120203 planning
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at
7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Absent: Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Geoff Martin, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Planner, Greg
Johnson, Krass Monroe Financial Consultant, Rick Martens,
Brookstone, Inc. Developer Consultant, Mark Hanson, City
Engineer, Aimee Gourlay, Mediation Consultant, Jerry Beck,
Communications Coordinator, Amy Baldwin, Community
Department Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC03-17 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a variance
th
to allow a second curb cut on a residential property, 9117 35 Avenue
Item 4.1
North, Otto and Annette Lausten, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that the
applicant was requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut on an R-1
single-family residential property. The site is located on the south side of
th
35 Avenue, between Hillsboro and Flag avenues, and is surrounded by
single-family homes. The site area contains approximately 12,000 square
feet. The existing footprint of the home contains 1,261 square feet and the
addition is proposed at 1,184 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan
indicated that the homes in this area are in very good to excellent
condition. The city would continue to promote housing maintenance
through private reinvestment.
McDonald stated that the owners built the home in 1968, moved out of the
city and rented the property for approximately 30 years. They have now
moved back to New Hope and desire to make some improvements to
accommodate their lifestyle for the future and address health concerns.
The topography of the property slopes up from the street and the existing
home has a double tuck-under garage on the west side. There are many
mature pine trees on the lot with four located in the front yard, and a
number of trees on the east side of the yard.
The applicants are proposing to expand the existing home to include a
new, second attached garage and living area. The setbacks for the addition
would comply with city code. The applicants are requesting a second curb
cut, however, the Zoning Code restricts single-family homes to a single
curb cut. The applicants stated in correspondence that they believe it would
th
be in their best interest to add the second access onto 35 Avenue rather
than install a new driveway across the front lawn to intersect with the
existing driveway on the west side of the property. The curved driveway
would be difficult to maneuver in winter. The applicants stated that they felt
th
a driveway that would go straight onto 35 Avenue would be the best
solution for maintaining the aesthetics of their property. The new garage
and addition would allow them to access their home on the main level.
Currently, they need to climb 16 steps to the main living level. They are
th
a driveway that would go straight onto 35 Avenue would be the best
solution for maintaining the aesthetics of their property. The new garage
and addition would allow them to access their home on the main level.
Currently, they need to climb 16 steps to the main living level. They are
aging and have a disabled relative living with them and would like to stay in
their home for many more years. The new living area would include 36-
inch doorways and a 3/4 bath that would be handicapped accessible. The
applicant’s stated in their correspondence that the current city code would
be a landscape hardship since the four mature, white pines would have to
be removed, and much of the front yard transformed into a concrete drive.
Two homes in close proximity to the petitioners have two driveways.
McDonald commented that the petitioner submitted a second letter with the
revised plans which explained they took some of the recommendations
from the Design and Review Committee into account, such as dropping the
grade of the garage and installing a lift rather than a ramp from the garage
to the living area.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff
received no comments. The applicant submitted letters of support for the
second driveway from adjacent property owners.
McDonald pointed out that to mitigate the amount of variance being
requested, the applicant was proposing a 12-foot curb cut and driveway
extending through the boulevard area from the curb to the property line, at
which point, it would flare out to provide a full driveway width for a two-car
garage. The original site and building plan illustrated the driveway with a
very steep 23% slope. The revised plans showed the garage floor elevation
was lowered three feet and the driveway grade was reduced to a 15%
grade. The need for a retaining wall was eliminated with lowering the grade
of the driveway. The building elevation indicated that the new addition
would match the roofline and the exterior building materials of the existing
house. To accommodate the lower floor elevation of the garage, the
applicant abandoned the concept of a wheelchair ramp in favor of a
wheelchair lift.
McDonald reported that the Zoning Code outlines the criteria for hardship
that must be considered with any variance application. The purpose of a
variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code to
allow the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where
circumstances are unique to the individual property. The granting of a
variance must be demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding
is made that failure to grant the variance would result in undue hardship on
the applicant, subject to the following criteria: 1) The hardship may exist by
reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict
application of the terms of the code. Physical hardships may include lot
shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope or other topographic conditions
unique to the parcel. 2) Hardship is unique to the property and not
applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3)
Circumstances are unique to the parcel and not created by the landowner.
Additional criteria include: 1) not altering the essential character of the
locality, 2) not impairing an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or increasing congestion on public streets, or increase the danger
of fire or public safety, 3) minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship, and 4) does not involve a use which is not allowed within the
zoning district.
McDonald added that the planner indicated that the house placement and
topography complicate the use of the lot, however these physical features
were not solely unique to this property. New Hope has numerous similar
2
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
lots that contain homes with tuck-under garages necessitated by the site’s
topography. The applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission
and City Council consider the physical need for improved accessibility as
hardship for a variance. The city granted a variance for a second curb cut
topography complicate the use of the lot, however these physical features
were not solely unique to this property. New Hope has numerous similar
lots that contain homes with tuck-under garages necessitated by the site’s
topography. The applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission
and City Council consider the physical need for improved accessibility as
hardship for a variance. The city granted a variance for a second curb cut
for reason of disability access in 1997, therefore, there is some precedent
for such consideration. The applicant attempted to implement
recommendations of staff and the Design and Review Committee by
reducing the driveway grade, eliminating retaining walls and attempted to
protect significant trees. The proposed curb cut would be located in a
manner that should not interfere with other curb cut locations.
