Loading...
080404 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 4, 2004 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 Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, O’Brien, Svendsen Absent: Oelkers Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Sherri Buss, Bonestroo & Associates, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC04-06 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Winnetka Item 4.1 Townhomes, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, Master Engineering and Foundation Land Development, LLC, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that petitioner was requesting preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Winnetka Townhomes to subdivide the 3.17-acre parcel into a lot and block description. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a redevelopment proposal for 44 townhomes at 5620 Winnetka Avenue in April with the condition that a preliminary plat would be submitted at a later date. The property was rezoned to a planned unit development district. The plat was submitted to city staff, consultants, and utility companies for comments. The planner’s report indicated that the property was being subdivided into five blocks and 44 lots. Flexibility on lot size was approved with the original project submission in April. Outlot A covers all the remaining area in the subdivision. One of the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat was incorporating the recommendations of the planning consultant. Per the preliminary plat, the base lots appear to include Winnetka and Sumter avenues. The unit lots would need to maintain the setback requirements as approved with the PUD. Landscaping and boulevard trees would need to be maintained through the association and not the independent lot owners. The association documentation must outline the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of all common areas versus individual lots. A drainage and utility easement is proposed over all of Outlot A. However, a drainage and utility easement is not shown on the western portion of the plat, which should be reviewed by the city engineer. Mr. McDonald stated that the city engineer reviewed the preliminary plat and recommended several changes as listed in his correspondence. The city engineer communicated with the petitioner on those items and indicated to staff that the petitioner was agreeable to making the changes on the plat. The city attorney provided routine comments on the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat would be subject to the conditions as recommended by the planner, city engineer, and city attorney. Utility companies did not provide any comments on the plat. Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road are not county roads; therefore, Hennepin County did not provide any comments on the plat. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner had not previously requested that the Planning Commission waive review of the final plat. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff would recommend that the Commission waive its review of the final plat. McDonald recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions in the planning report. Mr. Lance Elliott, Master Engineering, 2104 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Elliott confirmed that he had been in contact with the city engineer regarding the recommendations and they were in the process of making those changes, as well as those of the city attorney. Mr. Elliott requested that the Planning Commission waive review of the final plat. Clarification was requested on whether the units would be townhomes or condominiums. Mr. Elliott indicated that the design would be the same as what was approved in April with a townhome-type plat. The platting process could be accomplished through a Common Interest Community (CIC) or a traditional townhome plat. In the townhome plat, each resident owns their own lot, whereas in a condo (CIC) plat, each resident would own their space with everything else under common ownership. It was confirmed that the association would take care of all maintenance and landscaping, which would be outlined in the association documents. The utilities and roadways on the property would be private and would be maintained by the association. The association documents would outline what items must be maintained by the homeowners. It was noted that the driveway into the site from Winnetka Avenue was located on the townhome property and the adjacent funeral home had a road and utility easement over the property and would share the driveway. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004 Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 04-06. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 04-06, Request for preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Winnetka Townhomes, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, Master Engineering and Foundation Land Development, LLC, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Comply with city engineer recommendations (July 29, 2004 memorandum). 2. Comply with city attorney recommendations (July 16, 2004 correspondence). 3. Comply with planner recommendations: A. All grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to the review and approval of city engineer. B. All easement locations, configuration, and size shall be subject to the review and approval of the city engineer. C. All unit setbacks shall conform to the permitted setbacks granted as part of the Planned Unit Development. D. The association documentation shall outline the maintenance and upkeep of all common areas. E. All landscaping and boulevard trees adjoining Winnetka Avenue and Sumter Avenue shall be maintained by the association. 4. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of final plat. 5. Payment of park dedication fee upon execution of final plat ($15,850), per city ordinance requirements. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, O’Brien, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on August 9 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance. PC04-22 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Ordinance No. 04-10, An ordinance amending New Hope Code Section 4-26 regulating Item 4.2 floodplain districts to conform to the National Flood Insurance Program, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald reported that city staff was requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code so that it would conform with the changes to the National Flood Insurance Program and maintain New Hope’s eligibility for that program. 3 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004 McDonald introduced Sherri Buss, Bonestroo and Associates, who works with the city on water resource issues. She worked with city staff, made recommendations, coordinated with FEMA on the ordinance, and forwarded the information to the city attorney. Ms. Buss reported that a floodplain study for Hennepin County had been completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The study incorporated all the flood events and studies that had been completed since the 1970s. Based on FEMA’s findings, the county’s floodplain maps were updated. Ms. Buss stated that the floodplains in New Hope have not changed since 1981. New Hope has no structures that would be affected by the ordinance. FEMA and the DNR are requiring cities to update their ordinance to include all of the changes recommended for all communities in the county. The city would need to update the ordinance to be eligible for the FEMA flood insurance programs. The main items that changed in the ordinance include: 1) adopt the new maps as the official maps; 2) definition changes that affect structures in the floodplain; and 3) higher standards for flood proofing structures. FEMA was trying to get structures that repeatedly flood to move out of the floodplain or to be flood proofed to a degree that FEMA would not need to spend money every time a flood event occurred. Ms. Buss reiterated that no structures in New Hope would be affected. The city Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, added New Hope does not have any waterways that have a huge floodplain which significantly increased flood elevations. When residents complete routine repairs and maintenance to structures in the floodplain, the new FEMA standards require that structures be upgraded to meet the new standards. Discussion ensued on the types of routine home maintenance where flood proofing would also need to be completed. For the most part, the floodplains are located on park property. Ms. Buss added that the ordinance must be adopted by September 1. She stated that New Hope’s ordinance is a duplicate of Corcoran’s, which has been approved by the DNR. It was noted that the maps may be available on the DNR website. The city also has maps available for review. The city attorney reported that the public hearing would be held at the City Council meeting on August 9. