line
e Discuss building fa<;ade materials - rear: change vinyl texture on gable ends; front: change gables to
shake or scallop
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and discussed all of the Development
Review Teams comments with the petitioner. It also encouraged some fa<;ade improvements to the
rears of the units. The committee was generally supportive of the proposaL
D. Plan Description
1. Setbacks
Setbacks com 1 with code re
Setback I Pro ased
Front Yard, all lots 25
Rear Yard, all lots 61
Side Yard, all lots 10
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 6 7/5/06
2e Easements and Drainage
Drainage and utility easements are shown on the plat. The rear yard drainage easement
contains the ponding and drainage area required on the site. Easements are subject to review by
the city engineer.
Upon approval of the final plat, park dedication and storrnwater management fees must be
paid. The stormwater management fee, if applicable, will be determined by the city engineer.
Park dedication fees are $750 per unit for a total of $3,000.
3. Screening/Fencing and Landscape Plan
In revised plans, the applicant added screening along the north side of the property to screen
the commercial use north of the property. The burden of providing scree.ning between a
commercial and residential use would typically fall to commercial or industrial uses, but since
this project constitutes a change of land use and zoning, the applicant will be responsible for
providing adequate screening from adjacent commercial uses. Revised plans show a six foot
cedar fence on the north property line. A vegetative screen consisting of spruce trees and ash
trees will be planted on the west property line. The screening appears adequate for the site.
In addition to the five ash trees and four spruce trees, the applicant proposes 20 viburnum
shrubs in #5 pots, and four autumn blaze maple,trees. All other areas shall be planted with sod
or otherwise landscaped.
A rear yard stormwater ponding and infiltration area exists on the rear yard of the site, and will
be planted with turf grass sod~ The infiltration area will collect storm water in the event of a rain
event, and water will infiltrate into the grormd. No special plantings are required for the site,
but property owners must maintain the functioning of the infiltration area. No filling or other
alterations may be performed in the area.
4. Driveways
Curb cuts and driveways are proposed for each unit. Driveways are located directly on the
common property line, as allowed by code for twin homes. The driveways are approximately
18-19 feet in width, and taper to a narrower width at the right-af-way line. The proposed
(double) curb cuts are 28 feet wide at the right of way. The driveways are 46 feet apart, which
complies with code requirementse
5. Additional Narrative Description
The applicant submitted an additional narrative with revised plans that describes the proposed
homes. The developer has built homes across the metro region. The developer expects sale
prices to range from $330,000 to $360,000 per unite
6. Architecture and Building Materials
Building materials proposed for the site :include vinyl siding, vinyl shakes, stucco, stone} and
aluminum soffits. Revised plans show improvement to the homes exterior appearance. The
homes have increased the amount of cultured stone on the lower walls, and replaced vinyl
siding with vinyl shakes on upper eaves. Stucco is used on the front side of the homes with
raised panel steel doors. Rear and side yards have trim on windows in revised plans. The
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 7 7/5/06
developer also added viburnum shrubs to the front of the building along the covered front
porch.
No access is provided from the homes to the rear yard. To access the rear yard, residents must
exit the front door and move around the building. The developer stated the layout has proven
popular without the access, and safety concerns have preempted a decision to include a rear
access. Regardless, access should be provided to the rear yard of the project from the front, via a
sidewalk or other means.
The floor plan shows the twinhome units are four bedroom units. The rear of the house is used
only for bedrooms. The potential occupants are likely to be families with children, given the
proposed number of bedrooms for each unit. Play areas and outdoor open space are already
limited on the site due to the sloped rear yard. Nearby parks are limited in size and number as
well. The applicant may wish to pursue reshaping the infiltration area to provide additional
useable open space m the rear yard. Any such work is subject to the review and approval of the
city engineer.
7. Utilities
The applicant submitted a utility plan that shows water and sewer service provided to each
unit. The units are served by separate service, as required by City Code. The utility plan is
subject to review by the city engineer.
E. Planning Considerations
Comments from the planner have been incorporated into this report.
F. Building Considerations
Comments from the building official have been incorporated into this report.
G. Legal Considerations
No comments from the city attorney were received regarding this proposal.
H. Engineering Considerations
Comments from the city engineer are attached.
I. Police Considerations
No comments from the Police Department were received regarding this proposal.
J. Fire Considerations
No comments from the West Metro Fire were received regarding this proposal.
VIII. Summary
The applicant is proposmg to amend the comprehensive plan for this site, rezone the property from CB,
community business, to R-2, single and two-family residential, requests a lot area variance of 400
square feet per lot, and plat :into four lots to accommodate two twin homes.
IX. Recommendation
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 8 7/5/06
Though the existing comprehensive plan reconunends commercial redevelopment for this site} efforts
to obtain commercial investment have not succeeded. The property may be put to better. use as a
medium density multifamily buffer. As such, pending comments received at the public hearing, the
project is a sensible use for the site and warrants various conditional approvals.
Rezoning
Staff recommends approval of rezoning the property from the existing CB zoning to R-2, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Applicant to pay all consultant costs and related fees for comprehensive plan amendment
submission and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Rezoning and re-guiding subject to review and approval by Metropolitan Council
3. Developer must wait for city adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to obtaining
building permits for the site.
Preliminary Plat and Lot Area Variance
Staff reconunends approval of the Prelirrtinary Plat and Lot Area Variance for Louisiana Terrace}
subject to the following conditions:
1. Developer to execute development agreement/bond with city, to be prepared by the city attorney.
2. Comply with all city engineer recommendations - memos attached, including payment of storm
water fee in the amount of $4,508.40.
3. Review aand approval of plans by Building Official and West Metro Fire.
4. Drainage and utility easements shown should be labeled. The rear drainage and utility easement
should be expanded to include the entire infiltration area.
5. Final plat submission is required. Park dedication fees ($3,000) will be required at the time of final
plat approval.
6. Planning Commission may waive review of final plat.
7. Water stop boxes shall be provided by the developer} including all necessary permits for street
work.
Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
Applicant's Letter and Property Covenants
Plat and Plans
Applicanf s e-mail dated 5/31/06
Resolution No. 06-86
City Engineer's memos of 5/18/06, 6/29/06 and 7/5/06
Planrier's reports of 5/15/06 and 6/29/06
Application Log
Planning Case Report 06-08 Page 9 7/5/06
i
j 1 ;=. I
I !~l 19 '", ~
-~ \22t~ I ~ I ~ \VS
~~ 1 "..-4J
t.i; \ =:
~ -<
or ~> -""='-~~=_. J
)>. * -
)> Z
~ 0
~
m
z m
z
\
~
H~(;JnH~
~/70Hl b
~SSS 73'r/Hdvt]
""'i
...
t".:a
W
L_ ~OZL
~
Cb
I I
-- ~ Z
~
m :t:= m
2.: ~ <
-; ~
C J C
0 :t> 1>
~ Z ~
-< C
~ ~ rn
"" 2
m m
2: 2:
I
I
i "
I \ I
I f // \ .
i
~. . ..
I f \
<:: \
!~ : i !~~~~ ~rt '"',,"H ., '"'~. ",,,"',,1 =s;~j[~~ii I .,~;~~~ Ii ~ I ~
!: g: I i I !;;tl:J.3~.M'IS a"'~d!!:EN::;,<a $N",J,'Hrtd I ':;"7'7 'SZJfOH ([ArrISSZ"J:; ~ l.~ ~ ~ ~i
!~ E I I "'~'"l .=a"- Q..;~~:.~~~.~:::Si;':'J:~~;.~':'} .:H~.;:;;u F F; g'
:~ ! ""..0 1<:1.::/;.: .4~ .-.: ".""'. ! ~:,;:, "'U:;:I;o.;lO-=;..o~':::~' "..t;~~:'\ .;-;,'~ i;,' ~;,::d;;..:: ';;.:.1 ON n 7a,,:r H j{"f""7r:! 70fI.LNO:J NOIsoo:g/aNICJrtI'{) r:ll II I
,- ! J.S I :;:....: S~J::!1:~<!'("f'3>j I ~e=.: ~ ~.IC,";=:>~.:::Z -..:er::! c;.., ~.., A.;r-:::..~g :.l.a cr"ve,j,,1I 3:;rrrcI3.r. YNfISLfJ07 ~ .=-S. ~
U~ --
: >-z;=
oS ~ '0::0;
gc~ ~ "'~ :~5:~ _
Q) - ~t'l TZ~ ~
rc"'" Ph .... a ~ ~ . .
wlllilt '- ""=:ci ._~ 11
Iii ~ -s ~ I to l! z:2: r--r i ~ z ! ~ ....
. :t:e ~ - ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~" -8: .f:
~ -= g == < '>i ::~. ~ 'I :::;
<: :1 t: I ~, g::r ~ , n ::: ! -I c::: u
'" '.. :; ~ :; c \;,l::::: = a < = .k; . 0 . en
~ ~ ~'13:::~ S "" 0 8 Vi 5" ~ ::0::: t::; . W u.. c
Ib.... ~~ ~~ ~ :~ e8 89 ~ ~ 'f'Y'f-
e ~ ~ ......,:::. l."; t..: '6 - c ~~.,~..,;; ~ trJ l..I.. 0 .
~ ,,== ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~"'::! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c.. z :
"'" a ~ c 52 .... g. E ~ :::::: ~ ::: ~ ~ _____ :>,
C) U ~ 3 ~~ g~ s ~ N
~ ~E 15- < !'W t::;
........... ~ 0 ....c S::r .:"'1 ~ P
S P Q) ~ ~ ~; ~~ 1. e ~ ::: ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fa ~ ~.., € -= ~ ~ ,,,
~ CJ -~ ~. ","'~:::~ ~ c.l )l~.. 1-:1 ..:;..:; ,"-' '...x, e .:~
S ~ ~H ~3;~ t; ~'l ~ i ~ ~ ~ J~.I ~ , .1 tL.
~.::: ... c. .~ Q ~ VI l: Q 0 ~ '->I .. ,_ t...;: i
::) r:: ~ .:. .~: ~ liS E--. ~ ? ~ :<d .u: !e ~;~ 7....,; ,:,=-':
A\ t,:i'...: N I"; ~ 4' ~_ ,!i "1 ...." _. *...'" ~
~.... : o? ~ ;'$ H j.. .;~;-]~ = r"5~ .u.:;:"~.l.SC.d ~
::'-o! ';]1:" E ,,- .:-';; .;::; i';::; ... ~1!:";I'!!S;I'I, ~
" , ff \ ~ ~l ij .. j! ;.; ~ E.,\I ~ 7:. ,,9: I ~
'-' r ~ . l =~ ':~ ~ r~.! ~~l :"
~ I \ I ~ ~~ !f ~.. ~.,:d \ :~J;", ~
D'" ..111 \~~~l' ~
~ SJ ,Ill I! , '\. """'"~ '" -~ ~ I
~ ~J~~ ~lM ~ ~~~~:.:'.~ ~
::: !'11'"j " ,- -..."'" ~" ," '"" : :l
~ : H~a~f: i~: l~ :\:..::r.;:' ! ~~
~I"~1!1 -=.n;; 1:' ti "4:=
~!,ma" :i~ I"" }l
~ ~"<j --
~ ~~~ - - --
~ r~j1::f;~r.: ~'~ J.
"" ~"~--_-~~~~-~-':1tJ:~==:::~~l==~==="~===="~====-=="__,
:: /, \~/ \:/ :,1 \:/ : :; ; r': () ~:
g g :: -~~=~~~~~=1~;
Ir -;:;= = = = = = = = = = = :;; - ~: j' ~ l
I, w ~
::;c - -------:~ f ,-_---;:+--\~
. 1- -, ,...[
.-:1/ ! ~- ~_--iC:
~ \ \---~-;;~;~:~ \
L'1.9 ; I _-------
~.~ t"::::l~~;:~~ \, \'~l'- ~: ~s-_
7 I I - .......
-':~;' 1# !
~"
= = :;s !S !
c~
I 1
;':::: I I ""..:.l t.::
w:::: ~.... ........
f .....j;:J~i ~_ ~,
lQ Q Q,
--L.J.~ .::;: -: ~----"=-f'
, <:.; "'-- ~ ; ~ J:J" ~":O:~ :
.... "-......., .,...... - 1 ' -., . - I
" '~ ." - :':,;;-i;j ~ n.; - - - - 1_ _-~'~-_l
f'P
/'
-------
., .,.. s:t:DhiE:~rt!.:s. ;;';"H1..Si:.:3
/
~~~:t"": n~: = 1"
:':.:...:: 1 :::"...=
:::1"-
..-~ ,..;-------""""----........
..... =::- '\
f \
~ '============i!
t;::~~:g~:~ ~:;:~
~"'=.o;.;..a ::='t~=-o. J"lt-::.
t.o.)"l'l~\$':~' l'IO~J
~.:~:~t~~:':l~;~~
!"':--{'to:::>;;~--,t:=:\Ii:7i"'~"'~\ '!;"',:.\:.::--=;e\ -= ~~~
j'JJ1 Bonestroo 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113
~ Rosene
1\11 Anderli/< & Office: 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311
,': Associates www.bonestroo.com
Engineers & Architects
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Vince Vander Top
DATE: July 5, 2006
SUBJECT: 5551 Louisiana - Twinhome Development
OUf File No. 34-Gen NW17.06.03
1. We have reviewed the submitted drainage calculations. Concerns still remain regarding
the ability of the site to infiltrate storm water which drains to the back yard. Please refer
to the attach review comments from Brad Schleeter. Based on this review, the following
recommendations are provided:
a. The applicant shall complete percolation tests to measure the actual
infiltration rates on site. The measured rate should be used in revised storm
water calculations.
b. If the infiltration rates do not exceed 1.0 inch per hour, storm sewer shall be
extended to the site. This will require engineering plans to be resubmitted.
c. Even if infiltration rates meet or exceed 1.0 inch per hour, it must be disclosed
to future purchasers and residents that the backyard "viII be subject to standing
,vater after rain events.