McDonald reported that city staff and consultants and the Design and
Review Committee reviewed the plans and discussed the steep grade of
the proposed driveway, suggested moving the garage back and/or lowering
the grade, installing a lift rather than a ramp, 12-foot curb cut rather than
original proposed eight-foot curb cut, and eliminating the retaining wall.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of those meetings.
McDonald stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the city
desires to maintain the strong character of this residential single-family
neighborhood. The city encourages reinvestment in the housing stock and
explores opportunities to change setbacks and accessory building rules to
provide opportunities for property owners to expand and/or modernize their
existing homes. These efforts are intended to maintain the quality of the
existing housing stock and promote higher value homes. The goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to this application include:
1) Providing a variety of housing styles and choices to meet the needs of
New Hope’s changing demographics and providing special needs housing
for people of various disabilities. 2) Maintaining the strong character of
New Hope’s single-family residential neighborhoods by promoting private
reinvestment and examining development regulations to provide greater
flexibility for single-family homeowners. McDonald reiterated that this
variance would apply solely to this property and was consistent with the
goals and policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan.
The property is zoned R-1, single family residential. Lot requirements of an
R-1 district are a 75-foot width and 9,500 square feet in area. The subject
property has a lot width of approximately 92 feet and a total lot area of
11,868 square feet, which exceeds the R-1 standards. All setbacks are in
compliance. The Zoning Code outlines the criteria for accessory buildings
within the single family zoning district, which consists of no more than a
combined total of 1,400 square feet of accessory and garage space. No
individual garage may exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or 15 feet in
height. The applicant’s existing garage is approximately 508 square feet in
area and the proposed garage would be 566 square feet, for a total of
1,074 square feet. The garage addition would have a metal insulated
overhead door, four windows above the garage door, painted lap siding,
aluminum-clad fascia, asphalt shingles and aluminum-clad column. The
exterior materials would match the existing home. The floor plan of the
main level would include the garage and a laundry room, 3/4 bath, coat
closet, and dining room at the rear of the home. A 12-foot wide concrete
th
curb cut would be constructed at 35 Avenue in accordance with New
Hope standards. Four existing trees in the front yard would remain. Five of
the 12 trees on the east side of the property would be removed. The
applicant indicated at the Design and Review meeting that they had wanted
to thin out the trees in this area. The building official suggested in his report
that the trees are replaced, but that may not be necessary in this case. The
existing chain link fence and gate to rear yard would be relocated.
3
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
existing chain link fence and gate to rear yard would be relocated.
McDonald stated that the building official had indicated support for the
project subject to construction complying with the Minnesota State Building
Code, any trees that die be replaced, removal of existing door in lower
level between family room and stairs, and the home could not be used as a
two-family home in the future. The city engineer indicated that while a 15%
slope for the driveway was steep, it would be manageable. The lowering of
the driveway eliminated significant amounts of fill and the need for a
retaining wall along the east side of the proposed driveway and should
greatly increase the likelihood of preserving the existing trees along the
east property line. The 12-foot driveway width at the street would improve
operation and safety when entering and leaving the driveway.
In summary, McDonald stated that the petitioner had prepared good plans
and addressed the concerns raised by staff and the Design and Review
Committee. The Comprehensive Plan promotes private reinvestment in the
city’s single family housing stock and the Lausten’s proposal was consistent
with the objectives of the plan. He stated staff was recommending approval
of the request, but realized there may be differing opinions on the request.
While the topography and house location on the property presents a
physical hardship in expanding the home, these hardships are not solely
unique to the applicant’s lot and do not fully satisfy the criteria for variance
approval. Staff prepared two options as outlined in the staff report, either
approval with findings and conditions of approval or denial based on the
fact that the request did not satisfy the criteria for a variance.
th
Otto and Annette Lausten, 9117 35 Avenue North, came forward to
answer questions of the Commission. Mark Longworth, architect, also
approached the podium.
Mr. Lausten requested clarification on the building official’s
recommendation to remove one existing door on the lower level between
the family room and the stairs. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant,
responded that the petitioner should leave the doorway open. The intent
was so this home would not become a two-family dwelling in the future.
The petitioner responded favorably to this suggestion.
Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion on the control of heating and
air conditioning costs by leaving this doorway at the bottom of the stairs
open. Mr. Longworth stated that the doorway at the bottom of the stairs was
original construction. The home would be warmer if this door to the lower
level could remain closed. Commissioner Oelkers concurred. Mr. Lausten
stated they had no intention of turning the home into a duplex. The reason
for the remodeling was so they did not have to climb stairs regularly to
enter or leave the home.
A question was raised as to why the existing garage would not be closed
off. Mr. Lausten stated that they have a boat and were planning on buying
another camper, the extra garage would be storage space for those
vehicles.
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the public
hearing was closed.
Motionseconded
by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Buggy,
to close the Public Hearing
on Planning Case 03-17. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
4
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
Commissioner Svendsen questioned why information on accessory
buildings had been provided in the staff report. Mr. Brixius answered that
the accessory building regulations address attached and detached garages.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the conditions of approval as
suggested by the building official and suggested deleting the replacement
of dead trees and the basement door as discussed previously. Staff and
the commission concurred with this recommendation.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Oelkers,
Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 03-17, Request for a variance to allow a
th
second curb cut on a residential property, 9117 35 Avenue North,
Otto and Annette Lausten, Petitioners, subject to the following
findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The site’s steep topography limits the opportunity for house
expansion and use of a single driveway.
