071205 Planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON A VENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2005
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7
p.ll1.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy (7:02), Kathi
Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Bill
Oelkers, Steve Svendsen
Absent: Pat Crough, Tom Schmidt
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer,
Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist, Kim Green,
Community Development Assistant, Charles Car Ison,
Community Development Intern, Pan1ela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARIN G
peos-os Chairman Sve11dsen introduced for discussion Iten1 4.1, Request for
Item 4.1 conditional use permit/plmmed unit development and prelin1inary plat
review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and 2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court
Properties, "LLCI]oru1 Roder, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting preliminary plat review and a conditional use
permit/planned unit development to allow the conversion of 60 apartn1ent
units in five buildings into owner-occupied condominiums. Tl1e site is z011ed
R-4 hig11 density residential and is surrounded by Terra Linda Park to the
east, single family residential to the north, residential business to the
northwest, community business to the west and Golden Valley single family
residential to the SOUt!1 across Medicine Lake Road. The site contains 4.365
acres. Each building has three stories with approximately 3,400 square feet
per floor, or 10,100 square feet in each building. 111e total square footage for
all five building vvould be 50,500. The land area is made up of 170~ buildings
and garages, 25% paved, 450/0 green space, and 13% city streets.
The site was developed in the early 1960s. The buildings contain one and two-
bedroon1 units. The applicant would sell the apartments as condominiums,
using a phased approach to divide and sell each building. The initial phase
would convert the 2700 and 2730 Rosalyn Court buildings, and the otl1er
buildings would be converted within tl1e next 10 years. The plan to group lots
together requires a PUD for the Common Interest Community plat. The POO
designation also would provide flexibility to allow for the nonconforming
setbacks that exist and city code states for a PUD that the existing overhead
utility lines are to be buried. The use of the site will not c11ange, only the
ownership structure of the residences. To ensure sufficient capital funding,
the apartment buildu1gs will be folded into the property's maintenance until
sold off as condominiums and ongoing maintenance can draw from a larger
funding pool. In February 2005, a code compliance inspection was conducted
prior to sale of the buildings and a Certificate of Compliance was issued.
The topography of the site is flat and is surrounded by higher elevations to
the north, west, and east. The site has a slig11t downward slope toward
Medicine Lake Road on the south side. The five lots are arranged on a short
street and cul-de-sac accessed from Medicine Lake Road. The Design and
Review Committee felt the conversion would be a welcome addition to the
city. The City Council strongly supports condominium conversion projects.
The applicant was not asking for city assistance for the project.
Mr. McDonald reported tl1e petitioner stated in correspondence that the
conversion would have a long-term benefit of providing owner-occupied
housing with responsible and caring residents havu1g an ownership stake in
the property.
Property ovvners within 350 feet of the property were 11otified, including the
city of Golden Valley, and staff received no comments.
Mr. McDonald pointed out the purpose of the planned unit development was
to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an
integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to the traditional parcel by parcel
approach to development.
McDonald stated tl1at the prelin1inary plat had been submitted to city
department heads, city attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility
companies and Hennepin County for review. Comments received were
incorporated into the planning report and the approval would be subject to
those recommendations. The Plaru1ing Commission should confirm whether
the applicant desires to have the Con1mission waive its review of the final
plat.
Staff and cOl1sultants reviewed the apartment conversion plans and were
supportive of the conversion. Comments u1cluded provision for drainage and
utility easements, sidewalk easement on Medicine Lake Road, burial of
overhead utilities, parking, sales office locations, compliance with fire code,
lighting, signage and managen1ent of the property. TI1e Design and Revievv
Committee met witl1 the applicant and indicated support for the project. The
committee requested information regarding management and capital
improvement funding. Revised plans and supplemental information were
submitted as a result of those meetings.
The site consists of five separate lots. Two lots share a driveway and parking
area. Four of the lots are similar h1 size, and Lot 3 is larger due to the fact that
a swimming pool "vas previously located on the lot. The pool \vas
demolished in the early 19905. All lots front onto Rosalyn Court, which
terminates in a cul-de-sac, and are accessed via Medicine Lake Road.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 12,2005
Apartment building setbacks are compliant with the R-4 zoning district. Five
of the six garages do not meet the side and/or rear yard setbacks. The
applicant was not proposing any changes to further encroach into the
required setbacks, therefore, these legally nonconforming structures are
allowed to continue to be utilized.
Mr. McDonald stated that proposed pricing for the condominiums would be
based on the type and location of each unit and the upgrades made. The
initial 24 units would be priced between $79,900 for a one-bedroom on the
first floor to $98,900 for a third floor two-bedroom unit. Association fees
would range between $157.90 for a one-bedroom and $178.48 per month for a
two-bedroom. To create a funding reserve, the equivalent of two monthly
association dues would be required upon sale closing. After all 60 units are
sold, the operating income for the property would be $121,000 with a
replacement reserve of $19,500. This would cover administration, gas service,
insurance, repairs, and other operating expenses. The first phase, 24 units,
would provide over $48,000 annually to fund the association expenses.
Parking on site would be arranged through a shared use agreement, allowing
guests and residents parking on any parking lot within the development. This
arrangement would meet the city's requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, or 90
parking spaces. The development currently has 60 garage stalls and 60 surface
parking stalls distributed across the five lots, or 120 total parking stalls. 111e
parking was not delineated on the submitted plans, but should be illustrated.
