Loading...
071007 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 2007 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Hemken 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, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Ranjan Nirgudé Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Kim Berggren, Community Development Assistant, Eric Weiss, Community Development Intern, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC07-06 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Ordinance No. 07-03, consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 4 of the New Hope City Item 4.1 Code relating to off road vehicles, recreational vehicles, and exterior storage. Mr. McDonald reported that public hearing notices had not been published for the ordinances affecting the zoning code; therefore, the public hearing on amendments to chapter 4 of the zoning code would be conducted at the City Council meeting. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the Planning Commission should consider an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code to add a definition for recreational vehicles and the storage of those vehicles. The Codes and Standards Committee discussed options for amendments to clarify current ordinance language regarding exterior storage. Several exterior storage issues have surfaced recently that were not adequately addressed in the city code, such as a definition for off-road vehicles, acceptable surfaces, limiting the number of recreational vehicles/equipment per property, standards for side and rear yard storage, and prohibiting certain types of vehicles on residential properties. Staff suggested that the number of recreational vehicles should be limited to three per property for reasons of public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The five-foot setback requirement from side and rear property lines would remain the same, but opacity of screening would be changed to 80 percent. Side yard storage must be located on a surface that is durable, weather resistant, and suitable to control dust and drainage. This is a change to the current ordinance; but the definition clarifies acceptable surfaces. Prohibited vehicles would be added to the ordinance, and would include farm tractors and equipment, oversized military vehicles, semi tractors and trailers, snow plow units, skid loaders, and any commercial vehicles or trailers with a gross weight greater than 12,000 pounds. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff was recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. A question was raised whether or not there was a limit to the number of automobiles parked at a property. City code states that automobiles must be parked on a hard surface, licensed and operable, but there is no limitation on the number. Mr. McDonald added that one of the reasons for this ordinance amendment was due to a particular property with several off-road vehicles parked in the back yard on an unapproved surface. The current ordinance did not have language to regulate that situation. Another property had a farm tractor stored in the driveway in front of the garage and in view of neighboring properties. The ordinance does not currently prohibit farm tractors, as long as it is operable. Other cities do not allow tractors parked in residential areas in their cities. The inspectors have asked for clarification of a durable surface in the ordinance as it is hard to quantify what is a durable surface. The requirements have not changed, just the definition. Discussion ensued on the type of rock allowed. Mr. McDonald mentioned that last year the city amended the driveway requirements to require all new single family homes to have a paved driveway. Mr. Sondrall interjected that this amendment relates to storage of recreational vehicles in the side and rear yards. There is no requirement for a paved surface for recreational vehicles in the side and rear yards. There is a setback requirement from the curb line for vehicles stored in front yards, and the vehicles in the front yards must be on a paved surface. This ordinance clarifies the storage of recreational vehicles in side yards and the number of vehicles stored on the property. Commissioner Svendsen requested clarification on the prohibited vehicles and whether or not overnight parking of a semi tractor without the trailer would be allowed and the type of snow plow unit, such as a truck with a snow plow on the front of it, that could be parked on the property during the winter season. A detached snow plow unit was not allowed to be stored on the exterior of the property. A trailer would counted as one unit whether it had one or two or more lawn mowers, four-wheelers, motorcycles, etc. on it as long as it didn’t exceed 12,000 pounds. The Commission discussed whether a time limit should be included in the ordinance explaining short-term parking versus storage of vehicles, such as 48 hours, but decided against it. Screening with a brightly colored tarp was discussed, and Mr. McDonald interjected that the current ordinance requires screening to be fencing or landscaping. 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Mr. Sondrall reported that the existing code prohibited the parking of trucks and commercial vehicles exceeding 12,000 pounds gross weight. A semi tractor or vehicle exceeding 12,000 pounds is not allowed at this time. Mr. Sondrall was concerned that some of the changes proposed for exterior storage may not be consistent with the off-street parking section of the zoning code. One section related to parking of vehicles accessory to residential facilities and the other section related to the use of recreational vehicles and the parking and outside storage of recreational vehicles. Chair Hemken recommended this amendment be tabled and reviewed again at the June 25 Codes and Standards meeting. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to Item 4.1 table Planning Case 07-06, Ordinance No. 07-03, an ordinance amending chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code relating to off road vehicles, recreational vehicles, and exterior storage. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgudé Motion carried. PC07-07 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Ordinance No. 07-01, consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope subdivision code Item 4.2 by establishing a definition for “buildable land” relating to park dedications within new subdivisions. Mr. Eric Weiss, stated that the Planning Commission should consider this ordinance which would add a definition of buildable land to the New Hope City Code pursuant to the newly adopted state statute chapter 269 regarding park land dedication. The state legislature added a requirement for the definition of buildable land to be included in any park dedication ordinance, and New Hope’s ordinance does not explicitly address buildable land. Park dedication exactions are assessed to new developments to ensure that an appropriate amount of land would be set aside for parks and recreation. A definition of buildable land was meant to protect the interest of private parties and the city during development/redevelopment. The land set aside must be conveniently located to the intended users being served and must be adequate in size, shape, topography, etc. A developer can set land aside or make a payment in lieu of dedicated land. Wetlands, ponding areas and drainage ways are not suitable for park dedication credits, neither is land with grades exceeding 12 percent, or contaminated land. The Codes and Standards Committee and staff have reviewed this matter and recommend approval. Mr. McDonald added that the purpose of this ordinance was to bring the 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 New Hope City Code into compliance with state law. Due to New Hope being a fully developed city, generally the city would accept a fee in place of land being set aside for park dedication. State law requires that cities identify the type of land acceptable for dedication. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the fees for park dedication land and how the fees were assessed. McDonald responded that fees for residential land was $1,500 per single family dwelling, $750 per two- family dwelling unit, multiple family (3 or more) $500 per unit not to exceed $5,000 per acre, and commercial/industrial subdivisions is $2,500 per acre. The 12 percent grade may have been a recommendation from the state. Mr. Sondrall interjected that a fee survey was conducted prior to the adoption of the park dedication ordinance and the fees were in line with neighboring cities. Any plat or replat creating an additional lot would be subject to park dedication. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Crough, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 07-07, Ordinance No. 07-01, an ordinance amending the New Hope subdivision code by establishing a definition for “buildable land” relating to park dedications within new subdivisions. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgudé Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated the public hearing would be held on this request at the City Council meeting on August 13. PC07-08 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Ordinance No. 07-02, consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 4 of the New Hope City Item 4.3 Code relating to outdoor living space and accessory structures. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the Planning Commission should consider amending the New Hope Zoning Code to amend the definition of outdoor living space and to permit a third accessory structure to accommodate outdoor living space. The city has had an increase in the number of requests for outdoor living spaces, such as spa houses and gazebos. The current zoning ordinance does not have any language specifically relating to gazebos or outdoor living spaces. Currently, staff treats these structures as accessory buildings. Problems arise when a resident wants to put a third accessory building on their property in addition to a garage and storage shed. The existing ordinance limits accessory buildings to two, including garages. The ordinance limits the area of accessory buildings to a total of 1,400 square feet – 1,000 square feet for garage space and 400 square feet for a shed. Staff proposed three options for discussion: 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Option 1: continue to treat outdoor living spaces as accessory structures and require they adhere to existing requirements, including number and size. Option 2: modify the ordinance to not include attached garages when calculating the number of accessory buildings, and only include detached accessory buildings in the total number. Option 3: amend the ordinance to provide an exception for outdoor living spaces and define outdoor living spaces as “detached accessory buildings.” Mr. Jacobsen stated that option 3 was the preferred option by city staff. This matter was reviewed by the