050515 Planning✓Dr
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
7:00 p.m.
3. NEW BUSINESS
3.1 Swear in new Planning Commission member, Bill Smith
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 PC 15-04, Request for a 9 -foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction
of a larger garage, 8717 Northwood Parkway, Lawrence and Amelia Setten,
petitioners.
4.2 PC 15-05, request to consider a text amendment to Section 3-50 of the New Hope
City Code exempting municipal signs from adhering to provisions outlined by the
Sign Code, City of New Hope, petitioner.
4.3 PC 15-06, request to consider a text amendment to Sections 4-20 and 8-16 of the
New Hope City Code in relation to the requirements for truck and trailer
rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner.
4.4 PC 15-08, request to consider a text amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17, and
4-20 of the New Hope City Code to provide for the establishment of taprooms
and brewpubs, City of New Hope, petitioner.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design and Review Committee - next tentative meeting scheduled for
May 14, 2015, 7:30 a.m.
5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting?
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Approve April 7, 2015, Planning Commission Minutes
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Report Date: April 29, 2015
Planning Case: 15-04
Petitioner: Lawrence and Armella Setten
Address: 8717 Northwood Parkway
Project Name: Setten Variance
Project Description: The applicant wishes to tear down their existing attached garage in order to rebuild
a new larger attached garage in its place.
Planning Request: 9 foot rear yard setback variance in order to accommodate the construction of the
proposed garage.
I. Type of Planning Request
A. Variance
li. Zoning Code References
Section 4-36 Administration Variances
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential
Location: 8717 Northwood Parkway
Adjacent Land Uses: Public Open Space to the North, R-1 Single Family Residential to the South,
East and West.
Site Area: .32 acres
Planning District: Planning District 12. The Comprehensive Plan promotes housing maintenance
and upgrades by encouraging private reinvestment in single family homes.
IV. Background
Lawrence and Armella Setten are interested in tearing down their existing two car attached garage in order
to make room for a new larger attached garage. The applicant has indicated that the floor of the current
garage is heaving because the garage sits on a floating slab whereas the house has a full depth frost
footing. The differential movement of the two structures can be fixed permanently with the reconstruction
of a new garage that will sit on a foundation with full frost footings. The owner would like to make the
new garage larger than the existing garage in order improve mobility inside the garage and create more
storage space. The proposed garage would require a variance for the rear yard setback. The required rear
Planning Case Report 15-04 Page 1 4/29/15
yard setback in the R-1 District is 25 feet. The current garage is setback 20 feet from the rear yard property
line and is classified as legally non -conforming. The proposed new garage would have a setback of 16 feet
from the rear property line, requiring a 9 foot rear yard setback variance.
V. Zoning Analysis
1. Setbacks
Required Existing Proposed
Rear Yard 25' 20' 16'
2. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the
zoning code. Variances may be granted when they are in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the zoning code, they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and
the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the city's zoning code. An application for a variance requires a public hearing.
Practical difficulties. As used in connection with granting an application for a variance,
practical difficulties means as follows:
(a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the city's zoning code.
Findings. The applicant's proposed use has been found reasonable by staff. Attached
garages are permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District.
The proposed garage is on the east side of the applicant's home. The neighboring
house to the east of the subject property has a side setback facing the applicant
property that is smaller than what is being proposed by the applicant. The public
outlot that sits in-between the subject property and the neighbor further increases
the separation of the two homes.
(b) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property
under consideration and not created by the property owner.
Findings. The subject property is unique in the following ways:
• The lot is a corner lot with the home facing the side lot line. Therefore, the
rear yard property line as defined by City Code actually functions as a side
yard property line given the orientation of the home.
Planning Case Report 15-04 Page 2 4/29/15
+ The rear yard abuts a public outlot rather than another private property. This
provides a greater separation from the adjacent residential property.
The combination of aforementioned conditions is not generally applicable to other
properties in the same zoning district. These conditions are not created by the
property owner.
(c) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or permit a use not
allowed within the respective zoning district.
Findings. The variance for a reduced setback from 25 to 16 feet will not alter the
essential character of the locality or allow a use not permitted within the R-1 Zoning
District.
An examination of the proposed garage in the context of the surrounding
neighborhood reveals that the home, while oriented to the side yard, is consistent
with the front yard setbacks along both Decatur Avenue and Northwood Parkway.
The subject home's orientation to the north is consistent with the immediate
neighbor to the east.
(d) The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase
the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
Findings. The variance is toward a City owned outlot. This outlot provides
significant separation between the proposed garage and the neighboring home to the
east. The variance will not impair light, air, or traffic for surrounding properties. The
variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
VI. Other Site Issues
The aerial photograph and the submitted surveys illustrate an illegal encroachment into the City
owned outlot. The site aerial photo shows the placement of a fence and two outbuildings within the
outlot. These improvements must be moved within the private lot.
• A permit has not been issued for the larger outbuilding that encroaches onto City property. A
permit must be obtained to bring this structure into compliance with City Code.
• The aerial photos reveal an attached garage and three outbuildings on the lot. Within the R-1
Zoning District, a single family home may have an attached garage and one other detached
accessory building. The applicants have indicated that with the variance and expanded garage, they
would reduce the number of outbuildings.
The site photos also show outdoor storage of materials. The applicants must identify all outdoor
storage items to determine if it is legally permissible under the City Code.
Planrdng Case Report 15-04 Page 3 4/29/15
VI Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on April 16, The committee was in favor of
the proposed project and variance, and was excited to see an application for reinvestment in New
Hope's single family housing stock.
VIII. Approval
a. Type of Approval
Variance — quasi-judicial
b. Timeline
1. Date Application Deemed Complete: April 24, 2015
2. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: June 23, 2015
3. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: August 22, 2015
IX. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the
SunPost newspaper. Staff has received some questions regarding the development, but no opposition.
X. Summary
The applicant is proposing to tear down their existing attached garage with failing foundation in order
to make room for the construction of a new larger attached garage. The applicant has requested a
variance to decrease the rear yard setback to accommodate the size of the desired garage. Staff is
generally in favor of the proposed variance, but would like to offer a summary of both positions due to
the general nature of variance requests.
a. Arguments in Favor of the Variance:
1. The site is guided and zoned for residential land use. Single family homes with garages are a
permitted use within the zoning district.
2. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan goals and policies statement for residential land uses
promotes private reinvestment and directs the City to provide greater development flexibility
in the regulation of single family neighborhoods.
3. The site has physical conditions that are unique to the property that present practical difficulties
in the home and garage design.
4. The proposed reduced setback will riot change the essential character of the area and will not
negatively impact the adjoining properties.
Planning Case Report 15-04 Page 4 4/29/15
b. Arguments Opposing the Variance:
1. The lot in question is 14,093 square feet in area. This is larger than the standard R-1 District lot.
There is room on the lot to accommodate an expanded garage in a different configuration
without a variance,
2. The variance is being driven by the garage design width of 26 feet. The applicant states that the
current 22 foot wide garage lacks the width for practical storage or convenient access to
automobiles with door swings. A 22 foot garage is not an unusual garage width and can be
found throughout the City.
XI. Recommendation
This proposal provides an opportunity for substantial reinvestment in one of New Hope's residential
neighborhoods_ Additionally, the proposal meets the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
However, based on the review of the proposal, there are arguments both for and against granting the
variance. If the Planning Commission agrees with the findings in favor of the variance, then staff
recommends the conditions listed below with the recommendation of approval. Conditions 3 through 7
will be enforced by staff regardless of approval or denial of the variance request.
1. Prior to Council consideration, the applicants must get a certificate of survey to show current
setbacks and ensure that all approved setbacks on the property are correct and maintained.
2. If the applicant wishes to have parking pad along the east side of the property, a revised site plan
must be submitted demonstrating required setbacks and surfacing of the parking pad.
3. The applicants must reduce the number of garage and accessory buildings to one attached garage
and one outbuilding that meet the City zoning requirements for size and setback.
4. If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property remains, it must be moved onto private
property and meet the proper setbacks.
5. If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property remains, the applicant will be required to
obtain a building permit to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code.
6. The existing fence along the east side of the property shall be removed from City property.
7. Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved into the garage and/or remaining
outbuilding.
Attachments:
• Planning consultant memorandum
• Applicant narrative
• Elevations, Site Plan and Aerial Photo
• Stantec (City Engineer) Letter
• Design and Review Committee notes
Planning Case Report 15-04 Page 5 4/29/15
' Im0R17HY ES ' ASS0CS';A'; F0 C014SUL't'A Wl't'S, Il' C.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone. 753.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Jeff Sargent
FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman
DATE: April 29, 2015
RE: New Hope — Setten Garage Variance Request
FILE NO: 131.01 — 15.04
BACKGROUND
Lawrence and Amelia Setten are requesting a variance from the R-1 Zoning District 25
foot rear yard setback for their home at 8717 Northwood Parkway in New Hope. They
wish to tear down their existing 22 foot by 26 foot garage and rebuild a new larger
garage at 26 feet by 32 feet. The current home and garage is set back 20 feet from the
rear property line. As such, the current home is legally non -conforming. The new
garage will be four feet wider than the existing garage and as a result, they are
requesting a variance to have the building be 16 feet from the rear property line.