Access to Rosalyn Court is via Medicine Lake Road. There is a center island in
the middle of the cul-de-sac. Four driveways provide access to garages and
parking areas for the five buildings. A five-foot sidewalk runs along Medicine
Lake Road, and concrete walks serve each building.
The survey does not indicate dumpster enclosures on the property. The city
requires waste storage to be screened. The applicant should provide a letter to
the city describing the storage of refuse, and whether refuse containers are to
be located within the apartment buildings or garage structures. Landscaping
plans were not submitted. Green space is predominately turf grass, with some
trees and other landscaping features on the site. Existing permanent signage
will remain, however wording on the signs may change. Sales signs would be
placed on the property during selling phases. Snow storage is not detailed on
the plans. The property requires 90 parking spaces and 120 are provided. City
code states that snow storage may occur on tl1e excess parking spaces if guest
and resident parking requirements are maintained. Building-mounted lights
are located above the entrances and parking lots are illuminated by building-
mounted floodlights. The city may require additional lighting around the
building and garages as a condition of approva1. The applicant indicated in
correspondence that the present lighting of the complex was considered and
deemed adequate by their independent consultant and insurance provider.
They would encourage condominium purchasers to purchase garage door
openers with security lighting.
McDonald added that the plans were reviewed by West Metro Fire. West
Metro provided a letter indicating that the applicant had complied with all of
its recommendations.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 12, 2005
Existing easements include a 10-foot utility and drainage easement between
Lots 4 and 5, between Lots 2 and 3, along the eastern edge of the property, the
western boundary of Lots 3 and 4, and through Lot 5 east of the garage. The
city engineer recommended the following additional easements: 1) 10-foot
utility and drainage easement on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4,
and 2) lO-foot utility and drainage easement on the common lot line betvveen
Lots 1 and 2. Provide a utility easement across Lot 3 to enable access to the
electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac. Applicant to verify the
existence of easement over the storm sewer along the east line of Lot 1.
Provide a five-foot wide sidewalk easement along the south lot line of Lots 1
and 5, which would allow the future relocation of the sidewalk if a turn lane
was added into Rosalyn Court in the future. A turn lane is not required at this
time. The citys PUD ordinance requires that internal overhead utilities be
buried and this is added as a condition of approval. The city may consider
this on a phased basis as the buildings are converted.
McDonald explained that tl1e apartments are managed by Sabre Enterprises,
and they provide the maintenance on tl1e buildings. While the buildings
remain apartments, Sabre would continue to provide maintenance on the
buildings. The board of directors indicated Sabre would provide
management of the condominium association as well. As the association
grows, the board may tern1inate the services provided by Sabre. Until half the
units are sold, the present owner, Rosalyn Court Properties LLC, would be
responsible for maintaining the entire complex. A question was raised as to
whether "half of the units" for the association meant 30 out of 60 units or 12
of 24 units. Mr. Steve Sondralt city attorney, responded that half of the units
would mean half of the initial units in the original association or 12 of 24
U11i ts.
Mr. McDonald reported that the city felt t11is was a good project and the
overall project would enhance tl1e city with increased home ownership. TI1e
basic use of the site was not changing and the conversion was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff was recommending approval of the
preliminary plat and PUD subject to the conditions as listed in the platming
report.
Commissioner Nirgude questioned who currently maintains the center island
in the cul-de-sac and was told the property owner l1ad been maintaining this
area. Mr. McDonald added that Rosalyn Court was a public street and the
island would be treated as a boulevard, w11ere upkeep is the responsibility of
the property owner.
Mr. John Roder, 400 North 1st Street, Minneapolis, came to the podium to
address the Commission. Mr. Roder confirmed that the center island was
being maintained by the management company of the complex. Mr. Roder
explained the reason for converting the 2700 and 2730 buildings first was due
to lease requirements for current tenants. The intention was to convert all five
buildings as soon as the units could be converted and sold, hopefully within
two years. They were suggesting a lO-year time frame to complete the whole
conversion, but hoped it would not take that long. They anticipated all units
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 12, 2005
will be sold. Mr. Roder indicated that currently are fenced refuse areas behind
each building with regular pick up service. There may be some ground
improvements completed with new plantings in the green areas away from
the buildings for security reasons. Cleanup of overgrowth along the property
lines was in process and would be cleared away. Retaining walls would be
installed to aesthetically improve the area.
Mr. Roder stated that he would like to see the power lines buried, but the cost
may be $15,000 to $20,000 for the five buildings. He stated he wants to keep
the costs under control and keep the units affordable. There are a couple
model units available now and they are taking reservations for people
interested in purchasing.
The applicant stated he did not have a problem granting easements to tl1e
city. He indicated there was a blanket easement in force from when tl1e
building was constructed. His attorney would incorporate the city's easement
descriptions into the appropriate documents.
Chairman Svendsen inquired whether the applicant was formally requesting
the Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat, and Mr. Roder
answered in the affirmative.
Discussion ensued on \vhether or not to request that overhead utility lines be
buried. There are several other overhead lines along the perimeter of the
property in addition to the utility lines. Existing utility lines come from the
rear property lines into the back of the buildings. Mr. McDonald stated that
city code required new planned unit developments to bury all utility lines at
the expense of the developer. The city's planning consultant recommended
that the apartment conversion be accomplished throug11 a PUD,however, this
existing site may have special characteristics as opposed to a new
development. The Planning Commission should make a policy decision and
offer a recommendation to tl1e City Council. The city would need to adhere to
the same policy with future existing site conversions.
