Loading...
110105 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 2005 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: None Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Roger Axel, Building Official (at meeting for Item 5.2 only), Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC05-13 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(4)(h)(11) Item 4.1 regulating acceptable parking and driveway surfaces in all zoning districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, explained that staff had worked with the Codes and Standards Committee over the last several months on several minor code amendments recommended by inspections staff. Mr. McDonald stated that this ordinance amendment would clarify acceptable materials for parking surfaces and require hard surface driveways for newly constructed homes in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. At this time, front yard storage for boat trailers, etc. requires areas to be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Many situations have arisen where years ago the property owner may have laid down plastic with rock over the top and through the years the plastic deteriorated and grass is now growing though the gravel. The recommended code change is to include a list of acceptable paving materials, such as bituminous, concrete, or pavers, and stating that a covering permitting the growth of grass is not acceptable. The current code does not require paved driveways in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Some older homes have dirt or gravel driveways. Staff was not recommending that the code change be retro active and force those property owners to pave their driveways. McDonald pointed out that there is no place in the current code that requires any new construction to install a paved driveway. There are several scattered site single and two-family dwelling unit redevelopment projects underway, therefore, staff recommended the code be amended to require all new construction to have a hard surface for driveway purposes. The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the changes and recommends approval. Clarification was offered as to the surfacing material for a parking stall next to the driveway, and upon ordinance adoption, a hard surface would be required. Commissioner Oelkers questioned the portion of the ordinance relating to driveways for five or more vehicles requiring approval from the city engineer. McDonald noted that verbiage was in the current code. It was noted that this ordinance would apply to all expanded driveways and new construction. Any homeowner with an existing dirt or gravel driveway who wanted to redo the driveway would be required to install a hard surface rather than redo it with gravel. Commissioner Oelkers wondered whether a driveway replacement would be required with a point of sale inspection and was told no. McDonald added that the intent was for new construction and parking areas. Commissioner Crough suggested replacing the word “bituminous” with “asphalt.” He questioned whether or not “hard surface” material should be replaced with “impervious” material. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that bituminous was the language currently in the code, but asphalt could be inserted. Discussion ensued on different surfacing materials and it was determined that the verbiage hard surface would be appropriate. Construction specifications would be dealt with through the building permit process. There was 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 05-13. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 05-13, an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(4)(h)(11) regulating acceptable parking and driveway surfaces in all zoning districts, subject to replacing the word bituminous to asphalt, city of New Hope, Petitioner,. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on November 28. PC05-14 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) and Item 4.2 4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating curb cut and parking setback requirements in R-1 and R-2 districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Ms. Kim Green, community development assistant, explained the two proposed changes included side yard setback requirements and zero lot line requirements. The amendments also clarify inconsistencies within the code. Current code allows parking within three feet of the side yard property line and five feet from the property line in the boulevard area. The proposed amendment would allow a three-foot setback the entire length of the driveway, including the boulevard area, in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, eliminating the jagged edge of the driveway. Current code requires a three foot setback from the zero lot line for twinhome and townhouse driveways, leaving a six-foot area between the driveways. This results in several non-conforming properties in the city and awkward landscaping. The proposed amendment would exempt twinhomes and townhomes with zero lot lines from the three-foot setback requirements. The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the changes and recommends approval. Commissioner Crough questioned whether or not row townhouses would be included in this amendment. Chairman Svendsen explained that row houses are generally more than two units and would not be classified as an R-2 zoning district. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, added that townhomes would be constructed under a planned unit development and setbacks are addressed through that process. For the Winnetka Green project, staff requested that garages and driveways be placed side-by-side and the green space between the driveways be removed. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission; the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-14. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Item 4.2 Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 05-14, an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) and 4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating curb cut and parking setback requirements in R-1 and R-2 districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on November 28. PC05-15 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code 3-25(b)(1) requiring Item 4.3 fencing around swimming pools, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald explained that the current city ordinance was established prior to the existence of above-ground pools. Staff wais requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve an ordinance that addresses fencing for these pools. Many above-ground pools have railing systems that meet safety requirements. Currently a four-foot fence with a four-inch gap is required around all outdoor swimming pools. Fencing is required at a four-foot minimum from the edge of the pool, which is difficult to enforce with above ground pools. The proposed amendment eliminates the four-foot distance requirement. It does require that the fence fully enclose a pool in the back yard. It continues to require gates with self-closing latching mechanisms and eliminates redundancy in the city code. The intent of the amendment is to address the above-ground pools that are being installed in the city. The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the changes and recommends approval. Chairman Svendsen questioned fencing for a spa. Mr. Brixius explained that through the building permit process there are specifications for capacity and depth requirements that designate what would need to be fenced. Any spa or pool with a depth of 24 inches or more triggers the fencing requirements. Discussion ensued on the new temporary, inflatable pools. Mr. Brixius replied that the ordinance specifically deals with pools requiring a building permit. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-15. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Item 4.3 Hemken, to approve Planning Case 05-15, an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code 3-25(b)(1) requiring fencing around swimming pools, city of New Hope, Petitioner. 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on November 28. PC05-16 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.4, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Code 4-30(c)(11) Council review Item 4.4 and 4-30(c)(12) Council action on planning applications, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Ms. Kim Green stated that this ordinance amendment deals with council action on planning applications and the extension of the 60-day rule. In 1996, the city adopted an ordinance requiring the council to make decisions on planning applications within 60 days of receiving an application, per state law. The city can extend the period for an additional 60 days to adequately review and make decisions on applications. The current ordinance allows the city to automatically extend this time period to 120 days for all applications. Recently the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the 60-day extension is not automatically allowed. The proposed amendment eliminates the automatic extension. Extensions can be handled on a case-by-case basis and applicants notified as needed. The applicant can waive the time deadline, if desired. The Codes and Standards Committee met in September to discuss the changes and recommends approval. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-16. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.4 approve Planning Case 05-16, an ordinance amending the New Hope Code 4-30(c)(11) Council review and 4-30(c)(12) Council action on planning applications, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Council on November 28. PC04-28 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.5, approval of Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Item 4.5 Chairman Svendsen stated that the Planning Commission could review the Comprehensive Plan updates in two separate parts – the properties/projects that are completed or under construction that are to be deleted from the text and maps, and the potential City Center redevelopment. Mr. Al Brixius, planning consultant, explained that the Planning Commission initially reviewed this update in November 2004. The Council considered the proposed amendments in December 2004 and expressed concerns with the density definitions and land use classifications on the Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map. Since that time, city staff met and discussed densities with the Metropolitan Council. In May 2005, staff presented the density information to the Council and was directed to revise the existing density definitions. The Council also directed staff to reclassify the northwest quadrant of the City Center area to mixed use on the Commercial Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map. Mr. Brixius stated that the land use amendments were for projects that were under construction or have been approved. Land use changes are as follows: Winnetka Green from commercial and low-medium density to high density residential; Winnetka Townhomes from commercial to high density residential; Hillside Terrace from public/semipublic to low density residential; PPL condos and apartments from public/semipublic to high density residential; and City Center area from commercial/industrial/high density/public/semipublic to commercial mixed use. The CVS Pharmacy site was not previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan, however, boundary changes took place with the sale of the site to CVS and a portion of the school district property and a single family home incorporated into the commercial site and is reflected as a commercial use on the Land Use map. The Residential Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Area map was updated by deleting project sites for Winnetka Green, Winnetka Townhomes, Hillside Terrace, PPL Condos and Apartments, and 4301- 4415 Nevada Avenue from the redevelopment category and adding the City Center area as commercial mixed use. The Commercial Redevelopment Target Area map has been updated by changing the configuration of the CVS Pharmacy site, adding Midland Shopping Center and City Center. These changes reflect approvals the city has already granted for plats and planned unit developments. No major modifications are being requested beyond these project sites. Mr. Brixius stated that the City Center area was identified for redevelopment. The commercial mixed use land description recommends 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 the pursuit of redevelopment of select City Center commercial sites. The promotion of commercial land uses is the city’s first priority, however, the city will also consider the introduction of complementary, alternative land uses that will enhance the area and provide support for the commercial use. The properties bordered by Xylon, 42nd, Winnetka and 45th avenues have been designated commercial mixed use. This area is intended to provide for community commercial opportunities but would also allow for medium to high density housing options. Any change in land use would require city approval of a redevelopment master plan. Through the redevelopment review, the city would define the balance between commercial and residential land uses and the range of residential densities that may be allowed. Brixius pointed out that mixed use definition would amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for that redevelopment to occur and if no redevelopment would take place, the current land uses would be consistent. If the city wants to pursue redevelopment, the master plan would have to go through a formal review process by the Planning Commission and City Council. The commercial mixed use designation would provide a range of land uses that would make a project financially practical and allow redevelopment to occur if the city chooses to proceed. The existing Comprehensive Plan identifies the following densities: zero to four units per acre for low density, five to 10 units per acre for medium density, and 11 plus units for high density. Gaps fall between low and medium and again between medium and high density. The recommended revised verbiage for densities is as follows: low density one up to four units per acre, medium density four up to 10 units per acre, and high density of 10 plus units per acre. Chairman Svendsen questioned whether the Bass Lake Road Apartments site and the redevelopment project at 42nd and Quebec avenues had been identified on the maps and this was confirmed. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the city-owned, vacant land north of the railroad tracks near 52nd and Pennsylvania avenues. That area is identified as single family and is not identified on the Residential Redevelopment Maintenance and Target Area map due to the fact that it is vacant land and not a redevelopment opportunity. Mr. McDonald added that the City Council had recently expressed interest in the development of that site. Oelkers questioned whether low density land use was practical for that property due to the fact that it is adjacent to the railroad tracks. Brixius stated that as part of the overall amendments, the Planning Commission could make a recommendation for an alternative land use. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 04-28. All voted in favor. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Motion carried. Mr. McDonald commented that the Planning Commission should vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendments so it could move forward to the City Council and the Comprehensive Plan would be in agreement with the developments that have been approved. McDonald explained that in 2006 he hoped to get the Planning Commission more involved in redevelopment projects at the beginning stages. For the Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment or any new development, he would recommend that the developer provide plans for Planning Commission review early in the process for input before formal planning approval. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to Item 4.5 approve Planning Case 04-28, approval of Comprehensive Plan update, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on November 28. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in October. McDonald added that staff was not aware of any applications Committee for the December Planning Commission meeting. He stated he was Item 5.1 expecting an application for redevelopment of the Egan McKay property in December to be considered in January. Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had reviewed the code issues on this agenda. Committee Item 5.2 Mr. McDonald initiated discussion on whether or not staff should require a certificate of survey for residential variances. He added that it was a requirement of the city code, however, the city council had previously recommended that homeowners be spared the extra expense of providing a survey. This issue was last discussed in 1998 and the commission was split on whether or not to require homeowners to obtain a certified survey of their property. Staff felt at that time that the Council would not support the additional expense and delay to residents if a survey was required. The current cost for a residential survey varies between $500 and $1,000. The Codes and Standards Committee discussed this in September and felt there were sufficient safeguards in place to ensure proper as-built compliance without requiring a certified survey. The committee agreed with the current policy to give discretion to the building official to waive the survey requirement for variance requests on R-1 properties. Mr. Roger Axel, building official, indicated that a certificate of survey was 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 not always necessary if the homeowner could verify the location of the property lines. The requirement should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A suggestion was offered that staff let the commission know if the requirement was waived. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt strongly that a survey should be required for all variance requests. McDonald indicated that he and the building official felt that a request for an addition in a rear yard may not need a survey, whereas a survey should be required for a request for an addition in a side yard where the measurements are close. Chairman Svendsen stated he felt a survey should be required and the expense was justified. A question was raised whether there had been a problem not requiring the surveys. If no certified survey was submitted, the property owner would be required to locate the property irons and verify the property lines and placement of the structures on the site. Commissioner Anderson was concerned with the expense to the homeowners. Commissioner Crough pointed out that mortgage lenders nearly always require a current survey so the homeowner would need to provide and pay for a survey anyway. Commissioner Hemken stated that in the Berg variance request, she didn’t think he would have proceeded with the project if the expense of a survey had been required. She stated she would leave the decision up to the building official. Mr. Axel stated that there are safeguards in place that would warrant a survey on a case-by-case basis. If there was any question where the property line was located, he would require a survey. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the fence and pond at Winnetka Green. After the city had approved the project, he wondered Miscellaneous Issues how the city could legally make changes to the project. Mr. Sondrall replied that changes could be renegotiated in the contract. Oelkers maintained that the change to the contract affected 175 parties. Sondrall stated that the contract was with Ryland. Discussion ensued on the homeowners association and whether leadership had been turned over to the residents. Oelkers stated he felt the city was exposing itself to potential issues and that concerned him as a commissioner. Specific plans were approved and 175 families were purchasing homes in the development with that understanding. Now it seemed that a few people were asking for changes and the changes were being done without listening to the families that live in the development. NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 6, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The consensus was to approve the 2006 Planning Commission schedule. Mr. McDonald informed the commission that the Metropolitan Council required that cities update their comprehensive plans every 10 years. New Hope had been notified that its plan needed to be updated by 2008. In 2006, the city will begin the process for updating its comprehensive plan. Staff and the Council will need to determine how a committee would be formed for the review of the plan. A new subcommittee of the Planning 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Commission may need to be formed for the review of the Comprehensive Plan, and Commissioner Landy indicated he would be willing to serve on that subcommittee. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald reported that Shawn Siders had resigned and the city was interviewing for the community development specialist position. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005