VARIANCE
Section 4.36 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the following purpose
statement and review criteria for considering any variance request:
Purpose of variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict
application of the terms of the zoning code. Variances may be granted when they are in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code, they are consistent
with the comprehensive plan and the applicant for the variance establishes that there
are practical difficulties in complying with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Practical difficulties. As used in connection with granting an application for a variance,
practical difficulties means as follows:
(1) That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by the City's zoning code.
Comment: Single family homes and garages are a permitted uses in the R-1
Zoning District. The applicant seeks removing a deteriorating garage and
replacing it with a larger attached garage constructed on a foundation. The larger
garage along with one outbuilding will allow the property owner the opportunity to
move his outdoor storage into these buildings. The applicant is requesting a
wider attached garage to provide for more space to enter and exit vehicles
parked in the garage.
The New Hope 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies statement for
residential land uses supports the reinvestment and renovation of existing homes
as follows:
a. Promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock.
b. Examine City development regulations to provide greater development
flexibility for single family neighborhoods.
The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains a Housing Strategy which clearly
states the City's intent is to promote reinvestment and redevelopment of
properties within the City (p 67). The applicants' have also indicated that the
garage is in disrepair and needs to be razed in order to be rebuilt with a
foundation.
(2) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property
under consideration and not created by the property owner.
Comment: The subject lot is unique in the following ways:
a. The lot is a corner lot with the home oriented to the side lot line.
b. The rear yard abuts a public outlot and not a rear yard of another private
property. This provides a greater separation from the adjoining residential
property.
C. The property to the east of the subject property is a butt lot that has
smaller side yard setbacks facing the subject site. The proposed variance
would mimic the setbacks of this adjoining lot. The proposed house
location, garage setback variance would maintain the essential character
of the lots along Northwood Parkway.
d. The combination of aforementioned conditions are not generally
applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. These
conditions are not created by the property owner.
(3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or permit a use
not allowed within the respective zoning district.
Comment: An examination of the property in the context to the surrounding
neighborhood reveals that the home, while oriented to the side yard, is consistent
with the front yard setbacks along both Decatur Avenue and Northwood
2
Parkway. The subject home's orientation to the north is consistent with the home
immediately to the east.
The neighboring property to the east is a got that fronts onto Northwood Parkway
and as such its east and west lot lines are side yards. The home on the lot to the
east appears to be approximately setback five feet from its west lot line. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 16 foot setback from its east lot line
mimicking the property to the east. The City -owned outlot provides a significant
separation between the lots that reduces the impact of the reduced rear yard
setback.
The variance the reduced setback from 20 to16 feet will not alter the essential
character of the locality or allow a use not permitted within the R-1 Zoning
District.
(4) The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
Comment: The garage variance is toward a City -owned outlot. This outlot
provides significant separation between the garage and the neighboring home to
the east. The variance will not impair light, air, or traffic for surrounding
properties.
(5) Practical difficulties may include but shall not be limited to the following:
a. A physical condition unique to the property that results in practical
difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the
terms of this Code. Physical conditions causing practical difficulties may
include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or
similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot.
b. Practical difficulties may also include inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
C. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute a practical difficulty if a
reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code.
d. A practical difficulty shall be unique to the parcel or lot for which the
variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties
within the same zoning district.
Comment: The subject lot is unique in the following ways:
a. The lot is a corner lot with the home oriented to the side lot line.
3
b. The rear yard abuts a public outlot and not a rear yard of another private
property. This provides a greater separation from the adjoining residential
property.
C. The property to the east of the subject property is a butt lot that has
smaller side yard setbacks facing the subject site. The proposed variance
would mimic the setbacks of this adjoining lot. The proposed house
location, garage setback variance would maintain the essential character
of the lots along Northwood Parkway.
d. The combination of aforementioned conditions are not generally
applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. These
conditions are not created by the property owner.
While there are other areas within the lot to accommodate an expanded garage
in a different configuration. The applicant wishes to replicate the current garage
design, rooflines and believes that proposed location offers the best option for
the new garage.
Arguments in Favor of the Variance:
The site is guided and zoned for residential land use. Single family homes with
garages are a permitted use within this zoning district.
2. The New Hope 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies statement for
residential land uses include:
a. Promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock.
b. Examine City development regulations to provide greater development
flexibility for single family neighborhoods.
3. The site has physical conditions that are unique to the property that present
practical difficulties in the home and garage design.
4. The proposed reduced setback will not change the essential character of the
area and will not negatively impact adjoining properties.
5. The proposed reduce setback will not impair light or air to adjoining properties or
increase traffic congestion.
Arguments Opposing the Variance:
1. The lot in question is 14,093 square feet in area. This is larger than the standard
R-1 District lot. There is room on the lot to accommodate an expanded garage in
a different configuration without variance.
4
2. The variance is being driven by the garage design width of 26 feet. The
applicant says the current 22 foot wide garage lacks the width for practical
storage or convenient access to automobiles with door swings. A 22 foot garage
is not an unusual garage width and can be found throughout the City. Recent
Centra Home models have garage dimensions of 22 feet for two -car garages.
OTHER SITE ISSUES
The aerial photograph and the submitted surveys illustrate an illegal
encroachment into the City -owned outlot. The site aerial photo shows the
placement of a fence and two outbuildings within the outlot. These
improvements must be moved within the private lot.
2. A permit has not been issued for the fence or the larger outbuilding. Permits
must be obtained to bring these structures into compliance with City Code.
3. The aerial photos reveal an attached garage and three outbuildings on the lot.
Within the R-1 Zoning District, a single family home may have an attached
garage and one other detached accessory building. The applicants have
indicated that with the variance and expanded garage, they would reduce the
number of outbuildings.
4. The site photos also show outdoor storage of materials. The applicants must
identify all outdoor storage items to determine if it is legally permissible under the
City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the review, there are arguments both for and against granting the variance. If
the Planning Commission agrees with the findings in favor pf the variance, then staff
recommends the following conditions with the recommendation of approval:
Prior to Council consideration, the applicants must get a certificate of survey to
show current setbacks and ensure that all approved setbacks on the property are
correct and maintained.
2. The applicants reduce the number of garage and accessory buildings to one
attached garage and one outbuilding that meet the City zoning requirements for
size and setback.
3. If the outbuilding furthest to the east is to remain, it must be brought onto the
property and require the proper setbacks.
4. If the outbuilding furthest to the east is to remain, the applicant will be required to
obtain a building permit to bring the building into compliance with Building Code.
5
5. The existing fence along the east side of the property shall be relocated onto the
property line.
6. The curb cut be reduced to 24 feet in width from the street curb to property line.
The driveway can be expanded within the lot starting at the property line.
7. If the applicant wishes to have a parking pad along the east side of the property,
a revised site plan must be submitted demonstrating required setbacks and
surfacing of the parking pad.
8. Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved into the garage and/or
remaining outbuilding upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy
9. Comments by the City Engineer.
If the Planning Commission agrees with the findings opposing the variance then a
recommendation for denial with the attached finding is appropriate. The illegal non-
conforming conditions will still need to be corrected.
c: Aaron Chirpach
Jeff Alger
Emily Becker
rel
City of New Hope Planning Commission April 17, 2015
RE: Setback Variance Request
Lawrence and Armella Setten
8717 Northwood Parkway
We are hereto request a variance to the backyard setback from the current 20' to 16' We would like
to tear down our garage and rebuild it 4' wider for a number of reasons. The property line we are
requesting a variance from is actually the drainage Swale easement property line.
Our home is located on a corner lot at 8717 Northwood Parkway. While the front of the house faces
Northwood Parkway, the ordinance defines the front of a home on a corner lot as the shorter street
frontage side, which makes our side yard on Decator the "front" per the ordinance. This makes the side
of our garage the "back" yard. We feel that building closer to that "back" yard property line, which is the
drainage swale easement property line, will not impact the neighborhood negatively as the drainage
swale easement is a 50' easement. And the adjacent neighbor is within 5' of his side of the easement
property line, where we are requesting to be within 16' of our side of the easement property line.
Further the site lines have not changed as we are not asking to move our home forward of the current
allowable setback on the Northwoods Parkway side.
The decision to rebuild the garage came as a result of the garage failing because, prior to our purchase,
someone had built the garage on a free floating slab and attached it to the home with a full foundation.
Over the years, the garage has deteriorated to a point of tear down. So our request is in an effort to
remedy a construction defect that has existed since before we purchased.
You may recognize the address as one that regularly participates and wins the Christmas season lighting
contest. This is only relevant to our variance request in that we have a lot of decorations to store and
want to increase our garage size, In part, to accommodate this storage. We have a number of out
buildings at the back of our property that store our decorations and we would like to store them in one
space, the garage. We would move the detached garage that encroaches the easement, making sure to
meet all zoning standards when moved, and eliminate all but one outbuilding. This way what is currently
stored outside can be stored Inside. We would also remove the fence that encroaches the easement to
further clean up the property.
The current garage is 22' wide with a 16' garage door. My wife and I are retired and experiencing some
mobility issues and would like to have more room in the garage to get in and out of our vehicles. We feel
the extra 4' allows us to change the garage doors to two 9' doors, which allows more room between
each vehicle.
Finally, we would like to point out that the exterior of the garage would be sided with new LP siding. We
plan to re -side the house and add brick/stone on either side of the garage doors. So this project would
ultimately enhance the neighborhood landscape as well as solve our mobility and space issues.
