Loading...
020607 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON A VENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PC07 -03 Item 4.1 February 6, 2007 City Hall, 7 p.m. 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. Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There was no Consent Business on the agenda. Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for variance to the rear yard setback requirement, 3317 Ensign Avenue North, William Karges, Jr., petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald stated that the petitioner submitted a letter stating he was unable to be at this meeting, however, his daughter would be in attendance and able to answer questions of the Commission. McDonald stated the petitioner was requesting a five-foot variance to the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a new single family home with a small portion of the home to be located 20 feet from the rear property line. The property is zoned single family residential and is surrounded by single family properties. The site area contains 14, 919 square feet, and the proposed main level of the home would contain 3,764 square feet. The house, driveway, and sidewalk would cover approximately 30 percent of the site and the green area would be approximately 70 percent. The parcel is pie-shaped and located at the end of a cul-de-sac, just west of Hidden Valley Park. In October 2005, the petitioners contemplated renovating their home of 34 years to address changing life style needs. Plans were submitted and permits issued for a new foundation and reconstruction. Upon further meetings with their contractor, they discovered it would be more practical to demolish the existing home and build a new home. Site and building plan approval is required due to the fact that a small portion of the home would bump out 5.4 feet into the rear yard setback for a total bump out area of 57.2 square feet. The foundation is already in place, which was overlooked at the time the renovation permit was approved. No structure has been constructed above this foundation. McDonald stated that the original plans for the new home showed a need for two variances, one in the front for the corner of the garage and one in the rear. Staff encouraged the petitioner to revise the plans to eliminate the front yard variance request, which the petitioner did. The proposed home would be two-stories that would be handicap accessible and self-sustainable in the event of a loss of electricity. The Karges' are planning to be part of the LEED for Homes Pilot Program. LEED is an acronym for the U.s. Green Building Council's "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" program, which is a nationally accepted benchmark for design, construction, and operation of high performance green homes and buildings. Some of the features in the new home include: closed circuit geothermal cooling system, solar thermal system, solar electric system, wind power generator, displacement ventilation, greenhouse, fish tank, green roof, site drainage system, rain water collection system, living wall, exercise pool, elevator, and concrete enclosed safe room. McDonald reported that the Karges' indicated the variance should be granted because of the pie-shaped lot which would make it difficult to reach the goals of the project, the rear bump out is one story in height and would not impact sight lines, natural lighting or air space, and the exercise pool would not fit without encroaching in the 25-foot setback. The pool would contribute to maintaining a healthy life style for the petitioners. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff received no comments. The property owner discussed the project with all of his neighbors and received petitions in support of the project and the variance. Mr. McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships in the reasonable use of the property. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property. The city planner indicated that the rear yard variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The addition would not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed bump out would maintain approximately a 20-foot rear yard setback. The balance of the home would meet all other required setbacks. The development review team discussed the project and offered comments regarding the wind generator and noise levels, televising the sewer service, upgrading water service to one-inch, installation of a sprinkler system, and installation of a backflow device in connection with the rain water collection system. The Design and Review Committee discussed the project with the applicant and revised plans were submitted. Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 6, 2007 Mr. McDonald reported that the proposal complied with the city's Comprehensive Plan goals, which encouraged re-investment in the city's single family housing stock. The home design, with the exception of the rear yard variance, complies with the city's single family zoning standards. The home design would be self sustaining and conform to the LEED standards. The wind generator raised concerns with regard to noise and appearance. The planner offered several conditions for consideration including: meeting the building setback and height standards for an R-1 district, and any noise should not exceed standards outlined in the noise ordinance for the single family zoning district (50 dB(A). Building materials would include a stone veneer foundation, shingle siding, painted wood base, aluminum clad windows, solar shades and asphalt shingles. The estimated value of the completed home project would exceed $1 million. The property currently has nice landscaping and the large maple tree at the front of the home would be preserved. Mr. McDonald stated that staff was supportive of the new home construction and minor variance request as it was consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by reinvesting in the housing stock, subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the planning report. McDonald added that the city had approved similar minor variance requests in the past. Commissioner Nirgude indicated he was concerned with potential noise generated by the wind generator and the 50 dB(A) requirement. Mr. Brixius responded that the 50 dB(A) was the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) standard for nighttime noise. He stated that 50 dB(A) was a measurable unit and better suited to residential neighborhoods. Daytime noise standards would be measured at 60 dB(A). Mr. Brixius stated that the petitioner had indicated nighttime standards could be met, therefore, if a higher standard could be achieved that would be the best option. It may also be difficult for the petitioner to operate the wind generator at one level during the day and another at night. Commissioner Houle questioned whether the city was imposing different standards on this property. The response from Mr. Brixius was that, due to the fact this was new technology being introduced into a residential single family neighborhood, higher standards should be imposed. The foremost objective should be that the neighborhood was protected. Commissioner Nirgude suggested that if there were noise complaints at a later date that the property owner address the issue. Mr. Brixius indicated that the applicant would be held to MPCA standards with regard to noise. The city could establish a standard with the new technology, and if that standard was exceeded, the city could intervene. The consensus was for 50 dB(A). Ms. Beth Karges, daughter of the petitioner, 3226 Flag A venue, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Hemken questioned where the wind turbine would be Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 6, 2007 located. Chairman Svendsen stated the petitioner indicated the wind generator would be located on the green roof patio at the back of the house. Ms. Karges stated that the noise should not be an issue and she understood that the wind generator could be turned off and on. Commissioner Nirgude wondered about the elevator and if there would be a phone in the elevator. Chairman Svendsen stated that the elevator would be piston driven and would be regulated under the Minnesota State Building Code. Chairman Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission, and no one came forward. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-03. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Houle asked for clarification on the size of the variance and Mr. Brixius indicated that the variance would extend 5.4 feet into the rear yard and would not exceed 57.2 square feet. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether a certificate of survey had been completed. Mr. Jacobsen stated that he believed the house had been drawn on the survey. The Commission indicated it would prefer to have a certificate of survey, signed by a registered surveyor, submitted. Chairman Svendsen reiterated that he felt it was exciting to see a project of this type constructed in New Hope. Commissioner Houle added that Mr. Karges had indicated at the Design and Review Committee meeting he would be glad to discuss the technologies utilized in the home construction with the Planning Commission at a later date. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 07-03, request for 5.4-foot variance (57.2 square feet) to the rear yard setback requirement, 3317 Ensign Avenue North, William Karges, Jr., petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wind generator to meet the R-1 principal building setbacks. 2. The wind generator to meet the R-1 height restrictions for principal buildings. 3. The wind generator shall not generate noise that exceeds 50 dB(A) measured at the property lines. 4. Petitioner to provide an as built survey to verify the placement of the building and the encroachment in the rear yard. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen None Crough V oting against: Absent: Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 6, 2007 Chairman Svendsen stated this request would be considered by the City Council on February 26 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance. PC07 -02 Item 4.2 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for site and building plan review, 7700 42nd Avenue North, Magnum Development Corporation, petitioner. Commissioner Anderson stated that he had an interest in this planning case and excused himself from any discussion or voting to be conducted. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the application was for site and building plan review as well as a number of other permits associated with the request. The request was by Magnum Development Corporation and Universal Color, the property owner. The site is zoned CB, community business, and is surrounded by community business properties. Access to the site is from 42nd A venue and Rhode Island Avenue, which is a private road owned by Universal Color. The private road is also used by Alex Audio and Accel Computers to the north of Universal Color and an apartment complex to the north of Alex Audio. The site is approximately one acre in size. The existing building contains 5,463 square feet, which is proposed to be renovated with this proposal. The building covers approximately 13 percent of the site, with the majority of the site being impervious. There are no green space requirements in the CB district, however, landscaped areas are being proposed. The building is currently occupied by Universal Color. Magnum Development Corporation was proposing to purchase the building and change the use from a single tenant to a multiple occupancy building. Starbucks would be the largest tenant. The application was brought forward for Planning Commission and Council approval due to the change in use of the building from retail to a restaurant use and the concern for adequate parking, circulation, and traffic demands on the site. The project is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Starbucks provided information with regard to traffic generation. It estimated that 64 percent of the traffic would utilize the drive-through facility. The peak hours of operation are between 6 and 10:30 a.m. Depending on the other retail uses on the site, parking and traffic through the site should balance out for a full day arrangement. The development review team and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans and were supportive of the project, which would provide a facelift of an existing building. However, there was a concern with regard to parking and circulation through the site and into and out of the site onto 42nd A venue. Brixius explained that the CB district allows restaurants and retail businesses as permitted uses. The drive through and outdoor dining are Planning Commission Meeting 5 February 6, 2007 allowed by administrative permits. Access would be from 42nd A venue on the western portion of the site and from Rhode Island A venue on the east. Rhode Island is a private street that allowed access to Alex Audio and Kings Manor Apartments; northbound traffic exiting the site should be discouraged. A drive through service lane was proposed along the north and west sides of the building with stacking for eight cars. The city engineer had requested a traffic study for vehicles exiting the site. Wenck Engineering studied the site and indicated the project would generate 241 trips per day during the peak morning hours and 77 trips during the afternoon/evening hours. The study concluded that there would be enough interruption of traffic with the lights at 42nd/Winnetka and 42nd/Quebec to provide for exiting that would not overwhelm the street. There were concerns during the p.m. hours that queuing on 42nd would back up to cover the westernmost drive lane, however, the study indicated it would be inconsequential and may only happen periodically. The applicant addressed all of the concerns with regard to the drive through, such as width of the drive lane, location of reader board, stacking, and parking. The drive through lane would be paved and have new curbing. An issue raised by the Design and Review Committee was the need for a pedestrian connection from the 42nd A venue sidewalk to the front door of the building. This has not been identified on the plans. Mr. Brixius reported that Starbucks would require 30+ parking spaces. There are 29 parking spaces provided that meets the shopping center requirement of 1 space/200 square feet of space. The applicant provided information that the majority of Starbucks' traffic would be drive through. The other retail tenants should not interfere with the early morning and evening traffic, and Brixius indicated that staff was comfortable with the parking configuration and traffic. Staff did recommend, and the Design and Review Committee concurred, that proof of parking should be provided along the north property line for the eight future parking stalls. These eight stalls are not angled sufficiently to work with the 12-foot drive aisle. The angle of the parking should be changed to 45 degrees. These stalls would not have to be exclusively for employees, however, with the heavy use of the drive lane, it would be difficult for patrons to use those parking stalls. Changes to the front elevation include a metal cap and EFIS face, sandblasting the existing brick, thin set veneer over the stone/brick, and new store fronts. The rear would have some exposed rooflines. All rooftop equipment, with exposure to the north, would be painted to match the existing building. New gutters would be added. The service ramp from the east side of the building to the service doors in the rear would be sloped and have new doors and handrails. The existing drive through window on the east side of the building would be removed and relocated to the west side. Bollards and a handrail should be added protecting the service door on the east side. The service door on the west side would be Planning Commission Meeting 6 February 6, 2007 sealed and removed. A new canopy would be added over the drive through window. Sign age would be added to the west side of the building identifying it as Starbucks' drive through window. There are three tenant bays identified on the floor plan, with Starbucks being the largest. The meter room would be located in the middle tenant bay. The sprinkler room would be located in the Starbucks