Chairma11 Svendsen mentioned that the utility lines along the west property
line also fed the small strip mall on Winnetka A venue and the gas station. He
questioned from what point the lines would be buried. Mr. Vince Vander
Top, city engineer, explained that the two lines from the pole to the buildings
would be the only lines required to be buried with this application. The other
services and the feed to that pole would still be overhead.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether or not the same regulations
apply to conversion condos as new construction condos and this was
confirmed. City code requires that overhead utilities must be buried through
the PUD process.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the applicant's anticipated cost
of $15,000 to $20,000 to bury the utility lines. The city engineer indicated that
cost projection may be high. Oelkers suggested that at $12,000, the cost to
each unit would be $200, or at $18,000 the cost to each unit would be $300. It
was noted that phone and cable lines are already buried. Mr. Roder stated
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 12, 2005
that the city's line across Lot 3 for a lig11t pole would also need to be
addressed.
Commissioner Brinkman stated that during a recent tour of the Winnetka
Green project, he noticed that the units were quiet and wondered whether
there were building code requirements that needed to be followed for
conversion units. Mr. McDonald stated that there were specific fire wall
requirements that had to be met between owner-occupied units versus
apartments. It was noted that a sound wall was different than a fire vvall. Mr.
Sondrall pointed out that the CIC law indicates that the city cannot impose
any special regulations on conversions that would prevent this kind of
ownership versus an apartment ovvnership.
Commissioner Hemken questioned what expenses made up the monthly
maintenance fee. Mr. Roder stated that history of the buildings show monthly
charges for gas, water, insurance, etc. Commissioners Oelkers and Buggy
agreed that the fee of $158 and $179 were in line with fees for similar projects.
The units have gas heat with hot water baseboard systems and new sleeve air
conditioning units. All units will have new appliances, kitchen and bathroom
cabinets, ceramic tile in the bathrooms, and all floor coverings.
Discussion ensued on financing of the units for the buyer. Mr. Roder
indicated financing would be available tlnough Wells Fargo and Faru1ie Mae
approval was in process. Financing would be available through their
organization as welt and they are also checking into FHA and HUD. They are
trying to keep the payments as low as possible.
Question was raised as to what may happen if an occupied unit \vas sold to
another party. Mr. Roder indicated that tenants would be notified and have
four months to move, as prescribed by the state of Minnesota. Handicapped
or elderly tenants are allowed additional time beyond the four months. Mr.
Roder stated that if the tenants choose to move, they have other complexes
with units available, and the tenants would receive $1,000 in moving
assistance. If tenants are interested in purchasing a unit, models are available
or they can purchase their own unit, however, they would have to move out
during the remodeling process. Mr. Roder added that some of the tenants
from the previous owner still have several months left on their leases, and
would be notified of the ownership opportunity well in advance of the
expiration date on the lease.
Commissioner Nirgude complimented the applicant on the nice job on the
plans and the complex itself. He questioned how the rental property owners
would become part of the condominium association. Mr. Roder indicated that
he would be responsible for costs associated with the rental buildings and the
association would be responsible for costs associated with the buildings with
owner-occupied units for the day-to-day operations, such as mowing the
grass. The association would have monies put into a savings account for
capital improvements, such as roof, windows, etc. Mr. Roder stated that there
are some items, such as gutters, that may need to be replaced in four or five
years. At the time of sale, two months of association fees are collected and put
into the reserve account. He stated he would continue on the board of
Planning Commission Meeting 6 J ul Y 12, 2005
directors for three years.
Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on what changes would be
made to each unit prior to selling. Mr. Roder responded that there would be
no structural work done on the units. Flooring would be removed down to
the wood, including carpet and pad, floor tile and wall tile in the bathrooms,
kitchen cabinets, interior doors would be refinished or new depending on the
price package the buyer wanted. Buyers would have two choices for carpet,
kitchen cabinets, appliance package - stove, dishwasher, and refrigerator - in
either white or stainless steel, sleeve air conditioner, vanity, medicine cabinet
all new lighting, ceiling fan in dining room, plain or mirrored doors on
closets. Window treatments would be an option, and the garage door opener
would be an option. Security doors would be checked and locks changed on
all units upon sale. Mr. Roder stated market research indicates that 80 percent
of the buyers may be single, professional females.
Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on the 11eating system in tl1e
buildings and wondered whether the system would need upgrading. Mr.
Roder responded that he would address some of the pump systems and
thermostats and control valves prior to the next heating season. The boiler
seems to be in good condition now.
Commissioner Nirgude asked what other condominium projects Mr. Roder
had been involved with. He replied that he had been involved in several other
projects; however, this was the first one he was managing by himself. He
stated he had been involved with apartment management issues for the last
10 years. He stated the company manages five complexes with approximately
25 buildings. They also so some outside management for commercial
properties. Commissioner Nirgude expressed best wishes for the project.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned the condition of the roofs on the
buildings and it was noted that most were in fair conditio11.
Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for comment from the audience.