So we respectfully request the 4' variance which makes the "back" yard setback to 16'. Again, this
projects fixes a construction defect, enhances the neighborhood appearance, allows us more mobility in
getting in and out of our vehicles, and enable us to clean up the yard by storing our decorations in the
garage instead of outbuildings. We are anticipating the project to start as soon as possible and to be
completed by October 1, 2015.
Thank you for your time.
DEAN JOHNSON HOMES, INC PLANS ARC THE PROPERTY of THE 6WLDeR
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE BLUEPRINT NEASUREMEN79
01 �1 lUa+�4+woa9s Pkwy A], 4700 COIiNTY ROAD 19 LOACATION AHD PLACEMENT! OF IDAL1,S,
,��� UYHDOW9, LIGHTS .SND OUTLETS CAN VgRY
�wi o MEDINk MN 55357 EITHIR NORMAL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCE&
Fes' suDnlCRR's 1 oE°88Y�9a . _CO E Y sEO M fAxO 3TARi1cTIOH TI2IAMG!
�
w
�
r
m
3Z� Oy
d
_
t
G
I
I O
I
i
�-
�
l
�
I
a
or
i.
O
C
��
r
/I
�
0
o
I
fd x
w
J m
A
P f
O_
Y�
iY bl
/
�4 O.G.
'
F.gARIYe+Y�c.c+ S@,TM
DEAN JOHNSON HOMES, INC
PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE LUILOER
ALL gl'�N'+lONS ARC SLYEPRINT MEA&RIEMCNTS
U, CATIONAND PLAAND EVENTS F WALLS.
N VAItY
P
4700 COUNTY ROAD 19
'{
NLLP F{O�t�
MEDINA, MN 56357
458-./SD-gyp{4
BUBJ=S /Eoma�
SiITHM NORMAL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES.
SOME MEA&IRCMCNTS ARC NOMINAL MEA&ft?IENTS
AS COMNONLY USED RI CONSTRUCTION TRADES
Q
D
xz
i
L
O
z
x
O
3
m
m
�
I
d
I �
d
I
o
J
4 �
Tf l
R
�
0
Vr'
m
DEAN JOHNSON HOMES, INC
PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE BUILDER
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE BLUEPRINT MEASUREMENTS
+�
4700 COUNTY ROAD 18
LOACATION AND PLACEMENTS OF WALLA,
O
MEDTNA, MN 55357
703-420-4044
WINDOWS, LIGHTS ANO OUTLET5 CAN VARY
T"N NORMALERAN S
WSOME
BVRDSRD IICSN3! ce0830A0S
f�ASUREMEN 5OARE NOMINALNMEASUREENTS
AS COMMONLY USEb IN CON5TRUCTION TRADES
HAPPY S.
POSE ArT F MEREDITH ), V "
lir
C DONALD COULTf'2
4,87
95W
Lia
PLAT IL A,VES'.
7'g
B Y.
(-'-'C R
B U I L D I ril!!S IN P
VILLAGE OE NEW HOPE
DATE 7
&&a4j�
the
0 0 0 b c k�R CC
9t d064 Md*t PMVOtZ to &4,00 AAp"Weeg#e4 44 &Soy.
of '1961.
i06�
/Z m /Y/
;71ng
aDon w OLD
11
C. DONALD COULT
7
4 8.78:
R -M-49
.30
4b
P L AT
V,
fB3yL.-"'
f3y
B U I L D H\J1 I Nrr-j P r' TCR
ViLLAGE OF NEW HOPE
[DATE
,Pot la 91ook op NoRflk WOOD 999
0 /Vhex,
A do" not PWLP04t �o Ah"'.
�
(11
Vill c " e
9&e; C �1-zle,
aw 0 L v K no cc L.
J. . a A 'o ji p y w l 11
MARRY 19. —bcwp#so" Ll K r D C: I I .
Pn(AERT 6 MURIE07TH f -
C. DC100AL.D COULTr, /7/ 7
30
all
Aq
lie,
PLAT A
B U I L D I ri""J"S I N'S"P-7-7 (".-"TOR
ViLLAGE OF NEW HOPE
DATE
78_R -W,49
k4
.2.4
1�1
9 h"4164f A"-t4q tA" " & 44ms0&",Cs4 Of F. &*" ot the
lot 19 gZaak '4� NOR 7k W00bR .qj, OR
up A�0�4,a
&mljo-� 9t dol@4 *at PAWIP04t to 4i"W imp"ate. 04 Sol. A,&
at
No. S(,)6
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul MN 55, 13
Tel; (651) 636-4600
Fax: (651) 636-1311
April 15, 2015
File: 193800102
Attention: Jeff Sargent
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Reference: 8717 Northwood Parkway - Garage Variance Request Review
Dear Jeff,
We have reviewed the garage variance request as submitted by Lawrence Setten on
April 10, 2015. Please see the following comments and/or recommendations.
General Comments
As aerial photography identifies, the existing chain link fencing and two
outbuildings are located within the City -owned outlot.
a. A City -owned storm sewer pipe is located under the edge of the fencing
and garden area.
b. The outlot provides as a storm water drainage and utility outlot, and access
to the utilities and emergency overflows must be maintained.
c. The fencing and buildings need to be moved within the private lot.
2. Complete a survey of the property.
3. The driveway curb cut is wider than allowed by City ordinance (24' maximum),
and prior to a new driveway being installed the City may complete the removal
and replacement of the concrete curb cut to comply with City ordinance. As the
concrete curb was installed as part of past City project work, this will not be the
responsibility of the homeowner.
If you have any questions or require further information please call me at (651)604-4808.
F
Aprl 15, 2015
Mr. Jeff Sargent
Page 2 of 2
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
r
Christopher W, Long, P.E.
c. Aaron Chiroich, Susan Rader, Bob Paschke, Bernie Weber, Dave Lemke, Shawn
Markham, John Blosiak, Je" Alger, Roger Axel - New Hope; Alan Brixius - NAC Planning;
Shelby Wolf - West Metro Fire; Adam Martinson, Megan Albert - Stantec.
DESIGN & REVIEW COMMITTEE
April 16, 2015
Committee: Landy, Svendsen, McKenzie, English
The Development Review Team met on April 15 to consider issuing a Garage Variance for 8717
Northwoods Parkway
Staff: Sargent, Chirpich, Alger, Axel, Markham, Rader, Korth
Consultants: Brixius, Long
PLANNING CASE:
PROJECT:
ADDRESS:
ZONING:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
15-04
Garage Variance
8717 Northwoods Parkway
R-1 District 25 Single Family Residential
Lawrence and Armella Setten
Lawrence Setten
DESCRIPTION: Lawrence and Amelia Setten are requesting a variance from the R-1 District 25 foot rear
yard setback for their home at 8717 Northwood Parkway in New Hope. They wish to tear down their
existing 22 foot by 26 foot garage and rebuild a new larger garage at 26 feet by 32 feet. The current home
and garage is set back 20 feet from the rear property line. As such, the current home is legally non-
conforming. The new garage will be four feet wider than the existing garage and as a result, they are
requesting a variance to have the building be 16 feet from the rear property line.
The Development Review Team had the following comments:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Single family home
Current detached garage does not have a building permit and appears to be located partially on
city property
Fence is encroaching on neighboring property
COMMENTS
• The aerial photograph and the submitted surveys illustrate an illegal encroachment into the City -
owned outlot. The site aerial photo shows the placement of a fence and two outbuildings within
the outlot. These improvements must be moved within the private lot.
A permit has not been issued for the larger outbuilding. A permit must be obtained to bring these
structures into compliance with City Code.
The aerial photos reveal an attached garage and three outbuildings on the lot. Within the R-1
Zoning District, a single family home may have an attached garage and one other detached
accessory building. The applicants have indicated that with the variance and expanded garage,
they would reduce the number of outbuildings.
• The site photos also show outdoor storage of materials. The applicants must identify all outdoor
storage items to determine if it is legally permissible under the City Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Narrative
• Plans
Planning Consultant memo dated 04/15/2015
Site pictures
NOTE: REVISED PLAN DEADLINE is Friday, April 24, by 3:00 p.m.
Planning Commission, Tuesday, May 5, 7:00 p.m.
City Council, Tuesday, May 26,7:00 p.m.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Report Date: May 1, 2015
Planning Case: 15-05
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Request: Municipal Signage Text Amendment
I. Request
The Codes and Standards Committee (Committee) met on March 25, 2015 to review a text amendment
proposal to the City's Sign Code (Code) in relation to an exemption for city signs. As a part of the Xylon
Avenue streetscape improvements, the city intends to construct a freestanding digital sign at Xylon
Avenue and 42nd Avenue that will be used to advertise local events. The proposed sign would be
located in the City Center zoning district and approximately 24 feet tall. The Code allows one
freestanding sign per lot, with a maximum area of 100 square feet for each side, and a maximum height
of 12 feet in the City Center zoning district. The Code would need to be amended to allow for the
construction of this sign. Such an amendment would also limit restrictions on potential future
municipal signage, including signs at city hall, the golf course, the ice arena, the pool, and all city parks.
In researching how surrounding cities address municipal signs within their zoning code, it was
determined that municipal signage is addressed in one of two manners:
1. Municipal signs are exempt from requiring a permit, but must meet all sign code criteria.
2. Municipal signs are exempt from requiring a permit and from adhering to provisions outlined
in the sign code.