End of Comments
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 651-604-4790.
· St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN · MilwaukeeJ WI · Chicago, IL
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
n Bonestroo
Memo -=- Rosene
"1\J1 Anderli/< &
Associates
Engineers &. Architects
Project Name: 5551 Louisiana Avenue Client: City of New Hope
To: Vince Vander Top File No: 34Gen
From: Brad Schleeter Date: July 5, 2006
Re: Stormwater review of submitted information
Development: Louisiana Terrace
Engineer: Hedlund Engineering
Submittal: Drainage calculations (dated 6/20/06), grading plan (dated 6/20/06)
The information submitted by Hedlund Engineering for the property at 5551 Louisiana Avenue (Louisiana Terrace)
has been reviewed. Based on this review, comments regarding the design are provided below.
1. Based on the City's 2-foot contours, an existing drainage area to the low point at 5551 Louisiana Avenue is
approximately 1.2 acres. The proposed development of this site reroutes a portion of this area directly to
Louisiana Avenue, reducing the total drainage area to the proposed infiltration area to 1.0 acres.
2. The infiltration rate assumed for the existing and proposed basins in the submitted calculations is 4.0
inches/hour, which is very high, even for sandy soils. An on-site soils investigation to determine a more
accurate permeability rate of the existing soil should be completed.
3. This review of the submitted information assumes an infiltration rate of 0.24 inches/hour, consistent with
loamy sand soils, which seems reasonable. Based on the assumed infiltration rate above, the drawdown
times are as follows:
Table 1: Drawdown Time Summary
4'1 event - similar to May 8m, 6" - 24 hour, 1 OO-yr event
Bottom of 2006 storm event
Condition Maximum Drawdown Maximum Drawdown
Basin Pooling Depth Time Pooling Depth Time
(feet) (days) (feet) (days)
Existing Low Area Roughly 775.0 0.3 1.5 0.9 2.75
Proposed Basin 772.0 2.8 7.0 4.2 9.5
From Table 1, the proposed basin pooling depths and drawdown times are significantly greater than those of
the existing low area. This is due primarily to the reduction in the surface area/volume of the depression, as
the runoff volumes to the low point in the existing and proposed conditions are reasonably equal.
The drawdown times for the proposed basin are significant, even for a 2-year event (4.5 days). Standard turf
grass does not react well to inundation times greater than 2-3 days. To achieve an acceptable inundation
time for the 1 aD-year event (no greater than 3 days), an infiltration rate of approximately 1.0 inch/hour would
be necessary. Per Comment #2, on-site percolation tests should be performed to determine a site specific
infiltration rate.
4. The submitted plans must identify what practices (timing of excavation, traffic limits, construction runoff
protection, etc.) will be incorporated into the design to maintain the existing infiltration rate.
1:\34\34GEN\User\Planning\2006\5551 Louisiana Twinhome\VTV _BP S^Stormwater _ Comments070506.doc
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
JIlt Bonestroo 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paull MN 55113
~~ Rosene
.~ Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
1\11 Anderlil< &
Associates www.bonestroo.com
Engineers & Architects
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Vince Vander Top
DATE: June 29, 2006
SUBJECT: 5551 Louisiana - T,vinhome Development
Our File No. 34-Gen 1\TW17.06.03
We have received the revised plans for proposed twinhomes at 5551 Louisiana A'venue. The
following comments should be considered in addition to our previously submitted memo dated
5/18/06.
1. A storm water fee consistent 'rvith the City's Surface Water Management Plan should be
considered as previously outlined.
2. Please refer to the previous memo regarding drainage concerns in the area. The grading
plan has been adjusted based on our previous comments. Weare in the process of
reviewing the drainage calculations and the proposed infiltration area.
a. A specific infiltration rate vvas assumed in the drainage calculations. The
validity of this rate must be verified.
b. The infiltration area vvill be sodded. Soils in this area cannot be amended \vith
clay or other material v\.thich will alter the infiltration rate.
,., It appears that the egress windo"v openings will be lower than the EOF from the property.
.:J.
Identify the window "veIl material/configuration such that inflow into the home is not an
Issue.
End of Comments
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 651-604-4790.
· St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, rv1N · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, lL
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
jf~ Bonestroo 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paull MN 55113
~ RC?sene
1\J1~~~~~~~ Office: 651-636-4600 J:I Fax: 651-636-1311
WVv'N .bonestroo .com
E!1gineers & Architects
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Vince Vander Top
DA TE: May 18, 2006
SUBJECT: 5551 Louisiana - Twinhome Development
Our File No. 34-G~n Nw17 .06.03
We have received the plans for proposed twinhomes at 5551 Louisiana Avenue. The following
comments should be considered in the review of the application.
1. A storm water fee consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan should be
considered as fo110\vs:
Site Area 22,542 SF .Total site area outside of ROW
(148.4 x 151.9)
Pond Cost $0.20 S/SF Typical pond construction cost
Storm Water Fee $4,508.40
The storm water fee is to\vard the construction of regional storm water facilities. This is
in lieu of constructing storm water ponding on site. The $O.20/SF has been used on other
properties as a representative cost for the construction of a pond. This amount should be
included in the o'verall review of the property.
2. The grading plan as presented will create drainage..issue for adjacent properties. The
current site is depressed (lower) than all adjacent properties. Storm water runoff from the
properties to the north and south drains to this parcel and infiltrates. It appears that the
soils on this site are sandy allowing a high infiltration rate.
The dev~elopment of this property will disrupt this drainage pattern. The development of
this property must include measures to accommodate the existing drainage. The
following must be considered in the desi2:n:
~ ~
a. The applicant must submit storm water calculations documenting the storm
water runoff to this site for a lO-year and 1 aO-year event.
. b. .A.n EOF is show'I1 at the SE corner of the property~. It does not appear that
water ponding in the back yard can reach the EOF without impacting the
property to the south. The grading along the south property line will need to
be altered to accommodate this drainage route.
c. If infiltration is still relied upon as the method for controlling the runoff, the
applicant must:
1. Submit soils information including percolation rates documenting that the
· St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochesterl Willmarl MN · Milwaukee, WI II Chicagol lL
Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity =mployer and Employee Owned
amount of runoff to the site will infiltrate at an acceptable rate.
11. H\VLs must be documented in infiltration areas for the lO-year and 100-
year event. The lOVlest building opening must be a minimum of 2 feet
higher than the lOO-year HWL and EOF.
Ill. No water ponding will be allowed on adjacent properties
IV. All infiltration and ponding areas must be protected by drainage easements
included on the plat
v. Infiltration areas should be designed as rain water gardens, meaning the
areas should be shaped and planted in ways to promote the infiltration.
VI. The infiltration areas must be disclosed to future buyers in terms of
intended function and the potential for standing water.
d. An alternative method could be considered in lieu of or in addition to storm
water infiltration. Storm sewer could be extended to the property frOpl the
intersection of Bass Lake Road. This could limit the frequency of standing
water. The storm sewer could be constructed in lieu of the stonn \vater fee.
. ."
3. It does not appear that the proposed plat includes the entire property. The plat must
include the portions of the property that are currently covered by a street easement. This
portion of the property should be included in the plat and dedicated as ROW.
4. Drainage and utility easements must be included on the plat around the perimeter of the
property and along the common lot line between Lots 2 and 3. Additional drainage
easements must be included in areas of infiltration or drainage as previously discussed.
5. The sewer and water service lines cannot cross property lines. The services for Lots 1
and 4 must be moved. The services should preferably enter the property. in the green
space beside the driveways. The street will be patched match the existing street section
or as directed by the engineer/public works at the time of construction.
6. A landscaping plan should be submitted. The landscaping plan must not conflict with the
drainage requirements previously discussed.
End of Comments
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 651-604-4790.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: August 2, 2006
Report Date: July 28, 2006
Planning Case: 06-10
Petitioner: Cittj afNew Hope
Address: City wide
Request: Ordinance antending the Nezv Hope Sign Code section 3-40
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planning Commission approval of the attached ordinance amending the
language of the New Hope Zoning Code to improve the code's legibility and to make the sign code
more business-friendly.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 3-40 Sign Code
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: All Zoning Districts
IV. Background
Per direction froIn the PlamLing CommissioI1 011 July 11, staff reviewed the suggested changes to the
draft ordinance presented by the city attorney. The items identified for clarification by the Planning
Commission are listed belovv in the development analysis section.
V. Petitioner's Comments
Staff requested the city planner and city attorney review the potential change to the zoning code and
make recommendations for changes to the code.
VI. Notification
Amendments to the sign code do not require notice to be published in the official ne,,,rspaper of the
city. Hovvever, staff did advertise a review of the sign code in the sprll1g issue of the Business L:ink,
and received several calls from businesses supporting more flexibility III the sign code. Businesses tl1at
contacted staff include Arc's Value Village TllIift Store, All-Star Sports, and Down o1142nd. An Upscale
Consignment Boutique.
Planning Case Report Page 1 7/28/06
VII. Development Analysis
Suggested changes from the Planning Commission were discussed in a meeting with Cornmunit..
Development staff, the city planner, and the city attorney. The results of the meeting are listed below:
(the page and section references relate to the attached draft ordinance)
Page 3, Section 10
Instead of four total wall signs, staff's amendment limits buildings to two wall signs regardless of their
location. However, corner buildings may have a sign facing each right-of-vvay if the property owner so
chooses to identify the building in such a manner.
Page, 4, Section 12
"Vehicle-mounted signs" was removed from the definition of temporary signage for special or
promotional events.
Also, the number of sign permits ,vas increased from four to six permits yearly, and the permit
duration changed from 14 days to seven days. Regarding the permit duration, staff vvould not object to
a 10 day rather than a seven day permit.
Finally, staff included specific language in this section indicating outdoor sales of seasonal produce,
including Christmas tree sales, are governed by New Hope Code Section 8-31(b)(lO) which permits
signage for the duration of the license period (see subsections 1 and 4 of 3-40(i)(2)(f)).
Pages 5 and 6, Section 14
Staff recorrunends that the change to the maximum area for wall signs in subsection (d)(l) be returned
to its existing language. Specifically, signage in both the business and industrial districts for multiple
occupancy buildings will c011tinue to be calculated on the 150/0 of the combined V\7all surfaces but no
individual tenant may have an identilicatiol1 sign exceeding 100 square feet in area. This language was
deleted from the original ordinance. Also, the reference to 10o,{, ll1 the industrial zoning district, which
was identified as an issue for clarification on July 11, was removed.
In addition, staff is propos:ing a minor modification to tenant identificatiol1 wall signs in subsectiol1
(d)(3) to permit shopping center tenants occupying an interior cor11er space to display its tenant
identification on each side of the tenant bay. This will be accomplished by deleting the language
"occupying a corner location" from this subsection. As a result, any tenant bay fronting tvvo stTeets
may display a tel1ant identilicatiol1 sign as a result of tins ordinance ame11mnent.
Page 8, Section 16
"Minor" has been added to subsection (1) of Section 3-40(1) permitting administrative or staff approval
of minor amendments to comprehensive sign pla11. Minor amendments are defined as any chcu1ges not
subject to site and building plan review.
Planning Case Report Page 2 7/28/06
VIII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance
Based on the discussions of the Planning Commission, the city attorney prepared a revised draft
ordinance with recommended changes.
IX. Codes and Standards Committee
Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee have discussed and reviewed the proposed ordinance
and recommend approval of the amendments to the full Planning Commission.
Attachments: Revised draft ordinance
City attorney 7/18 correspondence
Sign permit table
Also, please bring information from the July 11 Planning Commission meeting for reference.
Planning Case Report Page 3 7/28/06
ORDINANCE NO. 06-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 3-40 REGULATING SIGN CODE
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3-40(b)(1)(b) "Construction of Words" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3 -40(b ) (1 )(b ) Construction of Words. Whenever a word or term appears in the text of this sign
code, its meaning shall be defined in subsection 3-~Q(b)(2) of this Code. A word or term not
specifically defined by subsection 3-42.Q(b )(2) herein, shall be defined by the definition sections of
chapter 4 or chapter 1 of this Code, if applicable, otherwise it shall have its ordinary dictionary
meaning.
Section 2. Section 3-40(c)(2) "Building and Electrical Codes Applicable" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3-40(c)(2) Building and Electrical Codes Applicable. All signs shall be wired to conform to
subsection 3-22(a)(2) of this Code. Sign structures shall be designed to withstand a 4~O psf snow
load and &20 psf of wind pressure.
Section 3. Section 3-40(f)(4)(b) "Directional Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
3-40(f)(4)(b) Directional Signs. On oremise. fJgirectional signs not exceeding RTe-four square feet
in area subject to the setback requirements of section 3-40(c)(4)(b) of this Code.
Section 4. Section 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Gara2:e Sale Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended by amending subsection (3) to read as follows:
3-40(f) (4}(c)(3) ,,\11 signs shall be setback in compliance "yilli section 3 10(c)(1)(b) of this Code.