Mr. Tad Johnson, 2748 Lamphere Drive, came forward. He stated he and his
wife, Kimberly, were excited about the project. The project was a market
based idea witl1 no city money being used and it was giving people more
options for condominium ownership. He felt the price was very affordable
for a nice area of the Twin Cities metro area. He suggested that the
maintenance company keep up with the outside lawn care. He inquired as to
what the association fees cover. Mr. Roder gave the following totals: $9,300
for management services; $3,500 office expenses, such as mailing, legal, etc.;
$19,300 insurance for buildings, grounds, liability (no unit contents is
included); $24,900 for gas service for boiler, dryers, ranges; $25,800 for water,
sewer, trash and recycling; $9,500 for small common area repairs; $3,900 for
grounds maintenance such as mowing and snow removal; $700 for fire alarm
monitoring; $4,700 for operating reserve, and $19,500 replacement reserve for
roof, parking lot, windows, etc. for a total of $121,100 per year.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 12, 2005
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close
the public hearing on Planning Case 05-08. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner had submitted draft association
bylaws, articles of incorporation, rules and regulations, which were all
included in the planning report.
Mr. Roder reported that his attorney drafted a letter which stated that his firm
does condo conversions and he reviews all of the documents prior to giving
that information to potential buyers. Mr. Sondrall added that he has spoken
with Mr. Fredrich Krietzffian of Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, PA, Mr.
Roder's attorney, with regard to the conversion documents and stated he was
confident that everything would comply with state laws. One of the
conditions of the site agreement would be a letter from Mr. Frietzman
verifying that the condo association documents and the other information
submitted by the applicant for purchase by the public meets the CIC laws and
other laws that relate to this type of condo conversion.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the existing survey would be
appropriate to file for the Cle. Mr. Roder stated 11is attorney had indicated
they would take care of various clean up items such as the easements, etc. to
get the plat to conform to current usage. Mr. Sondrall explained with regard
to the CIC plat, specific items such as legal descriptions and standard
requirements need to be met in order to make that plat work for documenting
the ownership. A detailed outline must be submitted indicating all CIC lavvs
are met. 111e mechanism for recording t11e phased plat would be through the
PUD development agreement. An amended plat would be recorded each
time a new phase is added to incorporate the new property in the association.
Initially the applicant would record the first two lots and legal descriptions as
CICs, and the balance of the lots would remain as they are. Details would
need to be worked out as to the phasing of t11e project and what would
happen if all the buildings were not converted to condos. SondraU confirmed
that there was some risk involved with phasing and completion of the project.
The worst case scenario would be an association with 24 units in it and three
properties remaining rentals. Legal descriptions would be given to garages
associated with each unit. Mr. Roder commented that they were trying to
establish that the association would be viable for the long term. One way to
do that was to establish that the buyers would not be buying the garage, but
rather a license to the garage. The association would retain ownership of the
garage, which would give the association collateral for a potential bank loan.
Mr. Sondrall indicated he would review all legal documents.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he liked the proposal, however, he was
concerned this project would mimic a similar request from a few years ago to
convert rental units into owner-occupied units, which has not yet happened.
He mentioned the shared access and parking agreement discussed at the
Design and Review Committee meeting, and he questioned what would
happen with the shared parking agreement if only the first two buildings
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 12, 2005
would sell. Ms. Clarissa Klug, assistant city attorney, stated they would work
out those details with the applicant's attorney. It would make sense to have a
broad agreement that would run with the land, so if the phasing didn't occur,
there would not be a piecemeal agreement. Oelkers expressed concern that
there be ample parking available in the event only two buildings sell. Mr.
Sondrall replied that each lot should have 1.5 spaces per units per code.
Oelkers initiated discussion regarding the number and size of pets and it was
noted that the bylaws specify the number, size and type of pets allowed,
which was more restrictive than city code.
Commissioner Buggy reiterated that purchasers would be getting a license for
a garage, which was part of the common property. He suggested that if the
garages were a common element to the project, the association should
provide the openers as part of the overall package to potential buyers. Mr.
Roder concurred with the suggestion, however, l1e did not want to force
anyone to incur the extra cost.
Commissioner Oelkers strongly encouraged the applicant to bury the
overhead utility lines, so as not to set a precedent. Chairman Svendsen stated
that due to the uniqueness of the supply to the property, the short runs, and
layout of the site, his opinion was to waive that requirement of the PUD.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 05-08, Request for conditional use permit/planned
unit development and preliminary plat review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and
2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court Properties, LLC/John Roder, Petitioner,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Review and approval of plans by the city's building official.
2. Comply with city engineer's recommendations:
a. lO-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common
lot line between Lots 3 and 4. A significant amount of drainage
comes from the northwest comer of the property. This easement
could protect that drainage way.
b. lO-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common
lot line between Lots 1 and 2.
c. Provide utility easement across Lot 3 enabling access to the
electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac.
d. Verify the existence of easement over the storm sewer along the
east lot line of Lot 1. This storm sewer was installed after the
original plat.
e. Provide a 5-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the south lot
line of Lots 1 and 5 to allow future relocation of the sidewalk if
necessary.
3. Comply with city attorney recommendations, per correspondence
dated June 30, 2005.
4. Comply "Yith planning consultant recommendations:
a. Burial of utilities lines are recommended to not be required for
this specific proj ect.
b. The applicant shall be required to provide 1.S parking spaces
Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 12, 2005
per unit.
c. The applicant shall provide an easement on the five parking lots
and driveways to allow residents of one building to park on any
lot, regardless of building ownership status.
d. Management agreements shall be submitted and are subject to
the review of the city.
e. The CIC and related associations shall be large enough to
accommodate the on-going maintenance of the buildings as well
as provide for long-term capital improvements for the buildings.