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 04-22, Ordinance No. 04-10, An ordinance amending New Hope Code Section 4-26 regulating floodplain districts to conform to the National Flood Insurance Program, city of New Hope, 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004 Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Resolution Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Resolution finding that the increase in geographic area to Redevelopment Project No. Item 4.3 1 is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the city of New Hope. Mr. Kirk McDonald, stated that staff was requesting that the Planning Commission approve a resolution finding that the increase in geographic area to Redevelopment Project No. 1 was consistent with the comprehensive land use plan of the city of New Hope. McDonald explained that a public hearing is held when the city creates new or amends existing tax increment financing (TIF) plans and districts for redevelopment purposes. The Planning Commission is required to approve resolutions on these modifications. McDonald reviewed the Project for Pride in Living (PPL) development that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in July. He added that due to poor soils on the property, the site had never been developed. The city is in the process of modifying or enlarging the TIF District to add 5501 Boone Avenue to the district so the city could provide tax increment assistance to the project for pilings for both buildings. A public hearing would be held at the City Council meeting on August 23 on this issue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a resolution stating the increase in geographic area is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan of the city. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated the Comprehensive Plan addressed the 5501 Boone Avenue site and he pointed out how the plan addressed various elements of the PPL project. The Planning Tactics section addresses future development of the site to complement the North Ridge Care Center facility. Planning District No. 3 indicated that this site was recommended for a change in land use from industrial to residential to be consistent with the high density residential land uses east of Boone. Specific residential goals include providing a variety of housing types to meet changing demographics and promoting multiple family housing alternatives by redeveloping substandard properties without site amenities. These goals could be met through infill development and redevelopment efforts by increasing life-cycle housing, and the city could provide tax increment assistance to the PPL project. A second goal would be to promote medium density attached housing for empty nester and the elderly population, which would be addressed with the condominium and rental opportunities. The PPL project promotes a high architectural standard, and would provide open space, underground parking, 5 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004 landscaping, and recreational areas, which entitles the project to greater densities and accomplish additional elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study recommended higher value move-up housing, owner occupied or rental attached housing and affordable rental housing. PPL indicated that it would be utilizing Section 8 vouchers or other alternatives in only a fraction of the units and the balance of the units would be market rate units. Brixius stressed that the plan indicated a change in land use for the site. The proposed housing would be consistent with the goals of the plan, and staff suggests the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the storm water drainage improvements added as a condition of approval for this project. McDonald responded that the city engineer had offered several alternatives to resolve the drainage issue. The City Council may or may not incorporate the storm sewer improvements into this projector it may choose other alternatives. Brixius added under State Statute rules, the city could spend up to 25 percent of the tax increment collected outside the TIF District. Discussion ensued on the fact that the Comprehensive Plan indicated a senior daycare center for the site. Mr. Brixius explained that at the beginning of the process for updating the Comprehensive Plan there was interest to construct an adult daycare center, however, before the plan was completed the proposal for the daycare facility was withdrawn. The Planning District section of the plan provided a more general residential recommendation for this site. The city attorney pointed out that the city purchased the property with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies and the city had an obligation to conform to the CDBG requirements otherwise the city would have to repay approximately $100,000 to that fund. The PPL project would be an approved project with the county for the use of the funds. McDonald stated that the project had been approved by a majority of both the Planning Commission and City Council. The financial consultant was asking the Planning Commission to vote on whether it felt the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan prior to the public hearing at the City Council meeting on August 23. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to Item 4.3 approve a 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: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen Voting against: Houle, O’Brien 6 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004 Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in July. McDonald added that the pre-application meetings scheduled are Committee for minor residential issues and staff would contact the committee if a Item 5.1 meeting would be necessary on August 19. One of the proposals is for a church use in an industrial zoning district. After some discussion, it was the consensus that further study should be completed on this issue. Codes and Standards Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in July. McDonald added that there may be a committee meeting in late Committee August or September. Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 13, 2004. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. A question was raised regarding Phase 3 for the Winnetka Green (Ryland Homes) project and McDonald gave a brief update. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reported he would be on vacation the week of the Design and Review Committee meeting. Chairman Svendsen asked if there was any training available at this time for Commissioner Houle and training opportunities were explained. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2004