2002 Planning CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
OATH OF OFFICE
Kirk McDonald administered the oath of office to Mike O'Brien and welcomed
him to the Planning Commission.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
Barrick, Brauch, Kramer
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-04
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for An
Amendment to an Existing Planned Unit Development for Approval of
Concept and Development Stage Plans to Allow Construction of a New
19,200 Square Foot Multi-Tenant Industrial Building and a Conditional Use
Permit for Open Outdoor Stor~agnde in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross Floor
Area of the Building, 9201 52 Avenue North, Olson General Contractors,
Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioner was
requesting to construct a new 19,200 square foot multi-tenant
office/warehouse building on an existing site that contained two mini-storage
buildings. The new building would add a third building to the site. The
application would require a conditional use permit for outdoor storage and a
planned unit development for multiple buildings on one site. Both the
Development Review Team and the Design & Review Committee reviewed
the plan. and their comments have been incorporated into the revised plans.
The site is located east of Highway 169 at 52® Avenue. The lot area contains
approximately 3.8 acres and the proposed building would be situated along
the north property line. According to code definition, the north property line
represents a front lot line, requiring a 30-foot setback. Some flexibility on the
setback could be incorporated in the planned unit development. The
uniqueness of the site suggests a smaller setback off the north property line
would be adequate. The side yard and rear yard setbacks are compliant. The
existing buildings are non-conforming in relationship to the mini-storage
performance standards. The new building would add a reinvestment into the
property, added security, and enhance the overall appearance of the site,
therefore, the PUD should be approved.
Brixius continued by saying that there would be two outdoor storage locations
on the site. The applicant should identify the types of materials to be stored
and advise leasehold tenants of the rules pertaining to this. The applicant
indicated in a sample lease the types of materials that could not be stored in
these areas, such as hazardous materials, flammable liquids, etc. The site
must be maintained in good repair and without debris. The proposed area
would be enclosed with a seven-foot high fence with barbed wire and security
arms. A six-foot high black vinyl fence is proposed for the front of the building.
Brixius stated that trash would be stored inside the building. The site plan
showed 32 parking stalls, 29 are required, and all are properly dimensioned
including two ADA parking stalls. The applicant requested flexibility on the
curbing around the perimeter of the site. Rolled bituminous was
recommended along the south and east sides of the site, in conjunction with
the storm water management plan that is in place. A swale would run through
the buffer yard along the south property line and would serve as a
sedimentation filtration and storm water treatment. No curbing would allow the
water to enter the swale at different points so it does not become over
saturated at any one point. Plans were submitted to the Shingle Creek
Watershed Commission for review/approval. A maintenance agreement was
recommended for maintenance of the swale. The City Engineer sites that
there would be a need for all drain tile to have a .5 percent slope into the
swale. The riprap elevations need to be addressed and curbing may be
required if the Watershed would not approve the plans and a NURP pond
would be necessary.
Brixius noted that adequate maneuvering for large trucks utilizing the site was
provided and a scissor lift would accommodate the loading/unloading of these
large trucks. Additional information was requested regarding seasonal snow
and ice protection for the scissor lift. The landscape plan illustrated additional
plantings as well as existing trees at the front of the site. Additional plantings
would be provided in landscape islands on the south side of the building for
each tenant. Concern had been raised for the green ash on the adjoining
property during construction. Drip lines would be placed around the trees,
however, staff recommends that the City Forester complete an on-site
inspection at the time of grading, and take measures to protect the trees.
Financial security for the site improvements would be a condition of approval.
Rooftop equipment would be painted to match the exterior of the building.
Lighting contours comply with city requirements. The wall mounted fixtures on
the mini-storage should be adjusted to duplicate the fixtures on the new
building to add continuity of design. There would be a 70 square foot free-
standing sign, which is compliant with city code. Each of the tenant bays would
support a tenant identification sign at the entry. These signs would be 4.5 by
7.5 feet in size and complies with city code.
Brixius reported that the City Engineer reviewed the plans, and in addition to
the comments on the storm water drainage, made the following suggestions:
the existing storm sewer serving the mini-storage site be properly cleaned and
maintained, including existing sediments at the flared end; the parking lot
cross section should include a minimum of eight inches of class 5 and 3¼
inches of bituminous. Crushed concrete could be considered class 5.
Suggestions regarding sanitary sewer should be followed per the City
Engineer's memo. West Metro Fire District recommendations must be
complied with.
Brixius stated that the proposed building incorporated recommendations from
the Comprehensive Plan and was consistent with the I District standards. Staff
was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the planning report.
Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion on the pond maintenance
agreement.
Chairman Landy asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Bob Olson, Olson General Contractors, Inc., 5010 Hillsboro Avenue North,
came to the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned the location of the manhole at the berm
Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 4, 2002
and whether it would be at street level or raised up. Olson stated that the stub
would be raised somewhat at the berm. The intention would be to integrate
the manhole and maintain the landscaping. The lighting would be dusk-to-
dawn type lighting. Question was raised on the scissor lift. Olson stated that
the equipment would be an electric hydraulic pump located inside the building.
The controls would be mounted outside in a locked cabinet and each tenant
would have a key for the cabinet. The petitioner was in agreement with the
City Engineer recommendations and stated that the elevation for the storm
sewer and sanitary sewer would need to be addressed. Olson stated that he
met with West Metro Fire last week and would comply with their
recommendations.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the fence at the south parking area and how
the maintenance and upkeep of the fence would be handled. Olson stated that
snow storage/plowing should not be a problem since the snow can be pushed
straight east. The concern with cars and trucks driving or backing into the
fence was legitimate. The fence at the west property line had the same
problem until bollards were installed and linked with a chain, which has
worked well. Olson stated he realized that this would be an ongoing
maintenance issue. Svendsen commented that the project looked great and
looked forward to seeing it completed.
Chairman Landy noted that thero was no one in the audience for comment on
the proposed PUD request.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve Planning Case 02-04, Request for An Amendment to an Existing
Planned Unit Development for Approval of Concept and Development
Stage Plans to Allow Construction of a New 19,200 Square Foot Multi-
Tenant Industrial Building and a Conditional Use Permit for Open
Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross Floor Area of the
Building, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to enter into Development Agreement with City and post a
performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined
by Building Official and City Engineer).
2. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations.
3. Submit revised, corrected sewer and water plans before building
permit application.
4. Submit revised narrative clarifying tenant roof access, gate use for
emergency services access, and regular mowing of all sodded and
seeded areas.
5. Submit PUD final stage "as-built" plans within 60 days of the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, including proof of recording.
6. Execute a Ditch/Pond Maintenance Agreement to be drafted by City
Attorney and City Engineer.
7. Tree protection measures must be inspected on site and approved
by the City Forester before grading begins.
8. Review/approval of plans by Shingle Creek Watershed Commission.
9. Approval of scissor lift details by Building Official.
10. Compliance with West Metro Fire District recommendations.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Anderson, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Barrick, Brauch, Kramer
Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 4, 2002
Motion carried.
PC01-20
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for An
Ordinance Amending New Hope Code to Allow Body Piercing as a Licensed
Business, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that staff was
requesting Planning Commission consideration of an ordinance amending the
New Hope Code to allow body piercing as a licensed business and to
establish regulations for this type of business. Personal services are currently
classified as a permitted use in the CB Community Business District in the
City, which includes all of the commercial shopping center areas. Last fall, the
City received an application from a business desiring to locate a body piercing
business in the Post Haste Shopping Center. Body piercing was not
specifically addressed in the City Code, therefore, staff was not sure how to
tell the business to proceed. The Planning Consultant and City Attorney both
felt this use should be categorized the same as a personal service, similar to a
tattoo establishment. The inquiring business decided not to locate in New
Hope, however, staff is recommending that the City Code be amended to
regulate this type of business so procedures can be followed in the event of
another inquiry. A body piercing use should be treated like a tattoo
establishment with the business completing a business application, Police
Department investigation, and approval of the license by the City Council. A
public hearing notice was prepared by the City Attorney and published in the
official newspaper.
On two occasions the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning
Commission discussed the ordinance and recommended approval of the
ordinance. Several related issues were also discussed. A question was raised
as to whether body piercing should be treated as an adult use. The Planning
Consultant recommended a minor change to clarify the adult section of the
code. Health and safety inspections were also discussed. City Code required
health inspections of tattooing and similar establishments.
McDonald explained that about four years ago, the city's health/sanitation
inspector retired and Hennepin County took over these inspections for the
City. Staff contacted Hennepin County Health to determine what standards
they used for inspecting body piercing facilities and was told that Hennepin
County does not inspect tattoo/body piercing establishments. Codes &
Standards encouraged staff to pursue this inspection issue with the County
and as a result Hennepin County drafted an ordinance to include inspection of
these facilities.
McDonald stated that these businesses would require an investigation by the
Police Department the same as other personal uses. The issue of mobile
body piercing units was raised at one Codes & Standards meeting, and the
City Attorney has amended Section 6 of the ordinance to prohibit a mobile
body piercing establishment. Four sections of the code were affected,
including the personal services section to include body piercing; addition of
body piercing throughout the tattoo ordinance; minor amendment to the adult
section of the zoning code; and minor amendment to the license fee section of
the code.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether the word "nude" should be
removed from Section 4.022(147)(d), due to the fact that a tattoo could not be
done through clothing. The City Attorney stated that the adult section of the
ordinance was a compilation of several cities' ordinances. The Planning
Consultant stated that he felt the term nude should remain in the ordinance
because it was a definition under specific sexual activities in the code and was
not related to anything other than that, and the City Attorney concurred. This
Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 4, 2002
section was amended because body piercing could be construed as an adult
activity and the section was amended to clearly make a distinction between
sexual oriented use/touching and clinical touching associated with a doctor's
office. This section has nothing to do with the licensing regulations found in
Chapter 8 for tattoos and body piercing. The reason this ordinance was
included in the public hearing was that the definition of a personal service in
Chapter 4 was being amended to include body piercing. The City Attorney
suggested that Codes & Standards and staff revisit the statute due to the fact
that this change was not drafted for the purposes of enforcing the adult
activities statute. This section was only one of many in the statute whereby
taking out the word nude would not be consistent with the balance of the
statute. A suggestion was made to take out the word nude subject to the City
Attorney's review prior to City Council action.
Discussion was initiated on the draft Hennepin County ordinance and that fact
that Hennepin County desired to exempt piercing of the earlobe, such as ear
piercings at jewelry stores. There was also some discussion regarding
branding, implanting, body scarring, etc. and whether or not City Code should
cover those types of activities. The City Attorney mentioned that anyone under
the age of 18 would need parental consent, and Hennepin County's draft
ordinance stated no one under the age of 18. Branding would come under the
same definition as tattooing and body piercing, so the same health regulations
would apply. The City may want amend personal services to include all of
these other forms of body art. McDonald recommended that the Commission
adopt the proposed amended ordinance, and if the county does adopt its
ordinance, then the City could revisit these issues.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
to approve An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code to Allow Body
Piercing as a Licensed Business, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject
to the following condition:
Section 4.022(147)(d) the word "nude" to be reviewed by City
Attorney.
City Attorney to review this ordinance again after Hennepin County
adopts its ordinance and address a broader range of issues, such
as implants, branding, body scarring, and cutting in the
ordinance.
Question was raised as to the license fee and investigation fee. It was noted
that the police investigation was done once and the license fee was paid
annually.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Bardck, Brauch, Kramer
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on March 11.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review the
Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 4, 2002
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
ELECTIONS
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
plans for the new Olson facility. McDonald reported that the deadline for the
April meeting was March 8, and stated that Holy Nativity Church was planning
to file and possibly Paddock would be filing.
Hemken reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met twice to
discuss the body piercing ordinance. McDonald added that staff would be
scheduling a meeting in April to discuss bus shelters.
McDonald informed the Commission that the petitioner requesting the mini-
storage facility considered in December had decided not to remodel the
existing building for that use.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the warehouses on 54th Avenue
and stated he felt the values presented at the last Livable Communities
meeting were unreasonably high and housing values too Iow.
Oelkers mentioned he felt, after reading the project bulletins for 7901 49th
Avenue, that the city specifications should not have included Marvin or
Anderson brand windows, but rather a less expensive window. McDonald
pointed out that the windows were an alternate on that project, and said he
would pass that input on to staff for future projects.
Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
nominate Roger Landy as chair, Steve Svendsen as vice-chair, and
Adam Kramer as third officer of the Planning Commission for the year
2002.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Barrick, Brauch, Kramer
Chairman Landy described the two committees, Codes & Standards and
Design & Review, to new Planning Commissioner O'Brien and stated that he
would have a couple months to decide where he would like to serve.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
Oelkers, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 4,
2001. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
Discussion was initiated on the fact that the sound/volume for the City Council
meetings was quite Iow, which made it difficult to hear the meetings.
Discussion ensued regarding the L'Esperance townhouses and whether
garages would be included in the improvements. There was strong support for
garages from the Planning Commissioners. Mention was made that by
including garages in the improvements, it may not be economically feasible for
the residents of the townhouses as the yearly assessment was already quite
high, but that staff was supportive and encouraging the association to
reconsider adding garages.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
~~..~ectfull su ' e
ame a yvester, Recording Secr~dry
Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 4, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 2, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-09
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Rear Yard
Setback Variance, 4404 Independence Avenue North, Gary and Faith
Novitsky, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a five-foot variance to the 25-foot rear yard setback
requirement to allow the construction of a 15' by 15' two-story addition to their
home. The proposed setback would be 20 feet from the rear property line.
The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District.
The site is an irregular shaped lot, 70 feet at the front and 125 feet at the rear
and contains 12,000 square feet. The building area is approximately 1,600
square feet plus a 624 square foot attached garage. The Comprehensive Plan
stresses maintaining and enhancing residential neighborhoods through the
promotion of continuous housing in-place expansion, renovation and
modernization. In the 2001 Zoning Code update, the rear yard setback was
reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet to encourage this type of expansion. This
home was built in 1978 with no building additions since that time, except for a
deck at the rear of the home.
The petitioner was requesting to construct a two-story addition on the
northeast side of the home. The lower level would be a study/den and the
upper level would be a four-season porch. The addition would be
approximately 20 feet from the rear property line, therefore, a five-foot
variance from the 25-foot setback requirement would be needed.
McDonald reported that the petitioner submitted a letter which stated they
desired to remain in New Hope. Because of the unusual shape of the lot, they
needed a variance to construct the addition on their home 20 feet from the
rear property line. The petitioners indicated they had discussed the expansion
plans with their neighbors to the rear (east) of their property and no one had
any concerns.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the
strict application of the Zoning Code, to provide reasonable use of a specific
parcel of property where circumstances were unique to the individual property,
and the granting of the variance was demonstrated to be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Code. The Code stated that a variance should not be
approved unless a hardship was defined. A hardship could be defined as a
MOTION
Item 4.1
physical condition unique to the property and may include lot shape,
narrowness, shallowness, etc. An undue hardship would be unique to a parcel
and would not generally be applicable to other properties in the same zoning
district. The landowner cannot create the hardship, if the variance would be
granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, impair
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or increase the
congestion on the public streets.
McDonald stated that staff was supportive of the variance because the lot did
have an irregular shape with a narrow front yard and wide rear yard. The floor
plan had a west orientation with the garage to the south. The home was
constructed 16 feet east of the front setback line, which reduced the back yard
to the minimum of 35 feet. Granting of the variance would not have a negative
impact on surrounding properties, and the variance request was minimal at
five feet.
McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the
applicant and were supportive of the request. The Committee requested
photos of adjacent homes and the proposed expansion area, a narrative
describing the reasons why the variance should be granted, an updated As-
Built survey showing the addition, and supporting documents from adjacent
neighbors. Plan details included: 1) 15 foot by 15 foot addition or 225 square
feet on each of two levels; 2) Exterior finish would be stucco and would match
the existing home; and 3) Roofline, pitch and shingles would match the
existing home.
McDonald stated that staff recommended approval of the variance subject to
the condition in the staff report.
Chairman Landy asked the petitioners to come to the podium. Gary and Faith
Novitsky, 4404 Independence Avenue North, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioners Brauch and Svendsen complimented the petitioners on their
promptness in submitting plans and the addition to their home.
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
the variance request.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Brauch seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 02-09, Request for 5-Foot Variance to the 25-
Foot Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a 15 Foot
by 15 Foot, Two-Story Addition at 4404 Independence Avenue North,
Gary and Faith Novitsky, Petitioners, subject to the following condition:
1. Building materials/exterior finish to match existing structure.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on April 8 and advised the petitioners to be in attendance.
Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 2, 2002
PC02-08
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Site Plan
Review and Parking Variance or Designation for "Other Uses" Parking 3940
Quebec Avenue North, Paddock Laboratories, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated Paddock Laboratories was
requesting site plan review to allow a building expansion up to 37,000 square
feet in two phases and a parking variance for less parking than what was
required by the ordinance. The property is zoned Industrial and contains
approximately 7.5 acres. With the two additions, the green area would be
29%, building area 41% and paved area 30% of the total site area. The
Comprehensive Plan identified this area for industrial development and one of
the major themes of the plan is in-place expansion of existing industries and
the promotion of private investment through the expansions.
Brixius explained that the staff Development Review Team reviewed the plans
and was supportive of the request. City code recommended 234 parking stalls
with this expansion and 205 stalls are being provided on site, which was the
reason for the variance request. The Design & Review Committee reviewed
the plans and was supportive of the proposed application.
The proposed project was compliant with city code with regard to lot area and
width. The proposed site plan illustrated a total of 71% lot coverage with
impervious surface. The building height would be 30 feet and setbacks would
be compliant with city code. The original building was approved with a 20-foot
side yard setback, and this same setback would be carried through with the
Phase III addition. Rooftop equipment would match the existing units. Brixius
stated that a cellular tower was previously approved as a separate conditional
use permit and was shown on the site plan at the southeast corner of the
property.
Brixius stated that the proposed project would be developed in two phases.
The intention of the phasing was to leave the eastern dock doors on the
Phase II warehouse in operation during the construction process. After the
completion of Phase III and the installation of new dock doors, then Phase IV
would be constructed. The number of parking spaces would need to be
altered by deleting three spaces for truck maneuvering at the southeast corner
of the parking lot. The site plan currently showed 208 spaces which would
need to be reduced to 205. The applicant submitted correspondence stating
that due to the type of industry and the amount of warehouse space needed,
205 parking spaces would satisfy their peak parking needs. Brixius explained
that this does not meet the hardship criteria, however there was a provision in
the code, Section 4.035(10(w) Other Parking Standards, that would allow the
City to take into consideration uses particular to a specific site and evaluate
the parking on the basis of national standards, specific use characteristics of
the operation and other parking criteria. He stated due to the uniqueness of
the industry that the variance criteria had been demonstrated and staff
recommended approval.
Snow storage was identified at the periphery of the site. The trash enclosure
was illustrated on the plans and would match the exterior of the building. The
landscape plan showed some of the trees to be relocated to accommodate
the revised parking. A condition of approval would be replacement of any
trees that would be lost during construction. The balance of the site was fully
landscaped. The proposed building materials would be precast panels for
Phase III. The north portion of Phase III would have a plain finish until the
anticipated expansion of Phase IV, which would cover that wall. The Phase IV
expansion would match the existing building exterior.
Brixius noted that the City Engineer's comments included attention to storm
water and impervious surface. The proposed expansion would not increase
Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 2, 2002
the impervious surface on the site, but rather convert parking spaces into
building space. There is a drainage pond on the eastern edge of the property
that was constructed with Paddock's Phase I construction. It was sized
properly to accommodate the drainage from this site. Erosion control must be
placed around catch basin inlets to protect against sedimentation. No parking
would be allowed on Quebec Avenue associated with this use. The Fire
Department indicated that fire sprinklers, smoke and heat vents, hose
connections and three water hydrants were shown on the plans. Northwest
hydrant piping is missing from the utility plan and should be shown.
Brixius concluded by saying that the proposed expansion was compliant with
the City's intention for economic development, was appropriately zoned, was
one of the strong industries in New Hope, and staff was recommending
approval of the site plan review and parking variance, subject to the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned how parking along Quebec Avenue would
be controlled and whether or not the street should be signed for no parking.
Brixius recommended that the City wait to see if there was a parking problem,
and if a problem arose, meet with the applicant to determine what other
solutions would be available before posting no parking signs on the street.
Oelkers wondered whether the drainage easement had been shown on the
plans, and Brixius replied that the 10-foot storm water easement recorded in
2001 was now shown on the survey.
Commissioner Brauch mentioned that there may be a special occasion where
some street parking could occur, which he felt would be alright as long as it
was not in violation of city codes and as long as street parking was not an
every day occurrence. The street need not be posted with no parking signs
unless there would be a constant problem.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether or not there would be additional
noise for the neighboring residential properties and it was noted that there
would be a large separation of 250+ feet across the parking lot plus another
100 feet of railroad right-of-way before approaching the rear yards of the
adjacent residential lots.
Chairman Landy asked the petitioner to come forward to answer questions of
the Commission.
Mr. Bruce Paddock, President of Paddock Laboratories, Inc., 3940 Quebec
Avenue North, came to the podium.
Commissioner O'Brien questioned what the projected timeline was between
Phase III and IV. Mr. Paddock stated that they are a pharmaceutical business
and their partner is a government agency whose contracts dictate, to a large
extent, the timeline for the construction of Phase IV. Paddock hoped that
Phase IV would be constructed within two years: Phase III in spring/summer
of 2002 and Phase IV probably in summer 2003 or 2004. Phase III would give
them plenty of square footage. Paddock stated that they manufacture
approved products for stock. They maintain a 98% fill rate and this addition
would be strictly for warehousing inventory.
Commissioner Hemken asked whether additional personnel would be added.
Paddock replied that due to the fact that the expansion was warehousing
space, it was not likely that additional personnel would be required. They
currently employ about 210 people. That number may increase to 240 or 250
as they get more government approvals. Currently there are two shifts so all of
the people are not in the building at one time. Paddock stated that he did not
expect that they would ever need all 200 parking stalls for one shift.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 2, 2002
Chairman Landy noted that there was no one in the audience for comment on
this request.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve, Planning Case 02-08, Request for Site Plan Review and Parking
Variance or Designation for "Other Uses" Parking, 3940 Quebec Avenue
North, Paddock Laboratories, Inc., Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Execute a Development Agreement and submit corresponding
bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by City
Engineer and Building Official).
2. Obtain building permit before commending with any site work.
3. Replacement of any existing plantings damaged during
construction.
4. Three of the parking stalls along the east edge of the parking lot
must be eliminated to allow adequate truck maneuvering space
for backing up to the south receiving docks.
5. No on-street parking is allowed on Quebec Avenue North.
6. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
7. Comply with West Metro Fire recommendations.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on April 8 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
PC02-05
Item 4.3
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Conditional
Use Permit Amendment, 3900 Winnetka Avenue North, Holy Nativity Lutheran
Church, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit amendment for churches in
an R-O Residential-Office Zoning District to allow construction of three
separate additions to the existing building totaling 5,000 square feet. Holy
Nativity is located at the southeast quadrant of Winnetka and Quebec
Avenues. There is R-1 Single Family Residential across Winnetka to the west,
Industrial to the north across Quebec and to the east, and city of Crystal
cemetery property to the south. The site contains approximately 3.9 acres.
