030204 planning
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
PCO4-01
Item 4.1
March 2, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
The 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.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: Buggy
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Vince Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, Greg Johnson,
Krass Monroe Financial Consultant, Aimee Gourlay,
Mediation Consultant, Amy Baldwin, Community Department
Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
Present:
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for platting of
properties, rezoning, and concept/development stage planned unit
development, 5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue (east side of road), 7601-7809
Bass Lake Road (south side of road), 5519-5559 Sumter Avenue (both
sides of road), Ryland Homes, Petitioners.
Landy reported that the order of presenters for this application would be Mr.
McDonald to introduce the planning case, the planning consultant to
explain the information on the plans, the city engineer to discuss the water
issues, the representative of Ryland Homes would address the
Commission, and then the floor would be opened for comments.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated the
property at the southeast quadrant of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road was
located in Planning District 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which was
updated between 1998 and 2000. The plan identified two target residential
areas in this district for redevelopment. The first area was the low-density
residential properties along Bass Lake Road and the Bass Lake Road
extension. The second area was the low-density residential area along
Winnetka Avenue between Bass Lake Road and 53rd Avenue consisting of
very deep lots.
The city has been acquiring properties in the subject area since 1995 in
anticipation of future redevelopment. The first property that was acquired
was 7621 Bass Lake Road. The city has been acquiring properties on a
voluntary willing seller basis since that time. A Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Grant was received by the city in 2000 to study
redevelopment opportunities in this area. A task force was formed to study
redevelopment opportunities and prepare concept plans and
recommendations. The report was presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council in December 2002. Several of the task force
representatives and consultants are in the audience tonight. Early in 2003,
the Council selected preferred developers for each of the study area sites,
including this East Winnetka area, the former Frank's Nursery site, the
southwest quadrant of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road, and the site west of
the golf course. Ryland Homes was designated as the preferred developer
for the East Winnetka site. The primary reason the City Council selected
Ryland was because of the quality of its developments.
On June 24, 2002, the Council directed staff to complete the steps
necessary to create a tax increment financing area in the Livable
Communities redevelopment area. Staff coordinated with Krass Monroe,
the city's financial consultant, to draft special legislation to allow the
creation of this district to assist with redevelopment. During the 2003
Legislative Special Session, the special legislation was passed giving the
authority to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district in this area. The
public hearing was held at the December 8 Council/EDA meetings and the
East Winnetka TIF District was created around the boundaries of these
properties.
One of the main recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Life
Cycle Housing study was to try to create different life cycle housing
alternatives in the city. Currently, about 47 percent of the housing stock in
New Hope is apartments and about 53 percent is single-family homes.
There are very few condominiums or town home developments in the city.
It has been strongly recommended that the city develop this type of
housing to encourage young professionals and empty nesters to stay in the
city rather than migrate to neighboring suburbs that offer that type of
housing. McDonald stressed that this proposal was not low-income
housing. The average sales price of these homes would be $200,000 and
the market rates on the majority of the properties that abut this
development are below $200,000, with a small portion of the homes over
$200,000.
Staff had been meeting with Ryland Homes for the past year to develop
site plans and discuss financing for the redevelopment of the East
Winnetka area. In April 2003, the City Council approved an exclusive 90-
day negotiation period between Ryland Homes and the city. The city
continued to work with Ryland on final site plan/development contract
issues. McDonald explained that acquiring/demolishing property for
redevelopment required much more effort and the process was completely
different from a development on raw land. In October, the Council
authorized the city engineer to complete a storm water analysis for the all
the Livable Communities redevelopment areas in anticipation of future
redevelopment. McDonald stated that at this time the City Council had not
seen the East Winnetka Ryland plan details, it had only seen concept
plans. At a work session in November, the Council confirmed the selection
of two unit types, Carriage Townhomes and Heritage Condominiums.
Council members also toured the Ryland development in Circle Pines with
the exact same mix of units as this proposal. At the January 26 Council
meeting, the Council approved the development agreement with Ryland
Homes, based on the concept plan and authorized eminent domain for the
remaining properties in the area. McDonald stated that the city was
negotiating with several additional property owners and staff expected to
reach agreements soon. Eminent domain papers were filed on February 25
giving the city the authority to take any remaining properties within a 90-
day period so the city would have ownership of all properties by May 25,
2004.
A determination was made to cul-de-sac Sumter Avenue near 55th and
Sumter. The property at 5519 Sumter was not originally included in the
plan; however, the city is currently negotiating with this property owner and
is hopeful that a voluntary acquisition can be reached. Therefore, the
proposal should be approved including that property.
McDonald reported that the terms of the development agreement called for
Planning Commission Meeting
2
March 2, 2004
the city to turn over several vacant parcels of land on Winnetka to the
developer for the construction of two model buildings (one of each type) by
mid-April. It is anticipated it will take four months to complete the model
construction. The agreement states that the city would turn over a Phase 1
parcel of land (anticipated to be all remaining parcels on Winnetka) by July
1, 2004. The developer would then start the street construction through the
development this summer so that the streets and utilities would be
available to the models by the time they are completed in September. The
development agreement then states that the Phase 2 parcel of land
(anticipated to be along Bass Lake Road) would be turned over to the
developer by September 1. The city continues to coordinate with the
developer on a number of aspects on the development that would be either
a city or joint city/developer responsibility. The city is proposing to
construct a new public sidewalk along Winnetka and Bass Lake Road, the
burial of overhead utilities along Winnetka, the vacation of Sumter Avenue
and related turn-around, the removal or relocation of utilities on the site,
and park/ponding improvements. The developer will contribute
approximately $80,000 in park dedication fees to the city as part of the
development agreement and those funds would be utilized to make
improvements at Elm Grove Park, adjacent to the development on the
east.
McDonald added that property owners within 350 feet of the site were
notified of the public hearing, including the city of Crystal. Staff received
some calls and comments and several people came to city hall to look at
the plans. The same people received notice of a neighborhood open
house, which was conducted on February 24. Staff felt it important to show
the neighbors the plans and answer questions prior to this public hearing.
