Loading...
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