The existing building contains approximately 15,700 square feet and the
additions would total just under 5,000 square feet for a total building size of
20,516 square feet. The lot area ratios on the property would contain 51%
green area, 12% building area, and 37% paved area. The property was
platted into two lots in 1989. The church was constructed in 1990 and prior to
that time the site was an LP gas tank farm. The parking lot was expanded with
50 additional spaces in 1999. The site is largely green and sits well below the
grade of Winnetka Avenue. No on-site ponding exists on the property.
McDonald explained that the additions would include a 1,700 square foot
addition to the fellowship hall for additional seating capacity, lounge area, choir
rehearsal space, and overflow for larger gatherings; a 1,600 square foot
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 2, 2002
addition to the narthex/entry foyer to increase circulation space; and a 1,400
square foot addition to the education wing to facilitate the combining of
daycare functions and increase the number of classrooms. Holy Nativity
submitted information on the daycare center stating that it was a fee-based,
market rate, full day childcare program. The Center utilized several rooms in
the north wing/educational area and there was an outdoor fenced play area. It
was licensed for 47 children, however, enrollment is between 38 and 41 full-
time children. There are no plans for expanding the enrollment for the
daycare.
McDonald stated that property owners within 350 feet of the property were
notified, including the city of Crystal, and staff received supportive comments
from the adjacent property, Paddock Laboratories.
Holy Nativity is zoned R-O and churches are allowed by conditional use
permit. An expansion of the church requires an amendment to the existing
CUP. The only condition imposed within the CUP requirements is that side
yards be doubled, but not greater than 30 feet. The purpose of the CUP is to
provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion
in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general
welfare, public health and safety. The City may consider the nature of
adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and located on
the same premises, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises. The
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects
of the proposed conditional use and find that it would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City, that it was compatible with adjacent land
uses, and that the proposed use would not tend to depreciate the area in
which it was proposed. The specific criteria for residential districts includes
traffic, screening, and compatible appearance.
The staff Development Review Team reviewed the plans and was supportive
of the CUP amendment. Several issues were discussed including the storm
water fee, shifting daycare fence or drainage swale to separate them, moving
the pipe across the drainage swale on the sidewalk, providing additional
landscaping along Quebec and tree preservation plan near each excavation
area, the Police Department requested entry security and a window between
the office and daycare rooms, have existing smoke detection system
evaluated and extended to new additions, submitting plans for the fire alarm
system and portable fire extinguishers in new additions, provide a Fire
Department lockbox for emergency access, and submit daycare fence detail
drawing.
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and supported the
project along with staff's recommendations. The Committee requested a lot
survey and erosion control plans. The Committee encouraged cooperation
with the adjacent landowner, Paddock Labs, on possible shared parking
during non-use church hours.
McDonald explained that revised plans were submitted which included the
following details: 1) Lot area is 3.94 acres which was compliant with city code.
2) The lot width is 380 feet along Winnetka Avenue which is compliant with
the 100-foot requirement for a corner lot in an R-O District. The front property
line was on Winnetka Avenue, which was the narrowest portion of the lot
abutting a public right-of-way. The rear yard would be the property line
abutting the Paddock site. 3) All setbacks requirements have been met. The
building is set back 37 feet from the south lot line, which is compliant with the
30-foot required setback. 4) The maximum building height would be 72 feet
and the proposed height would be 25 feet. 5) The site plan indicated the
chapel would have a seating capacity of 454 people. Per city code, a church
should have one parking space for every three people and provide some
Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 2, 2002
accommodations for ancillary uses. The main chapel would require 151
parking stalls exclusive of other ancillary uses of the church. The total site plan
provides 180 parking stalls. All stalls and driveways are properly dimensioned,
and the 180 stalls should provide adequate parking for the entire facility. Six
disability stalls are shown on the plans. 6) Snow storage was indicated on the
site plan at the south and southeast sides the parking lot. 7) Current exterior
lighting would not change and no new lighting was proposed. 8) An existing
fence stands along the north side of the building around the education wing
serving as a playground area. The fence would be modified to accommodate
the construction of the new building addition. The fence would be made of
cedar and would be approximately five feet tall. There was some concern
because the fence ran through the drainage area. A condition of approval
would be that the fence would not block the drainage swale. 9) Existing
landscaping would be removed around the proposed building additions to
accommodate construction. The general contractor should coordinate the
removal and salvage of existing plantings to be removed prior to beginning
work. The site plan indicates where all existing and new plants would be
located. Fifteen existing foundation shrubs would be relocated after
construction, two new green ash and four new understory trees are proposed
along Quebec Avenue, and 11 new juniper shrubs will be added. 10)
Protective fencing and other protective measures are proposed for a
coniferous tree located close to the fellowship addition. Three deciduous trees
and three evergreen trees near the fellowship and narthex additions are near
grading areas. Care should be taken to protect these trees. 11) There is an
existing irrigation system. 12) The site plan shows site grading and storm
water drainage. The City Engineer suggested that the church provide a cash
contribution towards storm sewer maintenance or construction of regional
storm water infrastructure improvements because storm water ponding is not
proposed on this site. McDonald stated that staff was recommending a storm
water cash fee of $18,450 to be submitted after Council action and prior to
building permit application and the start of any construction. Detail was
provided for the trench drain for the swale under the front sidewalk. 13)
Daycare entry security was identified and the architect had indicated that the
church would provide a key only operation on the exterior hardware of the
daycare room doors. Staff would monitor the outdoor area and each
classroom, when occupied, at all times. No additional windows would be
added in the office for visual operation of classrooms. 14) The existing smoke
detection system would be evaluated and extended into the additions as
required. 15) There would be a new Fire Department lockbox at the main
entry. 16) A new survey was in process. 17) Erosion control had been added
to the plans.
The architecture of the additions would match the existing building.
McDonald stated that the City Engineer submitted correspondence indicating
that grading plan depicted drainage swale to accommodate drainage around
the church and new additions. The grading on the north side of the building
should be coordinated with the outside play area. The building expansion
would increase the impervious area on the site and these improvements
require storm water quality improvements. The parking lot was expanded in
1999. The City required properties to manage storm water runoff quantities
and quality. As properties develop/redevelop and increase the impervious
area and amount of runoff, storm water infrastructure is constructed and
maintained to control the rate of runoff and the amount of pollutants washed
from the site. The storm water runoff from the church property was directed to
catch basin inlets at the driveway entrance. The water is collected into a storm
sewer in Quebec Avenue. This storm sewer discharges to the pond along the
east side of the Paddock Laboratories property. This pond was constructed in
conjunction with Quebec Avenue and had been improved with development of
the Paddock property. In accordance with the Surface Water Management
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 2, 2002
Plan, it was suggested the church provide a cash contribution towards the
additional improvements in lieu of an on-site pond. The funds received would
be used towards storm sewer maintenance or for the construction of other
regional storm water infrastructure improvements. The amount of the
contribution should equal the cost to construct a pond on the church property.
Costs include:
Item Unit Cost Cost Cost
Common Excavation- $10/CY $ 5,000
500 CYs
Restoration $2,000 lump sum $ 2,000
Pond Outlet Structure, $3,000 lump sum $ 3,000
Storm Sewer, Rip Rap
Total Construction $10,000
Cost
Land Cost Estimate 65' x 65' area $ 8,450 $ 8,450
4,225 SF (~$2/SF
Total Pond Cost $18,450
McDonald stated that the City was pleased to see Holy Nativity Lutheran
Church expanding its facility and recommended approval, subject to the
conditions recommended in the report.
Chairman Landy asked the petitioner to approach the podium.
Mr. Jeff Houle, 3872 Hillsboro Avenue North, building committee member and
member of Holy Nativity, and Brad Torok, Miller Architects and Builders,
project architect, came forward to answer questions.
Commissioner Svendsen commended the petitioners on the revised plans. A
question was raised regarding the ash trees on the west side of the entry and
whether the city forester had recommended them. Houle stated that they did
not plan to plant trees on the west side of the approach. The ash trees would
be planted near the playground above the swale as recommended by staff.
Torok added that they would talk with the city forester on recommendations
for other, more hardy tree species near the swale area. Svendsen asked for
clarification on the playground fence location.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the storm water pond on the
Paddock property and wondered whether Paddock Labs had the financial
obligation for the maintenance of the pond. McDonald indicated that he
thought the Paddock pond was a regional pond and the idea was that the
cash contribution from Holy Nativity would be deposited in the Storm Water
Utility and Maintenance Fund and used for maintenance and storm water
infrastructure improvements in that area. Kramer questioned whether the City
prorated pond maintenance costs to the properties where there was a
maintenance agreement and Brauch indicated that Liberty Diversified
Industries paid to maintain the pond and did not get subsidized by any fund.
McDonald explained that some ponds served only the business on a particular
site while other ponds were more regional in nature. The Paddock pond was
more regional than site specific.
Commissioner Brauch questioned whether parking was a problem on
Sundays such as Easter or Christmas. Mr. Houle indicated the church
provided four services at Easter so as to spread out the demand on parking.
Sometimes guests parked in adjacent lots, as well as on the street. With the
addition of the parking spaces in 1999, the church tried to contain as much
parking on its property as possible, however, on occasion there was some
Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 2, 2002
street parking. Houle explained that the primary reason for the building
expansion was to serve the congregation size now, not necessarily to increase
the number of families served. Brauch stressed that there should be no
regular street parking, due to the fact that the neighboring property, Paddock
Labs, had also been restricted to on-site parking only. Brauch stated he felt
that the two adjacent properties might work together to resolve parking issues.
He felt that a condition of approval should restrict on-street parking.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether or not the church had a parking
agreement with Versa Die Cast, Inc. across the street. Houle indicated that
they have an informal parking agreement with that company.
Chairman Landy asked whether the funds had been raised for the expansion
project. Houle indicated that there were ample pledges to cover the
anticipated construction costs.
Mr. Houle initiated discussion on the storm water fee that was recommended
by staff. He stated that in 1999 Holy Nativity expanded the parking lot to
address parking concerns. At that time the permit was handled
administratively and there was no mention of storm water issues. Now there is
a fee of $18,450 for storm water issues, a portion of which is land costs,
$8,450. He stated he felt that there would have been an opportunity in 1999
had this issue been raised for the church to consider using undeveloped
portions of the property to accommodate on-site retention. Unfortunately this
issue was not raised in 1999 and now the church is required to pay land costs.
Houle asked the Commission to consider a lesser dollar amount.
Commissioner Kramer indicated his feeling was to not reduce the amount due
to the fact that $18,450 for the lifetime of the property was inexpensive
compared to the cost of maintaining a pond on the site.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that the storm water retention issue has
become more prevalent during the past several years. In his experience in
selling properties throughout the Twin Cities, all developments were required
to have a retention pond. Single family housing developers also are required
to provide for storm water retention. He stated he felt strongly that water
quality was important.
Commissioner Brauch added that commercial sites were required to have
review/approval by the Watershed Commissions and that a lifetime charge, of
$18,450 was inexpensive.
Kramer added that this would be a onetime cost. The church would not have
to pay for construction of a pond plus ongoing maintenance of the pond.
Houle maintained that this use was a church and operated off the good will of
the parishioners, who have already pledged considerable amounts of money
for the building construction. The church was not against better water quality,
the issue was that in 1999 the storm water pond was not mentioned during the
administrative process when they requested to increase the size of the
parking lot, which was a larger impervious area than the building addition,
25,000 square feet versus 5,000 square feet. At that time there were options,
now that the site has been developed there are no options for an on-site pond,
which was not a mistake by Holy Nativity.
Commissioner O'Brien asked for clarification on the exact cost issue. Houle
responded that several members contacted the City Engineer to determine
exactly how the costs were derived at. The major objection was paying for
land costs that the church already owns. O'Brien stated he agreed with the
applicant's objection to paying the land cost portion of the fee, but understood
Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 2, 2002
the need for money to be set aside for pond maintenance.
Kramer stated that when cities establish a fee it had to be justifiable. The
fairest way to assess a fee would be to look at the pond as if it were a new
pond and estimate maintenance costs.
Hemken wondered whether more detailed information would help him explain
those costs to the building committee. Houle questioned how the 500 CYs
was derived at. McDonald interjected that he would be glad to have the City
Engineer provide a more detailed letter. McDonald stated the January 8, 2002,
memo from the City Engineer explained the costs, and staff and the church
representatives and their architect had discussed this on several occasions
and were aware of the costs. A letter from the architect included in the packet
stated that the church was willing to pay the fee. The church notified the City
late today that they were not agreeable to paying the fee. McDonald stated he
would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request subject
to the conditions in the planning report and that the City Council make the final
determination on the storm water fee.
Kramer added that the other option was to build a pond on the site, which
would eliminate parking spaces and possibly cause a parking shortage on
site. The storm water fee calculations as proposed seemed to be the logical
way to determine the fee rather than try to estimate some long term costs.
Commissioner Brauch concurred with that thought and indicated that a pond
would cost at least that much, plus the loss of parking spaces. The land cost
portion of the fee would apply to the pond on the Paddock property and land
downstream.
Oelkers explained that land values in the northern suburbs was valued at
approximately $4 per square foot for a residential lot. The church was zoned
residential and the estimated ponding area cost was applied at $2 per square
foot, which seemed to be more than fair. Oelkers reminded the petitioner that
the City Council makes the final decision.
Chairman Landy suggested that the Planning Commission approve the
request as recommended in the planning report with the storm water fee at
$18,450. Landy encouraged the church's architect and the City Engineer to
meet to further discuss that issue prior to the Council meeting. He maintained
that the Planning Commission only makes recommendations to the City
Council on issues and the applicant should plead its case before the Council.
Chairman Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to
address the Commission.
Mr. Bob Alexander, 8309 39th Avenue and member of Holy Nativity, came
forward and stated he was not on the building committee for this project, but
was on the building committee when the existing building was constructed.
During the 1990 construction process, there was a lot of discussion on
drainage and the City had requested a storm sewer catch basin in the parking
lot, which drained into the ponds to the east. When Paddock Laboratories built
in 1993, there was discussion on the ponding for the entire area. Ponding was
not discussed during the church's parking lot expansion in 1999. Alexander
asked that the fee be waived and wondered how many others had paid a fee
such as this. The reply was that Holy Nativity would be the first. Alexander
stated he felt this requested fee was unfair, due to the fact that the addition
would help the community in that many outside meetings were held at their
facility, including school district groups, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc. He felt
that the storm water fee put an undue burden on the congregation and asked
the Planning Commission to reconsider the fee amount or waive the fee
entirely.
Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 2, 2002
MOTION
Item 4.3
McDonald responded that he agreed with Chairman Landy's remark to have
the church's engineer and the city's engineer meet to discuss this issue prior
to the City Council meeting. Kramer added that it was the Council's decision to
require the fee be paid, or waive the fee. The consensus of the Planning
Commission was to require that the fee be paid in full. Brauch reiterated that
because they may be the first to pay a fee such as this, most every
development was required to construct a pond. Alexander interjected that no
pond was required on the church's property in previous years, and again
requested that the Planning Commission waive the fee.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
There was additional discussion by the Commission on whether or not to
eliminate the dollar amount of the fee and have the Council make the
determination. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the $18,450
amount in the recommendation as a starting point for the City Council. Kramer
stressed that he felt the dollar amount should be stated in the conditions of
approval. The storm water fee should be based on the cost of constructing a
new pond on the site.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve, Planning Case 02-05, Request for Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for Churches in an R-O Residential-Office Zoning District to
Allow Construction of Three Separate Additions to the Existing Building
Totaling 5,000 Square Feet, 3900 Winnetka Avenue North, Holy Nativity
Lutheran Church, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit "As-Built" lot survey prior to building permit application.
2. Comply with all state building code standards.
3. Pay cash storm water fee of $18,450 before building permit
application.
4. Comply with City Engineer recommendations and grading,
drainage, and utilities are subject to City Engineer review and
approval.
5. The fence in the playground area and the drainage swale in that
area must be designed so the fence does not run through the
swale.
6. Trees to remain in areas of disruption must be fenced and
protected.
7. Comply with Fire Department recommendations.
8. Execute a Development Agreement and provide a bond for site
improvements/restoration in an amount to be determined by the
City Engineer and Building Official.
9. No on-street parking on Quebec Avenue North.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on April 8 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
Planning Commission Meeting
11
April 2, 2002
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Landy also strongly urged the architect and City Engineer meet to resolve the
ponding issue.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review the
plans for the three planning cases presented at this meeting. McDonald
reported that the deadline for the May meeting was April 12, and stated that
staff had been talking with architects for a new building next to Chardon Court
bon Bass Lake Road for construction of a multi-story, multi-family building, but
did not know whether they would be ready for filing.
Kramer reported that a meeting was scheduled in April to discuss bus shelters
and the thrift store moratorium.
There was no old business.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Kramer, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 5, 2002,
as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
12
April 2, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 9, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
Svendsen
Brauch, Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Chuck Tatro, General Inspector,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-11
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Variances to
Allow Six Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front Yard,
Setback Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking Requirements, and
Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow Construction on an Outlot, 7924-
8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners Association, Petitioner.
Chairman Landy informed the Commission that the petitioner had requested
to postpone this issue for one month.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
postpone Planning Case 02-11, Request for Variances to Allow Six
Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front Yard, Setback
Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking Requirements, and
Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow Construction on an Outlot,
7924-8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners Association, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Brauch, Oelkers
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
PC02-14
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Public Comment/
Discussion/Recommendation on Ordinances Regarding Storage/Screening of
Refuse and Recycling Containers, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that the New
Hope City Council had requested that both the Citizens Advisory Commission
(CAC) and Planning Commission receive public input and review/discuss
regulations for the storage/screening of refuse and recycling containers in the
City and make recommendations as to whether the current ordinances should
be retained, amended or rescinded. The CAC reviewed this issue in May and
recommended keeping the current regulations in place.
The relevant code sections are not in the Zoning Code, but in separate
sections of the City Code dealing with exterior storage. The main sections are
§9.111(5) states all permanent and disposable waste containers used in
single-family residential zoned or single family homes in any zoning district
shall be screened from all principal residential structures within 50 feet and
from adjacent streets. Industrial, commercial, and multi-family residential uses
are to provide for screening for the waste containers on their property.
§9.111(6) discusses the process for waste containers on pickup day and
states that the waste containers cannot be placed at the curbside any earlier
than sunset preceding the day of schedule pickup and must be removed by
sunset of the scheduled pickup day. §9.121(4) states that all the regulations
that apply to waste containers shall also apply to recycling containers.
McDonald explained that in April the New Hope City Council voted to
temporarily suspend enforcement of the city's ordinance requiring residents
to keep trash and recycling carts either inside their garage or in an
enclosure to screen them from view. The Council instructed staff to cease
enforcement activity for 60 days to allow time for the CAC and the Planning
Commission to study the issue and make recommendations back to the
Council. The reason the Council took this action was because several
residents who had been cited for a violation spoke at the open forum of the
April 22 Council meeting and indicated they did not have space for the carts
in their garage, and contended that the five-day compliance period stated in
the violation notice did not provide adequate time to construct a waste
enclosure.
McDonald reported that New Hope's waste container ordinance was
adopted in 1973, over 25 years ago, in response to concerns expressed by
many residents that improperly stored refuse containers gave
neighborhoods an unsightly and cluttered appearance. The City enforced
the ordinance primarily on a complaint basis until 2001, when the City
Council requested that the inspections staff be more proactive in enforcing
the ordinance. The City Council's action suspended enforcement of the
ordinance for at least 60 days or until a study was completed and public
input received. This issue was to be discussed at both the CAC and
Planning Commission meetings and recommendations of both commissions
brought back to the Council.
The review process was to include public meetings where residents would
be invited to comment on the ordinance. A press release was posted in the
SunPost inviting interested residents to share their views on this subject with
the CAC at its May meeting, and staff mailed the notice to the residents that
spoke at the Council meeting. A second article was placed in the SunPost and
city newsletter inviting interested residents to send a letter or make comments
at the meeting. Staff has received several emails, facsimiles, and letters from
residents, as well as messages on the Express Your Opinion comment line,
which were included in the packet, and one letter was handed out at this
meeting. The City's General Inspector, Chuck Tatro, has the primary
responsibility for enforcing this ordinance and is present to answer questions.
McDonald stated that the Community Development Department was formed
approximately five years ago and was responsible for planning, development,
inspections and housing. In 1999, the City began tracking the complaints
received and letters sent. The trashcan ordinance was enforced on a
complaint only basis prior to 2001. In 1999, 30 complaints were
received/letters sent; in 2000, 85 complaints were received/letters sent; in
2001 the Council directed staff to be more proactive and 349 complaints were
received/letters sent; and in the first four months of 2002, 115 complaints
were received/letters sent.
Three letters are sent to a property owner prior to the issuance of a ticket. The
first letter sent is a notice of possible ordinance violation, identifies the
specific code violated and asks the resident to take steps to correct the
problem within five days. The majority of residents comply with the first
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 9, 2002
letter. If a resident contacts the inspector and requests more time to correct
the problem, the inspectors are flexible and grant the additional time. Also
included with the first letter is a diagram of a proposed screening enclosure
if the resident would choose to construct such a structure instead of storing
the containers in the garage. Staff prepared this diagram several years ago
because staff received calls from residents asking "what a proper screening
enclosure was." If the resident does not comply with the first request, a
second letter is sent out as time allows (it is usually not immediately after
the first five-day period expires, it may be a week or two after the five-day
period expires). The letter states that the resident has not made the
necessary corrections or contacted the inspector and includes a copy of the
first notice outlining the violation and requesting correction. It states that a
re-inspection will be conducted in five days and if the violation remains, the
resident could be subject to legal action. The third letter sent, along with
another copy of the original letter, states that the violation has not been
corrected, that another re-inspection will be conducted in five days, and if
the violation remains, a citation will be issued.
McDonald stated that the General Inspector is the primary position
responsible for enforcing this Code and following up these complaints. The
General Inspector spends approximately 30-40% of his time conducting
Section 8 inspections, he spends approximately 40% of his time conducting
point-of-sale inspections for residential property and spends the remaining
time assisting the Building Official with plan reviews, construction inspections
and following up on a number of other zoning and nuisance complaint issues.
This is a busy position with not a great deal of time available to spend on
screening of waste receptacle containers. The City's inspector generally does
not go out specifically looking for waste container violations. He records
violations he finds in neighborhoods where other inspections are scheduled.
The City Attorney provided comment on the City's policy of enforcing the Code
relating to the storage of trash/recycling containers after a citation has been
issued. Currently, the Code requires the containers to be kept inside the
garage or properly screened from view if stored on the property outside. The
City provides property owners with a design including specifications for
screening that complies with the Code's screening requirement if the
containers are stored outdoors. Code section 4.034(9) has been in existence
since 1979. §§9.111(4)(5)(6) were adopted originally in 1973. §9.121(4)
regarding recycling containers was adopted in 1991. It is apparent that the City
had been concerned with the storage and screening of these containers for
some time.