Over the last two to three years, the city has mailed out a number of
project bulletins on the status of this development to a mailing list of
approximately 500 residents within a one-half mile radius of the
intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road. Staff has conducted
a number of cable TV interviews and several newspaper articles have been
written on this development.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the applicant was
requesting several applications for the redevelopment of this site. Currently
the property is zoned R-1, single family residential, and CB, community
business districts. The request is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
which would change the land use for this area from low to medium-density
to high-density residential. The site would be rezoned from the R-1 and CB
districts to a PUD district. The PUD district was selected to allow for some
flexibility that would not otherwise be allowed in the standard high-density
district. Along with the PUD district, the applicant is requesting
concept/development stage planned unit development approval. Two
subdivisions are necessary. The first would be a city subdivision to
combine all the properties into a single parcel for conveyance to Ryland.
The second plat would divide the property into condominium and
townhome parcels. The last element for Planning Commission
consideration, with the public hearing conducted at the City Council
meeting, is the vacation of a segment of Sumter Avenue.
Brixius explained that the first plat prepared by Bonestroo and Associates
on behalf of the city, combines all the existing parcels of land into a single
lot and block description for conveyance as part of the redevelopment
project. The second plat illustrates the individual town home buildings,
which would be divided so that ownership of the town home includes the
land underneath. The condominiums would be an ownership of the living
space and commonly owned land associated with the individual building.
Planning Commission Meeting
3
March 2, 2004
The plat includes 17.1 acres, the right-of-way, or Street A, includes
approximately 2.3 acres, and the total lot area to be utilized for building
would be 14.8 acres. The total number of units proposed would be 175,
which results in a gross density of approximately 10.2 units per acre and a
net density of approximately 11.8 units per acre. There would be
approximately 44 percent green space intermixed among the buildings.
With the approval of the PUD, the PUD subdivision would be compliant
with the city's requirements for both the zoning and subdivision regulations.
This would be tied together with a homeowners' association and covenants
to be recorded with the plat. The applicant is requesting waiver of the final
plat review by the Planning Commission.
A part of the application is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change
the land use classification. In 1998, the Comprehensive Plan identified this
area for redevelopment, due to the extraordinary deep lots along Winnetka,
existing housing conditions, marginal commercial properties at the
intersection, and substandard access near the Bass Lake Road extension.
The Livable Communities Task Force reviewed this area and
recommended the following: 1) town home and low-density residential, 2)
expressed specific concerns regarding the integration and compatibility of
the neighboring single-family areas, 3) traffic generation, 4) avoiding
intrusion upon adjacent residential properties, 5) density of development
and its impact upon the quality of development, 6) building quality, and 6)
establishing a design that would be attractive and complementary to the
existing single family neighborhood as well as the streetscape along
Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. After the task force study was complete
and presented to the City Council, the city solicited developers to provide a
proposal that would be financially feasible. It was determined that greater
density was necessary to make the redevelopment cash flow. Alternative
plans were prepared over the last year to respond to Livable Communities
concerns for land use compatibility and a density that would be financially
feasible to uphold the redevelopment. Code provides for a medium density
residential of 10 units per acre and this proposal provides for a net density
of 11.8, which is not significantly higher.
In considering a change in rezoning, the city has three criteria: past
mistake, change in character of area, and consistent with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Brixius stated that the previous uses
were appropriate for the area. The character of the area has changed and
redevelopment has been recommended for this project site by the
Comprehensive Plan, which would merit some consideration in land use.
He indicated that the applicant had met two of the criteria for consideration
of the land use change, as well as the change in zoning.
The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study indicated that the city should provide
higher, move-up housing and owner-occupied or rental attached housing,
such as town homes, twinhomes and cooperative apartments. These
elements are lacking in New Hope and this proposal addresses that type of
housing.
Specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan include providing a variety of
housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's
changing demographics, maintaining and enhancing the strong character of
the single-family neighborhoods by preventing the intrusion of incompatible
land uses, and promoting multiple-family housing alternatives as an
attractive life cycle housing option. The emphasis being that there is a
change in the community needs and the city is trying to respond to that
need with this redevelopment.
Planning Commission Meeting
4
March 2, 2004
Brixius reported that a straight high-density residential zoning would allow
for a variety of land uses including apartments, condominiums and
town homes. This town home development would be located in close
proximity to single-family residential, as well as two major collector streets.
The PUD zoning district is intended for this type of design - an integrated,
clustered, urban design which promotes a mixture of uses, higher densities,
and flexibility in setbacks, heights, and impervious surface issues.
The Development Review Team and the Design and Review Committee
reviewed the plans and identified issues for the developer to respond to on
the plans. The developer made the changes and submitted revised plans.
Brixius explained that the general layout attempted to segregate
town homes and condominiums from the single-family neighborhood to the
southeast. A public street would run throughout the development. Access
points would be moved away from the intersection to allow for proper
spacing and stacking of vehicles. The entrance points are intended to align
with existing roads for full intersection arrangements at those points. The
higher density urban townhomes are pushed up closer to the major
collector streets to provide an urban streetscape appearance and to
economize on space within the subdivision. The condominium units are
located in closer proximity to the single-family homes to try to lessen the
impact of the taller buildings. The street is a curvilinear design that would
abut several single family homes in the center of the area. There would be
a 20-foot setback from the property line along with the use of boulevard
trees and a fence as a screening device. The standard 30-foot setback
would be where units abut the single-family homes. The 11.8 units per acre
would be a higher density that what the typical townhome development
would be, and the PUD allows that flexibility, if approved. The proposed
setback would be 25 feet from the back of the curb along Street A. There
was a concern that there would be adequate space for parking between the
garage and street for the condominiums. Flexibility was requested for
driveway parking that would intrude into the boulevard area. The front yard
setback on an arterial street is 30 feet. At the suggestion of staff, this was
reduced to 25 feet with the idea that the building front and stoops should be
close to the street and connect to the public sidewalk, and create a
streetscape to make the building more predominant along with streetscape
plantings. The side yard setback requirement is 10 feet from the property
line or 20 feet from adjoining structures, and the plans are compliant. The
side yard setback abutting a street is 20 feet from the property line and the
applicant is requesting 20 feet from the curb on internal settings, not at the
exterior of the property.
