Loading...
110420 Planning CommissionCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2020 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was conducted virtually using the Webex video media platform. ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Matt Mannix, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Matt Korkowski, Michael Redden Absent: Jim Brinkman, Chris Hanson, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Al Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-09 Planning Case 20-10 Planning Case 20-11 Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.1, Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping requirements, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist, gave background information on Planning Case 20-09. The New Hope City Code does not specify at what height a building permit is needed to install a fence, or height limits for fences placed along property lines. State building code requires a building permit and engineering for fences that are seven (7) feet in height and taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that a building permit is required for the installation of any fence that is seven (7) feet in height or taller. The proposed text amendment specifies that fences up to six (6) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of house orientation. Fences 42” in height will continue to be allowed anywhere on the property. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, when meeting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height would also be allowed in rear yards and/or side yards (up to the property line) where the lot directly abuts a commercial or industrial use (includes CB, CC, 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Industrial, LB, R-B, and R-O districts). In commercial and industrial zoning districts, fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located in rear yards and/or side yards that do not abut a street, regardless of building orientation. Fences may be located in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when mee ting setback requirements for principal buildings within the applicable zoning district. Also in commercial and industrial zoning districts, shorter fences may be allowed within the required setback in front yards and/or side yards that abut a street when approved as part of a site plan review. Commissioner Redden questioned the height restrictions for residential fence heights in rear yards. Mr. Alger confirmed the maximum fence height in the rear yard would be six feet. Commissioner Redden asked why six feet was chosen for the height. Chair Clark suggested moving through the remaining planning cases and discussing the fence heights after the public hearing. Chair Clark questioned why the side yard of the corner lot was precluded from the allowable area for fences with a height of six feet. Mr. Alger pointed out that the typical lot will have the house situated closer to the front of the lot than the middle, as the diagram represents. Mr. Al Brixius stated if the house is located closer to the site triangle than the diagram represents, then the fence being located in the side yard would create site line issues for traffic. Next, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-10. The proposed text amendment would prohibit pools in the front yard. It would also prohibit pools, adjacent deck areas, patios, aprons, and other similar areas used in conjunction with a pool from being placed within an easement. Setback requirements for pools in the side and rear yard would be ten feet for each side. This more closely aligns with regulations for surrounding cities in the area. Lastly, Mr. Alger gave background on Planning Case 20-11. The New Hope City Code specifies acceptable types o f landscaping in the city, stating, “The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ground cover, ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used for landscaping.” The proposed text amendment specifically prohibits synthetic turfs and artificial grasses as acceptable landscaping materials due to concerns relating to appearance, maintenance, and storm water runoff. Alger concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback was received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. 3 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Clark revisited Commissioner Redden’s comments about the fence height restrictions for the rear yard. Commissioner Redden inquired as to why the fence height would be limited to six feet. Residents may want to enjoy their full yard with having a privacy fence of seven feet on their property line. Mr. Sargent said at this meeting is the time to discuss the fence height and make any adjustments before moving forward to Council. Chair Clark asked if any other Commissioners had any other comments. Chair Clark provided the suggestion to adjust the text amendment to reflect a maximum fence height of 6 ½ feet. Motion Item 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Motion by Commissioner Redden, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 20-09, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(3) of the New Hope City Code related to fence permit & height requirements, with the increase in fence height from 6 to 6 ½ feet in the rear yard; Item 4.2, Planning Case 20-10, request for amendment to Section 3-25(e) of the New Hope City Code related to private swimming pool requirements; and Item 4.3, Planning Case 20-11, request for amendment to Section 4-3(d)(4) of the New Hope City Code related to landscaping, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 20-12 Planning Case 20-13 Planning Case 20-14 Items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Chair Clark introduced Item 4.4, Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4-3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Brandon Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-12. The New Hope City Code specifies that front deck can extend, “to a distance less than three feet from any lot line.” Compared to other cities in the surrounding area, this standard for front deck setbacks is extremely lenient. The current city regulation would allow for front decks and related structures to extend up to three feet from the front property line, 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 which staff feels is too close. Staff researched other city codes in the surrounding area, and found that they permit encroachments ranging from five to ten feet into the front yard setback. Staff is proposing to amend the current city code so that front decks will be able to encroach five feet into the front yard setback. This would allow for a reasonably sized structure to be constructed in the front yard while still aligning with the best practices in the area. Next, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-13. There are two sections in the New Hope City Code regarding the expiration of non- conforming uses that staff feel should be amended. The current City Code states that: 1. If a non-conforming use is discontinued for six months, it can no longer be continued after that six-month period; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, replacement of the structure would have to meet all zoning code requirements. If a non- conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by less than 50% of its estimated market value, it may be restored to its former extent provided that reconstruction is completed within 12 months of said destruction. Minnesota state regulations differ from those of the city and are more lenient in the following ways: 1. A non-conforming use must be discontinued for a period of one year before it can no longer be continued; and 2. If a non-conforming structure is destroyed by fire or other peril by greater than 50% of estimated market value, it can be rebuilt to its previous extent, as long as a building permit is applied for within 180 days of when the structure was first damaged. Staff believes that it would be beneficial for the city code to reflect the state statute guidelines for non-conforming structures. The city has the option of adopting stricter regulation than that of the state, and has done so in the past. However, the state regulations are very reasonable, and aligning with the state requirements will make it simpler for property owners to abide by and understand regulations regarding non- conforming uses. Commissioner Redden questioned what happens to a non-conforming use tied to a non-conforming structure if the timelines are maxed out to rebuild. Mr. Sargent replied that as long as building permit is applied for within the 180-day period, the timeframe requirement is satisfied. The building does not need to be fully constructed within the 180-day timeframe, so long as the permit has been applied for. Ms. Stacy Woods confirmed that was correct. Lastly, Mr. Bell gave background on Planning Case 20-14. The New Hope City Code specifies that in order to utilize a lot for residential use, 5 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 the lot must measure within 75 percent of the applicable zoning district standards for lot area and width. As a fully built-out city, staff believes that a lot of record should be sufficient to allow for reconstruction of a building, assuming it meets the minimum applicable building setback requirements for the district. Staff proposes a text amendment that would allow the reconstruction of buildings on undersized lots, as long as the lot had been established as a lot of record and recorded as such with Hennepin County. Bell concluded that the public hearing was posted in the SunPost and the city website and no feedback as received on the text amendments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed text amendments. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to open the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. No one was present to address the commission. Motion by Chair Clark, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Item 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Redden, to approve Planning Case 20-12, request for amendment to Section 4- 3(c)(6)e.2 of the New Hope City Code related to front deck setback requirements; Item 4.5, Planning Case 20-13, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(7) & (8) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming uses; and Item 4.6, Planning Case 20-14, request for amendment to Section 4-3(a)(11) of the New Hope City Code related to nonconforming structures, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Clark, Mannix, Landy, Smith, Korkowski, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Brinkman, Hanson, Schmidt Motion approved 6-0 Chair Clark stated the case will be brought to the November 23, 2020 City Council meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 The next potential meeting is on November 12, 2020. Staff will be informed if the meeting will take place or will be cancelled. Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 There currently is no meeting scheduled. NEW BUSINESS 6 Planning Commission Meeting November 4, 2020 OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Item 7.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Mannix, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 2020. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Clark announced that Commissioner Smith’s term would be ending at the end of the year. Chair Clark thanked Commissioner Smith for his many years of service to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jessi Weber, Community Development Administrative Specialist