The Committee evaluated both options and determined that exempting municipal signage from
adhering to provisions outlined in the Code was appropriate. In order to ensure that any sign erected
by the city is safe and meets building code requirements, a permit with construction drawings would
be required for any permanent signs.
In reviewing language related to exemptions within the Code, staff discovered references to an
outdated subsection (3-40) within the Code. Ordinance 08-03, subsection 1 was adopted on May 27,
2008, repealing subsection 3-40, which pertained to the Code and derived from Code 5-14-2001. The
draft ordinance corrects these references and applies them to the current Code.
II. Recommendation
The Committee was in favor of adopting a text amendment to the Code exempting municipal signs
from paying permit fees and from adhering to provisions outlined by the Code.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment exempting municipal signs from paying
permit fees and from adhering to provisions outlined by the Code and correcting outdated references
to subsection 3-40.
Attachments
+ Draft ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 15-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3-1(a)(6) AND 3-50 (SIGN CODE) OF THE
NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO EXEMPT OFFICIAL (MUNICIPAL) SIGNS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3-1(a)(6), is hereby amended to read as follows:
(6) Signs. A sign may not be constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated, expanded
or painted except in cases of routine maintenance without a sign permit. A
permit shall not be issued unless the sign and all other signs on the premises of
the applicant are in compliance with the regulations of the New Hope Sign
Code, section 3-b4O et al.
a- R*emptien ftem peFmitfee. Sigas peFmit4ed by subseetien 3.4 0(g)(3)
mad- sub weeti on 3.4 0(h)(4)b of the New 14epe Sign Cede aFe exempt
ab. Exemptions from permit. Signs permitted by subsection 3. 0(f)
. � ee4ie 3.4 n'„ of the New Hope Sign Code are exempt
from the permit requirement but must comply with all of the other
regulations of said Code.
Section 2. Section 3-50(d)(2), is hereby amended to read as follows:
Official sign means ay type of sign described in the definitions herein that is of a
t15t.public noncommercial nature or municipal purpose, including public
notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs, and direction to public facilities signs
when erected by or on behalf of a public official or employee in the performance
of official duty.
Section 3. Section 3-50, is hereby amended to add the following underlined text as
subsection (o):
(o) Exempt Signs. Official Signs, Public Notices and Public Street Right -of -Way
Signs shall be exempt from the regulations of this Sign Code with the exception
that any Official Sign that will be of a permanent nature shall require the
submission of a permit including plans, location andspecifications and method of
construction and attachment to the building or placement method on the ground,
and copy of stress sheet_ s and calculations showing that the structure is designed
for dead load and wind load in the amount required by this and all other laws and
codes of the city.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of 12015.
Kathi Heiken, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope -Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of
2015)
P:IAttomeylSAS11 Client Filesl2 City of New Hope199-81508 Municipal Sign Code AmendmentlSign Code Amendment - Municipal Signs - 4-
29-15 - Ordinance 15-08.docx
2
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Report Date: May 1, 2015
Planning Case: 15-06
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Request: Truck & Trailer Rental Text Amendments
I. Background
Staff has discovered a conflict between the City's licensing requirements for truck and trailer rental
businesses and the New Hope zoning code. The city currently requires a license for the rental of utility
trailers and trucks. Such activity is also regulated through the zoning code, specifically in the
Community Business District, where vehicle rentals are allowed as part of an auto sales and service
business. Language in the licensing section conflicts with the standards found in the zoning code in a
variety of ways. Staff would like to clean up the discrepancies by removing the land use language from
the licensing section. The goal is to have the license regulate the activity, and the zoning code work to
determine location and performance standards of sites where truck and trailer rentals are permitted.
Additionally, staff has discovered that the zoning code does not allow truck and trailer rentals in the
Industrial District. Staff is in favor of allowing truck and trailer rentals in the Industrial District as an
accessory use to an approved Conditional Use Permit for a self storage facility.
II. Recommendation
The Codes and Standards Committee met on March 25, 2015 to review text amendment proposals to
the Zoning and Licensing sections of the City Code in relation to the requirements for truck and trailer
rentals. The committee was in favor of adopting text amendments that would achieve the following:
• Remove the land use language from Section 8-16 which is the business licensing section for the
rental of trailers and trucks.
• Use the zoning code to determine the location and performance standards of sites where truck
and trailer rentals are permitted.
• Allow truck and trailer rentals in the Industrial District as an accessory use to an approved
Conditional Use Permit for a self storage facility.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments.
Attachments
0 Draft ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 15-06
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE SECTION 4-20
(PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE TO APPROVED SELF -STORAGE FACILITY)
OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO
RENTAL -STORAGE OF TRAILERS AND TRUCKS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-20(c), Permitted accessory uses, is hereby amended to add the following
subsection:
(c) Permitted accessory uses. The following permitted accessory uses in an I
district:
(9) Rental of trailers and trucks. Rental of trailers and tracks shall be a permitted
accessory use to an a roved self -storage mini -warehouse facility anted a conditional use
permit pursuant to 4-20(c)(7) of this Code provided that:
a. Accessory Use. Rental of trailers and trucks must be an accessory use, as defined by
subsection 4-2(b) of this Code, to the conditional principal use of self --storage (mini -
warehouse) facility on the site.
b. Rental of trailers and trucks are further regulated by 8.16 of this Code.
c. Vehicle location. Rental trailers and trucks shall not be permitted to occupy any area
except the designated storage area.
d. Storage area boundaries. The designated storage area for trailers and trucks shall be
marked by clearly visible boundaries.
e. Off street parking interference. The storage area shall not occupy any part of the
required off street varking area.
f. Storage area surface. The storage are shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous
surfacing.
g. Storage area condition. The storage area shall be kept free from dirt, weeds, garbage,
trash, and other debris.
h. Vehicle lacement. The trailers and trucks shall be arranged in an orderly fashion in
rows and the parking area shall be striped to identify individual parking stalls.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of 2015.
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope -Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of _'2015.)
ORDINANCE NO.15-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8-16 (RENTAL -STORAGE OF
TRAILERS AND TRUCKS) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 8-16(e), Rental -Storage of trailers and trucks, Restrictions and Regulations, is hereby
amended to delete and add the following text:
Sec. 8-16. - Rental— of trailers and trucks.
(a) License required. No person shall engage in the business of renting utility trailers or the
renting and o. stefage of trucks excluding truck tractor and semitrailers, without being
licensed as provided in this section.
(b) License type, procedure and control. The provisions of section 8-2 apply to all licenses
required by this section. T.. ,. ndg of u„a„ e may be iswed. One type of license shall b
x -h -A11 We -few- the storage f t,• ek only, ld k .•. e4e ....1 ;t...,;1...
oo eug t«aet.
n aa;t;...�.,,1 ..,,„tont f .,,.,..1; e4ie h...,dd do to the nfi ,-,...,t;,. a oa by ee fie 8 2
l 11i,.F141V11LLl VV11�V114J Vl '
7
or- ne the r-equiFements of this seefien be
7 7
7
the pr-epeAy for- Whieh the heense is 7 Wheff applicable,
the appFoximate ffamber- an
#ype"ef ,.ent.,l trailer —Radd tkquelcas W :�� 11 be ste •a l n the premises not to exeeedt�rffee
7
basis by &e applieai# on the 7 ed 7
the area ewhich such veWeles NNill be 7
the leeation and type of any screening of the ster-ag
area; the leeatien of any stpaewr-es or- proposed struetwes on the site. Sueh infematie
Mating to the 7 or- proposed layout,
of the premises shall be shevm on a plot p!
(c) License fee. The annual license fees for rental licenses ander r storage of ne ,,.yffiea hiel �
are as prescribed in chapter 14. A separate license shall be
obtained for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent
place on the premises licensed. A license, unless revoked, is for the calendar year, or part
thereof, for which it has been issued.
(d) Granting or denial of licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by the building
inspector with the city manager, thereafter licenses shall be granted or denied by the city
council, subject to the provisions of this section.
(e) Restrictions and regulations.
(1) Business location. Licenses may be granted for locations in the Community Business
and Industrial Districts Teti i' btisiness and general business distrie*s of the city which
meet the requirements of this section and which comply with the standards set forth in
each District. av"
afe * nd by themanager- to b :table l at
ui �,
Page 1
1 [low
e
_ _
MAW
LUM
(2) Number and size of trucks and trailers. The license for eith the rental of trucks and or
trailers of a- license f4— thestorage of neiifeiiW afidin ,wned truoks of the—app;Ieant
shall specify the maximum number and size of trucks and or trailers, n�* * o�•�ooa
#:wee,. which may be located on the licensed premises at any one time. Any trucks
beyond the amount authorized shall be removed within 24 hours of being received,
acquired or parked on the licensed premises. It is a violation of this section to locate
more or larger vehicles on the licensed premises than the number or maximum size
specified on the license, but temporarily locating a rental truck for a period not to
exceed 24 hours on the licensed premises shall not be deemed a violation hereof.
(3) Noncompliance and license denial. It shall be grounds for denial of a license application
that the applicant or other persons occupying the premises for which the license is
sought are not complying with, or have a history of noncompliance with the regulations
of the city relating to health, safety, building or zoning, or any regulations relating to the
renting or storing of utility trailers or trucks.
