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