Brixius noted that the public streets A and B through the project would have
a 50-foot right-of-way and a 28-foot street surface. Parking would be
limited to one side of the street. The curvilinear design was intended to
move the larger buildings away from the single-family areas as far as
possible. Fencing and boulevard trees would be placed to shield the areas
from the lower density single-family area. Access points have been
reviewed by Hennepin County and are acceptable. All the existing curb
cuts along Winnetka Avenue would be eliminated. Brixius reported that
there had been a lot of discussion on the potential vacation of Sumter
Avenue from 5509 Sumter north to Bass Lake Road. A big concern noted
by the task force was that the development traffic not infiltrate through the
single-family neighborhood. Some trips for residents in the adjacent
neighborhood may be slightly longer to reach Bass Lake Road or
Winnetka. There will be fire lane connections at Drives Band H. The public
streets will all have B-618 curbing except near the condominium
driveways. B-618 curbing would be established near the courtyard parking
Planning Commission Meeting
5
March 2, 2004
areas. Surmountable curbing or no curbing would be in place on the
outside courtyard near the driveways. This should be clarified on the plans.
Emergency access points have been identified on the plans, with two of the
points consisting of knockdown bollards. It would be the responsibility of
the homeowners' association to provide snow plowing of the fire lanes. A
portion of Drive H is located on the 5510 Sumter property, and would need
to be relocated. The driveway of 5510 Sumter is adjacent to the north
property line of the project so no bollards could be located there that might
interfere with the driveway access. Public Works personnel suggested that
the proposed Sumter Avenue cul-de-sac be moved to the south 15 feet to
allow for adequate snow storage. The applicant revised the site plan to
show a transit station on Winnetka Avenue and an easement should be
provided. The easement should be sized based on a Winnetka street and
boulevard improvement plan coordinated between the city and county.
Public Works expressed concern for snow storage between Street A and
the eastern boundary fence. The fence would be set back 20 feet from the
curb, which should allow for adequate space for snow storage. All streets
other than A and B would be private drives and maintained by the
homeowners' association. The plans show adequate turning space to
accommodate delivery trucks and emergency equipment. Concern was
raised over 22 versus 20-foot drive lanes and the applicant has indicated
that 20 feet would be sufficient.
Code requires 393 parking stalls and the plans indicate 350 two-car garage
spaces and 36 surface parking stalls for a total of 386. This does not
include the driveway space in front of each garage. The applicant has
provided information on how the garage parking would work for each of the
units. The applicant increased the driveway width to 18 feet, which would
provide two parking stalls for each unit. Brixius explained that there are a
number of areas on the plans that show very narrow landscaped areas. In
the areas where that space is less than six feet wide, staff suggested that
the entire area be paved. Parking stalls in the green islands between the
private drives are oversized and meet all requirements. There would be an
internal pedestrian circulation system with six-foot sidewalks along the
public streets behind the curb, per the suggestion of Public Works. At the
open house, suggestions were made to continue the sidewalk to St.
Raphael Church parking lot and to Elm Grove Park, which is part of the
city's recommendation.
Brixius reported the landscape plan showed a generous landscape
treatment for the streetscape, common area, and foundation areas.
Additional plantings are recommended for the ends of Drives B, C, G and L
where they abut Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road. These plantings are
intended to further screen the garages and private drives from the public
streets. Screening between the single-family area and the new
development includes a six-foot high, maintenance free privacy fence and
over-story trees that will have canopies that extend above the fence. Based
on community input at the open house as well as the review of the cross-
sections, the fence falls below the street surface and staff would prefer to
see the fence high enough to screen the automobiles and provide
screening of backyard areas of the development. Two options have been
offered: 1. increase the height of the fence to eight feet, and 2. consider
using a berm along the property line to increase the height of the fence.
The applicant has included a tree preservation plan, which listed a number
of trees and shrubs to be removed and replanted in other areas. There is a
significant spruce tree in the southeast corner that should be saved, if
possible. Brixius stated that staff felt the silver maple tree included in the
tree preservation plan did not need to be saved. The foundation plantings
were appropriate for the area. The plantings in and around the pond are
Planning Commission Meeting
6
March 2, 2004
shown on the plan. There would be a two-tier retaining wall located around
the pond, with a portion of it in the water. A 42-inch aluminum fence would
be installed around the pond to protect pedestrians. The area between the
retaining walls would be landscaped with viburnum and planting beds, as
well as dogwood shrubs and planting beds near the water's edge. The
details on the retaining walls would be subject to review by the director of
public works and the city engineer.
Details have been provided for the monument signs at the entrances and
the sign at the corner of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. The signs would
need to meet the 10-foot setback requirements and be located outside the
sight visibility triangle. The lighting plan indicated lighted bollards along the
sidewalk near the pond. A "traditional-old favorite" light fixture, which is a
lantern design on 18-foot poles, would be located along Street A. Issue was
raised that the luminary of the light fixture may be visible to adjacent
residences. Developer should consider a light fixture that would be hooded
and screened. Accessory equipment is shown on the plans and identified
street signs, address signs and mailboxes, and the locations are
acceptable.
Brixius stated that the elevations show finished building treatments. A
number of items need attention including: 1. attention to the rear of the
building where utilities and gas meters, etc. are located and proper
screening or color integration with the building, 2. downspouts on the
condominiums should not outlet to the driveways, and 3. condominium
parking, which has been partially addressed on the revised plans. The
townhomes would be three stories in height and the back of the buildings
would include the garages, which have adequate space for two cars and
storage of trash cans. There would be variable front color treatments
including brick, vinyl and additional sidings.
Brixius indicated the city attorney reviewed the homeowners' association
documents and his comments were included in separate correspondence in
the planning packet.
The street vacation would be a separate consideration by the City Council.