2. The curb cut variance would allow for the preservation of
significant trees in the front yard of the lot.
3. The variance allows for a more functional and safer driveway
access over a single curb alternative.
4. The home is located on a very low traffic volume local street and
the curb cut location will not interfere or create a hazardous
condition from other curb cuts.
5. Aside from the second curb cut, the house expansion complies
with all other standards of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
6. The variance is required to provide disability access to the
home’s residents.
Conditions:
1. The applicant to furnish floor plans that illustrate how disability
access will be accomplished between the garage floor elevation
and first floor living area. If this variance is based on
accessibility, this information is critical.
2. The home shall not be converted to a two-family unit in the
future.
3. Building material of addition to match existing home.
4. All construction must comply with the Minnesota State Building
Code.
5. Obtain curb cut permit from the city.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Hemken
Motion carried.
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on December 8 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Improvement Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Review and discussion
of City Center Task Force study area redevelopment proposals and
Project #718
recommendations.
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy stated that staff would introduce the project, Aimee
Gourlay, facilitator, would make a short presentation, Geoff Martin, planner
with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, would present the concept plans and
recommendations, Alan Brixius, planning consultant, would discuss zoning
5
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
issues, Greg Johnson, financial consultant, would review financial aspects,
a task force member would give a short review, and then public comment
would be taken. Due to the number of people in the audience, public
comments will be limited to three minutes.
recommendations, Alan Brixius, planning consultant, would discuss zoning
issues, Greg Johnson, financial consultant, would review financial aspects,
a task force member would give a short review, and then public comment
would be taken. Due to the number of people in the audience, public
comments will be limited to three minutes.
Chairman Landy addressed the misinformation that was being circulated in
the city. The concepts presented tonight are thoughts, ideas and dreams
that have been put on paper. He stated in his experience with other
projects in the city, that the city moves quite slowly when it comes to
redevelopment projects such as this. Many questions have been asked as
to why there have not been more opportunities for public input, and he
explained that there would be many more public hearings during the
process.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that staff
was requesting to review and discuss the City Center Task Force study
area redevelopment proposals and recommendations with the Planning
Commission. The comments and recommendations from the Planning
Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. The purpose of this
meeting was to present all of the information to the Planning Commission
and to solicit feedback from the Commission. The binders that the
commissioners received included all of the information the task force had
studied over the last 11 months.
Redevelopment of the City Center area had been discussed a number of
times in the past, with the most recent being with the Streetscape Master
Plan completed in 1998. There have been a number of changing conditions
in the City Center area, the City Council felt it was important to explore
potential redevelopment opportunities as well as develop some specific
goals for the future.
The goals for the task force were established in May 2002 and include:
1. Establish a sense of place and a unifying theme that connect and
inter-connects the entire City Center.
2. The City Center redevelopment shall be integrated with the
surrounding neighborhoods to encourage community residents to
patronize the City Center.
3. City Center designs shall take advantage of in-place amenities that
contribute to the City Center sense of place.
4. Pursue land use densities and values that make redevelopment
financially feasible. This will require flexibility from current zoning
standards related to setbacks, density, parking, green space, and
building height.
5. Retain or pursue commercial and residential products that are needed
and/or lacking within the city of New Hope.
Applications for the task force were accepted in mid-2002 and in December
the City Council named 15 members to the task force. Members of the task
force that are in attendance include Jim Brinkman, Sir Speedy, Kevin
Tiffany, County Kitchen, Tina Haugstad, TCBY Yogurt in the New Hope
Mall, and Richard Friedrichsen, resident. The task force consisted of
residents, civic leaders, business owners and faith-based organization
representatives to ensure diversity within the group.
One consultant not mentioned previously is Rick Martens, of Brookstone
Development, who is an unpaid consultant. Mr. Martens worked with the
development in Golden Valley at Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley
Road. Staff felt it would be important to get a developer’s perspective as
the task force went through the process.
6
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
Road. Staff felt it would be important to get a developer’s perspective as
the task force went through the process.
McDonald explained that the task force had met nine times since January.
At the first meeting, the task force reviewed a number of previous studies
and planning documents including the City Center Streetscape Master
Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Life Cycle Housing
Study. In March, the task force members participated in a visual preference
survey identifying what they liked or didn’t like with regard to architecture
for commercial and residential uses, parking lot treatments, open spaces,
etc. In April, the task force took a bus tour of redevelopment projects in
neighboring cities, including Golden Valley Town Square, Park Commons
in St. Louis Park, and Woodlake Centre in Richfield. A market research
study was completed to provide preliminary analysis of the mix and types
of housing and commercial development that may be appropriate for this
area, as well as the price points and target markets that the site could
serve. In May, this research was presented to the task force and the
research showed a market in New Hope for a broader range of housing
products. As far as the commercial portion, the research showed that the
City Centers had a highly visible location and high traffic counts to make it
an attractive site for new retail. In June, the task force reviewed and
presented comments on conceptual redevelopment plans, which was
continued at the July meeting. A draft design guideline was presented to
the task force in August. Earlier in the year, the city submitted a grant to
the Metropolitan Council to help fund costs of the planning study, and in
September, the city was notified that it had received a $55,500 grant, which
was the second largest grant the Metropolitan Council had ever awarded.