(4) Other grounds for denial. A license shall not be granted if granting the license would:
a. Inconsistent with plan. Be inconsistent with the comprehensive development plan
or zoning code of the city;
b. Tfueks N4sible.
,
c. Adjacent property use. Be incompatible with the type of development or the type of
use being conducted on adjacent properties, or;
d. Other detrimental effect. Otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property
or properties in the vicinity.
Page 2
"Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of , 2015.
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
ATTEST:
VnIcric Leon:. C'.ily Clerk
(Published in the New Hope -Golden Valley Sun -Post the _ day of , 2015.)
Page 3
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Report Date: May 1, 2015
Planning Case: 15-08
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Request: Breweries, Taprooms, and Brewpubs Text Amendment
i. Request
The City Council discussed a possible amendment to the city's liquor licensing codes to provide for the
establishment of taprooms and brewpubs at the April 20, 2015 Work Session. The City Council
requested that the Planning Commission examine the business concept from a land use perspective and
provide recommendations as to appropriate locations and desired performance standards for
regulating these uses.
As part of the proposed amendment, brewpubs were defined as a business that both manufactures and
sells on -sale malt liquor and growlers on the same site, in combination with a bar and restaurant.
Brewpubs are not currently permitted to wholesale and distribute beer for sale at other retail liquor
establishments. Also under consideration is an ordinance amendment allowing production breweries
with accessory brewer taprooms. A brewery can manufacture, process and warehouse beer for
wholesale distribution in off -sale packages to retail liquor establishments. The brewer's taproom may
also directly retail beer product for on-site consumption or for off-site consumption in growlers. A
brewer taproom is a room that is ancillary to the production brewery where the public can purchase
and/or consume only the beer produced onsite. A brewer with a taproom is not allowed to sell other
alcohol products not produced on-site. This is different from a brewpub which may hold multiple on -
sale liquor licenses. A brewer's taproom may or may not be combined with food sales. Breweries with
taprooms must stay within certain production and sale thresholds set by State law.
Zoning ordinances are intended to segregate industrial and commercial activities in an effort to control
the types of traffic generated by such uses, to manage uses where noise or odors may interfere with
other activities, and to allow better clustering of commercial uses which traditionally benefit from
uninterrupted commercial land uses. In order to accommodate the mix of uses allowed by a
brewer/taproom license, an amendment to the zoning ordinance is necessary to address the land use
issues raised by a proposed facility.
Staff researched production brewery/taproom ordinances recently implemented in other cities in an
effort to understand how other communities have allowed such uses. Please see attached memo from
Northwest Associated Consultants which highlights land use considerations that should be made in
regards to the impact of breweries, taprooms, and brewpubs. Considerations include the combination
of commercial and industrial land uses, appropriate locations, production scale, shipping and
receiving, parking and access, and ancillary uses.
11. Recommendation
Breweries, taprooms, and brewpubs are often popular attractions for communities. Such establishments
are consistent with the intent and purpose of the city's commercial zoning districts. City staff
recommends that brewpubs be listed as permitted uses within both the Commercial Business (CB) and
City Center (CC) zoning districts and be held to the same performance standards of restaurants. It is
recommended that production breweries with taprooms be listed as a conditional use within the CB
and CC or Industrial (I) zoning districts and meet the conditions outlined by the draft ordinance. Note
that the proposed conditional use requirements for the CB and CC zoning districts differ from those in
the I zoning district.
Attachments
• Draft ordinance
• Memo from Alan Brixius to Jeff Sargent
a Zoning map
DRAFT 4129115
ORDINANCE NO, 15 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE
SECTION 4-2 RULES AND DEFINITIONS;
SECTION 4-16 CB, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT;
SECTION 4-17 CC, CITY CENTER DISTRICT; AND SECTION 4-20 I, INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITIONS, LOCATION, AND REGULATIONS
FOR PRODUCTION BREWERIES, TAPROOMS, AND BREWPUBS
IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
The City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-2, Rules and Definitions, is hereby amended to provide the
following definitions:
Brew ub. A restaurant-brewe that sells 85% or more of its beer on-site. The beer is brewed
primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar, and ma by a dispensed directly from the brewery's
storage tanks. Brewpubs_may also sell beer for off -sale consumption in growler containers.
Production Brewe . Manufacturesprocesses and warehouses beer for wholesale distribution
in off -sale packages to retail liquor establishments and may retail beer product for on-site
consumption in a taproom or for off-site consumption as growlers. A production brewer maynot
have an ownership interest in a brewgy licensed under Minnesota Statutes Section 34-A.409
Subd. 6, clause (d).
Taproom. A room that is ancillary to the production of beer at a production brewery where the
ublic can urchase and/or consume only the beer produced on site. A to room mgy also sell
beer for off -sale consum tion in owier containers.
Section 2. Section 4-16(b), Permitted Uses within the CB, Community Business
District, is hereby amended to add the following language:
Section 3. Section 4-16(c), Conditional Uses within the CB, Community Business
District, is hereby amended to add the following language:
91) Production breweries with ta11 F -,cis as defined by Section 4-2 of this ordinance provided
that:
a. The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt
liquor wholesale license (if wholesale of malt liquor is an intended activity) from
the State of Minnesota, according to Minnesota Statutes Section 304A.
b. An accessory brewer's taproom for the on -sale of beer produced on-site shall
require a brewery taproom license from the City of New Hope according to City
Code Section
C. Off -sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a brewery license for off -
sale of malt liquor, according to City Code Section
d. Total on-site production of malt liquor may not exceed 10,000 barrels annuallv.
Of the 10,000 barrel production limit, onsite taproom retail sales shall not exceed
3,500 barrels annually, 500 barrels of which may be sold off -sale as growlers.
The brewery shall annually submit production reports with the request to renew a
brewery taproom or off -sale malt liquor license.
C. The brewery facility shall provide adequate space for off-street loading and
unloading of all trucks greater than 22 feet in length in accordance with Section 4-
3(f) of this Code. In the absence of off-street loading, the City may impose limits
on deliveries or shipments using the public right of ways, including _regulating the
number of trucks per day and the hours that deliveries are permitted.
f. Loading areas shall be located_ and designed so they are not visible from adjoining
public streets or adjoining residential zoning_
g. No outdoor storage is permitted on the site, with the exception that waste handling
(refuse and/or recycling) may occur in an enclosure that is fully screened from
adjoining streets and residential zoning_
h._ _ No odors from the brewery may be perceptible beyond the property line.
i. Buildings must meet all Building and Fire Codes for the intended building
occupancy. The building; and site design shall meet the New Hope Design
Guidelines and_the performance standards of the New Hope Zoning Code.
j. The proposed building shall demonstrate adequate parking per the New Hope
zoning standards for all uses of the site per Section 4-3(e) of this Code.
Section 4. Section 4-17(d)-1, Table of Uses in the CC, City Center District, is hereby
amended to add the following:
Brewpulb P Permitted Use
Production Brewery
With Taproom C Conditional Use
Section 5. Section 4-17(d)(2), Conditional Uses in the CC, City Center District, is hereby
amended to include the following language:
1. Production breweries with taprooms as defined by Section 4.2 of this ordinance provided
that:
I . The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt
liquor wholesale license (if wholesale of malt liquor is an intended activity) from
the State of Minnesota according to Minnesota Statutes Section 304A.
2. An accessory brewer's taproom for the on -sale of beer produced on-site shall
require a brewery taproom license from the City of New Hope according to City
Code Section
3. Off sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a brewery license for off -
sale of malt liquor, accordingto o City Code Section
4. Total on-site production of malt liquor may not exceed 10,000 barrels annually.
Of the 10,000 barrel production limit, onsite taproorn retail sales shall not exceed
3,500 barrels annually, 500 barrels of which may be sold off --sale as growlers.
The brewM shall annually submit production reports with the Leguest to renew a
brewM to room or off -sale malt liquor license.
5. The brewery facility shall provide adequate space for off-street loading and
unloading of all trucks geater than 22 feet in length in accordance with Section 4-
3(f) of this Code. In the absence of off-street loading, the City may Xmpose limits
on deliveries or shipments using the public right of ways, including regulating the
number of trucks per day and the hours that deliveries are permitted.
6. Loading areas shall be located and designed so they are not visible from adjoining
public streets or adjoining residential zoning
7. No outdoor storage is permitted on the site, with the exception that waste handling
(refuse and/or recycling) ma_y occur in an enclosure that is fully screened from
adjoining streets and residential zoning_
8. No odors from the brewery may be perceptible beyond the pLoperty line.
9. Buildings must meet all Building and Fire Codes for the intended building
occupancy. The building and site design shall meet the New Hope Desi
Guidelines and the performance standards of the New Hope Zoning
I 0. _ The proposed building shall demonstrate adequate parking „per the New Hope
zoning standards for all uses of the site per Section 4-3 e of this Code.
Section 6. Section 4-20(e), Conditional Uses in the I District, is hereby amended to add
the following language:
17 Production brewery with to room as defined by Section 4-2 of this ordinance provided
that:
a. The owner of the brewery Qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt
liquor wholesale license (if wholesale of malt liquor is an intended activity) from
the State of Minnesota according to Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.301.
b. An accessory brewer's taproom for the on -sale of beer produced on-site shall
r wire a brewga to room license from the Ci!y of New Hgpe according to Cit
Code Section
C. _Off -sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a brewery license for off -
sale of malt liquor according to City Code Section
d The site provides adequate parkin for proom and other uses per Section 4-3(e)
of this Code. Ta room parking shall not interfere with on-site circulation or other
operations sharing the site.
e. The production brewery shall meet all off-street loading standards of Section 4-
3(fl of this Code.
f. No outdoor dining, drinking, or service.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of 2015.