Gara2:e sale sie:lls shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb unless a sidewalk
is oresent at the si2:ll location. in which case the sig:n must be setback behind the sidewalk. On all
corner lots. g:araQ:e sale siQ:ns shall not be nermitted within 20 feet of any corner formed bv the
intersection of two streets or the ri2:hts-of-wav of a railway intersectinf! a street. The 20 feet shall
be in the form of an isosceles triani!le with the two equal 20- foot sides measured from the back of
the curb of the intersecting: streets or railway ri2:ht-of-\vav and the third side formed bv a straig:ht
line connectin2: the corners of each 20-foot Doint as measured.
Section 5. Section 3-40(f)(4)(d) "Open House Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended by amending subsection (2) to read as follows:
3-40(f)(4)(d)(2) .l^.Jl signs shall clearly identify the address, month, dates or days of the y/eek of the
~ Ouen house siQns shall be entirely setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb
unless a sidewalk is oresent at the shzn location. in which case the entire si2:n must be setback behind
the sidewalk. On all corner lots~ onen house Si[llS shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any
1
corner formed bv the intersection of two streets or the rights-of-wav of a railway intersecting a
street The 20 feet shall be in the forIn or an isosceles triangle with the two eaual 20- foot sides
measured from the back of the curb of intersectinf! streets or railway rig:ht-of-wav and the third side
formed bv a straif!ht line connectinf! the corners of each 20-foot noint as measured.
Section 6. Section 3-40(g) "Residential Districts',' of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by
amending subsection (1) to read as follows:
3-40(g)(1) All signs identified in subsection 3-40(f) of this Code subiect to the followinQ: setback
requirements: -:
(a) No sif!n reauirinQ a Derroit shall be erected or ternnorarilv olaced within a street
riQ:ht-of-wav ar UDon public lands. easements or rhrhts-of-wav. Signs reauirin{! a
uermit must be located on orivate oronertv. FreestandinQ: si2:ns shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from
the lot line to that Dortion of the sifZn nearest to tile lot line. On all comer lots.
sif!lls reauiring a oermit shall not be oermitted within 20 feet of any corner formed
bv the intersection of two streets or the rig:hts-of-wav of a railway intersectin~ a
street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles trianf!le with the two equal
20-foot sides formed bv and measured alanQ: the orooertv lines and the third side
formed bv a strai2:ht line connecting: the corners of each 20- foot point as measured
alone: the nronertv lines.
(b) Freestandin2: signs not reauirin2: a Derroit as described in Section 3-40( f} of this
Code shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb unless a
sidewalk is Dresent at the siQ:TI location. in which case the sign must be setback
behind the sidewalk. On all corner lots. si2:ns not requirin2: a oermit shall not be
oermitted within 20 feet of any corner formed bv the intersection of two streets or
the rights-of-wav of a railway intersectint! a street. The 20 feet shall be in the form
of an isosceles triangle with 'the two eaua120-foot sides measured from the back of
the curb of the intersecting streets or railway rie:ht-of-wav and the third side formed
bv a straight line connecting the comers of each 20- foot point as measured.
Section 7. Section 3-40(g)(3)(b) "Monument Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
3-40(g)(3)(b) Monument Signs. For each principal building on a lot, there shall be not more than
one freestanding monument sign except on a corner lot where two signs, one facing each street, shall
be permitted. No such signs shall exceed +$100 square feet in area. Monument signs may not exceed
12 feet in height. The monument sign may include a reader board as part of the allowable sign area.
Section 8. Section 3-40(g)(3)(d) "Off-Premise Directional Signs" of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
3-40(g)(3)(d) Off-Premise Directional Signs. Off-premise directional signs shall be limited to
situations where access is confusing and traffic safety may be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets as determined bv the City. The size of the sign
shall not exceed 75 square feet in area or 12 feet in height. The off premise sign sh:J.lI not interfere
"t.T/ith uses of the lot on "t.vhich its sign is located. Off-site directional signs may be reauested and
2
nrovided subiect to an aonlication orocess described in Section 3-40(1) afthis Code. The size of the
sif!n shall not exceed 2 square feet and the si2:n shall be a traffic control direction sig-TI. The
BuildinQ: Official and Police Denartment shall determine whether an off-site directional SifLTI will
imorove traffic safety or flow. If a directional si{!n is deemed aUDrooriate. a directional sirn may be
nlaced on an existin2: traffic control Si2:ll or a new sirn in the rh!ht-of-wav may be erected to direct
traffic to the snecified site. The apolicant shall nay all costs for the si2:n. includin2: its installation.
maintenance. and the aoolicable permit fees.
Section 9. Section 3-40(i) "Commercial and Industrial Zoning District" of the New Hope City Code
is hereby amended by amending subsection (1) to read as follows:
3-40(i)(1) All signs identified in subsection 3-40(t) of this Code subiect to the following: setback
reauirements:7
(a) No Sig:ll reauirin2: a permit shall be erected or temporarily Dlaced within a street
rie:ht-of-wav or UDon Dublic lands. easements or rie:hts-of-wav. Si2:TIS reauirine: a
Dermit must be located on orivate oronertv. FreestandinQ: si2:ns shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from
the lot line to that Dortion of the sif!n nearest to the lot line. On all corner lots.
sie:Ds reauirine: a oerlnit shall not be nermitted within 20 feet of any corner formed
bv the intersection of two streets or the rhzhts-of-wav of a railway intersectin2: a
street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles triane:le with the two eaual
20- foot sides formed bv and measured alone: the Drooertv lines and the third side
formed bv a straie:ht line connecting: the corners of each 20-foot Doint as measured
alollf! the nrODertv lines.
(b) Freestanding: signs not reauiring: a oermit as described in Section 3-40( f) of this
Code shall be setback a minirnum of 10 feet from the back of the curb unless a
sidewalk is 'Dresent at the si2:TI location. in which case the siQ:n must be setback
behind the sidewalk. On all corner lots. sie:ns not reauirinQ a Dermit shall not be
permitted within 20 feet of any corner formed bv the intersection of two streets or
the ri!!hts-of-wav of a railway intersectine: a street. The 20 feet shall be in the form
of an is~sceles trian2:1e with the two equal 20-foot sides measured from the back of
the curb of the intersectin2: streets or railway rhrht-of-wav and the third side formed
bv a strai!lht line connecting the corners of each 20-foot point as measured.
Section 10. Section 3-40(i)(2)(a) "Wall Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by
amending subsection (1) to read as follows:
3-40(i)(2)(a) Wall Signs.
~~~~~~~!;;~l~i(~I~i~r~f~i1fff~~!~f~B
Section 11. Section 3-40(i)(2)(d) "Window Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
by amending subsections (1) and (2) to read as follows:
3-340(i)(2)(d) Window Signs.
3
(1) lvlaximum Window Area. In no event shall the size of the interior window signage
exceed 33 percent of the window area of the one side of the building upon which said signs
are displayed. All windo\v sie:na2:e affixed to the window must be mounted on the interior
side of the window.
(2) Illuminated Signs. An interior window sign may be illuminated. urovided that the
\vindow sif!n is mounted on the interior of the window and the illumination source is inside
the building: as well..
Section 12. Section 3-40(i)(2)(t) "Banners, Pennants, Streamers, Strings of Lights, Searchlights" of
the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3-40(i)(2)(f) Banners, Pennar:E~~...~!!~q-'!2~!!.!_~~!!:~~!!tLights) Searchlights. Portable signs, banners,
pennants, suringboard si~ns~ ~!::jm~;'T~:~t~m'~I'~~i;5!:t.:.~treamers, strings of lights, search lights or any
other temporary sign are permitted only for commercial or industrial special or promotional events
of a limited duration by permit acquired from the City pursuant to the following conditions:
(1) Special or Promotional Events. Special or promotional events shall mean events such
as grand openings, management or ownership changes, or periodic sales or similar events.
Such events must be related to the s1J~cific businesslo~ated yvith.~ ~~,,~i~ _of ~ew HOQe.
(2) Pennit Application. Permits for any temporary sign pursuant to this section shall be
issued only to owners or tenants. or their resnective aQ:ents. of commercial or industrial
property. Applications must be submitted to the City Building Official on a form approved
by the City a minimum of 11 days one (1) business day prior to the special or promotional
event when the signs will be used.
(3) Perlnit Duration. All permits issued hereunder shall be for a maximum period
days and shall expire automatically after saiq period. Upon the permit expiration, the
applicant shall cease to display any and all signs permitted by the permit unless the applicant
has obtained a ne\v permit for said signage.
(4) Limitation on Permits. No more than three f~Wf;:!~'.I~~'r~l permits yearly shall be
issued to anyone property or location. If two mpermits are obtained in succession by any
applicant per subsection i2l above, both permits s~~lL~:~'.'~';;'~~~"~~7"~f~,~,,,\,"~,~,J?~~;~"9"~:~-,?~,!
~~~;;~I@;~&;~~=.I~~Jllfi'::=~~;=~::~=
~'~;~:~1(j:~0
(5) Sign Locations.
(a) All special or promotional signs must be located on the premises where the
event is occurring.
4
(b) Signage shall not exceed 50 sauare feet for special event si9:na!Ze. fffi
amount equiYalent to the permitted signnge area allo"'tved the applicant' s business in
the respectire zoning district.
(c) In the event si2:n oermits are simultaneously held bv multiple tenants in a
multiole occuoancy buildin~. the sie:ns must be located at least 100 feet anart.
(d) No temnorarv si2:n shall be erected or temnorarilv olaced within a street
riQ:ht-of-wav or UDon Dublic lands. easements or rhrhts-of-wav. TemDorarv sif!ns
must be located on nrivate propertv. Freestanding: siQ:ns shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from
the lot line to that Dortion of the Si2:ll nearest to the lot line. On all corner lots.
temDorarv Sie:llS shall not be nermitted within 20 feet of any corner formed bv the
intersection of two streets or the rights-of-wav of a railway intersectin2: a street.
The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles trian~!le with the two eaual 20-foot
sides formed bv and measured alone: the orODertv lines and the third..side formed bv
a straie:ht line connectine: the corners of each 20- foot Daint as measured alone: the
urooertv lines.
(6) Grand Openings and Under New Manaeen'zent. Notwithstanding the duration
provisions of subsection ~2l above, grand opening signage may be for a maximum period of
30 days. Such Q:rand Qoening: or under new manae:ement events must be related to the
soecific business located within the .City of New Hone.
(7) Exception. Temporary signs permitted by subsection 3-40(f) of this Code shall be
exempt from the requirements of this Section.
(8) Noncolnpliance. Violation of any conditions of this section will result in a forfeiture of
additional sign permits for the property under this Section for a period of 12 months from
the date of the violation. The permit forfeiture shall be in addition to any other penalties for
Code violations allowed by this Code.
Section 13. Section 3-40(i)(2)(g) "Reader Boards" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
by amending subsections (2) and (3) to read as follows:
3-40(i)(2)(g) Reader Boards.
(2) The reader board area shall not exceed more than 50 percent of the \vall, freestanding,
or monument sign erected.
(3) No more than one reader board per premise is permitted.
Section 14. Section 3-40(i)(3) "Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial
uses, Including Shoppin,g Centers" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 3-40(i)(3) Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial uses, Including
Shopping Centers. When a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses or
industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center shall be
submitted. and shall include the information required by subsection 3 10(i)(3)a of this Code, to
5
permit a determination as to \'vhether or not the plan is consistent ,yim sections b through d of
section 3 1 O(i)(3). l'Io permit shall be issued for an individual use ex:cpt upon a determination that it
is consistent \vith n. previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said
comprehensive sign plan is to [1110\)" and require the O''.T;ner of multiple o:cupancy structures to
determine the specific individual si;n requirements for the tenants of his building. .L^~s sign locations,
size and other sign details may be of some significant importance in lease arran;ements bet'.'r.'een
o'\'vner and tenant, it is the city I s intention to establish general requirements for the o~yrerall building
onl)~, thus providing a building oV,Tner 'l"f;ith both the fle;dbility :md responsibility to deal v/ith his
indi't,TiduaI tenants on their specific sign needs.
(a) Review and ADDroval Reauired. The comvrehensive sipn vlan is subiect to review
and avoroval bv the Citv Council and shall include the infonnation reauired bv this
subsection of this Code. The Citv Council shall determine. based on staff review and
Planninf! Commission recommendation. whether the comDrehensive sif!n vlan is consistent
with sections b throUfZh f of Section 3-40(i) (3) below. No oermit shall be issued for an
individual use ..except unon a determination that it is consistent with a nreviouslv or
concurrently anoroved comprehensive siQ:n ulan. Amendments to previously approved plans
may be orocessed administrativelv.
(b) PUTDose. The effect of said comurehensive siQ:n plan is to allow and reauire the
owner of multinle occupancy structures to determine the soecific individual siQll
reauirelnents for the tenants of the building:. As si2:n locations. size and other si2:n details
may be of some significant imoortance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant. it
is the Citv's intention to establish 2:eneral reauirements for the overall buildin2: onlv. thus
Drovidin~ a buildinQ: owner with both the flexibilitv and resDonsibilitv to deal with his
individual tenants on their snecific si2:TI needs.
&;-{Ql Comprehensive Sign Plan Infonnation. The applicant shall prepare a written and
graphic comprehensive signage plan for submission to the city. Said plan shall include, but
not be limited to the following information:
(1) Sign location (both wall signs and freestanding signs)
(2) Sign area
(3) Sign height
(4) Scaled building elevations
(5) Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays
(6) Identification of sign design
(7) Sign construction drawings (sections)
(8) T'he council, planning commission and city staff may request additional
information from the applicant concerning the application or may retain expert
opinions at the expense of the city, or may require as a condition of proceeding
with its consideration that the applicant furnish expert opinion and data at the
e~pense of the applicant.