McDonald stated that in September an open house was held and attended
by approximately 100 individuals. The concept plans developed by the task
force were displayed and a presentation was made outlining the process,
followed by a question and answer session. Useful feedback on the four
different concept plans was received. The feedback received gave the task
force valuable information as the recommendations were finalized. The
task force met in October and discussed the input received from the open
house. In November the task force finalized the policy and implementation
recommendations, which were included in the planning report.
McDonald stated that staff was recommending that the Commission review
and respond to the proposals in concept form only; this is not intended to
be a detailed review of the proposals. If the Planning Commission agrees,
staff was recommending that the concepts be forwarded to the City Council
on December 8. It was anticipated that the Council would accept the report
and table any discussion until after the first of the year.
McDonald explained that this process is similar to the Livable Communities
study. The plans presented here are only concepts on how the area might
be developed in the future. The City Council would need to determine what
the next steps would be, whether it would solicit proposals from developers,
work with the current property owners, wait for changes in the marketplace,
or take no action. The only certainty is that no development would happen
quickly. Public input would be solicited at the time a redevelopment
proposal was received. No proposals have been solicited from any
developers. The overall goal is to try and improve the commercial image of
the city and bring in more variety to the commercial areas, not to get rid of
the existing businesses. McDonald reiterated that one of the top goals of
the task force was to retain as many of the existing businesses as possible,
if or when any redevelopment should occur. He stated that the task force
had worked very hard over the last year and deserve a lot of credit for
dedicating their time to this project. The focus of tonight’s meeting should
be the review of the task force’s preliminary recommendations to the
Planning Commission.
7
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
be the review of the task force’s preliminary recommendations to the
Planning Commission.
Chairman Landy pointed out that he was the Planning Commission
representative on the task force.
Ms. Aimee Gourlay, facilitator, stated she acted as the neutral person who
did not have a stake in the outcome of the study. Her professional job is as
a mediator and works at Hamline University. She stated that she was also
involved with the Livable Communities project. The task force decided at
the beginning of the study that its goal would be to come to a consensus on
decisions as a whole. This was defined as letting a recommendation go
forward even if some people found parts of it more favorable than others.
As these recommendations come forward, everyone on the task force is in
full agreement. She added that the task force members put in a lot of time
and dedication in educating themselves on the various aspects of
redevelopment. One of the discussions of the task force involved the vision
for the community and long-term goals and whether it should be
considered a neighborhood or regional area. The thinking process of the
task force switched from what we want to what is realistic and best for the
community. Ms. Gourlay stated she was excited to be involved with such a
proactive process. She reminded the Commission that change happens
with or without the community, and in this case, the community had been
involved early in the process to help influence the outcome.
Mr. Geoff Martin, urban designer with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban,
stated he had worked closely with the task force for the past 11 months. He
stated that the City Center area was centrally located in the community and
had great access from Highway 169, Winnetka Avenue and County Road
9. The area would continue to change and the city should harness the
potential growth and mold the changes in a way to help reinforce the vision
of the community that was defined by the task force. There are a broad
mixture of uses already in place within a five minute walking distance of
the intersection, including commercial, multi-family and single-family
residential, open space, cemetery, and the school district buildings. Many
redevelopment opportunities exist in the area. The key sites are the school
district property which is approximately 17 acres, the City Center area that
includes the Kmart building, Winnetka Center, and City Center shopping
center which is approximately 32 acres. The task force members
represented a wide variety of individuals, as well as several different
consultants, all of which provided good dialogue and vision for the
framework plan.
Mr. Martin explained that the framework plan is a guide for public and
private development to reinforce a mutually supportive plan and
community vision. It illustrates the intent of the design principles and
guidelines and provides a framework to base decisions regarding public
and private investments. The task force brainstormed at the first meeting to
define a community vision. Market conditions and financial feasibility were
defined. The group created design guidelines, which may become
ordinances, and implementation strategies were defined for public
improvements and redevelopment. The process was broken down into four
phases, including gathering information and getting to know the area in
detail, defining goals and objectives and preferences. A bus tour of
redevelopment in other metro cities was conducted during this phase.
Preferences for building types, development patterns, building materials,
signs, etc. were developed. That information was then utilized when
reviewing development alternatives. Next implementation strategies were
established. The process is now at the public hearing stage to present the
information to the Planning Commission and community.
8
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
information to the Planning Commission and community.
In addition to the goals established by the City Council for the task force,
key planning principles were developed. Develop a diverse critical mass of
activity with a compact mixture of uses, which means developing an
intense amount of activity within a five minute walk of City Center. The
land should be utilized efficiently and provide a concentration of retail,
commercial, and residential uses to create a vital synergy. The City Center
area should be the identifiable heart of New Hope and a focus for civic and
cultural activities. The entire development should be interconnected to the
surrounding neighborhood and businesses, and within that development
amenities should be provided for the entire community. A network and
hierarchy of streets should be provided and a streetscape treatment for
those streets. Pedestrian needs should be taken into account and balanced
with the vehicular traffic. Different forms of transportation should be
accommodated, including the use of busses and bicycles. High quality
architecture should be encouraged and may be accomplished by promoting
visual interest through proper alignment, proportion and materials, as well
as reinforce streetscapes and open spaces.