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
4
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4840 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
\ Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 783.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Sargent
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: April 29, 2015
RE: New Hope — Breweries, Taprooms, and Brewpubs
FILE NO: 131.00--14.03
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope is currently considering amending its liquor licensing codes to
provide for the establishment of taprooms and brewpubs within the City. Before
finalizing the liquor licensing requirements, the City Council directed City staff and the
Planning Commission to examine this current popular business from a land use
perspective and provide recommendations as to appropriate locations within the City
and desired performance standards for regulating these uses.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Craft breweries and distilleries have become a popular business throughout Minnesota.
These businesses provide attractions to the communities in which they locate, helping
local economies. In considering brewery uses within New Hope, the City should have
an understanding of the types of breweries desired, and the modes in which different
breweries may distribute malt liquor. In addition, the City is considering licensure
requirements and performance standards for brewery uses. The following analysis
examines the common types of breweries and how they are distinguished from one
another, and provides a description of applicable licensure and performance standards.
Brewpubs. Brewpubs were defined as a business that both manufacturers and sells
on -sale malt liquor and growlers on the same site, in combination with a bar and
restaurant. Brewpubs are not currently permitted to wholesale and distribute beer for
sale at other retail liquor establishments.
Brewery/Taprooms. The City is considering an ordinance amendment to allow
production breweries with accessory brewer taprooms in the community. A brewery can
manufacture, process and warehouse beer for wholesale distribution in off -sale
packages to retail liquor establishments. The brewer's taproom may also directly retail
beer product for on-site consumption or for off-site consumption in growlers. A brewer
taproom is a room that is ancillary to the production brewery where the public can
purchase and/or consume only the beer produced onsite. A brewer with a taproom is
not allowed to sell other alcohol products not produced on-site. This is different from a
brewpub which may hold multiple on -sale liquor licenses. A brewer's taproom may or
may not be combined with food sales. Breweries with taprooms must stay within certain
production and sale thresholds set by State law.
Land Use Considerations.
Combined Commercial/Industrial Land Uses. Until recently, brewers were allowed to
brew and wholesale their product for off -sale consumption (a typical industrial activity),
OR to brew and sell to on -sale customers in a brewpub while not packaging their
product for off -sale consumption. Recent legislation has created the ability to conduct
the industrial and commercial activities together in the form of a brewer/taproom license.
Planning staff researched production brewery/taproom ordinance recently implemented
in other cities in an effort to understand how other communities have allowed such
uses.
The nature of brewer/taproom facilities is that they have both an industrial and
commercial component. According to State statutes, the brewing operation may include
up to 250,000 barrels of product annually, along with the packaging and warehousing
operation that would accompany the brewing activity. A taproom has the character of a
commercial tavern. The combination of these uses requires locations that may
accommodate both uses.
Zoning Ordinances typically segregate industrial and commercial activities to control the
types of traffic generated by such uses, to manage uses where noise or odors may
interfere with other activities, or to allow better clustering of commercial uses which
traditionally benefit from uninterrupted commercial land uses. Hence, to accommodate
the mix of uses allowed by a brewer/taproom license, an amendment to the zoning
ordinance is necessary to address the land use issues raised by the proposed facility.
Brewery/Taproom/Brewpub Locations. In reviewing the City's zoning districts, staff is
suggesting these uses be limited to the City's CB, Community Business District, the CC,
City Center District, and I Districts. As noted earlier, these popular uses can become an
attraction for the community and as such, they are consistent with the intent and
purpose of these City commercial zoning districts.
Production, manufacturing and warehousing are all permitted uses in the New Hope I
District. This district currently allows for a production brewery, however, the introduction
of a taproom raises concern for traffic, building design, and parking.
The City must carefully consider the impact of the industrial components of a production
brewery in the commercial districts. A brewery would need to demonstrate that there is
2
adequate space for the brewing, packaging, and potential warehousing and shipping of
large quantities of malt liquor on site. In addition, the transportation of malt liquor from a
commercial district parcel for sale at surrounding retail locations may result in an
increase in truck traffic within the City and will need to be managed.
The City must also consider the introduction of customer traffic for a taproom within an
industrial district. Brewery/taproom sites must offer the lot area for on-site parking,
proper access, and circulation so as not to be disruptive to the industries that may share
the lot in a multiple occupancy building or industries in surrounding areas.
Production Scale. Within the industrial districts, the City need not establish a
production limit. However, in the commercial zoning districts, the City may wish to limit
production to preserve the commercial character of the area. Minnesota State Statutes
limits production to 20,000 barrels annually for breweries also selling growlers. The City
may be more restrictive than the State. By statute, taproom retail sales are limited to
3,500 barrels of which 500 barrels may be off -sale growler sales. Recognizing this limit
in taproom sales, the City may choose to restrict total production in the commercial
districts to 10,000 barrels or less.
Shipping and Receiving. Within the City's industrial districts, most buildings and site
layouts are designed for truck traffic, shipping, and receiving. Smaller commercial lots,
however, have not generally all been designed for truck traffic. In this respect, the
location of a brewery/taproom that has ambitions for larger production and wholesaling
of product, must choose a commercial site that is capable of accommodating truck
traffic without intruding onto a public street or required parking.
Parkin /Access. The commercial districts allow for restaurants and entertainment
venues. In this respect, these sites are generally equipped to provide good site access
and convenient parking for taproom customers.
Industrial sites have generally been designed using parking ratios for production or
warehousing which are considerable lower than parking standards for retail or
restaurants. As such, the introduction of successful taprooms could present problems
for the industrial sites and adjoining neighbors if the on-site parking supply is
inadequate.
AncillaryUses. In our experience, the taproom rather than the brewery is generally the
primary use of the site initially until the product branding and product recognition is
established to allow for wholesale production. In this respect, the taprooms are taverns.
To expand customer attractions, some taprooms may promote ancillary uses (i.e.,
music, dancing, food trucks, outdoor beer gardens, etc.). Where these uses are
pursued, the City must have a complete understanding of the proposed operation to
evaluate the potential impact on the site and adjoining properties.
Zoning. In preparing the attached ordinance amendments, the City investigated other
communities and means to address the various land use issues within each zoning
district. Based on that analysis, we are recommending the following:
Brewpubs will be listed as permitted uses within both the CB and CC Zoning
Districts. This use will be held to all the same performance standards of a
restaurant.
2. Production breweries with taprooms will be listed as a conditional use within the
CB and CC Zoning Districts with the following conditions:
a. The brewery must be licensed by the State of Minnesota.
b. The brewery taproom must be licensed by the City of New Hope.
C. Growler sales must be licensed by the City of New Hope.
d. Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 10,000 barrels annually.
Of the 10,000 barrel production limit, onsite taproom retail sales shall not
exceed 3,500 barrels annually, 500 barrels of which may be sold off -sale
as growlers. The brewery shall annually submit production reports with
the request to renew a brewery taproom or off -sale malt liquor license.
e. The brewery facility provides adequate space for off-street loading and
unloading of all trucks greater than 22 feet in length. In the absence of off-
street loading, the City may impose limits on deliveries or shipments using
the public right of ways, including regulating the number of trucks per day
and the hours that deliveries are permitted.
f. Loading areas shall be located and designed so they are not visible from
adjoining public streets or adjoining residential zoning.
g. No outdoor storage is permitted on the site, with the exception that waste
handling (refuse and/or recycling) may occur in an enclosure that is fully
screened from adjoining streets and residential zoning.
h. No odors from the brewery may be perceptible beyond the property line.
Buildings must meet all Building and Fire Codes for the intended building
occupancy. The building and site design shall meet the New Hope Design
Guidelines and the performance standards of the New Hope Zoning
Ordinance.
j. The proposed building shall demonstrate adequate parking per the New
Hope zoning standards for all uses of the site.
n
3. Production breweries with taprooms will be allowed as conditional uses permitted
within the I Districts with the following conditions:
a. The brewery shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota.
b. The taproom shall be licensed by the City of New Hope.
C. Growler sales shall be licensed by the City of New Hope.
d. The applicant shall demonstrate adequate parking for the taproom using
the parking standards for restaurants, bars, and taverns established in the
New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
e. All parking areas shall be in good condition and meet all zoning standards
for surfacing, striping, and dimensions.
Taproom parking shall not interfere with traffic circulation on-site or on
public streets.
g. The production brewery shall meet all the off-street loading standards of
Section 4-3{f} of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
h. No outdoor dining/drinking or service arrangements.