-
_.
&:-@ Wall Signs.
(1) Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy
structure shall not exceed 1.~J~~.9-!~~e combined wall surfaces on walls which
abut streets in business~t~tlYi!i~!m zoning districts.
6
(2) Building Identification. No multiple occupancy structure may display more
than two overall building identification signs.
(3) Tenant Identification Signs. Individual tenants located within multiple
occupancy structures shall be permitted to display individual identification signs, if
except a ,. in ~fvhich C8.se, not more than one sign may' be displa)red. ...^~ tenant
occupying a corner location fronting two streets may display identification signs to
both street frontages.
(4) Delivery Signs. A delivery sign or signs not exceeding nine square feet in area
may be located on the side or rear wall of the structure.
~(e) Freestanding Sign.
(1) Shopping Centers. Shopping centers containing more than four separate and
distinct occupancies may erect one freestanding sign per street frontage, not to
exceed two freestanding shopping center signs per site, (single or double faced).
(i) Each ground sign may not exceed 200 square feet in area, nor 30
feet in height. In lieu of multiple freestanding signs, the shopping
center may have a single freestanding sign not to exceed 300
square feet in area nor 30 feet in height.
(ii) Reader boards in accordance with subsection 3-40(i)(2)g of this
Code shall also be allowed on each freestanding sign per street
frontage notwithstanding subsection 3-40(i)(2)g.3 of this Code
provided the inclusion of said boards in combination with the
tenant directory and center identification does not exceed the
maximum allowable sign area.
(2) Other Multiple Occupancies. Multiple occupancy structures other than
shopping centers, or shopping centers having four or less separate and distinct
occupancies, may erect ground signs in accordance with the provisions of
subsection 3-40(i)(2) of this Code and may identify each separate and distinct
occupancy on said ground sign.
(3) Single Occupancy Freestanding Satellite Sites. Not more than one
freestanding sign shall be permitted per satellite site.
(i) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area.
7
(ii) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
Eh-ffi Fee, Comprehensive Sign Plan Review. When a comprehensive sign plan review is
required by this Section, the applicant shall pay a review fee in addition to a permit fees set
forth in chapter 14 of this Code. The review fee shall be identical to that used for Site and
Buildin2: Plan Review.
Section 15. Section 3-40U)(3) "..A.mortization Schedule" of the Ne\v Hope City Code is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
Section 16. Section 3-40(1) "Review Procedures and Informational Requirements" of the New
Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3~40(1) Review Procedures and Informational Requirements.
(1) Sign Application. The applicant must complete and submit a sign permit application for
approval by the City Council Mana2:er or desi2:nee. New cOffiDrehensive siQJ1 Dlans are
subiect to the aooroval of the City Council. UDon the recommendation of the Planning:
Commission and staff. i:fl,m~~ amendments to oreviouslv anoroved Comnrehensive Sign
Pl~smavbeDr~esseda~nistr~ivelv.
~1~1~,~:~,;~~:Ii'f~I~~ialm.~:..{mII~~~i,i';III'~;I~'~~;~~~
(2) Pennit Issued if Application is in Order. The City Building Official, upon the fuing of
an application for a permit, shall examine such plans, specifications and other data and the
premises upon which it is proposed to erect the sign. If it appears that the proposed
structure is in compliance with all requirements of this chapter and all other laws and
ordinances of the City, the permit shall be issued. If the work authorized under a permit has
not been completed within 60 days after the date of issuance, the permit shall be null and
void.
(3) Citj Council Approval. When this chapter requires City Council approval for a sign,
the application shall be processed in accordance with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance Code for Site and BuildinQ Plan Review
. and shall be subiect to the reauirements of Minn. Stat. & 15.99 relatine: to 60-dav review of
apolications. a conditional use permit.
(4) Fees. Fees for the review and processing of sign permit applications shall be imposed
in accordance with the fee schedule established by Chapter 14 of the City Code. The fee for
cOffiurehensive si2:n plan review shall be identical to Site and Buildin2: Plan Review.
Section 17. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication.
8
Dated the day of , 2006.
Martin E. Opern Sf., Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the _ day of , 2006.)
P:\Attomey\Cnh Ordinance5\99.80605-0rd 0&-05 Amend Sign Code See 3-4O-D2.doc
9
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. tO~'r
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKL 'YN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail Ia,v@j ensen-sondralI.com
GORDON L. JENSEN!
GL&'i A. NORTON Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
Ai.\1Y E. PAP.&~"HAUS&~ e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall. com
STEVEN A. SO!'.1])RALL
ARIc T. STIL'\~SS&'i
July 18, 2006
OF COUNSEL
LOR&~sQ.BR~~STAD Kirk McDonald Via E-Mail and Regular U.S. Mail
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Proposed Re"isions to Ordinance No. 06-05 Regulating the New Hope Sign Code
Our File No. 99.80605
Dear Kirk:
This letter will summarize the recommendations from our July 17, 2006 meeting with the City
Planner in connection with proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 06-05, An Ordinance
Amending New Hope Code Section 3-40 Regulating Sign Code. The proposed recommendations
result from the Planning Commission's review of the Ordinance at its July 11, 2006 meeting.
The recommended changes discussed at our staff meeting are highlighted in gray within the text
of the Ordinance. The amended Ordinance attached to this letter is for consideration at the
August 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
The proposed changes to the Ordinance resulting from our July 17th staff meeting are summarized
as follows:
1. Page 3, Section 10 dealing with "Wall Signs" found at Code Section 3-40(i)(2)(a) previously
included language indicating corner lot buildings facing multiple rights-of-way could have 2
wall signs facing each right-of-way. The net effect of this change meant that corner
buildings would be permitted 4 wall signs per building rather than the 2 sign limitation of
interior buildings facing only one right-of-way. The Planning Commission did not seem to
favor this change and as a result, staff is now recommending no change to Section 3-
40(i)(2)(a). As a result, buildings will be limited to 2 wall signs regardless of their location,
however, corner buildings may have a sign facing each right-of-way if the property owner so
chooses to identify the building in such a manner.
2. Page, 4, Section 12 dealing with special or promotional event signage regulated by Code
Section 3-40(i)(2)(f) was changed by removing vehicle-mounted signs from the definition of
'Real Property Law temporary signage for these special or promotional events. The net effect of this exclusion is
Specialist Certified By that a vehicle-mounted sign would not be permitted for advertisement purposes for these
Tne Minnesota State events. Also, we have increased the number of permits from 4 to 6 permits yearly, however,
Bar Association
we have reduced the permit duration from 14 days to 7 days (see subsections 3 and 4 of 3-
40(i)(2)(f)). Regarding the permit duration, staff would not object to a 10 day rather than a 7
day permit This would allow for the advertisement of the event over 2 weekends and would
July 18, 2006
Page 2
increase the total permit days to 60. This far exceeds the total number of days allowed for these promotional ev:
by our neighboring cities. I believe only Brooklyn Park would permit more total permit days for this kind of
signage than New Hope if the 10 day permit period were adopted. We also included in this section specific
language indicating outdoor sales of seasonal produce, including Christmas tree sales, are governed by New Hope
Code Section 8-31(b)(IO) which permits signage for the duration of the license period (see subsections 1 and 4 of 3-
40(i)(2)(f)) .
3. Pages 5 and 6, Section 14 deals with signage for multiple occupancy buildings including shopping centers found at
3-40(i)(3). Staff is recommending that the change to the maximum area for Wall Signs in subsection (d)(l) be
returned to its existing language. Specifically, signage in both the business and industrial districts for multiple
occupancy buildings will continue to be calculated on the 15 % of the combined wall surfaces but no individual
tenant may have an identification sign exceeding 100 square feet in area. This language was deleted from the
previous Ordinance and the reference to 10% in the industrial zoning district, which was new language in the
previous Ordinance, is being removed. The thought behind this change was to allow businesses greater flexibility
within its comprehensive sign plan. In other words, some tenants may have preferred an identification sign
exceeding 100 square feet while other tenants may have been satisfied with smaller signage. After careful
consideration however, staff believes the existing language relating to wall signage on multiple occupancy buildings
is working well. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change to this section at this time. Staff is proposing a
minor modification to tenant identification wall signs in subsection (d)(3) to permit shopping center tenants
occupying an interior comer space to display its tenant identification on each side of the tenant bay. This will be
accomplished by deleting the language "occupying a corner location" from this subsection. As a result, any tenant
bay fronting two streets may display a tenant identification sign as a result of this Ordinance amendment.
4. Page 8, Section 16 deals with review procedures and information requirements for comprehensive sign plans.
Language has been added to subsection (1) of Section 3-40(1) permitting administrative or staff approval of minor
amendments to comprehensive sign plan. Minor amendments are defined as any changes not subject to site and
building plan review.
The revised Ordinance No. 06-05 enclosed incorporates these changes. Please contact me if you have any questions,
comments or additional modifications to the enclosed Ordinance.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
Enclosure(s)
cc: Alan Brixius, New Hope City Planner (w/enc.)
Carlos Espinosa (w/enc.)
P:\Attom~y\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-806QS (sign code)\Kirk Lti Summarizing Oid 06-OS.doc
.Dc .~'~ f"\~'---
/ [J.., - c.....~ ~
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CO'N:SULTANTSr IN C.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Val I eYr MN 55422
i Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile:" 763.231..2561 planners@na'cplanning..com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius, AICP / C. Carlson
DATE: February 21, 2006
RE: New Hope Temporary Sign Permits
NAC FILE: 131.00 - 06.03
A request for an exten.ded duration" of a temporary sign permit at a New Hope
business has initiated discussion regarding the duration, number, and availability
of temporary sign permits in New Hope. The following table summarizes .sign
permits for temporary signage for New Hope and surrounding cities in the Twin
.Cities. This reyiew focuses exclusively on the duration, number and applicability
of permits; it does not evaluate content, size, permit fees, placement, or
enforcement of tern orar si na 8.
City Days per Total Applicability Other
Permit Permits per (Business/tenant vs.
Year ropert as a whole)
New Hope I 14 I 3 I Per Owner or Tenants
C stat I 7 I 3 I Per Business Property . I
Plymouth , 14 I 4 , Properties with >= 5 lease spaces, 4 total per tenant;
Pro erties with < 5 lease s aces, 4 total er property
Brooklyn I 1 month 1 3 I Per Business Concern. I Non Profits- unlim ited
Park # of permits per yr
Robbinsdale 10 I 3 , Per Premises
Golden I 30 total "I up to 3 permits, I Per Property I
Valley days/yea 30 total days/yr
St. Louis I 30 lJOtal 1 30 total days/yr ,per Lot I
Park da sf ea
Maple Grove 110 1 Per proprietorship per year Portable Signs
No more than one on any Prohibited
ra ert at a time
Albertville 14 4 Per property. Non-profits- 6 permits
Multiple Tenant Buildings per year, perm its do
considered one property not count against
other allowed ermits
A discussion of the various elements of sign permit duration continues on the
next page.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
Kim Berggren, Community Development Assistant
Date: August 2, 2006
Subject: Discussion to initiate review of design guidelines for commercial areas
At the July 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission postponed the
discussion of the design guidelines to the August 2, 2006 meeting because of time
constraints.
Packets were distributed V\Tith the July 11, 2006, Planning Commission packet that
included the follovving:
II design guidelines memo with attachments, dated July II, 2006; and
.. 1998 Streetscape Master Plan; and
iii Chapter 5 of the 2004 City Center Framework,
Please bring these materials to the August 2, 2006, meeting for your reference.
Attaclunents:
III Copy of July 11, 2006 Memo
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
Kim Berggren, Community Development Assistant
Date: July 11, 2006
Subject: Discussion to initiate review of design guidelines for commercial areas
At the request of the City Connell, at the June 6, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission discussed reviewing and revising design guidelines for the City Center
area and possibly other commercial areas in tile city. The Commission agreed to discuss
the goals for the design guidelines at the end of its July 11 meeting. The process will
include forming a sub-committee to redraft the guidelines over the next few months,
and reconvening the full Planning Commission to determine the final recommendation
that ,vill be presented to the City Cormell.
Background
For the past several years the city has been revievving and evaluating options for improving
the City Center and other commercial areas in New Hope. On February 21, 2006, the City
Council discussed its desire to examine design guidelines and tile incorporation of additional
transit facilities into the city. At the May 15, 2006, meeting, council members indicated that
they felt the city should utilize the expertise on the Planning Commission and directed staff
to work with the Planning Commission to revie\^l and revise the existing City Center draft
design guidelines, which V\Tere drafted by the City Center Task Force in 2003/2004 with the
assistance of a planning consultant from DSU. In summary, council members provided the
follovving comments:
II The commercial areas in New Hope lack a cohesive appearance.
II Design guidelines would provide design standards for new construction and
improvements to existing properties.
II The City Center Task Force put significant effort into the draft City Center design
guidelines, which were never adopted by the city. The Council seeks a
recommendation from the Planning Commission on how to revise and adopt the
draft design guidelines for City Center (and possibly other commercial areas).
II The design guidelines should focus on the area around 42nd and Winnetka avenues,
but the Planning Commission could make a recommendation about any other
commercial areas in the city that would benefit from design guidelines (i.e. Medicine
Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue).