restaurant, and the fire department approved the location. The dining area, restrooms, kitchen, counter area, and the outdoor dining area have been identified on the plans. The outdoor dining would have four tables with two chairs each, two umbrellas, and would be segregated from the parking lot with a railing and landscaping. Mr. Brixius stated an area of concern regarding the landscape plan was to incorporate a hedge along the south property line to screen headlights facing 42nd A venue. The techny arborvitae should be changed to techny globe, which is a hardier variety. The lighting plan indicated pole lights at the corners of the property, one along the eastern parking lot, and three at the rear of the building. The photometric plan illustrated light levels at the perimeter comply with city standards. Sign age should be placed along the private street on the east for "no parking, fire lane." The "no outlet" sign should be relocated to the east driveway so customers know to exist toward 42nd A venue. Directional signs would be provided for customers to access the drive through facility. A new freestanding sign would replace the existing sign. Brixius explained that each tenant would be allowed one 100-foot wall sign facing street frontage. Starbucks proposed signage on the west elevation to identify the drive through, which would be an exception to the sign code. They are requesting flexibility with consideration of the project. Staff requested that snow storage be identified on the plans. If snow storage cannot occur outside the parking stalls, snow would have to be hauled off site. Trash would be contained in a structure at the northeast portion of the property. The structure would be painted to match the building. Trash receptacles for the outdoor dining area should be identified on the plans. The length of the fence around the dining area should be clarified. The applicant should identify how or where outdoor dining furniture would be stored in the off season. West Metro Fire and the applicant should work together to determine adequate emergency access needs and compliance with the sprinkler system and other safety requirements. Mr. Brixius stated that staff was supportive of the project and sought opportunities for private redevelopment and reinvestment in the business community. The project met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the planning report. Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, stated that vehicular trips to the site Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 6, 2007 would increase dramatically, which was why a traffic analysis was requested. At the time the planning report was written, it appeared that the analysis had not accounted for the queuing that occurred on 42nd A venue and how far traffic stacked up behind the signal going westbound in front of the site. Based on the analysis, the average stacknig of cars leaving the site would be one or two cars. Due to the short distance between the drive through lane and the exit at 42nd A venue, two cars would be the maximum stacking distance. The applicant's engineer incorporated the impacts of the signal into their analysis, which indicated that the grouping of cars moving through the signaled intersection would not provide a greater queuing of cars in the site of more than two cars as previously reported. A similar queue of eastbound cars turning into the site should not be greater than two cars. If there would be more than three cars stacking in the center lane, additional vehicles could make the left turn onto Rhode Island A venue and enter the site from the east. These concerns have been relayed to the applicant and the applicant's engineer. At one point, there was discussion of a right in/right out at the 42nd A venue access point, but after reviewing the traffic analysis, staff does not feel that would be necessary. Mr. Vander Top reported that there was an existing catch basin in the front parking lot adjacent to 42nd A venue that would take the front drainage to the storm sewer in 42nd A venue. The balance of the site would drain overland to Rhode Island A venue and eventually to the north and east to a storm sewer in Rhode Island. From a quantity standpoint, the surface area would not change much with only the addition of the drive through lane on the west side. With redevelopment projects, the property owner was required to look at the quality of the storm water and treatment. Due to the fact that none was proposed for this site, a storm water fee of $7,177.60 would be required. The square footage of Rhode Island was excluded in the fee calculation. It is a part of the property, but technically not part of the site. Commissioner Landy stated he was supportive of the project, but very concerned with the queuing and stacking on 42nd A venue, especially in the evening. He reported that it was difficult to make a left turn into or exit the Gas 'n Splash to the west of this site. Mr. Vander Top added that, according to the traffic analysis, stacking westbound was higher in the evening than in the morning. Starbucks had indicated that traffic to its stores was higher in the morning than in the afternoon or evening. Commissioner Brinkman raised the issue of a pedestrian walkway from the street to the storefront. Mr. Brixius stated that a walkway was not shown on the plans, but could be included as a condition of approval. Chairman Svendsen stated that the committee was looking at ways to make the project pedestrian friendly. The new drive through would have new pavement and new curb and gutter along the length of it. The existing parking lot would only be repaved as necessary. It was confirmed that the curbing would be B618 at the streets and B612 in the parking lot. Planning Commission Meeting 8 February 6, 2007 Commissioner Nirgude inquired if that the applicant would provide additional lighting on the north side of the building for the future employee parking area. He stated he did not feel that the proposed lighting was adequate. Brixius confirmed that the lighting in that area was compliant with the code. Commissioner Hemken questioned whether Starbucks or any other tenant would need to appear before the Planning Commission or City Council again and the response was that any tenant arrangements would be accomplished through lease agreements. She also inquired on the hours of operation. Mr. Brixius stated that drive-through facilities were allowed and regulated by administrative permit. Commissioner Buggy initiated discussion on employee parking spaces and whether or not to require the additional parking spaces now. Ms. Kris Moore, Magnum Development Corporation, Omaha, Nebraska, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. She stated that Starbucks currently has three employees per shift. She could not give an accurate count for the balance of the building until leases were in place; there could be one or two additional tenants. Commissioner Buggy stressed the need for the additional parking, due to the fact employee parking could potentially utilize up to 10 spaces for the three businesses. Ms. Moore maintained that nearly 65 percent of Starbucks customers utilized the drive through facility. Standard retail tenants would not open until 9 or 10 a.m. and by that time the majority of Starbucks traffic would be over. The average time for a customer to utilize the inside counter would be five minutes. Mention was made that a nearby coffee shop had a lot traffic from high school age people in the morning and the vehicles utilized parking at an adjacent business. Chairman Svendsen explained that the fire department connection was located in the sprinkler room on the southwest side of the building, and he questioned whether or not a parking space would be lost in that area. It was noted that the connection was in front of the outdoor dining area, not by a parking space. Ms. Moore stated she had met with a representative of the fire department at the site, who had not expressed any concerns with regard to access for the fire connection. Commissioner Landy initiated discussion on the crosswalk. Ms. Moore stated that there was a significant hedge along 42nd A venue and the parking lot, which would