Martin explained that the task force visited several projects in adjacent
cities so the task force could better visualize areas that had been
redeveloped and to get an idea of the size of those projects compared with
the size of the potential New Hope project.
A market research analysis was completed on both residential and
commercial potential in this area. Residential key points include: 1) site is
well located and highly visible, 2) northwest region is attractive and will
continue to grow and the City Center could capture some of this growth, 3)
multifamily development success in other first-ring suburbs suggest that
New Hope can absorb from 500 to 1,000 units of multifamily housing of
different types, 4) price points may be in the range of $150,000 to
$250,000. Commercial key points include: 1) site is highly visible at the
intersection of two major roadways with strong traffic counts, 2) much of
the retail stock in New Hope and the developed suburbs is 25+ years old
and functionally obsolete with large parking lots, outdated designs, etc. and
poorly competitive in the market due to the shrinkage of the original market
area by competition, 3) industry trend is to prune back to sustainable level
of retail in older fully developed areas. Additional points related to the
commercial potential include: 1) work creatively to retain existing mall
tenants, which is very important to New Hope staff, 2) there is a weak
office market that is not likely to exceed 25,000 to 50,000 square feet in
the upcoming years, 3) total commercial area projected at 75,000 to
125,000 square feet, 4) establish common retail and service uses that
serve the neighborhood.
A survey of visual preferences was conducted at one of the task force
meetings whereby the members were shown approximately 100 slides of
different built environments and the members rated the images in
reference to the City Center and what they would like to see there. Areas
covered included: general image and character, commercial building types,
franchise architecture, residential building types, signs, parking lot
treatments, and open spaces. These preferences were then incorporated
into design guidelines. Mr. Martin explained the preferences for
commercial buildings was for one and two-story types and built close to the
streets to create a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Franchise
architecture should integrate exterior designs into the new development.
High quality building materials should be utilized for residential uses and
densities of 10 to 40 units per acre, with design being more critical than
density. The preference was to move away from pylon signs and utilize
monument signs and building signs to tie in with the architecture. Interior
9
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
parking lot treatments and edge treatments improve the image of the area.
Multi functional parking lots could act as gathering places for special
events. A hierarchy of open spaces from larger neighborhood to
community parks to pocket parks with good streetscapes should be created
density. The preference was to move away from pylon signs and utilize
monument signs and building signs to tie in with the architecture. Interior
parking lot treatments and edge treatments improve the image of the area.
Multi functional parking lots could act as gathering places for special
events. A hierarchy of open spaces from larger neighborhood to
community parks to pocket parks with good streetscapes should be created
to attract and retain people.
Martin explained that these preferences were integrated into the design
guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines was to foster high quality
architecture and site planning, reinforce the character envisioned by the
community, and protect public and private investment in the City Center
area. The investors in the City Center area would want to protect their
investment and would expect that adjacent developers would construct
equally high quality buildings. The streetscape guidelines developed
several years ago were done for public realm improvements and these
guidelines would be for private redevelopment.
Martin explained that four concept plans were developed by the task force
and presented at an open house. A survey for attendees to fill out was
provided for public input on the concepts. A number of people responded
to the survey and which the task force took those comments into account
when developing the concept plans. The four concepts included: Concept A
- mixed use plan with a grocery store, Concept B - mixed use with a large
retailer, Concept C - mixed use residential, and Concept D - long term plan
with an urban core. From that survey, the task force came to a consensus
on two of the concept plans to forward to the Planning Commission and
City Council. These concepts are flexible and adaptable to whatever the
market conditions might be at the time and however redevelopment
opportunities come about over the course of the next five to 15 years. Each
of the concept plans have its focus along County Road 9 and Winnetka
Avenue for the commercial/retail and the New Hope Center remains in
each of the concepts, due to the fact that it would not be financially feasible
to remove it. McDonalds Restaurant would also remain in each of the
concepts. Other items that are consistent include an open space system on
both the northwest and southeast quadrant.
Concept A shows that in the northwest quadrant most of the redevelopment
would be focused around the community public park. The open space
system would provide a linkage from Winnetka Avenue to city hall, provide
a focal point for community events, an area amenity for local residents,
and to attract residential development. It would also interconnect to
surrounding neighborhoods by walkways and trails. McDonalds is shown
with internal landscaping and improved parking areas, and the owners are
agreeable to this. The New Hope Center owner is agreeable to making
improvements to the shopping center to better utilize the building and
surrounding property. The north loading dock area may be closed to allow
for redevelopment to the north of the center. A new commercial
development could be incorporated at the entrance from Winnetka Avenue
to create a tight commercial focus in that area. A grocery store, such as a
Kowalski’s or Whole Foods, was suggested on the southern portion of the
Kmart site. It is unknown whether the market would support a grocery store
at that location. There would be a mixture of apartments to townhomes all
focusing around the open space on the Winnetka Center site. Other
apartments, condominiums and townhomes would focus around a smaller
th
pocket park along 45 Avenue and the improved wetland to the north of
th
45 Avenue. Over time the parking lot at city hall could be expanded to
better accommodate the swimming pool parking during the summer
months. In the southeast corner on the current school district property, the
concept plan shows a mixture of townhomes and three or four story
condominiums or apartments. The real focus would be at the intersection,
10
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
with a mixture of uses, including entertainment/retail with restaurants or
nightclubs, or office uses. Transit plazas are included north and
southbound along Winnetka Avenue.
concept plan shows a mixture of townhomes and three or four story
condominiums or apartments. The real focus would be at the intersection,
with a mixture of uses, including entertainment/retail with restaurants or
nightclubs, or office uses. Transit plazas are included north and
southbound along Winnetka Avenue.
