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