E
T�- III; r l— II'f*L
-IL 3f -
rq
<` �i� - - :.�-- _ �- City of New Hope
I_ Imo.--
AS
F � r Lj 1 �
H
IMW�
.aee�
TI
-;ZI a' rt
-3�
+
fn' 1TT17 _ 1
ZONING
October 2406
Zoning Classifications
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-2 Singlejrm Family Residential
&3 Mediuim Density Residential
R-4 high Density Residential
R -g Senior/Disabled Residential
R -B Residential Business
R -O Residential Office
PUD Planned Use Development
UA R -PUD Res. Planned Use Development
CB Community Business
I Industrial
LB Limited Business
Open Space/Publio
Water
City Limits
Parcels Outside of City
City Parcels
al 711.--- i ! li ISI i jj i7 �H
ones e t
roo
is134134U-P\ced\svpmjeen\sane-2oa6.apr 51
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNLNG COMMISSION MINUTES April 7, 2015
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 Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Jim Brinkman, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen,
Christopher McKenzie, Greg Gehring, Roger Landy,
Absent: Wade English
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development, Aaron
Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Bob Paschke, Director of Public Works, Chris Long, City
Engineer, Emily Becker, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS No consent business.
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 15-02 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, request for a preliminary plat, rezoning
Item 4.1 of property from R-1, Single -Family to R-2, One and Two Family
Residential, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development, 7940 Winnetka Avenue, Centra Homes, Inc., petitioner,
Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, explained that the
petitioner is under contract to purchase the property located at the
Northwest corner of 5511' Avenue and Winnetka Avenue, the former
Winnetka Learning Center site, for the purpose of subdividing. This area is
located in Planning District 4, which specifically calls this area out for
redevelopment.
Mr. Sargent provided background information on the development,
detailing that the applicant will be platting 60 single-family housing units,
29 traditional family homes and 31 "detached townhomes" controlled by a
Homeowner's Association and by-laws. A Comprehensive Plan
amendment was approved to re -guide this area to Low Density/Medium
Density Residential. Poor soil conditions required Centra Homes to revise
the original plat layout. The architectural types of both Single Family and
Associated Maintained Housing that will be in the development were
presented.
Mr. Sargent stated that the applicant is also petitioning for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which will
allow the applicant flexibility to rezone the property and adjust setbacks,
lot widths and lot area requirements to meet their design, layout, and
density needs.
Mr. Sargent outlined the required and proposed setbacks and lot
requirements as shown below and displayed on a preliminary plat the lots
that would be in need of the proposed changes in requirements.
Sargent went on to explain the pedestrian access the petitioner was
proposing, which includes a 5 -foot sidewalk throughout the development
and pedestrian access from the development onto Winnetka Avenue
sidewalk system. He maintained that staff requires that a connection to Begin
Park be added and that a second pedestrian access point to Winnetka Avenue
be added.
Mr. Sargent stated that staff had some concerns regarding where guests of the
development's residents would park within the association -maintained area.
Centra Homes has submitted a revised plan and indicated that they will
provide on -street parallel parking spaces around the North and South side
of the private drive "loop" to help provide for extra parking. The private
streets along the areas that will include parking will be required to be
widened to 32 feet in width.
Sargent then addressed the submitted landscaping plan, which shows
utilization of a variety of new trees throughout the development, meeting
the minimum code requirements. The developers indicated that their
intent is to add more landscaping once they figure out the final grading
patterns throughout the development. Staff requires that the final
landscape plan will indicate where the added landscaping will be placed in
order for it to be incorporated into the development agreement.
In order to address poor soils within the development area, Sargent
explained that Centra Homes increased the size of the on-site storm water
pond. This pond incorporates an infiltration basin and will take in water
from surrounding areas, hopefully alleviating some area flooding. It will be
City -owned and maintained.
The Homeowner's Association, Sargent clarified, will be responsible for
snow storage. City Code requires that ten percent of the area of removal for
snow must be dedicated to the storage of said snow. The applicant
calculated the required amount of snow removal needed for the
development and determined that the area indicated on the site plan would
Planning Commission Meeting I April 7, 2015
R-2 District
(Traditional Single -Family)
R-2 District
(Association Maintained)
Required
Proposed
Required
Proposed
Front Yard
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
Side Yard,
Interior
10 feet
(5 feet along
garage)
7 feet
10 feet
(5 feet along
garage)
7 feet
Side Yard —Corner
20 feet
25 feet
20 feet
25 feet
Bear Yard
25 feet
40 feet
25 feet
35 feet
Lot Area
8,400 SF
8,397.9
8,400 SF
5,000 SF
Lot Width
70 feet
65 feet
70 feet
40 feet
Sargent went on to explain the pedestrian access the petitioner was
proposing, which includes a 5 -foot sidewalk throughout the development
and pedestrian access from the development onto Winnetka Avenue
sidewalk system. He maintained that staff requires that a connection to Begin
Park be added and that a second pedestrian access point to Winnetka Avenue
be added.
Mr. Sargent stated that staff had some concerns regarding where guests of the
development's residents would park within the association -maintained area.
Centra Homes has submitted a revised plan and indicated that they will
provide on -street parallel parking spaces around the North and South side
of the private drive "loop" to help provide for extra parking. The private
streets along the areas that will include parking will be required to be
widened to 32 feet in width.
Sargent then addressed the submitted landscaping plan, which shows
utilization of a variety of new trees throughout the development, meeting
the minimum code requirements. The developers indicated that their
intent is to add more landscaping once they figure out the final grading
patterns throughout the development. Staff requires that the final
landscape plan will indicate where the added landscaping will be placed in
order for it to be incorporated into the development agreement.
In order to address poor soils within the development area, Sargent
explained that Centra Homes increased the size of the on-site storm water
pond. This pond incorporates an infiltration basin and will take in water
from surrounding areas, hopefully alleviating some area flooding. It will be
City -owned and maintained.
The Homeowner's Association, Sargent clarified, will be responsible for
snow storage. City Code requires that ten percent of the area of removal for
snow must be dedicated to the storage of said snow. The applicant
calculated the required amount of snow removal needed for the
development and determined that the area indicated on the site plan would
Planning Commission Meeting I April 7, 2015
exceed this amount. Staff will require a snow removal plan if snow piles
exceed eight feet in height.
Sargent stated that the necessary findings of fact needed to rezone the
property and approve a Conditional Use Permit have been met.
Property owners within 350 feet, Sargent explained, were notified by mail
and a public hearing notice was published in the SunPost. The only
objection regarding this proposal that had been communicated to staff to
date was a letter written by a concerned citizen on April 4, 2015 addressing
concerns about parking availability and the potential increase in traffic and
property taxes. This was distributed to the Planning Commission and
Staff.
In conclusion, Mr. Sargent explained that Staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of a 60 parcel
subdivision and rezoning of the property from R-1, Single Family
Residential to R-2, One and Two Family Residential with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant pay a park dedication fee of $90,000 prior to
recording the final plat
2. The plat and title is subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney.
Sargent went on to explain that Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
1. The following minimum standards apply to the proposed
lots;
Traditional Lots, Including Block 1, Lots 1-4 and Block 2 and Block
6:
Minimum Lot Area 8,400 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 65 feet
Setbacks
Front Yard
25 feet
Side Yard - Interior
7.5 feet
Side Yard - Corner
20 feet
Rear Yard
25 feet
Association Maintained Lots, Including Block 2, Lots 5-11_ and
Blocks 3, 4, and 5,-
Minimum
:Minimum Lot Area 5,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 40 feet
Setbacks
Front Yard
25 feet
Side Yard - Interior
7.0 feet
Side Yard -- Corner
(on public street)
20 feet
Rear Yard
25 feet
Planning Commission Meeting a April 7, 2015
2. The houses constructed within the subdivision shall be
consistent with models provided by the applicant and approved
with this Planned Unit Development. Alternative models may
be approved by city staff, provided they offer similar finished
floor areas, meet all required setbacks, and maintain the exterior
finishes of the approved models.
3. To accommodate on -street parking on the north and south
sides of Block 4, the minimum street width in these areas shall be
increased to 32 feet in width.
4. Outlot A shall be owned by both the association and by each lot
owner in the association, each owning an equal and undivided
share of the outlot.
5. The applicant shall install a second sidewalk connection to the
Winnetka Avenue sidewalk aligned with the south edge of the
southern private street. The applicant shall also install a
pedestrian ramp and a striped crosswalk connecting the 55th
Avenue sidewalk to Begin Park. The location of said crossing
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
6. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan and
details that include:
a. The rear yard screening of double frontage lots in Blocks
1 and 3 along 55th Avenue.
b. A provision of two trees per lot in the traditional lots
with property owner flexibility in the placement of the
trees.
c. A provision of a typical association maintained lot
landscaping plan that locates front yard trees and
foundation plantings. Front yard trees cannot interfere
with driveway locations or utility services
7. The City Engineer and Public Works Department shall review
and approve the utility, grading and drainage plans and approve
the proposed utility and drainage easements related to location
and size
S. The applicant shall provide a description of existing easements
to be vacated.
9. The applicant shall expand the snow storage area to reflect the
expanded private street width and to provide 10% of the total
paved area of the association maintained homes, including
private streets with parking, sidewalks, and driveways. A snow
removal plan shall be included if the snow storage area is
overwhelmed with snow piles in excess of eight feet and/or
snow storage encroaching into adjoining lots.
10. The applicant shall adhere to all of the City Engineer
requirements as outlined in the Stantec letter dated 4/2/2015.
11. The applicant shall adhere to all of the West Metro Fire and
Rescue requirements as outlined in the letter dated 3/18/2015.
