Loading...
110607 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 6, 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, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: None Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Acting City Manager, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC07-15 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for conditional use permit to allow construction of two seasonal volleyball courts, 7107 Item 4.1 42nd Avenue North, Greg Bender/New Hope Bowl and Lounge, petitioner. Chair Hemken reported that, due to the fact the petitioner was not ready, city staff requested that this planning case be tabled for one month. Public comment would be taken at the December meeting. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, Item 4.1 to table Planning Case 07-15, request for conditional use permit to allow construction of two seasonal volleyball courts, 7107 42nd Avenue North, Greg Bender/New Hope Bowl and Lounge, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. PC07-14 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for conditional use permit to allow a home occupation, 8201 38th Avenue North, Lowell Item 4.2 Pitkin, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated this request was for a conditional use permit to allow one non-family member to work as a secretary/receptionist for the petitioner’s residential window washing business located in a single family zoning district. The site area is 9,750 square feet, and contains one single family home with an attached two-car garage. Adjacent land uses are single family residential. The petitioner operates a residential window cleaning business from his home and employs one non-family member who comes to the home to work as a secretary/receptionist, and parks in the driveway The driveway is 70 feet long and double wide. In addition to the employee working on site, the business employs window cleaners who pick up their work vehicles from an off site storage location at Holy Nativity Church, 3900 Winnetka Avenue. The applicant leases five parking spaces from the church for company trucks and employees. The petitioner indicated if the parking arrangement with Holy Nativity would become a problem, he would find other parking arrangements. The business is the petitioner’s livelihood. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff was contacted by a few of the neighboring property owners. Upon explanation of the application, the property owners were in agreement with the request. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the regulation of home occupations within residential structures was intended to insure that the occupation was accessory to the principal dwelling use and compatible with surrounding residential properties. There are two types of home occupations: 1) those that are permitted due to the fact that they comply with all criteria in the code, and 2) those that are allowed by conditional use permit because they do not meet all criteria, including: no adverse affect on the neighborhood, exterior changes are screened, interior changes comply with city code, and traffic generation is typical for the area. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain uses upon general welfare, public health and safety. The development review team reviewed the plans and was concerned with the seasonal nature of the business, potential vandalism of the vehicles parked at the church, and the plan for parking the company vehicles if the church parking was discontinued, no signage allowed at the property, no outdoor storage, no structural modifications to the home, and clarify the number of non-family employees. The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed those issues, and requested a parking agreement with the church, discussed the security of the vehicles and equipment located in the church parking lot, clarified the amount of church parking available, and the seasonal nature of the business. The petitioner indicated that during the off season the vehicles would be parked in another location outside the city. The petitioner confirmed there would be no modifications to the home or business signage. Mr. Jacobsen reiterated that the petitioner was requesting a CUP to allow one non-family member to work as a secretary/receptionist for his home 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 business and park in the driveway. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions outlined in the planning report. Commissioner Houle asked for clarification on the number of trips by employees to/from the property on a typical day. Mr. Lowell Pitkin, 8201 38th Avenue North, came to the podium. He stated that three pick up trucks come to the house each morning, in addition to the secretary, and again at the end of the day to drop off cleaning supplies and payments. The trucks are at the house for approximately 10 minutes in the morning and a few minutes in the afternoon. A question was raised as to the storage of ladders and Mr. Pitkin indicated the ladder used for the business would be removed. Commissioner Schmidt wondered how long Mr. Pitkin had been in business and why he was now coming to the city for a conditional use permit. Mr. Pitkin replied that a complaint had been filed with the city for his home business. He has been in business for four years and had not previously inquired of the city whether or not the business could be operated from his home as it had not been an issue before. Commissioner Nirgudé pointed out the number of violations that were cited by the inspector. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the complainant had called about the three trucks in the driveway and ladders piled along side the garage. Mr. Pitkin corrected these items upon notification from the city. Nirgudé wondered if the neighbors had any additional comments. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-14. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Nirgudé recommended rewording condition no. 6 from notifying the city “immediately” if the off site parking arrangements were terminated to notifying the city “within seven working days.” All commissioners concurred. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 07-14, request for conditional use permit to allow a home occupation, 8201 38th Avenue, Lowell Pitkin, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1.City to be notified of business start and end dates for each season. 2.Only one non-family member to work in the house. 3.No signage on the property. 4.No outside storage on the property. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 5.Applicant is responsible for the security of trucks and equipment while stored off site. 6.City to be notified within seven working days if off site parking arrangements are terminated. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated this planning case would be considered by the City Council at the November 26 meeting and asked the petitioner to attend that meeting. PC07-06 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.3, second public hearing for ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code relating to Item 4.3 off road vehicles, recreational vehicles and exterior storage and to add a definition of recreational vehicles and the storage of those vehicles, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the City Council adopted the exterior storage ordinance amendment at its meeting on August 27. After comments received at the September 10 Council meeting, the Council suspended enforcement of the newly adopted ordinance. The Codes and Standards Committee discussed the amended ordinance on September 26 and October 24. A second public hearing notice was published in the SunPost on October 18. The Planning Commission will accept public input at this meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council at a later date. Mr. Jacobsen provided comparisons of the old ordinance and the new ordinance. The new recreational vehicle definition adds motor homes, golf carts, race cars and stockcars. A definition was added to the new ordinance stating an off road vehicle was a motor-driven recreational vehicle capable of cross-country travel on natural terrain without the benefit of a road, trail or paved or gravel driving surface. Both the old and new ordinances state all materials and equipment, except as authorized elsewhere, shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties or street right-of-way. The new ordinance indicates that front yard storage must be on bituminous, asphalt or other hard surface material that is durable, weather resistant, suitable to control dust and drainage and at a minimum of two inches of rock or other rock-type material. Both the old and new ordinances state front yard storage must be set back 15 feet from the street curb and shall not encroach on any sidewalk or occur in a required parking stall. The proposed ordinance states that the designated storage area shall maintain at least a five-foot setback from the side or rear property lines and shall be screened to an 80 percent opacity from adjoining properties through either landscaping or fencing to a maximum 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 height of six feet. The new ordinance states no more than three recreational vehicles or equipment may be stored on a property; there was no limit in the old ordinance. One or more recreational vehicles stored on a trailer constitute one vehicle. The requirement for off street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding 12,000 pounds is the same as the previous ordinance. Mr. Jacobsen stated that previously there was no provision for prohibited vehicles, which was added for residential zoning districts. Prohibited vehicles include: farm tractors and equipment, military vehicles, semi-tractors or trailers, snow plow units detached from a truck, skid loaders, any commercial vehicles or trailers with a weight greater than 12,000 pounds. In summary, Jacobsen stated that the major changes include the expanded definition of recreational vehicles and a definition of off road vehicles, front yard hard surface requirement, 80 percent opacity for screening of side and rear yards, limit of three recreational vehicles per residential property, and a prohibited list of vehicles was added. He compared exterior storage ordinances from other cities with New Hope. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff recommended the Commission conduct another public hearing and accept comments, then discuss those comments at a future Codes and Standards subcommittee meeting, discuss any revisions at the December 4 Planning Commission meeting, and make recommendations to the City Council on how to proceed with the amended ordinance. Commissioner Crough inquired about the licensing of vehicles, and the response was that licensing was addressed in another section of the ordinance. All vehicles in the front yard must be parked on a hard surface, currently licensed, and operable. Chair Hemken asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. People addressing the commission were informed they had three minutes to speak, due to the number of people in the audience. Mr. Bob Yunker, 4606 Boone Avenue North, stated he had lived in New Hope for 41 years and operated a business here for 25 years. Throughout the years he had always owned a motor home or camper. He also had owned various recreational vehicles over the years and always kept them in the garage. He stated he kept his house and yard neat and clean. Years ago his neighbor gave him an easement, and he obtained a variance from the city, to pour a concrete pad to the lot line for the camper to parked on. There was no room beside the garage for the motor home so it had to be parked in the front yard. He stated he currently had a 27-foot motor home which had to be parked on the concrete pad in front of the home. Mr. Yunker added that he had a conversation with the mayor during his campaigning a few years ago and the mayor indicated residents should be able to keep recreational vehicles parked in their yard. Mr. Del Beske, 4828 Flag Avenue North, stated that he had a travel trailer 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 parked on a slab in the front yard. He questioned what the city was trying to accomplish with the fencing of these vehicles. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, explained no screening was required for the front yard. For side and rear yards, the old ordinance required screening and the language in the new ordinance was changed to reduce the standard to 80 percent screening. The old ordinance could be interpreted that screening should be 100 percent. If the recreational vehicle was parked on a hard surface and met the setbacks in the front yard, the code had been satisfied. The side yard setback is five feet from the property line. The back of the vehicle must be 15 feet from the street curb. Mr. Dan Jurek, 7900 40th Avenue North, requested clarification on the side yard fencing requirement. He wondered whether fencing in the side yard was always required. Mr. Brixius stated that the old ordinance mandated that the side yard be screened or fenced. There was no percentage, therefore, it could be interpreted that any exterior storage should be 100 percent screened from the adjacent property. The new ordinance reduced the screening requirement to 80 percent opacity due to the fact that it may not be possible to fully screen every property. The new ordinance allows for a maximum six foot fence. The Codes and Standards Committee reduced the standard to be reflective of tall vehicles and decided it was not realistic to screen them 100 percent. Mr. Jurek read a letter he wrote to city staff and the Council. “Dear Council Members and Commissioners, I am greatly concerned about the recent action by the City Council regarding the amendment for the above subject ordinance. I feel the requirements for screening on all exterior storage is not in the best interest of the community or its citizens. Granted there may be isolated incidents or citizen complaints, but the amendment is overkill. With a few infractions it could be rectified with stringent enforcement under the original ordinance. More objectionable to me is the properties that have the garage packed to the rafters and have four, five or six cars parked in their driveways. This can be observed throughout the New Hope area especially with rental homes and residents with multiple unrelated occupants, i.e., homes along Winnetka Avenue. I park my boat on the side of the property which faces a commercial area on Winnetka Avenue and I make every effort to keep my property neat and clean, tidy, and weeds down. I have no objections to the boats being there, but I feel it would be a hardship for me to screen the boat facing the street, and it may cost me in excess of $1,000. Thank you for everything you have done and thank you for listening.” A copy of this letter was provided in the planning packet. Commissioner Nirgudé questioned the type of screening allowed. Mr. Brixius responded that the ordinance states “the designated storage area shall maintain at least a five foot setback from side and rear lot lines and shall be screened from adjoining properties through either landscaping or fencing.” Nirgudé stated he felt residents were asking the Commission to reconsider the screening requirements. 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 Mr. Joel Young, 5401 Rhode Island Avenue North, thanked the commission for holding a public hearing on this issue. He stated he had a large 35-foot fifth wheel, which was part of his lifestyle. He found out he was out of compliance by a couple feet with the front end of the trailer. He parked in the driveway during the summer months when they utilize the trailer regularly. It is stored off site during the winter months. He stated he understood the concerns of not having obstructions close to the street and keeping the sight lines open. His trailer sits high off the ground and does not pose a visibility obstruction. There are always people asking for exceptions. He pointed out there are properties with multiple vehicles parked in driveway all the way to the curb. He added he pays over $3,200 in property taxes each year and cannot fully utilize his driveway. He asked for consideration of the fact that he has an exceptionally well maintained yard and home, and he takes much pride in living in New Hope. Ms. Darlene Huber, 9121 61 1/2 Avenue North, questioned parking in the side yard. She felt this would cause another problem with lawns being torn up. She stated she had a meticulous yard. In order for her to park her camper in the side yard she would have to drive over the lawn. Ms. Huber was concerned that her camper may not be set back 15 feet from the curb and wondered how strict the inspectors were in enforcing the code. Commissioner Landy clarified that if the camper was parked on a hard surface in the front yard, it would not have to be moved. He stated he didn’t feel the inspectors would be stopping at each property and measuring the distance from the back of the vehicle to the curb. He explained that this ordinance dealt with the storage of recreational vehicles in the side and rear yards where neighbors were complaining of junk. Mr. Raymond Bona, 8801 46th Avenue North, stated that his son-in-law would be speaking on his behalf. Mr. John Brandenburg, Maple Grove, stated that Mr. Bona saw a lot of junk accumulating and tried to get the city to enforce the code, which lead to some of these changes. The old and new ordinances seem similar, other than the opacity requirements, and Mr. Brandenburg stated they support all of the changes. He pointed out the inspectors