Staff endorses the vacation due to the fact that it eliminates an unsafe
intersection at Bass Lake Road and provides buildable land for the project,
and disconnects the Winnetka Green development from the single-family
area to the south. If this vacation would occur, utility relocation would be
necessary.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, city engineer, stated he would review issues with
transportation, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main. The city plat
and the developer's plat have been submitted to Hennepin County for
review. Last week Hennepin County completed traffic counts at the
intersection of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka, as well as, Rhode Island
and 54th avenues, the two areas where this development will be accessing
the county roads. Hennepin County wrote a recommendation requesting 60
feet of half right-of-way for both corridors, which is a standard
recommendation based on standard details. From a city perspective, the
city does not agree with this recommendation. The city's transportation
planner is reviewing the traffic counts and looking at turn lane requirements
and translating that into right-of-way requirements. This plat assumes 40
feet of half right-of-way for each corridor. That issue still needs to be
resolved. The submitted information does anticipate a right turn lane for
the Rhode Island access and a right turn lane by the 54th Avenue access.
The utility plan indicated all the underground utilities, sanitary sewer, water
Planning Commission Meeting
7
March 2, 2004
main, and storm sewer. The water main would be connected to existing
water main in Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. There would be a water main
connection near 54th that would loop through the site. Another connection
would be through the 55th Avenue outlot connecting to the 55th and Sumter
water main. There would also be other water main connections to the
existing system. The proposed system would maintain adequate pressure
and flow for the water main and fire hydrant connections. The existing trunk
sanitary sewer line that extends from the intersection of 55th and Winnetka
through the existing residential properties to the east and the sanitary
sewer ultimately flows to the east toward Quebec and then south. This
trunk sanitary sewer that cuts through the property would be rerouted as
part of the development around the proposed units and incorporated into
the sanitary sewer design for the proposed development. Other sanitary
sewer laterals are shown on the plan to service the new units. Utilities
under the public road, as well as the trunk utilities cutting through the site,
would be public utilities and protected by public right-of-way or public
easement. The other lateral utilities that just serve units in the development
would be private.
VanderTop began explaining storm sewer issues on the western portion of
the site. He stated that the storm water runoff from the properties abutting
Winnetka would be routed to the storm water pond, which meets the
requirements for the development for water quality and quantity, the
requirements of Shingle Creek Watershed, and the Surface Water
Management Plan. All the water captured in the pond, the low spot in the
development, would be released at a controlled rate so to prevent
downstream flooding. The low spot on Winnetka Avenue that floods during
large events would continue to flood and that water would overtop the curb
and be routed through the pond. Runoff from the eastern portion of the
development would be routed through storm sewers to Elm Grove Park. A
storm water pond would be constructed in the park to meet the
requirements for water quality and quantity. This pond design and the park
layout would be developed by the city to enable the improvements in the
park.
VanderTop relayed backyard drainage concerns from residents at the open
house. Storm water runoff collects in the back yards of residents on 55th
Avenue. To rectify this situation, a large portion of the runoff from
properties along 55th and the Bass Lake Road extension area would be
rerouted through the storm sewer to the Elm Grove Park pond. The
drainage would be decreased in the back yards of residents along 55th
Avenue. Staff recommends that the city consider options through grading
and other enhancements to make the drainage situation better not worse.
The balance of the drainage area would be directed to the new pond along
Winnetka Avenue. A catch basin was proposed along Street A adjacent to
the back yards of the Sumter properties. At this time, the water travels
along the back yards to the low point in the area. Similar concerns for
runoff are attached with the southernmost area of the property where the
water drains to 53rd Avenue. The theme would be to enhance the drainage
from the existing back yards and not make the situation worse.
Mr. Chris Enger, land resource manager for Ryland Homes, came forward
to address the commission. He thanked the commission and city staff and
consultants that they worked with for the past year. He commented that
everyone was very professional and articulated the city's goal to the
developer clearly. He stated that Ryland was happy to be chosen as the
preferred developer by the City Council. He understood that the final plan
was not the exact concept as developed by the task force. They have
prepared dozens of building and street layouts, taking into account the
Planning Commission Meeting
8
March 2, 2004
recommendations of staff and consultants before presenting this final plan
for approval. The plan was a marriage of the community and the type of
neighborhood that Ryland could build, and the vision of the city. They
desired to have a long and lasting relationship with the city, and were
looking forward to beginning construction and providing homes for existing
residents and bringing new residents into New Hope. Enger stated that all
staff and consultant work had been helpful and thorough, and the Design
and Review Committee helped them prepare for the myriad of details
necessary to carry out the construction of a neighborhood in the city.
Enger stated Ryland agreed with most recommendations in the staff report.
The proposed streetlight would be a traditional coach light and was the
standard streetlight in many communities throughout the metropolitan area.
He understood the concern of light washing off the property. The
photometric drawing illustrated the radius around each light that was
illuminated to .5-foot candle. City ordinance called for no more than a one-
foot candle at the boundaries of the property. The radius would be 34 feet
around each streetlight. The streetlights adjacent to the single-family
neighborhood have been eliminated and replaced with a four-foot bollard
fixture, which would be lower than the fence. The spill of light for the
bollard lights would be a 20-foot radius with a .35-foot candle
measurement. There would be no light spillage off the site.
Enger stated that due to concerns voiced at the open house by residents,
where the perimeter fence abuts the single-family neighborhood and the
adjoining grade drops below the road, the height of the fence could be up
to 16 inches higher than six feet proposed.
Chairman Landy opened the floor for comments. He reminded the
audience that the charge of the Planning Commission was to be sure that
the city code was adhered to. The Commission does not set policy.
Mr. Tom Niebuhr, 5325 Sumter Avenue, stated he had a vinyl fence in his
back yard and questioned if the development's fence would butt up to his
or if there would be a gap between the fences and who would maintain that
area. Brixius replied that this point was mentioned at the open house and
indicated that Ryland would work with the property owner to integrate the
two fences together in some fashion.
