060606 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 6, 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, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle, Roger
Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers ,Tom Schmidt (arrived
7:04 p.m.), Steve Svendsen
Absent: Tim Buggy, Kathi Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Curtis Jacobsen, Community
Development Specialist, Kim Green, Community
Development Assistant, 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.
Chairman Svendsen stated the petitioner had requested his item be tabled
for one month. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist,
added the petitioner was not able to submit revised plans on time,
therefore, they requested this item be tabled until the July 11, 2006,
Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
Item 4.1 to table 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.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Buggy, Hemken
Motion carried.
PC06-09 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for
Item 4.2 variance to the previously approved rear yard setback requirement to
allow construction of a single family home, 8401 27th Place North,
Kingsman LLC/Peter Long, Petitioner.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that a 16-foot rear yard setback variance request had
previously been approved by the City Council. The petitioner was
proposing a 12.3 foot rear yard setback and was requesting a 4.1-foot
variance to the previously approved 20-foot front yard setback to
accommodate an open, covered porch. The property is zoned R-1, single
family residential, and is located at 27th Place North and Yukon Avenue.
The site area contains 7,220 square feet and the proposed building would
contain a total of 2,194 square feet. The green space would total 61 percent
of the site, with 39 percent impervious surface.
In 2005, the apartment owner, Aaron Crohn, applied to subdivide the
land, rezone a portion of the property to single family, and sell off the
parcel for a single family home. Specific conditions and restrictive
covenants were attached to the site with the granting of the necessary
variance, rezoning and plat. The City Council approved the request
subject to several conditions, including: a minimum value of $250,000,
house width including garage above 70 feet, minimum 480 square foot
garage, exterior materials of brick, stone, wood, stucco or siding, and
minimum house size of 1,500 square feet for a rambler style house. The
petitioner indicated in correspondence they were proposing a smaller
house size and a minor front yard variance. The three-car garage would
be 710 square feet. The proposed market value would be between $299,000
and $325,000.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received
no comments.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that the development review team had reviewed the
plans and were supportive of the request. The Design and Review
Committee discussed several items with the petitioner, including
setbacks, the fence on the south and east property lines, aesthetics on the
building façade, porch, drainage, water and sewer service, grading plan,
etc. Revised plans were submitted.
The current request is for a 3.7 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the
proposed house to fit the site, a 4.1 foot front yard setback variance to
accommodate a porch, and a variance to the condition requiring a 1,500
square foot house. The proposed house footprint would be 1,351 square
feet. Proposed setbacks are as follows: rear yard - approved 16 feet /
requested 12.3 feet; front yard – approved 20 feet house and 22 feet garage
/ requested 14.9 feet porch, 20.9 feet for the house, 22 feet for the garage;
and side yard setbacks are in compliance. The 4.1 foot variance for the
open porch is relatively minor, and the rear yard variance would be
acceptable given the lot arrangement and existing fence. The rear of the
house has a patio door with steps leading to the rear yard. The uncovered
steps are a permitted encroachment into the rear yard setback.
2
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
Mr. Jacobsen explained that the petitioner would be required to obtain
permits for street and utility work, and would be responsible for replacing
the water stopbox in the street. No landscaping plan was submitted,
however, the petitioner must comply with landscaping requirements and
provide at least one, two-inch diameter tree in the front yard, top soil and
sod the entire property, and provide foundation and other landscaping
plantings as necessary. Building materials on the front of the house
include brick, vinyl lap siding, vinyl shakes, lattice panels around the
porch, window shutters, raised panel doors, and gutters with down
spouts. The balance of the house would have vinyl lap siding, with gutters
and down spouts. The drainage plan indicated water would be directed
east and west from a rear yard high point and flow around the property
toward the street to the north. Existing fencing on the east and south
property lines satisfies city requirements.
Engineering considerations include new sewer and water service
connections from the street, repair procedures for street after installation
of sewer, installation of new water stopbox, which would need to be
coordinated and approved by the Public Works Department per city
standards. A grading plan must include the proposed first floor and
garage floor elevations. Drainage should be identified on all sides of the
house.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval of the request
subject to the conditions in the planning report.
Commissioner Houle questioned whether there were any other houses
similar to this style, raised up from grade, in the neighborhood. Mr.
Jacobsen replied that the raised elevation would allow look-out type
windows in the back of the house. Most of the rambler homes in the
vicinity are more traditional with no regular windows on the lower level.