The enforcement of these sections was typically handled on a "complaint
made" basis. Recently, at the direction of the City Council, staff has taken a
more aggressive approach to enforcement and the Inspections Division of the
Community Development Department started enforcement activity on its own
initiative. Basically, three warning communications are directed to the owner(s)
of an offending property before a ticket or citation is issued for violation of the
referenced code sections and the warnings are progressive in nature. If a
ticket or citation is issued, the matter is referred to the City Attorney's office for
prosecution. A violation of this Code is a misdemeanor offense and is
punishable by a maximum fine of $700, 90 days in jail or both. Obviously, an
offender is not sent to jail for storing these containers outside improperly
screened. However, once a ticket is issued, offenders do need to resolve the
issue at Hennepin County District Court. Normally, the tickets can be resolved
by payment of an $85 fine. If a property owner wants to contest the ticket, two
court appearances must be made. At the first appearance, the owner must
enter a "not guilty" plea. This appearance could take anywhere from one to
three hours depending on the nature of the court calendar when the first
appearance is made. The second appearance will be a court trial to a judge,
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 9, 2002
and held in the afternoon. A judge will listen to both sides' story and then
decide if the City Code has been violated. This process may take the better
part of an afternoon, again depending on how busy the court calendar is on
the day of the trial. If a person is found not guilty no fine will be paid. If a guilty
verdict were returned, the fine would be up to the judge. It more than likely
may be between $85 and $200. The court process is mentioned to
demonstrate the time commitment involved with contesting a ticket. Also,
even if a person were found not guilty, the City would not be precluded from
continuing to issue multiple tickets if the offending property did not resolve the
storage or screening issue. Every day of violation is a continuing or new
offense for which a ticket can be issued.
McDonald stated that the General Inspector contended that the City should be
a cleaner and better looking place for its citizens by keeping trashcans inside
a building or screened from view. Comments to city staff state that residents
appreciate the fact that the City cares about the appearance and enforces the
trashcan ordinance. A lot of discussion at the April City Council meeting
included the fact that the initial letter states that corrections must be made
within five days. McDonald explained the intent of this was not that the
property owner needed to build an enclosure in the five-day timeframe, but to
place the trashcans inside while constructing an enclosure, if that was the
decision of the property owner.
In 2001, the community service officers of the Police Department assisted the
Community Development Department with these code violations for properties
north of Bass Lake Road. A lot of notices were sent out, a lot of calls were
received, and a lot of residents complied after notification. This spring the
inspector was in the Terra Linda neighborhood doing some other building and
housing inspections, when he noticed several trashcan violations and sent out
approximately 21 letters. Those residents approached the City Council.
McDonald stated that the City regularly published code reminder notices in the
City Report informing residents of the ordinances that apply to the storage or
refuse and recycling containers. A survey of surrounding cities was conducted
and responses were received from 17 cities, 11 of which have some type of
ordinance regarding screening and placement of containers.
The CAC discussed this ordinance at its May meeting and two residents
attended the meeting. One resident supported vigorous enforcement, and the
other resident's position was not clear. The CAC discussed the issue, listened
to public comment, and voted unanimously to leave the ordinance unchanged.
The Codes & Standards Committee discussed the waste container screening
ordinance in June and decided to recommend that the ordinance be retained
as it is. The Committee felt that the reason for the ordinance was to help
maintain the aesthetics of the City, many residents do comply with the
ordinance, and there was no good reason to change an ordinance that had
been in effect for such a long period of time. The Committee did suggest
some clarifying language in the letters sent to residents, such as "clarify that
the five-day period was intended as the time it would take to make space in
the garage for the containers; that additional time could be granted for
compliance if a screening enclosure was going to be constructed; possibly
extend the time period for compliance from five to ten days."
The Mosaic Youth Center has contacted the City about the possibility of
developing a screening enclosure kit that would be sold to residents to assist
in meeting the screening requirements of this ordinance. Mosaic did meet with
Liberty Diversified Industries for assistance in developing an enclosure, and
LDI informed Mosaic that it could not find a feasible design for an enclosure.
Mosaic has now contacted Home Depot regarding a potential screening
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 9, 2002
materials kit, which they would use as a fundraiser.
Chairman Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience to comment on
the ordinance.
Christina Friedman, 8820 60 % Avenue North, came forward and stated that
she had been a resident of New Hope since she was a child. She stated she
was opposed to the ordinance primarily because there was no space to put an
enclosure on the side of the garage. The space at the side of the garage is 32
inches toward the side yard and then drops off into a ravine. This was the only
way to get into the rear yard. In 1973 when the ordinance was adopted, there
were no uniform garbage cans and residents burned the garbage in the back
yards. Now all residents have uniform garbage cans. Friedman stated she
drove around the City on several occasions and found that all garbage cans
are of uniform size and construction. Everyone has garbage. The ordinance
should not be taken away totally, because there are people that would let their
garbage pile up if they don't pay their bill, or for extreme violators who are
making the neighborhood ugly. The garbage cans have been in the same
place on her property for the past 40 years - 10 years for the Friedmans and
30 years for the family before them. They were cited in 2001 for trashcan
ordinance violation. She passed out photos of the side yard, and pointed out
that the trashcans cannot be seen from the street, and to show the small
amount of useable space on the side yard. She reiterated that there is not
enough room on the side of the garage for an enclosure and to have room for
bicycles and wheelchair access for relative to the rear yard. Friedman stated
they did not want to spend money to bring in fill to level off the side yard for a
garbage enclosure to be constructed. They now put the cans in the garage,
however, they have a full size van and a mini van in the garage. The
containers are on the far side of the garage to keep the smell away from the
door to the house, and in order to take out the daily garbage, a vehicle has to
be moved out of the way. With the addition of the recycling containers in the
garage, they have to enter one of the vans from the passenger side only.
According to the letter sent out, another suggestion was to keep the garbage
can in the basement, which could cause rodents to come inside the house.
The uniform garbage cans stored outside are a much better idea. She stated
that their new van has been scratched due to the tight fit, and they only have
the vehicles and garbage/recycling containers in the garage. Friedman stated
that it upsets her when city and federal government wastes money. Unless the
City received a call for a problem property with garbage and rats, she felt the
inspector could make better use of his time to improve the City than keep
track of all these letters, etc. She felt only the extreme offenders of the
ordinance should be cited. She also felt the Police had more to do than look at
garbage cans. Last year her block was targeted twice because she and her
neighbor received notices at different times. Many of her neighbors have
single car garages, which makes it even harder to store the containers inside.
Regarding the five-day compliance period, she stated when she got the notice
her husband was gone for two weeks so she called the City to see about
getting more time to comply. She then had to park a vehicle outside so she
could put the garbage can inside the garage. She stated she called her hauler
and Aspen Waste told her that New Hope was the strictest of all the suburbs
on the storage of trashcans. During her drive around the City, she noted that
some of the trash enclosures looked worse than the uniform garbage cans.
She questioned the costs for attorney's fees in dealing with this issue.
Friedman asked the Commission to take a common sense approach for most
residents of the City and deal mainly with the habitual violators of this
ordinance. Garbage is a fact of life. They recycle as much as possible. She
also stated that one of the Councilmembers had the garbage cans in the back
yard and not in an enclosure. She stressed that if there were complaints, the
City should do something, but don't over police the rest of the residents.
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 9, 2002
Cheryl Johnson, 9010 60 ¼ Avenue North, came forward and stated that she
has been a resident for over a year and was cited last year for a violation and
she concurred with everything Ms. Friedman mentioned. She maintained that
if the City must impose itself on residents to allow placement of garbage cans
at the side of the house rather than the front of the house. The City should not
force residents to spend money on an enclosure for garbage cans.
Henry Roberts, 4632 Hillsboro Avenue North, came to the podium and stated
he was agreeable with the ordinance as it is. Many residents who say they
can't get the garbage cans in the garage have a lot of other things stored in
the garage, and from some garages he has seen, cannot get their vehicles in
the garage either. He stated he received a letter a couple years ago, however,
none of the violations listed on the letter were circled so he came in to city hall
to talk to staff. Roberts stated his trashcans are not visible from the street
since he put up a fence to screen them, and he also keeps bird feed in metal
cans behind his house. His neighbor's cans, however, are visible from his
house. Roberts reiterated that he was in favor of the ordinance.
Mona Flanders, 7925 38 % Avenue North, came forward and stated she has
been in New Hope for approximately four years. She moved here because of
the rules and the fact that the trash had to be put away, and thinks the clean
appearance of the City increases the real estate values. She stated she had a
neighbor, who for a while had the trashcans outside that were full of diapers
and it attracted crows, flies and rodents. She felt that when an ordinance is not
enforced, the violations start slowly with one property owner leaving the can
out, and then another, and another. She didn't feel that there were trash
police, the inspector was just asked to watch for violations when he was
performing other inspection duties. She supported and believed in the
ordinance, which was one reason she moved to New Hope.
Willard Rohe, 6072 Quebec Avenue North, came forward and stated that the
Cty needs an ordinance and that the current ordinance may need updating.
Through the course of the last couple years in his neighborhood, one neighbor
complained about another to the City, and the situation snowballed. New Hope
neighborhoods generally have small garages, unlike some of the neighboring
suburbs with three or four car garages. Rohe mentioned he felt the basement
was not the right place for a garbage can. The City has uniform garbage cans
now unlike what was utilized in years past. Rohe stated that he lives on a
corner lot and the house was placed on the lot so that he cannot add on to it,
therefore, he now utilizes a natural enclosure with shrubs because his garage
is too small. Rohe reiterated that the City should update the ordinance and
then cite violators on a complaint only basis.
Commissioner Kramer questioned what should be changed in the ordinance.
Rohe stated that today we are a throw-away society and there are large trash
and recycling containers. The City should not be real strict about this and
suggested that the containers be placed at the side of the house or possibly
an inexpensive fencing of some type.
Tom Corrigan, 4641 Hillsboro Avenue North, came forward and stated he felt
the City should keep the ordinance as it is. He knew people could have
problems with the ordinance and their trash cans, but also felt that the
problems could be resolved if people had a good heart and mind.
Enforcement with a velvet glove may be in order.
Pat Dobbe, 8801 45th Avenue North, came forward, and stated that she had
addressed the Citizens Advisory Commission in May. She stressed that the
ordinance should be strongly enforced. She stated that her house is situated
on the lot so that she cannot add on or build an enclosure. Her cans are inside
the garage. Her neighbor's cans are 34 inches from the property line, 25% feet
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 9, 2002
MOTION
Item 4.2
from her kitchen window and 27% feet from her dining room window. The
garbage cans are generally overflowing, which is what she views while eating
dinner. She stated if residents were not complying with the ordinance on their
own, then the City should encourage then to comply. She supplied photos for
the Commission. Dobbe reiterated that she supported the current ordinance.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that he had to make reom in his garage
for both the garbage can and the large recycling container. He stated he also
has to move one vehicle out of the garage on pickup day to get the containers
outside. When he has another family member ride in the vehicle, he has to
back the car out before there is reom enough to open the door for the
passenger to get in the vehicle, so he understood the difficulties of storing the
containers inside the garage. Svendsen stated he was in favor of retaining the
ordinance. He suggested that additional detail be added to the sketch to
include dimensions and materials to use.
Commissioner Hemken questioned what prompted the City Council to request
policing of this ordinance. It seemed that if there was a problem, a resident
should call the City and request an inspector to look at the situation. She
wondered how the inspector would make a judgment call on whether one
situation was okay and another was not.
Commissioner Kramer emphasized that there should be uniform enforcement
and not just complaint driven. If an ordinance is worth having, then it should be
enforced. He stated he prefers that residents have the cans inside the garage.
He has to move his vehicles out of the garage to take the trash/recycling cans
out on pickup day, and he has to move the cars out to allow passengers to get
in the vehicle. Kramer stressed that people should keep the cans inside the
garage and keep the area tidy so as not to attract rodents. It is a health issue
and sometimes bad odors occur, which should not be going around the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Barrick stated that she had to keep the containers between the
vehicles in the garage and had to pull the car out before passengers could get
in the car. Barrick also questioned the timeframe of putting the containers
away by sunset of pickup day. She stated that, especially in winter, she does
not get home from work in time to comply with that. McDonald interjected that
the city does not perform any checks of this the day before or after pickup day.
Svendsen mentioned that commercial and industrial properties needed to be
properly screened. When reviewing plans for new businesses, trash
enclosures are required, however, existing businesses sometimes are not
properly screened. He questioned whether or not staff checks for compliance
on those properties as well, and this was affirmed.
Commissioner O'Brien wondered whether or not roll-off dumpsters were
regulated by this ordinance and was told the dumpsters were exempt.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
recommend to the City Council to Retain the Ordinance as Written with
Clarification of the Language in the Notices and Warning Letters Sent to
Residents, Planning Case 02-14, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9, 2002
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
Svendsen
None
Brauch, Oelkers
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on July 22 and asked interested residents to attend.
PC02-13
Item 4.3
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Discussion/
Recommendation on Currency Exchange Regulation, City of New Hope,
Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the New
Hope City Council requested that the Planning Commission review and
discuss regulations for currency exchange businesses in the City and make
recommendations as to whether the current regulations were adequate. The
Codes & Standards Committee reviewed the ordinance and was
recommending no change. Currency exchange is heavily regulated by the
State and the City needed to hold a public hearing and offer its approval. It
was the opinion of the Codes & Standards Committee, City Attorney and staff
that everything was fine the way it was. There was some discussion on check
cashing practices. The City Attorney indicated that no license would be
necessary if the business would cash the checks gratuitously, however, if a
fee was charged, a state license was required.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
recommend that there be No Change in the Currency Exchange
Regulation, Planning Case 02-13, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
Svendsen
None
Brauch, Oelkers
The City Attorney mentioned that the applicant that came before the City
Council was granted a license with no problem.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on July 22 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review the
garage plans for L'Esperance Townhomes, and the petitioner had requested
to postpone discussion for one month. McDonald reported that the deadline
for the August meeting was July 12, and stated that staff was expecting a
prelimina,,ry plat filing, plans from Navarre/Ahrens Trucking to develop the
9200 49"' Avenue city-owned property, and revised plans from L'Esperance
Townhomes. Chardon Court may also have preliminary plans ready by
September for a new building to be located east of the existing building.
Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in May and June
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 9, 2002
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
to discuss the currency exchange business ordinance, refuse screening,
transit shelters, and the thrift store moratorium. McDonald explained that the
moratorium would expire on August 12 and the study is progressing but would
not be completed by then, therefore, staff would request that Council extend
the moratorium until the end of the year. Staff was continuing discussions with
Walgreens and the owner of Winnetka Commons to fill the vacant space. The
Council previously directed staff to further study transit shelters, once the thrift
store study is completed. Codes & Standards would be reviewing additional
minor code changes in the coming months. Kramer mentioned that issues
discussed included whether there was an increase in crime at thrift stores. It
was the opinion of Codes & Standards that possible increased crime was a
sign of the state of the commercial centers and the reason the City was
attracting thrift stores was that the centers are lower end commercial. The City
needs to invest in redeveloping and upgrading these centers to attract higher
end businesses.
There was discussion on the landscaping at AutoZone and the fact that all of
the recently laid sod was dead. There was no irrigation system in place at this
site. The drainage/parking lot issue had not been corrected to the City's
satisfaction and the bond would not be released until all corrections were
made.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 2, 2002,
as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
The August Planning Commission meeting will be held on Wednesday,
August 7, due to National Night Out on the regular Tuesday meeting night.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the Volunteer Appreciation Picnic
would be on Tuesday, July 23, and all commissioners were invited.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
July 9, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 7, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan
Vince VanderTop, Assistant
Community Development
Recording Secretary
Development Director, Steve
Brixius, Planning Consultant,
City Engineer, Erin Seeman,
Intern, Pamela Sylvester,
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-11
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Variances to
Allow Six Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front Yard,
Setback Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking Requirements, and
Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow Construction on an Outlot, 7924-
8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners Association, Petitioner.
Chairman Landy informed the Commission that the petitioner had requested
postponement of this issue for another month.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether or not there would be a problem
with the 60-day rule on the L'Esperance planning application. McDonald
stated that there is no a problem as far as the 60-day rule, but a decision
would need to be made in September approaching 120 days to either vote to
deny the planning case or have it withdrawn. The City will need to contact
L'Esperance to determine whether they would be ready. The petitioner could
also waive the 120-day requirement, per the City Attorney.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
postpone Planning Case 02-'11 for one month, Request for Variances to
Allow Six Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front
Yard, Setback Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking
Requirements, and Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow
Construction on an Outlot, 7924-8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners
Association, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
PC02-15
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Prelimina~
Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Lincoln Manor, 7319-7349 62
Avenue North, Helga Dube, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that the
petitioner was requesting preliminary plat approval of Lincoln Manor to allow
conversion of a 16-unit rental property to individually owned units. The
property is located on the south side of 62nd Avenue, and 200 feet east of
West Broadway. There are three existing buildings, two containing six units
(24' x 100') and one building with four units (24' x 72'). The property is
currently zoned R-4, high density residential. Adjacent land uses include
Community Business (SuperAmerica) to the west, single family residential to
the east, Senior/Disabled Residential (Anthony James and Broadway Village
apartments) to the south to the south and southwest, and the City of Brooklyn
Park to the north across 62r~ Avenue. The site area contains 1.3 acres with
252 feet of street frontage. The green area is estimated to be 48%, hard
surface 40% and existing building area at 12%. The general goals in the
Comprehensive Plan for this district include redevelopment or rehabilitation of
existing properties to maintain and enhance the condition and value of the
housing stock. The topography of the property is generally flat. There are 22
existing parking spaces, no curb and gutter, no garages, no ponding, and a
generous amount of green space. The buildings were constructed in 1962.
The buildings are two-story colonial style, with basement and full brick
exterior.
McDonald stated that request was for a CUP/PUD preliminary plat and Helga
Dube submitted the application. The property is located at 7319-7249 62nd
Avenue. The application proposed to convert the 16-unit rental townhouse into
owner-occupied townhome condominiums. The preliminary plat would allow
for the private individual ownership of each townhome unit and the land within
the unit lot. Lot 17 would be the common lot around the buildings to be owned
by all of the townhome owners and Lot 18 would be for future garages.
McDonald reported that after the platting process, the applicant would come
back to the City to request a Housing Improvement Area to make upgrades
and add garages to the property, similar to L'Esperance Townhome
Association. Currently, each townhome unit has a small patio in the back with
three steps leading to the back door. There is a trash area and steel shed on
the northeast corner of the development.
In July 12 correspondence, the petitioner stated they desired to convert the
rental property into 16 individually owned units. The complex would continue
to be known as Lincoln Manor Townhomes. The petitioner referenced the
EDA resolution that established the city's apartment rehab program and other
programs to upgrade housing in the City.
McDonald reported that the city code states if the preliminary plat is routine,
the applicant can request the Planning Commission waive its review of the
final plat, and this request has been made. After the approval of the
application and sale of the townhomes, the homeowners association would
seek help from the City to proceed with possible funding for other
improvements on the property.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the City
of Brooklyn Park. Several calls and inquiries were received, including a call
from Lang Nelson who owns Anthony James and Broadway Village
apartments to the south of this property, but no issues were raised when
informed that this was a plat for townhome conversion.
McDonald continued by saying that the Development Review Team reviewed
the plat and requested that utilities be shown on the plat, trash and recycling
enclosure after the garage development be shown, provision for a 5-foot wide
perimeter drainage and utility easement, pond easement in southeast corner
to meet Shingle Creek Watershed standards.
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and was supportive
Planning Commission Meeting 2 August 7, 2002
of the plat. The Committee suggested the plat contain one block with separate
lots for each unit, Lot 17 for the common area, and Lot 18 for the proposed
garages. Individual lots would contain approximately 700-721 square feet, Lot
17 contains 41,766 square feet, and Lot 18 contains 3,600 square feet. A
revised plat and correspondence was submitted on July 25. A draft of the by-
laws of the association was also submitted. The specific responsibility for
utility bills was addressed in the by-laws, as well as the manner in which the
association would recover the payments made by the individual homeowners.
Once the plat is approved, the association would be promptly incorporated.
McDonald explained that the Planning Consultant suggested that the property
may need a variance with the final plat due to non-conforming standard. Staff
felt that since this was an existing non-conforming use, the Commission
should discuss whether or not a variance was needed. The applicant was
proposing zero lot lines between unit lots. The planning consultant indicated
that the applicant should demonstrate, either with the final plat or when
submitting garage plans, adequate turning radius for larger vehicles including
moving vans throughout the development with the construction of the
garages; demonstrate adequate parking with 24 off-street parking stalls and
18 garage stalls, one of which would be utilized for trash enclosure - code
requires 1 ¼ open parking stalls per unit and one enclosed parking stall. The
applicant does meet most parking stall and setback requirements. Elements
required with the submission of garage plans include building detail that
illustrates building elevations and floor plan layout. Staff requests that the
north fa(;ade of the garage be brick to match the existing townhomes.
Additional landscaping is required on the northern portion of the development,
a landscape island on the northern portion of the proposed garage area, and
additional landscaping around all parking areas and the northwest comer of
the lot. Retaining walls on the property should be repaired. A lighting plan
should be provided to show adequate lighting on the site. City code requires
that two or more buildings containing eight or more dwelling units provide a
fenced recreation area of 2,000 square feet. The southwestern portion of the
property would be a possibility for a recreation area. Snow storage should be
demonstrated on the plan.
McDonald stated that because the individual units have shared party walls and
shared utilities, the City requires documentation on how general maintenance
and overall care would be conducted and how utilities and water would be
paid for. Most of these items have been addressed in the draft copy of the by-
laws that was submitted. One condition of approval is that the City Attorney
review the by-laws before final plat approval.
The City requested that a five-foot drainage and utility easement be denoted
around the perimeter of the plat, which has been done. With the future
upgrades and addition of garages to the property, a drainage and utility
easement was set aside on the southwest comer of the site for future storm
water improvements.
McDonald explained that the preliminary plat had been sent to city consultants
and utility companies for comment and review. The City Attorney had several
minor comments, including showing how the ownership interest of Lots 17 and
18 would be divided among the 16 units. The City Engineer addressed the
storm water runoff from the site. There were no utility companies that
responded to the plat. One minor change to flood zone information would
need to be corrected on the plat according to the Building Official.
McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the preliminary plat
and that the Planning Commission waive the review of the final plat, subject to
the conditions in the planning report.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 August 7, 2002
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether or not the variance should be
incorporated with the preliminary plat request. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning
Consultant, stated that there was a provision in the code that allowed for non-
conforming uses to be improved to increase the livability. Due to the fact that
this was an existing condition and the request is for a subdivision and not
increasing the non-conformity, a variance may not be necessary.