At the June 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed to review and
revise the design guidelines. In summary, commissioners provided the follovving comments:
. The Master Streetscape Plan from 1998 should also be reviewed and incorporated
. The full Planning Commission should start with a general discussion to set
overall goals and clirection, then form a subcommittee to redraft the guidelines
. The guidelines could achieve a more cohesive look from one building to the next
without overly restricting building colors and designs
. Commissioners were pleased that the City Council recognized the experience aI1d
expertise on the Planning Commission and sought a recommendation from the
commission.
Next steps
Please find attached in a separate packet a copy of the 1998 City Center Streetscape Master
Plan and the 2004 City Center Framework Manual Chapter 5. At this time, the City Council
has directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to revise the design guidelines,
without assistance by consultants.
As discussed at the June 6 meeting, and outlined in the attached process diagram, the
Planning Commission will discuss design guidelines at the end of the July 11 meeting. Staff
has prepared a presentation to revieV\T the history related to design guidelines and master
planning for City Center and to outline the purpose of and possible approaches to design
guidelines.
The goal for the July 11 meeting is for the Planning Commission to provide general direction
for proceeding with design guidelines for the City Center area (and perhaps other
commercial areas in the city) and to select a subcommittee. The subcommittee vvill meet over
the next few months to review and redraft the guidelines. The subcommittee will present the
draft to the full commission at a meeting in September or October and the full commission's
recommendations vvill be presented to the City eouncil at a subsequent meeting.
Attachments
. Summary diagram: Design Guidelines process
The follovving tvvo documents will be provided to the Plmming Commission in a separate
packet. Copies are also available in the Community Development Department.
. 1998 City Center Streetscape Master Plan
II 2004 Chapter 5 of City Center Framework Manual: Design Guidelines
. Page 2
· (.Q · en (.Q -0 ..;,
-.. · -n (J) (') C C ,A.J '"
~J (J) ~ c. m ~ _. 1 m ~I
o m 0 o.r-+- -0 0.-0 < o-a
3 - · -. · < m (.Q m ~ 0 m' 3 _
3m (') r-+- ~ ~ -. - _. C/) < Q,)
-. Q. :::T",< (') 1 0. ~. 0 -0 ~ m < 3 ::J
~ ~ "'0 C m m m ~ ~ m 0 ::::r _. :J
m C/) ~ m 0. ~ 0. C/) C/) ::J ~ -h _. ~ en....
m C (.Q en CD C/) -. -h C/) C/) ~ en:J
0" m 0 r-+- lOr-+- 0 _. c.c
I C/)-h O~ 1 CD ~ g
!:!: m__
o '7
::J
(.Q ~. en
c m ;0 t:
-. Cl. m en C" ....,.,
0.1< t: . V
m OJ -- 3 0 .....,
--hCD 0
~. ~ ~ 3 0
mm~ (t) 3 C1
C/) C/) . ~ ::t 3 '"
(.Q Cl. ." -. "LI
~ ~ = (J)
- CD
CD (J)
r-+ --s 3 · -"c -0 (J)e
om () _1 '"
(') W 0 - m c ~I
() 0 ^ (') C/) 0" 0 -C
;:+3m3 Om(') II 3-
'< 003 3~0 ~ Q)
() 3 -- 3 C/) 3 - 3:J
CD (J) 3 I\.) -.:J
o C/) -. 0. 0 en-.
c ~ -. 00 1 -. 0 en:J
-: 0. 0 00 ~ ~ _ _. ,'"
o w ~ O' ~ m W# 0 \,W
-. !::!': -: r-+- m :J
-0 ...JO
:J
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: July 28, 2006
Subj eet: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional
detail on Council/EDA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. It is
not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion.
1. July 17 Council Work Session - At the July 17 Conneil work session, the COlU1cil discussed the
following planning/development/housing items:
crt Discussion regarding the potential purchase of two buildings (8400 and 8420 Bass Lake
Road) at the Bass Lake Road Apartments site to facilitate future road improvements: The
Council was agreeable to allow city representatives to meet with the property 01lffiers.
2. July 24 Council Meeting - At the July 24 Council meeting, the Council discussed the follovving
planning/development/housing items:
e Resolution calling for a public hearing by the City Council of the city of New Hope on
behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society: Approved, see attached
Council request.
C1) PC06-03, Resolution granting time extension for the filing of the final plat for 7100 27th
Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
fJ Project 767, Resolution approving a contract with Hennepin County implementing the
grant award for watermain improvements and a transit shelter related to the
redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road Apartments site: Approved, see attached Council
request.
s PC04-17, Resolution authorizing reduction and potential draw on the financial guarantee
for Project for Pride in Living (PPL) development, 5501 Boone Avenue: Approved, see
attached Council request.
€) PC04-17, Resolution authorizing reduction and potential draw on the financial guarantee
for Winnetka Townhomes development 5610-5696 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved,
see attached Council request.
. PC06-17, Resolution extending 60 day time limit required by Minnesota Statutes 915.99
Subd. 2 in response to zoning application requesting a variance to driveway side yard
setback requirement at 3325 Ensign Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
l\1iscellaneous Issues Page 1 7/28/06
(l) Motion authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the construction of a water
quality pond in the area of the Northwood Park wetland: Council authorized a feasibility
report, see attached Council request.
. Motion to accept the 62nd A venue and Virginia A venue - local flood improvement
project; and the Terra Linda Drive, Rosalyn Court, and Medicine Lake Road -local flood
improvement project reports: Connell accepted reports, see attached Council request and
reports.
. PC06-14, Request for sitelbuilding plan review and conditional use permit amendment for
10,640 square foot school addition, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue: Approved as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Council added two additional conditions: #11) add signage
restricting right turns to non-residents (sign must conform with traffic standards); and #12)
have church financially participate in road design enhancements (based on estimated
benefit). (please. see7/24CO:1incilrnitillt~s ifreaqy).
. Discussion regarding planning and development related issued of the property on the
southwest comer of 62nd A venue and West Broadway with potential developer: Council
agreed to continue negotiations with developer.
3. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in July.
4. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met at a special meeting
on July 20 regarding the development at 5551 Louisiana Avenue. The planning deadline for the
September meeting is August 11. Staff will be conducting several pre-application meetings on
August 4 and anticipates that one or two applications will be submitted.
5. Future Applications - Future potential applications or businesses/developers that staff is
currently workmg with, or has recently met with, include:
1. Winnetka Center outlot improvements
2. 4415 Nevada A venue subdivision
3. Medicine Lake Road a11d Hillsboro - clliropractic clinic
4. Ne,\"T Hope Apartments improvements
5. Twin City Hard'\^lare expansion, 5650 International Parkway
6. Crystal Free Church CUP amendment for minor expansion
7.
6. Bass Lake Road Apartments - Due to the fact that PariPassu informed city staff in June that.it
vvas withdravving its proposal for the project, the City Council authorized staff to contact
Insignia Development, the second choice in the developer selection process, to determine their
interest in the redevelopment project. Staff met with representatives from Insignia III late Jrme
and they indicated they are interested in tl1e opportunity. Staff is currently coordinating a draft
exclusive l1egotiation agreement with the developer, which will be considered by the City
Council in August
Miscellaneous Issues Page ~ 7/28/06
7. City-Owned Property Near Railroad - Subsequent to the developers' roundtable conducted in
May, two proposals were submitted to the city by the Jrme deadline. Staff updated the Council
on June 26, and the Council extended the proposal deadline to July 19. Letters were mailed to
developers on the original mailing list to inform them of the extension. No additional developers
submitted proposals. A community open house will be conducted on August 9 from 5 to 7 p.m.
in the Council Chambers for interested residents to view the proposals and commissioners are
welcome to attend. .
8. City Center - The enclosed letters were recently sent to the owners of the Winnetka Center and
Kmart properties requesting an update on the status of the properties.
9. 3420 Nevada A venue, Crystal - Attached is the public hearing notice for the project at 3420
Nevada Avenue in Crystal. The Planned Development includes platting the property, rezoning
from low density to high density, and site/building plan review for the construction of a four-
story, 75-unit senior cooperative building with various site improvements including parking and
landscaping.
10. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding the Bass Lake Road Apartments
redevelopment area.
11. Minutes - The July Planning Commission minutes are included for your review prior to the
Planning Commission meeting. Please remember that all approved Council minutes are on the
city's vveb site.
12. If you have any questions on an)' of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments: Bass Lake Road Apartment site
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
7100 27th A've11ue final plat
Hennepin County contract/grant
PPL bond reduction
Winnetka Townhomes bond reduction
Extension of 60-day time limit for 3325 Ensign A venue
Feasibility report - Northwood park wetland
Local flood improvement project reports
Holy Trinity Church application minutes
62nd A venue and West Broad'vvay potential development
City Center letters
City of Crystal project
Project Bulletin
7/11/06 Planning Commission Minutes
Miscellaneous Issues Page 3 7/28/06
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON A VENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION 1v1INUTES July II, 2006
City Hall, 7 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 Nirgude, Bill
Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall; City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, 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
PC06-08 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for rezoning
Item 4.1 from CB, community business, to R2, single and two-family residential,
preliminary plat for property to be known as Louisiana Terrace, and variance
for lot area to allow construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes, 5551
Louisiana Avenue North, Terry Veigel, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated the
petitioner was requesting that the property be rezoned from community
business to single and two-family residential, preliminary plat approval, and
a variance to the lot area requirement .to allow construction of two
twinhomes. There are community business uses to the north (gas station), east
(Associated Bank across Louisiana Avenue) and west (Bass Lake Dental), and
single family residential uses to the south- in the city of Crystal. The site
contains 25,011 square feet and has never been developed. Each unit would
contain 1,672 square feet, including the house and garage, for a total of 6,688
square feet. There would be approximately 60 percent green area and 40
percent impervious surface on the site. The site has been vacant and-
undeveloped due to the difficulty of locating a commercial building on such a
small lot. City staff had met with many developers over the last several years
and no plan had ever come forward. The city's Comprehensive Plan
identified this property as Community Business, so a change in zoning would
require an amendment. This site is fairly level and has acted as a drainage
route for runoff from neighboring lots. Drainage for a commercial use with
more impervious surface would be an issue, therefore, the proposed
residential use would be less intense and provide more area for ponding and
infiltration. The developer proposed to construct tvvo twinhomes on the site
for a total of four units. The twinhomes would act as a buffer between the
commercial property on the comer of Bass Lake Road and Louisiana A venue
and the single family homes to the south in the city of Crystal.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified, including the city of
Crystal. McDonald informed the Commission that staff had received a letter
dated July 10, 2006, from Ernest Lindstrom, the representative of the gas
station property owner, Richard Jewett, which would be entered into the
record. Mr. Lindstrom was objecting to the rezoning of the proper~ and the
variances in lot area. He was also concerned that the residential properties
may complain about noise, traffic, lights, odors, etc. that are associated with a
gas station.
Mr. McDonald reported that this property was located in Planning District 6,
which called for an aggressive strategy for enhancing the commercial
character along Bass Lake Road, by expanding commercial land uses, and
assembling and redeveloping smaller commercial sites to create larger
commercial lots. The proposed rezoning does not match the strategy
identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and any change would require a
plan amendment. An amendment may be justified, however, due to the fact
that the property owner had been unsuccessful in finding a commercial
development for the site due to the small size and access constraints. The
proposed project would be a high-quality addition to the city that would
enhance the surrounding area.
When rezoning a property, a determination whether there was an error in the
original zoning needs to be made. The property was zoned as CB for
commercial development. The parcel may be too small for a contemporary
retail development. The current property owner has ovvned the site for two or
three years and has not been successful in finding a commercial user. The
parcel is too small to develop effectively as commercial property and may be
better suited to a twinhome development.
The Design and Review Committee discussed the possibility of rezoning the
property to R-3, medium density, to eliminate the need for a lot area variance.
However, such rezoning could allow additional density that may not be
appropriate for the site. The R-2 zoning necessitates the minor lot area
variance. The criteria for granting a variance include proof that a hardship
exists, is unique to the property, and was not created by the landowner. The
planner indicated that the parcel was too small to develop effectively as a
commercial property, fue characteristics of the site were not applicable to
nearby properties, and the property owner tried to develop or sell the
property under the existing zoning without success.
The plat would subdivide the parcel into four lots for the construction of MO
zero-lot line twinhomes. Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was
submitted to city staff, city attorney, city engineer, planner, utility companies
and Hennepin County for comments. The new lots would range from 5,609
square feet to 5,653 square feet. The average lot width would be 38 feet per
unit, and is compliant with code. The R-2 district requires 6,000 square feet
per unit, which requires a variance of up to 400 square feet per lot. AI:l
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 11, 2006
setbacks comply with code.
Staff reviewed the project and was generally supportive, however, made
several comments on the plans. The Design and Review Committee reviewed
the plans, was supportive of the proposal, and offered recommendations for
fa~ade improvements on the building. The Oty Council approved a 60-day
time extension on June 12 for the project due to the fact that revised plans
were not prepared for the June Planning Commission meeting. Revised plans
were submitted as a result of the Design and Review meeting.