12. The developer shall enter into a development agreement and a
Planned Unit Development agreement with the approval of the
Final Plat.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned if the sidewalk along the North side of
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 7, 2015
55th Avenue and Winnetka Avenue would remain and questioned if
sidewalks were in fact needed in the development. Mr. Sargent said that
these sidewalks would remain and that the sidewalks assisted mobility
issues; Mr. Alan Brixius, City Planner, concurred that there is a need in the
community for sidewalks. Commissioner Brinkman also asked about
parking on Virginia and Utah Avenues, and Sargent replied that parking
would remain on these streets. Commissioner Brinkman was concerned
about who would be plowing the sidewalks. Mr. Sargent explained that it is
ultimately the property owner's responsibility to plow sidewalks. Brinkman
lastly inquired about snow storage and if Outlot B may be a possible area for
snow storage. Sargent responded that there are several contingencies that
would make it difficult for snow to be stored in this area,
Chair Svendsen questioned how the City, which would take over ownership
and maintenance of Outlot B, would access the area. Mr. Bob Paschke, Public
Works Director, maintained that there would not be an issue accessing this
area.
Commissioner McKenzie questioned where poor soils were found. Mr.
Sargent expounded that the area of the development that was found to have
poor soil was platted to be the location of the pond and went on to clarify
that said soils were better described as inadequate for construction. Sargent
disclosed that further investigation needed to occur regarding soils and that
there is a possibility that there are four lots to the west of Outlot B that are in
danger of having inadequate soil for construction. Mr. McKenzie was
concerned if the filtration basin was adequate and if sump pumps would be
used actively in the houses. Mr. Chris Long, City Engineer, maintained that
the filtration basin was adequate, and that sump drains would be installed off
the curb so that sump pumps could connect to them.
Commissioner McKenzie inquired if the driveways were of adequate size to
accommodate parking. Mr. Sargent addressed that there were designated
parking areas in the development for the Association Maintained Housing.
There was discussion about where No Parking signs on Utah Avenue would
be posted. Mr. Brixius asked for the record that the City verify with Public
Safety if No Parking signs are needed, as Utah Avenue is a public street.
Mr. Long addressed further concern about the filtration basin, explaining that
this area, along with the entire North side of the property, is being further
reviewed.
Ms. Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, added that there are additional
conditions to the recommended issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and
rezoning of 7940 Winnetka Avenue. It was addressed in the purchase
agreement between the City and Centra Homes that leasing of each home
after the initial sale for 12 months was prohibited, so that the homes would
be owner -occupied. Additionally, the Homeowners Association document
was subject to City Attorney Review and approval.
Chair Svendsen motioned that the applicant come forward to address the
Commission. Mr. David Pattberg, representative for Centra Homes, stepped
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 7, 2015
forward.
Mr. Pattberg first spoke to concerns about soil, stating inadequate soil would
be removed from the property. He then petitioned for removal from the
conditions the mandates of the second pedestrian access on Winnetka as well
as the pedestrian ramp on 5511' Avenue and Begin Park. He suggested that
the park fees be used for this endeavor.
Commissioner Brinkman, Chair Svendsen, and Commissioner Landy agreed
with the applicant that a second pedestrian access to Winnetka Avenue was
not needed. Suggestions were made that this area could either be
landscaped or that instead there be a connection to Begin Park.
Mr. Alan Brixius voiced concern about the soil in Lots One through Six of the
Single Family Development. Mr. Pattberg assured that the current
information showed that the soil would be adequate. Chair Svendsen asked
if there would be further exploratory information gathered. Pattberg said
that no further investigation will be done before development began.
Commissioner McKenzie was concerned about the amount of soil borings
taken in the proposed street section. Pattberg replied that the locations of the
streets were moved due to information gathered from the soil borings.
Commissioner Clark pointed out that not all of the area that is association
maintained has private streets and inquired if all residents in this area would
be paying association fees. Mr. Pattberg said that all residents of the
association will pay the same association fee. Commissioner Clark suggested
that the City be considered as a contractor for the private streets so as to
avoid members of the association objecting to paying the same fees
regardless of whether they live on a private street or not.
Chair Svendsen invited anyone from the audience to come forward to
address the applicant or staff. Jeremy Enge-Frey of Boisclar Corporation of
8007 Bass Lake Road stepped forward.
Mr. Enge-Frey clarified that Boisclar Corporation supports the proposed
Centra Homes development. Enge-Frey's concern is overcoming flooding
issues on his property. Boisclar has experienced two floods in the last five
years, and Enge-Frey states that there is concern about future flooding. Enge-
Frey asked that the Planning Commission take this in to consideration when
reviewing the plan. Mr. Long, City Engineer, stated that this is being
evaluated and effort is being made to alleviate this flooding.
Chair Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission. Being that there was no one else in the audience that wished to
speak at the public hearing, he asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt to
close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Svendsen opened opportunity for any further discussion. Svendsen
inquired who would maintain Outlot B. Mr. Robert Paschke stated that
Planning Commission Meeting 6 Apr2015
April 7,
Public Works would be responsible for this.
Chair Svendsen confirmed with Assistant City Attorney Stacy Woods that
two motions needed to pass.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
Item 4.1 approve PIanning Case 15-02, request of rezoning from R-1, Single -Family
to R-2, One and Two Family Residential located at 7940 Winnetka
Avenue, Centra Homes, Inc., petitioner, subject to the following
conditions with the following conditions:
1. The applicant pay a park dedication fee of $90,000 prior to
recording the final plat
2. The plat and title is subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney.
Voting in favor: Landy, Gehring, Clark, Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: McKenzie
Absent: English
Motion approved 7-1
Mr. Sargent requested a reason for the dissenting vote. It was explained
there was concern over some of the roads in Outlot A being under private
control of the homeowners association and too many properties on a public
street paying the homeowners association fee.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
approve Planning Case 15-02, a preliminary plat and Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development at 7940 Winnetka Avenue,
Centra Homes, Inc., petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site is rezoned to R-2 and through the approved
Conditional Use/Planned Unit Development, the following
minimum standards apply to the proposed lots:
Traditional Lots Including Block 1 Lots 1-4 and Block 2 and Block
6:
Minimum Lot Area 8,400 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 65 feet
Setbacks
Front Yard
25 feet
Side Yard - Interior
7.5 feet
Side Yard - Corner
20 feet
Rear Yard
25 feet
Association Maintained Lots Including Block 2 Lots 5-11 and
Blocks 3, 4, and 5:
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 40 feet
Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet
Side Yard - Interior 7.0 feet
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 7, 2015
Side Yard — Comer
(on public street) 20 feet
Rear Yard 25 feet
2. The houses constructed within the subdivision shall be
consistent with models provided by the applicant and approved
with this Planned Unit Development, Alternative models may
be approved by city staff, provided they offer similar finished
floor areas, meet all required setbacks, and maintain the exterior
finishes of the approved models.
3. To accommodate on -street parking on the north and south
sides of Block 4, the minimum street width in these areas shall be
increased to 32 feet in width.
4, Outlot A shall be owned by both the association and by each lot
owner in the association, each owning an equal and undivided
share of the outlot.
5. The applicant shall also install a pedestrian ramp and a striped
crosswalk connecting the 55th Avenue sidewalk to Begin Park.
The location of said crossing shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
6. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan and
details that include:
a. The rear yard screening of double frontage lots in Blocks
1 and 3 along 55th Avenue.
b. A provision of two trees per lot in the traditional lots
with property owner flexibility in the placement of the
trees.
c. A provision of a typical association maintained lot
landscaping plan that locates front yard trees and
foundation plantings. Front yard trees cannot interfere
with driveway locations or utility services
7 The City Engineer and Public Works Department shall review
and approve the utility, grading and drainage plans and approve
the proposed utility and drainage easements related to location
and size
8. The applicant shall provide a description of existing easements
to be vacated,
9. The applicant shall expand the snow storage area to reflect the
expanded private street width and to provide 10% of the total
paved area of the association maintained homes, including
private streets with parking; sidewalks, and driveways, A snow
removal plan shall be included if the snow storage area is
overwhelmed with snow piles in excess of eight feet and/or
snow storage encroaching into adjoining lots.
10. The applicant shall adhere to all of the City Engineer
requirements as outlined in the Stantec letter dated 4/2/2015.
11. The applicant shall adhere to all of the West Metro Fire and
Rescue requirements as outlined in the letter dated 3/18/2015.
12. The developer shall enter into a development agreement and a
Planned Unit Development agreement with the approval of the
Final Plat.
Planning Commission Meeting 0 April 7, 2015
13. The leasing of any home after the initial sale for 12 months is
prohibited.
14. The Homeowners Association document was subject to City
Attorney Review and approval.
15. Public safety must review and make a determination if parking
should be allowed on Utah Avenue.
Voting in favor. McKenzie, Landy, Gehring, Clark, Brinkman, Schmidt,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: English
Motion approved 8-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its April 27 meeting.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Chair Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee was held on March
Committee 19, 2015 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled for April 16, 2015.
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards Chair Svendsen stated that the Codes and Standards Committee was held
Committee March 25, 2015 and asked if there was anything to present from that meeting.
Item 5.2 Mr. Sargent believed that staff would be able to present information from
that meeting to the next Planning Commission Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Welcome Emily Emily Becker, Community Development Administrative Specialist, was
Becker introduced.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to
Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 3, 2015 as revised. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Brinkman asked about the potential development at 3661
Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. Mr. Sargent explained that he believed that
after meeting with City Staff, the prospective developer may have found the
project to be too cost prohibitive to pursue at this time.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
y'yy axr*.,.
Emily Becker, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 7, 2015