enforce the ordinance on a complaint only basis. He thought that if an RV was parked closer than 15 feet to the curb and no one complained, it would not be an issue. No enforcement police were walking around the neighborhood trying to catch people doing wrong. He mentioned that in talking to Mr. Bona’s neighbors, many of them did not understand that the ordinance pertained only to side and rear yards. They thought it included the front yard as well, which should be better clarified in the amendment. Br. Brandenburg stated he and Mr. Bona spoke to residents at 46 houses in the neighborhood. Two would not sign the petition because they did not want to get involved, and two would not sign because they knew the property in question and felt certain the junk would be cleaned up or put in an enclosure. Residents at the other 42 houses signed the petition to request that the city enforce the ordinance 7 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 and have the property owner at 8711 46th Avenue clean up the property. Mr. Brandenburg added that the previous petitioner had requested to drive three pick up trucks through the neighborhood weekdays, which he felt was minor compared to what Mr. Bona viewed every day. Mr. Taryn Buehring, 5808 Gettysburg Circle, stated he felt the city should take each case individually. He stated he thought everyone in the audience took pride and ownership in the city, in their vehicles, and in maintaining their homes. He stated he had a camper and boat, and he tried to keep them cleaned and off the grass. Many residents in New Hope are middle income people and like to recreate in Minnesota. They need to keep these vehicles at their properties where it was convenient rather than at a storage facility that was more costly. Junk located on the side of the home is not an appealing sight and not a city where he wanted to live. The ordinance should be enforced where there are violations. He stated he thought residents would want their recreational vehicles parked at their homes and would not want to be hassled if their vehicles were a couple feet out of compliance. They wanted to enjoy life in New Hope and have fun on the weekends, and do it in a respectful manner. Mr. Bob Yunker questioned an article he read in the SunPost that indicated residents could not park a motor home in the front yard. Clarification was given that a motor home could not be parked on the grass in the front yard. If it was parked on the driveway, it would be in compliance with the code. Commissioner Landy maintained that the city agreed that residents should have their boats, campers, etc. The city wanted to be sure that these recreational vehicles were properly stored in the rear or side yards, and that vehicle owners should be respective of their neighbors and provide screening. The ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis. Other types of vehicles, such as farm tractors, army tanks, etc. are prohibited. Mr. John Nelson, 8711 46th Avenue North, a 39-year resident, handed out several photographs of antique tractors and a site plan of his property. He stated the problem with handling violations on a complaint basis was that the constitution granted equal protection under the law. He indicated that in viewing properties in his brother’s neighborhood, many of the properties had trailers and according to the screening requirement, each property owner would need to build a six-foot fence around their yard. Mr. Brixius interjected that the ordinance stipulated screening by landscaping or a fence; there was no mandatory requirement for a fence. Some type of screening would be required. Mr. Nelson questioned the 80 percent opacity if the landscaping utilized lost its leaves during the winter. Mr. Brixius clarified that this requirement would be determined with the planting plan, and added the ordinance was clarified to state 80 percent opacity, due to seasonal changes. Mr. Nelson pointed out that one page of photographs was of a tractor stored at a home in Golden Valley, in a neighborhood of $300,000 plus homes. He spoke to many of the 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 property owners in this neighborhood and found out that the tractor was owned by someone other than the property owner, and painted by someone else. It was a neighborhood tractor and all enjoyed using it. The tractor was used for kiddie rides and at kiddie parties. Mr. Nelson added that this summer his block captain had his tractor out and gave rides to the kids, as well as an elderly woman. He mentioned the city of New Hope had two tractors stored outdoors at the Public Works facility, which is adjacent to the new Linden Place apartments and Linden Park condominiums. He added that the city has suspended enforcement of this ordinance, but it was currently in effect. He stated the city was in violation of this ordinance. The neighbor that originally complained about his tractor had, for 25 years, parked a commercial vehicle in his driveway in violation of city code. The vehicle was clearly marked as belonging to a company other than his and it was stored outside. Mr. Alan Nelson, 4933 Wisconsin Avenue North, stated that he had a tractor parked in his back yard, and indicated his neighbors were not upset about it. He mentioned that two city staff members told him that if he kept his mouth shut he could keep the tractor. That is not equal protection and not proper enforcement. He stated that commercial vehicles and trailers over 12,000 pounds are listed as prohibited, which is covered in three other sections in the code. Skids are addressed in other sections of the code. Snow plow units do not have a definition, therefore, anyone with a blower attachment could keep it. Semi-tractors and trailers are covered in other sections of the code. With regard to military vehicles, most are over 12,000 pounds, but language was included to state oversize military vehicles. The code does not