remain. She stated they would incorporate some pavers from the sidewalk on 42nd A venue to the storefront between the handicap parking stalls. The crosswalk could be striped. Commissioner Brinkman suggested installing a second crosswalk on the western portion of the site just west of the 42nd A venue access point. The site plan could be revised to show the areas where pavers/crosswalk would be installed. Commissioner Nirgude stated he felt the proposal was good. He Planning Commission Meeting 9 February 6, 2007 encouraged adding fencing along 42nd A venue similar to what was being utilized around the dining area. Ms. Moore reiterated that there was an existing hedge along 42nd A venue and there would not be enough space for a fence without removing the hedge. She stated that the owners of the property were interested in curb appeal and would do what they could to make the site look aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Oelkers confirmed that fencing or a hedge would be suitable. Mr. Paul Anderson, owner of the property, came forward and stated that along the south property line at 42nd A venue and along the eastern property line there was an existing, well established dwarf lilac hedge that was beautiful in the spring. The hedge was well maintained by the property owner and the city. There was not enough room for the hedge and a fence. Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the signage and how critical it was that Starbucks had the signage on the west side of the building. Ms. Moore stated that all tenants would be responsible for applying for their own signage permits. She indicated in the past Starbucks had requested signage on the drive through side of the building. Mr. McDonald interjected that a separate variance application would be required for that signage unless the Planning Commission authorized it now. The sign code allowed tenants one wall sign facing the street frontage, unless the building faced two streets. Ms. Moore reiterated that Starbucks preferred to have signage on the drive through side. The consensus of the Commission was to have Starbucks apply for a variance if it wanted the additional signage. Commissioner Brinkman questioned how long the lease would be with Starbucks. Ms. Moore stated that there was a letter of intent, but no lease had been signed yet. The usual lease was 10 years with an option to renew. Magnum Development would not purchase the building unless they had a signed contract with Starbucks. If Starbucks signed a lease, it would be operational by the end of September. Chairman Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission and no one came forward. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-02. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen commented that he felt Starbucks should apply for a variance if it wanted additional signage than was allowed by the sign code. Commissioner Nirgude confirmed that the umbrellas have a seven-foot clearance per code. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 07-02, request for site and building plan review, 7700 42nd Avenue North, Magnum Development Corporation, Planning Commission Meeting 10 February 6, 2007 petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Contract for site improvements/financial security: Applicant must enter into a site improvement agreement with the city, to be prepared by the city attorney. Applicant shall provide a financial guarantee/performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 2. Building: Approval of plans by the building official is required. The applicant shall complete all building improvements as described in application materials. Address/suite numbers are required for each tenant space. 3. Engineering: The applicant must comply with city engineer recommendations (02/01/2007), including payment of a storm water fee in the amount of $7,177.60 in-lieu of on-site storm water ponding. 4. Fire/Police: The developer must comply with the requirements of West Metro Fire and the Police Department with regard to access, sprinkler systems, emergency lighting, and alarms. If provided, security alarms must be registered with the Police Department. 5. Snow Storage: The developer must provide a description of the snow storage strategy for the site, including snow storage locations and written confirmation that in the case of a situation where excess snow cannot be stored on site, the snow will be removed from the site. 6. Landscaping: (a) Techny Globe shall be utilized in place of the Techny Arborvitae on the northwest corner of the building. (b) Additional shrubs and/or hedge plantings up to three feet in height shall be utilized on the south property line in order to block headlights from the parking lot. (c) The landscaping materials are not to interfere with any public plantings. 7. Signage: (a) A Comprehensive Signage Plan shall be submitted (See Section 3-40(i)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance for full submittal requirements). As part of this requirement, full sized, scaled drawings shall be submitted, which include the following information: 1. Sign location-The locations are included on the site plan, but the site plan is not to scale and so setbacks are not able to be determined. 2. Sign area-Detailed sign drawings indicating the sizes (length and width) of all signs are needed. 3. Sign height-Detailed sign drawings indicating the height of all signs are needed. 4. Scaled building elevations-Although the building elevations submitted are not to scale, the wall signs are identified as meeting the 100 square foot requirement. 5. Identification of sign design-Detailed sign designs Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 6, 2007 indicating the appearance and identification of all signs are needed before sign permits will be issued. 6. Sign construction drawings (sections)-Sign construction drawings (sections) are needed. (b) The submitted site plan indicates that the "no outlet" sign is proposed to the south of the driveway on Rhode Island Avenue. Rhode Island Avenue shall be marked with a "no outlet" sign to the north of the driveway. (c) The submitted site plan indicates a "no parking" sign on Rhode Island Avenue, as requested. Per the building official's recommendation, four signs are required on Rhode Island Avenue (two facing north and two facing south). The signs should read "Fire Lane, No Parking." (d) Starbucks to obtain separate variance for signage located on the west side of the building. 8. Future tenants: The vacant tenant spaces shall be filled with some type of retail or service-orientated business. If the vacant tenant spaces are filled with a food-related business, the peak hours of the new business shall be different than those of Starbucks. 9. Parking: (a) If the city determines that the future employee parking area indicated on the site plan is needed at any point, the parking spaces shall be installed. These parking spaces shall be utilized by employees only. (b) The drive aisle access width of the future employee parking area shall be increased by 6.5 feet to meet the minimum width of 18.5 feet, or the angle of the parking shall be changed to 45 degrees, which only requires a 13-foot drive aisle width. 10. Outdoor Dining Area: (a) The square footage of outdoor dining needs to be clarified. (b) The location and type of refuse receptacles and wait stations shall be included on the site plan. Refuse containers shall be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian circulation and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter. (c) The exact length of the proposed fence shall be clarified on all site and floor plans. There is a discrepancy in the length of the proposed fence between the site plan and the floor plan. (d) The proposed umbrellas shall have a minimum clearance of seven feet above the sidewalk. (e) Storage of furniture shall not be permitted on the sidewalk between November 1 and March 31. Sidewalk furniture that is immovable or permanently fixed or attached to the sidewalk shall not be subject to the storage prohibition of this section. However, any immovable or permanently fixed or attached furniture must be approved as part of the administrative permit application. (f) Additional off-street parking shall be required pursuant to the Planning Commission Meeting 12 February 6, 2007 requirements set forth in subsection 4-3(f) of this Code based on the additional seating area provided by the outdoor dining area. 11. Two hard surface, striped pedestrian routes to be supplied from 42nd Avenue to the store front, on both the east and west sides of the property. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen None Crough V oting against: Absent: Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen stated this request would be considered by the City Council on February 26 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance. PC07 -01 Item 4.3 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, request for preliminary plat for a 17 -lot, single-family subdivision and planned unit development (PUD) to allow for flexibility regarding lot width requirements of city code, south of 52nd A venue and between Pennsylvania and Louisiana avenues, Avalon Homes, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the petitioner was requesting preliminary plat review for a 17 -lot, single family subdivision and a planned unit development to allow for flexibility regarding lot width requirements of the city code. The site is zoned R-1, single family residential. Adjacent land uses are single family to the north, open space to the west, the railroad tracks and industrial properties to the south, and the city of Crystal and park land to the east. The site contains 7.97 acres. Lot area ratios would include: right-of-way and paved area at 34 percent, house pads at 16 percent and green area at 50 percent. The Comprehensive Plan encouraged a low density residential development for this area. The utilities would be built by the developer at the developer's expense. The site grade drops 26 feet from west to east. The city has had many proposals for this site throughout the years. Most recently was in 2005, which lead to this application. The City Council previously selected Avalon Homes as the preferred developer through a competitive process in 2006. Mr. Jacobsen stated that Avalon Homes prepared a preliminary plat that proposed the creation of 17 single family residential lots fronting on Prairie Ridge Drive on the south side of the site. There are two elevation rises on the site, one on the western portion of the site and a berm on the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the Crystal properties. The berm has approximately a 10-foot rise and is heavily wooded. The berm should block any sight lines between the rear of those properties and the new development, whether from the first or second story windows. The developer proposed lot widths from 68 feet to 91 feet and lot depths of 134 feet to 216 feet. The proposed price range would be from $320,000 to $390,000. Housing styles would include ramblers, two story, modified two Planning Commission Meeting 13 February 6, 2007 story, and split style with square footages to match the proposed price ranges. Three-car garages would be encouraged. If approved, the anticipated project schedule would be for a spring 2007 construction start up with complete build out within two years. A sidewalk was proposed along the south side of the roadway and a 10- foot paved trail would be located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 toward the undeveloped land to the west of the project. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were mailed a legal notice and a project bulletin was also mailed to area residents, including the city of Crystal. The city of Crystal was sent a full set of project plans. At the time the planning report was prepared, the city had received no comments. Since that time, a resident contacted city staff asking that their concerns be heard. The proposed development is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Through flexibility afforded by the planned unit development regulations, the developer would be able to meet the subdivision and platting standards of the city. The proposal complied with the city's intent and purpose for a PUD. The developer would be required to enter into a site improvement agreement with the city prior to the filing of the final plat. All of the lots in the subdivision would be larger than the city's 9,500 square foot minimum standard. All setback requirements comply with the code. Flexibility would be required for lot width only. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the storm water swale would run from west to east, and rain gardens would be located at the northeast corner of the site and along the southern mid-section of the site. Soil types on the site had not yet been determined and that would affect the sizing of the rain water gardens and/or other efforts to deal with storm water on the site. The development review team was supportive of the project and discussed several issues. The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed several concerns with the developer. The committee was supportive of the project. The developer submitted revised plans as a result of the meeting. The engineering details for the sanitary sewer would need to be discussed and whether a gravity or a lift system should be incorporated into the design. In summary, Mr. Jacobsen reiterated that all of the lots for the subdivision were larger than required by city code, however, PUD standards would be implemented to accommodate lot width. Two major items would need to be addressed including soil type and infiltration rates for storm water and the design for the sanitary sewer. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and planned unit development subject to the conditions listed in the planning report and other conditions the Commission may deem appropriate for the project. Mr. Vander Top stated that the site would have two access points, one on Planning Commission Meeting 14 February 6, 2007 each side of the site. The streets would be able to accommodate the traffic generated by this development. A new water main would be constructed with connections at both street connections. Mr. Vander Top reiterated that the site had a significant change in topography from the west side of the development to the east. There is a trunk sanitary sewer line that serves the northern part of the city that runs by Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. It is anticipated that a lateral connection sanitary sewer line would serve the development. Due to the fact that the west side of the development would be higher, the lateral sanitary sewer line would run to about mid way through Prairie Ridge Drive, at which time the street would be at a low point and the line could not flow by gravity back to the west. The gravity sewer connection would flow to the east and connect to a line in the city of Crystal. From a long term maintenance standpoint, that would be the preferred method due to a lower maintenance cost. The second option would be to construct a lift station at some point on the east side of the development and pump the waste water flows from those units back to the gravity system on the west side. The lift station would be a viable option that could be explored by the city. Public works staff had been coordinating with Crystal staff and this option is still under discussion. The proposed plans show the gravity system to the city of Crystal. Mr. Vander Top explained that the plan for storm water management included two rain water gardens. The rain gardens would be strongly dependent on the type of soils found in this development. The applicant was in the process of completing soil borings to verify certain assumptions that have been made, which was an item of concern for both ponding areas. There currently is no standing water on the site during normal conditions. It is expected that the swale through the back yards of Lots 4 through 13 would be dry and useable during normal conditions. The rain gardens would contain the run off water from the site. The back yards of the adjacent Crystal properties to the north drain to some degree toward the easternmost lots. In the event of a large rainfall, the overland flow would follow the swale to the rain