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