state oversize, therefore if he purchased a 52 Willies made up as a MASH jeep, he could not store it outside. If his neighbor bought the same vehicle and licensed it for the road, he could store it in his yard. Farm tractors were also added as a prohibited vehicle. Basically, the ordinance states that you cannot have any Oliver 88s at 8711 46th Avenue North. The ordinance also says no farm equipment. Webster defines equipment as a set of articles or physical resources to equip a person or thing. Therefore, the city would make sure it controls the bad things so cream separators would have to go. Commissioner Crough interjected that the reference was to farm equipment. Mr. Nelson gave the commissioners a handout from the League of Minnesota Cities entitled “Official conflict of Interest.” He stated he felt there were conflict of interest issues that occurred as a result of this and thought that this ordinance was the fruit of a poisonous tree, which needed to be addressed. Chair Hemken stated that she wanted to enter into record correspondence sent to the city from Ms. Kathy Swenson, which stated, “I am not able to come to the New Hope City Council meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. I was wondering – actually I just wanted to say that I wish they would leave the outdoor storage ordinance the way they had revised it. I think we have too many things sitting around and uncovered. It is starting to look real trashy in New Hope and I sure don’t want that to happen. We’re long-time residents and so I guess I can’t be there to 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 express my opinion, but I hope that they leave the revisions as they had made them earlier.” Commissioner Nirgudé stated that he did not hear comments regarding ATVs and snow mobiles stored in the front of the house. He wondered what the feeling was from members of the audience. Mr. Alan Nelson came forward and stated that the bid to screen his yard and his neighbors, which would destroy much of the landscaping, was $27,000 to meet the city standard. He would have to tear out approximately 350 feet of chain link fence to do this. He stated he could not afford to have ATVs or snow mobiles for his son to enjoy if he had to screen the other $2,500 pieces of equipment. If the ordinance would go into effect, that equipment would be stored in his driveway. Mr. Chad Gallagher, 5924 Hillsboro Circle, asked for clarification of the word junk. He wondered what may be constituted as junk in one person’s yard as opposed to another. Mr. Brixius stated that the city code does have a definition for the words junk and refuse and there are separate regulations to address both items. The definition of refuse states all vehicles including, but not limited to, passenger automobiles, station wagons, trucks, motorized vehicles, trailers, campers which are not currently licensed by the state, or which are because of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement under their own power, parked or stored outside for a period in excess of seven consecutive days, and all other materials stored outside in violation of the city code are considered refuse or junk and shall be removed from the premises in the city. In all areas the owner of vacant land shall keep such land free of refuse, weeds, and waste fill. Mr. Brixius added that there is also a nuisance code that deals with junk and refuse. Commissioner Landy added that snow mobiles on a trailer parked on a hard surface in the front yard and 15 feet from the curb would be compliant. No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Crough, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 07-06. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Hemken thanked the audience for attending and their comments. This ordinance and comments received would be discussed at the Codes and Standards Committee meeting at the end of November and would be placed on the December 4 Planning Commission agenda. The Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council for consideration in early 2008. Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met to review plans for the petitioner and New Hope Bowl. McDonald Committee 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007 Item 5.1 added that the committee would be meeting on November 15 to review New Hope Bowl’s revised plans. No other applications were expected. Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee met in October to continue its review of the sign code, swimming pool fences, Committee and the exterior storage ordinance. The next meeting would be November Item 5.2 29. Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Landy reported that the committee would meet on November 15 to review a draft of the full plan. The City Council would Update Subcommittee review the plan at an upcoming work session. Item 5.3 Mr. McDonald informed the commission that Jeff Hackler had resigned from the comp plan committee due to relocating out of the city. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Brinkman inquired about the status of the old city sign located at the intersection of Xylon and 42nd avenues. Mr. McDonald Miscellaneous Issues responded that the city had an agreement with the cemetery whereby the city had a monument sign on cemetery property. When the cemetery reconstructed the 42nd Avenue entrance and other improvements, they asked the city to remove the city sign. The sign was dismantled. Hopefully, in the future, during the redevelopment of City Center, a new city sign could be constructed. NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 4, 2007. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. McDonald stated that there were eight applications to fill the vacant seat on the commission. The City Council was conducting interviews and an appointment would be made before the end of the year. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 6, 2007