Concept B was similar with the exception that the grocery store would be
moved out the northwest quadrant and potentially included with a large
retailer facility in the southeast corner. The thought for the southeast corner
was that there was so little commercial potential that a large retailer would
change the dynamic of the area in terms of drawing in more
retail/commercial. There would be more three or four story condominiums
or apartments in the northwest quadrant where the grocery was on Concept
A. If a large retailer would locate on the southeast corner there would be
more of a direct connection created internally to the entertainment/retail
along County Road 9. It was felt that the entertainment/ retail would be a
vital draw during the day and evening for an active population and add
more excitement to the corner. It would be important that the buildings be
built out to the street to provide a more pedestrian oriented character.
Concept D would be a long term vision with an urban core plan, and would
redevelop the New Hope Center, if at some time if became financially
feasible to do so. Whatever would be done in the short term should not
inhibit that possibility.
Martin explained that there were four aspects of implementation that
needed to work together to accomplish the redevelopment. One area is
design and planning tools, which include guidelines and ordinances. The
study should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Redevelopment strategies were developed for each of the sites with their
own unique characteristics. Strategies for public improvements, such as
the streets, must be coordinated with private improvements. Community
organization and promotion is another key piece of redevelopment. Action
steps were prepared for each of the improvements, as coordination of
many agencies would be involved with any redevelopment. The key
recommendations of the task force for implementation include: 1) The city
should be proactive in making the redevelopment occur through land
acquisition, investigating opportunities through discussion with land owners
and soliciting developer proposals. 2) The first action should be to pursue
relocating the school district bus garage and administration building, which
would spur other redevelopment in the area and provide sites for existing
businesses to relocate. The next steps would be to work with Winnetka
Center and Kmart. 3) The city should allocate adequate resources to
coordinate the project, such as assigning a staff person just to work on this
project. 4) The task force should stay involved with the project on an as
needed basis, for ongoing civic development in the area, fundraising,
feedback on plans, etc. 5) Adopt the proposed design guidelines and future
supportive ordinances to foster high quality architecture and site planning.
6) The city should pursue the action steps outlined in the implementation
strategy. Martin added that the redevelopment could take place in phases.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, reiterated that this was only concept
plans. He explained the next step would be to incorporate the guidelines
into the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the
planning document for the entire city. The idea of redevelopment in the
City Center area is not a new idea. There were design guidelines in 1979,
market studies through the 1980s, redevelopment of City Center Shopping
Center in 1986. In the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, Planning District #11
calls for the aggressive pursuit of renovation or redevelopment of the
Winnetka Center, Kmart center and taking efforts to enhance the physical
appearance, tenant composition, etc. This was a more detailed study on
11
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
what the task force would envision in this portion of the community. The
first step would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Following
recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Council and
public input, specific language would be drafted to be incorporated into the
Winnetka Center, Kmart center and taking efforts to enhance the physical
appearance, tenant composition, etc. This was a more detailed study on
what the task force would envision in this portion of the community. The
first step would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Following
recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Council and
public input, specific language would be drafted to be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan that would replace existing language for Planning
District #11, as well as Planning District #14 which includes the school
district administration building and bus garage. The land use plan would be
amended to change the commercial designation to more of a mixed use
designation and adopt the design guidelines that define what is trying to be
accomplished from a land use and a design incentive.
The concept plans are very urban and is much different than anything else
in New Hope. The development would be very dense and compact and
pedestrian oriented. The zoning ordinance does not specifically address the
types of densities and design features that were being proposed. To create
this new neighborhood, densities would be increased to create a sense of
place, to provide a financially feasible redevelopment plan, and create
additional market support for the remaining commercial businesses. The
residential design features would include densities of 10 to 40 units per
acre. Currently, the density in an R-4 high density zoning district is 19 units
per acre. Current townhome developments are about eight units per acre
and the proposed development would be approximately 10 to 15 units per
acre. To create the streetscape image that would be desirable for this
development, the setback would be reduced to 15 feet. The current
setback for townhomes in the R-4 zoning district is 25 feet.
In the commercial areas, the current setback is 20 feet. When New Hope’s
shopping centers were designed, the buildings set far back off the street
with a large parking lot in front of the center. With the redevelopment
plans, the proposed buildings would be the focal point and placed close to
the street, and the parking convenient but less prevalent. Adjustments
would be made within the area for more underground parking or shared
parking arrangements between the commercial uses.
Brixius explained that there were two options as far as zoning was
concerned. The city could adjust the zoning districts specific to the site that
would allow for the mixed use and specifically outline, as an ordinance
standard, the specific performance standards with regard to setbacks,
parking, green space, etc. The intent within the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) zoning classification in the zoning code was to allow for a mixed
land use configuration, from low to high density residential, based on an
approved concept plan. By formulating the concept plan in the
Comprehensive Plan and defining the uses in a general context, the PUD
would then build on those concepts and allow flexibility to occur as it
relates to private streets, setbacks, and design. Private townhome
associations would be established where needed. The PUD regulations
would give the city ultimate control as long as the regulations, guidelines,
and performance standards are adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Brixius stated that through each of the steps, both the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and the rezoning, public hearing would be held for each action
that the city takes.