Codes and Standards Committee, staff and consultants, and all recommend approval. Mr. Jacobsen explained a situation that prompted review of the ordinance. A resident wanted to install a hot tub in their yard and constructed a gazebo enclosure without first obtaining a building permit. City inspectors were made aware of the situation. Under the current ordinance, either the resident would have to take the gazebo down or request a variance for a third accessory building. Commissioner Svendsen requested an explanation of a detached/attached structure. Jacobsen responded that if an accessory structure was attached to a deck which was attached to the house, it would all be considered one structure. If there was a separation between the structures so they could move independently, they would be considered two structures. Mr. Sondrall interjected that he felt the building official would explain it that if the gazebo was sitting on the deck and the deck was attached to the house, it would be one structure. However, if the deck was attached to the house and the gazebo was not attached to the deck, the gazebo would be considered detached. The court system would take into consideration how staff looks at a situation and the administrative application of the ordinance. Commissioner Buggy questioned why an attached garage was considered an accessory structure. The city attorney stated that he thought the ordinance was written this way to limit the amount of storage/garage space and to possibly eliminate the construction of a pole barn on a residential property. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt garages, whether attached or detached, should be treated equally. A garage is not living space. Mr. McDonald stated that the decision was not easy, as the resident in the current situation has an attached garage and a shed in the yard and then constructed a gazebo. The gazebo is still in the yard pending the outcome of this amendment. There are several examples of this situation in the city. Staff was requesting a recommendation from the Planning 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Commission to see if it was interested in amending the code. Otherwise, the residents would need to apply for a variance or staff would have to ask them to remove the structure. The commission reviewed the three options for consideration. There was some discussion on the definition of accessory buildings and the fact that a deck would not be considered a building. All accessory buildings would be limited to a combined total of 1,400 square feet per property. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.3 approve Option #3 Planning Case 07-08, Ordinance No. 07-02, consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code relating to outdoor living space and accessory structures. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgudé Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated the public hearing would be held on this request at the City Council meeting on August 13. PC07-09 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Ordinance No. 07-04, consideration of an ordinance amending chapter 1 and 3 of the New Item 4.4 Hope City Code relating to whirlpool tubs and private swimming pools. Mr. Kirk McDonald stated that staff was requesting Planning Commission review of an ordinance adding a definition of whirlpool tubs to the New Hope Zoning Code and allowing lockable covers for the tubs instead of requiring fence enclosures. Mr. McDonald explained that the city has always required hot tubs to be fenced the same as swimming pools. Hennepin County recently amended its code to state that hot tubs do not need to be fenced as long as they have a lockable cover. This ordinance amendment adds a definition of whirlpool tubs and a recommendation to comply with county regulations that the tubs do not need to be fenced as long as they have a lockable cover. Swimming pools will still need to have a four foot fence with a locked gate. If a hot tub was in an accessory structure, the structure should be locked or the hot tub should be locked. That exact verbiage is not in the amendment, it would be implied that the structure be locked. A suggestion was made to add the word “lockable fence or other lockable enclosure.” A question was raised whether the larger inflatable pools that are approximately eight feet in diameter and 30 inches deep, and less than 150 square feet, were subject to the fence or lockable cover requirement. Mr. Sondrall stated he thought that if the side walls were of sufficient height, that would qualify as being a fenced pool. The pools have ballooned sides and an inflatable collar and requires a ladder to get into them. The ladder is not generally removed when the pool is not in use. 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Mr. Sondrall interjected that this ordinance dealt with whirlpool tubs and not that type of swimming pool. Commissioner Hemken requested that this item be tabled and be reviewed again to be sure it was consistent with the building code. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.4 to table Planning Case 07-04, consideration of an ordinance amending chapters 1 and 3 of the New Hope City Code relating to whirlpool tubs and private swimming pools. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgudé Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated this ordinance would be referred back to the Codes and Standards Committee for revision and be considered by the Planning Commission at the next meeting. PC06-15 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.5, review and approval of zoning code changes related to the implementation of the Design Item 4.5 Guidelines. Ms. Kim Berggren stated that the design guideline subcommittee had been reviewing this document for the past year. Zoning Code changes would be made so the code and the design guidelines would be consistent. The goal would be to implement the design guidelines so they would be applicable to new developments and building expansions. Ms. Berggren stated that the City Council had reviewed the design guidelines in April and indicated they generally thought the document looked good. The Council requested more information on the zoning code changes. The city attorney drafted the ordinance language and the Codes and Standards Committee reviewed the material in detail and recommended the document proceed to the full Planning Commission. The proposed changes to the zoning code would include changes to the mechanical and rooftop equipment to provide additional screening. Increased screening for trash enclosures would be required. The requirements for outdoor lighting have been expanded, including additional detail on glare. Standards for landscaping of parking areas/islands would now be required. The current zoning code prohibited projecting signs and those signs have now been removed from the prohibited list and would be allowed under the design guidelines. The setback for buildings in the CB district would be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. The administration section of the zoning code would be changed with regard to the site plan review. Changes to the design guidelines document included the screening 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 requirement, the addition of language regarding landscaping of the parking islands to be consistent with the current zoning code, the location of outdoor storage, service, drive-through or loading areas to be in the side or rear of the main building, and minimum standards for lighting were eliminated from the guidelines and included in the lighting standards section of the zoning code. The administration of the design guidelines has been a big discussion topic as well as the enforcement of the guidelines. The proposed administration procedure would include three levels of review. The full review would be the same as the current site/building plan review with a fee of $325 plus deposit. Currently, a façade change does not need Planning Commission review and the proposal is that any façade change greater than 25 percent would need full commission approval. Any variation from the Design Guidelines would also require full Planning Commission review. The administrative review process would be with the Design and Review Committee. Items to be reviewed may include changes to the parking lot configuration and drive-through lanes. The fee for an administrative review would be $100. Staff review would include minor items such as signage modification, painting, repairs, etc. and there would be no fees unless a permit would be required. Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt the fees were too low. Mr. McDonald mentioned that staff desired to implement the design guidelines as soon as possible and could amend the fees at a later date. Ms. Berggren added that staff was currently conducting a survey of planning fees and comparing New Hope’s fees to other cities. She stated that all consultant fees are currently billed to the applicant and this practice would continue. A suggestion was made to require a deposit for the administration review the same as other planning applications. One of the reasons for the lower fee for administrative review, was that the application may only be for painting of a building, minor modifications to a parking lot, or the construction of a small accessory structure. Ms. Berggren pointed out the document entitled Administration of Design Guidelines which lists the items requiring review and who would conduct the review: full Planning Commission/City Council, Design and Review Committee, or staff. Several scenarios were discussed to help better understand which committee would review plans. Ms. Berggren reviewed several minor changes that were made to the Design Guidelines during the review of the zoning code as recommended by the Codes and Standards Committee. The changes included: 1) changing the rooftop equipment screening to be more restrictive, 2) modifying the guidelines for parking islands and peninsulas and requiring irrigation if landscaped (the Codes and Standards Committee recommended this be placed in the guidelines rather than a code change), 3) outdoor storage, drive-through, and loading areas to be located at the side or rear of the main building, and 4) minimum standards for lighting were eliminated from the guidelines and addressed in the zoning code. 