Arun Dube, husband of the petitioner, 7710 Tanglewood Court, Edina, came
forward to answer questions. He stated they have owned the property for
about a decade.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered when the units would be marketed. Dube
responded that the tenants who are living there would acquire most of the
units. Their tenants are good, hardworking people, mostly small families,
couples or single people. Dube stated that someone gave his wife and him a
break when they were first starting out in life, and they wanted to do the same
for these families.
Commissioner Hemken questioned what the cost of the units would be. Dube
replied that a cost has not yet been determined, but that they would probably
sell for somewhat less than market rates to the current families.
Commissioner Kramer asked how the City would know that the association
would do the improvements suggested. Dube responded that he could not
promise for others, however, he and his wife would continue to own three or
four of the units for a year or two until the leases expired. They have
discussed the improvement ideas with the current tenants and the tenants are
agreeable. They would try to do the improvements soon, due to the Iow
interest rates and the possible help from the City.
Kramer questioned how the allocation for water was determined. Dube stated
that most of the units contained the same square footage and more or less
the same size families; therefore, the water bill for each building would be
divided equally among the number of tenants in the building. The association
would pay the bill and the unit owners would reimburse the association. The
operating cash flow of the association would be self funding so the City or
other utility companies would not need to wait for individual owners to pay the
bill. The common area, such as sprinkling, etc., would be divided by 1/16 for
all owners.
Kramer questioned staff on the Housing Improvement Area and how an
association qualified for the funding. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney,
explained that the Housing Improvement Area was a vehicle to allow
associations that cannot finance improvements privately to obtain a special
assessment with the City. The City funds the improvements per a specific
plan. Public hearings are held to allow discussion of the improvements by the
City and the residents. If there is an agreement by the residents, after a
specified time period the Housing Improvement Area becomes effective. The
costs for the improvements are assessed to each unit as a special
assessment with the real estate taxes. Kramer wondered how the City would
assess the ability for the homeowners to pay. Sondrall stated that the
guarantee to pay would be the equity in the property.
Commissioner Brauch raised the issue of property insurance. Dube answered
that the insurance issue was not specifically stated in the by-laws; however,
insurance was clearly the responsibility of the association and would be paid
for by the association and was part of the monthly dues.
Kramer questioned whether there was a management company that would be
in charge of the association. Dube responded that the current tenants have
Planning Commission Meeting 4 August 7, 2002
identified several individuals to be leaders or board members of the
association and the association would be run by the homeowners themselves.
Kramer maintained that from his experience, that did not work very well. Dube
added that they have a vested interest and would stay closely involved with
the association. The suggestion was made that the leaders should have
experience with financial management and/or management of properties.
Generally, an inexperienced group of individuals does not make wise
decisions nor do they plan ahead for maintenance issues.
Brauch expressed concern whether there was a plan in place for a reserve
fund. Dube replied that the group had discussed that issue among themselves
as well as with banking institutions to see whether proceeds could be set
aside for that purpose. The dues would accrue at a reasonably healthy rate.
Within the next 10 years the buildings may require new roofs. Dube stated that
he and his wife would guarantee the costs if an emergency situation arose
before the reserve fund was of sufficient size to cover the costs. They would
continue to be involved for at least one-two years, due to leases that do not
expire until that time. If the tenants do not buy the units, they would continue
ownership.
Kramer wondered how the initial fee would be established. Dube replied that
due to owning the buildings for so long there was a history of the expenses on
a monthly/yearly basis.
Commissioner O'Brien questioned whether other unit owners would be
allowed to rent out the units. Dube responded that the proposal was that there
be no turnover of ownership for a period of time, possibly one year. If
someone would be transferred and did not want to or could not sell the home,
the unit would probably be rented. Currently, the rents are approximately
$800-$825 per month. O'Brien reiterated that with 16 units there could be 16
off-site owners and 16 renters, all with different standards. Dube maintained
that the by-laws provided for specific standards that a renter would need to
meet, such as rental history, credit history, background checks, criminal
checks, etc. and the association would insist that if there was a rental
situation, those same policies would be maintained, which would be part of the
association ground rules. They are still checking to see if Minnesota would
allow the association the right to review and approve a new buyer as long as
approval would not be unreasonably withheld.
Dube suggested that homeowners would take better care of the property than
what a landlord could afford to do or was required to do for a tenant.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Oelkers wondered whether or not the restrictions in the by-laws on new
owners were legal and whether the association was allowed to do that. City
Attorney Steve Sondrall stated he felt it would be an unreasonable restraint on
the alienation of property, and the association could not approve a sale.
Oelkers wondered whether the City could require the association to hire a
professional management firm and was told that would be difficult to impose.
The issue was raised that if the plat was approved, was there any reason to
believe the association had to complete the garages and other improvements.
Brixius stated that he understood the association would be pursuing
assistance through the City. An association would need to be established so
the association could agree with the special assessment. The City Attorney
indicated that if the homeowners desire to improve their property and the City
Planning Commission Meeting 5 August 7, 2002
was willing to assist in that kind of improvement district, then the City would
have some control. Otherwise, there are basic minimum building and zoning
codes that would need to be followed and enforced. Brixius added that a
Planned Unit Development was required with the plat, with more regulations
than a preliminary plat. One requirement of a PUD was the submission of the
homeowners association rules and covenants, which should include some
reference as to management agency. If some of the units would become
rental, the management agency would be responsible for ongoing upgrading
and upkeep of the outside shell and common grounds. The Planning
Commission may want to add conditions that would include provisions for a
contract with a management agency and establishment of a reserve fund. The
City Attorney interjected that the statutes have numerous regulations that
would need to be adhered to with regard to reserve funds, etc.
Discussion ensued on the housing improvement area and whether or not the
units were required to be owner-occupied. In the past, funding for these types
of associations was required to be 100 percent participation. Absentee owners
sometimes are not as eager to sign up for improvements as are onsite
owners.
The issue was raised on what the cost of the improvements would be and the
cost to each homeowner. Examples were given that the cost for each
homeowner for the improvements at L'Esperance was approximately $20,000
per unit and Sandpiper Cove was approximately $10-15,000 per unit.
Oelkers stated that he was in favor of the plat and association, however,
stressed that the City obtain a guarantee that improvements be completed.
Sondrall indicated that the property had an existing variance and the petitioner
was not changing the use or expanding the use. If the petitioner meets the
conditions of the subdivision ordinance, the Planning Commission has no
choice but to approve the plat. McDonald added that final plat approval was
required before the association could come to the City to request help in
funding the improvements.
Question was raised on the interest rate on the loan, which may be 20 years
at 6 or 7 percent. Sondrall stated thatwhen the association comes forward with
a request for a housing improvement area, they need to submit to the City, per
statute, a report from an independent accountant showing the capital
expenditures for a period of time so the City has an assurance that the money
put in the property is secure. This is what the City is required to do under the
statute to determine whether the association was capable of participating in
the program. Brixius noted that the preliminary plat shows 3,500 square feet
per unit and code requires 5,000 square feet per unit. When subdividing a
property, the land use is already in place and the subdivision would
accommodate multiple ownership. The City looks for opportunties to improve
on existing conditions, and this would be the first step. Through the PUD
process and development contract, the City can indicate issues to be
addressed, such as the management agency and reserve funds. The
developer and City Attorney can work together prior to the final plat and
Council approval.
McDonald reiterated that it seemed the Commission wanted a guarantee that
improvements would be made, and he suggested that the developer post a
financial guarantee for some of the improvements, such as curbing,
landscaping, and parking with the amount to be determined by the Building
Official and City Engineer and that the City hold that financial guarantee until
an application is made for a housing improvement area. If the housing
improvement area would be approved, the financial guarantee would be
released because the improvements would be completed through that
funding. If the housing improvement area would be denied, the owner would
Planning Commission Meeting 6 August 7, 2002
MOTION
Item 4.2
proceed with the improvements. McDonald added that the Council was
generally very supportive of improvements to multi-family properties.
O'Brien suggested that an irrigation system be installed with the landscaping
improvements.
Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 02-15, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for
Property to be Known as Lincoln Manor, 7319-7349 62nd Avenue North,
Helga Dube, Petitioner: subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with Building Official recommendations under "F. Building
considerations" regarding floodplain and future brick north garage
wall elevation.
2. Comply with City Attorney comments dated July 30, 2002.
3. Comply with City Engineer recommendations dated July 31, 2002.
4. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations dated July 31,
2002, in conjunction with future improvements including:
A. A variance to allow for a decrease in lot area and lot width
shall be applied for and will be needed prior to final plat
approval.
B. Adequate turning radius shall be demonstrated throughout
the entire development.
C. All off-street parking shall have a continuous perimeter
concrete curbing and surfacing and parking surfaces shall be
surfaced with a 6-inch class five base and 2 inch bituminous
topping.
D. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided; adequate
landscaping shall be developed along 62nd Avenue and
between all parking areas, landscape island shall be
constructed north of Lot 18.
E. Current retaining wall to be repaired.
F. The applicant shall remove the existing tool shed and trash
area.
G. A lighting and photometric plan shall be provided.
H. An open space and recreation area of no less than 2,000
square feet shall be developed along the southwestern corner
of the development. If a building used for recreation purposes
is developed, a building plan must be submitted prior to
development.
I. Snow storage plan shall be provided.
J. Homeowner Association rules and covenants shall be
developed and is subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney prior to final plat approval, and shall include
shared utilities, water, insurance, landscaping, professional
management service, reserved funds accrual, and all statutory
requirements.
5. Planning Commission waives review of the final plat.
6. The approval of the preliminary plat includes a variance for the
existing non-conformity.
7. Financial guarantee be posted for site improvements until Housing
Improvement Area application for funding is made.
The City Attorney maintained that he would review the by-laws for the benefit
of the City and was not representing the association nor any members of the
association. The association would need to have its own attorney review the
by-laws for compliance with any concerns it may have.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 August 7, 2002
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
None
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on August 12 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
PC02-17
Item 4.3
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Conditional
Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross
Floor Area for a Trucking Operation and Site Plan Review to Allow
Construction of a 4,800 Square Foot OfficeNVarehouse Building, 9200 49th
Avenue North, Navarre Corporation, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioner was from
Navarre Corporation with Ahrens Trucking and the City of New Hope also
included as petitioners. The proposal extends beyond the application
submitted for this meeting. On behalf of Ahrens Trucking, a site plan was
submitted for an office/warehouse to be constructed at 9200 49t~ Avenue
North, which is currently zoned industrial. The reason that Navarre is involved
is that a relocation site for Ahrens Trucking was sought, which is currently
located adjacent and to the west of the Navarre Corporation. Relocating
Ahrens Trucking is essential to Navarre's expansion plans.
The application includes a site plan review for an industrial building and a
conditional use permit for outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use.
The site is zoned Industrial and is located on the north side of 49th Avenue
approximately 600 feet east of Highway 169. The site contains 3.8 acres. The
total building area proposed is 4,800 square feet with a potential expansion of
an additional 5,200 square feet. The green area represents 58%, proposed
building area is 4%, and hard surface area is 38%. The site has some issues
with poor soils and is located in area that was proposed for a regional pond.
The City owns the site and Navarre Corporation has asked the City to
contribute the site in the redevelopment of Ahrens Trucking and as a
promotional element in the future expansion of Navarre. The City acquired this
property with the intention of providing a regional pond. The current proposal
would be that one-third of the site be designated for a regional pond and the
southern two-thirds would become developed for industrial purposes.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee reviewed
the plans and comments included issues related to overall site planning,
landscaping, utilities, and storm water drainage. The site is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as far as the land use proposed for the area. The land
use is compatible with anticipated future and existing land uses. There is an
office building to the west, industrial buildings to the east and north, and
across 49th Avenue single family residential. The site design provides parking,
a building front with an extended curtain wall to screen portions of the truck
service areas, and the intention of preserving some dense trees and ground
cover on the southeast corner of the site. The plans are consistent with code
requirements. The applicant is required to provide screening, fencing, surface
controls, setbacks, and restrictions on uses through the conditional use permit
request, and the applicant has complied with these requirements.
Brixius stated that the proposed building would be 4,800 square feet, 4,200
square feet warehouse/600 square feet office, and of masonry construction,
multi colored with accent strips, windows, treatments, and landscaping to the
front. The applicant has requested allowance for business expandability,
which could occur at the front of the building toward 49th Avenue. The site
parking includes 11 stalls with the first phase and is compliant with code. With
Planning Commission Meeting
8
August7,2002
the expansion, additional parking would be required and the City has
requested that additional parking be illustrated on the site plan. A 35-foot wide
driveway would be located directly across from Erickson Drive with circulation
to the truck bays on the east and north sides of the building. There may be
opportunity for some adjustment on the north property line to increase the
truck maneuvering area. The outdoor storage would include trailer storage
along the east property line, which would be surrounded with a six-foot, chain-
link, black vinyl fence. The propane storage area would be surrounded with a
10-foot, chain link, black vinyl fence. There would be a dolly strip provided
along the trailer storage area.
A 20-foot easement would parallel the west property line from 49th Avenue to
the northern portion of the property for access to the pond and a gate would
be provided on the north side to provide access for city maintenance of the
pond and for snow storage beyond the fenced area. Cylinder propane storage
used for forklift treatment would be located on the west side of the building in
a 10-foot by 10-foot area. The tanks would be 33-pounds each. Due to the
small size of the tanks, staff felt that a separate conditional use permit was not
necessary. Snow storage would be provided in the corners of the site within
the fenced areas and can also be pushed through the gate into the ponding
area.
Brixius reported that a 10-foot curtain wall of similar building materials as the
principal building would extend to the east to screen the trucking area. The
tree cover at the southeast corner of the property would remain. Landscaping
would extend along the east and west sides of the property. Suggestions were
made by staff to break up the choke berries at the front of the building into two
groupings to provide a greater accent and to provide screening near the
parking lot along 49th Avenue. The east side was well landscaped.
Suggestions for the west side was to move the conifers closer to the fence,
add additional conifers, and move the maple trees closer to the property line
to accommodate the additional screening materials. Snow fencing should be
provided around the critical root zones of existing trees and no storage would
occur in the areas where tree preservation measures are taken.
Items of concern to the Fire Department include a no parking area on the
driveway entrance and curb painting for fire lanes. A "Knox" box should be
placed at the gate for emergency access to the property. Hydrant and
sprinkler locations have been identified.
The Building Official indicated that the roof hatch be identified on the plan and
rooftop equipment must be painted to match the metal coping. The future
building addition was shown on the south side of the proposed building. All
setbacks are met. The lighting plan has been submitted and complies with the
light contours at the property line.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, came forward to discuss the
ponding requirements. He reported that during the years of 1994-96, the City
completed a Surface Water Management Plan and in that plan strategic areas
were identified for regional ponding for water quality. This Ahrens site is
adjacent to a DNR protected wetland to the north. It is also at the juncture of
the confluence of storm sewers that discharge to this wetland. The City was
able to acquire the lot several years ago, however, due to several factors, it
became evident that it would not be feasible to consume the entire lot with
ponding. In 2000, a sketch plan was developed and submitted to the DNR and
Corp of Engineers for a permit to build the pond. The plan included routing the
water that is discharged through an open channel that would be graded along
the edge of the wetland to the rear of the Ahrens lot and regional ponds would
be constructed to the north. Another sediment trap or regional pond was
identified just to the north of the Collisys property. All of these improvements
Planning Commission Meeting 9 August 7, 2002
could be accomplished in one regional ponding project, in conjunction with the
improvements on this site. The City has discussed this ponding project with
the owner of Collisys over the years, who is not willing to participate in this
project. Therefore, the regional ponding at this time is confined to the city-
owned parcel.
VanderTop stated that the development of the front portion of the lot was
consistent with previous discussions at the time the City purchased the
property. The grading plan submitted by the applicant shows the front part of
the lot shedding water toward 49th Avenue. Water quality also needs to be
addressed with the new improvement. The water shed to the front of the lot
would be captured in a storm sewer routed through the small water quality
pond at the southeast corner of the property, then through a storm sewer
along the east side of the property, and discharged to the back regional
ponding area. During the initial review with the applicant, a suggestion was
made that the back half of the lot also go through a smaller water quality pond
prior to discharging into the regional pond. The other influencing factor in the
area of regional ponding was that the turning movements in the area of the
loading dock to the back fence was not a long as it could be, or about 30 feet
short. In laying out some of the contours for the regional pond, the back fence
of the Ahrens site could be bumped back toward the pond and the runoff from
the back portion of the lot would go to a smaller sediment pond in close
proximity to the larger regional pond. The sediment pond would not meet all of
the water quality requirements, but could trap a lot of the sand from the
parking lot and the remainder of the water quality requirements would be
addressed in the regional pond. The layout of the regional pond would now be
confined within the city-owned property line. It would be a two-cell
configuration, such that the water would come from 49th Avenue into the first
cell, be routed through the second cell, and back towards the Collisys
property. Landscaping and plantings would be provided around the ponding
area. Through this project, the City would be able to achieve a goal as set out
in the Surface Water Management Plan, and accommodate the economic
reality that a portion of the property would be developed.
Brixius concluded by saying that this proposal would have regional benefits to
the City by retaining an existing business by allowing it to expand within the
community, and with the relocation of Ahrens Trucking, allowing a second
business to provide a major investment in another industrial portion of the
community. There are a number of issues related to this request with the poor
soils and regional ponding, but the recommendation would be for approval
subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Kramer expressed concern that 264 pounds of propane was a concern since
September 11, 2001, with no protection other than a chain-link fence.
Unprotected propane tanks could be a major bomb for anyone with ill intent.
Kramer stressed that some type of security should be provided for the
propane storage area.
Mr. Robert Glasgow, owner's representative for Navarre Corporation,
Glasgow Advisory Services, 301 4th Avenue, Minneapolis, came forward to
address the Commission. Two representatives from Ahrens Trucking and the
architect and engineer for Navarre were also in attendance to answer
questions.
Svendsen asked whether Ahrens would be agreeable to storing the propane
tanks inside the building and the response was affirmative, if allowed by code.
Many locations have the tanks stored in an enclosure with locked doors. A
suggestion was made to enclose the tanks and possibly provide a roof over
the structure so they were not visible. Staff should determine the best way to
enclose the propane tanks, whether inside or outside. Question was raised
Planning Commission Meeting 10 August 7, 2002
whether the propane storage area would be included in the black vinyl fence
so it would match the balance of the property and the answer was yes.
Svendsen inquired on the tree preservation plan and whether any damaged
trees would be replaced or preservation measures taken during construction.
Glasgow indicated this would be accomplished to the extent necessary.
Kramer questioned why the City was not allowing wet tap for water.
VanderTop stated that the line brought into the site would be a 6-inch line with
potential for wet taps if the alignment was off the tapping tool a little bit. It has
been the policy of New Hope for many years that any such connection be
done by shutting off the main and cutting in and installing a "T" and a valve.
Commissioner Barrick wondered whether the City was assuming all of the
costs for the ponding improvements. McDonald stated that the City was
responsible for the regional pond. VanderTop confirmed the applicant would
be responsible for the pond along 49th Avenue and possibly the sediment
pond in the back portion of the property. It may be possible the applicant
would fund a portion of the cost for the regional pond, although the financing
of the project hasn't been decided at this time. For this project, the local ponds
that would be constructed would take care of 75% of the applicant's obligation
for water quality and the remaining 25% could be contributed in cash funds
towards the regional pond. McDonald added that the City Council has not
reviewed the financial details yet and staff has been working with the financial
consultant to put together a package for this project. The Economic
Development Authority would be reviewing the preliminary draft at its meeting
August 12. The plan would be to create a new non-contiguous economic
development tax increment financing district that would include the three
parcels where Navarre would expand and the Ahrens parcel. The additional
tax revenue generated for the City from that project would be quite substantial;
therefore, there would be adequate funds to pay for the ponding and provide
some assistance to both Ahrens and Navarre for their projects.
Kramer wondered whether the water connection would be done by the
contractor and was told the contractor would do the work under the
supervision of Public Works staff. He also wondered what provisions would be
made to protect the sanitary condition of the water main. VanderTop explained
that with the cut-in, Public Works would require a bug test before putting the
water main back into service. The line would be isolated, cut in and a T is
placed, the line flushed, and then a water sample and bug test taken on that
immediately.
Hemken questioned the relationship between Navarre and Ahrens Trucking.
Glasgow stated that Ahrens was occupant and owner of a one-acre parcel
adjacent to two other parcels that Navarre conti'ols. In order for Navarre to
expand its current facility, the one-acre parcel was necessary. Therefore,
Ahrens was being relocated.
A question was raised whether the TIF District would be set up prior to the
transaction being completed. McDonald replied that the City was moving
forward with the plan approvals, then the TIF District needed to be created
prior to starting construction. The City and Navarre were working on an
agreement to insure Navarre would continue with expansion plans. Sondrall
stated that most of the project would be funded by Navarre up front and the
TIF District would be known as a pay-as-you-go type district. Therefore,
Navarre would only have the money to pay for the improvement costs if it
does the development because the development would be what creates the
excess increment that would be used to reimburse Navarre for the
improvement costs that it paid for up front. Glasgow stated that a bond would
be placed on Navarre's property to guarantee that the project go forward. In
addition, there would be a financial incentive for Navarre to go forward as well
Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 7, 2002
or Navarre would not recoup the funds it is advancing.
Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience to address the Commission.
Ms. Marjorie Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue North, came forward with a few
questions for the Commission. Ostrom asked for confirmation that the
trucking company would face 49th Avenue across from Erickson Drive and the
parking for employees would face 49th Avenue. The trucks and storage would
be to the north of the building. The propane tanks would be stored on the west
side of the building inside the area where the trucks would be. If the expansion
took place, the building addition would move to the south toward 49th Avenue.
The setback until the expansion would be quite large. Ostrom pointed out that
during a rainstorm of any consequence that 49th Avenue floods at Flag
Avenue. The flooding used to be more often, but it still does occur. She
questioned what measures could be taken during excessive flooding when
vehicles cannot utilize the intersection. VanderTop explained that there are
some catch basins in front of Englund Graphics near Flag Avenue. Since
1997 or 1998, the outlet to this wetland runs under, the railroad bridge to the
north and there is an outlet structure that was built there. The normal water
level of the wetland is lower than 49th Avenue, but the high water level is such
that the intersection will flood. In 1997, the overflow elevation of the outlet
structure was lowered to the maximum to help minimize the flooding at that
intersection. The flooding still occurs from time to time during large events. It
is greater than a 100-year event when the flooding occurs. The proposed
ponding would help in that more flood storage would be provided, however,
the affect of it during an event may be minimal. There will be one or two
additional catch basins by the Ahrens driveway to catch runoff from its site and
put it back into the pond at the southeast corner and route it back to the
wetland. Ostrom asked for clarification on whether Ahrens would utilize the
entire building or whether a portion of the building would be leased out. It was
confirmed that Ahrens would utilize the entire building. She asked for
confirmation that staff and the Fire Department would investigate the storage
of the propane tanks.
McDonald asked that a representative of Ahrens Trucking explain its
operation, number of trucks per day, overnight idling, etc.