Chairman Landy added that there were many steps to be taken before any
construction would take place. The Planning Commission, City Council and
residents would have many opportunities to see exactly what was being
proposed and have an opportunity to comment.
12
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
Mr. Greg Johnson, financial consultant with Krass Monroe, stated that the
reason for looking at redevelopment was to keep the city vital and improve
property values. If there was no improvement, the city would begin to
deteriorate and the market value would go down and residents would need
to shop elsewhere. The cost for redeveloping a site is high. A developer or
the city would need to fund the purchase of the building, demolish the
structures, clean up any pollution, redo the utilities to the site and any other
improvement costs. The city would need to be proactive in redevelopment.
Through analysis, the city would need to see an increase of eight to 10
times the increase in market value of what was there. For instance, if a
building had a value of $1 million today, the new development would need
to be valued at $10 million for it to be financially feasible. This was one
reason the New Hope Center was dismissed as a redevelopment option.
Additional options are needed to cover the gap in financing. Through
previous studies, any redevelopment cannot substitute retail for retail, due
to the fact that there would not be enough increase in market value. Mr.
Johnson stated that tax increment financing would be utilized. The
increased tax dollars on the new development would help to pay for the
redevelopment costs, the building, demolition, public improvements, etc.
The property would still pay taxes on the original value to the taxing
jurisdictions, however, the taxes generated from the increased value would
be used for the redevelopment costs. In the last several years, there were
some major changes to the property tax system. The result of that change
is high market value; high density housing would be needed to make any
redevelopment project work. Throughout the Twin Cities area, there are
very few redevelopment projects that do not include high density housing.
The city would need to find other sources of funds for this redevelopment
project, such as grants from the state and county. It may also be several
years until the values depress enough where it makes this project
financially feasible. The housing market may increase significantly in the
next several years, where instead of housing valued at $250,000 the value
may increase to $350,000.
Mr. Kevin Tiffany, Country Kitchen and member of the task force, stated he
concurred with what was presented. The job of the task force was to create
a sense of place and address commercial, residential and transportation
goals as established by the City Council. The two concepts presented
accomplished those goals.
Chairman Landy asked whether anyone in the audience wished to address
the Commission.
Mr. Dave Kloeber, 4471 Winnetka Avenue, owner of Unique Thrift Store,
came forward. He questioned why the city would spend a great deal of
money, including grant money, on a study and then not move forward with
the redevelopment. Landy stated that a grant was received to fund the
planning study. Kloeber wondered if the city would have to condemn the
Winnetka Center property in order for the redevelopment to take place.
Landy responded that the city would work with the owner to purchase the
property. Kloeber then questioned if the owner was willing to sell, would the
city have to honor the leases or would the purchase be accomplished
through condemnation. He asked for clarification on the conflicting
statements that he heard from the speakers, such as pruning back retail,
keep existing businesses and add new, and then financially cannot swap
retail for retail. Landy replied that the city was desirous of keeping as many
existing businesses as possible by relocating them. Retail to retail
generally does not work, therefore, housing has to be brought into the
development. If retail was recommended for one area, then housing would
be introduced in another area. Kloeber wondered who would be contacting
the existing businesses to see who would want to stay in the city. Brixius
13
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
interjected that when the land was being purchased or any time the city
was involved with the acquisition of a property, the city was obligated to
contact existing businesses and provide them with relocation assistance
and identify options for relocation within the city or provide costs for
be introduced in another area. Kloeber wondered who would be contacting
the existing businesses to see who would want to stay in the city. Brixius
interjected that when the land was being purchased or any time the city
was involved with the acquisition of a property, the city was obligated to
contact existing businesses and provide them with relocation assistance
and identify options for relocation within the city or provide costs for
relocation elsewhere. The intent of the task force was to relocate as many
businesses as possible.
th
Mr. Ron Donalds, 8308 39 Avenue North, wondered if his property taxes
would increase if the school district relocated and had to buy more
expensive land. Landy responded that there were a lot of existing buildings
in New Hope that the administrative offices could move into and the bus
garage could be relocated to one of the industrial parks. Mr. Donalds
suggested Wal-Mart rather than a lot of smaller retailers.
Mr. Paul Hartman, 3065 Gettysburg Avenue North, stated he appreciated
the hard work and concept plans by staff, consultants and the task force.
His concern was that this redevelopment would be like all of the other
redevelopment areas in the Twin Cities and he didn’t feel that would attract
new businesses. Chain stores would lead to a much less distinctive
atmosphere and devalue the arrangement. He suggested that the city look
outside the box.
Ms. Alida Bradley, 2701 Hillsboro Avenue North, questioned which two
plans were proposed and was told Concept A with residential and a grocery
store on the northwest corner and all residential on the southeast corner,
and Concept B with the large retailer on the southeast corner.
Mr. Harry Wong, 2800 Boone Avenue North, commented that previous
grocery stores, such as Lunds, closed due to lack of patronage in New
Hope. There are several grocery stores close by in Crystal and Plymouth.