Ms. Kathy Bardwell, 5319 Sumter Avenue, stated they were considering
installing a fence in the back yard and wondered if it would be all right for
them to hook up to the new development's fence. Brixius stated that this
was raised at the open house. He stated he felt there would be no problem
if the fences were installed pole-to-pole with a very small gap between
them so the fences did not directly connect, with each party maintaining
their own fence. Mr. Enger added that the fence for the development would
be placed two feet off the property line. Ms. Bardwell questioned who would
be responsible for plowing of the sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue. She
stated she was forced to walk on Winnetka Avenue to get to her bus stop
after one heavy snow, which was dangerous with the heavy traffic.
McDonald stated that the city would maintain the public sidewalk, but the
plowing of sidewalks gets done after the streets are plowed and when time
is available. She initiated discussion on the transit stop along Winnetka and
was told that it would be a northbound only stop along the street. Routes
would probably be the same as now, but she should check with the bus
company.
Ms. Barb Drenth, 7616 55th Avenue, stated she was pleased with the
possibility of berming the backyards, due to the fact that the drainage had
Planning Commission Meeting
9
March 2, 2004
been a big concern. She was concerned with the snow storage at Drive I,
which is adjacent to her back yard, and spring snow melt. Ms. Drenth
pointed out that the townhomes would be at a higher elevation than their
house and felt that a berm and taller fence would lessen the effect of the
residents from the development looking down into their backyard. She
stated she was not opposed to townhouses, but was disappointed with the
proposed price range of the units. If the prices of the units would be higher,
possibly the density could have been reduced. It would be a big adjustment
to go from single-family homes around them to the high-density
townhomes as proposed. She wondered whether anything could be done to
encourage ownership of the units, particularly the condominiums, instead
of people using them for investment properties and renting the units.
Several Commissioners stated that maybe the homeowners' association
could deal with that issue. It was mentioned that the owner of any single
family home near them now could rent the property. Ms. Drenth questioned
the loss of parkland for the pond and requested to see the plans for the
park. She wondered what was being done as far as safety for the large,
deep pond in the development. McDonald stated that when park concept
plans were available the neighborhood would be invited for input. She
pointed out the bump-out area was located three and one-half feet from the
corner of their garage and wondered whether consideration could be given
to squaring off their property.
Mr. Paul Edison, 7608 55th Avenue, stated he was concerned with the
property line of the development, which is 10 feet from his bedroom
window in the bump-out area. He stated he would like to eventually add on
to the back of his garage and it would be nice to have additional space.
Mr. Mike Drenth, 7616 55th Avenue, stated they were not really opposed to
the redevelopment. He was concerned with the snow storage area at
Drives H and I and the snow melt in the spring. He questioned the purpose
of all the short drive aisles and was informed that those were required fire
lanes. He brought up the issue of homes along Sumter with streets on two
sides and reduced setbacks of 30 feet. He mentioned that staff had stated
previously that residents would not be happy with the reduced setback and
staff was now suggesting that 30-foot setbacks are appropriate. He stated
that the task force proposed up to 40 less town homes with higher sales
prices than what is being proposed. He stated the financial consultant had
stated at one time that the numbers would work. Mr. Drenth stated that
there was no berm shown on the plans and he stated that the low point in
his yard was approximately 30 feet below the top of the condominium. The
Comprehensive Plan called for lower density in this area and wondered
how this plan conforms. He mentioned the market values of surrounding
homes and sales prices of the existing homes, as well as the sales prices
of the units. He wondered what study was completed that showed the
difference in property values before and after a development was
constructed. He felt the information given to the task force was flawed. He
suggested regulations be included in the homeowners' association rules
that units needed to be owner occupied or at least a certain percentage of
the units. He stated he researched sales prices in the Camden area and
found the minimum to be $150,000, the same as what is proposed for New
Hope. The city is proposing homes as low as $150,000. There is a low-
priced town home development in Brooklyn Park, and he said someone
threatened him when he was visiting someone there. He feels this
development will be unsafe in a few years. The Circle Pines development
base prices start at $40,000 more than this development.
Mr. Jim Pearson, 5429 Sumter Avenue, has lived in the city since 1955
and has seen lots of changes. He stated he does not like this change.
Planning Commission Meeting
10
March 2, 2004
Change should not be difficult. He informed the Commission he was a
member of the task force and this design is not what was recommended.
The task force did not want the road where it is located now so properties
would have a road at the front and rear of the property. He felt there was
the potential of hundreds of cars per day traveling on the road, which would
lead to noise and air pollution and loss of privacy. The original design was
for the road to go down the middle of the development and the pond to be
located in a different area. He felt the drainage did not naturally go to the
point where the pond is to be located. He suggested that the fence should
be as tall as possible and located on top of a berm. If that did not happen,
he would be selling his home.
Mr. Ernie Opheim, 5501 Sumter Avenue, felt that it was ridiculous to hold
this meeting during the precinct caucuses. He stated that the drainage
collected near the vacant lot between 5443 and 5501 Sumter Avenue. He
said he moved to New Hope 30 years ago and purchased his home on
Sumter Avenue because it was a quiet neighborhood with some separation
to a major street. He felt constructing 175 units on property that had
housed 34 structures could not be justified. If the fence would be
constructed at the maximum height, he thought he would never see the sun
set again.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers,
to close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 04-01. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Hemken questioned what would be done with the bump-out
property and whether something could be worked out with the residents of
the two affected properties. Mr. Enger responded that if the city wanted to
resolve the situation prior to the conveyance of the land to Ryland, it would
be acceptable to them. If that portion would be conveyed to Ryland, the
property would be landscaped and irrigated. He stated that Ryland had
agreed with the neighbor to move the fence back from the property line by
20 feet and the association would maintain that area. The people that
would buy the units with the idea of having a larger back yard may pay a
higher price for that privilege, therefore, the parcel would have a value to
it. He reiterated that it would be up to the city to resolve the land situation
before the property was conveyed to Ryland.
Commissioner Svendsen thanked the developer for all the input,
knowledge and help through the plan review process. He requested
clarification on the curbing for the project, especially by the guest parking
near buildings 71-79. Enger responded that they would try to prepare a
more defined drawing. He stated that the question of curbing came in the
parking courts for the townhomes. Their approach would be to bring the
vertical curb around to the first driveway. Svendsen asked that the
sidewalk detail sheets be drawn to match sizes and locations shown on the
preliminary plats. Svendsen asked for clarification of plantings around the
air conditioning units by the condominium units and by the townhomes.