McDonald pointed out that all setback requirements have been met. The plat
indicated the drainage and utility easements. The rear yard drainage
easement contained the ponding and drainage area required on the site. Upon
approval of the final plat, park dedication fees of $750 per unit must be paid
to the city, and the appropriate storm water management fee. Generally, the
commercial property owner is required to provide screening between a
commercial and residential zoning district. However, due to the fact that this
parcel is proposed to be rezoned, the burden for screening would fall to the
residential property owner. The landscaping plan indicated a six-foot cedar
fence along the north property line to screen the residential use from the
commercial property to the north. Spruce and ash trees would be planted on
the west property line. Twenty viburnum shrubs and autumn blaze maple
trees would also be added to the site. Other areas would be sodded. The rear
yard storm water ponding area would be planted with turf grass sod.
Driveways and curb cuts were proposed for each tvvinhome. Driveways
would be located on the common property line, per code, and would be 18-19
feet in width and taper to the right-af-way line. The curb cuts are proposed at
width of 28 feet, and would be 46 feet apart.
Mr. McDonald stated the developer had constructed homes in the metro area,
and expects sales prices to range from $330,000 to $360,000 per unit. Building
materials would include cultured stone an the lower walls, vinyl shakes on
upper eaves, aluminum soffits, stucco on the front side of the homes, with
raised panel steel doors, and trim on rear and side windows. Shrubs would
also be added at the front of the buildings along the covered porch. Access to
the rear yard would be from the front door with movement around the
building. The developer had indicated this layout had been popular without
the direct rear yard access. Staff recommends that access should be provided
to the rear yard via a sidewalk or other means.
McDonald stated the floor plans indicate each unit would contain four
bedrooms in the rear of the house. It would be reasonable to assume, given ~
the number of bedrooms, that there would be families with children living in
these units. Play areas and outdoor open space are limited on the site due to
the sloped rear yard. The applicant may wish to reshape the infiltration area
to provide additional useable open space in the rear yard. Any work of this
type must be reviewed by the city engineer. Utility plans indicated individual
sewer and water service to each unit, per city code.
McDonald summarized that the applicant proposed to amend the city' ~
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July II, 2006
Comprehensive Plan, rezone the property to residential, requested a variance
for lot area, and would plat the property into four lots to accommodate the
construction of two twinhomes. Eve,.~ though the Comprehensive Plan
indicated commercial zoning, it may be that the property could be put to
better use as a tvvinhome buffer between single family and commercial. Mr.
McDonald stated that city staff recommended approval subject to the
conditions in the planning report.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, explained that each unit would have its
own sewer and water service to the property from Louisiana A venue, which
would require the developer to patch the street at each location. He indicated
a storm water fee of approximately $4,500 would be due for this project. In
addition, this property would need to deal with storm water quantity issues.
Vander Top stated that this parcel was lower than the adjacent residential and
commercial parcels, as well as Louisiana Avenue and approximately 1.2 acres
of drainage flows to this parcel from all directions. Soils in this area are
sandy, therefore, storm water does infiltrate into the soil. The applicant's
engineer submitted calculations indicating the ponding area in the rear yard
would be sufficient for a large rain event, for the neighboring properties to
drain to that area and the water to infiltrate. The infiltration rate would
determine how long water would be standing water there. Vander Top stated
that the applicant assumed an infiltration rate of four inches per hour, and
Bonestroo's office assumed a significantly lesser rate than that The actual rate
must be determined through a field percolation test. If infiltration could be
achieved at one inch per hour, standing water may last for one to two days.
This fact should be disclosed at the time the lots are sold. This pond would
work like a rain water garden without the plantings. It was the city engineer
understands that the soils would not be amended and the area would remain
as turf.
A question was raised whether there would be any excavation done or fill
brought in where the buildings would sit. Mr. Vander Top responded that the
buildings would be constructed so that the driveways would slope out
toward Louisiana Avenue. Vander Top added that the grades would be
sloped to the property line; the grades on the adjacent parcels would not be
altered. Grading would be accomplished so that in a major rain event, the
water would follow the property line to Louisiana A venue before impacting
adjacent parcels. Chairman Svendsen interjected that the window wells
would be set at an elevation high enough so that the water, during a high
event, would go around the building and out to the street.
Commissioner Houle inquired of the elevation of Louisiana A venue and was
told that the general elevation was 877+. The elevation of the lower level.
would be 874.7. The units would be constructed as split entry.
There are currently no drainage and utility easements on the property.
Commissioner Nirgude wondered whether or not the width of the side yard
would be adequate for runoff to the street. The city engineer stated that the
property to the south had a fence along the property line and runoff would
follow the property line. It may be advisable to construct a short, tvvo-foot
retaining wall to help direct the runoff. The 1.2 acres that drains to this
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 11, 2006
property should not produce a ~ignificant volume of runoff. No water would
drain between the twinhomes as that elevation would be slightly higher than
at the perimeter. Discussion ensued on filling the P9nding area and
redirecting the drainage. Due to the fact that the three adjacent properties
drain toward this parcel, the proposed drainage plan would not significantly
alter that established pattern.
A question was raised whether the pond had to be at the current proposed
depth. The city engineer stated there had to be some depth to the pond to
hold water until it seeped into the ground. Calculations were submitted to
support the proposed depth. Once the exact infiltration rate was determined,
the depth could be altered. An alternative to the pond would be to extend the
storm sewer from the comer at Bass Lake Road and Louisiana back to the
property with a manhole in the street located near the area between the
twinhomes and along a route to the low area at the rear of the property to
pick up the drainage. This possible solution was discussed during the review
process, utilizing the storm water fee toward the cost, however the applicant
did not pursue that solution. The cost to construct the storm sewer would be a
higher cost to the developer.
Chairman Svendsen questioned whether or not plantings would survive in
the pond after a large rain event if water remained in the pond for several
days afterward. Mr. Vander Top indicated that some plantings may survive,
but did not believe that grass would survive and the area could be taken over
by weeds.
Commissioner Nirgude wondered whether or not the $4,500 storm water fee
would be sufficient to cover the cost of installing that system. Vander Top
indicated one method was not preferred over another. The trend in the
industry to was to try and infiltrate as much water as possible, such as the use
rain gardens. However, that had to be balanced with the potential impacts to
the property. It was confirmed that the low point of the pond was six feet
lower than the back of the twinhomes. Based on the conservative infiltration
rate used by the city engineer's office of .24 inches per hour (the applicant
assumed four inches per hour), it may be possible that during a major rain
event water could stand in the pond up to seven days. Using the applicant's
figures, the standing time would be one to two days. Bonestroo's calculations
indicate a maximum depth of water of four feet and the applicant's
calculations indicate a depth of two feet.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned why the parcel couldn't be filled and drain
the entire parcel to the storm sewer in the street. Mr. Vander Top responded
that the city could not re-grade adjacent properties to accommodate this new
project; therefore, that drainage would continue as it had in the past. The
drainage pattern is an existing condition of the property. There are two
options for dealing with the storm water - the current pond proposal and a
storm sewer system. If there were concerns with the pond on the residential
property, it would push the applicant toward the storm sewer solution.
Commissioner Nirgude wondered whether there was ponding similar to this
on a residential parcel, the city engineer responded that there are several
properties in northern New Hope where yards were not graded properly, but
Planning Conunission Meeting 5 July 11, 2006
the sandy soils allowed infiltration and there were no backy~d drainage
issues. The proposed pond creates a backyard drainage area on this parceL
Commissioner Brinkman wondered what the cost might be for installing
storm sewer. Vander Top stated that the storm sewer would have to
connecting to the catch basin at the comer of Bass Lake Road and Louisiana
and extending a 12-inch pipe south along the boulevard to a manhole
between the twinhomes and extending a 12-inch line to a catch basin in the
rear yard. A ballpark figure for the work might be approximately $15,000 to
$20,000. Brinkman indicated there is a fairly large slope on the property and
he felt storm sewer would be more appropriate for the site.
Commissioner Houle stated that buyers of the twinhomes would be families
with children due to the fact the floor plan showed four bedrooms in each
hvinhome. A pond on the site with standing water did not seem like a good
fit. Mr. Vander Top interjected that the pond on the revised plans was
significantly different than the original plan submitted.
Mr. McDonald stated that the bigger issue was whether or not the
Commission and the audience supported rezoning the property to
residential. He recommended the Commission discuss the plan, take
comments from the audience, and if the consensus was to move forward, this
item could be tabled and drainage options brought back to the next meeting.
Commissioner Buggy initiated discussion on the height of the fence behind
the gas station and whether a higher fence would be appropriate to mitigate
noise and lights from. the commercial use. Svendsen commented that the
homes would be a split entry design and any second story windows o:n the
north side would be higher than the fence.
Mr. Terry Veigel, property owner, carne forward to address the Commission.
He questioned, if indeed, the adjacent properties drained onto this parcel. Mr.
Vander Top stated that the survey indicated the elevations and the drainage
area was identified by the applicant's engineer, and that roughly one acre
drained to this site. Mr. Veigel wondered how often a large rain event might
occur where there would be standing water in the pond. He stated that soils
where he lives are similar to this property, and in the last five years he has not
had any problem with drainage. He wondered whether there would be a way
to put in swales around the perimeter instead of a large ponding area. Vander
Top indicated that it would be the responsibility of his engineer to
demonstrate how that could be accomplished.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on marketing the property as a _
commercial site. Mr. Veigel stated when he and his wife bought the property
a few years ago, their intention was to construct a building and move their
existing business to this location. Since that time, they sold the business and
are moving south. Mr. Veigel confirmed he had tried marketing the site as
commercial for over a year. He met with city staff to determine if rezoning the
property to residential would be a possibility. After marketing the property
as residential for a short time, he found a buyer with this development.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 11, 2006
Commissioner Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Dick Jewitt, owner of the gas station and a New Hope resident, came
forward to address the Commission. He stated his family came to New Hope
and settled this area many years ago. He stated this area along Bass Lake
Road was zoned commercial and he was concerned with rezoning to
residential. He was also concerned that there could be complaints regarding
noise and lights from the gas station adjacent to a residential use. The gas
station was left to him by his sister and was an income source for him. He
stated he felt the property could be better put to use as a commercial site and
the city would receive more taxes with a commercial use.
Mr. Brice A vila, 4232 Flag A venue North, stated that a standing pool of wat~r
in the yard may be quite inviting to children and felt that was a hazard and a
potential accident waiting to happen. He was concerned that a potential
buyer could purchase the southernmost home and change the grade of the
yard with landscaping, which would cause a serious drainage problem for all
the surrounding properties.
There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close
the public hearing on Planning Case 06-08. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Houle stated that based on the information presented he did
not see justification for rezoning the property to residentiaL He stated he did
not feel the lack of a commercial buyer was reason to rezone to residential.
Commissioner Hemken stated that she lived with an industrial business in
her back yard, which didn't bother her, but she knew some of her neighbors
were not happy with the situation. She felt there may be problems with the
noise and lights from the gas station, which had been at that location for
many years. The city may be asking for trouble by approving a rezoning.
Commissioner Schmidt felt if someone was interested in purchasing the
property, they would visit the site and realize there was a gas station on the
comer, and the potential for noise and other issues associated with that use.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that as a realtor he had tried to sell the property
over the last six years. Various commercial uses had looked at the property,
but the site was not large enough to accommodate a building and the_
appropriate parking, green space, etc. Oelkers stated he felt residential made
sense. He stated he did not feel the large pond in the rear yard was
appropriate. A question was raised whether or not there had previously been
any interest as a residential use and Oelkers indicated there had been a
proposal for a fOUIplex, however, there was not adequate parking area.
Chairman Svendsen stated that the twinhome proposal was a good option.
He stated he would prefer a storm sewer installed instead of the pond to
Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 11, 2006
provide a useable back yard for the residents.
Commissioner Schmidt pointed out that there was no access to the rear yard
from the twinhomes. He also wondered whether it would be possible to
combine the gas station property and this parcel for a larger development.
Commissioner Brinkman stated that due to the fact that no commercial
proposal had materialized in all these years, the parcel should be rezoned to
residential. He stated he did not approve of the large pond and other
draIDage options should be considered. Commissioner Nirgude concurred.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on whether or not there were
draIDage easements on the property and how it was possible that the adjacent
properties were allowed to drain to this site. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney
stated that the water draining onto this site was natural overland drainage
and was permitted. Property owners could develop the site, but had to give
consideration to existing conditions.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, that
Item 4.1 the Commission was generally in favor of the development, however,
desired tabling Planning Case 06-08, request for rezoning from CB,
community business, to R-2, single and two-family residential, 5551
Louisiana Avenue North, until an acceptable solution to the drainage issue
was submitted.
Commissioner Crough stated he felt the developer should be responsible for
an acceptable drainage solution if the Commission was not in favor of the
infiltration system. The developer should provide a storm sewer system for
the property.
MOTION Discussion ensued on the motion and whether or not it would be better to
WITHDRAWN sp Ii t the motion to address the rezoning first and then table a
recommendation on the planning case until additional information was
received on the drainage issue. Commissioner Oelkers withdrew his original
motion.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, that
Item 4.1 the Commission was generally in favor of rezoning the property from
Rezoning community business to residential.
V oting in favor: .Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Landy, Nirgude,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
V oting against: Hemken, Houle
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chairman Svendsen confirmed that the Commission was generally in favor of
rezoning the property from commercial to residential.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
Item 4.1 table for one month Planning Case 06-08, request for rezoning from CB!
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 11, 2006
community business, to R2, single and two-family residential, preliminary
plat for property to be known as Louisiana Terrace, and variance for lot
area to allow construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes, 5551 Louisiana
Avenue North, Terry Veigel, Petitioner.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
V oting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be placed on the Planning
Commission agenda for the August 2 meeting. He recommended that the
petitioner's engineer work with the city engineer to resolve the drainage
issue.