The overall budget is subj ect to the review and approval of the
city.
f. If only two (2) buildings are converted into condominiums, all
buildings shall be required to be part of the association.
g. The applicant shall illustrate how sales are to occur on site.
h. A comprehensive signage plan shall be required.
i. The applicant shall be required to provide lighting around all
buildings and garages.
j. The applicant shall provide trash enclosures to screen trash cans
and dumpsters on the property, or evidence it will be otherwise
handled in accordance with City Code.
5. Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire, including:
a. The location of lock boxes, fire alarms, emergency lighting and
related safety features.
b. The location of fire hydrants.
6. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat.
7. Enter into development agreement with city, to be prepared by city
attorney.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen
V oting against: Houle, Oelkers, Nirgude
Absent: Crough, Schmidt
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on July 25 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance.
PC05-09 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for planned
Item 4.2 unit development, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, site/building plan
review, comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor
dining, 7500, 7516, 7528 42nd Avenue North, Frey Development/Commercial
Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Shavvn Siders, community development specialist, stated that this vvas a
request for a planned unit development to allow the construction of two
condominium units with three units in each building and one condominium
building with two units on the northern and eastern portions of the site and
one restaurant/retail building on the western portion of the site at 42nd and
Quebec avenue, a conditional use permit, preliminary plat review,
site/building plan review, and comprehensive sign plan. The property is
zoned CB, community business. The parcel contains 109,900 square feet or
2.523 acres. Surrounding land uses includes industrial to the north,
Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 12, 2005
community business (Sunshine Factory) to the west and south and the C.P.
Rail line to the east. The total building area would be approximately 20% of
the property, green area is 27%, hard surfaces include outdoor dining area at
less than one percent, and parking/sidewalk/drive area at 53%.
Mr. Siders gave a brief history of the site as to when the city acquired the
properties and the contamination cleanup. Grants were received from the
state of Minnesota and Hennepin County to help with remediation and
Electronic Industries, the former property owner, covered the 25 percent cost
sharing portion of the grant. Environmental remediation efforts are complete
and development can begin. On site monitoring is occurring as well as
ground water monitoring on the Gill Brothers Funeral Home site.
Prior to the planning application, the developer submitted a development
proposal for consideration by the New Hope Economic Development
Authority, who was supportive of the project. On June 27, the EDA approved
a purchase agreement with Frey Development and Manley Land
Development. The property would be transferred once all necessary planning
approvals have been received by the city, Helmepin County and the MPCA.
Mr. Siders stated that the petitioner would re-subdivide the existing three
properties into two lots - Lot 1 containing 55,894 square feet and a lot width
of 163.05 feet; Lot 2 containing 54,005 square feet and a lot width of 156.85
feet. There would be a drainage and utility easement around the entire
perimeter of the property that would be granted to the city for the installation
of the city's utilities.
Subsequent to plan submittal, the development review team met and was
generally supportive of the project. Items discussed iI1cluded access to 42nd
A venue, which is subject to Hennepin County review and the possible
granting of an access permit, rear yard setback on north property line of 24
feet, drainage and utility easements, and parking with 133 stalls provided
rather than 163 required by city code. The applicant is requesting a shared
parking arrangement between the two lots. Staff felt this vvould work due to
the difference in hours between the office use and restaurant use. The POO
would allow some flexibility on parking and setbacks. The Design and
Review Committee met with the petitioner to discuss those items and as well
as access from 42nd Avenue to be constructed as a right in only entrance, and
landscaping enhancements. Revised plans were submitted as a result of these
meetings.
It was noted that the city currently owns the alley to the north of the property
and it would be transferred Frey Development and incorporated into the plat.
Mr. Siders explained that the Sunshine Factory had been utilizing a portion of
the property for parking for the past several years. The Sunshine Factory was
notified that once development occurred it could no longer use the property
for parking and they are agreeable.
The restaurant/retail building would contain approximately 9,600 square feet.
Viva Italia, a full service Italian restaurant, would be the anchor tenant, and
Planning Commission Meeting 11 J ul Y 12, 2005
was making application for a full liquor license., The restaurant would utilize
approximately 4,500 square feet. The development on the eastern portion of
tl1e site would contain a three-unit building on the southeast and northeast
comers of the property and a two-unit building along the eastern property
line between the three-unit buildings. Each building would contain one two-
story unit.
City code requires a 3D-foot rear yard setback for the office-condo building
along the north property line be 30 feet and the developer is proposing 24
feet. Due to the industrial use to the north and extensive landscaping
proposed for the north property line, staff was recommending favorable
consideration of that request through the PUD. Water and sewer lines would
flow into the site from Quebec Avenue near the northwest corner of the
property and branch out to serve the buildings. Two fire hydrants would be
located on the site, one on the west property line and one near the northern
end of the tvvo-unit building. Storm drainage would flow to the north lot line
into the storm sewer system then to the east lot line and then south for a
distance and then east toward the railroad tracks. Water from the
Quebec/42nd avenues intersection flows north to the lot line and into the
storm sewer system. The developer would be paying storm water fees in lieu
of on-site ponding. The developer would be providing several utility
easements to the city in the event the city needed to gain access to any of the
utilities.