Enger replied that at the townhomes a tree would be planted in each large
median and there could be deciduous shrubs by the air conditioners in the
courtyard. The condominium air conditioning units are on the back of the
building and no plantings were proposed around the units. Svendsen
encouraged plantings around the utility transformers, if the utility
companies would allow it.
Planning Commission Meeting
11
March 2, 2004
Svendsen wondered whether a berm in the northeast area parallel to 55th
Avenue would cause additional drainage problems or if it would help. Mr.
VanderTop responded that a berm of even one foot in height would help
with the drainage from the streets. The berm would stop the water at the
property line and direct it to the east toward the pond. The drainage
through the back yards along 55th Avenue is poor. With the development,
the drainage flowing to this area should be reduced, but it may not
completely take care of the drainage issues in the back yards. Possibly
additional grading could be accomplished in the bump-out area to help
drain the water to the pond in Elm Grove Park. The slopes should be
limited to 4:1. This slope requirement is more of a maintenance issue for
mowing, etc. Svendsen questioned whether a catch basin could be
installed in this area like the one proposed at the rear of the Sumter
properties near the condominiums. VanderTop replied that it could be
researched and may be possible if funding was available. Oelkers
questioned how drainage would be affected with a berm along the rear
yards of the Sumter Avenue properties. VanderTop stated that the grading
plan did reflect somewhat of a berm along that area, approximately one
foot, to control the water onto Winnetka Green. In addition to that, the
catch basin would collect additional runoff. Oelkers wondered whether the
berm would hinder the water drainage from the rear of the Sumter Avenue
properties and the city engineer stated he felt the berm would not be an
issue. Each property would have to be studied individually. For the Bass
Lake Court Townhome project, the city met with each adjacent property
owner to insure that no drainage problem would be created. VanderTop
added that the Winnetka properties slope east to the rear yard and the
Sumter properties slope west to the rear yard. The drainage generally flows
from the south to the north toward the low point at the 55th Avenue outlot.
There is a high point part of the way through this area where the drainage
breaks and some of the properties at the south end of the development
flow back to 53rd Avenue. The first strategy would be to minimize drainage
from what is there now, and second to look at berming and storm sewer to
further enhance the drainage. Oelkers questioned the snow storage by
Drives H and I, and VanderTop stated that it was a valid comment and the
city should look at snow storage in that area and determine how the
grading should be accomplished. A snow plowing plan could be established
stating no snow would be stored in that area. The grading should be so that
most of the water would slope back onto the Winnetka Green property and
not toward the 55th Avenue back yards.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the downspouts for the condominium
units and how the eaves and downspouts could be altered so that the water
did not flow over the driveway. He wondered if it would be possible for the
water to drain to the green space or under the sidewalk. Enger stated that
the garage roofs were open gables to the front so it would not be possible
to bring the gutter across the front of the garage. Ryland would propose to
retain a small gravel planting area between each double garage and outlet
the downspout into the gravel area and then pave the double driveways in
a way to pitch in to create a definite and contained drainage area past the
gravel planting area so the water would not sheet out over the driveway
and create an ice hazard in winter.
Discussion ensued on the color of the fence. Enger stated that according to
the manufacturer, there was not a white satin choice. There were color
choices and they would look at those. Ryland had utilized the white fence
in other communities and felt it was an attractive fence. The fence in
combination with a generous amount of evergreen and deciduous plant
material would help tone down the color. That would be one reason they
would suggest not increasing the fence height for the total length of the
Planning Commission Meeting
12
March 2, 2004
development. They would try to get an off white color. O'Brien questioned
why a vinyl fence was chosen. Enger replied that a very large length of
fencing was required, and it was as an expensive material to use, but one
of the major attractions to the developments was the maintenance free life
style. There is no paintable trim on the homes. All materials would be vinyl,
stone, brick, or coated aluminum, in other words, maintenance free. He
stated that Ryland was conscious of keeping homeowners' association
dues down, while at the same time, leaving the association with a well
funded start so the long-term maintenance would be minimal. The
longevity of a vinyl fence is twice as long as a painted wood fence.
O'Brien questioned whether the water and sewer lines throughout the
property were owned by the association. VanderTop stated that Streets A
and B were public streets and the utilities under those streets would be
public and owned and maintained by the city. There are also two trunk lines
that cut through the property that would be public lines and maintained by
the city. Everything else that serves only the units in this development
would be private and owned and maintained by the association, as well as
the side streets. The storm sewer would be the public that served the public
rights-of-way, the pond within the development would be private, and the
pond in the park would be a public facility because water from other rights-
of-way would flow into that pond. O'Brien questioned who would be plowing
the fire lanes. Enger responded that the association would be responsible
for the driveways, parking courts, and fire lanes. The city would plow the
public streets.
Oelkers wondered what the life expectancy would be on the water and
sewer lines and how failure of those lines would be handled. VanderTop
answered that the existing water mains that are breaking were constructed
of cast iron which were installed in the 1960s. Those lines are susceptible
to failure due to corrosion and fracture. The new lines are constructed of a
different material and the life expectancy of the new lines is 50 years. The
city would maintain fire hydrants due to the public safety standpoint. All of
the sewer and water lines throughout the development would be new. Staff
and the developer discussed the issue of public versus private ownership
at length. It was important that the main street through the development be
public and therefore the utilities under that street would also be public.
There had been discussion of all utilities being public, however, there was
concern of maintaining public utilities under private streets. Enger
maintained that this is a public policy question because there are public
utilities on private land, even in this development. Whether the street
above the utilities was public or private and the public utility had to be
repaired, the public would have to repair the road at the taxpayer's
expense. With the private utilities being the responsibility of the
association, the maintenance, which is traditionally a city expense, to the
private sector. The impact of that would be to budget in the homeowners'
association for the long-term replacement of those systems.
