The URL can be used to link to this page

080305 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Wednesday, August 3, 2005 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING . 4.1 Case 05-10 Request for variance to front yard setback requirements for a garage addition, 430S Flag A venue North, Tim and Dianna Utter, Petitioners 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting August lS, 7:30 am. 5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues . PC05-0S, Rosalyn Court apartment conversion, approved . PC05-09, Frey Development, restaurant/office condos, approved 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 12, 2005 S. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT . Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposaL 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staffs recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttaL 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Petitioner: 05-10 Tim & Dianna utter Address: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: Report Date: August 3, 2005 July 29, 2005 Request: 4308 Flag Avenue North Variance to front yard setback requirements- garage addition I. Request The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the front of the garage, pursuant to Sections 4-5(f)(4) and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-5(f)(4) Section 4-36 III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Planning Case Report R-1 Single Family Residential, Lot Requirements, Setbacks Administration - Variances R-1 Single Family Residential On the east side of Flag A venue approximately 420 feet south of 45th Avenue Single family residential properties in all directions Lot contains 10,000 square feet (80' by 125') Existing building: 1,617 square feet Proposed garage addition: 152 square feet The site is predominantly green space, with extensive landscaping in the rear yard. The house (with attached tuck-under garage) and driveway are the only impervious surfaces on the property. These uses occupy less than 2,500 square feet of lot area, leaving about 7,500 square feet of green space (about 75 percent of the lot). The proposed addition will not change this ratio because the addition would replace driveway area with building area. No.7; The Comprehensive Plan indicates the low density housing in this district is in good to excellent condition and the city would strive to maintain and enhance these neighborhoods through the promotion of continuous housing in-place expansion, renovation and modernization. Page 1 7/26/05 I Specific Information: The applicant proposes to build an addition to an existing garage at 4308 Flag Avenue North. The addition will create a storage space and workroom in the rear half of the existing garage. The remainder of the existing garage and the addition will serve as a new garage, for vehicle storage. The proposed addition will extend eight feet from the front of the applicant's single-family home, which is surrounded on all sides by single family homes with rectangular lots between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet. The site slopes upward to the rear property line, and the house is built into the hill. The rear wall of the garage is almost completely below grade at the rear of the house. In the back yard, the slope of the hill increases near the rear property line. The rear yard is extensively landscaped with boulders and gardens built into the hill. The applicant stated these site conditions make garage expansion difficult or impossible to build on the rear of the property. In front, the house has a two foot cantilever over the garage door, under which the applicant proposes the new garage addition. The proposed addition would extend eight feet from the building face, and six feet from the cantilever. An eight foot addition is required to fit garage door opener apparatus in front of the existing header. This configuration would require a two-foot variance, as the proposed addition would be located 23 feet from the property line, and would not comply with the required 25 foot front setback. Two garage spaces will remain, with parking available for at least two vehicles in the driveway. IV. Background The home is located in a single-family neighborhood north of 42nd A venue in western New Hope. The street is nearly 1000 feet long, accessed by 45th Avenue and terminates in a cul-de-sac. The petitioner's home is located mid-block on the east side of the street. Other houses on the street are of a similar style, with raised entries and tuck-under garages. Other area homes have similar architectural features and lot layouts, including garages extended slightly from the front of the house. Past applications for front yard setback variances to allow garage additions have a mixed history of approval and denial. In the past two years, the city has approved two garage front yard setback variances and denied one application. In planning case #04-12, Stegman, 8233 39th Avenue, the city allowed a 13-foot variance to allow a garage addition. This large variance was approved because the comer property faced 39th Avenue but its narrowest street frontage was Xylon Avenue (the technical "front yard"). Given these factors and the lot's irregular shape, hardship was declared and the zoning variance was approved. In planning case #03-11 Klipstein, 4053 Nevada Avenue, the city denied a front yard setback variance for a garage addition. This applicant requested a five-foot setback, to construct a 20-foot garage expansion off the front of the house on the property. The Planning Commission approved the variance, but the Council felt the addition would not fit the surrounding properties, and hardship could not be clearly identified to issue the requested variance. The City Council denied the variance request on the grounds that there was not sufficient hardship, and the proposed garage addition did not match the character of the neighborhood. Planning Case Report Page 2 7(26(05 Planning case #03-05, Pfielsticker, 3853 Hillsboro A venue requested a front yard setback variance for a property to build a garage addition. 'This project transformed the existing attached garage into living space, and built a new two-car garage alongside the existing structure. Like case #04-12, the home was a corner lot and faced the side yard. The garage addition was constructed in the right of way adjacent to the narrowest street frontage, technically defined as the "front" of the property. 'This variance request was approved by the city. In the past 25 years, the Planning Commission and City Council have approved 16 requests for front yard setback variances, and five requests were denied or withdrawn before Council approval or denial. The petitioner for this variance, at 4308 Flag Avenue, requests a two-foot variance to accommodate an eight foot addition from the front of the existing attached garage. Although the property is not a corner lot with an unusual "front" yard layout, the proposed addition and requested variance are small in scale and compatible with the neighborhood surroundings. Furthermore, the sloped site and steep slopes in the rear of the property create difficult conditions for rearward garage expansion, or rear garage construction. This creates a hardship on the site. The petitioner requests a two-foot front setback variance to build an eight-foot by 19-foot addition to their existing attached garage. Construction materials will match the existing building. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted correspondence on July 7 stating they moved into the home in March 2005. The basement is finished and there is very little existing storage space, therefore, they would like to build a small eight-foot extension on the front of the current garage to facilitate needed storage and a small workshop area. Due to steep grading, slope, topography, and landscaping, it is not possible to extend the garage toward the rear yard. The narrative states that all building materials would match the existing structure and the finished product would blend well with adjacent homes. Surrounding homeowners signed a petition in favor of the expansion. VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria Variance The purpose of a variance is 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 are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of Planning Case Report Page 3 7/26/05 'I this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. B. Development Review Team The development review team met to discuss the plans on July 13, was supportive of the project, and requested clarification of existing front yard setbacks, drawing the garage addition on the survey, and providing more details on construction, elevation and section drawings. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners on July 14 and discussed the same issues. The Committee asked for a diagram showing how the homeowners' vehicles would fit with the existing door jambs, which was submitted with the petitioner's revised plans. D. Plan Description The petitioner's submitted plans call for an eight by 19-foot addition to the garage on the front of the house at 4308 Flag Avenue. The new structure will match the existing property's color and building materials. It will add 152 square feet to the garage, which will be divided into a 19 by 12-foot workshop and a 19 by 22-foot garage space. The new garage will have an overhead garage door powered by an electric garage door opener. Installing this apparatus in front of the existing header necessitates the proposed eight foot addition, which results in the requested two-foot variance. The existing header will remain in place, and the jambs on the existing garage door will remain as well, as they are needed for structural support of the header supporting the house's front wall. The petitioner's revised plans note that the existing jambs will be replaced with Microllam™ laminated lumber. This construction will be subject to review of the building official. City staff and the Design and Review Committee suggested the addition roof incorporate a shed design, as a pitched design of sufficient slope would interfere with a window on the property. Planning Case Report Page 4 7/26/05 Landscaping will be revised slightly. A tall arborvitae tree is located next to the comer of the garage. The petitioner indicated that this planting will be replaced with smaller shrubbery, with the project. Landscaping on the front side of the house will be altered as well to accommodate a revised walkway along the garage addition to the steps leading to the home's entrance. Trash can storage will continue to be handled in the garage. The petitioner's plans indicate the proposed storage locations of trash and recycling bins inside the proposed garage layout. Parking will remain unchanged on the site, with two garage stalls and additional driveway parking available. It is unlikely that the garage addition will significantly affect driveway parking capacity. Property access will be revised slightly. The petitioner stated that the front access to the house will be altered to allow access to the front steps and door, and designed to avoid any low clearance hazards from the garage addition eaves. New Hope's Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal to "Protect property values and maintain a strong tax base." A primary policy direction to implement this goal is to "promote private reinvestment in New Hope properties through building renovation, expansion, and maintenance." E. Planning Considerations Comments from the city planner are incorporated into this report. F. Building Considerations Comments from the building official are incorporated into this report. A building permit will be required for the addition. G. Engineering Considerations Comments from the city engineer are incorporated into this report. H. Police Considerations Police Department comments are incoq1orated into this report. I. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire Department comments are incorporated into this report. VIII. Summary The applicant requests a two-foot variance from the 25-foot front yard setback requirement. The variance is sought to allow construction of an eight-foot addition to the garage of the house at 4308 Flag Avenue North. The homeowner claims a hardship based on the difficult topography of the site, and requests approval based on the topography, small variance and neighborhood compatibility. The city encourages reinvestment in residential areas, as stated in the city's Comprehensive Plan. The variance is the minimum variance necessary for the project, needed to install an overhead garage door/opener on the proposed addition. Past front yard setback variances have been approved for similar hardships. Planning Case Report Page 5 7/26/05 'I IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the two-foot variance for the front yard setback for the property at 4308 Flag Avenue North. Staff feels the small required variance, neighborhood compatibility and acceptance, and topographical hardships on the property justify the variance. Furthermore, the project falls under the definition ascribed by the Comprehensive Plan to encourage investment in residential areas within the city. For these reasons, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of plans by building official. 