Loading...
071106 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 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 Nirgudé, 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 from CB, community business, to R2, single and two-family Item 4.1 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 two twinhomes on the site for a total of four units. The twinhomes would act as a buffer between the commercial property on the corner of Bass Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue 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 property 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 owned 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, the 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 two 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 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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. All 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 façade improvements on the building. The City 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 twinhome. Driveways would be located on the common property line, per code, and would be 18-19 feet in width and taper to the right-of-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 on 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 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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’s 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. Even though the Comprehensive Plan indicated commercial zoning, it may be that the property could be put to better use as a twinhome 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 Avenue, 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 Avenue 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 Avenue and 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 Nirgudé 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, two-foot retaining wall to help direct the runoff. The 1.2 acres that drains to this property should not produce a significant 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 ponding 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 corner 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 Nirgudé 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 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 Nirgudé 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 the sandy soils allowed infiltration and there were no backyard 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 corner 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 twinhome. 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 on the north side would be higher than the fence. Mr. Terry Veigel, property owner, came 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 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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. 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 Avila, 4232 Flag Avenue North, stated that a standing pool of water 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 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 corner, 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 fourplex, 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 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 drainage options should be considered. Commissioner Nirgudé concurred. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on whether or not there were drainage 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, Item 4.1 that 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 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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. Discussion ensued on the motion and whether or not it would be better to MOTION split the motion to address the rezoning first and then table a WITHDRAWN 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, Item 4.1 that the Commission was generally in favor of rezoning the property Rezoning from community business to residential. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting 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, Item 4.1 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 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. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be 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 site/building plan review and conditional use permit amendment for Item 4.2 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 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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-1, 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 Avenue. 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 to 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, two for preschool, 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 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 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 corner 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. Jacobsen 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 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 elevation would be 13 feet four inches with a second story added in the future. 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 corner 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 low 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 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 Gettysburg Avenue. 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 Nirgudé 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 Avenue, 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 Avenue. 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 Friday; 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 area was relocated to the north. Both are set back 20 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 Avenue 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 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 address the Commission. Mr. Brice Avila, 4232 Flag Avenue, came forward to address the Commission. He explained his property was to the east across Flag Avenue. 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 wear on the street. Another concern with the extra traffic was for children at the bus stops along 45th Avenue. 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 Hemken, 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 30-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 felt 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 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 mulch under the play equipment and the balance would be grass. A question was raised by Commissioner Nirgudé as to the duration of the outside play time, and Pastor Klatt answered that he thought the maximum time would be 45 minutes. Nirgudé 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 Avenue. 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 came 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. Avila 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 corner, 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 2005 – 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 was 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. 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.2 to 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 “permanent” 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 addition, 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. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, Item 4.2 to amend the original motion by adding condition no. 10 – Left turn only Amendment #1 at exit onto Gettysburg 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 lot, especially if parishioners live in the neighborhood north of the church. Several commissioners did not feel that would be appropriate. The church 16 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 could try to restrict unnecessary traffic to the north. Voting in favor: Buggy, Crough, Houle, Landy Voting against: Anderson, Brinkman, Hemken, Nirgudé, 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. Voting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting 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 Ordinance 06-05, an ordinance amending New Hope Code Section 3-40 Item 4.3 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 too 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 Business Link be published; however, staff advertised amendments in the 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 – Construction 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 requesting. 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. Sondrall 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 permit 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 particular location from a well traveled street into a residential neighborhood, a sign could be installed, i.e., Ice Arena, Cooper High School, the church on 34th and Independence avenues with no 18 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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-way, such as a shopping center business fronting two streets. The change suggests the corner 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-of-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 – Banners, 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 ordinance, he would need two permits to sell Christmas trees for a month, 19 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 which would 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 for a shorter period of time as many sales are for the weekend only and the current ordinance timeframe is 14 days. Commissioner 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. Sondrall 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 limit 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 20 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 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 and 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 “minor” 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 §15.99 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, Item 4.3 to table Planning Case 06-10, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Sign Code Section 3-40. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting 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 21 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006 word “minor” to comprehensive sign plan amendments. Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners in June. The next meeting would be held on July 13, Committee and staff had one residential variance request for a second over-sized Item 5.1 garage. McDonald explained that the planning consultant had written a memo on the 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 in June to discuss Sign Code revisions. Mr. McDonald added there Committee were no new issues to discuss in July. Item 5.2 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, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Item 7.2 Chairman Svendsen recommended that the discussion on the design guidelines be placed on the Wednesday, August 2 Planning Commission Design Guidelines 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, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 22 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 2006