Commissioner Barrick stated that she agreed with what her neighbors had
said and was disappointed with regard to the density of the project. She
had been expecting higher value homes, and even though staff stated that
the homes would be sold for around $200,000, the documentation she saw
showed the condominium prices starting from $140,000 to $150,000. Mr.
Enger stated he had not supplied any information giving those prices.
Ryland would construct the same value and quality homes that were
constructed in Circle Pines. Whatever values the New Hope market
supported would direct the sales price. They would sell them for as high a
price as they could get. The City Council had bound Ryland to sell the units
for no less than $149,900 for the least expensive condominium. The lowest
Planning Commission Meeting
13
March 2, 2004
price in Circle Pines with some options sold for $152,500. The same unit at
the end of the project sold for $160,000. The price of the other
condominiums units increased by $10,000 for each size unit. The
town homes would start at about $180,000 and go over $200,000.
Generally, the purchaser added about $20,000 in options above the base
price. There would be 117 units selling from the high $100s to the low
$200s for base price and 58 condominiums from the $150s to the $170s.
Enger stated that Ryland hoped to exceed the expectations of the City
Council with regard to the sales price. By the time the last units were sold,
the average sales price should be above $200,000. In the New Hope
development, more than half of the units were the more expensive type,
which should bring up the average.
Barrick wondered what percentage of the lower level units, proposed for
seniors, would actually be purchased and lived in by seniors. Enger stated
that there were 16 lower level units, and another 16 one-level units up one
flight of stairs, which are also popular with seniors.
Barrick initiated discussion on the $80,000 park dedication fee designated
for Elm Grove Park and questioned how much of that fee would be spent
on the park. McDonald indicated that all of that fee would go to Elm Grove
Park and probably additional monies as well.
The most objectionable issue for Barrick was Street A, which abuts the
single-family homes along Sumter Avenue. Barrick wondered if there was
an alternative to that layout. She was concerned that the peace and
tranquility would be robbed from the residents along Sumter. She felt the
fence would not provide any significant sound barrier for them, and asked
what could be done about moving the street to the west. Mr. Enger
responded that this site plan was the result of many different plans and
alternatives for that road. Taking everything into account, this was the plan
that all staff and consultants agreed upon. He concurred that the road
abutted the single-family properties but that Ryland was dealing with that in
the most sensitive way possible. Barrick stated she felt the east/west
placement of the town homes would channel the sound from Winnetka right
though to the back yards of the residents on Sumter. Enger stated that the
reason three of the town home buildings were placed perpendicular to
Winnetka was to break up the length of buildings along the road and keep
the three-story building away from the single-family neighborhood. Out of
the 24 units in those buildings, only three units would be visible to the
single-family homes with this layout. The site dictated where the storm
water pond had to be placed. The pond was necessary for the development
and as a regional pond for the area, and to accommodate the 100-year
flood event. Barrick stated she felt something else should be done so there
was not a road behind and in front of the homes along Sumter Avenue.
Enger added that the deciduous trees along the fence line would be 15 feet
at the time of planting and additional under-story trees could be placed
there as well as shrubs. Oelkers wondered whether a staggered planting
arrangement on both sides of the fence would be acceptable to the
residents along Sumter. Brixius interjected that this planting plan did
provide some separation. Enger added that the city required 20 feet for
snow storage along the street and there would be a few breaks in the
fencing to allow access to the back side for maintenance. They could work
with the property owners if they wished additional plant material for
screening at the back of their property. Oelkers stated he felt the traffic
count along Street A would not be that great and the curvature of the street
would prevent speeding. Barrick added that there may be headlights
shining in the back yards of the residences with the curvature of the street.
Brixius interjected that the solid fence would provide a greater obstruction.
Planning Commission Meeting
14
March 2, 2004
The idea of a curvilinear street was to keep the speed down and eliminate
the roaring of engines. The fence element would not be a noise barrier, but
a visual barrier. Based on comments received, the fence was to provide a
barrier between this development and the single-family homes. The three
story buildings were pushed away from the property line so they were not
so obtrusive to the single-family homes, and Ryland had incorporated
those elements into the plans.
Commissioner Brauch commented that there are 14 trees proposed along
Street A adjacent to the back yards and wondered if the number of trees
could be doubled up and trees provided for the Sumter property owners to
plant on their own property, which be a low cost solution to doubling the
visual and sound barriers. A suggestion was made that Ryland meet with
each of the property owners to determine what would be acceptable to
them. McDonald stated that from the discussion tonight that the developer
and/or the city would need to meet with all of the residents abutting the
Winnetka Green property. Barrick wondered if prior to plan approval if
consensus could be received from the neighbors with regard to the street.
Mr. Enger responded that Ryland would not accept that. The city cannot
turn over its zoning authority to neighbors and put the developer in the
position of trying to make each neighbor completely happy before approval
was received. They would work with the neighbors as far as tree placement
was concerned.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the preliminary plat and how the areas for
the condominiums and town homes were described. Enger stated that this
was the way a plat for this type of development was accomplished. The
preliminary plat illustrates the town homes were placed with a couple feet of
leeway forward or backward, however, the line between the townhomes
was exact. The condominiums were platted all together in an envelope
setting. Brixius stated that the plat was tied to the PUD approvals. The
PUD approvals were the actual construction drawings which shows the
outline of setbacks. The plat is designed to mimic the construction
drawings. The building placements would be dictated by the development
stage approval and would be finalized with the final stage. Those elements
then would be incorporated into the plat. As indicated by the developer, the
townhome lots are generally slightly larger than the footprint of the building
and would not show the 25-foot setback, but the building would. Mr.
Sondrall, city attorney, added that there would be a little playas the
development evolves into the final plan.