2. Comply with the planning consultant's recommendations: a. Build addition roof in shed style, rather than pitched style. b. Match building materials of existing structure. 3. Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire. 4. Additional comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Attachments: Address/ZoningfTopo/ Aerial Maps Survey Petitioner Correspondence Plans PetitionjMap of Neighborhood Photos Planning Consultant memo, dated July 12, 2005 Variance request summary, front yard setback, 1980-present Application Log Planning Case Report Page 6 7/26/05 ro " ~ 4531 4532 4533 N "' ~ co 9029 (J) 4524 4525 4511 0 4520 '" 0 C" 4511 4516 4517 '" 4518 AQUILA A 0::> -0 0 0 -0 4508 4509 ,., N -0 -0 0 0 0 N 0 0 4510 ,,, 0 0 501 4500 0 '" co ro " ~ -0 '" '" '" '" '" ro ro co " " 500 4504 ro ro ro co ro ro 4500 4501 45TH AVE N 4412 S / 4413 4)1; 4417 4416 44-25 4424 4425 4424 8801 Z 4424 ~ ~ 4408 0 0 W 4409 4408 '" '" 4417 4416 4416 4417 :::> 4418 L-.., 4417 440,d Z Z 4404 '" 4409 4408 4409 W 4408 4400 '" ~ W ~ --. '" 0 4400 ~U~ .Ai 0 '" ~ '" 4401 4400 4401 4400 ~" 4316 4317 ~ ~ 4308 4317 4318 ~ _~ 4-4{)1 4317 4 ... 4312 4313 4312 '-" 4309 4308 <,J Z '" 4309 4300 4 (9 4308 4309 4308 ;t W 4301 4232 4301 4300 ~ 4 ~ 4305 4304 4304 Z Z 4240 4225 4224 4301 4 UF:CH 4300 4300 D::::<(:r: 4217 4232 MENON 4221 4 4220 I-D::::O ITE 4217 4216 :) 4225 W 4213 4224 4217 ~ >-:r:D:::: BRETH - 4212 :::> 4216 -II-::) 4209 4216 N 4213 a ~ 0::) I <( 4212 I-lO 4208 i 4208 4209 4208 '-. 8910 4201 4204- 8830 8810 8640 4205 -....~ 4200 4204 8610 4201 ROCKFORD ROAD 4200 ! '"U1 i __L__,------'-l I 1LJOLlDb.Y!g \t:i if;) '" '" i 4711 ; r------;4738 \ 474J '\ 1----1 i 4712 i \ I 4709 I i 0 0 -0 0 0 -0 l') '" 0 '" ;:: 8700 co ro OJ ro " co OJ OJ ro OJ <0 , , , , , '" I'" i '" no ,00 00 9024 PARK -oJ Q Q -oJ 0 4701 b Q ." N ~ Q '" '" '" '" '" ro OJ ro 47TH AVE N 4680 6901 ~ ~ ~ '" ~ -0 " " " ro co OJ 4651 4641 4631 4621 4611 4601 'I --'-""'---'''.:.r.;c; I L \ SCHOOli: I AVE N 47TH 4654- 8601l 4648 4649 4642 4643 4636 4637 4630 4631 4624 4-625 4618 4619 4612 4613 . 4606 4607 4600 4601 4648 D::::D:::: WW z ~$:o $:1- w ~ :5 :::> 4-608 '" a 1(J <( 4600 r- STATE HIGHWAY 16~ ( / // n ~ :;;! r- ." " m m n :t C " n :t -' '. , _\' ":,../-.: \ C--\ ..l....,.- } .~,r'~--.! ! ("- I L..,_.__ \ .. J ! j , ;--'._--'! i t'.... 'r'" .__L. ,<\ 'r'[j~T' -:-- ';:~,. /[ \ " L -1..,. T'T N3AV;lQN30N3d30NI'1 ,~~'<~~r:~>' {t~L~;t~ ~~I~}fi(r,JfLiJl~~;\~~~ l\~--"\~ .... I ,1;:'-~-"-.1 . \ -.----\ l~o'~-..-\ "f' !~I' i " 0' I <;:, ,\ . .ill "., ~,,()n"'l \ \ ' J ,L "),~'''('/.i<~.:.'..:.._.')\.,.,'.,'\,,, ! \~r\..r.\./~_~,:["!-7:S~..!-~:<::\ \'\(~'\,'\,J, )ZL..].','- \ \ L.., " / /"', 1'--- .1.....' I ....: 'f.v, , \ \J........ ~ -<- ..!......-- j" f /' /",~'-.__ A~"'~'rf'"'-"1 \ .~ i ....-r....r r"'Y--(~-'~~I/' / .I / 'T"-T-Qr!~'-r-"l -'} J ~lr/ _ ',~~=J 1it;~ ,lJ9Jrt;l,q:!jj I ,__~.. '___"j I I;. I ~-- -I 13: .-._..J~"'l...L_.!~.1 'I~'_ . f ,,--.'''''-----.! i I 1--1"'-1 -- -I 1>'1 k, .1,.. \; f' i .' '-----';;;"----1' I ' -- ! i -- \~t:/- ~ / ~~\.~<-', \ !~I----~'<"'i_-L~j l~~:l-,.,~,;~t+~I.. ';, ,;<:s~'<:>)~?~f~;,~CFi,~:~J::ll:~j",J\ \c.\/~.L,\';JL:-,,!i --". \. : '. \-/'t.:--;;.. \ \./\ ! ) f--r..l, \ ~~\'-'-..':\.;.\r</ \. ' .--'- --1 I I i:i \/" ).. ''..( / "..,,r \. _t J ..1 )5:_,>":~<::;:-; [~l~12:1 /'..... ..~.. ,,), / I , ~. ,,::~:.~/</<~~~_./ , ." r-- "I "I,! {- ,~"S~~j;~! I "-...: ~-._. "i, . -__I " .' I i--- . .._....~ (.----.~r~+'j.r-.i 1. ;.-"! L _.1... i i ! \ ,_[n- ; t-....--.i ! i "'1'-' " , t---. i . .J. ,...__...J L... ._.__m_"_'_"~, f i T---;"'- i -rn-r-'T .mT' 1 j .. T-'l---T" ,_.n'''--r- nT--r"-r -"~--'-T- "j"-r" I IL_',!-'-~,:J_".-~-:___L!;._.Ll: 'I..ir_i,!,-' .;,...-.fr, ...LI.~..\Lm-l,!.,-.-i._.,..' --r,--".'!,"'--1 L '+-'.-j . ~ .t..- " ' I ! .-[--i-LL- f/~rttD~jIi]$k:t7t:;:'\ ~;j:Jti . r r i : I ' I i \.'~ ! ,', ,". \-._..1 t. L._ ___L_nJ.._J i I .L...!. u.'\'/ -~""""~..1../ .~ ",' __i -.-.-...-! ", . \._.~.--.i " ' '_:j~ t:=~~-J 1>:/ 1 m~I~~~~j '-i i. J! if ii i! i I ! , i I ! ...m! mni ~..__._J ~~{;:'i~i:~1~1"1--" T"-'-i [-.,---- ; 1 r~i .I1"'--r-'-'l~i , I i 1._ - --,..l-._.L"'-'-!>-UTJ:~ BI~Q (51 ~o~i a~ 1 g~L_ ::i:"l!ll' ,s., m \ \--.- ::a \. \, j\ \ 1\ . 1 i ,J i ij I 1/ j V ./ mm2 Orm ::cm;:E o~::c 020 r:-l"'ll :l>'m ~ I ; j",., . T ,-j ..---- -""')"'t"-'''''C,'~ .-...:, i ; ....~ ..l_J_.." "r--....lti----T.-..Tm-'1 i !.-....-.l~L_._.._j f 1 I l._,._____l~l.-...-/-"T"l-.-{.-.-i I J: ! , i ! !-"-'''''7 .___._.~___..~...._l .....1 !', AQUILA ! _//'''r--T''--;--'--r'--T '-"] ,. r I 1 I ! 1 . I " i r ' [-.. i---'-I- ! --T --r..T-..Lr-!-'.--r....-.-I..-r-....! I i'" i ' 1 J , I ; . I : ".i(rE~?~..~=::=~:..~~=~~i..=,~,.~~-~.~~~~=~i. '1: , I i I , , I I , i , I I I "'-"-1"- &!~55 C;;:t"llC %pmmcn n", m :J::!; ~ ::c -0 GlO ::Co ~"'Il " L BOONE AVE N []~~]~L- ,.'rr-~'ll I,:: - 1 ! 1:0' ~'-----I-- -1i1i~ u --t .-. i.-. f" - ---'- - - -jE ~ ....._.,~- - '" P :,l_,__ :_ _.I- J !.. L_-I , E::t~j![J=-~F. ';' I I I i L__L. "'-'T"'r-'-r-T.' . ! .....L_J ) i i j ..-..,-....;, _L.J~ 7""/" , , '''l... !---- ; l.-.=}' "-1 " .~..:....,L.._J... ' . - . . ! i~ ....l--.:;!-~c::'..;,.,..--::~''''''! -.."--. _.!......."L .L..J "'_."_ ' I .-n.HOLY-TRIN'rrv..r---..-t r--"--r "j i . J: -f~t-V1"~'1 .--".I.....T..-r.....-1;u i LUTHERAN f.....-]:1: ~~;'..--.1.._ .I..---__i ~- --.!....+...-!.-..-..L_! J----,I~~.-."-_..:.~-~-~~.~ k')'~'<\~' t'---'-"--1 L~_._. ~~~1!~\i~N::L : ....L.!.1! r \,; !-L . (1Ifl T-' ~. ~)' Tr-'?lJ?}i~[[fi~; Ii' DECIUU~'A~________~" ~ ~:~~ !~=---t:~\~:\ J~~rJ;--i IrL+-[ L :!: ! i-:II m 1/. "-----'-.....1. ___u'__ J ! !.. ::~-_~_t_I[~tJ:_LI:Il_-' r.~- )... :~r ,,,. '--'1 .-..~.-\ \-.-- ..\. \ ./"/:!,/ :--! q'i-t 2: .; 2l 3 " J 'I @ municipal planning environmental land surveying soil exploration Denotes Iron Monument 0 Scale \ \I :::. 4-0 I ~ ~. ..'('I. ..-C>~ '?>~ - ~ For , .~ .-11 ~I <11 ~ 51 l.LI ---fj i ; 1I2.V\)..lC:;;; Certificate. ". ~ CJ) C -t .~ '< \-\ 'C:-'iZ.M A. 0:. Lo-r.4, 'O\...OCI<:' '2- CooP6:~ \-\c'2.lv\P\~ P\t:>D\\\O~ rit::\..l~I:::P'~ '. ! i "0 L... () -;... '" c: ~ () ~ () o <f) ~c p.o. box j. .osseo, minnesota. 55369 [J (612).425-2181 CoO~\Y', \A\WN,=COO,r->... (}o~ . U / r:(;Yt V w ,.<.. I ! \"2.0::,.00 c: ...,.l--~ ..- 1 OJ.> )- C>> ~ J _ "'I 51- 0 Ii' .".:2 0 ~ " Ci ~:i 0 "1 . JI ~ ~ OJ ~ JJ ~ D " 0 ;:; \"2.<;".00 " . . " '. by /~. ,Q L ~/:,~.;J. t..:#.li.i~~,;;:kf\\;:f~;U:;;:Ei~J~0;f t;il~\ii!A~~fiii;i~!5;}d~~~~;:[~~i:';:~~l~tr.'ilo~jl~/kif6;.$~; . 'I . Date: 07/0g;05 TlV>>IDJI.~ <<: lEU ~I IS ~ . l\f\l\ JUl 2. 2. 2005 111D To: City of New Hope C\1Y OF NEW HOPE From: Tim and Dianna Utter 4308 Flag Avenue North New Hope,1rN 55428 Re: Variance required for 8-foot addition on existing garage We moved into the home on 4308 Flag on March 30, 2005. Since the home is completely finished there is very little existing storage space. Due to this fact, we would like to build a small 8-foot extension on the front of the cui:rent garage to facilitate much need storage and a small workshop area. Our first thought was to eXtend the garage underground in the back on the current garag~. However. tbis was not possible due to tbe steep grading, slope, topography, and landscaping. Please see attached pictures (exhibit A). Another thought was to build a 12 x 12 fOOl storage shed, but we feel that this would not be esthetically pleasing. The next possibility was to add to tbe front oftbe current garage. As we looked at tbe surrounding neighborhood (exhibit B), this was a co=on feature throughout and appears at this point to be the only viable solution. To do this addition, a variance of 2 reel' is requesled to allow for a full 8-foot addition. This will allow for the garage door and garage door opener since the original header cannot be moved. Please note that all building materials will match current structure. The finished project will blend well witb adjacent homes on Flag (exhibit B). This building plan has been discussed witb surrounding homeowners who have signed attached petition and is approved and accepted. Please note several neighbors have been out of town, and we have been unable to get tbeir signatures. We fully intend to contact and discuss this building plan will everyone in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. July 7, 2005 Di,mna and Tim Utter ".,OR Flag \ venue North 'ic\\ "1,,1" \1N 55428 y i't'lillun:I" add 8-foot addition to current garage and variance of-J,6' feet Di,mrla and I'im Utter are currently negotiating with the New Hope City Council regarding this petition. They have requested that we speak to the neighbors with petition and :)cquire their signatures for approval. ,. The f":as,,n il,r this addition is two fold. One is to add the much needed storage space to our home: "nee the basement is completely finished and there is limited storage. Second, I'l \\,,,1,1 Ill,' to add an area for a workshop in the rear section of the garage. Thc\l;n:n, "fthis petition would indicate your approval of this request " :-'-. :-Namc Street Address Signature I Pet~~ ( l~ [4 -----. 1--l!1-v---. L AasG L'PAJDu/"A~ ,,^ ~ I: \, ; ! Lv.h' '\ 'JV1\ ). j 0 , , ,!.)", Per e- , ..\ t .. __. . : .1 ! / I' , c..O!, C<.v1 ( 11 1...-..--. ..._._.., _ ._____ l {!to. clJ.^).\\ . K e.( J-.. i ! I K 'd.- i-- ~',._ ;_:/_.i _y._ _. .'i.1 ! ..~:".v/, "._ ...-'<:" I .""",',' ~, :~.U Wi.'. 'CJ;e. If , 1,/01 F~ Avz- ~ 'jLjN L-J3 c> ~ ( i ~... I "' .... ~ 4531 4533 N on 4532 ~ 0:> 90 PETITION FOR APPRO V AL 4521 4524 4525 451< 4520 SIGNED BY NEIGHBORS 4511 4516 4517. 45 AQUILA A 0 4508 4509 ---< N 0 0 4~ .... ;::: 0 ro .... 500 4504 DO ro 4500 4501 45TH AVE N 4412 g I' 4413 ,4)1> 4417 4416 4425 4424 4425 4424 8801 Z 4424 N W 4408 4409 0 0 4409 4408 '" '" 4417 4416 4417 :::> 4418 1...---- Z 4404 4405 44D'! 4409 W 4408 4400 ... 4408 ~ 4401 --. N 4400 Ailt - 0 0> 4400 4401 4400 -- tv 4316 4 4316 4317 ~.... 4308 4317 4318 - ;j: 4 ~ ... 'Hal 4312 4313 4312 4309 4308 Z 4300 4309 4308 4 4308 W 4232 4301 4300 ~ 4 ~ 4305 4304 4304 4 Z Z 4240 4224 4301 4300 4300 UF:CH MENON 4 O:::<(I 4217 4221 4220 1-0::0 ITE 4217 4216 :) '. W 4213 4217 4225 >-IO:: BRETH- 4216 4212 :::> , -If-::J N 4213 0 4212 O::JI 4208 <( I-lO 4209 4208 4204 " ~ 6910 8830 8810 8640 4201 4205 ~2~ 4204 -....~ 8610 4201 ROCKFORD ROAD 4200 ; ~~..:'O"1 ; , I ~__.~l ! I'" ----j 4709 \ ~ \ m t------{ cl~ 738 !"4 7 40 \. 14712 ! \ iHOLlDAY ;=; I LrJ in I ;:.. 14711 I, 0 1m l~ j~ , m CD I 9024 PARK .~ 0 0 0 0 4701 <:> 0 ,~ N ~ 0 '" '" '" '" '" co ro co ~ 0 g ro O::J. lD DO OJ co o i<) DO co o N .... CO o r:: 8700 OJ 47TH AVE N 4680 ~ - N ~ 0 .... ........ OJ co", 4651 4641 4631 4601 47TH 4654 8601l 4648 4649 4642 4643 4636 4637 4630 4631 4624- 4625 4618 4619 4612. 4613 4606 4607 4600 4601 I SCHOOl2-7 AVE N 4648 0::0:: WW z ~3: 3:~ w ~ :) 4808 <D :::> ~ G :il <( 4600 ~S:;"';-i~f;:<:C - t .,_..17. civil ',' municipal planning environmentai iand surveying soii exploration For Denotes Iron Monument 0 Scale \\\::4-01 , I I .~ 11 <11 d JI ~ --fl X\ a~ .U'_~ Certificate , Q ~ (f) t: '-fC C .CD '< J G< 112.. Y \ )J G:: \--\ c-R N\ P-.~ . We hereby certify that this Is a true and correct repres.entatiQn '01 a survey of the boundaries of the land described above and 01 the location 01 all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land, thai this survey was pr'epated by me or under my direct supervision and that I em a duly Registered Land Surveyor under ihe laws of the State ofMinneso!a.Assurveyedbymethis__\o,.,,- day of O<:,TC>~'C=I2... "g~' . . Cffi9Jtrg . ff9reers di\ersified ....,.... "',,:::,.,::~._'byd;u~~~~~,,_.~_-,. ".:)~-;::{e'CJJ~~ ", 4q ''2. 7~ . 1 o~ ~" ti.o":! ,,:.;:, ,-)~~l.~~J~t\h.~?'~: 1,e:'~:;Ri~\;i~~i~::~jif~~~t;I1.!t~~t'f}~;.~;;r0,\,::~..::~~~~t~~S~.dJ~;i314~):'Yi7~1~~,~~%,;{~~{~:~t.l'i-ffj:-~~~Wi~!_~1i,~~9~{~~ LDT" ~ l'::>\..OCI<:. 2- . , CDOPE:~ kc'2..M..p..~ 1\'Dt:>\\\O~ r(cw,-,>",p\\.J CoO~\y, \..f,.\WN<t:"oOir->.. I [, ()O~~. . 1-1 ;; t""'()~\ .Il- V ",,0 \"2.'7,00 C; ~C)-;. .,J. i ':. ~ .., )- ""'~ t:: " Cl (3)' gC'l 0 0 /J'. ..:J. :2 I O' J] I 0 <:> ~ :i '1 ~ , 0 OJ '1 3 ~ cfJ ~ ,)J ~. D 5' " "'-0 \"'Z..S.oo p.o. box j, 05seo, minnesota 5'5369 [1 (612).425-2181 \--.. 3L\1 "t \ '\, \ ~ I I T I I [ , ! I i , , , i I , _'--':__i_~ L Atw'H::. R\j"rDbYV " , . J' r'l'\A'\;> ~O VY""- 'VJORK5\+bPj$iO~~ \ ~ \ '/. \1-' ' " , : ,~ 'R~,~ll G.'l>v,~ I l I ef,R"'-t'J'C:> , (DRl')!' I /'~' ' Ii, fY',jl R'9..o~ I " J /./" I I I .l,~" I .~U~;\~~:,' I \+t~ ........- 1 ,,",' C,,,,.!. -",\"",._,. u ' " \,J>/' I~{\ \ '.: i ~ \-~, I " " '1-',,' - <:"4.~\ \...-eie.R.. I .1 ,,! , I j ! ,1:- I i I i 34 \ \~!\~:o. ' .;.' . i , I . f ' , . 'r1 ~ '('FeY':"- ::::'''''''''''/4-t. 'b< , ' ',t~dac('~ \JU/" \ -Lf' \,. I'V\\Ob ,t )' , // ' , ,//.1 ..r 1 / j /~ ,.... .,.....- / ,..L .t~~~=~...~_.",,_."*..~~.__ ~l 'i A \)D \no~J' ~) 'l\1.o I I : d/l.' . ....I....I../.i . . '.' .... I.... . '. "~ I I , UJ 11 i I I i i i i I I I I . I I I ! ! I LLLi I I , I ! r---Ijl' I ii, , I : I I Iii .. I I I I ii' J ' ! i . I I : i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I' ! I I I i , , , " =: ,-,,'" ';". ';" ~ I , ! I 1 I ~ 'J I Ii! I~ I--.J"" i 'I i-"I I !: I , j I Ii) I I j I I! i ' II .J 1 , I I , I I I : -t--l I ' II " I I ; ~"'" ; I I II rr Ii ; ! I IHb_J~~ k--U--i~ ' I . I I! I : I ! i I 'I Ii;, I ; : .J,_i_+-_,~" Ii! I ! ! ' ! ' : i ; rl I J~ I , I ' i NEW' I I I ! ! I j i l I i Iii I , , I I I I I '--:*J Ief- I I I 1 I , " ,.J i i i I -f-I , , i II i Ii I JI : , I I ' I I I I' ' , ~ , ' hI : J , , - 1 I 'L I , , I ~ I" 11.