Loading...
020608 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 6, 2008 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, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough, Bill Oelkers Also Present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Eric Weiss, Community Development Intern, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Jason Quisberg, City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC08-01 Chair Hemken introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for variance for lot area to allow a lot split, 3957 Winnetka Avenue North, Kingsman LLC, Item 4.1 petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that the request is for a lot area variance and site plan review to allow a lot split and the development of two single family homes. The property, located on the southwest quadrant of 40th and Winnetka avenues, is in an R-1 single family residential zoning district. Adjacent land uses include industrial to the east across Winnetka Avenue, single family to the west and south, and R-2, single and two- family residential to the north. The site contains 15,940 square feet. With the lot split, the proposed eastern lot would contain 8,980 square feet, requiring a 520 square foot variance, and the western lot would contain 6,960 square feet, requiring a 2,540 square foot variance. The proposed homes would be split level designs between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet. Approximately 75 to 81 percent green space would remain after the lots are built out. The lot currently has an older two-story house that has not been maintained. The city has previously approved several lot area variance requests to promote new home construction. In mid-2007, the city and property owner discussed the potential sale of the home to either the city or a private developer. Upon further review, it was determined it would not be financially feasible to acquire the site, clear the lot, and construct one home. To be cost effective, a lot split would be necessary or rezoning the property to R-2 to construct a twinhome. The City Council indicated this should be a private sector project. City staff contacted several developers and Kingsman LLC expressed an interest. Kingsman has entered into a purchase agreement to purchase the property if they can obtain the necessary variances. Kingsman would demolish the existing structure, including the garage, split the lot into two separate parcels, and build a single family home on each lot. The driveways for both parcels would access onto 40th Avenue. Mr. Jacobsen stated that Kingsman was requesting a lot area variance due to the fact that the area of the new lots would be smaller than city code requirements. All setbacks would be maintained, including five feet on the interior lot line (garage side) of each lot, 25-foot front and rear yard setbacks, 10-foot side yard setback (house side) on the west side of the western lot, and 25 foot corner lot setback on the east lot line of the eastern lot adjacent to Winnetka Avenue. The developer would make every effort to save as many of the existing trees as possible. An example of a garage forward, split-level house design was shown. Two to four bedroom designs could be offered, depending on whether or not the entire house was finished. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified. One family visited city hall to inquire about the request. Mr. Jacobsen explained the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code, to prevent undue hardship on the applicant in the reasonable use of a parcel of land, and circumstances unique to the property. The lot split would not be granted without the approval of the variance for lot size. The lot split should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, impair access to light and air, increase traffic, or endanger public safety. It should be the minimum action required and be an allowed use in the zoning district. The Design and Review Committee considered the variance request and discussed with the developer the lot size, house design, setbacks, sewer and water services, utility and drainage easements, trees, driveway placement, and impact on adjacent properties. The developer intends to create two lots that meet all other zoning code criteria for the R-1 district. Two split entry homes with two-car garages would be constructed that contain 1,000 to 1,200 square feet of finished floor area. The redevelopment would improve safety by removing a driveway access onto Winnetka Avenue. This redevelopment would also help stabilize home values in the neighborhood by replacing one marginal home with two new houses at current market values. Mr. Jacobsen requested the Planning Commission determine whether the variance should be approved with or without conditions. The planning consultant had recommended several conditions in his report. Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that once the lot split was complete, the legal front yards, narrowest street frontage, would be oriented toward 40th Avenue, rather than Winnetka. The rear yards would be toward the 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 south. Discussion ensued on the five foot setback along the common lot line and the correct setback for livable space located behind the garage. Mr. Brixius explained that the setback for living space above a garage was five feet and living space behind the garage was 10 feet. Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether the developer had considered constructing a twinhome. Mr. Jacobsen stated that early discussions included rezoning the property and constructing a twinhome or splitting the lot and constructing two homes. Mr. Long indicated from previous contact with the City Council that the council members were not in favor of that type of twinhome construction, due to the potential for one unit offered as rental property. Commissioner Anderson inquired if the 1,200 square feet included the garage and the response was the 1,200 square feet was all living space. Mr. Peter Long, president of Kingsman LLC and resident of New Hope, came forward. Commissioner Houle stated that at the Design and Review meeting a minimum of 1,000 to 1,200 square feet of living space had been discussed. Mr. Long stated he was comfortable with a minimum of 1,000 square feet. Home designs and square footages change depending on the number of bathrooms and bedrooms offered and what the market dictates. He was hoping for some flexibility on the home size. The homes would probably have approximately 1,200 square feet