:MI. Siders described the landscaping plan. He indicated that Viva ltalia
would occupy approximately two and one-half tenant bays in the soutl1ern
portion of Building A. The remaining space would be occupied by otl1er retail
uses. Two parking islands would be located on the site with 133 parking
stalls. The outdoor patio area covers 958 square feet, which exceeds the city
code by 13 feet, and must be reduced to comply. Ingress/egress access to the
site was proposed from Quebec Avenue. Hennepin County has jurisdiction
over granting any access permit from 42nd Avenue. Hennepin County had
indicated it would prefer no access from 42nd A venue. The county would
like additional right-of-way along 42nd A venue for a possible future right
turn lane onto Quebec A venue. The developer indicated agreement with
granting additional right-of-way. The city discussed with the developer that it
would work with him and the county to obtain an access permit for a right-in
only access to the property from 42nd Avenue. Staff suggests that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council ask Hennepin
County for consideration of this access permit. Due to tl1e nature of the retail
use, it is important to have at least limited access to the site from 42nd
A venue.
A question was raised how the additional right-of-way requested by
Hennepin County would impact the patio area. Mr. Vander Top indicated
that the city and Hennepin County have worked together on many projects. A
right turn lane at the comer would impact the layout of the plat and site.
Traffic counts on 42nd Avenue would impact the decision for a right-in lane
to the site or a right turn lane onto Quebec. The number of right turn lanes is
very limi ted along this corridor. The standard requirement from a
transportation engineering standpoint conflicts with other requirements in
Planning Commission Meeting 12 July 12, 2005
terms of land use and the economic development of a property. The city
would need to continue to work with Hennepin County for a right-in, and
whether a right turn lane could be accommodated at some time in the future
through dedicating a right-of-way and/or an easement. Mr. Siders added that
the developer agreed to commit from $8,000 to $12,000 to construct a
dedicated right turn lane southbound on Quebec Avenue onto 42nd.
Snow storage areas were identified on the plans and the city may have to
work with the developer to identify additional areas for snow storage. There
are 29 spruce trees proposed to screen the north property line. Crabapples are
proposed for the parking islands. Several varieties of trees are proposed along
the west, south and east property lines. Plantings and a fence are proposed
for the perimeter of the patio area. Large trucks would access the property
from Quebec and smaller trucks serving the condominiums could access the
site from 42nd A venue. The Quebec access point would line up with the
north driveway of the Sunshine Factory across the street to help with the
traffic flow.
One hundred thirty tree parking spaces are provided and the city code
requires 163. Staff suggests that would be acceptable through the PUD and
the differing hours of operation for the uses on the site.
West Metro Fire reviewed the plans and the developer had responded to all
conditions with the exception of providing direct access to the fire connection
on the north edge of the two-unit building. Therefore, one parking space may
need to be eliminated leaving a balance of 132 parkiI1g stalls.
Mr. Siders explained that the photometric plan complies with city code.
Discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting entailed additional
lighting at the rear of the buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks. The
applicant provided some limited security lighting in that area. A condition of
approval would include providing foot candle measurements for the patio
area. One foot candle is provided at all entrances and exits to the buildings.
There are two dumpster enclosures on the site; one is located just north of the
mo-unit condo building and the second is located at the northwest corner of
the retail building.
Mr. Siders explained the retail building could contain five tenant bays and
would be built to suit. The restaurant would potentially occupy the southern
two and one-half bays with other retail uses in the northern portion of the
building. Each bay would be approximately 27 feet by 69 feet. The outdoor
dining area is proposed to have nine tables with four chairs each for a total of
36 patrons. The tables and chairs would be removed during the off season.
The building fascia would be burnished block at the base, cultured stone and
EFIS to the top. Wall signage would be placed on the east elevation for all
businesses. The roofline would be elevated to hide the painted rooftop
equipment. The south elevation would contain a wall sign for the restaurant.
The western elevation indicates a wall sign for the restaurant. City code
allows two signs and staff suggests that the third sign on the west elevation be
eliminated, and the developer is in agreement. The footprint for each bay in
Plaru1ing Commission Meeting 13 July 12, 2005
the three-unit office condominium buildings are 32 feet by 48 feet or 1,536
square feet, with the middle bay two stories and approximately 3,000 square
feet. The buildings would be constructed with burnished block, cultured
stone and EFIS. The Design and Review Committee recommended that the
developer extend the cultured stone farther up the building, which has been
done. In the two-unit building, the single story unit would contain 1,536
square feet and the two-story unit would contain approximately 3,000 square
feet, with the same building materials being utilized.
Mr. Siders stated staff was recommending approval of the request subject to
the conditions listed in the planning report. Staff was also requesting that the
Planning Commission eliminate the wall signage for the restaurant/retail
building on the western elevation.
Commissioner Landy questioned where the deliveries would be made for the
restaurant. It was pointed out that delivery trucks would stop at the loading
docks at the north end of the retail building and bring deliveries along the
sidewalk on the western side of the ~uilding.
Landy expressed concern with the parking during lunch time if the restaurant
was busy. He was also concerned with the parking situation during tl1e
holidays or special days, such as Mother's Day, when the Sunshine Factory
would have an especially large group of people and parking on that lot was at
capacity. Question was also raised whether a liquor license was available for
Viva Italia and this was answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Anderson reported that on occasion patrons of the Sunshine
Factory parked in his lot at Universal Color. Mr. McDonald stated that the
Sunsl1ine Factory met parking requirements of tl1e city code without the
additional parking. Tl1e owner of Sunshine Factory had previously indicated
he was supportive of the new development. In years past, the Sunshine
Factory had rented spaces at the industrial building to the north at 4301
Quebec.