He stated he did not feel that a Whole Food store would be appropriate at
this site. He felt the discount retailer in Concept B could work, but it would
not enhance the property values of the housing or the city.
Ms. Deb Mans, 3917 Xylon Avenue North, stated she had concerns with
the high density of the project. There are already lots of apartments to the
north of the site. She questioned what effect it would have on the housing
near the Hosterman site. She would like to see something unique in the
development. Was any consideration given to the Mosaic Youth Center?
Mr. Harvey Feldman, 9317 40 ½ Avenue North, has been a resident of
New Hope for 37 years. He thanked the task force for its efforts to look into
and plan for the future. He stated he wanted his property values to increase
in value and desired to stay in New Hope. He stated he was in favor of the
project moving forward.
Mr. Richard Friedrichsen, 3833 Independence Avenue North, a member of
the task force, stated that many of the concerns he was hearing were
concerns of the task force as it went through the steps in developing the
concepts. He stated he, in particular, wanted to have a grocery store until
he heard the reality of the financial implications. He stated that the
concepts were an outline to a future that may be possible. No one knows
right now when any redevelopment may take place, but unless there was
an outline to follow, it would be difficult to proceed at all.
Mr. Jim Brinkman, 4771 Flag Avenue North, and business owner in New
Hope, stated he was on the task force. It was a great experience from the
standpoint of learning and he stated the task force members had a better
understanding of what commission members dealt with. He stated he felt
14
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
that the concept plans really came together after the open house. He stated
that the task force recommended that the large retailer include a grocery
store, because that would fill a need in the city.
standpoint of learning and he stated the task force members had a better
understanding of what commission members dealt with. He stated he felt
that the concept plans really came together after the open house. He stated
that the task force recommended that the large retailer include a grocery
store, because that would fill a need in the city.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motionseconded
by Commissioner Oelkers, by Commissioner Svendsen,
to close the Public Hearing
on Improvement Project No. 718. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Landy thanked everyone in the audience who commented on the
concept plans and voiced their thoughts.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Barrick,
Item 4.2 to approve forwarding Improvement Project #718 to the City Council
for review and discussion of the City Center Task Force study area
redevelopment proposals and recommendations.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the proposal for a grocery store with the
large retailer and the fact that other grocery stores had failed in New Hope.
He wondered what the reason was for the school district administration
building to be demolished. Landy stated that consultants indicated that it
would be disastrous to leave the administration building due to the fact that
it was a prime corner to introduce commercial businesses. The school
district was agreeable to moving as long as the tax dollars would stay the
same and there was no impact on the taxpayers. Oelkers suggested that
when a proposal came forward all of the financial information would be
explained in detail. He commended the task force for all of its hard work,
and stated that society is changing and the community needed to be aware
of it.
Landy reported that the task force discussed the grocery store issue
several times as well as other alternatives. Restaurants and entertainment
options seemed a viable alternative in lieu of a grocery store.
Commissioner Brauch noted that in years past there were several letters to
the editor in the Sun Post newspaper about the lack of redevelopment in
New Hope. At this time, the Livable Communities area has exciting
projects moving forward and that task force was instrumental in developing
concept plans for that area. There are residents in the city that are looking
actively looking for redevelopment and feel it is necessary for the city to
move forward. He stated he felt this was a giant step in the right direction
and with a cautious approach the outcome would be welcome by everyone.
Commissioner Buggy revealed that he had written letters to the Sun Post
and the City Council stating that the city did need to do things to find ways
for New Hope to grow and expand. The city is fully developed and there is
no vacant land to construct new buildings to increase the tax base and give
residents new experiences and places to go. If the city only relies on the
natural appreciation of real estate, the city would eventually fall behind and
could not sustain the types of services that residents have come to expect.
The Council was facing difficult issues with regard to the coming budget
and how to best provide services for the residents. He stated he was
thrilled to see this type of thinking and these discussions initiated. There
would be room in the concept plans for all types of businesses, from
specialty boutique shops to the thrift stores. Hopefully, the city can find
developers to take the projects forward and make them financially feasible.
In order for people to be excited about living in New Hope, the city needs 15
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003
to create new excitement and new places for residents to shop and dine
and keep the tax dollars in the city.
developers to take the projects forward and make them financially feasible.
In order for people to be excited about living in New Hope, the city needs
to create new excitement and new places for residents to shop and dine
and keep the tax dollars in the city.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Hemken
Motion carried.
Landy stated that this information would be presented to the City Council
on December 8. It was expected that the Council would accept the study
and defer further review to a work session early in 2004. Landy thanked the
task force, consultants and staff for all the work put into the study. He
reported that the task force would stay intact and be a resource to the
Planning Commission and City Council, if needed.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in November. McDonald added that at this time staff was not
Committee
aware of any new planning applications for January, but would notify the
Item 5.1
committee whether or not a meeting would be required on December 18.
Codes and Standards Barrick reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
November.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded
was made by Commissioner O’Brien, by Commissioner
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5,
Buggy,
2003.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested that the Planning Commission
workshops reconvene. Mr. McDonald stated he would look into having the
Met Council representative address the Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTSChairman Landy stated that this meeting was his last meeting as chair. He
thanked the rest of the commissioners, consultants, and staff for all of their
help through the years. He reported that he would remain on the Planning
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
16
Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 2003