finished space upstairs. The same amount of space would be available in the lower level, which could be finished at a later date. A question was raised why the lots were different sizes and Mr. Brixius stated corner lots require larger setbacks, therefore, the lot along Winnetka needed more square footage. Mr. Long added that the homes would be priced at approximately $225,000 to $240,000. Chair Hemken wondered whether Mr. Long had any objection to the five conditions as recommended by the planning consultant, and he replied he did not object to the conditions. Commissioner Nirgudé wondered whether the developer had an objection to the condition for a house design with the garage on the side of the house allowing the house to be moved forward and increase the usable area of the rear yard. Mr. Brixius interjected that another house design may fit on the building pad better so as not to encroach into the rear yard setback. The future homeowners want to add a deck to the rear of the home as well. Mr. Long indicated plans could be adjusted to meet that requirement. Chair Hemken inquired if anyone wished to address the Commission. 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 Mr. Tom Wiblishauser, 3867 Winnetka Avenue North, asked that the five conditions be read. Mr. Jacobsen read the conditions, which included: 1.The house design and site plan demonstrate full compliance with required R-1 setbacks. 2.The house design be changed with a garage on the side of the house to allow the house to be moved north toward 40th Avenue to increase the rear yard setback and usable rear yard to the south. 3.Lot access must be obtained from 40th Avenue and meet the city’s required curb cut setback from public intersections. 4.The existing curb cut on Winnetka Avenue shall be removed by the developer. 5.The developer shall be responsible for all costs for installation of utilities. Commissioner Houle pointed out that the survey showing the lot split already met numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the conditions. Mr. Brixius stated the survey did not indicate the house positions on the site. Upon his review of the survey, the house plan depths looked like they would exceed the building envelope. Houle reiterated that four of the conditions had been met. Mr. Wiblishauser questioned the distance between the two houses and whether the garage would be even with the back living space along the lot line. Mr. Brixius stated that city code allowed living space above a garage to be five feet from the property line, but living space for the principal structure must meet the 10-foot setback. Mr. Long explained that the homes would be in an L-shape so the living space behind the garages would be 10 feet from the property line and the garage portion would be five feet from the property line. Commissioner Houle mentioned that the Design and Review Committee had asked the petitioner for some typical house plans, therefore, the design of the homes to be constructed on these lots may differ somewhat from the plans included in the planning report. Mr. Long would need to submit construction plans, which would be reviewed by the building official, to be sure the house met code requirements. Mr. McDonald stated that, per city code, the lot split would be accomplished administratively. Mr. Jacobsen added that the applicant would be responsible for a park dedication fee in the amount of $1,500 for one additional new lot, which should be a condition of approval. The petitioner would also be responsible for the sewer access charge (SAC). Mr. Dan Jurek, 7900 40th Avenue North, stated that this would be an asset to the neighborhood. He was concerned that there may be exterior storage in the area between the homes and wondered if one house could be shifted to provide more green space. Mr. Jurek commended the 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 developer on the proposal. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the exterior storage ordinance should help alleviate any storage between the homes. Commissioner Nirgudé added that the planning report indicated there would be 75 to 81 percent green space provided on the properties. Mr. Wiblishauser added that he was satisfied and would inform other neighbors of the redevelopment plans. Mr. James Chapman, 7909 40th Avenue North, stated his property was directly to the west of this site. He stated he and his wife had many concerns, but after learning more about the project, they approved of the plans. He stated that the city and neighborhood should benefit from this project. Mr. Thom Burns, 3949 Winnetka Avenue, located directly to the south of this property, stated he was in favor of the project. No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 08-01. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 08-01, request for variance for lot area to allow a lot split, 3957 Winnetka Avenue North, Peter Long/Kingsman LLC and Stanley and Carol Gerger, petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.Minimum 1,000 square feet of finished first floor area. 2.Payment of $1,500 park dedication fee for the new lot. Mr. McDonald clarified that the motion did not include the planning consultant’s recommendations. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hemken, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Oelkers Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on February 25, 2008, and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting. PC08-02 Chair Hemken introduced Item 4.2, Review of city of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan update, city of Plymouth, petitioner. Item 4.2 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 Mr. McDonald reported that all cities are required to update their comprehensive plans and that cities adjacent to New Hope would be submitting plans in the next several months for review. McDonald added that past practice had been for staff and the planning consultant to review the plans, submit comments to the Planning Commission in the form of a resolution, then have the Commission adjust or approve those comments and forward the resolution to the City Council for an official response. Plymouth submitted two large notebooks that included its comprehensive plan, which were submitted to the planning consultant for a brief review and report preparation. City staff also reviewed Plymouth’s submission. The Planning Commission should discuss the plan and approve or modify the draft resolution. The City Council could then ratify or adjust the Planning Commissions recommendations, and the city