garden at the northeast corner of the site. Vander Top explained that typically a swale would be located at the rear lot line, however, due to the existing berm, the swale runs between the new homes and the natural area and berm in the back yards. The site could accommodate the storm water. Shingle Creek Watershed must review the plans and the development must meet the standards of the watershed. The developer has begun the process of submitting the plan to the watershed. Commissioner Oelkers clarified that the swale had been moved back since the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans. Commissioner Anderson wondered who would bear the cost of a lift station. Vander Top explained that the construction of a lift station must still be discussed. Typically with a new development, the developer would need to build the infrastructure necessary to serve the development. The city is an active participant in this project, as it is the property owner. The cost differential between constructing a lift station Planning Commission Meeting 15 February 6, 2007 and connecting to Crystal's system must be determined. Louisiana A venue would have to be reconstructed north to 52nd A venue to connect to the existing sewer. Long term maintenance of the lift station would be the responsibility of the city similar to other lift stations in the city. Maintenance costs would be funded through sewer and water bills. In answer to a question, Mr. McDonald replied that New Hope does have other interconnections throughout the city. Question was raised as to the billing process. Sewer bills are estimated on winter water usage which both cities monitor. Each city bills its own residents. Commissioner Hemken asked who would maintain the rain gardens and Mr. Vander Top stated that the maintenance of the rain gardens would be the city's responsibility. There would be no homeowners association with the project. A drainage and utility easement would be provided to preserve the rain gardens, but there is some concern with Lots 14 and 15 and the length of time water may stand in the rain garden. One recommendation from an engineering standpoint would be to have piped outlets from the rain gardens rather than to rely only on overland flow. Commissioner Nirgude wondered whether the city would provide street lights. Mr. Jacobsen stated that three street lights were proposed along Prairie Ridge Drive and there were two existing street lights at either side of the development. The developer would be responsible for the installation of the new lights and the city would maintain the lights. The utility company and the public works department determined the type of light and location of the fixtures. A condition of approval would be that the lights are subject to the approval of city staff. Commissioner Nirgude stated that he had talked with residents in other areas of the city who had indicated their neighborhoods were dark. Commissioner Nirgude next initiated discussion on whether or not there would be any benefit for Prairie Ridge Drive being a one-way street. Mr. Brixius stated the sidewalk would be located on the south side of the street, which would be the standard width as other residential streets. Commissioner Oelkers stated he did not see the benefit of making Prairie Ridge Drive a one way street. A two-way street would dissipate the traffic naturally rather than dictate vehicles entering or exiting the development. He stated he didn't feel there would be much traffic as it was not a through street and the traffic generated would, for the most part, only be the residents who live there. Mr. Tony Janu with Avalon Homes and Mr. Brian Bourassa with MFRA Engineering came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Bourassa stated the distance from the rear of the building pad to the start of the utility and drainage easement was moved back to about 28 to 30 feet at the narrowest and somewhat wider on the properties to the west and east. The distance from the rear of the house pads to the center of the swale was increased an additional 10 feet. He added that public works staff had given them direction as to the positioning of the street lights. Planning Commission Meeting 16 February 6, 2007 Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the chain link fence proposed for the area south of the street and how it would terminate at both ends of the development. Mr. Bourassa stated that the developer would terminate the chain link fence at the east edge of the site and would connect it to the fence at Ironhorse Park in Crystal. On the west side of the project, the fence would terminate at the far southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2. The end of the fence on the east may terminate in the right of way in Crystal. Crystal staff was sent a full set of plans to review. Commissioner Houle clarified that drainage and the sizing of the rain gardens were based on sandy soils and he wondered what would happen if the soils were found to be mostly clay. Mr. Bourassa stated they had talked to developers who had worked in the area to determine the soil type. If testing revealed that there would be more clay soils, another rain garden could be constructed behind Lots 3, 4 and 5 to meet the requirements of the watershed district with respect to infiltration. Results of soil testing should be received within the next two weeks. Chairman Svendsen stated that the landscape plan had not addressed the provision of one boulevard tree per lot in the development. Mr. Bourassa stated that there was a note on the landscape plan indicating one boulevard tree planted for each lot at the time of construction. In response to questions regarding tree preservation, Mr. Bourassa indicated most of the site would be impacted by grading. The areas that would not be graded would be in the berm areas behind Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which was the top of the ridge. A silt fence or snow fence would protect the non-graded areas. A tree survey was completed showing some established oaks that would be protected. A question was raised why the sidewalk/trail was located on the south side of the street. Mr. Jacobsen explained that by placing the sidewalk on the south side of the street, public work staff could drop a wing on the plow truck during a snow event in winter and plow the sidewalk at the same time as the street was plowed with less damage to front yards. Commissioner Houle stated that a sidewalk on the north side of the street may provide the residents a better connection or gathering area when walking. Mr. Janu added that another reason for the sidewalk on the south side of the street was to aid in getting residents from the community around this neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the location of the retaining wall and was told the retaining wall would be near the northeast rain garden. The height of the retaining wall would be approximately four feet. Chairman Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Mr. Michael Stockinger, 7133 52nd Avenue North, Crystal, stated he had Planning Commission Meeting 17 February 6, 2007 lived in his home about two years and was most concerned with noise, traffic and the ramifications of potential water problems in his basement, which has been dry over the last several years. He wanted assurances from the city that he would continue to have a dry basement during and after construction and with the regrading of the property. He wanted to know who would be responsible if water appeared. He requested a letter from the city that would state if he had water in his basement after the project, the city would take care of it. He questioned the hours of construction and the possibility of work being done until 10 p.m., as well as all of the construction traffic in this residential neighborhood. Other than those concerns, Mr. Stockinger stated he felt the project would be beautiful and would help the value of his house. Mr. Jeff Baker, 7323 52nd Avenue North, New Hope, lives behind Lots 5 and 6. The storm sewer would be located along the west side of his property. His concern was if future land owners changed the grading of the properties with landscaping and gardens, would