Brixius summarized that the Planning Commission was looking at a
number of applications: a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning
amendment. The zoning amendment would be tied to the
concept/development stage approval so the Commission must determine
the acceptability of that. The Commission was reviewing two preliminary
plats: Winnetka East and Winnetka Green, and staff recommended, if the
Commission found everything to be acceptable, to waive review of the final
plat. Ryland must comply with the city engineer recommendations and
address City Council issues regarding right-of-way and access permits prior
to final plat approval. In conjunction with the PUD concept/development
stage approval, staff outlined seven conditions that incorporated individual
consultant reports. Brixius asked that, if the Planning Commission were to
recommend approval, that it consider several additional elements gathered
from public testimony: 8) Ryland to integrate its fence with fences of
adjacent properties, 9) removal of snow storage at end of Drives H and I
and coordinate this with the grading plan, 10) explore rental restrictions,
11) investigate the sale of property to adjacent residents to the south prior
to conveyance to Ryland, 12) additional shrubs around air conditioners and
Planning Commission Meeting
15
March 2, 2004
utility transformers, and 13) double planting along Street A and provide
optional planting off site with the permission of the property owner.
Mr. Sondrall felt that the condition to add plantings off site should not be a
condition of approval. It could be investigated and considered by Ryland to
be a good neighbor. Brixius interjected that the spacing of the plantings
along the fence were 40 feet, and if the plantings were doubled that
spacing would be at 20-foot intervals. Flexibility could be given to Ryland if
they wanted to move the plantings to the other side of the fence. Mr. Enger
reiterated that the staff report suggested an eight-foot high fence. The
fence manufacturer had indicated that the fence could be six feet plus 16
inches and possibly a berm could be added. These are for sale homes, and
he hoped that the city would not put a restriction on the units that if the
owner was transferred out of town that he could not lease the property.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that he was on the Livable Communities
Task Force and went through all of the different designs and concepts that
the task force desired. He was a proponent of having a lot of single family
housing on the south end of the project. After listening to the financial
consultant, single family was not feasible. One concept of the task force
was senior apartments on the northwest corner of the project. This
proposed plan was a lot more aesthetically pleasing. Street A along Sumter
seemed to be a better solution than having the tall town homes adjacent to
the back yards. He felt the traffic count would not be as significant as
imagined.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that he was a realtor and had sold three
houses in New Hope in the last 90 days that were very similar to properties
adjacent to this development. None of the homes sold for more than
$200,000 and they all had 20 to 30 showings, which indicated that buyers
were not willing to pay over that dollar amount. His experience suggested
that town home developments were good neighbors. They are always
painted, mowed, green, and are an asset to a community.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve Planning Case 04-01, Request for platting of
properties, rezoning, and concept/development stage planned unit
development, 5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue (east side of road), 7601-
7809 Bass Lake Road (south side of road), 5519-5559 Sumter Avenue
(both sides of road), Ryland Homes, Petitioners, subject to the
following findings and conditions:
Winnetka East and Winnetka Green preliminary plats, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of the final plat.
2. Comply with city engineer plat recommendations.
3. Address Hennepin County issues before final plat is processed
for approval by City Council.
PUD rezoning and concept/development stage PUD plans, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Enter into a PUD/Site Improvement Agreement with the city and
furnish a performance bond or suitable financial guarantee for
site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer
and building official).
2. Furnish all documents necessary for final stage PUD
administrative approval.
3. Comply with recommendations of city engineer memo dated
Planning Commission Meeting
16
March 2, 2004
Design and Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Planning Commission Meeting
2/26/04.
4. Comply with building official recommendations, obtain required
permits and developer is encouraged to submit plans for review
as soon as possible.
5. Comply with recommendations of city attorney regarding minor
revisions to Homeowners' Association documents.
6. Continue to coordinate with West Metro Fire District to insure
that plans comply with code.
7. Comply with conditions outlined in planner's report, including
Comprehensive Plan amendment, dated 2/25/04.
8. Integrate project fencing with fences of adjacent property
owners.
9. Remove snow storage at end of Drives H and I and coordinate
with grading plan.
10. Investigate sale of portion of bump-out property to two adjacent
property owners.
11. Plant additional shrubs around air-conditioning units at
town homes and by transformers, if allowed by electric and gas
companies.
12. Double the amount of plantings along Street A in area where
adjacent to rear yards of Sumter properties and consider optional
plantings on east side of fence. Increase height of fence by 16
inches and install berms, as appropriate.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: Barrick
Absent: Buggy
Motion carried.
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 8 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Landy thanked those in the audience who addressed the Commission.
Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in February. He added that staff was expecting several
applications for the April meeting, and there may be many more projects
on the horizon for the next several months. The Committee meeting was
scheduled for March 18. Svendsen initiated discussion on meeting at an
earlier time, if necessary. On March 18, the Committee will meet at 7:30
a.m.
Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
February.
Svendsen commented that the Shell station at 36th and Highway 169 has
very bright lights on all night with the 24-hour operation. McDonald stated
city staff could check on the situation.
Anderson raised the issue of sidewalk plowing in front of his business on
42nd Avenue and the delay in clearing the sidewalks this winter. Sondrall
added that years ago the Council discussed having each property owner be
responsible for the sidewalks in front of their properties and there was great
resistance from the residents. It was mentioned that due to budget
cutbacks, no overtime was allowed for the plowing of sidewalks.
17
March 2, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by
Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Planning Commission minutes
of December 2, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Brauch commented he appreciated the city update once a month that is
now being sent to commissioners.
Landy read a letter from Mayor Enck thanking the Commissioners for their
dedicated service to the community.
ELECTIONS
Chairman Landy stated that by ordinance he had to step down after three
years as chair and opened the floor for nominations for chair, vice chair,
and third officer.
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Brauch,
to nominate Commissioner Svendsen as chair, motion by Commissioner
Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to nominate
Commissioner Hemken as vice chair, and motion by Commissioner
Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to nominate
Commissioner Oelkers as third officer. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Landy thanked the Commission for its support during the last
three years.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Svendsen initiated discussion of subcommittee assignments. He requested
to stay on the Design and Review Committee, if the Commission agreed.
The open meeting law would not be violated, if only four commissioners
were on the subcommittee. Landy asked that he continue as the
representative for the City Center Task Force. Due to the fact that each
committee had four commissioners, he requested that he be allowed to fill
in on either committee for any member that could not attend a meeting.
The Commission concurred.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
18
March 2, 2004