will submit comments to the city of Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Eric Weiss stated the city of Plymouth submitted its Comprehensive Plan update for review by the city of New Hope, as an adjacent city. A resolution was prepared with New Hope’s comments. State statute and the Metropolitan Council require all municipalities in the metro region to update their comprehensive plans every 10 years. Plymouth updated its plan in 2000, but the Met Council is requiring that all plans be updated by the end of 2008. State statues also require that adjacent cities review and comment on the plans during the six-month review period. Plymouth and the Met Council will consider comments from New Hope. Mr. Weiss explained that staff and the planning consultant reviewed the Plymouth Comp Plan, which presented no major concerns to New Hope related to land use or utilities. No other comments, changes or actions are recommended on behalf of the city; therefore, staff recommends approval of the resolution. One area of concern noted by the planning consultant was the forecasted traffic counts at intersections along Highway 169. This wouldn’t be an issue to raise with the city of Plymouth, but New Hope may want to revisit the projected traffic numbers related to its Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Brinkman agreed that the forecasted traffic volume seemed questionable. He wondered what agencies, such as MnDot or Hennepin County, use these numbers and if the city was assessed on these numbers. Mr. Brixius responded that the city engineer could re- examine the forecasted traffic volumes to determine if the numbers were correct or may need adjusting. The county also would be receiving copies of comprehensive plans to review and would be compiling its own forecasts to determine area needing improvements. Hennepin County and the city may need to share in any improvements to the road system. Commissioner Svendsen wondered were the traffic count was taken and the answer was that the counts were recorded just before the ramps and could include inbound and outbound traffic in both directions. 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 Commissioner Hunten questioned who utilizes the traffic count information. Mr. Brixius replied that these are anticipated trips per day on those streets. The forecasts are completed to determine future transportation needs within the community. Medicine Lake Road in Plymouth is a residential street and Medicine Lake Road in New Hope is the introduction to Midland Shopping Center and industrial parks in New Hope and Golden Valley. Mr. McDonald asked the city engineer to re-examine the forecasted traffic volumes outlined in New Hope’s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on transit issues for east/west corridors that were identified in New Hope’s plan review. Mr. Brixius stated that a revision discussed for New Hope’s plan was a greater emphasis on east/west corridors blending into Plymouth, which may be a comment to add to the resolution for Plymouth. Houle agreed that New Hope should comment to Plymouth that information on east/west corridors was lacking in its plan. Mr. McDonald stated that the planning consultant had mentioned storm water in his report. McDonald said he revised the Planning Commission statement in the resolution to include that the cities should work together cooperatively in resolving and addressing storm water issues, such as problems at Northwood Lake due to water flowing from Four Seasons Mall into the lake and the city of Plymouth not taking any corrective measures to solve the problem. Mention was made that the Four Seasons Mall may be redeveloped in the future. Commissioner Houle questioned whether or not Plymouth had mentioned affordable housing, if it was meeting Metropolitan Council goals, the location of the projects, and if the projects bordered New Hope. Mr. Brixius stated that land uses along the New Hope/Plymouth border were not changing significantly. Plymouth had identified the potential redevelopment of the shopping center, and the area north of Bass Lake Road/Highway 169 changed from commercial to commercial/office. Those changes would be complimentary to New Hope’s border. Brixius indicated there was an affordable housing segment to Plymouth’s plan. Commissioner Schmidt mentioned that Walser Chevrolet near Highway 169 and Bass Lake Road had closed. Many of the old buildings along the highway between Bass Lake Road and Rockford Road have had a facelift or some redevelopment had occurred. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 08-02. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 08-02, review and approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-01 regarding comments on the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan update, city of Plymouth, petitioner, subject to the addition of: 1. Greater emphasis on blending east/west corridors between Plymouth and New Hope. 2. The cities should work cooperatively in resolving and addressing storm water issues. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Oelkers Motion carried. Chair Hemken stated that planning case would be considered by the City Council on February 25, 2008. Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in January to review the lot split. McDonald stated that at this time Committee staff was not aware of any applications for March. The committee would Item 5.1 be contacted if a meeting was necessary. Codes and Standards Chair Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would be meeting on February 13 to continue its review of the sign code and Committee discuss the revised swimming pool definition. Item 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Landy reported that the City Council reviewed the city’s Comprehensive Plan update at its work session in January. Open houses Update Subcommittee are scheduled for March 6 and 8 and invited all commissioners to attend. Item 5.3 OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2008. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Svendsen reported that his work phone number had changed and would contact staff with the new number. Mr. McDonald stated that the annual State of the City presentation would be held on February 12 and all commissioners were invited to attend. Chair Hemken added that Mr. McDonald would be addressing the League of Women Voters on February 21. Mr. McDonald reported that staff was conducting interviews for the position of community development director. 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2008