PC06-14 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for
Item 4.2 site/building plan review and conditional use permit amendment for daycare
and school addition, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue North, Holy Trinity Lutheran
Church, Petitioner.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, stated that the
applicant was requesting site and building plan review and a conditional use
permit amendment to allow a church expansion for expanded daycare
activities and preschool and K-8 educational classes. The project would be
constructed in phases. Phase one would add a large addition on the east side
of the existing building. Phase two would add a second story to this portion
of the facility. Phase three would add a gymnasium/fellowship hall to the
north of the phase two expansion. This application is for phase one only;
additional phases would need to be submitted for review/approval in the
future.
The property IS zoned R-l, single family residential and is surrounded by
single family uses, including Crystal Evangelical Free Church to the west, and
R-2, single and two-family uses to the southwest across 42nd A venue. The
site contains 3.74 acres. The existing building is 8,016 square feet and the new
addition would add 10,640 square feet. The lot area ratios on the site are:
building area, including a small storage shed, is 12 percent, paved area is 19
percent, and green area is 69 percent.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that Holy Trinity Church was constructed in 1966, and
the property has been well maintained. The expansion would better serve the
church's members and outreach into the community. The church currently
operates a preschool program. A kindergarten program would be initiated in
the fall of 2006 in an existing space. The first phase would consist of a school
and related facilities, totaling 10,640 square feet. The school would include
daycare facilities and schooling for infant care through fourth grade. The
second phase would add a second story to the proposed addition and contain
an additional seven classrooms. This would allow the school to grow into a
K-8 program. The third phase, would add a gymnasium and fellowship hall.
At that time, parking would be significantly reconfigured and expanded t,:,
Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 11, 2006
the north.
Properties within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff did not receive
any comments.
Staff and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans and offered
recommendations to the original plans. Revised plans were submitted.
Jacobsen explained that the addition would be constructed on the east side of
the existing facility. A new parking area would be added to the west side of
the existing building. A 20-foot setback would be maintained from the
residential properties to the east for the new play areas. The west elevation
would expose approximately 37 feet of the new addition. The balance of the
western exposure of the addition would be behind the existing facility. The
east elevation would show 13 feet four inches of exposed block. The floor
plan accommodates seven classrooms, including infants, toddlers, tv\7o for
preschoot kindergarten, first/second grades, and third/fourth grades. The
temporary play area would be located at the back of the daycare area and
would be fenced and screened from adjacent neighbors. Future play areas
would be located north of the parking lot.
The building must be fully sprinkled for fire safety. A two-hour fire
separation must be built between the buildings. Landings are to be provided
outside building doors to each classroom, and must be added to the plans. A
sidewalk should connect the landings and be kept free of snow and ice in
winter. The"new addition would be brown and tan concrete masonry block
with metal windows and roof caps. The structure would have a flat roof.
The trash enclosure is proposed at the north end of the parking lot. The
construction materials would match that of the proposed addition. This
enclosure conflicts with long-term plans and would need to be rebuilt at the
time of the gymnasium construction. The existing storage shed would be
relocated inside the new addition and accessed through an exterior door.
During construction, the shed would be moved across the parking lot.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that parking was not expected to increase with the first
phase of development, although the intensity of use of the site would
increase. Church services, programs and the daycare use operate at different
times of the day/week. Currently there are .69 parking spaces at the church.
The applicant proposed to provide new parking spaces to replace several lost
to the entry design of the new structure, for a total of 71 spaces. A ribbon curb
would allow proper drainage of the parking lot into the proposed rain garden
adjacent to the seven new parking spaces. The new parking spaces are located .
in front of the church entrance to afford increased convenience on the site,
and would not impact circulation. This driveway should be signed for one-
way traffic. The north driveway access was shifted to align with an access
point for Crystal Evangelical Free Church to improve safety.
The landscaping plan shows significant tree coverage on the site. Thirteen
trees would be removed along the eastern side of the property. Replacement
trees would be planted along the eastern property line and on the south end
Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 11, 2006
of the site. There will be new building-mounted lights along the new
addition. No lighting was proposed for the rear of the addition to help
minimize glare on adjacent residential properties.
Site drainage would be accommodated by two new rainwater gardens, which
would be located in the southeast comer of the site and in the boulevard
along Gettysburg Avenue. The parking lot would drain to the west and south,
into the rainwater garden along Gettysburg. The building would drain to the
south along the east property line, and storm water would drain to the south
rainwater garden. The applicant would pay a storm water fee of $4,722.50.
Water and sewer service would be from Gettysburg Avenue. Fire and
domestic water service would be separated at the building.
Mr. Jacob~en stated that staff recommended approval of phase one, subject to
the conditions in the planning report.
Mr. Jacobsen responded to Commissioner Hemken's question that the
distance from the addition to the east property line was 30 feet. The east
elevation would be 13 feet four inches with a second story added in the
fu ture.
Mr. Vander Top explained that the applicant had aligned the north driveway
to match the driveway of Crystal Free Church and widened the access point
slightly. The city would allow the use of the existing driveway to continue as
long as it was ingress only. The proximity of the driveway is too close to the
intersection for full access. Sewer and water services would come off the lines
in Gettysburg Avenue.
This site sits on a hill and drains to both the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek
watersheds. There is no storm sewer in proximity to this site. The catch basin
on the comer at Gettysburg and 42nd avenues is part of the county road
storm sewer system. It does not have capacity or depth to provide storm
water service to this property. Vander Top explained that a storm water fee
involved with the development or redevelopment of a property. The amount
of the fee is based on what the applicant would have to spend to construct a
storm water pond, or in this case approximately $13,000. Ponds address water
quantity, controlling the rate of runoff from the site, and water quality, the
trapping of sediments and the provision of storm water improvement. In lieu
of the quantity element, the applicant would be required to provide a storm
water fee. The quality element would be accomplished with two rain water
gardens. Runoff from the front portion of the parking lot would flow to the
rain garden along Gettysburg and runoff from the building and the rear
portion of the parking lot would flow to the rain garden at the southeast
portion of the site. Both gardens would be shallow with a depth of
approximately eight to 18 inches, probably 12 inches. The intention would be
to not have prolonged standing water. The soils in this area are clay and not
amenable to infiltration. The applicant identified that the soils in those areas
would be amended with a topsoil/sand mixture, both for plant development
and some infiltration. Vander Top explained that plant development meant
developing a root system so some of the water could be used. The planting
bed would provide some filtration of the water as it leaves the site on 10':
Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 11,2006
volume rain events. With the rain water gardens in mind, some of the money
spent installing the gardens would be credited back toward their storm water
fee on the basis that they are achieving some water quality improvement. This
split fee is unique to this property.
Chairman Svendsen asked for the height of the drive-through at the front
entrance and was told it is eight feet. He was concerned that trucks delivering
to the site may hit the canopy overhang. The applicant interjected that it had
been hit several times in the past. Svendsen added that proper signage should
be installed.
It was noted that snow storage was not indicated on the plans. Commissioner
Crough added that snow storage near the northeast portion of the parking lot
would potentially drain onto the adjacent residential properties. A swale
could be installed to direct the water. Vander Top added that the parking lot
drainage should flow toward Gettysburg A venue. The rear portion of the
parking lot would not change! the front portion of the lot would be newly
paved. In the areas where the parking lot is new, curb and gutter would be
added.
Commissioner Nirgude asked for clarification on traffic flow through the
property. Vander Top indicated the southernmost driveway would be signed
as one-way. Drive lanes through the parking lot would be sized for two-way
traffic. The drop-off area for the school would be at the southeast corner of
the lot.
Commissioner Houle stated the plans indicated the gymnasium would be
constructed over utility lines. Vander Top replied that the building official
would need to address how services would enter the buildings at the time of
construction. Mr. McDonald added that phases two and three would need to
come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Dennis Klatt, pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church and New Hope
resident, 4332 Gettysburg A venue, came forward. He stated currently snow
storage is at the east and north ends of the parking lot. There was a berm that
prevented water flowing to the east. Melting snow flowed toward Gettysburg
A venue. With the new addition, a play area would be located on the east,
therefore! the snow would be pushed to the north. The existing grade would
allow the melting snow to flow northward. Pastor Klatt stated that the
driveway in front of the church was signed for no trucks to protect the
canopy.
Commissioner Landy wondered when construction would begin and Pastor
Klatt stated the goal was to begin at the end of August or beginning of
September. Mr. Ed Sorgatz, Olson General Contractors, stated the hours of
construction are from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through FridaYi overtime is
rare.
Landy. pointed out that the playground had been moved away from the
residential properties on Flag. Pastor Klatt confirmed that the toddler play
area was relocated to the south of the addition and the preschool play are~
Planning Commission Meeting 12 July II, 2006
was relocated to the north. Both are set back 2D feet from the property line
and both would be fenced. The school play area would eventually be fenced
around the perimeter of the green space to the north of the parking lot and
would be open on the parking lot side for snow storage.
Landy questioned whether the parishioners approached the property via
42nd A venue or from the residential area to the north. Klatt stated that the
majority of the parishioners arrive from 42nd Avenue, although a few live in
the area and approach the site from the north. Landy was especially
concerned that cars and trucks do not exit the property to the north, through
the residential neighborhoods. He stressed the fact that parishioners, parents,
and delivery trucks exiting the property should be discouraged from turning
right and going through the neighborhood.
Commissioner Svendsen. inquired if anyone in the audience wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Brice A vila, 4232 Flag A venue, came forvvard to address the Commission.
He explained his property was to the east across Flag A venue. The grade of
the surrounding area was approximately two stories lower than the church
property. He stated he did not see the church building now and was worried
that a one or two-story addition would detract from neighborhood views and
affect his property value. He was worried about additional traffic at the
intersection as that was the main access to his neighborhood and the extra
V\Tear on the street. Another concern with the extra traffic was for children at
the bus stops along 45th A venue. He stated Robbinsdale schools have under-
utilized school buildings, such as New Hope Elementary, and a good option
would be that the church could utilize that building. He also wondered
whether a church of that size could support a private school for the long term.
There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner H ernk en, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-14. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Houle stated that the Design and Review Committee
discussed maintaining a 3D-foot buffer from the properties to the east. The
revised plans indicated a 20-foot buffer for the play areas. He felt the play
areas would create a fair amount of noise and there should be better screening
and landscaping for noise mitigation if the play areas were to remain in those
locations. A six-foot vinyl clad, chain link fence was proposed. Many of the
commissioners felt that a better sound barrier should be installed.
Commissioner Brinkman pointed out that 42nd Avenue was a very busy,
noisy street and didn't feel the play areas would produce that much noise.
Commissioner Schmidt interjected that the play areas would be utilized
during the day, potentially when residents were at work. Mention was made
that there are many young families in the neighborhood. Chairman Svendsen
maintained that he lived approximately two and one-half blocks from
Sonnesyn and he could hear the children on the playground during the day
and other noise from softball/baseball games in the evening. He stated he fel~
Planning Commission Meeting 13 July 11, 2006
the four foot fence would be fine as noise from children playing would rise
over the fence and into the neighborhood. Houle maintained that the play
areas on the east would be an intrusive use for residents wanting to enjoy
their backyards, and would like to see a better visual barrier in fencing and
landscaping.
Chairman Svendsen questioned the number of students anticipated at the
school. Pastor Klatt stated that the toddler program would house
approximately 10 to 12 children and 14 for preschool age children. The
kindergarten class would have 14 students and approximately that same
number would carry through to each grade. The play area to the south would
be for toddlers in the daycare program and the play area to the north would
be for preschool age daycare children. The area north of the parking lot
would eventually be for school age children, kindergarten through eighth
grade. The Outdoor play times would be staggered so not all of the children
would be outside at the same time. The play areas would have rubber mu1ch
under the play equipment and the balance would be grass. A question was
raised by Commissioner Nirgude as to the duration of the outside play time,
and Pastor Klatt answered that he thought the maximum time would be 45
minutes. Nirgude added that the play time would be during the day and not
when adjacent residents were outside in the evening or at dinnertime. Landy
questioned, and Klatt confirmed, that the church had spoken to adjacent
neighbors regarding the proposed plans.
Mr. Avila stated he had discussed the plans with some of his neighbors and
the general consensus was that they did not want to see a school nearby~
Commissioner Schmidt pointed out that none of the neighbors whose
properties abutted the church were in attendance, and it seemed to him that
the project would affect those properties more than his since he lived on the
east side of Flag A venue. If the abutting neighbors were really bothered by
the addition, they would have attended the meeting. From the planning
commissioners' point of view, they would think the neighbors approved of
the project. Avila replied he did not know why no one carne to the meeting.
He pointed out that Commissioner Landy also lived in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hemken suggested that possibly additional landscaping or
over-story trees could be added on the east side for additional screening.
A vila stated the view was only one aspect of his disapproval. He added that
when he purchased the property, there was a small quiet church on the
comer, not a busy school. He stated he was fearful that the church may want
to expand the use in the future.
Commissioner Landy inquired of the reaction of the neighbors when the
church approached them with the expansion plans. Pastor Klatt replied that
two meetings were scheduled - one in November 200S - and only one
neighbor attended that meeting. He stated that on two separate occasions he
went into the neighborhood and stopped at each of the adjacent neighbors,
showed them the plans, and asked for any concerns they might have. Only
two families had concerns with fencing so that students wouldn't get on their
property and the potential for accidents. Landy added that the majority of
concerns he heard from neighbors was for fencing, and his main concern wa:'
Planning Commission Meeting 14 July 11, 2006
additional traffic into the neighborhood.