Mention was made that the applicant shifted the north condo building to the
east to provide additional space for truck turning radius at the Quebec
entrance.
Mr. Bernie Frey, Frey Development, came forward to answer questions of the
Commission. He stated that representati ves of Mohagen Hansen
Arc11itectural Group and Thatcher Engineering 'Yvere in attendance. Mr. Frey
stated this type of development had been constructed in Bumsville and Eagan
and vvere very successful. The site at 42nd and Quebec was a great location.
Mr. Frey explained that they intended to start site work as soon as the closing
took place which could take until October and then depending on weather
the project vvould be complete within six to seven months.
Chairman Svendsen mentioned that due to this being a super cleanup site, the
center island needed to be water impervious so no contaminated soils come
up and the trenching for any utilities had to be hauled away. The majority of
the restricted area was in the southeast corner and the buildings were
Planning Commission Meeting 14 July 12, 2005
designed so not much trenching would be needed. The buildings would be
slab on grade so the footings are not too deep. The southeast comer of the
property would need to be raised two to three feet so fill will be brought in to
the site. Mr. Prey stated that 18 borings have already been done and there are
a couple areas with environmental concerns. The :MPCA will have a
technician on site as well as their own teclmician during the digging process.
They are confident the expense would not be too great.
Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the parking island in the
northwest comer of the property. Mr. Frey indicated that the island looks
good and separates the two uses. The number of parking stalls did not change
significantly with or without the island. Mr. Frey added that if the restaurant
was successful, there would be a lot of cars and parking might be tight. It was
their experience that many times the office/condo employees leave during
lunch time. Users of the office/condos are sales reps, professional people,
such as dentists or doctors, where patients come and go throughout the day.
Mr. Prey explained that as a developer they would like to see access to the site
from 42nd A venue. He stated he was not fond of the idea of a turning lane
onto Quebec due to the impact on the patio. Svendsen maintained that the
Design and Review Committee was supportive of a right-in, right-out access
from 42nd A venue. Question was raised as to shifting the 42nd A venue
access to the east, and it was noted that the grade in that area 'Vvould be a
problem.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered about the traffic noise at the intersection
while patrons are utilizing the patio. Discussion ensued on the right turn lane
and the impact on the patio and whether the restaurant/retail building could
be shifted to the north. Mr. Frey responded that if the building shifted to the
north, parking stalls would be lost. Mr. Vander Top added that, based on the
recent correspondence from Hennepin County, he felt the county may not
approve a right-in only access. If land was dedicated for a westbound right
turn lane, the building would have to shift to the north and lose parking north
of the building or the patio would have to be eliminated. With the parking
concerns, that would not be a viable option. He suggested the response to
Hennepin County be from the standpoint that for the economic viability of
the development the city would like to see a right-in from 42nd Avenue, with
no right-out onto 42nd Avenue. The city would not look favorably on a right
turn lane at this time. If the Commission doesn't agree, his response to
Hennepin County would be different.
Commissioner Nirgude commended the developer on the plan and thought it
was a great addition to the city. He stated he felt the city engineer should
pursue Hennepin County's permission to construct the right-in turn lane. He
acknowledged there may be parking problems at times, but thought vehicles
could park on the side streets if allowed by the city. Nirgude added he was
not in favor of the right turn lane onto Quebec A venue.
Commissioner Houle questioned the safety factor of vehicles slowing do'Wl1
to make the right turn into the property and offered that it may be safer to
construct a right turn lane at the intersection if the traffic counts dictate it. Mr.
Planning Commission Meeting 15 July 12, 2005
Vander Top stated that from a traffic engineering standpoint it made the most
sense to close the 42nd A venue access to the property and have a full right
turn lane onto Quebec, which would be the county's preference. The turn lane
would be a minimum of 12 feet wide. A right-of-way dedication would be 15
feet. The depth of the stalls north of the restaurant would be 18 feet. Mr.
Siders interjected that his understanding of the Hennepin County letter was
that the county was not looking for the construction of a lane at this time only
dedication of the property. Hennepin County would probably fund a future
roadway construction project. Mr. Vander Top clarified that there was a
proposal that a southbound lane on Quebec be constructed and be partially
funded through this development, because the benefit would be for this
property and the Sunshine Factory as well as the industrial businesses to the
north on Quebec Avenue. It was noted that the six feet on the west side of
Quebec was all in the right-of-way and would not affect parking at the
Sunshine Factory or the tree on the comer. Vander Top showed illustrations
of the existing intersection configuration and proposed configuration. Due to
the fact that the east curb along Quebec would be removed to install utilities,
it was suggested that the curb line move to the east to accommodate a wider
roadway. The curb line on the west side of Quebec could be moved six feet to
the west, allowing for a 16-foot northbound lane and a 12-foot left turn lane,
an II-foot through lane, and an II-foot right turn lane. The dimensions are
narrower than preferred but would significantly increase the stacking
distance for both left aI1d right turns. This could be accomplished without
changing the existing signal mast locations. Question was raised whether
there would be a southbound left turn lane, and a right/through lane.
Commissioner Houle clarified these modifications were being driven by the
city, per the recommendations of the transportation planner at Bonestroo and
Associates, and the city's experience of how the intersection operates.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned where the taper of the right turn lane
would start and how the grade would affect it. Vander Top indicated that the
taper would probably begin just west of the office/condominium building
and the grade would strongly affect the turn lane. Oelkers initiated discussion
on the possibility of moving the Quebec curb cut to the north. The easement
along the north lot line is 10 feet into the property and he questioned the
possibility of moving the easement to the north five feet, and in turn shift the
entire site to the north five feet to allow enough land for the right-of-way. Mr.