~r a I I I i I')....;..~ I I I I 1 -,...", I {1..lE;j ..... 02 , ", [/ , :"c~$ l\bl~ "~,to,,;', /:, ",,' , ,. I', ;:44 I ~ i I i 1 -r- -TT1 ~, , i I i I I I I I I I 4'6' I I I I i I j I i 1 1 ,..... '::.;c1:;" I , I .. I i I I I I i I 1 I I I ; I I j : i 1 I I , I I I --r- I ] , ,,' I 1 I I i I I I I I i , ' I , , I I I I I I I , , , ' , 'I"",'" "', I ':.c." , .. L i ! i I I ,. . ...:-.-L .~.~~. - ' - I I",".'.l<~ , ! : t . . I I . -'" I tr-" I I i I 'I, Ii: ! I i ~ i ! ! I I I , " I ," ~c~,'" l/~ , , I' .' L ,I".' I," __ . L,L IN\ 1 I , , , I , j, ! / t I 1 I I ! i I , i i I , I i ! I I i , 'I t , I l\fl\~ I i ! I I ! i ' i ! ; 1 : i i I 11,[ I 1 I I J ' I ! I I i i !! j i I! ! i I I I I I I I I ..:. I I I : : , , I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ! I I i i 1 I I t I I i I Ii I J 1 I ! ! I i I I I I I I 1 . E, .c:VA1. 1r:'N =- . C :C!a E.ie . - , "," '-%' }" I' .l ~."",. I i I, I I I , I. I , i............... I -~~--i-I- 1 ,----,- I , I--~L , \t -------'--- , ! : 1 II I ! i--------r- 1\ :---L....... ! -I t ' I~~ : I -'---i- , i 1 I I 1 ! 11! I 'l 1\ I 1).- , .......---1" 1 t -' L:- t - I :1'",_ -or -r li-i---r---T-- i J I iTl----TT --' I 1 I I I . .:.-- . .; __ ". ,:'.~" .,:' --:, . , '__" I -- : lJ_~ i; LI:I Jli!! _;_._...J_i_~_I~. i : i I I I ! Ii] i C::-~-I I : : i : i : I i ! I I I I: I ~ ~__i_J0 · r=""! i I I I ! I I I : I __lJ_ . ~. Ll i -r; I r : [ ; i i I I I I "'i . I J'- 'I' 'I ! i, I I I I I I I I! ii"~ iii, I J I V J ., I I I , 1 I : j I I -1--" -- , ! "J- --I!'-- I I i i I i I i I! i 1---;- ,-- -I '~.----.j-----L -+--+--1 I I _ I 1 - ' -.) I ___-r- I '-'I I'-- L]PJ i- I '- v I ~ ! \ 'I:f _, .., --;---:-",,--'" J;---t i--FT1- .; .' i -- i . i 'I'II! ; -- II i Ii . :--:~-c--~:'II-'; J:;r1ccPAtdfB!LOCk+ IWl41 L I I I ,----I I ' ! I i I ! L! I: I I! 1 I --+-....:~T--::-I. i ~ ~ 'l~?r-l dOh4. 1+ bb t i /'lie I , :. .--L-LL I :,1 ~i .,1 J.. ! J I,." ~ .. I i ; ; I_....i~_ L'r'1nl-' -.J....L- "T, >....L I I II ...J ,I I i I i I I ; I I i __Li__J___ I I Ii Ii n il i -- 1'lilll.LLLLLI .1 I' I I I I : A OW m-\!S~ T \ (I) \J I ! I ! ! I !, I I i I I J I i I I i I i I ! I I I I I! I". i". '-II \ I 1 Ii' : I I i I I ! , , i J I ' -r--!- I I .. l"" L ~ I :;. I I i ! 1 i I II ! I i I ;1 I I I I I ! i I I i I 1 I I , ] 1 I I I . I .,.'...... ..'. I I i I I I i I ! I - , I i i ! I I-T~- '. I .: , r . -- I! i I I ! ! I I I , I ! , : _------L , i I !---- ~ I- I i I I i I I I I 1 I I I I ! -I....,. ! I! , f- ! ! I ! ! i I I I I I I , i I I I , I ~ I ! : I I I . I I I , , I ! I I. I I . ,I. r d'" I. - '"""F '''''''''''~''-:'''';-.'''''''''=-",,"",,'''''''''"'_, 0.""".".',.,,'..;..1 -r"- ------ I I " I , I I I , I :-.--J , ~--- , i ' , ~--_.---,-_. 1~-I!-'-Tf-T-TT-- ! I I ' I ! i i I , , . I , i I . .... .' .' ...... .., i, , , . '. I . . I ! i I I I I I I I I I I , I , , i I ~~" " ~ I I I , ------ f S,< 'I , I"," ~ , "'1 , ' , . ,..,' , -~~ I SIL. '\~ I I c e :t .~-e. I I i , . I , L '/, I - ! I . I, ; ,'.'~ \ J I I I I :0 :,1 " ,-",'.: , ' ':',' '-.:: , - .: ' - I I ~ I I' I i ,. - I _w I r-.. ' , : f::. I I , _.,~ , i I I I I I 1/ 1 I ! : : I I : Lo ,/1 , I i I' ',i ! ,--------r i I>' l' i I i I I i, I I <;.../.1 I , , ! i I i-I ,Q,' i I ! I " " I I j , I, i, I I I ! d! ' ! I", I , ! ! ~ ~-:: ! -M-t- , i ! ur -~I:J-----,_,-:----L;f-r--T- , i LL JtI' i i 'r-t->- , -~-+--r---+rJ- - ~Il'-! (n-+-~- : i i it-J! 'f': ! Ii: ' I If\! - ! ; i I I iN I I i I I , f T ' -- '. , , I I , ' I ______ .., n~'_--'-T"-i'..-..."m_-, ---- u__ " ' ) i : I ! ! I i .-- : I , I i : I:------!-- i i ! __L I I I ! i I : iT-+---+-: : I : ~ III~ I' : i!!! I I I I I : I j I I I ! I 11 I I II ' I I L. ' : : i I ! I I I I I '" , " '._' ",II. ' ., : ' e.;,;' I , 1-"- , ~ ,. I --+- -!--- -!-..- ..-- .. .-1---- r;!. -~ d ~ T T , : I j ~ I ! I 1 I : i , I ! : I J : : I I i I-~ - : ~.____.L,__L___L,_~_'__l___ __ I i i i i I I I __~~.-~----~.--~----~--~- ~ : '_ 1 ~ i I : ~ ! I -"-:-, I I .r-l i : .._:---L_--.L,~~ ! ----L I, ' , I -c-, I ,_ I I ) I I -. : ,---r"-T--r r I I i J I I I I I I I ! I I I I' I I I 'i ! I i r ti+ i I ! I / / , J .' , , : n ; , I i ..- _i, I I I ----r--~ I i i I y--r--..,:.. I Iii _. '- " ' - ,:' , , " ' . ; I I I I i I - - : I IT ! ! I i I , ,i! -~_._~--~------+-+- l ! .r--l iL.J : i,. : r I j i 1 ____ --f---:--+-.,~_.-,--_l~.._:-...____.~_ ~- - "-.D " , : i . : ] -!~-..l_--.---t-. --T--~-'--'-._~---;- ...- --~---~-,~-----L___t--~--+_--i..- - . - I n-' j ~ , , I i i 1--.' ;: Iii ~_,_____L_ ..___ . . -=.1 ~_m r-',--~-_~,___L..J~ ' .LJ17 I-rm.'...-_Ii iJ__LL~,I_m_~,_. I t71J- ! I" i 1 _J Iii I " ..II ! I i 1 1 i: [ ! i j : ! i ~N: ! 1 ! : I ~ i ! A,.;., I I i I ! I i 'i' I , ~ ----J,..J)i i I i I, [i& 1)1.1 11 iJ I ~ it'-! [ I' S I I i..- ltl ! I n I~ iN I I !-G.rb I~ I- I ~i . :--'1 ~ \ " \ ,. -- -- i.': ,. I . I, ;.,1,"." ~~..'~" , - I" __ I.~- _,!(tlJ," i T I ~ i 1''11 I I I I I I~I i 1 i I I t':;TT:f IT I I ~ [TIT ""iI" I . i , I ~ 1: ~- ~ I 'i + I-~ t- . \ \ " ,I . I " ., ,I. ,-. , " ! ., L, . '-."", r> ~,. ~'i"'1~-;)Y'; }).~:~':' , ~ 1. l, .~, , "A \,_..~....\~.,-~,;_...:.~, ':R4\,t, """';",""'.'~"~~'" ,- --.' ,"'" ,. ~-1.c .. " \ 1,"\J'1);~~J' -~. t.:l ;., f .r"-i~_.,,,\ $J~~,':-' ~- NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Sui1:e 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Michael Darrow I Alan Brixius DATE: July 12, 2005 RE: New Hope -Utter- Variance Issues Analysis FILE NO.: 131.01 - 05.15 BACKGROUND Tim and Dianna Utter have submitted a request to expand an existing two-stall attached garage on the property located at 4308 Flag Avenue North. A variance is required because the applicant's are proposing to expand the front of the garage by 8 feet. Therefore, a front yard setback variance of 3 feet is required. The following is an initial analysis of the applicant's proposal. Existing Conditions: · The single family residence is zoned R-1. · The existing two-stall is a tuck-under garage. · The front yard setback is 25 feet. Proposed Attached Garage Addition: · The size ofthe proposed garage will be 8 x 19.6' or 156.8 square feet. · The proposed garage will encroach 3 feet into the front yard setback. · The architectural standards of the proposed garage addition will match the building materials of the existing residence. Variance Review: · The Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in residential areas. · The applicant has submitted a narrative regarding the need for an additional garage space. · According to the applicant expanding the garage in the rear isn't possible due to the steep grade in the backyard. · We would recommend that the pitch of the addition be that of a shed roof rather and a pitched roof. This will allow for the architectural integrity of the house to be preserved. This style of roof will also will allow the second story windows to be maintained. 2 PLANNING CASE TYPE OF VARIANCE APPROVE VOTE TAKEN CONDITIONS NAME/ADDRESS & WHAT REQUESTED /DENY 04-12 Front yard setback (25') Approved PC: unanimous Exterior materials to match existing Loren Stegman Request: 13' variance on front cc: unanimous Plans to be approved by building 8233 39th avenue Request 13' variance to construct a 3rd stall on garage official (house is situated on a corner lot so garage extends into the leoal rrontvardl 03-11 Front yard setback (25') PC: Approved PC: 6 for, 1 against Too great a variance for front yard Kurt Klipstein Request: 5' variance on front CC: Denied CC: unanimous 4053 Nevada Avenue Request to construct 22' x 20' attached garage to front of house to be located 20' to propertv line 03-05 Front yard setback (25') and curb cut Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match Susan Pfeilsticker Request: 8' variance on front and curb cut closer CC: unanimous existing. 3853 Hillsboro Avenue than 40' to intersection Comply with code on plantings in Request to construct 23' x 29' attached garage and sight triangle. move driveway curb cut closer to intersection 99-13 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: Unanimous Bob & Janet White Request: 6' variance Cc: Unanimous 8948 Northwood Request to allow construction of a house expansion Parkway extending 6' into the front yard setback. 92-21 Front yard setback (50' on Boone Avenue) Tabled to look PC: unanimous Harry Wong Request: 20' variance at other plans. 2800 Boone Avenue Request to convert existing garage to living area and Withdrawn build new QaraQe, extendinQ 20' into front yard setback. 90-14 Variance to add garage addition onto non-conforming Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match Daniel Riser structure & 14' variance from front yard setback (50' on CC: unanimous existing structure. 3421 Yukon Avenue Boone) 89-01 Front yard setback (30') Denied PC: 5 for Jerome Rath Request: 3' variance 2 against 3464 Ensign Avenue Request to add additional garage space extending 3' CC: 2 for into front yard setback and add a family room to the 1 against back side of the QaraQe. 88-25 Front yard setback (30') PC - Denied PC: unanimous Changed plans so no variance Mariys & Glenn Joly Request: 4' variance Withdrawn CC: unanimous - needed 4417 Decatur Avenue Request to convert existing garage to family room and before CC accepted build a new garage to the front, which would extend 4' meeting withdrawal into front yard setback. 88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & front yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match Daniel & Barbara Request: 5' side & 12' front variances 1 abstain existing structure. Nordberg Request to expand garage on non-conforming structure. CC: unanimous 3243 FlaQ Avenue ALL FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 TO PRESENT 1 PLANNING CASE TYPE OF VARIANCE APPROVE VOTE TAKEN CONDITIONS NAME/ADDRESS & WHAT REQUESTED /DENY 87-18 Front yard setback (30:) Approved pc: 6 for Shingles to match house. William Asplund Request: 4' variance 1 against 4948 Wisconsin Request to construct an open porch (no walls) on the CC: unanimous Avenue front of the home, with overhang extending 4' into front yard setback. 87-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match James & Judy Larson Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous existing structure. 5833 Meadow Lk. Rd. Request to construct entryway at front of house, extending 5' into front yard setback. Front of house was built 30' front street. 86-30 Front yard (30') & side yard (5') setback PC approved pc: 1 for Roof & building materials to match James & Susan Request: 6' front & l' side variance l' side & 4' 3 against existing structure. Carlson Request to add 6' to front of garage and onto the side of front. 2 abstain 4673 Ensign Avenue garage, which would extend l' into side yard setback. CC approved CC: unanimous l' side and denied any front. 86-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved pc: unanimous Roof & building materials to match David Hanson Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous existing structure. 8119 59'h Avenue Request to add onto garage (non-conforming corner lot), which extends 4' into front vard setback. 83-54 Front yard (30') & rear yard (35') setbacks Approved PC: unanimous Will be installing new siding and Randy Elam Request: 5 %' front yard &.4' rear yard variance CC: unanimous roof will match existing. 3227 Flag Ct. Request to add onto front of garage in front yard, which would extend 5 W into setback & add an addition to rear of house which would extend 4' into the rear yard setback 83-22 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match Roiand Englund Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous existing structure. 8408 E. Meadow Lake Request to add onto existing dining room by extending Road out 4' to the front and add a bay window which adds 18" more. 83-01 Front yard setback (30') Approved pC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match Abe Pas no Request: 1 '4" variance CC: unanimous existing structure. 8641 33,d Avenue Request to construct a vestibule at front entrance, which extends 1 '4" into front setback. 81-53 Front yard setback (30') Approved pc: unanimous Exterior treatment of the total Jay & Cara Cline Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous addition to match existing 3801 Xylon Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would structure. extend 26' from front propertv line. ALL FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS --. 1980 TO PRESENT 2 ALL FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS.---1980 TO PRESENT 3 PLANNING CASE TYPE OF VARIANCE APPROVE VOTE TAKEN CONDITIONS NAME/ADDRESS & WHAT REQUESTED /DENY 80-51 Front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Arnie Carlson Request: 2' variance cc: unanimous 7930 59 Y, Avenue Request to add on a greenhouse/solarium to the front of the existing house, which would extend 2' into the front vard setback. 80-32 Front yard setback (50' on major arterial street - Boone Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to Ron & Jane Kalin Avenue) CC: unanimous match existing structure 4311 Boone Avenue Request: 4' variance Want to extend garage to the front by 4' and convert porch at rear of garage to a dining room, which leaves 46' setback on Boone 80-25 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous DeMatts Inc. Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 8140 46'h Avenue This house was constructed before street was put in and ended up 27.8' from property line. Garage was to have been detached and set back from house. With a change of owners, etc. the garage was lined up with the house when finally constructed. Problem was discovered when code compliance done for sale of home. 80-14 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof line, siding and texture to William & Judith Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous match existing house. Stewart Want to extend the garage 10' to the front into the 30' 3500 Virginia Avenue setback so they could add onto the kitchen at the rear of the garage CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 05-10 Tim & Dianna Utter 7/8/05 9/6/05 11/5/05 4308 Flag Avenue N New Hope 55428 763-533-2784 Boxes A-C and E-F wili always be filled out Whether the other boxes are fiiled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record ail subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, inciude ail calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include ail calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadlihe under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. <-^'n"~*."~_.,"'''H''.~'., "';",~"""_,_""==~"_~_"",,,,-_,,,,__~~===,=~-,,,,;,,_~,,,'_"_'""'''"",,,,:_,__,,,,,,,-__'""_'c"~c""_~=.,c,,~-=,,,_~,=.,~~.,,~o''"'''"_"__,,,"'_"'~'~"_"=''''==m.;'_='-- , Memorandum To: Planning Commission Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development July 29, 2005 From: Date: Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CounciUEDAfHRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. July 18 Council Work Session - At the July 18 Council work session, the Council discussed the following planning/development/housing items: . Project #750. Meeting with development companies planning to submit a proposal for the Bass Lake Road Apartment Area: Council met with Ryland Companies, PariPassu, Insignia Development, and K. Hovnanian of Minnesota. RFQs were attached with July packet. It is anticipated that all four developers will be meeting with staff/consultants as they develop their proposals over the next seven weeks. The following schedule was approved by the City Council: . July 18: Council meets with development teams . September 2: proposal deadline . September 8: community open house to solicit comments on the proposals . September 19: Council discusses proposals at its work session . September 26: Council selects preferred developer . OctoberfNovember: city and preferred developer negotiate development contract If the Council selects a preferred developer on September 26, the negotiation process between the city and the developer begins. During this process, the Council can make more detailed decisions regarding financial assistance, project design requirements, and other elements of the redevelopment project. Please see attached developer list and calendar. . Review and discussion of proposed graffiti ordinance: The Council reviewed the draft ordinance, made minor modifications to the ordinance and support documents, and directed that the ordinance be placed on the July 25 Council agenda for action. . Project #718. Discussion of City Center project notebooks and next steps: Council postponed action on this issue until after the regular Council meeting on July 25. 2. July 25 CounciUEDA Meeting - At the July 25 Council/EDA meeting, the CouncillEDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: Miscellaneous Issues Page 1 7/29/05 2. . Project #77S. Motion approving waiver of service availability charges (SAC) for 4301-17 cont. Nevada Avenue twinhome redevelopment: Approved, see attached Council request. . PC04-17. Resolution authorizing reduction of financial guarantee for the Linden Place Apartments. 5501 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. . PC04-01. Resolution authorizing reduction of Ryland Group. Inc.'s financial guarantee for public improvements at Winnetka Green: Approved, see attached Council request. . PC04-01. Resolution authorizing reduction of Ryland Group. Inc.'s financial guarantee for land payment at Winnetka Green: Approved, see attached Council request. . PC05-0S. Request for preliminary plat and CUP/PUD approval.' Rosalyn Court Apartments: Approved and required the burial of utilities, see attached Council resolution. . PC05-09. Request for preliminary plat review. PUD. CUP. sitefbuilding plan review. comprehensive sign plan and administrative permit for outdoor dining. Frey Development: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is continuing to coordinate with Hennepin County on transportation issues; Council supported access off of 42nd Avenue. . Discussion and direction regarding potential purchase of 7115 62nd Avenue: Discussion postponed until the August 8 Council meeting so Council can review property, see attached Council request. . Update on noise issue at 5000 Winnetka Avenue: Council authorized purchase of sound insulation blanket to address neighborhood nuisance issue, see attached Council request. o Project #750. Motion approving Herman Appraisal Services. Inc. for the appraisal of the Bass Lake Road Apartments: Approved, see attached Council request. o Ordinance 05-10. An ordinance declaring graffiti a public nuisance. establishing procedures for abatement and removal. and establishing criminal penalties for graffiti vandalism: Adopted, see attached Council request, ordinance, brochure and letters. o Motion adopting summary of Ordinance 05-10. an ordinance declaring graffiti a public nuisance. establishing procedures for abatement and removal. and establishing criminal penalties for graffiti vandalism: Adopted, see attached Council request. Ordinance effective upon publication in early August. o Project #71S. Discussion of City Center project notebooks and next steps: Tabled until August 8 Council meeting. 3. Codes and Standards Committee Staff/consultants met on July 29 to discuss the zoning code amendment for 60-day rule to conform to new regulations and several other minor code amendments. A committee meeting will be scheduled at the end of August if committee members are available. . Transit Shelter Ordinance - Staff/consultants also discussed the transit shelter ordinance on July 29 and will update the committee in August to review recommendations. Staff will also present this matter at a future Council work session to determine if the Council supports moving forward with this program. Miscellaneous Issues Page 2 7/29/05 4. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met on July 14 to review the plans for a variance for a garage expansion into the front yard setback. The deadline for the September Planning Commission meeting is August 5. Staff anticipates several applications may be submitted for the September meeting, including items 1-3 listed under future applications. . Staff will contact the committee regarding a meeting following the application deadline. 5. Future Applications - Future potential applications or businesses/developers that staff is currently working with, or has recently met with, include: 1. Sunset Apartments subdivision 2. Alano - shared parking CUP 3. Wings Soccer Club (Hosterman soccer field complex) 4. Coffee shop - City Center 5. Aldi grocery store, 7180 42nd Avenue 6. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church expansion, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue 7. Crystal Free Church CUP amendment for minor expansion 8. Intermet expansion, 5100 Boone Avenue 9. Waymouth Farms parking variance/CUP 10. 4301 Quebec industrial condo conversion 11. 7100 Medicine Lake Road (former Egan McKay property) potential redevelopment 6. Livable Communities - The Council reviewed the Request for Qualifications for the Bass Lake Road Apartments site and met with the developers at the July 18 work session. All four developers have been invited to submit a Request for Proposal by September 2. An open house to review developer proposals will be conducted on September 8 from 5 to 7 p.m. and commissioners are invited to attend. 7. City Center Task Force Update - Staff met with existing property owners and businesses along 42nd A venue between Zealand and Louisiana avenues and in the City Center area regarding future improvements to their businesses and sites. All information was presented to the Council at the June 27 Council meeting. It is anticipated that the City Council will discuss this information and determine how to proceed at the August 8 Council meeting. 8. Project Bulletin - Enclosed are project bulletins regarding 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue, Winnetka Green, and 8401 54th Avenue. 9. Comprehensive Plan Updates - Staff has discussed the proposed comprehensive plan updates with the city's planning consultant and he indicated that he is available to attend the October 4 Planning Commission meeting. City staff is recommending that this matter be scheduled for further discussion when the planning consultant is available to attend the commission meeting. City staff will place this item on the Planning Commission agenda for its meeting in October. 10. Minutes - Enclosed are Planning Commission minutes for your review. 11. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Miscellaneous Issues Page 3 7/29/05 Attachments: Bass Lake Road Aparbnent site developers City Center Graffiti ordinance SAC charges for NCRC project PPL bond reduction Ryland bond reduction Rosalyn Court revised resolution 7115 62nd Avenue Noise issue at 5000 Winnetka Avenue Bass Lake Road Aparbnent site appraisal firm Graffiti ordinance Project bulletin Planning Commission 7/12/05 Minutes Miscellaneous Issues Page 4 7/29/05 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORlli NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PCOS-08 Item 4.1 July 12, 2005 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. 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. Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy (7:02), Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Bill Oelkers, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Conununity Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, . Shawn Siders, Conununity Development Specialist, Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Charles Carlson, Conununity Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There was no Consent Business on the agenda. Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for conditional use permit/planned unit development and preliminary plat review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and 2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court Properties, LLC!Tohn Roder, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner was requesting preliminary plat review and a conditional use permit/planned unit development to allow the conversion of 60 apartment units in five buildings into owner-occupied condominiums. The site is zoned R-4 high density residential and is surrounded by Terra Linda Park to the east, single family residential to the north, residential business to the northwest, conununity business to the west and Golden Valley single family residential to the south across Medicine Lake Road. The site contains 4.365 acres. Each building has three stories with approximately 3,400 square feet per floor, or 10,100 square feet in each building. The total square footage for all five building would be 50,500. The land area is made up of 17% buildings and garages, 25% paved, 45% green space, and 13% city streets. The site was developed in the early 1960s. The buildings contain one and two- bedroom units. The applicant would sell the apartments as condominiums, using a phased approach to divide and sell each building. The initial phase would convert the 2700 and 2730 Rosalyn Court buildings, and the other buildings would be converted within the next 10 years. The plan to group lots together requires a PUD for the Conunon Interest Community plat. The PUD designation also would provide flexibility to allow for the nonconforming setbacks that exist, and city code states for a PUD that the existing overhead utility lines are to be buried. The use of the site will not change, only the ownership structure of the residences. To ensure sufficient capital funding, the apartment buildings will be folded into the property's maintenance until sold off as condominiums and ongoing maintenance can draw from a larger funding pool. In February 2005, a code compliance inspection was conducted prior to sale of the buildings and a Certificate of Compliance was issued. The topography of the site is flat and is surrounded by higher elevations to the north, west, and east. The site has a slight downward slope toward Medicine Lake Road on the south side. The five lots are arranged on a short street and cul-de-sac accessed from Medicine Lake Road. The Design and Review Committee felt the conversion would be a welcome addition to the city. The Oty Council strongly supports condominium conversion projects. The applicant was not asking for city assistance for the project. Mr. McDonald reported the petitioner stated in correspondence that the conversion would have a long-term benefit of providing owner-occupied housing with responsible and caring residents having an ownership stake in the property. . Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the city of Golden Valley, and staff received no comments. Mr. McDonald pointed out the purpose of the planned unit development was to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to the traditional parcel by parcel approach to development. McDonald stated that the preliminary plat had been submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review. Comments received were incorporated into the planning report and the approval would be subject to those recommendations. The Planning Commission should confirm whether the applicant desires to have the Commission waive its review of the final plat. Staff and consultants reviewed the apartment conversion plans and were supportive of the conversion. Comments included provision for drainage and utility easements, sidewalk easement on Bass Lake Road, burial of overhead utilities, parking, sales office locations, compliance with fire code, lighting, signage and management of the property. The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant and indicated support for the project. The committee requested information regarding management and capital improvement funding. Revised plans and supplemental information were submitted as a result of those meetings. The site consists of five separate lots. Two lots share a driveway and parking area. Four of the lots are similar in size, and Lot 3 is larger due to the fact that a swimming pool was previously located on the lot. The pool was demolished in the early 1990s. All lots front' onto Rosalyn Court, which terminates in a cul-de-sac, and are accessed via Medicine Lake Road. Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 12, 2005 Apartment building setbacks are compliant with the R-4 zoning district. Five of the six garages do not meet the side and/or rear yard setbacks. The applicant was not proposing any changes to further encroach into the required setbacks, therefore, these legally nonconforming structures are allowed to continue to be utilized. Mr. McDonald stated that proposed pricing for the condominiums would be based on the type and location of each unit and the upgrades made. The initial 24 units would be priced between $79,900 for a one-bedroom on the first floor to $98,900 for a third floor two-bedroom unit. Association fees would range between $157.90 for a one-bedroom and $178.48 per month for a two-bedroom. To create a funding reserve, the equivalent of two monthly association dues would be required upon sale closing. After all 60 units are sold, the operating income for the property would be $121,000 with a replacement reserve of $19,500. This would cover administration., gas service, insurance, repairs, and other operating expenses. The first phase, 24 units, would provide over $48,000 annually to fund the association expenses. Parking on site would be arranged through a shared use agreement, allowing' guests and residents parking on any parking lot within the development. This arrangement would meet the city's requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, or 90 parking spaces. The development currently has 60 garage stalls and 60 surface parking stalls distributed across the five lots, or 120 total parking stalls. The parking was not delineated on the submitted plans, but should be illustrated. Access to Rosalyn Court is via Medicine Lake Road. There is a center island in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Four driveways provide access to garages and parking areas for the five buildings. A five-foot sidewalk runs along Medicine Lake Road, and concrete walks serve each building. The survey does not indicate dumpster enclosures on the property. The city requires waste storage to be screened. The applicant should provide a letter to the city describing the storage of refuse, and whether refuse containers are to be located within the apartment buildings or garage structures. Landscaping plans were not submitted. Green space is predominately turf grass, with some trees and other landscaping features on the site. Existing permanent signage will remain, however wording on the signs may change. Sales signs would be placed on the property during selling phases. Snow storage is not detailed on the plans. The property requires 90 parking spaces and 120 are provided. City code states that snow storage may occur on the excess parking spaces if guest and resident parking requirements are maintained. Building-mounted lights are located above the entrances and parking lots are illuminated by building- mounted floodlights. The city may require additional lighting around the building and garages as a condition of approval. The applicant indicated in correspondence that the present lighting of the complex was considered and deemed adequate by their independent consultant and insurance provider. They would encourage condominium purchasers to purchase garage door openers with security lighting. McDonald added that the plans were reviewed by West Metro Fire. West Metro provided a letter indicating that the applicant had complied with all of its recommendations. Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 12, 2005 Existing easements include a 10-foot utility and drainage easement between Lots 4 and 5, between Lots 2 and 3, along the eastern edge of the property, the western boundary of Lots 3 and 4, and through Lot 5 east of the garage. The city engineer recommended the following additional easements: 1) 10-foot utility and drainage easement on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4, and 2) 10-foot utility and drainage easement on the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. Provide a utility easement across Lot 3 to enable access to the electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac. Applicant to verify the existence of easement over the storm sewer along the east line of Lot 1. Provide a five-foot wide sidewalk easement along the south lot line of Lots 1 and 5, which would allow the future relocation of the sidewalk if a turn lane was added into Rosalyn Court in the future. A turn lane is not required at this time. The city's POD ordinance requires that internal overhead utilities be buried and this is added as a condition of approval. The city may consider this on a phased basis as the buildings are converted. McDonald explained that the apartments are managed by Sabre Enterprises, and they provide the maintenance on the buildings. While the buildings . remain apartments, Sabre would continue to provide maintenance on the buildings. The board of directors indicated Sabre would provide management of the condominium association as well. As the association grows, the board may terminate the services provided by Sabre. Until half the units are sold, the present owner, Rosalyn Court Properties LLC, would be responsible for maintaining the entire complex. A question was raised as to whether "half of the units" for the association meant 30 out of 60 units or 12 of 24 units. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, responded that half of the units would mean half of the initial units in the original association or 12 of 24 units. Mr. McDonald reported that the city felt this was a good project and the overall project would enhance the city with increased home ownership. The basic use of the site was not changing and the conversion was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff was recommending approval of the preliminary plat and POD subject to the conditions as listed in the planning report. Commissioner Nirgude questioned who currently maintains the center island in the cul-de-sac and was told the property owner had been maintaining this area. Mr. McDonald added that Rosalyn Court was a public street and the island would be treated as a boulevard, where upkeep is the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. John Roder, 400 North 1st Street, Minneapolis, came to the podium to address the Commission. Mr. Roder confirmed that the center island was being maintained by the management company of the complex. Mr. Roder explained the reason for converting the 2700 and 2730 buildings first was due to lease requirements for current tenants. The intention was to convert all five buildings as soon as the units could be converted and sold, hopefully within two years. They were suggesting a 10-year timeframe to complete the whole conversion, but hoped it would not take that long. They anticipated all units Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 12, 2005 will be sold. Mr. Roder indicated that currently are fenced refuse areas behind each building with reguiar pick up service. There may be some ground improvements completed with new plantings in the green areas away from the buildings for security reasons. Cleanup of overgrowth along the property lines was in process and would be cleared away. Retaining walls would be installed to aesthetically improve the area. Mr. Roder stated that he would like to see the power lines buried, but the cost may be $15,000 to $20,000 for the five buildings. He stated he wants to keep the costs under control and keep the units affordable. There are a couple model units available now and they are taking reservations for people interested in purchasing. The applicant stated he did not have a problem granting easements to the city. He indicated there was a blanket easement in force from when the building was constructed. His attorney would incorporate the city's easement descriptions into the appropriate documents. Chairman'Svendsen inquired whether the applicant was formally requesting' the Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat, and Mr. Roder answered in the affirmative. Discussion ensued on whether or not to request that overhead utility lines be buried. There are several other overhead lines along the perimeter of the property in addition to the utility lines. Existing utility lines come from the rear property lines into the back of the buildings. Mr. McDonald stated that city code required new planned unit developments to bury all utility lines at the expense of the developer. The city's planning consultant recommended that the apartment conversion be accomplished through a PUD, however, this existing site may have special characteristics as opposed to a new development. The Planning Commission should make a policy decision and offer a recommendation to the City Council. The city would need to adhere to the same policy with future existing site conversions. Chairman Svendsen mentioned that the utility lines along the west property line also fed the small strip mall on Winnetka Avenue and the gas station. He questioned from what point the lines would be buried. Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, explained that the two lines from the pole to the buildings would be the only lines required to be buried with this application. The other services and the feed to that pole would still be overhead. Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether or not the same regulations apply to conversion condos as new construction condos and this was confirmed. City code requires that overhead utilities must be buried through the PUD process. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the applicant's anticipated cost of $15,000 to $20,000 to bury the utility lines. The city engineer indicated that cost projection may be high. Oelkers suggested that at $12,000, the cost to each unit would be $200, or at $18,000 the cost to each unit would be $300. It was noted that phone and cable lines are already buried. Mr. Roder stated Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 12, 2005 that the city's line across Lot 3 for a light pole would also need to be addressed. Commissioner Brinkman stated that during a recent tour of the Winnetka Green project, he noticed that the units were quiet and wondered whether there were building code requirements that needed to be followed for conversion units. Mr. McDonald stated that there were specific fire wall requirements that had to be met between owner-occupied units versus apartments. It was noted that a sound wall was different than a fire wall. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that the crc law indicates that the city cannot impose any special regulations on conversions that would prevent this kind of ownership versus an apartment ownership. Commissioner Hemken questioned what expenses made up the monthly maintenance fee. Mr. Roder stated that history of the buildings show monthly charges for gas, water, insurance, etc. Commissioners Oelkers and Buggy agreed that the fee of $158 and $179 were in line with fees for similar projects. The units have gas \leat with hot water baseboard systems and new sleeve air . conditioning units. All units will have new appliances, kitchen and bathroom cabinets, ceramic tile in the bathrooms, and all floor coverings. Discussion ensued on financing of the units for the buyer. Mr. Roder indicated financing would be available through Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae approval was in process. Financing would be available through their organization as well, and they are also checking into FHA and HUD. They are trying to keep the payments as low as possible. Question was raised as to what may happen if an occupied unit was sold to another party. Mr. Roder indicated that tenants would be notified and have four months to move, as prescribed by the state of Minnesota. Handicapped or elderly tenants are allowed additional time beyond the four months. Mr. Roder stated that if the tenants choose to move, they have other complexes with units available, and the tenants would receive $1,000 in moving assistance. 