Mr. Bret[ Ahrens came forward. He stated that they run a state-wide trucking
firm where they pick up various items all over the state, transfer or route them
in trucks, and redeliver the items the next day. The hours of operation are
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. There may be a little idle time of trucks in the morning to
warm up the trucks and a little time in the afternoon to cool the engines down.
Five trucks are operated daily and 12 trailers, with maybe a few more after the
expansion. The trucks are parked inside the building at night. They operate
five days a week and occasionally on Saturday in the spring. Truck
maintenance is also performed on Saturdays.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Kramer, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve Planning Case 02-17, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Outdoor Storage in Excess of 20 Percent of the Gross Floor Area
for a Trucking Operation and Site Plan Review to Allow Construction of
a 4,800 Square Foot office/VVarehouse Building, 9200 49~h Avenue North,
Navarre Corporation, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting 12 August 7, 2002
1. Execute Development Agreement and other necessary documents
with City and Navarre Corporation for land exchange, etc.
Performance bond to be submitted (amount to be determined by
Building Official and City Engineer).
2. Comply with recommendations from City Engineer, as noted in
report and at public hearing.
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed District and coordination
with the City on regional storm water pond.
4. Comply with recommendations from Building Official including all
soil preparations; building engineering on soft soils and building
design must comply with State Building Code.
5. Comply with recommendations from Planning Consultant
including:
A. Demonstrate additional on-site parking spaces should an
addition be built to the existing building.
B. Black Hills spruce trees along the western fence to be planted
closer to the fence and in tighter formation. Red maple trees
to be planted along the western property line. Six additional
Black Hills spruce to be planted along the fence for screening
purposes.
C. Glossy black chokeberry plantings in the front yard be shifted
forward towards the building and towards the entrance to
screen the parking area from 49th Avenue.
D. Sod along the sides of lot lines and irrigate all areas.
6. Tree preservation and/or replacement plan for front of building by
pond.
7. Consider a more secure outside facility for propane tanks, or
indoor storage if permitted by Code.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Brauch, Oelkers
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on August 12 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review plans
for the Navarre proposal for Ahrens Trucking and the Dube preliminary plat.
McDonald reported that there will be a preliminary plat for a subdivision of a
twinhome for the September meeting.
Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met in July on transit
shelters. Several additional meetings have been scheduled.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
The next Livable Communities meeting was scheduled for August 21 and the
committee would be reviewing the Requests For Proposals that were
submitted from developers.
The City Center Task Force application deadline was July 31 and the City
Council would be reviewing the applications and appointing the committee in
August.
A suggestion was made that the Design & Review Committee receive some
Planning Commission Meeting 13 August 7, 2002
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
information by e-mail on the items the committee would be reviewing prior to
the meeting, such as the location, etc.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 9, 2002.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reported that the city's Building Official, Doug Sandstad, would be
resigning as of November 1, and the City would miss his expertise and
knowledge of the City.
Landy mentioned the forum on first ring suburbs that will be presented by the
City of Richfield and invited other commissioners to attend.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 14 August 7, 2002
CITY Of NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 3, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen
Anderson, Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Erin
Seeman, Community Department Intern, Jim Casserly and
Mary Molzahn, Krass Monroe, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-11
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Variances to
Allow Six Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front Yard,
Setback Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking Requirements, and
Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow Construction on an Outlot, 7924-
8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners Association, Petitioner.
Chairman Landy informed the Commission that the petitioner had again
requested postponement of this issue. Landy expressed his concern that the
petitioner had requested postponement for the past four months and the 120-
day limit would expire on October 5. He felt the Commission should act on this
issue now. Svendsen concurred with the Chairman due to the fact that the
petitioner had not contacted the City. The applicant could apply again when
ready. McDonald explained that the City had sent a letter to the applicant
requesting that they send a request in writing to the City by mid-September
officially withdrawing the request or requesting a six-month extension. To
date, the applicant has not contacted the City. As far as the Housing
Improvement Area, L'Esperance has finished up a lot of the improvements.,
They would need to amend the agreement when they are ready to construct
the garages. McDonald added L'Esperance representatives verbally had
indicated that they would proceed with the garages possibly in the spring of
2003, but have not decided on a plan. It was noted that the 120-day time limit
of October 5 would expire prior to the October 7 Council meeting. After
consulting expenses are paid, the balance of the deposit may be returned.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to approve Planning Case 02-11, Request for Variances to Allow Six
Double Detached Garages to be Constructed in the Front Yard, Setback
Reduction and Reduction in Open Space Parking Requirements, and
Code Amendment or Plat Change to Allow Construction on an Outlot,
7924-8020 51st Avenue, L'Esperance Owners Association, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: None
Voting against: Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer,
Svendsen
Absent: Anderson, Oelkers
Motion failed.
Landy, O'Brien,
PC02-18 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Preliminary
Item 4.2
Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Natalie's Garden, 5641-5645
Wisconsin Avenue North, Natalie Stuhr, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that the
petitioner was requesting preliminary plat approval of Natalie's Garden to allow
the subdivision of property to a zero lot line. The property is currently zoned
R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential and is located at the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue.
Adjacent land uses include: golf course to the north across Bass Lake Road;
R-4, High Density Residential apartments to the west; R-l, Single Family
Residential to the south; and R-O, Residential-Office to the east. The lot
contains approximately 19,760 square feet - 210 feet deep, 126 feet wide at
the front, and 168 feet at the rear. The existing twinhome contains 4,325
square feet and no changes to the current footprint are proposed. The
Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify this property, however, the
City generally encourages redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing
properties to maintain and enhance the condition and value of the housing
stock.
The existing twinhome was built in 1997 and exceeds the minimum standards
for lot size, dwelling size, and the applicant is the landowner. The applicant is
requesting division of a twinhome base lot dividing a common wall into two
unit lots. The applicant has owned the property since 1954 and lived in a
home next door until construction of the twinhome.
McDonald stated that the applicant submitted correspondence that indicating
that Ms. Stuhr owns the property, occupies the unit at 5641 and her son,
Mark, lives at 5645 Wisconsin. Mark intends to purchase the 5645 unit from
his mother, and in order to pursue a loan to purchase the property, a legal
division would need to be accomplished. The applicant requested that the
Planning Commission waive its review of the final plat. Ms. Stuhr stated in
correspondence that the plat presented to the New Hope Planning
Commission and City Council indicated property taken by Hennepin County
along Bass Lake Road, and she was requesting Hennepin County to build a
retaining wall bordering the side of the property taken.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff
received one call from the owner of an apartment across Bass Lake Road,
and after an explanation of the request, he had no concerns.
McDonald reported that the proposed plat consisted of dividing one lot into two
lots to accomplish a zero lot line for a twinhome, which would be known as
Natalie's Garden. City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation,
unless this requirement would be waived by the Planning Commission during
its review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner had requested waiver of the
review of the final plat by the Planning Commission. Due to the simple nature
of the plat, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission waive the
review of the final plat.
The proposed unit lots meet all the standards as set forth in the Zoning Code.
The plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attorney, City Engineer,
Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and
comment. Hennepin County stated that the 40-foot right of way shown on the
plat was correct. They encouraged the City to consider an additional 10-foot
wide trail easement, if a bikeway was anticipated along Bass Lake Road. A
reminder was included to let the County know about the disposition of the plat
and how the City reacted to their comments. Survey Specialists, the firm that
completed the plat for Ms. Stuhr, received a copy of the letter from Hennepin
Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 3, 2002
County regarding the proposed bike trail easement, in addition to the 40-foot
wide street dedication along Bass Lake Road, and they responded that it was
too early to plan for a trail on the south side of Bass Lake Road since it may
be better placed on the north side where it would have direct connection to the
city's golf course for parking, trail origin, etc. The best way to accomplish this
was by filing an easement document and not showing it on the plat.
McDonald reported that city staff reviewed the plat and was supportive. The
only item discussed was the sewer connection. The easements shown around
the perimeter of the plat are correct. Because the existing sanitary sewer line
for the 5641 unit comes from the 5645 side of the lot, staff requested that an
additional five-foot easement be provided on either side of the zero lot line for
a distance so the utility would be covered by an easement should any work
ever need to be done on it. The surveyor faxed a revised plat to the City,
which was presented to the Design & Review Committee. The Committee was
supportive of the plat with that change. The Building Official indicated that the
mandatory signature, date, and certification stamp of the land surveyor was
missing on the plat. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and commented that
the additional right of way along Bass Lake Road is shown. Staff has
discussed the County's comments regarding the potential additional easement
for a future bike trail and feels that the dedication would be premature. It is
likely that a trail may built through this corridor in the future but the location has
yet to be determined. The trail may be located on the north side of Bass Lake
Road adjacent to the golf course property and could also be coordinated with
the Livable Communities redevelopment concepts. The property owner had
requested construction of a retaining wall along the Bass Lake Road sidewalk,
which would require approval from the County. A retaining wall was not
necessary from the perspective of the roadway and sidewalk. The City
Engineer does not recommend construction of the retaining wall at this time.
When Bass Lake Road is improved in the future, a retaining wall at the
property line may or may not be necessary to facilitate the improved roadway
and sidewalk. If required, the wall would be constructed as part of that project.
All other easements are shown on the plat. The five-foot drainage and utility
easement on either side of the shared lot line would cover the sanitary sewer
service to the south lot that crosses the common lot line. The easement would
allow access if the sanitary sewer ever needed repair. The City Attorney
provided routine comments.
McDonald stated that staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat,
subject to the conditions in the planning report. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission waive review of the final plat.
Landy asked the petitioner to address the Commission.
Ms. Natalie Stuhr, 5641 Wisconsin Avenue North, came forward.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on maintenance of the exterior of
the home, property insurance, etc. and if at some time in the future when
there may be two other property owners, how would the City be assured that
both units would be maintained identically.
Mr. Ken Holmbeck, land surveyor, Survey Specialists, came forward to
address the Commission. He felt that a Declaration of Covenants would be
appropriate to address the Commission's concerns regarding upkeep of the
exterior of the twinhome, and provide some legal guidelines for both
homeowners. A covenant could be drawn up by an attorney as part of the sale
and recorded with the sale.
Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience to address the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 3, 2002
MOTION
Item 4.2
Redevelopment Project
No. 1
Item 4.3
Mr. Randy Jaques, 5621 Wisconsin Avenue North, came forward. He asked
the petitioner for clarification that Natalie's Garden was the only the name of
the plat and that she was not opening a garden center.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
approve Planning Case 02-18, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for
Property to be Known as Natalie's Garden, 5641-5645 Wisconsin
Avenue North, Natalie Stuhr, Petitioner: subject to the following
conditions:
1. Comply with City Attorney recommendations.
2. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
3. Comply with Building Official recommendations:
A. Submit five copies of signed and certified preliminary plats
within seven days.
B. Submit 15 copies of the final plat within 100 days, per
ordinance.
4. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat
5. Legal covenant to be submitted to and approved by the City
Council which covers exterior maintenance, common wall, and any
other items in a twinhome arrangement.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen
None
Kramer
Anderson, Oelkers
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on September 9 and asked that the petitioner be in attendance.
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Resolution Finding That
the Increase in Geographic Area to Redevelopment Project No. 1 is
Consistent With the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of New Hope
Mr. McDonald introduced Mr. Jim Casserly and Ms. Mary Molzahn from the
city's financial consultant office, Krass Monroe.
McDonald explained that the New Hope City Council and Economic
Development Authority have been working on a minor modification and
restatement of the city's tax increment financing districts, per the
recommendation of the financial consultant. A public hearing was scheduled
for the September 9 City Council meeting. One of the steps in this process is
to present the information to the Planning Commission, have the Planning
Commission approve a resolution stating that the increase in geographic area
is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City. The
resolution was prepared by the financial consultant and staff was
recommending approval of the resolution.
In the past the City Council and EDA have conducted public hearings to create
new or amend existing Tax Increment Financing Plans and Districts for
development or redevelopment purposes.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 3, 2002
McDonald stated that Krass Monroe submitted a memorandum on July 15
regarding the Navarre/Ahrens Trucking project. The City was considering
creating a new tax increment financing district to assist Navarre. McDonald
mentioned that there are several other development proposals that may be
coming forward in the near future. In the past, the City created six tax
increment districts: Broadway Village, Chardon Court, North Ridge, along 42nd
Avenue, an apartment complex at 36th/Winnetka Avenues, and the Hillsboro
Court area. The City can also create project areas where TIF funds can be
expended. Over the past ten years, the City had amended the tax increment
plans a number of times to expand the areas where TIF funds could be spent
by adding properties. The money is generated in the original districts and can
be spent in either the original districts or the project areas. The financial
consultant has indicated that the City should consolidate all existing plans into
one plan document and restate it now as the City proceeds forward. This
would also be an opportunity to add properties to the area where TIF funds
could be expended, and staff was recommending several properties be
added. McDonald added that the resolution was a restatement of existing
properties and adding properties to the new plan and that the plan and project
area are generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
McDonald pointed out the areas and properties that were being added to the
project area, including properties involved with the Livable Communities study
area and additional properties as identified in the Comprehensive Plan for
redevelopment. The properties/areas include: the balance of the single family
homes on West Broadway as identified in the Comprehensive Plan; 7610
Bass Lake Road apartment building and the twinhome directly behind it, which
are currently being redeveloped or have the potential for redevelopment in the
future; the southwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road/VVinnetka Avenue which is
part of the Livable Communities area; Frank's site; homes north of the golf
course, because some of the developer's proposals include those properties
(just because the properties are included doesn't mean they have to be
redeveloped); several large industrial lots with small buildings along Science
Center Drive and Highway 169; three marginal buildings along Boone Avenue
north and south of the city-owned property in Science Industrial Park; the
property on the southwest quadrant of Science Center Drive and Boone
Avenue, which is the property Egan Companies is looking at redeveloping;
current Navarre property on 49 Avenue; property at Medicine Lake Road
east of Hillsboro that may be redeveloped in the future; current Egan
Companies property which could be redeveloped if Egan moved to the
Science Industry Park area; and Midland Shopping Center property.
McDonald reiterated that if the Planning Commission was supportive of the
resolution, it should approve the resolution and the City Council could conduct
the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Casseriy came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission.
He stated that the City was expanding the project area and the Planning
Commission would be approving the expansion of the project area with the
parcels as presented. The reason this needed to be accomplished was that
the EDA could only operate within the designated project area. If parcels were
not included, the EDA could not interact on those parcels. A tax increment
district cannot be created unless it is in a project area. It is imperative to
identify all parcels to be included in the project area.
Landy initiated discussion on how the money was collected and where it could
be expended. Tax increment money that was generated prior to 1990 could
be spent anywhere within the project area for various kinds of costs. After
1990 only small portions of the money that is generated from tax increment
districts could be spent in the project area. The City has no districts that were
established after 1990. The Council and EDA will consider the establishment
Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 3, 2002
of a new tax increment district for the Navarre/Ahrens project, which
constitutes four parcels non-contiguous economic development tax increment
district. A couple of the parcels would be added to the project area so that the
City can allow the district to be established. How the money can be spent is
controlled by the year in which the district was established.
Brauch asked for an explanation of the downside of establishing too large an
area. Casserly explained that there was not a downside, but the City should
look at the size of the project area as something that could be realistically
redeveloped over the next 20 years.
Discussion ensued on exactly where the money generated could be spent. A
question was raised as to whether or not it would be prudent to have the entire
city as a project area. The project area is defined as an area where the
opportunity for development or redevelopment could occur within some
reasonable period of time. The reasonable period of time for long-term
redevelopment and planning extends about 15-20 years into the future. Due to
the fact that New Hope is fully developed, the City would be looking at
redevelopment of properties that are 30 to 50 or even 90 years old. The idea
of redevelopment would be to make the property useful for another long
period of time.
Kramer initiated discussion on TIF financing and a potential cost to the
residents. Casserly explained that if tax increment is done carefully there
should be little if any cost to the taxpayers of the community. The reason for
that is that the City would only be capturing the new taxes. Therefore, when
the City is involved with redevelopment, and the way the tax increment law
works is, if the City tears down a building and a new building is constructed,
there is only tax increment on the value over and above the value of the old
building. The first new value that goes in has to cover what was taken down,
which makes it an increment or the increase in value that is captured. The
only risk to taxpayers is when the City issues general obligation debt and that
debt cannot be paid. If the debt is supported by tax increment and the tax
increment is not adequate then there would be the risk of having some of that
debt supported by the rest of the taxpayers.
There are a number of ways to deal with that as well. If the City advances the
funds and repays itself, the funds are there to use again. When the district
ends (some districts are only 8-9 tax increment years in length), the full value
of the property goes on the tax roles. What was there before was always
taxed and received and now the appreciation would be available on new
commercial/industrial property, which is being supported in a tax increment
district. The state is now collecting approximately 30 percent of that value
because the state imposes a tax levy. None of that is available for the tax
increment district or the city. The state has made it very difficult to do
redevelopment and pollution abatement projects and they have not replaced
those funds. About $100 million is pulled out of the system each year to
subsidize the state tax levy and that tax levy is going for education. A well
designed tax increment project should not cost taxpayers, but enhance the
value in the future by putting higher valued property on line. If it is managed
well, it should increase property values of properties that are in close proximity
to the redevelopment. This has been the experience of many older cities. A
city does not need to engage in a tax increment district every time it does a
rehabilitation, but if there are specific areas in need of redevelopment and a
city focuses on those areas, adjacent areas are enhanced because of it.
Casserly reiterated that there is not a lot of tax increment to be utilized in other
areas. Generally, when a tax increment is created, most of the increment that
is created would be needed for that specific project. In the past the City has
had good fortune where some specific properties that were included in a
Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 3, 2002
district have become greatly enhanced in value. For that reason, the City had
generated some resources that now can be used carefully to try to assist with
some housing and redevelopment activities. Most of the time because of the
way tax increment financing is operating today, creation of new districts does
not generate excess monies.
The question before the Planning Commission is whether the proposed
parcels being added to the already existing project area fit within the
Comprehensive Plan. Cassedy mentioned that parcels could be added to the
project area at a later time; this is not an all-inclusive list. Casserly stressed
that the project area is just a planning area. The tax increment district is what
allows the City to generate revenues and to do other kinds of financing
arrangements. The project area simply allows the EDA to acquire property
and sell property and exercise its authority. The project area does not set up a
financial arrangement. The City or the private sector can initiate additional
properties to be added to the project area.
In the past, one problem has been that tax increment financing was utilized for
economic development and redevelopment, which are fundamentally different
activities. In economic development, incentives are provided, and in
redevelopment, the playing field is being leveled to make one piece of land
equal in value to another. Pollution abatement needs to be dealt with as well in
redevelopment activities.
Svendsen clarified that the resolution before the Commission at this meeting
was basically a housekeeping item and the City was simply adding some
properties to the project area.
A question was raised as to how the existing project area was established.
McDonald replied that the properties were added by the City Council over the
last several years. Normally, the modifications have been presented directly to
the City Council. The City has started working with Krass Monroe in earnest
over the last couple years. This is the first time that this information has been
brought to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Landy asked for a reading of the resolution, which was done by Commissioner
Svendsen.
MOTION
Item 4.3
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to approve Resolution Finding That the Increase in Geographic Area to
Redevelopment Project No. 1 is Consistent With the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan of the City of New Hope.
Voting in favor: Barrick, Brauch,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Anderson, Oelkers
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy, O'Brien,
The Commissioners thanked the representatives from Krass Monroe for
addressing all their questions.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review plans
for the Stuhr preliminary plat. McDonald reported that there will be a request
for side yard variance for garage addition for the October 1 Planning
Commission meeting.
Codes & Standards
Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee met on August 27 to
Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 3, 2002
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
discuss daycare businesses in a CB District and to continue discussion on the
thrift store moratorium. The next meeting is scheduled for October 15.
The Livable Communities Task Force met on August 21 and reviewed the
proposals submitted for the four study areas. Proposals for three of the areas
were generally accepted with a few revisions. The two proposals for the East
Winnetka area included very high densities and the consensus of the task
force was to have the developers submit new plans closer to the original
vision of the task force. The neighborhood open house will be postponed until
later in the year.
The City Center Task Force application deadline was extended to October 31
and members will be named in November. The City Council determined that
the Livable Communities Task Force should finish its work prior to the
formation of the task force for the City Center area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
O'Brien, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 7, 2002.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
Landy stated that he and Commissioner Svendsen would be attending a
meeting in Richfield next week on First-Ring Suburbs, and Kramer indicated
an interest.
McDonald stated that the October meeting would be held on the regular
meeting night. Due to elections in November, the meeting would be held on
Wednesday, November 6. The School District would be utilizing the Council
Chambers on December 3, therefore, the Planning Commission meeting
would be held in the Parks & Recreation conference room.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 3, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 1,2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
Hemken, Kramer, O'Brien
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela SyIvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-21
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Side and
Rear Yard Variances for Garage Construction, 8700 61 ¼ Avenue North, Joal
and Amy Stockton, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioners were requesting variances to the side and rear yard setbacks to
allow the construction of a new attached garage. The property is located at
8700 61 ¼ Avenue, the southwest quadrant of Boone and 61% Avenues. The
property is zoned R-l, single family and is surrounded by single-family
properties in all directions with Meadow Lake School across Boone Avenue.
The site area contains approximately 10,640 square feet; the existing house
contains 996 square feet plus a porch and the proposed garage will be 728
square feet. The property is located in Planning District #1 and the
Comprehensive Plan indicates that to maintain and enhance the Iow-density
residential land uses, the City will continue to strongly promote private
reinvestment in this housing stock. The home and detached garage were built
in 1963.
The garage is proposed to be located 15.6 feet from the side yard property
line abutting Boone Avenue, therefore, a 9.6-foot variance from the 25-foot
side yard setback requirement would be required. The garage is proposed to
be located 24 feet from the rear property line, therefore, a one-foot variance
from the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement would also be required.
McDonald stated that the previous detached garage has been demolished
and the applicant was requesting to construct a 26-foot by 28-foot attached
garage. The garage would be located on the east side of the house toward
Boone Avenue. The lot is fully conforming with regard to lot width and area.
The house meets all setback requirements as it sits on the lot. The house is
set back off of 81% Avenue 40 feet in excess of what is required as a
minimum front yard setback. The former garage existed in a manner that was
non-conforming in that it was set back 19 feet from Boone Avenue. The
Zoning Code requires that where a side yard is adjacent to a designated
arterial or community collector street corner lot, the minimum setback shall be
25 feet from the right-of-way. When the home was built, it was placed at a 30-
degree angle that complicated most any improvement. The existing single
width driveway is located 10 feet from the Boone Avenue intersection, which is
an existing non-conformity.