Commissioner Crough stated he was not in favor of this plan due to the
fact that he did not approve of the reduced front yard setback. The porch
addition, in his opinion, did nothing for the aesthetics of the home. He
stated he did not feel the reduced house size was appropriate when 1,500
square feet was previously approved. The garage size was increased to 710
square feet, when some of that square footage could be transferred to the
house. By reducing the garage size, there would be a larger setback on the
east side.
Mr. Jared Lundgren, a representative of Kingsman LLC, came forward to
address the Commission. He stated he felt the three-car garage would be
important for a new buyer for storage purposes. Most new homes today
have three car garages.
Commissioner Houle asked for clarification on whether or not the lower
level would be finished. Mr. Lundgren stated that the lower level would
not be finished, due to the fact that the selling price of the home would
3
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
rise and be more than a buyer would be willing to pay for that
neighborhood.
Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that the survey and floor plan did not
match. The covered stoop was shown as 20 feet by six feet on one plan
and six feet by seven feet on another. The survey indicated a cantilever,
but none was shown on the floor plan. Oelkers mentioned that the
original porch was 20 feet by four feet, however, the Design and Review
Committee recommended that a six foot depth would provide a more
useable area. Oelkers added he felt the porch was too close to the street,
but the house square footage was fine. Commissioner Houle commented a
porch depth of four feet would be more appropriate with regard to the
setback. A question was raised whether the porch would need to be six
feet deep if it was for architectural value only; it could be reduced to four
feet if not utilized as a porch. Mr. Lundgren maintained that the porch
would be more user friendly if the depth was left at six feet.
Discussion ensued on the three car garage and the fact that eliminating
150 square feet from the garage footage and adding it to the house would
also increase the sales price of the house to approximately $350,000, and
the house would only have a two-car garage and an unfinished basement.
That price would probably be too high for this neighborhood. Chairman
Svendsen added that he felt the three-car garage was fine due to the
reduced rear yard and the need for storage space for yard equipment and
trash cans. The developer was trying to save an existing, mature pine tree
in the west side yard, therefore, the house could not extend any further to
the west. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he agreed a three-car garage was
appropriate.
Nirgude added there was discussion at the Design and Review Committee
meeting that the porch could be placed on the west side of the house. Mr.
Lundgren stated he felt the porch dressed up the front of the house. He
agreed it may be more useful on the side, but it was aesthetically pleasing
at the front. Lundgren pointed out that these local streets were not busy.
Mr. Jacobsen added that the boulevard area added another 15 feet to the
front yard, so there would be approximately 29 to 30 feet from the front of
the house to the street. Chairman Svendsen stated that the garage would
be set back 22 feet from the front property line, and the property owner
would be able to park two to three cars in the driveway. Commissioner
Houle added that the porch does break up some of the length of the front
of the home.
Commissioner Crough initiated discussion by stating proper grading
could eliminate the above-ground first floor elevation, the same as split-
entry homes. This would require a large amount of fill. Houle added that
foundation landscaping would add aesthetic value to the site.
Chairman Svendsen explained that the house was in the same location as
the original plans submitted for the Design and Review Committee
meeting, just the porch extended another two feet toward the street. The
4
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
petitioner added stairs were added in the back extending down to a patio
slab so there would not be a deck extending into the easement area. The
family yard area would be on the west side yard. Oelkers stated that the
lot was created and the 26-foot wide house was not overly large.
Commissioner Schmidt questioned why there was not a second floor. Mr.
Lundgren responded that the rambler design was used because it was felt
that the buyer would not want to have a view of the apartment complex
from the second floor windows and so that there would be look-out
windows installed on the lower level on the rear and west sides of the
house. Mr. Lundgren stated he felt this house with the raised first level fits
in the neighborhood due to the fact that there are many split-level homes
in the immediate area. Oelkers commented that 28 feet by 24 feet was not
a very large three-car garage.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated that he liked the landscaping and
architecture of the home. The developer should be certain that the
plantings would be the same as that proposed in the photo provided. Mr.
Lundgren agreed that the landscaping was important.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Don Onnen, 8408 27th Place North, stated that he felt the project
looked good and was a big improvement over what was there years ago.
He had lived in the area about five years. Mr. Onnen also stated that the
apartment complex, Sunset Apartments, looked good since
repairs/improvements have been completed by Mr. Crohn.
There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-09. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle stated that it appeared the applicant had done his
best to fit a house on the lot and he supported the project. It met most of
the requirements the Council placed on the property, except for the
square footage. The project value had been met. The finished square
footage could be met if the basement was finished in the future.