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Commissioner Houle questioned whether or not the word “completely” was necessary in Section 4-3(b)(5)(c)(3). Chair Hemken responded that the Codes and Standards Committee wanted the rooftop equipment to be completely screened from view so that none of it would be visible. Houle maintained that it may be difficult for businesses to completely screen the equipment and it would be very expensive to accomplish. Currently, the rooftop equipment is generally painted to match the building. Commissioner Crough indicated that many cities required complete screening of the equipment. Commissioners discussed how screening would be accomplished if the business was lower than the surrounding properties. Consensus was to leave the wording as stated. Mr. McDonald pointed out the Design Guidelines checklist would be utilized by staff during the review process. Houle added that if an item was required to be screened per the zoning code it would need to be done, if it was a suggestion in the design guidelines, there would be some latitude. Not all of the guidelines recommendations were included in the zoning code. Commissioner Svendsen suggested adding skate parks to Section 4- 3(d)(5)(3) dealing with outdoor recreation. Svendsen suggested clarifying Section 3-40(i)(2)(h)(5) which deals with signage projecting from the building face and the minimum setback from the face of the curb. He wondered whether this was intended for the internal curbing around the parking lot or the street curb. Svendsen questioned what building changes would prompt Design and Review Committee consideration. Any change would require some level of review. Changes over 25 percent of the building area would require committee review, and any change under 25 percent would require administrative review. On the Design Guidelines checklist, Commissioner Svendsen suggested changing “residential” on page 2 to “multifamily” to be consistent throughout the document. Under signs on page 5 regarding sign shape, he wondered how staff would deal with a business that only used the letters of the company as the sign and the sign was not rectangular as indicated on the checklist. Ms. Berggren responded that the sign shape was taken from the Design Guidelines not the zoning code. In summary, Mr. Sondrall reiterated the only recommended change to the ordinance was to add skate park to page 5. A $100 deposit requirement would be added for an administrative review. A new dumpster enclosure photo would be added to the design guidelines document. Ms. Berggren pointed out that in the guidelines a single use building in the City Center District greater than 10,000 square feet would require a conditional use permit. This item is not in the zoning code. Mr. Sondrall 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 stated that criteria should be established soon. At this time, the design guidelines proposed that a single use building in excess of 10,000 square feet cannot be constructed in the City Center area. Any new building requires site/building plan review and any change to a shopping center would require planned unit development review. Sondrall maintained that the guidelines are saying that no building over 10,000 square feet could be constructed unless there was a CUP. There is no zoning code language proposed that would provide for free standing buildings over 10,000 square feet, therefore, criteria should be established. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Crough, to Item 4.5 approve Planning Case 06-15, approval of Design Guidelines, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Crough, Hemken ,Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgudé Motion carried. The Design Guidelines Subcommittee and the Codes and Standards Committee were commended for their work on the design guidelines document and associated zoning code changes. Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee had not met. McDonald reported that staff had met with several potential Committee applicants, but did not know if any would move forward for the August Item 5.1 Planning Commission meeting. Staff would contact the committee if a meeting was necessary on July 19. Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would be meeting on July 25 to review the two ordinances referred back to Committee committee and to continue discussion on the sign code. Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Chair Hemken reported that the committee would be meeting on July 19 to review the transportation, community facilities, and administration Update Subcommittee sections of the development framework. Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS Mr. McDonald gave a report on the Avalon Homes project and discussion ensued on owner-occupied units versus investor units. The Miscellaneous Issues city attorney added that the City Council wanted assurances that the homes would not be renal units. NEW BUSINESS Mr. McDonald informed the commissioners of the hail damage on a large number of homes in the northern part of the city during the storm in May. Commissioner Landy suggested that the Codes and Standards Committee review the solicitation ordinance due to the number of roofing/siding contractors soliciting business after the storm. 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007 Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Minutes Commissioner Buggy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 2007. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Hemken announced the next Planning Commission meeting would be conducted on Wednesday, August 8, due to National Night Out events on Tuesday evening. Chair Hemken asked for a volunteer to serve on the judging panel for the residential recognition program, and Commissioner Svendsen volunteered. Ms. Berggren added that commissioners should encourage residents to nominate their neighbors as only a few nominations had been received. Chair Hemken announced that the city’s Duk Duk Daze festival would begin on Friday, July 20, and run through Sunday, July 22. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 10, 2007