McDonald reported that the petitioners submitted correspondence which
outlined the following reasons for requesting the variance: 1) unable to angle
the garage perpendicular to 61 ~ Avenue and parallel to Boone due to an
existing mature tree in the front yard, 2) reduce access to the house from
Boone Avenue for safety purposes, 3) cut down on the noise level into the
home from Boone Avenue, 4) detached garage would not fit within the current
setbacks on the property, 5) prevent water from collecting along the east
facing side of the house and leaking into the basement; an attached garage
would further prevent water collecting in that area, 6) proposed garage
structure stays within the parameters of the existing driveway, 7) need more
space inside the garage to comfortably open car doors and for storage, 8)
proposed garage was designed to place minimal square footage on the
current setback; by placing the garage perpendicular to 61 ~ Avenue a
greater amount of square footage would impede upon the side yard setback.
Further correspondence submitted stated that the garage would have double
4-inch lap vinyl siding and the petitoners would replace the siding on the
house as well. New gutters would be installed that coincide with the siding
color and the shingles on the garage would be black to match the house.
Property owners within 350 feet were notified, including the City of Brooklyn
Park, and staff received no comments.
McDonald explained that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from
the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue
hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of
a specific parcel of property and where circumstances were unique to the
individual property and the granting of a variance was demonstrated to be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. A hardship may exist by reason
of a physical condition unique to the property such as lot shape, narrowness,
shallowness, slope or topographic or similar conditions. Economic conditions
alone would not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property
existed under the terms of the Code. The undue hardship was unique to the
parcel. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel was not created
by the landowner. The application for variance must also meet the following
criteria: 1) not alter the essential character of the locality, 2) not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, and 3) was the minimum
action required to eliminate the hardship.
The Planner indicated in his report that the applicant's lot was compliant with
the R-1 lot standards and setbacks established for the R-1 District. The
provision of the garage was a use allowed within the R-1 District. Although the
reasons the petitioners listed for requesting the variance, such as reduction of
noise from Boone Avenue, reducing the visibility of the house from the street,
diverting storm water from leaking into the basement, and a garage large
enough to store vehicles and other ancillary items, does not specifically fit the
definition of undue hardship, the Comprehensive Plan promotes mechanisms
that allow property owners to reinvest in their single family homes. Specifically,
one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for residential neighborhoods
includes promoting private reinvestment and developing regulations to provide
greater development of flexibility for single-family homeowners. McDonald
stated that it was the Planner's opinion that the addition of the garage would
result in an improved house appearance and enhance the value of the home.
McDonald added that the side yard setback for the property to the north
appears to be approximately 14 feet from the property line. The applicant was
requesting a greater setback of 15.5 feet, but the garage would still fall within
the setback line already established in the neighborhood.
The Design & Review Committee met with the applicant and was supportive
of the request. The Committee requested improved elevation drawings to
determine the roof pitch, the Committee felt the garage size was appropriate,
Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 1,2002
and requested that the petitioners obtain a building permit for the demolition of
the old garage. Revised drawing show the south elevation to have two 10' x 8'
overhead garage doors, double 4" lap vinyl siding and firewall separation, the
east elevation shows two 4' x 2' windows, and the north elevation shows one
4' x 2' window and one 3' x 6'-8" service door.
McDonald stated that the placement of the garage should not interfere with
traffic visibility along Boone Avenue because it would be placed back far
enough from the front property line. Even though a specific hardship was hard
to determine for this variance, staff felt that the Comprehensive Plan definitely
promotes this type of reinvestment and was recommending approval, subject
to the conditions listed in the planning report.
Mr. Joal Stockton, 8700 61% Avenue North, approached the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen commended the petitioner for answering the
questions raised at the Design & Review Committee meeting with regard to
the setback distances. He clarified that the front fascia of the garage would be
set back a little from the front of the house due to the fact that the house has a
four-foot overhand and the garage would have a two-foot overhang. The plane
of the shingles across the house and garage would be the same, with a higher
ridge. It was confirmed that the petitioner and the inspections department
were in agreement with the wood foundation for the garage.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to
approve Planning Case 02-21, Request for a 9.6-Foot Side Yard Setback
Variance and a 1-Foot Rear Yard Setback Variance to Allow
Construction of an Attached Garage, 8700 61 '/'2 Avenue North, Joal and
Amy Stockton, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Any increase in the width of the existing driveway must go toward
the west, leaving the eastern edge of the driveway with the existing
10-foot setback.
2. The applicant shall provide detailed plans necessary for a building
permit application and a detailed building elevation illustrating that
the roofline for the proposed garage will align with the existing
house.
3. The exterior materials for the proposed garage shall match those of
the existing house as described in the applicant's narrative.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion passed.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Hemken, Kramer, O'Brien
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on October 14 and asked that the petitioners be in attendance.
PC02-16
Item 4.2
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, An Ordinance
Establishing Commercial Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the R-O,
P-B, LB and CB Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that this request was initially
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 1,2002
brought forth with an inquiry for a potential daycare center in Midland
Shopping Center. Prior to updating the Code, daycare facilities were allowed
in the commercial districts, however, with the Zoning Code update, this
section of the ordinance was inadvertently omitted from the Code. This
ordinance introduces child daycare, as well as adult daycare, as a conditional
use in all of the residential-business and business zoning districts. Promoting
a wider variety of businesses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in
order to revitalize the commercial centers. The conditions imposed in the
proposed code are similar to the previous daycare code. Off-street parking
should be provided in compliance with the city code and also designed with a
facility drop off area that would not interfere with internal circulation. There is a
requirement for adequate off-street loading and service entrances and gives
some flexibility on the loading berth size depending on the delivery vehicles
utilized. An outdoor recreation area would need to be provided for child and
adult daycare operations. Brixius stated that staff felt the outdoor recreation
area was a vital element. The proposed ordinance suggests that each facility
must provide a minimum of 1,500 square feet of outdoor recreation area and
must have 75 square feet of outdoor recreation area per person within the
outdoor recreation area at any given time. Provision was made in the
proposed code for some reduction for adult daycare facilities if they can
demonstrate that limited client mobility warranted a reduction. The outdoor
recreation areas located in the side or rear yard shall be subject to accessory
building setback, and shall be fully enclosed and delineated via fencing and
landscaping. One concern of introducing the daycare centers in commercial
areas was that the recreation area would become a fenced parking lot and a
provision was made that at least 25 percent of the outdoor recreation area
should be green space and planted with sod, grass or landscaped
accordingly. Another critical element to daycare centers is building and fire
code compliance. Some of the older buildings may not be eligible based on
occupancy requirements. All daycare facilities should be state licensed.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the outdoor recreation areas for schools and
recent applications. Specialty school, such as gymnastics, can be located in
industrial areas because they need large warehouse spaces for mats, etc. A
recent application for a charter school, similar to a public school, was to be
located in an industrial area and part of the application was for a zoning
amendment to allow educational type schools in the industrial district, which
city staff did not support. Another issue for the charter school application was
that the school would have to share a driveway/building with other industrial
uses. It was pointed out that it was important that New Hope keep its industrial
tax base without introducing tax exempt properties into it. The playground
criteria is a state licensed stipulation.
Discussion ensued on the green space for the playground area. It was noted
that the area around the playground equipment may offer wood chips, mats,
pea gravel, etc. The green space requirement would be the same for child or
adult daycare. McDonald interjected that a daycare use would be allowed by
conditional use permit and each application would be reviewed individually.
Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, suggested that by allowing daycare centers in
shopping centers, the outdoor recreation area may be a portion of the parking
lot fenced off with the green space inside the fence. He suggested that the
ordinance be approved as it was written, and if it was found to be inadequate
through an application process, the ordinance could be amended at that time.
Sondrall added that in order to be consistent the Codes & Standards
Committee and staff decided to draft a regulation that would be appropriate for
both child and adult daycare centers, even though adult daycare didn't need
play areas, it would still be nice to have a sitting area outside. It was felt by the
Committee and staff that some performance standards should be set up at
the beginning as to where the area would be located and how it would be
treated. It was mentioned that the location for the requested Russian adult
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 1,2002
daycare would not have provided any green space, and the only issues they
would have had to deal with were the ventilation and firepreofing associated
with the daycare occupancy in the office building. The state preposes
regulations for outdoor play areas, but providing an outdoor play area may or
may not be mandatory.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Oelkere, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to
approve Planning Case 02-16, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial
Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the R-O, R-B, LB and CB
Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen
None
Hemken, Kremer, O'Brien
A question was reised on how the City would handle a request for an adult
daycare that did not require an outdoor recreation area. Brixius responded that
there was a stipulation in the ordinance relating to adult daycare and reducing
the outdoor area according to the mobility of the clientele. Sondrell added that
the applicant would be subject to the stipulation unless they could
demonstrate that the recreation area did not apply to them. The definition of
green space is the area that would be gressed, sodded or landscaped.
Chairman Landy noted that this ordinance would be considered by the City
Council on October 14.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met to review plans
for the garege variance. McDonald reported that the city was not aware of any
applications for November, but that the deadline for filing was October 11. He
stated that the Sinclair station at Medicine Lake Road and Highway 169
contacted the city and was proposing to demolish the existing station and
totally redevelop that site. Collisys has also contacted the city about adding
another building to its site, and several other businesses have contacted the
city about redevelopment projects in the future. In the event there are no
applications, McDonald requested that the Commission still meet on
November 6 to review the thrift store moretorium study, and the Commission
was agreeable to meeting in November.
The Frenk's redevelopment project that the EDA reviewed recently was
mentioned and McDonald informed the Commission that if the developer
could successfully negotiate with the property owner, construction could start
next spring.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Barrick reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had completed its
work on the daycare ordinance. The next meeting was scheduled for October
15 to finalize the report for the thrift store moratorium and bus transit shelters.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
McDonald reported that the Livable Communities study grant is to be
completed by end of the year and the proposed timeline would be for another
task force meeting in October, the neighborhood open house in November
and all the proposals to be presented to the Planning Commission and City
Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 1,2002
Council in December.
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Svendsen initiated discussion on the information presented at the First-Ring
Suburb Forum that he and Chairman Landy attended, which was presented
by the City of Richfield. He stated that the discussion focused on fully
developed suburbs. One issue presented was that first-ring suburbs do not
have a lobby group to go to the Metropolitan Council to obtain its fair share of
monies, policies, etc. The transportation issue was discussed in that
infrastructure was being developed much farther outside the metropolitan area
and cities such as New Hope was not receiving funding for mass transit and
other items. Pursuant to that meeting, notification was mailed to attendees
and cities on forming a committee with planning commissioners and/or city
staff to attend the meetings and possibly forming a lobbying group. After some
discussion, Commissioner Svendsen agreed to attend the next meeting on
October 7.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Oelkers, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 3,
2002. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald informed the Commissioners that Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council was conducting a Diversity Panel for all cities. New Hope's
panel would be held in New Hope on October 23 at the New Hope golf course.
The City Council and all members of city commissions are invited and
encouraged to attend. Additional information would be mailed to all
commissioners next week.
McDonald reminded the Commission that due to Election Day on the regular
meeting night, the November meeting would be held on Wednesday,
November 6.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 1, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 6, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien, Svendsen
Oelkers
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-03
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Review and Discussion of
Preliminary Thrift Store Moratorium Study Recommendations from Codes &
Standards Subcommittee, City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that city staff
was requesting to review and discuss with the Planning Commission the
preliminary recommendations from the Codes & Standards subcommittee
on the Thrift Store Moratorium Study. The Commission needed to determine
if it was in agreement with the recommendations or wanted to modify the
recommendations before the study was presented to the City Council. The
Planning Consultant and City Attorney were in attendance to explain the
recommendations with the Commission. Copies of the report were sent to
the owners/managers of the major shopping centers and thrift stores in the
City and they were invited to the meeting to offer their viewpoints on the
issue.
MCDonald reported that at the March 11 City Council meeting, staff
indicated a concern to the Council about the increasing number of thrift and
second-hand merchandise stores locating in the City. A moratorium was
implemented subsequent to a request from Grubb & Ellis for a Salvation
Army store entering into a lease agreement at the former Walgreen's site at
36th and Winnetka. Staff indicated to the City Council that several stores of
this type were located in New Hope and requested direction on whether or
not this issue should be studied further. The City Council was in agreement
with staff and took the following actions at the March 11 Council meeting:
· Approved a Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider
Regulations for Businesses Engaged in the Retail Sale of Second-Hand
Merchandise
· Adopted an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting All Businesses
Engaging in Retail Sales of Second-Hand Merchandise Within the City
The resolution stated that a business engaged in the retail sale of second-
hand merchandise was defined as a business where more than fifty percent
(50%) of the gross sales was derived from the sale of tangible personal
property previously used, rented, owned or leased. Several other key points
of the resolution were listed in the planning report.
The Council also adopted an ordinance which imposed a temporary
prohibition on businesses engaged in the sale of second hand merchandise
that were currently not operating in the City as of March 11, 2002, to allow
the City time to-authorize a study and have the Planning Commission review
the issue. The initial moratorium was effective until August 13, and due to
the fact that the study was not yet completed, in July the Council extended
the moratorium through December 31 of this year.
McDonald stated that Northwest Consultants submitted a workplan to the
City to study this issue, which was approved by the City Manager and
included the following components: 1) an inventory of existing regulations, a
field inventory that included talking with the owners of the major commercial
shopping centers, real estate information, and reviewing police activity at
these businesses; 2) issues analysis to analyze stores of this type; and 3)
recommendations.
For the past seven months, the Codes & Standards Committee of the
Planning Commission met to review elements of the report as the Planning
Consultant provided information. The results of the study and
recommendations, newspaper articles and letters/e-mails from residents,
both for and against the ordinance, were included with the report. A copy of
the study was also mailed to Gavin Muldowney, Manager Surplus
Property/Disposition Results Department, for Walgreens and Muldowney
faxed correspondence today, which was distributed at this meeting.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the direction given to him
was to study the impact on land use with regard to thrift stores/second-hand
dealers and study their impact as far as retailing and land use effects on
other commercial properties within the same district. The first step was to
contact the American Planners Association and the Minnesota League of
Cities to inquire whether there were regulations that pertained to these types
of businesses. The definition of thrift stores includes a broad range,
including Play It Again Sports, 2nd Wind Exercise Equipment, pawn shops,
consignment stores, antique dealers, and precious metal dealers/jewelers.
Typically, second-hand dealers are those who receive merchandise without
compensation to the provider of the merchandise, process and resell the
merchandise at their facility. The other businesses in this classification
generally compensate the person bringing in the merchandise. There are no
national or local standards available that pertain to thrift stores.
Metropolitan communities were surveyed and the search showed that most
cities do not have a comprehensive city ordinance pertaining to thrift stores
and regulate them under general retail or commercial standards. Of the
cities surveyed, New Hope and West St. Paul each have five stores, Maple
Grove has four, and Burnsville has between six and ten. City administrators
were asked what general characteristics of a commercial area contributed
to thrift stores locating on a particular site. Responses given included:
location in business districts, location near major arterial roads offering
access to high traffic volumes, Iow rental rates and Iow overhead expenses.
When asked about concerns relating to these operations, responses
included: drop off of second hand merchandise as it related to processing of
the merchandise on site because not all of the merchandise received was
useable for resale and therefore disposal was an issue, typically there is
little reinvestment in the property, and there are issues related to fire and
building code requirements. West St. Paul's guidelines included: operation
must be located in a shopping center, transfer or sale of merchandise must
be entirely within the building, no outdoor storage of any kind was allowed,
structure no greater than 10,000 square feet, and a city license was
required for all second-hand dealers. Zoning was addressed as a land use
issue and licensing would address the operational requirements.
Through the survey of surrounding communities,, the only distinction
between second-hand dealers and other first-line merchandisers was the
need for processing. Most of the complaints received in New Hope related
to processing, such as the drop off of goods in the front of stores,
Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 6, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting
processing through the store, and disposal of unsaleable merchandise.
These types of businesses are typical of other retailers as far as location
requirements and parking demands. The processing issue is the only item
that sets them apart from other retailers.
Brixius stated that issues discussed during interviews with shopping center
owners in New Hope indicated that the City has an abundance of affordable
housing and fits the customer profile for these value-oriented retailers. The
physical conditions of the shopping centers are attractive to these
businesses. New Hope's centers are located away from the major
commuter routes. The centers were built in the 1960s and 1970s and are
not attracting major retailers like the newer centers in Plymouth and Maple
Grove. The lease rates are affordable for value-oriented and start-up
businesses. Brixius reported that shopping center owners were
accommodating more start-up businesses and offering initial lease rate
reductions to get the centers filled. Center owners required a business plan
as a condition of signing a lease.
Shopping center owners indicated that over the next ten years, if current
conditions remain the same and the physical conditions of the centers are
not changed without public reinvestment, this trend of value-oriented
businesses will continue to fill the vacancies in the centers. Shopping center
owners suggested that New Hope needed to be more flexible in attracting
new retail facilities, specifically the liquor license requirements and
commercial hours of operation. A major national retailer would provide
drawing power to invigorate the community.
Brixius pointed out that the census data indicated that New Hope was an
aging community with the median age in 2000 at 38.3 compared to 28.3 in
1980. The median household income in 2000 was $46,795, which is Iow
compared to some of the surrounding communities. Only Brooklyn Center
shows a lower median income. The poverty level in 1990 was 5.3 percent of
families and went down to 4.1 in 2000. However, in comparison to
surrounding communities, there was still a large number of households
under the poverty level. These trends indicate some of the reasons New
Hope attracts value-oriented businesses.
Brixius stated that the Police Department reported that the value-oriented
businesses were not generating any more police calls than other retailers.
Complaints received pertained mostly to construction without permits, illegal
signage, filth and rodent infestation, trash and junk outside of the stores,
lack of clothes changing rooms, lack of disability access, and dirty interiors.
These issues are handled through the building department.
The following findings were offered as a result of the study:
1. Thrift store and second-hand dealers have land use characteristics that
differ from other types of retailers, including how goods are received,
processed, and the disposal of non-saleable merchandise. Drop off of
goods occurring after business hours was difficult to control even when
signs are posted. Screening and security of drop off areas were also an
issue. Non-saleable goods can accumulate without adequate waste
disposal. Local complaints have been raised concerning drop off areas,
outdoor displays, and proper waste disposal. These items can be
addressed through code enforcement and additional regulations.
2. Thrift stores and second-hand dealers are not the cause of decline in
shopping centers. As indicated in the 1995 market study, the decline
has occurred naturally as the community matured and with the new
commercial growth in surrounding communities. Thrift stores may be the
result of the decline, not the cause. Center managers need to fill vacant
space.
New Hope's moderately priced housing and demographic profile was
3 November 6, 2002
favorable to value-oriented businesses such as thrift stores and other
discount stores.
4. The police report does not suggest that thrift stores have criminal
activity or negative secondary impacts that could be attributed to uses
like pawn shops or adult uses. The initial resolution indicated a concern
for a negative effect on adjacent properties, however, this study does
not support that concern.
Brixius reported that thrift stores and second hand dealers were symptoms
of larger issues facing New Hope. Those issues include aging buildings,
changing markets, and shifting national market trends. To address the thrift
store issue and the larger issue, the following recommendations are offered:
1. Consider business licensing for all new businesses. One issue in the
shopping centers, as well as industrial buildings, is that a change in
tenancy occurs without staff knowledge and without the City knowing
what the business use was composed of, whether the tenant bay or
building is adequate for their needs, or fully code compliant. Through
licensing it would give city staff better knowledge of what was happening
in each of the individual districts, and a better opportunity for both zoning
and building code enforcement.
2. The City should aggressively examine the potential redevelopment of its
major centers. Through the Livable Communities study, the Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka area had been studied to determine what
redevelopment could be accomplished. Winnetka and 42® Avenues is
another opportunity for redevelopment. There is the potential to reduce
the amount of obsolete marginal commercial floor space and create new
commercial development that may be exciting and attractive to
contemporary national retailers. In reducing the amount of commercial
retail space, alternative land uses may provide additional support and
market for newer retailers.
3. The City needs to examine its business regulations to be more business
friendly and regionally competitive, such as hours of operation, liquor
license construction value, and shopping center parking standards.
4. Areas of code enforcement include trash and rubbish on building
grounds and loading areas, non-compliant signage, illegal construction,
and any other issues that would have a detrimental appearance to the
commercial sites.
5. Staff was recommending a city code change under the second-hand
dealers and pawn shop requirements to require business licensing for all
used merchandise stores and second-hand merchandise dealers, with
the following conditions: a) that the building and tenant bay shall be
inspected and brought into compliance with all building, electrical, and
fire code requirements prior to issuance of the business license; b) the
receipt and transfer of used good shall be conducted entirely within the
building with no outdoor drop off areas allowed; c) no outdoor storage of
any kind shall be permitted with the used merchandise business license;
d) all refuse containers, dumpsters, and trash handling equipment shall
be approved by the City and kept in good repair with lids to prevent
spilling or access to animals; e) all trash handling equipment shall be
located in an enclosure approved by the City and meeting the following
standards: 5e(1) exterior walls or fence treatment of the trash
enclosures shall be similar or complementary to the exterior finish of the
principal building; 5e(2) trash enclosures shall be located in the side or
rear yards and meet the applicable setback requirements; 5e(3) trash
enclosures shall be accessible for pick up and hauling vehicles; 5e(4)
trash enclosures shall fully screen trash receptacles from view of
adjacent properties and public rights-of-way; 5f) used merchandise
Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 6, 2002
stores that include clothing sales shall provide accessible changing
rooms; and 5g) used merchandise retailers that purchase merchandise
from store patrons shall also be required to have a pawn shop license in
accordance with Section 8.334A of the city code.
6. If the City establishes a business license for used-merchandise stores
or second-hand dealers, a fee for processing the license must also be
established.
Mr. Dave Kloeber, owner of Unique Thrift Store at 4471 Winnetka Avenue,
approached the podium. He stated that he did not have a problem with
anyone telling him how to maintain the outside of the building. His feeling was
that the Police Department should patrol the area more often during times
when the dumping problems occur at the site. Signage had been installed,
which has not deterred people dumping trash by the store. There would be a
new security system installed to record the license plate numbers of the
people dumping the trash. The Police Department indicated to him that it may
or may not be able to use this information in tracking down the violators.
Kloeber stated that his biggest objection with the report was the requirement
for providing changing rooms.
Kloeber stated he had been in the thrift store business for 25 years, and his
family opened the first independently owned thrift store in the United States in
1947. Theft was a big concern. One of his stores had a changing room and
· there was so much theft he had to close the store. Unique Thrift puts out over
200,000 items per week, and is the highest volume thrift store in the state.
KIoeber added that the store recycles two million pounds of clothing per year
to third world countries.
Kloeber reported that he owns the other two shopping centers where his
stores are located, including Roseville and Columbia Heights. He purchased
the Roseville shopping center nine years ago when it was in poor condition
and refinished the entire center. Requirements for remodeling the thrift store
location included new bathrooms and a new entrance for the store, which
would have cost $150,000. Roseville assisted in this process by allowing
some changes to the code requirements so the investment in the property
was not cost prohibitive. Kloeber pointed out that the statement regarding thrift
stores not adding value to the property was inaccurate in that a lot of work in
the amount of $750,000 was completed on the interior of the space at
Winnetka Center prior to the store opening its doors.