Commissioner Brinkman stated that he didn"t think traffic would be a big
issue, due to the fact that the church across the street generated a larger traffic
concern. Commissioner Landy interjected that even the stop sign at 45th and
Flag avenues didn't slow down most of the traffic on Sunday mornings. He
added that a left turn only sign was installed at the northernmost driveway of
Crystal Free Church.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 06-14, request for site/building plan review and
conditional use permit for daycare and school addition, 4240 Gettysburg
Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of site improvement agreement with city (to be prepared
by city attorney) and submittal of performance bond for site
improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
2. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated June 15 and June
29, 2006, including the payment of storm water fee in the amount of
$4,722.50.
3. Approval of plans by building official and West Metro Fire.
4. The building addition must be fully sprinkled with a two-hour
separation between old and new portions of the building.
5. For convenience and fire safety, exterior doors must have approved
landings installed outside the building. Sidewalks shall connect
these doors to the parking lot, building entrances, or play areas.
6. Additional information is needed on the proposed upermanent" play
area north of the parking lot, including locations, placement, and
fencing. This information should be provided on a "master site
plan."
7. The proposed trash enclosure shall be located to provide a
permanent location, or moving the enclosure must be approved
when future building expansion plans are pursued.
8. Additional phases must be evaluated and approved through separate
site and building plan review processes prior to construction. The
current approval coves only the initial one-story school additionr
totaling 10,640 square feet.
9. Identify snow storage area on plan and where playground fence
would be placed on perimeter of north property line and provide
fence details.
V oting in favor: .Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
V oting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
Item 4.2 amend the original motion by adding condition no. 10 - Left turn only at
Planning Commission Meeting 15 July 11, 2006
Amendment #1 exit onto GettysbUIg Avenue.
Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on why these parishioners
could only turn left from the parking lot and the parishioners from Crystal
Free could turn either way. Discussion ensued on whether or not the city
could impose a condition for no right turns out of the parking lotJ especially if
parishioners live in the neighborhood north of the church. Several
commissioners did not feel that would be appropriate. The church could try
to restrict unnecessary traffic to the north.
V oting in favor: Buggy, Crough, Houle, Landy
V oting against: Anderson, Brinkman, H emk en, Nirgude, Oelkers,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Absent: None
Motion failed.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.2 amend the original motion with a second amendment: condition no. 11 -
Amendment #2 Provide more intensive landscaping, such as lilacs or black spruce, by
playground areas along east side as a visual screen from the residential
properties, in addition to the fence.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Buggy, Hernken, Houle, Landy,
Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
V oting against: Brinkman
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this . planning case would be considered by the City
Council on July 24, and asked that the petitioner attend.
Chairman Svendsen asked Mr. Avila to inform his neighbors to attend the
City Council meeting on July 24 to voice any concerns they have.
PC06-10 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, consideration of
Item 4.3 Ordinance 06-05, an ordinance amending New Hope Code Section 3-40
regulating Sign Code, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald stated that the planning consultant could not attend this
meeting. The redline version of the amendment was not included in the
packet, but was handed out prior to the meeting. If the Commission desired
to review the ordinance in more detail, discussion on the Sign Code
amendments could be tabled until the August meeting. The consensus was to
proceed~
Mr. Carlos Espinosa, community development intern, stated that staff was
requesting Commission review of the recommended changes to the city code
as it pertained to business signage. The recommended changes would serve
to improve the code's legibility and to make the sign code more business
friendly. Two common business signage complaints were presented to the
City Council in April, which were 1) the temporary sign code was t00
Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 11, 2006
restrictive as to the number of signs allowed in one year, and 2) amending the
comprehensive sign plan for multiply occupancy businesses was too complex
and time consuming. The Council directed staff to review the sign code. Staff
met first with the planning consultant and city attorney, and then brought
forth changes to the Codes and Standards Committee. Amendments to the
sign code were not required to be published; however, staff advertised
amendments in the Business Link newsletter. Several city businesses voiced
support for the sign code amendments.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, reviewed the ordinance section by section
with the Commission.
Section 1 - Cconstruction of Words. Corrects subsection 3-42 to read
subsection 3-40.
Section 2 - Building and Electrical Codes Applicable. Changes the snow load
for signage from psf 40 to psf 50 and changes the wind load from psf 80 to psf
90, which is in agreement with the national code.
Section 3 - Directional Signs. Increases on premise directional signage from
two square feet to four square feet.
Section 4 - Garage Sale Signs. Mr. Sondrall stated that staff requested setback
requirements be incorporated in each district. There were no language
changes. Mr. McDonald stated it would be easier to direct contractors,
businesses, and residents to one section of the code rather than directing them
to several sections for the information they are requestirig.
Section 5 - Open House Signs. This adds setback requirements to the specific
district. The location and date information was deleted as a requirement of
the sign. Open house signs generally are reused by realtors..
Discussion ensued on the description for the sight triangle and whether or not
there was an easier way to define the sight triangle.
Section 6 - Residential Districts. This adds setback information to this district.
Clarification was requested that "for sale" signs be included in (b)
freestanding signs not requiring a permit.
Section 7 - Monument Signs. This amendment increases the size from 75
square feet to 100 square feet. This was the standard utilized for other
signage, therefore, these types of signs were increased as well.
Section 8 - Off-Premise Directional Signs. Mr. Sandrall explained that several
changes were made to this section. The size of 75 square fee and 12 feet in
height was deleted. This section would pennit traffic directional signage to
assist people to find a difficult location, thereby eliminating people driving
around looking for the address. The determination as to whether or not there
could be an off-premise directional sign would be made by city staff, the
police department and the public works director. The applicant could apply,
and if it was determined by staff that it was confusing to get to a particul~
Planning Commission Meeting 17 July 11, 2006
location from a well traveled street into a residential neighborhood, a sign
could be installed, Le., Ice Arena, Cooper High School, the church on 34th and
Independence avenues with no direct access, or.a hospital, etc. The applicant
would pay all costs for the sign, installation, maintenance, and permit fees. It
was clarified that this section could include a commercial property. Mr.
Sondrall stated that a retail establishment could not request a sign because
they wanted to advertise the business. The signage would be allowed only to
eliminate a traffic issue. The city would be in control as to if and where the
sign would be allowed.
Section 9 - Commercial and Industrial Zoning District. This refers to setback
requirements for signage in these districts.
Section 10 - Wall Signs. This primarily deals with multiple exposures on
rights-of-waYI such as a shopping center business fronting two streets. The
change suggests the comer business could have two signs. After discussion
by the Commission, the ordinance verbiage would be corrected to reflect one
sign per wall facing each right-at-way.
Section 11 - Window Signs. Signage should be affixed to the inside of the
window so the wind would not blow signage away or tear it. Discussion
ensued on painted on signage, and it was determined that painted signs
should be on the inside.
Section 12 - Bannersl Pennants, Streamers, Strings of Lights, Searchlights.
This section adds additional types of signs, such as springboard signs and
vehicle mounted signs. The section also described the length and duration of
the permit application. The number of special event permits was increased
from three to four per year. The ordinance limited the size of the signs and
the location in proximity of signs if there were more than one promotional
sign in a shopping center. The signs would need to be located at least 100 feet
apart.
Discussion ensued on whether vehicle mounted signs included pizza delivery
signage on cars or signs painted on the sides of trucks. A vehicle mounted
sign would be a sign temporary in nature that was not part of the vehicle. A
panel truck with signage on the side that is licensed and operable would not
be a vehicle mounted sign. The ordinance was intended to regulate vehicle
signage for a specific promotion and parked on the property for the duration
of the sale. It would probably not be possible to regulate interstate or
intrastate commerce, such as the pizza signs on vehicles. That sign advertises
the driver was delivering pizzas. A suggestion was made to draft language to
better define vehicle mounted signs. Mr. Sondrall added that vehicle
mounted signs could be removed from the ordinance, which would prohibit
it altogether. The consensus of the Commission was to remove vehicle
mounted signs from the ordinance. A springboard sign is one which sits on
the ground and moves back and forth in the wind.
Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the limitation of permits. He felt
four signs per year for a retailer were not sufficient. Under this ordinancel he
would need two permits to sell Christmas trees for a monthl which woul~
Planning Commission Meeting 18 July 11, 2006
only leave him two additional promotions per year. McDonald indicated that
he believed Christmas tree sales and related signage was addressed as a
separate issue in another section of the city code. The corporate office offers at
least three more promotions on a national basis. Svendsen stated that if
Christmas tree signage was in addition to this, the number of special event
signs per year was okay. He would recommend five or six permits per year.
The duration could be ~or a shorter period of time as many sales are for the
weekend only and the current ordinance timeframe is 14 days. Co~ssioner
Anderson concurred with a larger number of permits per year. Mr.
McDonald added that this ordinance amendment would also make the
application process more efficient by submitting the sign application one day
prior to the promotion rather than 14 days. Mr. Sandrall stated that
surrounding cities allow three to four special sign permits per year. There
was some discussion on allowing a certain number of days per year with a
limi t on the number of permits. Commissioner Houle stated some
promotions are done in a less than attractive way and the signage area looks
cluttered. He stated that three or four events or 30 days seemed appropriate.
Mr. McDonald informed the Commission that from administrative and
inspections standpoint, it would be easier to keep track of a uniform number
of days per permit rather than one permit good for three days and another 10
or 20. The current fee structure per 14-day special event is $50.
Commissioners agreed that the fee should be a set fee per permit and not
based on the number of days. The Commission concurred that the ordinance
be changed. to allow six permits per year with duration of seven days each.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the business or the sign company
would be issued a ticket if a sign was erected illegally.
Section 13 - Reader Boards. There were no changes recommended for this
section. Mr. Sondrall added that the city engineer's office had done a traffic
study in the past to determine the appropriate length of time for messages to
appear on reader boards, which is currently three seconds. Continuous
scrolling was not permitted.
Section 14 - Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial
Uses, Including Shopping Centers. The comprehensive sign code language
was clarified with this section. Upon discussion, the maximum area for wall
signs and individual tenant signs in industrial zoning districts needed to be
clarified. The freestanding sign section was not changed other than
renumbering the section. The comprehensive sign plan fee was changed from
$200 to $325, the same as site/building plan review.
Section 15 - Amortization Schedule. This section was deleted due to the fact
that it referred to when the sign code was previously amended and the
amortization schedule for compliance with the sign code had expired.
Section 16 - Review Procedures and Informational Requirements. The section
stated that the initial comprehensive sign plan would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council, but that changes to . the
comprehensive sign plan could be approved administratively. McDonald
added that years ago every change was brought to the Commission an~
Planning Commission Meeting 19 July 11, 2006
Council, however, staff had approved changes administratively during the
last few years. The code amendment would bring the sign code up to date
with the way staff was handling the sign changes. The current ordinance
states changes needed to be approved by the Commission and Council, which
made businesses wait six to eight weeks for that approval process. If the
proposed changes stayed within the size requirements and general
requirements of the comprehensive plan, staff approves the changes. If there
was a major change, staff would bring the request to the Commission and
Council A suggestion from the Commission was to add 1/ minor'J
amendments to the sign application paragraph. Sondrall interjected that a
minor amendment would include changing a tenant name or color of the
sign. The comprehensive sign plan fee was changed in this section from $200
to $325} the same as site/building plan review. The City Council approval
process was changed to comply with requirements of Minnesota Statutes
915.99 relating to the 60-day review of applications.
Mr. Sondrall stated that these were the changes as reviewed by the planning
consultant and the Codes and Standards Committee.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the proposed amount of wall
signage for industrial buildings, and the possibility of a very large building
being able to change from 100 square feet of wall signage to 300 or 400 square
feet or more. The verbiage in the Tenant Identification Section stated 15
percent of the tenant's space or 30 square feet. The consensus was to clarify
the sign size language in this section.
The consensus of the Commission was to table the discussion for one month
so that several sections could be clarified.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
Item 4.3 table Planning Case 06-10, consideration of an ordinance amending the
New Hope Sign Code Section 3-40.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle,
Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
V oting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Mr. Sondrall reiterated that the issues to clarify are Section 10 - wall signs for
buildings facing multiple rights-of-way, Section 12 - vehicle mounted signs
and limitation of number of permits to change from four to six permits for
one week each, and Section 14 - wall signs in multiple occupancy and single
occupancy structures in industrial zoning districts, square footage for tenant
identification signage, Section 16 - and add word "minor" to comprehensive
sign plan amendments.
Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met
Committee with the petitioners in June. The next meeting. would be held on July 13, and
Item 5.1 staff had one residential variance request for a second .over-sized garage.
McDonald explained that the planning consultant had written a memo on th~
Planning Commission Meeting 20 July 11, 2006
issue indicating the request should go through the review committees and the
Commission and Council process. After further review by staff, the request
may be handled administratively. He suggested that the Design and Review
Committee review the plans and make a determination either at the regularly
scheduled meeting or the committee could meet to review the plan after this
meeting.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee met
Committee in June to discuss Sign Code revisions. Mr. McDonald added there were no
Item 5.2 new issues to discuss in July.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 6, Z006. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item 7.2 Chairman Svendsen recommended that the discussion on the design
Design Guidelines guidelines be placed on the Wednesday, August 2 Planning Commission
meeting. It was determined that if several public hearings would be on the
August agenda, a separate meeting should be held to review the design
guidelines.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen stated that he might not be able to attend the August
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Q~'Sf~
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 21 July 11, 2006