that change the swale and drainage pattern. He wondered how this would be controlled in the future. Mr. John Robinson, 5261 Louisiana Avenue North, Crystal, stated he lived approximately one block north of the development site. Louisiana A venue is the lowest block in the neighborhood and his house is the lowest point on the street. Water currently runs off the yards and down Louisiana toward his property. His back yard every spring has standing water six to eight inches deep. At this time, he does not have a wet basement. He was also concerned with traffic and the heavy use of the intersection at 53rd and Louisiana avenues. The traffic on 53rd A venue is very heavy as it is a through street from Douglas Drive in Crystal to Winnetka A venue. Traffic at this intersection stops on 53rd with Louisiana A venue being a through street. Years ago there were signs that indicated cross traffic did not stop, but those signs were removed about 10 years ago. Since that time, there have been several accidents at that intersection. Louisiana A venue would be the most convenient street in and out of the development to Bass Lake Road. He suggested a four-way stop at that intersection. Ms. Alice Evans, 7531 Angeline Drive, New Hope, stated that she was opposed to the development. She didn't feel that lot flexibility should be approved. The proposed land use would adversely affect and change the character of the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed houses were much larger and valued higher than the existing homes and would adversely affect the value of existing homes. She stated she was opposed due to the fact that the city was changing the open space, which would be better suited to park land. Ms. Evelyn Weeks, 5206 Oregon Avenue North, New Hope, stated she had lived in her home for 54 years. At first she thought the project would be good, as the first project plans she saw indicated a lot of the trees and vegetation would remain on the north side of the project. The last plan she received showed trees being preserved toward the middle and eastern Planning Commission Meeting 18 February 6, 2007 portion of the project, but not on the western side. She indicated that the trees helped to buffer the noise from the train. Ms. Weeks stated she felt the large home constructed at 5207 Pennsylvania was out of proportion with the balance of the neighborhood. She stated she was opposed to the project. Mr. George Wright, 7535 Angeline Drive, New Hope, stated he has lived in his home for 50 years. The home is about 50 yards from the railroad track, and the noise is very loud when trains go by. He mentioned that the berms were made when Winnetka A venue was reconstructed and the old roadbed was dumped there and covered with dirt. Mr. Wright stated he would like to keep the open space as it currently was as a safety barrier from the trains. He mentioned that the quiet zone may help with the horn issues for someone that lives further away from the tracks, but the train itself and the rattling and vibrations are worse than the horn. Ms. Weeks spoke to the noise from the train being louder than the horns. She wondered what assurances there were that the properties wouldn't be purchased by investors and the homes rented out. Mr. Stockinger wondered whether or not Douglas Drive was included in the quiet zone. There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-01. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Vander Top stated that drainage on this site would not change. Drainage from Lots 4, 5 and 6 would remain the same, as would the drainage in the area of the berm. Drainage would be handled in the development and would not be directed to properties to the north. Regarding assurances if future home owners do landscaping and drainage problems are created, there would be specific drainage and utility easements that would protect the drainage swales, which was not a standard of development in the 50s and 60s. A home owner may still do something in the easement, but the easement increases the authority of the city to have it restored to maintain the drainage patterns if a problem would be created. Commissioner Houle reported that the developer had mentioned that if the soils were found to be clay, another rain garden could be constructed at the rear of Lots 4 and 5. Mr. Vander Top stated that the requirements of this development were that the run off rates from this development would not increase from current rates. The current configuration of the land produced very little run off today. Mr. Vander Top indicated that it appeared that there was water from the lots to the north that currently flowed onto Lots 4 and 5 and either infiltrated or evaporated. There is a storm sewer between Lots 4 and 5 and the developer would need to Planning Commission Meeting 19 February 6, 2007 construct another catch basin over the storm sewer to provide a positive drainage route out of those back yards that does not currently exist, and stop the water from going downhill to Louisiana A venue. The capacity of the catch basin may not be able to control a 100-year rain event, therefore, the swale would offer an emergency overland route for the water. Mr. Vander Top confirmed that whatever the elevation gets to in this backyard now was limited by the emergency overland flow through the existing property. The elevation cannot be raised so the water would get higher in the back yards before it would overflow. The development wouldn't necessarily make existing problems go away, but the conditions wouldn't get worse. Chairman Svendsen stated that during discussion at the Design and Review meeting, the developer stated there would not be a need to haul dirt in or out thereby eliminating that type of construction traffic. The developer confirmed that trucks would be delivering construction materials. Houle questioned whether or not dirt would need to be hauled in or out if the swale was moved back. Mr. Bourassa stated that one discussion was to get rid of the berm and push the swale to the northern property line, which would lead to an export situation. The swale was pushed back a little toward the berm. After the soil analysis, the swale or roadway could be adjusted. Construction hours, per code, are Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and weekends and holidays, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The ordinance is enforced by the building official and police department. Mr. Vander Top stated that the city could discuss a four-way stop at 53rd and Louisiana with Crystal's engineer. In general, traffic engineers would estimate that 17 single family parcels would generate from eight to 10 trips per day. Looking at traffic counts on the local street system, 170 trips was a relatively small number. The final decision for the stop sign would be Crystals. The city of New Hope had been active in pursuing a quiet zone for the crossings at Boone and Winnetka avenues. Douglas would be the next crossing to the east in Crystal. The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) looks at the railway system with a point system. By doing certain improvements at certain intersections, the city gains points. A threshold would have to be met. For the section within New Hope, enough points could be gained by certain improvements at the Winnetka A venue crossing, including a center median so travelers could not cut around the crossing arms. In the quiet zone, the conductor zone could not blow the train whistle eastbound until after the Douglas crossing in Crystal or westbound through New Hope past the Boone Avenue crossing, unless there was an emergency. The city could discuss the quiet zone with Crystal's engineer to determine if Douglas Drive should be included in the analysis and what improvements would need to be made. New Hope has completed the quiet zone plans, which have been reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration. The next step would be for the City Council to Planning Commission Meeting 20 February 6, 2007 authorize advertisement for bids for the construction of the median and pavement improvements. The construction costs for the project would be approximately $100,000. The FRA had not yet informed the city what other improvements may be needed, which would be in addition to the construction costs. Commissioner Oelkers questioned what assurances the city could give residents on potential wet basements after the completion of the development. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, indicated that the city could not give assurances that if a wet basement occurred after completion of the development that it was, in fact, the direct result of the development. It would not be the liability of the city to fix the problem. Commissioner Schmidt questioned who would maintain the railroad crossing arms and light. Mr. Vander Top indicated Winnetka was a county road, but that the railroad would probably maintain the arms and lights. Due to the fact that the city was requesting the improvements, it was the city's responsibility to construct the upgrades. Chairman Svendsen informed the audience that they should plan on attending the February 26 Council meeting and relay their comments to the Council as well. A member of the audience indicated frustration in having to wait three hours before being able to speak on the agenda item. Discussion ensued on the differing plans that have been sent to the neighbors. Mr. Jacobsen responded that the city had sent four project bulletins since the city began negotiations with the developer and always sent the most current plan. The last project bulletin included a plat that was similar to the current plan. At this time, it is estimated that a fair amount of the site would be graded, with some existing trees remaining. Houle maintained that the berm would essentially screen Lots 10 through 15 from the Crystal properties to the north. Lots 3 through 9 would have no screening between the New Hope properties to the north and the new development. Commissioner Oelkers wondered whether any of the existing oaks would be saved on Lots 3, 4 and 5. After some discussion on the location of the trees, Mr. Bourassa proposed to meet Ms. Weeks at her home to review the situation. Commissioner Houle stressed that there should be some buffer provided, such as a fence, landscaping, or other vegetation, to screen the properties west of the berm from the development. The city had previously indicated some type of screening along that portion of the development which had been eliminated in recent plans. The developer should revise the landscape plan to identify existing trees to be saved and new plantings. The lots are very deep and, therefore, some of the existing vegetation should be saved, if possible. Commissioner Schmidt wondered if the existing trees on the western portion of the property provided adequate screening and Ms. Weeks indicated they provided a noise buffer. It was noted the existing trees are Planning Commission Meeting 21 February 6, 2007 not on the city's preferred species list. Commissioner Houle questioned if the development would be contributing any additional run off onto Louisiana to the north. Mr. Vander Top indicated that water from the rain garden behind Lots 14 and 15 should be brought back toward the railroad ditch for the outlet route. Commissioner Hemken questioned whether a $320,000+ home in the neighborhood increased the property value of adjacent properties. Commissioner Oelkers, a realtor, stated from his experience, that whenever a higher priced home was introduced into a neighborhood, it did not decrease the value of adjacent properties, but the properties would maintain their current values. He stated that there are buyers for any type of property in any location. Other properties in neighboring cities have sold for a lot more money and abut the same railroad tracks. He stated he felt if the developer was willing to develop the property, it was their risk to take. The market dictated what could be built and what would sell at any given time. Commissioner Houle stated that he felt the project should be delayed and have the developer address all the issues discussed. He had concerns about the soils, drainage, screening, landscaping, drainage, railroad noise, and the fact that city staff had a lengthy list of conditions in the planning report. The sanitary sewer was in question whether it could be connected to the city of Crystal or a lift station would need to be constructed. MOTION Item 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to table Planning Case 07-03, request for preliminary plat for a 17-lot, single-family subdivision and planned unit development (PUD) to allow for flexibility regarding lot width requirements of city code, south of S2nd Avenue and between Pennsylvania and Louisiana avenues, Avalon Homes, petitioner. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Hemken Crough V oting against: Absent: Motion carried. Mr. McDonald stated that staff would assemble a list of concerns to send to the developer to address. Chairman Svendsen stated this request could be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 6, 2007, and asked the petitioner to coordinate with staff on the outstanding issues. PC06-1S Item 4.4 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.4, review of design guidelines. Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to Planning Commission Meeting 22 February 6, 2007 Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve Minutes Elections Committee Assignments Planning Commission Meeting table Planning Case 06-15 to the March 6 Planning Commission meeting. V oting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Schmidt, Svendsen Oelkers Crough V oting against: Absent: Motion carried. Commissioner Houle indicated that only a few changes had been made, but agreed that the Commission should spend some time on the document. The Codes and Standards Committee should also review the document in full. The City Council could review the design guidelines document at its March 19 work session. Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in January with the petitioners. The committee would review revised plans for the Prairie Ridge development at a special meeting in February. Mr. McDonald inquired if the committee would be willing to review a redevelopment proposal for the property at 5801 Ensign Avenue North. Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had not met. A meeting was scheduled for February 21 to discuss several minor issues. Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that open house events were scheduled for February 8 and 10. Residents would be encouraged to view the planning districts along with issues identified by the committee and provide feedback. Commissioners were encouraged to attend one of the open houses. Due to the late hour, the report by Mr. Vander Top on drainage in the Terra Linda area was postponed until the March 6 meeting. Chairman Svendsen reported that Commissioner Houle would be presenting the quarterly update of Planning Commission activities to the City Council on February 12. Motion was made by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 5, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen stated that he had served as chair of the Planning Commission for the past three years, and per city code, could not serve another term. He added that in the past serving officers moved up, such as vice-chair to chair, etc. He nominated Kathi Hemken as chair, Bill Oelkers as vice-chair, and Jeff Houle as third officer. Seconded by Commissioner Landy. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Svendsen inquired if any commissioners were interested in changing 23 February 6, 2007 committee assignments and no changes were requested. Committee members are as follows: Design and Review Committee - Steve Svendsen, chair, Bill Oelkers, Paul Anderson, Jeff Houle and Ranjan Nirgude; Codes and Standard Committee - Kathi Hemken, chair, Tim Buggy, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, and Tom Schmidt. Roger Landy would continue as the floater and serve where needed. Svendsen thanked the commissioners for their service during the past years. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no other announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q~0}~ Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 24 February 6, 2007