Kloeber explained that one of the main reasons thrift stores are attracted to
New Hope was the large amount of high density housing available per square
mile. Every major thrift store operator in the country goes to an area where
there is an abundance of apartments, because typically people who live in
apartments don't have room to store items, so they throw things out more
often and buy new. Another area thrift stores locate is where they see a lot of
storage facilities close by.
A breakdown should be done of thrift stores who purchase merchandise from
charities or a charitable organizations and thrift stores who buy from the
people walking in. KIoeber stated that he buys from charities on annual
contracts. Last year he paid the Vietnam Veterans of America over $1 million
and the Lupus Foundation of Minnesota over $250,000, which is a good
investment back into the community.
If the City felt there was a problem with thrift stores, the City and thrift stores
should work together to fix problems. Thrift stores do not deteriorate cities;
they build up shopping centers. Winnetka Center had many vacancies when
Unique Thrift moved in and it is almost full now. At this location, over 13,000
people per week come into the store and 6,000 purchase merchandise. The
tax base from the store is very large. There are 75 full-time employees at this
location.
P~anning Commission Meeting
5 November 6, 2002
Kloeber reiterated he felt this was a very important issue and wanted to
address the Commission. He stated he did not like the City telling him he had
to provide changing rooms, which he knew from past experience would harm
his business.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned how merchandise was marked prior
going out on the floor for the consumer. Kloeber stated that there were 11
departments and there were people from each department pricing the
merchandise. The pricers sort the merchandise, size it, tag it, price it, and
display it. Svendsen pointed out that tags could be removed from new
merchandise in a dressing room as well. Kloeber pointed out that a new shirt
was pressed and had creases on the sleeve and would be easier to see on
someone walking out of the dressing room. Svendsen questioned whether
some employees couldn't be designated for security purposes and Kloeber
didn't feel he could utilize current employees that way. Discussion ensued on
how customers would know whether or not the clothes fit if they could not try
them on.
Brixius asked Kloeber whether there were any other issues in the report that
concerned him other than the changing rooms and if he had any other
suggestions. KIoeber responded that his only suggestion was that the trash be
in enclosed compactor containers.
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on how a thrift store chose a
particular shopping center location. KIoeber replied that he typically finds a
shopping center that is run down and in need of improvements and purchased
it. After improvements are made, he opens a thrift store which generates
much traffic and the other locations fill up quickly. The owner of Winnetka
Center redid the entire front fa~;ade of the building, the canopies on the front
and painted. After renovations, rents are comparable to other shopping
centers. Other businesses in the shopping centers include restaurants,
laudromat, grocery store, thrift and dollar store, a nail/hair salon, and
SuperAmerica is located on the corner.
Commissioner Hemken wondered if the 'balance of the study was acceptable
with him if the changing room requirement was deleted and the trash
enclosure requirement changed, and whether he had other suggestions.
Kloeber stated that he agreed with the rest of the study. The trash issue was a
major concern and he felt the City should be very strict on that issue. He
added that 90 percent of the items dumped by their door was trash that could
not be disposed of in the trash, such as tires, appliances, microwave ovens,
car batteries, and oil, which cost him a lot of money monthly to dispose of the
items properly. Commissioner O'Brien added that he agreed the Police
Department should be more proactive in driving by this location during off
hours. KIober stated that usually the dumping hours are between noon and
dark on Sundays. A suggestion was made to stay open during those hours,
and the response was that the St. Paul store was open on Sunday afternoon,
but people dumped items at the doorstep after closing and by Monday
morning it was an eyesore. Of the merchandise he purchases annually, half
must be disposed of, and of the remaining merchandise only half is sellable
and the balance is donated. For example, Good Will can only sell
approximately ten percent of the merchandise they receive.
Discussion ensued on the disposal of the trash and Kloeber stated that his
trash bill is approximately $6,000 per month for the store's trash and another
$6,000 for the items dumped at the door. A suggestion was made to have a
security guard at night and weekends to deter this behavior and the response
was that security would cost more than $6,000 per month. Kloeber hoped that
the digital security system would be a deterrent and that the Police
Department could utilize the information to ticket the people. Commissioner
Barrick questioned whether there were signs posted to inform people they
were being photographed and this was confirmed.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 6, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, questioned how it would be established that
the individual who drove the car into the parking lot was the registered owner
of the car. The photograph would be of the individual and the license plate of
the car. Sondrall stated that the City could not prosecute someone unless it
could be proved that they were there with the car, and would not guarantee a
conviction.
Ms. Sarah Hoese, store manager of Arc's Value Village located at Midland
Shopping Center, came forward. Hoese stated that Arc's Value Village had
been in business for neady 20 years, are a non-profit, and are owned by Arc
Hennepin Carver, which supplied advocacy and support for people with
mental retardation and related developmental disabilities. The New Hope
location had approximately 25 staff, however, volunteers did the majority of
the work done at this store. Seventy-five percent of the people are volunteers
and work there freely. Community groups, church groups and corporate
groups come in to work from one hour to a full day and work with the paid
staff. City Pages voted Arc's Value Village the best thrift store in Minneapolis
three years in a row. Hoese stated that employees of Value Village felt they
were an important part of the community. They have been located at Midland
Shopping Center for the last 3½ years and prior to that they were located in
New Hope Mall. The merchandise that comes in is donated from members of
the community and drop off directly at the store. Hoese indicated that since
Value Village relied heavily on the generosity of the donors in the surroundin~
community, they concerned that by allowing Salvation Army to lease at 36"'
and Winnetka it would take away from their donor base. The Value Village
store looks like any typical retail business. It was noted that there are changing
rooms at these stores and there are many volunteer workers in the stores at
all times as well as security cameras. They have very little problem with
dumping of trash at night. They do have a compactor for refuse, with the
exception of the cardboard which is kept in a locked container. The hours of
operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday and all day Saturday
and Sunday.
Ms. Bev Russell, owner of Down On 42nd Avenue, a women's consignment
shop, came forward to address the Commission. She wanted to attend
because her customers indicated concern that the consignment shop was
being lumped together with thrift stores by the press and the City. There is a
difference between thrift and consignment stores, but understands why they
were grouped together. She stated that she had been in New Hope for 12
years and her customers come from this area as well as the Lake Minnetonka
area, Mound, etc. She did have some concern with the amount of thrift shops
in New Hope, although Richfield has lots of thrift shops and consignment
shops, and Hopkins has antique shops along with the thrift and consignment
shops. It was clarified that a consignment shop takes in the merchandise and
pays the donor a percentage of the sale amount and the store keeps the
balance. A question was raised as to why she located in New Hope and
Russell stated that she lived in the area. There are changing rooms in this
store. When asked whether she knew if G.I. Joe was a consignment store,
she stated that she did not know. Russell also stated that she hoped that all of
the stores were visited when preparing this report.
Brixius indicated that his office had visited New Hope businesses as well as
surrounding communities. He indicated that the study did not see thrift stores
as causing a decline of the shopping centers, but as typical retail uses. The
only distinction was the processing of merchandise and the drop off. No
change in zoning was being proposed that would result in thrift stores being
limited in location in New Hope. One of the recommendations for all business
zones was that perhaps New Hope needed to initiate a business license for all
businesses and industrial uses to be sure that all businesses are code
compliant.
Discussion ensued on what other types of businesses required a business
7 November 6, 2002
license in the City, which would be liquor stores, pawn shops, adult uses, gas
stations, and car washes. These uses are licensed due to the fact that there
are potential secondary ramifications that need to be controlled, such as
serving minors, etc. The licensing ordinance for an established business
would be retroactive, and an inspection would need to be accomplished for
each location. The City Attorney stated that it was his opinion not every
business needed to be licensed, only businesses where enforcement was
necessary. Licensing cannot be established for revenue purposes, a license
fee would only reimburse the City for its costs to inspect and review the
property on an annual basis. In the case of liquor or tobacco, it is a fact that
police calls and compliance checks were necessary. If the Planning
Commission felt it was necessary to inspect thrift stores, consignment shops,
and other retail establishments, then those license regulations would be
developed and an appropriate fee would be charged. Brauch pointed out that
the conditions outlined in the report could be applicable to any business.
Sondrall stated that secondary impact determines whether there should be
stricter regulations on proximity, number, etc. The report indicated that there
was no negative secondary impact related to thrift stores. They are not
attracting an element into the City that was any different than a retailer dealing
in new merchandise. A pawn shop may have may be patrons coming in to sell
stolen merchandise. Sondrall was not suggesting that thrift stores should not
be licensed if the police were to be involved in the enforcement of violators
dumping trash, which would be a basis for licensing that would be different
than the Kmart store, for example, that would probably not have that problem.
Other retailers have the new merchandise arriving during store hours. Brauch
stressed that if the City would license thrift stores because it was felt that
these businesses required extra policing, then the City would be obligated to
provide it. Kloeber indicated that the other locations were licensed. Sondrall
stated that the City needed to justify the license fee cost, and at this time, New
Hope does not charge enough to fully reimburse its costs. He maintained that
New Hope does not use the license fees for revenue purposes.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen commented that he agreed with Kloeber that the City should not be
telling him how to run his business. The report indicated that Maple Grove
required a new sign permit and certificate of occupancy to monitor new
businesses locating in the City. New Hope does not issue a certificate of
occupancy for businesses. Sondrall indicated that a certificate of occupancy
was different than a tenant occupancy. New Hope does not monitor all the
tenants in a multi-tenant building. Kramer stated he felt the City should be
monitoring this due to the fact that the use may not be appropriate for the
building or meet the code requirements. Some kind of certificate should be
issued for new businesses. Sondrall added that this issue was more important
for the industrial area where hazardous substances may be stored improperly
under the occupancy and building codes. Brixius added that there had been
problems in commercial centers previously with the food stores in that they did
not meet the sanitation requirements, electrical code, and other features
inherent in keeping food. The Fire Department should be involved with the
occupancy issue as well.
It was suggested that the Police Department could monitor the Unique Thrift
site more often during off hours, and it was noted that the police do monitor
the property regularly at Unique Thrift Store. It was suggested that possibly
some short-term policing of the dumping situation at Unique Thrift would stop
the problem. Kramer stressed that he felt some standards did need to be
Planning Commission Meeting 8 November 6, 2002
MOTION
Item 4.1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
implemented in order to police activity.
A question was raised on the ramifications of the study on the existing thrift
store owners. Brixius maintained that there were no objections made other
than the changing rooms. There would be opportunity for licensing and
inspecting on an annual basis. If there were problems or concerns during the
year, these would need to be remedied prior to the next year's business
license being issued.
O'Brien stressed that changing rooms should be provided in the store.
McDonald added that he had taken complaints from patrons because there
were no changing rooms and someone was trying on clothes in the aisle.
Hemken questioned whether this study would move on to the City Council if it
was approved with the recommendation to eliminate the changing rooms and
was told the City Council would consider this study on November 12.
Brixius explained that it had been determined that thrift stores were a land use
issue rather than zoning. Based on further discussions, he now felt that it was
not a land use issue either, but rather an operational issue, which was why
business licensing would be appropriate.
Brauch stated that point number 6 in the recommendations in the report
indicated that a fee needed to be established for the license, therefore, the
Police Department should be aware that they would need to do higher policing
of the area if the businesses were paying a fee for a business license.
Motion by Commissioner Hemken seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to
approve Planning Case 02-03, Thrift Store Moratorium Study, City of
New Hope, Petitioners, subject to the following changes:
1. Remove recommendation 5f regarding the provision of accessible
changing rooms.
2. Any business license fee established should take into consideration
the additional police department patrols that may be required for
these establishments.
Voting in favor:Anderson, Barrick,
Svendsen
Voting against: O'Brien
Absent: Oelkers
Motion passed.
Brauch, Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
O'Brien explained that he voted no because he did not agree with the change
to eliminate changing rooms.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on November 12.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee did not meet in
October. McDonald reported that the city was aware of a couple potential
applications for December's meeting but didn't know if they would be ready by
the November 8 deadline. The Committee would be contacted if there will be
a meeting. In December the Livable Communities Task Force
recommendations will be presented. Staff is currently working on a CUP for a
budget car rental facility in City Center, a subdivision of industrial property at
th
8201 54 Avenue, Chardon Court expansion and Navarre.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 November 6, 2002
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Landy thanked Kramer and the Codes & Standards Committee and
consultants for their work on the thrift store study.
Kramer reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had completed its
work on the thrift store study. The next meeting was scheduled for November
12 to continue working on bus transit shelters, discuss minor code
amendments, and the dog kennel moratorium.
Kramer read his letter of resignation for the Commission effective November
15, due to his move to Saint Michael. The Commission extended appreciation
to Kramer for all of his years of work with the Commission and
subcommittees.
Svendsen reported that the Livable Communities task force conducted its last
meeting in October and the Committee reviewed the revised proposals for
East Winnetka. The Committee was not too excited about either proposal and
suggested that the City be its own developer. The neighborhood open house
would be held on November 19 from 4 - 8 p.m. and then the proposals would
be presented to the Planning Commission on December 3 and City Council on
December 9. A question was raised on whether there would be more high-
density rental housing and how that would impact possible additional thrift
stores in the City. It was noted that the four different areas would offer a good
mix of high and Iow density housing and retail. Brixius interjected that he took
exception to something Kloeber stated that thrift stores locate next to
apartments, the stores also locate next to affordable moderately priced
apartments. He added that the developments that the task force looked at
was alternative housing that would promote owner occupancy, with the
exception of the Bass Lake Road Apartment site, which may be market rate
rental units with some Section 8 units. The proposal offers a dramatic change
from the existing complex. All members of the Commission were invited to the
Livable Communities Open House to observe the proposals. Landy thanked
all the members of the Commission who had been a part of the task force.
McDonald reported that the applications for the City Center Task Force were
being presented to the City Council on November 12.
There was some discussion on a proposed development at 42"d and Quebec
Avenues.
The Planning Commission schedule for 2003 was approved.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
O'Brien, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 1,
2002. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
Svendsen reported that McDonald and he were going to the city of Richfield's
First Ring Suburbs meeting. Landy mentioned that he would also be
attending.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 10 November 6, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 3, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Hemken
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Aimee Gourlay, Livable Communities Task Force Facilitator,
Erin Seeman, Community Department Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-13
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Review and Discussion of
Livable Communities Task Force Study Area Development Proposals and
Recommendations, City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that city staff
was requesting to review and discuss with the Planning Commission the
Livable Communities Task Force study area development proposals and
recommendations. The comments and recommendations from the Planning
Commission would be forwarded to the City Council at its December meeting.
The City received a Livable Communities grant from the Metropolitan Council
in 2001 to study redevelopment opportunities in the Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka Avenue area. Since September 2001, a city-wide task force
studied redevelopment concepts, solicited proposals from interested
developers, made comments and recommendations on developer proposals
and, in November, conducted a city-wide open house. Members of the task
force are in attendance to confirm that the information presented is
representative of the task force. Staff is requesting feedback from the
Commission on the development proposals for each of the four study areas.
McDonald introduced Aimee Gourlay, the facilitator who worked with the task
force, and stated she would be available to answer questions.
McDonald pointed out that the Commission should review and respond to the
proposals in concept form only; this presentation was not meant to be a
detailed review of each proposal. One of the conditions of the Metropolitan
Council was that the grant be concluded by the end of this year, which is the
reason that the Planning Commission and City Council are reviewing these
proposals now. The City Council would meet with the individual developers for
a more detailed review at a work session early next year. It is anticipated that
the Council would either select a developer to work with on each site or
provide other direction to staff. McDonald stressed that any specific
development proposals would be brought back to the Planning Commission
for a very detailed review.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that this study was initiated
through a Livable Communities grant funded partially through the Metropolitan
Council. The Livable Communities grant focused on redevelopment and
creation of urban environments in the metropolitan area, specifically the Bass
Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. The features emphasized in the grant
include tight efficient land use patterns, high density or alternative housing
types, life cycle housing, creation of neighborhoods, linking of jobs with
neighborhoods, pedestrian and transit friendly developments. The target area
was a one-half mile radius of the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue
intersection. Sp. ecific target sites were generated through the task force. The
West Winnetka Study Area included the Hosterman and Winnetka
Elementary schools, some single-family lots and commercial properties along
Bass Lake Road. The West Winnetka area was identified without knowing the
future of the Hosterman school site, therefore, the task force looked at
redeveloping the entire area. The Bass Lake Road Apartments area included
marginal properties with a number of concerns as far as land use and
operational complaints in the area. The East Winnetka study area included
single family homes situated on deep lots along Winnetka Avenue. The single
family homes in the Bass Lake Road extension area was included in this study
area as well. The city has been active in the acquisition of properties in this
study area in the last several years. The task force identified the Northeast
Winnetka area, which included Wincrest Apartments and Franks Nursery.
Brixius reported that the process began approximately one and one-half years
ago with the selection of a task force, which was an advisory committee for
the City Council, supervised the process, provided direction to staff in the
development of the concept plans, and reviewed the development proposals.
The task force consisted of approximately 40-45 members from the Planning,
Citizens Advisory, and Human Rights commissions, Personnel Board, City of
Crystal, School Board, residents and business owners. Staff included
members from the Community Development, Administration, Public Works,
Police, and Parks & Recreation departments. Consultants on the task force
included the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, Financial Consultant, and
Facilitator. Issues in each area were identified with strengths and
weaknesses. Visioning statements were prepared that were the backbone of
the concepts developed. At each task force meeting, after a brief presentation
on the study area, the task force met in small groups to develop a concept
plan for the land use in that area and these concepts were then shared with
the entire group and the entire group came to a consensus on the concept
plan for the area. Staff developed more formal concept plans for each area
from the visioning efforts of the task force. The task force stated what it liked
or disliked about each of the concept plans and chose which of the plans
would be presented to developers. A financial analysis was completed on
each of the areas. The analysis indicated that in most cases the densities on
the concept plans were lower than what would be financially feasible based on
the tax increment. A developers' packet was prepared including each of the
project sites. The packet included information on the concept plans, what the
task force desired as part of the land use, and gave some flexibility to the
developer as far as the densities that were originally illustrated in the concept
plans.
The developers' round table was conducted in May with approximately 40
developers showing interest in the various sites. Developers were asked to
submit a Request for Qualifications, and those developers were then asked to
submit a Request for Proposal with concept plans for each of the areas. Eight
developers submitted proposals. Staff reviewed the plans and then presented
the developers proposals to the task force for review and recommendations.
These concept plans were then presented at a neighborhood open house and
staff received comments from neighbors.
Brixius stated that the task force identified strengths and weaknesses of each
area. Strengths of the residential areas included range of housing types,
Planning Commission Meeting
2 December 3, 2002
elderly housing supply and identifying good neighborhoods. The design that
was preferred was friendly close communities, interior neighborhoods were
emphasized in all of the concepts, local street access, community gathering
areas, churches, local shopping opportunities, transportation, and easy
access to major roads. Other elements included great location inside the
freeway loop, lot potential, long term residents, view of Bass Lake Road, and
the golf course. The weaknesses identified included poor traffic flow,
residential street access, dangerous intersection at Winnetka/Bass Lake
Road, and lack of bike/walking trails. Some of the design elements seen as
weaknesses included lack of parks, land use was not the best, and street
lighting. Redevelopment elements included eyesore properties, lack of city
enforcements, and the Hosterman site questionable. The willing seller
philosophy would be an issue if some properties did not become available for
redevelopment and the City did not pursue eminent domain. Residential
concerns included Iow income housing, need for condos and townhomes,
crime and section 8 apartment buildings. Commercial elements included the
lack of a good restaurant, two gas stations on one corner, neighborhood
businesses, lack of bus~ness' tax base, more viable commercialth layout, safety
issues, and industrial properties adjacent to residential along 54 Avenue.
After identifying the strengths and weaknesses, specific visioning statements
were developed. A community meeting place at one of the school sites or a
coffee shop concept within walking distance was proposed. Many people
expressed concern with low income housing, and range of housing
affordability. There were conflicting ideas on senior housing. One level condos
or apartments were identified as desirable for empty nesters. The task force
was split on introducing commercial into the study area. Most were against the
big box type arrangement and preferred something that would provide a
destination type business, such as a grocery store or quality restaurant.
Aesthetically pleasing site design was preferred including green or open
space, landscaped areas, streetscape design, and limited building heights.
Transportation was a major concern and included items such as pedestrian
friendly design, mass transit, preserve a higher functional classification of
streets, traffic volumes, realignment of streets, and access points.
The task force's current vision for redevelopment enforces the City's past
efforts in that some of the areas needed immediate attention. Other
opportunities could improve drainage in the area, improve the image of New
Hope, offer intergenerational appeal, provide land use housing and amenities
that would be attractive to a wide range of individuals. One item stressed was
that any redevelopment would help to pay for itself. The task force identified
the Franks Nursery site as another study area.
Brixius stated that after completing the aforementioned issues, the task force
reviewed each study area.
Bass Lake Road Apartment Site
The Bass Lake Road Apartment site contains 3.6 acres, and if the area was
enlarged to the north to include four additional single-family homes, it would
contain 5.1 acres. There are currently six apartment buildings on the site. The
concept elements for this site would include an attractive streetscape design,
realign Yukon Avenue, better golf course access, and soil conditions. Several
concepts were developed: Option A) 19-38 three-stow townhomes with
underground parking; Option B) 32-64 three-stow townhomes with
underground parking that included the four single family homes to the north of
the site; Option C) 64-unit three-stow condominium development with
underground parking; Option D) four-stow apartment building that included the
four single family homes to the north of the site. The financial consultant
indicated that a greater density would provide the least deficit.
Planning Commission Meeting
3 December 3, 2002
The City received four proposals from developers for this study area as
follows: 1) Metro Plains A: 38 townhomes in the form of two three-story
buildings with attached two-car garages and containing 2,000 square feet per
unit. Parking would be in the attached garage or driveway space. The site
area would contain 3:6 acres. Amenities would include a path, pond, gazebo,
and patio. Unit pricing would be $175,000 - $250,000. Total project cost would
be $15 million, with a developer investment of $5.9 million and gap of $9.1
million. City assistance requested would be $9.2 million. The gap was a critical
concern on this project. 2) Metro Plains B: 100 market rate apartments
including one and two-bedroom units, some with a den. There would be
underground parking and some surface parking available. The site area
contains 3.6 acres. Amenities would include paths, porches, community room,
gazebos and ponding. Rent for the units would be from $900 to $1,300 per
month. Total project cost would be $15 million, with a developer investment of
$12.5 million and gap of $2.5 million. Tax revenue would be $115,000 per
year and city assistance requested would be $2.5 million. This project
received some high marks from the task force. 3) Ron Clark Minnstar
Builders: 88 townhome units in eight buildings. Units would contain 1,585 -
2,014 square feet and the end units would be two stories high and the interior
units would be three stories. There would be garage parking, tandem and
surface parking available on a total of 5.9 acres (including eight single family
properties to the north of the site). Amenities would include patios and decks,
with vinyl siding, shakes, and stone or brick on the exterior of the buildings.
Units would sell for $165,000 - $200,000. No information was available for
project costs or financing. The task force felt the density of this proposal was
too great and was reluctant to include the eight properties to the north.
