Loading...
060606 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 6, 2006 City Hall, 7 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, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers ,Tom Schmidt (arrived 7:04 p.m.), Steve Svendsen Absent: Tim Buggy, Kathi Hemken Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC06-08 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for rezoning from CB, community business, to R2, single and two-family Item 4.1 residential, preliminary plat for property to be known as Louisiana Terrace, and variance for lot area to allow construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes, 5551 Louisiana Avenue North, Terry Veigel, Petitioner. Chairman Svendsen stated the petitioner had requested his item be tabled for one month. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, added the petitioner was not able to submit revised plans on time, therefore, they requested this item be tabled until the July 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to table Planning Case 06-08, request for rezoning from CB, community business, to R2, single and two-family residential, preliminary plat for property to be known as Louisiana Terrace, and variance for lot area to allow construction of two zero-lot line twinhomes, 5551 Louisiana Avenue North, Terry Veigel. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Buggy, Hemken Motion carried. PC06-09 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for Item 4.2 variance to the previously approved rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a single family home, 8401 27th Place North, Kingsman LLC/Peter Long, Petitioner. Mr. Jacobsen stated that a 16-foot rear yard setback variance request had previously been approved by the City Council. The petitioner was proposing a 12.3 foot rear yard setback and was requesting a 4.1-foot variance to the previously approved 20-foot front yard setback to accommodate an open, covered porch. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential, and is located at 27th Place North and Yukon Avenue. The site area contains 7,220 square feet and the proposed building would contain a total of 2,194 square feet. The green space would total 61 percent of the site, with 39 percent impervious surface. In 2005, the apartment owner, Aaron Crohn, applied to subdivide the land, rezone a portion of the property to single family, and sell off the parcel for a single family home. Specific conditions and restrictive covenants were attached to the site with the granting of the necessary variance, rezoning and plat. The City Council approved the request subject to several conditions, including: a minimum value of $250,000, house width including garage above 70 feet, minimum 480 square foot garage, exterior materials of brick, stone, wood, stucco or siding, and minimum house size of 1,500 square feet for a rambler style house. The petitioner indicated in correspondence they were proposing a smaller house size and a minor front yard variance. The three-car garage would be 710 square feet. The proposed market value would be between $299,000 and $325,000. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received no comments. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the development review team had reviewed the plans and were supportive of the request. The Design and Review Committee discussed several items with the petitioner, including setbacks, the fence on the south and east property lines, aesthetics on the building façade, porch, drainage, water and sewer service, grading plan, etc. Revised plans were submitted. The current request is for a 3.7 foot rear yard setback variance to allow the proposed house to fit the site, a 4.1 foot front yard setback variance to accommodate a porch, and a variance to the condition requiring a 1,500 square foot house. The proposed house footprint would be 1,351 square feet. Proposed setbacks are as follows: rear yard - approved 16 feet / requested 12.3 feet; front yard – approved 20 feet house and 22 feet garage / requested 14.9 feet porch, 20.9 feet for the house, 22 feet for the garage; and side yard setbacks are in compliance. The 4.1 foot variance for the open porch is relatively minor, and the rear yard variance would be acceptable given the lot arrangement and existing fence. The rear of the house has a patio door with steps leading to the rear yard. The uncovered steps are a permitted encroachment into the rear yard setback. 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 Mr. Jacobsen explained that the petitioner would be required to obtain permits for street and utility work, and would be responsible for replacing the water stopbox in the street. No landscaping plan was submitted, however, the petitioner must comply with landscaping requirements and provide at least one, two-inch diameter tree in the front yard, top soil and sod the entire property, and provide foundation and other landscaping plantings as necessary. Building materials on the front of the house include brick, vinyl lap siding, vinyl shakes, lattice panels around the porch, window shutters, raised panel doors, and gutters with down spouts. The balance of the house would have vinyl lap siding, with gutters and down spouts. The drainage plan indicated water would be directed east and west from a rear yard high point and flow around the property toward the street to the north. Existing fencing on the east and south property lines satisfies city requirements. Engineering considerations include new sewer and water service connections from the street, repair procedures for street after installation of sewer, installation of new water stopbox, which would need to be coordinated and approved by the Public Works Department per city standards. A grading plan must include the proposed first floor and garage floor elevations. Drainage should be identified on all sides of the house. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions in the planning report. Commissioner Houle questioned whether there were any other houses similar to this style, raised up from grade, in the neighborhood. Mr. Jacobsen replied that the raised elevation would allow look-out type windows in the back of the house. Most of the rambler homes in the vicinity are more traditional with no regular windows on the lower level. Commissioner Crough stated he was not in favor of this plan due to the fact that he did not approve of the reduced front yard setback. The porch addition, in his opinion, did nothing for the aesthetics of the home. He stated he did not feel the reduced house size was appropriate when 1,500 square feet was previously approved. The garage size was increased to 710 square feet, when some of that square footage could be transferred to the house. By reducing the garage size, there would be a larger setback on the east side. Mr. Jared Lundgren, a representative of Kingsman LLC, came forward to address the Commission. He stated he felt the three-car garage would be important for a new buyer for storage purposes. Most new homes today have three car garages. Commissioner Houle asked for clarification on whether or not the lower level would be finished. Mr. Lundgren stated that the lower level would not be finished, due to the fact that the selling price of the home would 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 rise and be more than a buyer would be willing to pay for that neighborhood. Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that the survey and floor plan did not match. The covered stoop was shown as 20 feet by six feet on one plan and six feet by seven feet on another. The survey indicated a cantilever, but none was shown on the floor plan. Oelkers mentioned that the original porch was 20 feet by four feet, however, the Design and Review Committee recommended that a six foot depth would provide a more useable area. Oelkers added he felt the porch was too close to the street, but the house square footage was fine. Commissioner Houle commented a porch depth of four feet would be more appropriate with regard to the setback. A question was raised whether the porch would need to be six feet deep if it was for architectural value only; it could be reduced to four feet if not utilized as a porch. Mr. Lundgren maintained that the porch would be more user friendly if the depth was left at six feet. Discussion ensued on the three car garage and the fact that eliminating 150 square feet from the garage footage and adding it to the house would also increase the sales price of the house to approximately $350,000, and the house would only have a two-car garage and an unfinished basement. That price would probably be too high for this neighborhood. Chairman Svendsen added that he felt the three-car garage was fine due to the reduced rear yard and the need for storage space for yard equipment and trash cans. The developer was trying to save an existing, mature pine tree in the west side yard, therefore, the house could not extend any further to the west. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he agreed a three-car garage was appropriate. Nirgude added there was discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting that the porch could be placed on the west side of the house. Mr. Lundgren stated he felt the porch dressed up the front of the house. He agreed it may be more useful on the side, but it was aesthetically pleasing at the front. Lundgren pointed out that these local streets were not busy. Mr. Jacobsen added that the boulevard area added another 15 feet to the front yard, so there would be approximately 29 to 30 feet from the front of the house to the street. Chairman Svendsen stated that the garage would be set back 22 feet from the front property line, and the property owner would be able to park two to three cars in the driveway. Commissioner Houle added that the porch does break up some of the length of the front of the home. Commissioner Crough initiated discussion by stating proper grading could eliminate the above-ground first floor elevation, the same as split- entry homes. This would require a large amount of fill. Houle added that foundation landscaping would add aesthetic value to the site. Chairman Svendsen explained that the house was in the same location as the original plans submitted for the Design and Review Committee meeting, just the porch extended another two feet toward the street. The 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 petitioner added stairs were added in the back extending down to a patio slab so there would not be a deck extending into the easement area. The family yard area would be on the west side yard. Oelkers stated that the lot was created and the 26-foot wide house was not overly large. Commissioner Schmidt questioned why there was not a second floor. Mr. Lundgren responded that the rambler design was used because it was felt that the buyer would not want to have a view of the apartment complex from the second floor windows and so that there would be look-out windows installed on the lower level on the rear and west sides of the house. Mr. Lundgren stated he felt this house with the raised first level fits in the neighborhood due to the fact that there are many split-level homes in the immediate area. Oelkers commented that 28 feet by 24 feet was not a very large three-car garage. Commissioner Nirgudé stated that he liked the landscaping and architecture of the home. The developer should be certain that the plantings would be the same as that proposed in the photo provided. Mr. Lundgren agreed that the landscaping was important. Commissioner Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Mr. Don Onnen, 8408 27th Place North, stated that he felt the project looked good and was a big improvement over what was there years ago. He had lived in the area about five years. Mr. Onnen also stated that the apartment complex, Sunset Apartments, looked good since repairs/improvements have been completed by Mr. Crohn. There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-09. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Houle stated that it appeared the applicant had done his best to fit a house on the lot and he supported the project. It met most of the requirements the Council placed on the property, except for the square footage. The project value had been met. The finished square footage could be met if the basement was finished in the future. Chairman Svendsen inquired if the Commission had suggestions for the placement of the boulevard tree. Oelkers recommended that the applicant submit a landscaping plan to reflect plantings as shown on the photo. The plan should be submitted to the city prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Brinkman indicated support for the six-foot porch. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 06-09, request for variance to the previously 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 approved rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a single family home, 8401 27th Place North, Kingsman LLC/Peter Long, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant to submit a corrected survey to accurately show proposed front porch and cantilever as proposed on the plans. 2.Applicant to add front yard concrete walkway to connect stairs and driveway. 3.Applicant will add concrete landings at each rear door and appropriate grade level patio between landings. 4.Applicant will be responsible for replacing water stopbox. 5.Landscaping requirements apply, including top soil and sod, front yard tree, and other landscaping as necessary/appropriate. A landscaping plan should be submitted prior to the City Council meeting and plantings to match the photo provided. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: Crough Absent: Buggy, Hemken Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on June 26, and asked that the petitioner attend. Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners in May. The next meeting would be held on June 15, Committee and staff was expecting Holy Trinity Church expansion plans. Item 5.1 Codes and Standards Chairman Svendsen stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would be meeting on June 9 to discuss Sign Code revisions. Committee Item 5.2 Commissioner Oelkers questioned the status of the sign at the old A.C. Carlson site. Mr. McDonald stated the New Hope Alano Group was in the process of replacing the face of the sign. Commissioner Schmidt initiated discussion on the truck signage located at Marketplace Furniture. Mr. McDonald stated that the business owner had met with the building official and it did meet current sign requirements. That type of signage would be an issue for the Codes and Standards Committee to discuss. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, interjected that if the truck was licensed and operable, it was a permitted use for the business and could be parked in their parking lot. This issue is problematic to address through the sign code and would be difficult to enforce unless sight lines were obscured or there was a safety issue. OLD BUSINESS A question was raised as to when the project at 42nd and Quebec avenues would begin construction. Mr. McDonald stated that the city attorney was Miscellaneous Issues coordinating with the developer’s attorney on the purchase agreement and development agreement. The final plat also needed to be submitted 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 and approved by the City Council. Mr. Sondrall added that Manley Development had letters of intent from restaurants, but could not get leases or disclose the identities until the buildings were constructed. NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 2, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Item 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4 Chairman Svendsen introduced Item 7.2, Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Item 7.3, Robbinsdale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Plymouth, and 7.4, Crystal Comprehensive Plan Amendment for discussion. Robbinsdale, and Crystal Comprehensive Chairman Svendsen explained these three items were sent to New Hope Plan Amendments because the Metropolitan Council requires comprehensive plan amendments be sent to adjacent cities for review and comment. After review, New Hope would send comments to the appropriate city and the Metropolitan Council. The Plymouth plan amendment is located at the intersection of Hwy 55 and Northwest Boulevard, and would re-guide five acres of land from industrial to commercial, to facilitate a PUD for a 39,000 square foot commercial retail center. The Robbinsdale plan amendment is located at the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Vera Cruz Avenue, and would facilitate the development of a 36-unit apartment building for seniors and would intensify land uses on 42nd Avenue. The Crystal project is located on the north and west sides of Olivet Baptist Church near 3420 Nevada Avenue North. The amendment would change the future land use map to high density residential for a future senior cooperative housing project. Svendsen stated that he was glad to see the proposed changes for Crystal and Robbinsdale and thought the projects looked wonderful. Commissioner Landy stated the Plymouth project would not impact New Hope due to the distance from the city. The other two projects should benefit New Hope. It was mentioned that the Robbinsdale plan showed the parking lot behind the building and away from the street. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt Crystal should be complemented on its aggressive nature of redeveloping old school properties. This project and the project at the Thorson School north of Bass Lake Road took some foresight to move forward with those projects. New Hope could possibly take some initiative in looking at the couple school district sites. Other city councils are taking steps to improve their cities and, he stated, he hoped New Hope would not fall behind. Item 7.5 Chairman Svendsen introduced Item 7.5, Design Guidelines for discussion. Design Guidelines Mr. McDonald stated that the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission be involved in the review of the design guidelines prepared 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 by the City Center Task Force in 2003 and to determine what may need to be changed. Mr. McDonald asked whether the Commission wanted to review the guidelines as a full commission or appoint a sub-committee. If the commission wanted to review the guidelines all together, information would be prepared for the July meeting. If a sub-committee would be formed, the sub-committee would conduct a couple meetings and bring a report back to the full commission. The full commission then would make a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Svendsen indicated preference for a sub-committee to review the materials. Another suggestion was for the full commission to review the materials, for the full commission to review the plan the first time and then break into a smaller group, or conduct a work session to review the materials rather than at the formal Planning Commission meeting. Oelkers indicated design guidelines were needed, but wasn’t sure if the city could tell builders what they could construct. Svendsen stated the DSU (Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban) 42nd Avenue Streetscape plan should be incorporated into these guidelines. The streetscape plan addresses bus shelters, etc. Houle stated that design guidelines could be general or very specific and he wasn’t sure one work session would be enough time to get through all the material. He liked the idea of conducting a work session to set some overall goals and direction and then break into a smaller group. Have that group bring some specific ideas back to the whole group and work through it again. Commissioner Brinkman stated he felt the Commission was a good group of people, who cared about the community. He felt this was the right group to review the guidelines. Commissioners have a general feeling of what the city wants and the commissioners are realtors, business owners, and others who have specialty areas of expertise. At some point there should be a designer to put the thoughts and ideas into perspective. Commissioner Brinkman directed a comment to Council Member Hoffe in the audience that he felt this was a positive direction to come from the Council. Landy concurred. He stated when he was chair of the Planning Commission, the previous Council indicated that the Commission should be completely independent. Council Member Hoffe replied that he learned a lot from his attendance at the meetings as the discussions were much more in depth. Landy maintained he felt the Council was trying to utilize the expertise of the Commissioners. Landy commented that he and Commissioner Brinkman were part of the City Center Task Force and at the time the guidelines were laid out, they were appropriate. Today, the guidelines may not be completely right and need some adjusting. Commissioner Schmidt wondered whether the guidelines would mandate, for instance, if Winnetka Center was remodeled that it would look like the New Hope Mall. Landy stated that would be what the guidelines should achieve – to present a cohesive look from one building to the next. Mr. McDonald stated that the guidelines should address 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 situations if buildings were improved or new construction. All cities approach this differently, therefore, that issue should be part of the recommendation. The guidelines could be adopted into the city code. Commissioner Anderson reported on a project called “tidy cities” in Ireland. Every merchant in the city had their own color scheme and somehow all the bright colors fit together. He stated his point was that not everything had to be “earthy colors.” Commissioner Oelkers recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a work session after the July 11 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reminded the commissioners of the bus tour on June 19. He recommended that commissioners take the opportunity to visit the finished projects. Commissioner Houle questioned the status of the review of New Hope’s comprehensive plan update. Mr. McDonald stated that a representative of the Metropolitan Council would be meeting with the Council at the August work session to explain the process and the information required from the city. Staff was determining the most cost effective way to obtain the information and get the update completed. Northwest Consultants proposed costs for the update were discussed and questions were raised as to why the Council was objecting to utilizing consultants for the update. Commissioner Landy explained that plan was modified 10 years ago and was supposed to be good for 20 years. The Met Council was now requesting that cities modify their plans every 10 years. New Hope approved major amendments to the plan last year, which addressed recent larger developments. Commissioner Nirgudé maintained that $40,000 was a lot of money. He felt the Council wanted to get input from a lot of other groups incorporated into the updated plan. He also stated he felt the Planning Commission should be supportive of the Council’s decision and have a lot of input into the Comprehensive Plan update. McDonald added that there would be further direction from the Council after the August work session. Houle stressed he wouldn’t want input from the public and various groups get left out because the Council did not want to spend a little extra money. He agreed it needed to be cost effective, but the city needed to draw the residents of New Hope into what was happening in the city, and one way to do that was through the Comprehensive Plan. The city had made amendments to the plan, but he questioned the amount of public input. He stated he didn’t feel the city should rely only on the Planning Commission and City Council meetings for input, because very few people attend. The Council should look at ways to draw input from the residents. He felt the city may have to spend some money in order to do that effectively. Landy concurred. The difficulty would be to get more residents involved in the process. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2006