Siders suggested that the Commission consider a rear yard setback of 19 to 24
feet for the north building. Mr. Frey concurred with the suggestidns, but
asked to see the right turn lane drawn in, and he questioned who was
financially responsible. The patio area may be able to be adjusted a couple
feet to allow ample room for the requested right-of-way.
Commissioner Houle maintained that the site is too dense and was very
concerned about the shortage of parking. He stated he liked the office and
restaurant components, but felt there may be a serious problem with parking
not only in the evening but also during the lunch hour. His opinion was that
the exterior expression of the office/condo buildings appeared more like retail
than office.
Commissioner Anderson inquired of the rooftop units and whether the units
Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 12, 2005
.
would be visible. Mr. Frey explained that the parapets should hide the
rooftop units. Discussion ensued on the height of the buildings and parapets
and it was determined that the units would be sufficiently screened.
Commissioner Brinkman suggested that the developer remove Building C to
allow for additional parking.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close
the public hearing on Planning Case 05-09. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
A question was raised as to the cost of improvements to the Quebec Avenue
intersection and Mr. Vander Top stated that the rough cost estimate without
signal modification would be $35,000. According to staff at the Public Works
Department, there have been problems at this in tersecti on. Any
improvements would benefit several businesses along Quebec A venue.
Chairman Svendsen stated that conditions of approval should address the
third wall sign for the restaurant, a response to Hennepin County for the right
turn lane onto Quebec A venue, a right-in only or a rig11t-in, right-out access
from 42nd Avenue to the site, and waiving review of the final plat.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 05-09, Request for planned unit development,
conditional use permit, preliminary plat, sitelbuilding plan review,
comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor dining,
7500, 7516, 7528 42nd Avenue North, Frey Development/Commercial
Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
2. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated June 30 and June
16, 2005.
3. Comply with city attorney recommendations on plat dated June 27,
2005.
4. Approval of plans by building official.
5. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply
with recommendations.
6. Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat.
7. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
Preliminary Plat.
A. The plat is subject to the review and approval of Hennepin
County.
B. The plat shall identify required drainage and utility easements.
C. Shared access and parking easements shall be required and are
Planning Commission Meeting 17 July 12, 2005
subject to the review and approval of the city.
D. The Planning Commission recommends right in only access to the
site via 42nd A venue. The Commission suggested that staff review
this option with Hennepin County and discuss the options
available which include reserving the necessary right-af-way for
the future construction of a right turn lane via 42nd A venue onto
Quebec Avenue.
Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit.
A. The applicant shall reduce the outdoor patio dining area by
thirteen feet (13) in order to be in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
B. The applicant shall provide a detailed patio plan for city approval.
This patio design shall include: table arrangements, circulation
patterns, trash receptacles, fence details with ingress/egress gates
and lighting details.
c. The access from Quebec shall align with the curb cuts on the site
west of Quebec Avenue.
D. The applicant shall illustrate on the site plan truck movements
through the site to the satisfaction of the city.
E. The applicant shall provide the loading area designated for either
lot.
F. The grading, drainage, and utility plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the city.
G. The applicant shall provide additional lighting for the outdoor
patio.
H. The color rendering shall be subject to the review and approval of
the city.
L The applicant shall be required to apply for a sign permit for all
signs within the site area.
J. Eliminate the proposed sign on the western side of the restaurant!
retail building. Comer units are permitted two wall signs, the
applicant has proposed three for the comer unit.
8. Pay fee in-lieu of on-site storm water ponding in the amount of
$47,257.
9. Pay no less than $8,000 and no greater than $12,500 to share the cost of
adding a right turn lane on Quebec Avenue.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Nirgude,
Oelkers, Svendsen
V oting against: Houle
Absent: Crough, Schmidt
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on July 25 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC04-28 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for approval
Item 4.3 of Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
Planning Commission Meeting 18 July 12, 2005
Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, introduced the
planning case and after some discussion and several questions by the
Commission, and due to the late hour, Mr. McDonald suggested that this
matter be tabled and brought back to the Commission at a time when the
planning consultant would be in attendance.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.3 table Planning Case 04-28, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan
update, city of New Hope, Petitioner.
V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy,
Nirgude, Oelkers, Svendsen
V oting against: None
Absent: Crough, Schmidt
Motion carried.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in June with
Committee the petitioners. McDonald stated that one application was submitted for a
Item 5.1 variance for garage expansion into the front yard setback for the August
meeting. Commissioner Schmidt was invited to attend that meeting.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee
Committee did not meet in June. McDonald added that staff and consultants would be
Item 5.2 meeting mid-July and the committee \vould probably meet in August to
finish discussing the transit shelter ordinance, initiate discussion 011 the 60-
day rule for approving planning applications to comply with state law, and
several other minor code amendments.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 7, 2005. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reminded the commission that the August meeting
would be held on Wednesday, August 3, due to National Night Out on
Tuesday evening.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
~.~~ectful1y submitted,
'. ) / <\: 1 ...--r........
( I~ ~ .t' . {/. ~ /'
-7 ,~'1,;-Vk. ..0/:7. i-fii-1:.~ /1;
! '-' . t;..' V .-"--......~
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 19 July 12, 2005