1f tenants are interested in purchasing a unit, models are available or they can purchase their own unit, however, they would have to move out during the remodeling process. Mr. Roder added that some of the tenants from the previous owner still have several months left on their leases, and would be notified of the ownership opportunity well in advance of the expiration date on the lease. Commissioner Nirgude complimented the applicant on the nice job on the plans and the complex itself. He questioned how the rental property owners would become part of the condominium association. Mr. Roder indicated that he would be responsible for costs associated with the rental buildings and the association would be responsible for costs associated with the buildings with owner-occupied units for the day-to-day operations, such as mowing the grass. The association would have monies put into a savings account for capital improvements, such as roof, windows, etc. Mr. Roder stated that there are some items, such as gutters, that may need to be replaced in four or five years. At the time of sale, two months of association fees are collected and put into the reserve account. He stated he would continue on the board of Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 12, 2005 directors for three years. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on what changes would be made to each unit prior to selling. Mr. Roder responded that there would be no structural work done on the units. Flooring would be removed down to the wood, including carpet and pad, floor tile and wall tile in the bathrooms, kitchen cabinets, interior doors would be refinished or new depending on the price package the buyer wanted. Buyers would have two choices for carpet, kitchen cabinets, appliance package - stove, dishwasher, and refrigerator - in either white or stainless steel, sleeve air conditioner, vanity, medicine cabinet, all new lighting, ceiling fan in dining room, plain or mirrored doors on closets. Window treatments would be an option, and the garage door opener would be an option. Security doors would be checked and locks changed on all units upon sale. Mr. Roder stated market research indicates that 80 percent of the buyers may be single, professional females. Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on the heating system in the buildings and wondered whether the system would need upgrading. Mr. Roder responded that he would address some of the pump systems and thermostats and control valves prior to the next heating season. The boiler seems to be in good condition now. Commissioner Nirgude asked what other condominium projects Mr. Roder had been involved with. He replied that he had been involved in several other projects; however, this was the first one he was managing by himself. He stated he had been involved with apartment management issues for the last 10 years. He stated the company manages five complexes with approximately 25 buildings. They also so some outside management for commercial properties. Commissioner Nirgude expressed best wishes for the project. Commissioner Brinkman questioned the condition of the roofs on the buildings and it was noted that most were in fair condition. Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for comment from the audience. Mr. Tad Johnson, 2748 Lamphere Drive, came forward. He stated he and his wife, Kimberly, were excited about the project. The project was a market based idea with no city money being used and it was giving people more options for condominium ownership. He felt the price was very affordable for a nice area of the Twin Cities metro area. He suggested that the maintenance company keep up with the outside lawn care. He inquired as to what the association fees cover. Mr. Roder gave the following totals: $9,300 for management services; $3,500 office expenses, such as mailing, legal, etc.; $19,300 insurance for buildings, grounds, liability (no unit contents is included); $24,900 for gas service for boiler, dryers, ranges; $25,800 for water, sewer, trash and recycling; $9,500 for small common area repairs; $3,900 for grounds maintenance such as mowing and snow removal; $700 for fire alarm monitoring; $4,700 for operating reserve, and $19,500 replacement reserve for roof, parking lot, windows, etc. for a total of $121,100 per year. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 12, 2005 public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-08. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner had submitted draft association bylaws, articles of incorporation, rules and regulations, which were all included in the planning report. Mr. Roder reported that his attorney drafted a letter which stated that his firm does condo conversions and he reviews all of the documents prior to giving that information to potential buyers. Mr. Sondrall added that he has spoken with Mr. Fredrich Krietzman of Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & VOgi, PA, Mr. Roder's attorney, with regard to the conversion documents and stated he was confident that everything would comply with state laws. One of the conditions of the site agreement would be a letter from Mr. Frietzman verifying that the condo association documents and the other information submitted by the applicant for purchase by the public meets the OC laws and . other laws that relate to this type of condo conversion. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the existing survey would be appropriate to file for the oc. Mr. Roder stated his attorney had indicated they would take care of various clean up items such as the easements, etc. to get the plat to conform to current usage. Mr. Sondrall explained with regard to the OC plat, specific items such as legal descriptions and standard requirements need to be met in order to make that plat work for documenting the ownership. A detailed outline must be submitted indicating all OC laws are met. The mechanism for recording the phased plat would be through the PUD development agreement. An amended plat would be recorded each time a new phase is added to incorporate the new property in the association. Initially the applicant would record the first two lots and legal descriptions as CICs, and the balance of the lots would remain as they are. Details would need to be worked out as to the phasing of the project and what would happen if all the buildings were not converted to condos. Sondrall confirmed that there was some risk involved with phasing and completion of the project. The worst case scenario would be an association with 24 units in it and three properties remaining rentals. Legal descriptions would be given to garages associated with each unit. Mr. Roder commented that they were trying to establish that the association would be viable for the long term. One way to do that was to establish that the buyers would not be buying the garage, but rather a license to the garage. The association would retain ownership of the garage, which would give the association collateral for a potential bank loan. Mr. Sondrall indicated he would review all legal documents. Commissioner Oelkers stated he liked the proposal, however, he was concerned this project would mimic a similar request from a few years ago to convert rental units into owner-occupied units, which has not yet happened. He mentioned the shared access and parking agreement discussed at the Design and Review Committee meeting, and he questioned what would happen with the shared parking agreement if only the first two buildings Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 12, 2005 would sell. Ms. Oarissa Klug, assistant city attorney, stated they would work out those details with the applicant's attorney. It would make sense to have a broad. agreement that would run with the land, so if the phasing didn't occur, there would not be a piecemeal agreement. Oelkers expressed concern that there be ample parking available in the event only two buildings sell. Mr. Sondrall replied that each lot should have 1.5 spaces per units per code. Oelkers initiated discussion regarding the number and size of pets and it was noted that the bylaws specify the number, size and type of pets allowed, which was more restrictive than city code. Commissioner Buggy reiterated that purchasers would be getting a license for a garage, which was part of the common property. He suggested that if the garages were a common element to the project, the association should provide the openers as part of the overall package to potential buyers. Mr. Roder concurred with the suggestion, however, he did not want to force anyone to incur the extra cost. Commissioner Oelkers strongly encouraged the applicant to bury the . overhead utility lines, so as not to set a precedent. Chairman Svendsen stated that due to the uniqueness of the supply to the property, the short runs, and layout of the site, his opinion was to waive that requirement of the PUD. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve Planning Case 05-08, Request for conditional use permit/planned unit development and preliminary plat review, 2700, 2710, 2720, 2730, and 2740 Rosalyn Court, Rosalyn Court Properties, LLClJohn Roder, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of plans by the city's building official. 2. Comply with city engineer's recommendations: a. 10-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4. A significant amount of drainage comes from the northwest corner of the property. This easement could protect that drainage way. b. 10-foot utility and drainage easement centered on the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. c. Provide utility easement across Lot 3 enabling access to the electric line to the light at the end of the cul-de-sac. d. Verify the existence of easement over the storm sewer along the east lot line of Lot 1. This storm sewer was installed after the original plat. e. Provide a 5-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the south lot line of Lots 1 and 5 to allow future relocation of the sidewalk if necessary. 3. Comply with city attorney recommendations, per correspondence dated June 30, 2005. 4. Comply with planning consultant recommendations: a. Burial of utilities lines are recommended to not be required for this specific proj ect.. b. The applicant shall be required to provide 1.5 parking spaces Planning Commission Meeting 9 July 12, 2005 per unit. c. The applicant shall provide an easement on the five parking lots and driveways to allow residents of one building to park on any lot, regardless of building ownership status. d. Management agreements shall be submitted and are subject to the review of the city. e. The CIC and related associations shall be large enough to accommodate the on-going maintenance of the buildings as well as provide for long-term capital improvements for the buildings. The overall budget is subj ect to the review and approval of the city. f. If only two (2) buildings are converted into condominiums, all bnildings shall be reqnired to be part of the association. g. The applicant shall illustrate how sales are to occur on site. h. A comprehensive signage plan shall be required. i. The applicant shall be reqnired to provide lighting around all buildings and garages. j. The applicant shall provide trash enclosures to screen trash cans. and dumpsters on the property, or evidence it will be otherwise handled in accordance with City Code. 5. Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire, including: a. The location of lock boxes, fire alarms, emergency lighting and related safety features. b. The location of fire hydrants. 6. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat. 7. Enter into development agreement with city, to be prepared by city attorney. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Svendsen Houle, Oelkers, Nirgude Crough, Sclunidt Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on July 25 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance. PCOS-09 Item 4.2 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for planned unit development, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, site/building plan review, comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor. dining, 7500, 7516, 7528 42nd Avenue North, Frey Development/Commercial Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners. Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, stated that this was a request for a planned unit development to allow the construction of two condominium units with three units in each building and one condominium building with two units on the northern and eastern portions of the site and one restaurant/retail building on the western portion of the site at 42nd and Quebec avenue, a conditional use permit, preliminary plat review, site/building plan review, and comprehensive sign plan. The property is zoned CB, community business. The parcel contains 109,900 square feet or 2.523 acres. Surrounding land uses includes industrial to the north, Planning Commission Meeting 10 July 12, 2005 community business (Sunshine Factory) to the west and south and the c.P. Rail line to the east. The total building area would be approximately 20% of the property, green area is 27%, hard surfaces include outdoor dining area at less than one percent, and parking/sidewalk/drive area at 53%. Mr. Siders gave a brief history of the site as to when the city acquired the properties and the contamination cleanup. Grants were received from the state of Minnesota and Hennepin County to help with remediation and Electronic Industries, the former property owner, covered the 25 percent cost sharing portion of the grant. Environmental remediation efforts are complete and development can begin. On site monitoring is occurring as well as ground water monitoring on the Gill Brothers Funeral Home site. Prior to the planning application, the developer submitted a development proposal for consideration by the New Hope Economic Development Authority, who was supportive of the project. On June 27, the EDA approved a purchase agreement with Frey Development and Manley Land Development. The property would be transferred once all necessary planning approvals have been received by the city, Hennepin County and the MPCA. . Mr. Siders stated that the petitioner would re-subdivide the existing three properties into two lots - Lot 1 containing 55,894 square feet and a lot width of 163.05 feet; Lot 2 contalning 54,005 square feet and a lot width of 156.85 feet. There would be a drainage and utility easement around the entire perimeter of the property that would be granted to the city for the installation of the city's utilities. Subsequent to plan submittal, the development review team met and was generally supportive of the project. Items discussed included access to 42nd Avenue, which is subject to Hennepin County review and the possible granting of an access permit, rear yard setback on north property line of 24 feet, drainage and utility easements, and parking with 133 stalls provided rather than 163 required by city code. The applicant is requesting a shared parking arrangement between the two lots. Staff felt this would work due to the difference in hours between the office use and restaurant use.. The POO would allow some flexibility on parking and setbacks. The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner to discuss those items and as well as access from 42nd Avenue to be constructed as a right in only entrance, and landscaping enhancements. Revised plans were submitted as a result of these meetings. It was noted that the city currently owns the alley to the north of the property and it would be transferred Frey Development and incorporated into the plat. Mr. Siders explained that the Sunshine Factory had been utilizing a portion of the property for parking for the past several years. The Sunshine Factory was notified that once development occurred it could no longer use the property for parking and they are agreeable. The restaurant/retail building would contain approximately 9,600 square feet. Viva Italia, a full service Italian restaurant, would be the anchor tenant, and Planning Commission Meeting 11 July 12, 2005 was making application for a full liquor license. The restaurant would utilize approximately 4,500 square feet. The development on the eastern portion of the site would contain a three-unit building on the southeast and northeast corners of the property and a two-unit building along the eastern property line between the three-unit buildings. Each building would contain one two- story unit. City code requires a 30-foot rear yard setback for the office-condo building along the north property line be 30 feet and the developer is proposing 24 feet. Due to the industrial use to the north and extensive landscaping proposed for the north property line, staff was recommending favorable consideration of that request through the PUD. Water and sewer lines would flow into the site from Quebec Avenue near the northwest corner of the property and branch out to serve the buildings. Two fire hydrants would be located on the site, one on the west property line and one near the northern end of the two-unit building. Storm drainage would flow to the north lot line into the storm sewer system then to the east lot line and then south for a distance and then east toward the railroad tracks. Water from the Quebec/42nd avenues intersection flows north to the lot line and into the . storm sewer system. The developer would be paying storm water fees in lieu of on-site ponding. The developer would be providing several utility easements to the city in the event the city needed to gain access to any of the utilities. Mr. Siders described the landscaping plan. He indicated that Viva Italia would occupy approximately two and one-half tenant bays in the southern portion of Building A. The remaining space would be occupied by other retail uses. Two parking islands would be located on the site with 133 parking stalls. The outdoor patio area covers 958 square feet, which exceeds the city code by 13 feet, and must be reduced to comply. Ingress/egress access to the site was proposed from Quebec Avenue. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over granting any access permit from 42nd Avenue. Hennepin County had indicated it would prefer no access from 42nd Avenue. The county would like additional right-of-way along 42nd Avenue for a possible future right turn lane onto Quebec Avenue. The developer indicated agreement with granting additional right-of-way. The city discussed with the developer that it would work with him and the county to obtain an access permit for a right-in only access to the property from 42nd Avenue. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council ask Hennepin County for consideration of this access permit. Due to the nature of the retail use, it is important to have at least limited access to the site from 42nd Avenue. A question was raised how the additional right-of-way requested by Hennepin County would impact the patio area. Mr. Vander Top indicated that the city and Hennepin County have worked together on many projects. A right turn lane at the corner would impact the layout of the plat and site. Traffic counts on 42nd Avenue would impact the decision for a right-in lane to the site or a right turn lane onto Quebec. The number of right turn lanes is very limited along this corridor. The standard requirement from a transportation engineering standpoint conflicts with other requirements in Planning Commission Meeting 12 July 12, 2005 terms of land use and the economic development of a property. The city would need to continue to work with Hermepin County for a right-in, and whether a right turn lane could be accommodated at some time in the future through dedicating a right-of-way and/or an easement. Mr. Siders added that the developer agreed to commit from $8,000 to $12,000 to construct a dedicated right turn lane southbound on Quebec A venue onto 42nd. Snow storage areas were identified on the plans and the city may have to work with the developer to identify additional areas for snow storage. There are 29 spruce trees proposed to screen the north property line. Crabapples are proposed for the parking islands. Several varieties of trees are proposed along the west, south and east property lines. Plantings and a fence are proposed for the perimeter of the patio area. Large trucks would access the property from Quebec and smaller trucks serving the condominiums could access the site from 42nd A venue. The Quebec access point would line up with the north driveway of the Sunshine Factory across the street to help with the traffic flow. One hundred thirty tree parking spaces are provided and the city code . requires 163. Staff suggests that would be acceptable through the PUD and the differing hours of operation for the uses on the site. West Metro Fire reviewed the plans and the developer had responded to all conditions with the exception of providing direct access to the fire connection on the north edge of the two-unit building. Therefore, one parking space may need to be eliminated leaving a balance of 132 parking stalls. Mr. Siders explained that the photometric plan complies with city code. Discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting entailed additional lighting at the rear of the buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks. The applicant provided some limited security lighting in that area. A condition of approval would include providing foot candle measurements for the patio area. One foot candle is provided at all entrances and exits to the buildings. There are two dumpster enclosures on the site; one is located just north of the two-unit condo building and the second is located at the northwest corner of the retail building. Mr. Siders explained the retail building could contain five tenant bays and would be built to suit. The restaurant would potentially occupy the southern two and one-half bays with other retail uses in the northern portion of the building. Each bay would be approximately 27 feet by 69 feet. The outdoor dining area is proposed to have nine tables with four chairs each for a total of 36 patrons. The tables and chairs would be removed during the off season. The building fascia would be burnished block at the base, cultured stone and EFIS to the top. Wall signage would be placed on the east elevation for all businesses. The roofline would be elevated to hide the painted rooftop equipment. The south elevation would contain a wall sign for the restaurant. The western elevation indicates a wall sign for the restaurant. City code allows two signs and staff suggests that the third sign on the west elevation be eliminated, and the developer is in agreement. The footprint for each bay in Planning Commission Meeting 13 July 12, 2005 the three-unit office condominium buildings are 32 feet by 48 feet or 1,536 square feet, with the middle bay two stories and approximately 3,000 square feet. The buildings would be constructed with burnished block, cultured stone and EFIS. The Design and Review Committee recommended that the developer extend the cultured stone farther up the building, which has been done. In the two-unit building, the single story unit would contain 1,536 square feet and the two-story unit would contain approximately 3,000 square feet, with the same building materials being utilized. Mr. Siders stated staff was recommending approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Staff was also requesting that the Planning Commission eliminate the wall signage for the restaurant/retail building on the western elevation. Commissioner Landy questioned where the deliveries would be made for the restaurant. It was pointed out that delivery trucks would stop at the loading docks at the north end of the retail building and bring deliveries along the sidewalk on the western side of the building. Landy expressed concern with the parking during lunch time if the restaurant was busy. He was also concerned with the parking situation during the holidays or special days, such as Mother's Day, when the Sunshine Factory would have an especially large group of people and parking on that lot was at capacity. Question was also raised whether a liquor license was available for Viva Italia and this was answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Anderson reported that on occasion patrons of the Sunshine Factory parked in his lot at Universal Color. Mr. McDonald stated that the Sunshine Factory met parking requirements of the city code without the additional parking. The owner of Sunshine Factory had previously indicated he was supportive of the new development. In years past, the Sunshine Factory had rented spaces at the industrial building to the .north at 4301 Quebec. Mention was made that the applicant shifted the north condo building to the east to provide additional space for truck turning radius at the Quebec entrance. Mr. Bernie Frey, Frey Development, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. He stated that representatives of Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group and Thatcher Engineering were in attendance. Mr. Frey stated this type of development had been constructed in Burnsville and Eagan and were very successful. The site at 42nd and Quebec was a great location. Mr. Frey explained that they intended to start site work as soon as the closing took place which could take until October and then depending on weather the project would be complete within six to seven months. Chairman.Svendsen mentioned that due to this being a super cleanup site, the center island needed to be water impervious so no contaminated soils come up and the trenching for any utilities had to be hauled away. The majority of the restricted area was in the southeast comer and the buildings were Planning Commission Meeting 14 July 12, 2005 designed so not much trenching would be needed. The buildings would be slab on grade so the footings are not too deep. The southeast comer of the property would need to be raised two to three feet so fill will be brought in to the site. Mr. Frey stated that 18 borings have already been done and there are a couple areas with environmental concerns. The MPCA will have a technician on site as well as their own technician during the digging process. They are confident the expens'e would not be too great. Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the parking island in the northwest comer of the property. Mr. Frey indicated that the island looks good and separates the two uses. The number of parking stalls did not change significantly with or without the island. Mr. Frey added that if the restaurant was successful, there would be a lot of cars and parking might be tight. It was their experience that many times the office/condo employees leave during lunch time. Users of the office/condos are sales reps, professional people, such as dentists or doctors, where patients come and go throughout the day. Mr. Frey explained that as a developer they would like to see access to the site from 42nd Avenue. He stated he was not fond of the idea of a turning lane . onto Quebec due to the impact on the patio. Svendsen maintained that the Design and Review Committee was supportive of a right-in, right-out access from 42nd A venue. Question was raised as to shifting the 4Znd Avenue access to the east, and it was noted that the grade in that area would be a problem. Commissioner Brinkman wondered about the traffic noise at the intersection whlle patrons are utilizing the patio. Discussion ensued on the right turn lane and the impact on the patio and whether the restaurant/retail building could be shifted to the north. Mr. Frey responded that if the building shifted to the north, parking stalls would be lost. Mr. Vander Top added that, based on the recent correspondence from Hennepin County, he felt the county may not approve a right-in only access. If land was dedicated for a westbound right turn lane, the building would have to shift to the north and lose parking north of the building or the patio would have to be eliminated. With the parking concerns, that would not be a viable option. He suggested the response to Hennepin County be from the standpoint that for the economic viability of the development the city would like to see a right-in from 42nd A venue, with no right-out onto 4Znd Avenue. The city would not look favorably on a right turn lane at this time. If the Commission doesn't agree, his response to Hennepin County would be different. Commissioner Nirgude commended the developer on the plan and thought it was a great addition to the city. He stated he felt the city engineer should pursue Hennepin County's permission to construct the right-in turn lane. He acknowledged there may be parking problems at times, but thought vehicles could park on the side streets if allowed by the city. Nirgude added he was not in favor of the right turn lane onto Quebec Avenue. Commissioner Houle questioned the safety factor of vehicles slowing down to make the right turn into the property and offered that it may be safer to construct a right turn lane at the intersection if the traffic counts dictate it. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting 15 July lZ, Z005 Vander Top stated that from a traffic engineering standpoint it made the most sense to close the 42nd Avenue access to the property and have a full right turn lane onto Quebec, which would be the county's preference. The turn lane would be a minimum of 12 feet wide. A right-of-way dedication would be 15 feet. The depth of the stalls north of the restaurant would be 18 feet. Mr. Siders interjected that his understanding of the Hennepin County letter was that the county was not looking for the construction of a lane at this time only dedication of the property. Hennepin County would probably fund a future roadway construction project. Mr. Vander Top clarified that there was a proposal that a southbound lane on Quebec be constructed and be partially funded through this development, because the benefit would be for this property and the Sunshine Factory as well as the industrial businesses to the north on Quebec Avenue. It was noted that the six feet on the west side of Quebec was all in the right-of-way and would not affect parking at the Sunshine Factory or the tree on the corner. Vander Top showed illustrations of the existing intersection configuration and proposed configuration. Due to the fact that the east curb along Quebec would be removed to install utilities, it was suggested that the curb line move to the east to accommodate a wider . roadway. The curb line on the west side of Quebec could be moved six feet to the west, allowing for a 16-foot northbound lane and a 12-foot left turn lane, an ll-foot through lane, and an ll-foot right turn lane. The climensions are narrower than preferred but would significantly increase the stacking distance for both left and right turns. This could be accomplished without changing the existing signal mast locations. Question was raised whether there would be a southbound left turn lane, and a right/through lane. Commissioner Houle clarified these m~difications were being driven by the city, per the recommendations of the transportation planner at Bonestroo and Associates, and the city's experience of how the intersection operates. Commissioner Oelkers questioned where the taper of the right turn lane would start and how the grade would affect it. Vander Top indicated that the taper would probably begin just west of the office/condominium building and the grade would strongly affect the turn lane. Oelkers initiated discussion on the possibility of moving the Quebec curb cut to the north. The easement along the north lot line is 10 feet into the property and he questioned the possibility of moving the easement to the north five feet, and in turn shift the entire site to the north five feet to allow enough land for the right-of-way. Mr. Siders suggested that the Commission consider a rear yard setback of 19 to 24 feet for the north building. Mr. Frey concurred with the suggestions, but asked to see the right turn lane drawn in, and he questioned who was financially responsible. The patio area may be able to be adjusted a couple feet to allow ample room for the requested right-of-way. Commissioner Houle maintained that the site is too dense and was very concerned about the shortage of parking. He stated he liked the office and restaurant components, but felt there may be a serious problem with parking not only in the evening but also during the lunch hour. His opinion was that the exterior expression of the office/condo buildings appeared more like retail than office. Commissioner Anderson inquired of the rooftop units and whether the units Planning Commission Meeting 16 July 12, 2005 would be visible. Mr. Frey explained that the parapets should hide the rooftop units. Discussion ensued on the height of the buildings and parapets and it was determined that the units would be sufficiently screened. Commissioner Brinkman suggested that the developer remove Building C to allow for additional parking. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-09. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A question was raised as to the cost of improvements to the Quebec Avenue intersection and Mr. Vander Top stated that the rough cost estimate without signal modification would be $35,000. According to staff at the Public Works Department, there have been problems at this intersection. Any improvements would benefit several businesses along Quebec Avenue. Chainnan Svendsen stated that conditions of approval should address the third wall Sign for the restaurant, a response to Hennepin County for the right turn lane onto Quebec Avenue, a right-in only or a right-in, right-out access from 42nd A venue to the site, and waiving review of the final plat. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 05-09, Request for planned unit development, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, sitelbuilding plan review, comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permit for outdoor dining, 7500, 7516, 7528 42nd A venue North, Frey Development/Commercial Property Development Corporation and city of New Hope, Petitioners, subj ect to the following conditions: 1. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide performance bond (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 2. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated June 30 and June 16, 2005. . 3. Comply with city attorney recommendations on plat dated June 27, 2005. 4. Approval of plans by building official. 5. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply with recommendations. 6. Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat. 7. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including: PreliminaJY Plat. A. The plat is subject to the review and approval of Hennepin County. B. The plat shall identify required drainage and utility easements. C. Shared access and parking easements shall be required and are Planning Commission Meeting 17 July 12, 2005 subject to the review and approval of the city. D. The Planning Commission recommends right in only access to the site via 42nd Avenue. The Commission suggested that staff review this option with Hennepin County and discuss .the options available which include reserving the necessary right-of-way fur the future construction of a right turn lane via 42nd Avenue onto Quebec Avenue. Prelirnina'Y Plat and Conditional Use Permit. A. The applicant shall reduce the outdoor patio dining area by thirteen feet (13) in order to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. B. The applicant shall provide a detailed patio plan for city approval. This patio design shall include: table arrangements, circulation patterns, trash receptacles, fence details with ingress/egress gates and lighting details. C. . The access from Quebec shall align with the curb cuts on the site west of Quebec Avenue. D. The applicant shall illustrate on the site plan truck movements through the site to the satisfaction of the city. E. The applicant shall provide the loading area designated for either lot. F. The grading, drainage, and utility plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the city. G. The applicant shall provide additional lighting for the outdoor patio. H. The color rendering shall be subj ect to the review and approval of the city. I. The applicant shall be required to apply for a sign permit for all signs within the site area. J. Eliminate the proposed sign on the western side of the restaurant! retail building. Comer units are permitted two wall signs, the applicant has proposed three for the comer unit. 8. Pay fee in-lieu of on-site storm water ponding in the amount of $47,257. 9. Pay no less than $8,000 and no greater than $12,500 to share the cost of adding a right turn lane on Quebec Avenue. Voting against: Absent: . Motion carried. Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Svendsen Houle Crough, Schmidt Voting in favor: Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on July 25 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance. PC04-28 Item 4.3 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Planning Commission Meeting 18 July 12, 2005 MOTION Item 4.3 Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSLNESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, introduced the planning case and after some discussion and several questions by the Commission, and due to the late hour, Mr. McDonald suggested that this matter be tabled and brought back to the COmmission at a time when the planning consultant wOl.ild be in attendance. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to table Planning Case 04-28, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan update, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgude, Oelkers, Svendsen None Crough, Schmidt Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in June with the petitioners. McDonald stated that one application was submitted for a . variance for garage expansion into the front yard setback for the August meeting. Commissioner Schmidt was invited to attend that meeting. Commissioner Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in June. McDonald added that staff and consultants would be meeting mid-July and the committee would probably meet in August to finish discussing the transit shelter orclinance, initiate discussion on the 60- day rule for approving planning applications to comply with state law, and several other minor code amendments. There was no old business. Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by COmmissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 7, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen reminded the comrmSSlOn that the August meeting would be held on Wednesday, August 3, due to National Night Out on Tuesday evening. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:58 p.m. ~ctfully submitted, '--~p'/~~ Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 19 July 12, 2005