Chairman Svendsen inquired if the Commission had suggestions for the
placement of the boulevard tree. Oelkers recommended that the applicant
submit a landscaping plan to reflect plantings as shown on the photo. The
plan should be submitted to the city prior to the City Council meeting.
Commissioner Brinkman indicated support for the six-foot porch.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 06-09, request for variance to the previously
5
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
approved rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a single
family home, 8401 27th Place North, Kingsman LLC/Peter Long, subject
to the following conditions:
1.Applicant to submit a corrected survey to accurately show proposed
front porch and cantilever as proposed on the plans.
2.Applicant to add front yard concrete walkway to connect stairs and
driveway.
3.Applicant will add concrete landings at each rear door and
appropriate grade level patio between landings.
4.Applicant will be responsible for replacing water stopbox.
5.Landscaping requirements apply, including top soil and sod, front
yard tree, and other landscaping as necessary/appropriate. A
landscaping plan should be submitted prior to the City Council
meeting and plantings to match the photo provided.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Crough
Absent: Buggy, Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on June 26, and asked that the petitioner attend.
Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met
with the petitioners in May. The next meeting would be held on June 15,
Committee
and staff was expecting Holy Trinity Church expansion plans.
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards Chairman Svendsen stated that the Codes and Standards Committee
would be meeting on June 9 to discuss Sign Code revisions.
Committee
Item 5.2
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the status of the sign at the old A.C.
Carlson site. Mr. McDonald stated the New Hope Alano Group was in the
process of replacing the face of the sign.
Commissioner Schmidt initiated discussion on the truck signage located
at Marketplace Furniture. Mr. McDonald stated that the business owner
had met with the building official and it did meet current sign
requirements. That type of signage would be an issue for the Codes and
Standards Committee to discuss. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney,
interjected that if the truck was licensed and operable, it was a permitted
use for the business and could be parked in their parking lot. This issue is
problematic to address through the sign code and would be difficult to
enforce unless sight lines were obscured or there was a safety issue.
OLD BUSINESS A question was raised as to when the project at 42nd and Quebec avenues
would begin construction. Mr. McDonald stated that the city attorney was
Miscellaneous Issues
coordinating with the developer’s attorney on the purchase agreement
and development agreement. The final plat also needed to be submitted
6
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
and approved by the City Council. Mr. Sondrall added that Manley
Development had letters of intent from restaurants, but could not get
leases or disclose the identities until the buildings were constructed.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 2, 2006.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 Chairman Svendsen introduced Item 7.2, Plymouth Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Item 7.3, Robbinsdale Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Plymouth,
and 7.4, Crystal Comprehensive Plan Amendment for discussion.
Robbinsdale, and
Crystal Comprehensive
Chairman Svendsen explained these three items were sent to New Hope
Plan Amendments
because the Metropolitan Council requires comprehensive plan
amendments be sent to adjacent cities for review and comment. After
review, New Hope would send comments to the appropriate city and the
Metropolitan Council.
The Plymouth plan amendment is located at the intersection of Hwy 55
and Northwest Boulevard, and would re-guide five acres of land from
industrial to commercial, to facilitate a PUD for a 39,000 square foot
commercial retail center. The Robbinsdale plan amendment is located at
the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Vera Cruz Avenue, and would
facilitate the development of a 36-unit apartment building for seniors and
would intensify land uses on 42nd Avenue. The Crystal project is located
on the north and west sides of Olivet Baptist Church near 3420 Nevada
Avenue North. The amendment would change the future land use map to
high density residential for a future senior cooperative housing project.
Svendsen stated that he was glad to see the proposed changes for Crystal
and Robbinsdale and thought the projects looked wonderful.
Commissioner Landy stated the Plymouth project would not impact New
Hope due to the distance from the city. The other two projects should
benefit New Hope. It was mentioned that the Robbinsdale plan showed
the parking lot behind the building and away from the street.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt Crystal should be complemented on
its aggressive nature of redeveloping old school properties. This project
and the project at the Thorson School north of Bass Lake Road took some
foresight to move forward with those projects. New Hope could possibly
take some initiative in looking at the couple school district sites. Other city
councils are taking steps to improve their cities and, he stated, he hoped
New Hope would not fall behind.
Item 7.5 Chairman Svendsen introduced Item 7.5, Design Guidelines for
discussion.