4) Boisclair: This proposal was for 137 life cycle apartments in a four-story
building. Sizes would range from 500 square foot studio units to 1,300 square
foot three-bedroom units with nine-foot ceiling heights. Parking would be on
two levels with some surface parking available. The site would contain 4.5
acres and utilize four of the single-family homes to the north of the existing
site. Amenities would include a fitness center, outdoor swimming pool,
business center, balconies, and orientation to the golf course. Exterior building
materials would include asphalt shingles and standing seam metal roof, brick
at grade, Hardie board above grade. Rents would range from $725 to $1,300
with 20 percent of the units affordable. Project cost would be approximately
$15.7 million with a $3 million developer investment. The task force felt the
developer's investment on this project was much too Iow. The developer
indicated it would work with the City with regard to its investment in the project.
Brixius noted that the task force evaluated each of the developers' proposals
and the Boisclair project received the highest rating as far as site design,
density, presentation, land use, orientation/access to golf course, and street
alignment. The specific recommendations from the task force included:
greater financial investment by developer, prefer owner occupied, more
upscale, improve golf course alignment, questioned the need for studio
apartments, questioned the need to take additional single family homes to the
north of the site, and there were mixed opinions on building height. Some task
force members liked the Metro Plains B proposal.
It was determined the Planning Commission would comment on the proposals
after the introduction of each study area. Public comments would be taken at
the end of the presentation of all four areas.
Commissioner O'Brien stated he preferred owner-occupied townhome units
rather than replacing apartments with apartments and the potential for many
of the same problems in 25 years as exist today. He stated he felt the Metro
Plains A proposal was best. Homes overlooking a golf course would be higher
priced and should bring down the gap.
Planning Commission Meeting
4 December 3, 2002
Commissioner Oelkers stated he liked the Boisclair proposal, but did not
appreciate the fact that the City would need to provide such a large
investment. The concept was good, however, it should be owner-occupied
senior coop units or condos.
Discussion ensued on changing the footprint of the Boisclair project with
single level townhomes and the possibility of reducing the gap. Oelkers
interjected that there was a demand for small townhome units, for single
people or couples that winter in the south as well as have lake property up
north. He stated he was concerned with the marketability and the cost to the
City. A smaller number of units would be desirable, but the cost to the City
was too great on the Metro Plains A proposal.
Brixius added that comments from the open house indicated that the Ron
Clark townhome project was preferred over the Boisclair proposal. Barrick
questioned whether or not the comments from the open house preferred the
owner occupied townhomes as opposed to the apartments. She indicated that
when the task force discussed that project, the members liked the project
itself but preferred owner occupied units.
Svendsen interjected that this was the premium area out of the four study
areas due to the proximity to the golf course and the water view, and the task
force desired to have upscale housing.
West Winnetka Site
The total site area for West Winnetka contains 35 acres and included the
Hosterman and Winnetka Elementary school sites, some single family lots,
and some commercial properties, including the Sinclair station and Lyndale
Garden. The task force was aware that acquisition and demolition of both
schools drove up the cost of the project significantly. Several options were
developed for this site. Option A) retained both schools and developed the
balance of the property with 68 - 136 three-story townhomes with underground
parking and 36,000 square feet of commercial space at the intersection of
Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Streets would be aligned along Bass
Lake Road with a signalized intersection at Xylon/Yukon/Bass Lake Road.
Option B) removed both of the schools and called for the development of 230
four-story apartment condominiums with underground parking, 22 single level
townhome units, 60 - 120 three-story townhome units with underground
parking and 36,000 square feet of commercial space at the corner. Storm
water drainage had been an issue in this area, therefore a pond would be
introduced with a gazebo amenity. Pedestrian connections would be provided
throughout the area. Option C) reduced the density with 97 - 194 three-story
townhomes with underground parking, 15 detached townhomes, 33
townhomes with detached garages and 36,000 square feet of commercial
space at the corner. Option D) called for the development of a 30-lot single
family subdivision on the western portion of the Hosterman site. Additionally,
the plan called for 52 - 104 three-story townhomes with underground parking,
22 townhomes with attached garages and 36,000 square feet of commercial
space at the corner. Brixius added that with each of the options an overlay
was provided on the site map to either keep Winnetka Elementary School or
remove the School, which would provide additional redevelopment options. All
concepts included some commercial although there was discussion among
the task force members on whether or not the City could support commercial
at this intersection.
Brixius reported that two proposals were received for this area and neither
proposal included the school sites. 1) Brookstone: the proposal included
15,000 square feet of retail business and 15,000 square feet for a niche
grocery store. This was responsive to what the task force originally outlined.
Parking provided for 150 stalls with some oriented toward the street and the
Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 3, 2002
balance behind the building. The site area would contain 3.8 acres, including
the Sinclair station and Lyndale Garden with some intrusion onto a portion of
the School District property. Two access points were proposed. Exterior finish
would be masonry, brick and some stucco treatment. Unit price would be
between $11 and $15 per square foot. Total project cost would be
approximately $3.9 million. No developer investment or gap was identified.
Subsequent to the original proposal, Brookstone notified staff that an ALDI
grocery store was the specific user for the space. The grocery store would be
the initial phase of the project with the additional retail space following. The
consensus of the task force was that the small grocery store concept was not
appropriate. 2) Paster/KKE: proposed a similar concept except that the
retail/service building area expanded to 44,200 square feet. The site would
contain 4.743 acres and would utilize additional properties. There would be
220 parking spaces at the rear of the building with three access points.
Proposed amenities included a plaza, pond and sidewalk. Exterior finish would
be masonry. Unit price per square foot was $15 to $18 per square foot. Total
project cost was proposed at $8 million with the developer investment of $6
million and gap at $2 million. City assistance requested would be $2 million or
higher depending on acquisition costs. The task force felt the street front of
the original proposal was not very imaginative and the developer submitted a
revised plan showing additional treatments for the building. The task force
indicated it preferred the Paster development, although was not too excited
about either proposal. Specific recommendations of the task force included
agreement that the deficit was too large in both proposals, concern about the
viability of retail on that corner, would prefer greater density with residential or
mixed use, some members thought commercial was okay, many felt the site
was dependent on adjacent redevelopment, liked the rear parking and green
streetscape, concerned about the ALDI image and might prefer a different
grocery store. Suggestions for improvement included one access on Bass
Lake Road, access must be safe on both Bass Lake Road and Winnetka,
coordinate on a signal at Xylon, and provide a median strip on Bass Lake
Road.
Discussion ensued on the eventual possibility of acquisition of the two School
District properties and the commercial properties on Bass Lake Road. The
School District had indicated it would land bank the two properties, therefore,
the proposals received only utilized a small portion of that land.
O'Brien questioned whether or not the two existing businesses were
interested in selling. Brixius referred to recent correspondence from the
Sinclair station that had been passed out at the meeting indicating an interest
is working with the City by expanding the existing gas station to a convenience
store.
Discussion was initiated on the possibility of condemning the School District
property. Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, responded that if the School District was
simply land banking the property, it may be possible that it would be subject to
condemnation, but one governmental authority generally could not condemn
property of another governmental authority as long as the governmental
authority that owns the property was using the property for public use at the
time. If the property was not being utilized, then there would be a possibility for
acquisition through eminent domain. Sondrall stated that had been done in the
past when it was proven that the property was not in use by the School
District. It was noted that there were representatives from the School District
at the initial task force meetings. Developer proposals did not include the
school property as the task force felt that was a lower priority area and money
could be better spent in other areas.
Oelkers stated he felt strongly that money should be spent on 42nd and
Winnetka avenues rather than at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. It was
Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 3, 2002
mentioned that the School District and the City should be working together on
these types of projects.
Northeast Bass Lake Road
This site consists of nine acres of land and is occupied by Wincrest
Apartments and Franks Nursery. During the study of these two sites, it was
determined by the task force that it would be too cost prohibitive for
acquisition/demolition/relocation of the apartments, therefore, the task force
later suggested rehabbing the apartments and redeveloping the Franks site
only. Concepts developed included: Option A) retaining and upgrading of
Wincrest Apartments, construction of a new 24,000 square foot commercial
building, and upgrading the pond on the northern portion of the apartment site;
Option B) construction of a 156-unit apartment building with underground
parking; Option C) retention and renovation of the existing apartments and an
independent redevelopment of the Franks site for high density residential.
The City received two proposals for the Frank's property. 1) Metro Plains
proposed 36 rental townhomes with two and three bedrooms and attached
tuck under garages. Parking would be located in the driveway with additional
surface parking stalls. The site contains 3.17 acres. Proposed access points
would be at Winnetka and Sumter avenues. Amenities would include tot lot,
community building, picnic area, gazebo and sidewalks. No exterior finish
materials were provided. The unit prices for the two-bedroom units would
range from $750 to $850 and for three-bedroom units from $900 to $1,000.
The total project cost would be $5.9 million and would utilize MHFA Iow
income housing tax credit. The developer investment would be $5.48 million
with gap at approximately $420,000. Annual tax revenue was proposed to be
$31,000 and city assistance would be $420,000. The task force
recommended owner-occupied units and there was concern with the access
on Winnetka. 2) GSR: proposed 56 owner-occupied townhomes ranging in
size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet with one-and two-car garages. Parking
would utilize the garage stalls, tandem and surface stalls. The site area would
be 3.17 acres, with one access proposed on Winnetka and one access on
Sumter. No amenities were shown. Exterior finish would be stone, cedar and
maintenance free siding. Unit prices would range from $160,000 to $200,000.
The total project cost would be from $5.8 to $6.4 million and the developer
would fund the entire project. Proposed tax revenue would be approximately
$70,000 to $90,000. No city assistance was required. The developer had
begun negotiations for the purchase of Franks. There may be some interest
by Franks to sell, however, the sale price continues to escalate. Therefore,
there may be a request for city assistance in the future. Brixius stated that
while the proposals were not for commercial redevelopment, the task force
preferred the GSR proposal. Some members were concerned with density,
but the owner occupied units were preferred over rental units. The task force
felt the density was appropriate and appreciated the higher tax base.
Suggestions for improvement included putting the GSR senior housing on the
Franks site and this project on the East Winnetka site. Some members
preferred reducing the density and adding amenities such as a park and two-
car garages. Two access points were also questioned. Comments from the
neighborhood open house indicated preference for the GSR proposal due to
owner occupied units.
Svendsen mentioned that the Metro Plains proposal for lesser density may
have been acceptable if it had been for owner occupied units. O'Brien
concurred with the lower density on the site. A question was raised on whether
the market could support the sales prices for the townhomes at that location.
Discussion ensued on the ages of people expected to live in this building and
the response was that probably younger individuals/families would occupy
these units due to multi levels, and concern was raised on the lack of parks or
green space for children to play. The Metro Plains proposal, with less density,
Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 3, 2002
did provide green space.
East Winnetka Area
This area currently includes single family residences along Winnetka and in
the Bass Lake Road extension area, commercial properties along Bass Lake
Road and contains 16 acres. When the task force began studying this area,
concepts were varied with townhomes, single family homes, cul-de-sac and
internal street arrangements. Traffic circulation was a major concern. The idea
of putting Iow density adjacent to Iow density was the preferred option. Issues
and design parameters for the site were established and included ponding
areas be incorporated into the concepts to address stormwater needs, a
system of trails and sidewalks be provided, internal design, buffering along
Winnetka Avenue, Alano property may or may not be included in the project.
Concepts were developed as follows: Option A) development of 21 single
family homes or detached townhomes south of 55th Avenue and 50 single
loaded townhome units with underground parking to the north between Bass
Lake Road and 55th Avenue. Option B) proposed to develop 25 single family
homes or detached townhomes and 42 single loaded townhomes with
underground parking.
Brixius stated that two proposals were received for this study area. 1) GSR
proposed 182 senior apartments/condos at the corner of Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka and 168 townhome units for the balance of the site. Total site
area to be redeveloped WOuld be 16 acres. Unit sizes for the townhomes
would be 1,200 to 1,500 square feet and for the four-stow senior apartment
building would be 1,000 square feet each unit. There would be one and two-
car garages/surface parking for the townhomes and underground/surface
parking for the apartments. Streets would be internalized. There would be an
association for the townhomes and amenities for the senior apartments would
include multi-purpose room, recreation room and craft room. Exterior finishes
would be vinyl siding with limited brick and stone. Unit prices for the
townhomes would range from $160,000 to $190,000. Total project costs
would be $22 million for the townhomes and $18 - $21 million for the
apartments. Developer investment and gap were not identified. Annual tax
revenue was projected at $200,000 to $350,000. The task force was greatly
concerned with the densities proposed for this project and the townhome
design adjacent to single family homes. A revised concept plan was submitted
by GSR and still included the senior apartments and the townhome units
along the northern portion of Winnetka, however, along the southern portion of
Winnetka the developer proposed a twinhome design. The units proposed
would be 46 one and two-stow twinhomes, 110 senior market-rate
apartments, 72 senior condos or co-op units, and 77 two and three-stow
townhomes. Townhomes prices would range from $159,000 to $190,000,
condominium costs would range from $135,000 to $175,000, and the
twinhomes from $225,000 to $250,000. Total project costs would be $18 to
$21 million for the senior portion and the townhome project costs were not
identified, but presumably close to the original numbers. The developer
investment was not identified. This would generate a tax increment of plus
$2.4 million, based on the financial consultant's findings. Brixius stated that
staff visited several other properties that GSR developed in South
Minneapolis. The design was very urban with a masonry/stucco construction.
There would be an association to take care of maintenance of the grounds. It
was pointed out that the project manager the City had been working with has
since left GSR and is now working for Master Engineering, but took this
project with him in the move. 2) Ryland Homes' original proposal included
Prairie style townhomes with eight units to a building. The end units have a
lower unit and an upper unit. Staff visited a project in Apple Valley and Brixius
stated the units were very attractive. The lower units would be single level,
two-bedroom with galley kitchen, which would be more attractive to empty-
nesters. All units have two-car garages. The upper unit is larger than the lower
Planning Commission Meeting 8 December 3, 2002
unit. The middle units would be two stories. The original proposal came in with
an internal street system off of 56th Avenue. The task force was concerned
with townhomes adjacent to single family homes, the practicality of
upper/lower units, and the quality of the units.
Rixius stated that staff and the task force requested revised proposals from
both developers. Ryland submitted two revised proposals. 1) Revised Ryland
'A: Utilized the same townhome configuration and same number of units, but
moved more units along Winnetka and provided a greater green space
between the units. The internal street was moved further away from the single
family homes. A pool amenity was included with the revised proposal. There
would be 162 condominium units with two-car garages, internal street system,
an association for maintenance, pool, tot lot, garden and gazebo. The homes
would be vinyl sided with limited brick. Starting price would be $140,000. Total
project cost and gap were not identified. 2) Revised Ryland B: provided more
diversity in housing units and single family units on a small lot. The single
family would be two-story. The townhomes are a carriage concept and three
stories in height with rear garages and parking. Proposed would be 76 urban
three-story townhomes, 78 one and two-story townhomes, and 42 urban
single family homes, an internal street system, an association, pool, central
square, tot lot. Townhomes would have vinyl siding with limited brick. The
three-story units would start in the $150,000s and up and the two-story would
start in the $140,000s. The single family would start at approximately
$200,000. Ryland would be requesting approximately $15,000 per unit in
subsidy. The project director had indicated to staff that the homes would be
worth more than what they could sell the units for, which was why they were
requesting the subsidy per unit. Brixius stated that staff felt the units could be
sold for a higher price and the subsidy could be reduced. The task force
preferred the Ryland concept over the GSR primarily due to the density and
housing variety. Specific recommendations offered on the revised plans
included: GSR -liked financial picture, keep northern design, redo strip along
Winnetka to-reduce density and make internal street, single family adjacent to
existing homes, make project break even. GSR too dense and not consistent
with vision, not neighborhood friendly, concern about ponding and position of
roads, don't like apartments. Ryland B is best - has density, looks nice, like
single family and it blends into neighborhood, like variety of housing types.
Ryland A is second option - same product lower density next to existing
homes, make road internal, price for a higher market sale.
Brixius indicated that the task force did not come to a consensus on any
option and recommended that the City be the developer. They felt the City
could work out densities preferred by the task force.
Svendsen interjected that of the four areas, the task force was adamant about
the East Winnetka area with as much single family as possible due the
surrounding neighborhoods. There would be a lot of density in the Franks and
golf course sites and commercial across the street. The task force desired to
have single family as a step-up housing option. Higher density could be
located along Bass Lake Road.
Brixius added that at the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that the City
be the developer of the site.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the area could support homes above
$200,000. It was noted that existing homes in this area were selling for nearly
that amount and the townhomes several blocks to the south were being
marketed at $249,000.
There was some discussion on the style of the townhomes proposed, exterior
finishes, and the multi levels. Questions were raised on the subsidy issue.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 December 3, 2002
Concerns were expressed on the alley access and lack of green space for
these developments. Oelkers strongly favored the Ryland A proposal with
some adjustments. He also pointed out that the proposed housing would
definitely not be considered Iow income, because to qualify for the suggested
sales price, the income would need to be higher than the current median
income of New Hope.
Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on how the City could act as
the developer of the project. Brixius responded that the City was the developer
for the properties on Erickson Drive. The City completed the subdivision of the
lots, put in the streets, and sold the lots to a developer to construct the homes.
Barrick interjected that the reason the task force suggested the City as the
developer was that no outside developer proposed any plans close enough to
the task force's vision for the area.
Chairman Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to
comment on the plans or project as a whole.
Mr. Paul Edison, 7608 55th Avenue, came forward. His concern was for the
property behind his house, 7603 Bass Lake Road, and the uneven property
line, and wondered whether the lot line could be evened out. McDonald added
that the City was aware of this situation and would take that request into
consideration when the property was developed.
Mr. Mike Drenth, 7616 55th Avenue, came forward. He furnished the
Commission with a petition signed by all the neighbors on 55th and Sumter
avenues that would be affected by the construction of townhomes just to the
north of their properties. They were concerned with the high density proposed
for that area and the Iow cost of the townhomes, suggested $140,000,
compared to the current sale prices, approximately $200,000, of the homes in
the area. Drenth indicated there had been drainage problems with several of
the homes along 55th Avenue, which, he felt, would need to be corrected with
any type of development. He stated that a senior building on the Franks site
would be preferable and to keep all townhomes in the East Winnetka area.
McDonald added that Drenth had served on the task force and that whatever
type of housing was constructed would be high quality and high value.
Ms. Adrian Edison, 7608 55th Avenue, came forward. Edison stated that the
residents in that area built the homes, the schools, and filled the churches.
She was concerned that the new development would devalue the existing
homes and pose a possible safety concern with regard to apartments and
many new people that may not have the same sense of community. At this
point in time, residents are not too excited to keep up their property because
they don't know what may happen in the near future. She raised the question
of whether Bass Lake Road would be widened with the new construction.
Who determines what is valuable to the community as a whole?
Mr. Jim Brinkman, owner of Sir Speedy, 5749 International Parkway,
questioned the financial portion of the projects and whether the numbers
would balance out when all four areas were redeveloped. Brixius replied that
the project at the Franks site would produce surplus funds. Being proactive in
redevelopment would be best for the City because sites that deteriorate tend
to devalue surrounding properties. As far as the concepts for East Winnetka,
the City may not choose one option over another based on financial numbers
alone if the density is too great for the neighborhood. There would need to be
some give and take between the City and the developers.
The Planning Commission maintained that the redevelopment be quality
projects that would not cost the City an enormous amount of money.
Planning Commission Meeting 10 December 3, 2002
Barrick added that when the original proposals were submitted, the task force
requested different plans. The same two developers resubmitted plans. She
suggested that maybe there would be other developers that would be able to
provide what was envisioned by the task force and still be financially feasible.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner O'Bden, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen summarized that this was only a concept and the projects could
change 'somewhat in the future.
Oelkers confirmed that townhouses are not a detriment to neighborhoods as
long as there was an association to take care of the maintenance issues.
Sales of townhomes have been very strong.
McDonald added that it was a positive step for the City to take the initiative to
apply for and obtain the Livable Communities grant for funding a study of this
type. Two encouraging things came from this: 1) It was the City's first big
planning effort where a lot of residents became involved, which is important if
the City is going to move forward in redevelopment efforts and have the
involvement and support of its residents and businesses; 2) The City was able
to get several developers interested in New Hope.
Chairman Landy, on behalf of the Commission, extended thanks and
appreciation to members of the Commission, staff and consultants who
worked on the task force.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
accept Planning Case 00-13, Review and Discussion of Livable
Communities Task Force Study Area Development Proposals and
Recommendations, City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion passed.
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy,
Svendsen
None
Hemken
O'Brien, Oelkers,
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on December 9.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee did not meet in
November. McDonald reported that staff was aware of several large projects
that may be ready for consideration early next year.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
McDonald reported that the Codes & Standards Committee would be meeting
on December 12 to discuss the dog kennel moratorium and bus transit
shelters.
Landy stated that he would attend the December meeting due to the fact the
chairman had resigned from the Planning Commission in November.
McDonald added that there would be a January Planning Commission to
finalize the dog kennel ordinance and to process an application for a dog
kennel operation.
Planning Commission Meeting 11 December 3, 2002
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the thrift store study from last
month and stated he had visited several of the thrift stores and consignment
shops in the area. He stated there was a distinct difference between the two
types of second hand stores that take merchandise in as contributions either
directly or indirectly, compared to stores that purchase product from
individuals, such as the consignment shop or a Play It Again Sports shop. He
stated he felt there should be a differentiation there because the rationalization
on the licensing was the added police patrolling that would be required. Brixius
interjected that it was difficult to make a land use distinction for these
businesses and the only difference was the processing of merchandise on
site. Businesses that exchange product for a monetary value may be better
classified under the pawn shop ordinance. The City Attorney commented that
there is a business license for pawn shops. A business license was proposed
for a thrift store that receives donated goods. A distinction would need to be
established for a discount store, or a consignment shop selling second hand
goods, or a thrift store selling donated goods. It may come down to a
management issue of the store. The size of the shop might be taken into
consideration as part of the licensing aspect, but not a land use aspect. It was
suggested that there be no license for a business that takes in merchandise
for a value. Brauch maintained that he felt that licensing of consignment
stores was not necessary due to fact that additional police patrols would not
be necessary, which was the main reason for licensing of thrift stores. There
should be no license for a store where there is a monetary exchange for the
goods brought in. The cost for the license may also be cost prohibitive for the
small stores. McDonald stated he would relay this information to the City
Council prior to its discussion on this matter at a work session, it was pointed
out that the thrift store moratorium had been extended until June 30, 2003.
McDonald reported that the applications for the City Center Task Force had
been presented to the City Council but no appointments had been made yet.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Barrick, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 6,
2002. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
Svendsen initiated discussion on whether the City could provide speakers on
topics of interest to the Planning Commission, such as tax increment
financing, on a quarterly basis for training purposes. McDonald stated that
staff would look into this matter and provide a list of suggested topics. Other
members of the Commission concurred.
There were no announcements.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
12
December 3, 2002