Design Guidelines
Mr. McDonald stated that the City Council had asked that the Planning
Commission be involved in the review of the design guidelines prepared
7
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
by the City Center Task Force in 2003 and to determine what may need to
be changed. Mr. McDonald asked whether the Commission wanted to
review the guidelines as a full commission or appoint a sub-committee. If
the commission wanted to review the guidelines all together, information
would be prepared for the July meeting. If a sub-committee would be
formed, the sub-committee would conduct a couple meetings and bring a
report back to the full commission. The full commission then would make
a recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Svendsen indicated preference for a sub-committee to review
the materials. Another suggestion was for the full commission to review
the materials, for the full commission to review the plan the first time and
then break into a smaller group, or conduct a work session to review the
materials rather than at the formal Planning Commission meeting.
Oelkers indicated design guidelines were needed, but wasn’t sure if the
city could tell builders what they could construct. Svendsen stated the
DSU (Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban) 42nd Avenue Streetscape plan should
be incorporated into these guidelines. The streetscape plan addresses bus
shelters, etc. Houle stated that design guidelines could be general or very
specific and he wasn’t sure one work session would be enough time to get
through all the material. He liked the idea of conducting a work session to
set some overall goals and direction and then break into a smaller group.
Have that group bring some specific ideas back to the whole group and
work through it again.
Commissioner Brinkman stated he felt the Commission was a good group
of people, who cared about the community. He felt this was the right
group to review the guidelines. Commissioners have a general feeling of
what the city wants and the commissioners are realtors, business owners,
and others who have specialty areas of expertise. At some point there
should be a designer to put the thoughts and ideas into perspective.
Commissioner Brinkman directed a comment to Council Member Hoffe in
the audience that he felt this was a positive direction to come from the
Council. Landy concurred. He stated when he was chair of the Planning
Commission, the previous Council indicated that the Commission should
be completely independent. Council Member Hoffe replied that he
learned a lot from his attendance at the meetings as the discussions were
much more in depth. Landy maintained he felt the Council was trying to
utilize the expertise of the Commissioners.
Landy commented that he and Commissioner Brinkman were part of the
City Center Task Force and at the time the guidelines were laid out, they
were appropriate. Today, the guidelines may not be completely right and
need some adjusting.
Commissioner Schmidt wondered whether the guidelines would
mandate, for instance, if Winnetka Center was remodeled that it would
look like the New Hope Mall. Landy stated that would be what the
guidelines should achieve – to present a cohesive look from one building
to the next. Mr. McDonald stated that the guidelines should address
8
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
situations if buildings were improved or new construction. All cities
approach this differently, therefore, that issue should be part of the
recommendation. The guidelines could be adopted into the city code.
Commissioner Anderson reported on a project called “tidy cities” in
Ireland. Every merchant in the city had their own color scheme and
somehow all the bright colors fit together. He stated his point was that not
everything had to be “earthy colors.”
Commissioner Oelkers recommended that the Planning Commission
conduct a work session after the July 11 meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reminded the commissioners of the bus tour on June
19. He recommended that commissioners take the opportunity to visit the
finished projects.
Commissioner Houle questioned the status of the review of New Hope’s
comprehensive plan update. Mr. McDonald stated that a representative of
the Metropolitan Council would be meeting with the Council at the
August work session to explain the process and the information required
from the city. Staff was determining the most cost effective way to obtain
the information and get the update completed. Northwest Consultants
proposed costs for the update were discussed and questions were raised
as to why the Council was objecting to utilizing consultants for the
update. Commissioner Landy explained that plan was modified 10 years
ago and was supposed to be good for 20 years. The Met Council was now
requesting that cities modify their plans every 10 years. New Hope
approved major amendments to the plan last year, which addressed
recent larger developments. Commissioner Nirgudé maintained that
$40,000 was a lot of money. He felt the Council wanted to get input from a
lot of other groups incorporated into the updated plan. He also stated he
felt the Planning Commission should be supportive of the Council’s
decision and have a lot of input into the Comprehensive Plan update.
McDonald added that there would be further direction from the Council
after the August work session. Houle stressed he wouldn’t want input
from the public and various groups get left out because the Council did
not want to spend a little extra money. He agreed it needed to be cost
effective, but the city needed to draw the residents of New Hope into
what was happening in the city, and one way to do that was through the
Comprehensive Plan. The city had made amendments to the plan, but he
questioned the amount of public input. He stated he didn’t feel the city
should rely only on the Planning Commission and City Council meetings
for input, because very few people attend. The Council should look at
ways to draw input from the residents. He felt the city may have to spend
some money in order to do that effectively. Landy concurred. The
difficulty would be to get more residents involved in the process.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10
p.m.
9
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
10
Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006