Loading...
050515 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 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: Jim Brinkman, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen, Christopher McKenzie, Wade English, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Scott Clark Absent: Greg Gehring Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development, Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, Emily Becker, Recording Secretary NEW BUSINESS New Planning Commission member, Bill Smith, was officially sworn in by Recording Secretary Becker. Item 3.1 PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 15-04 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, request for a seven foot rear yard setback variance in order to accommodate the construction of the Item 4.1 proposed garage located at 8717 Northwood Parkway, Lawrence and Armella Setten, petitioners. Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, explained that 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 reasons the applicant is interested in doing this, Mr. Chirpich clarified, are that the foundation of the current garage is failing, and a larger garage would better meet their storage needs and provide greater mobility for entering and exiting vehicles. The required rear yard setback in the R-1 District is 25 feet. The proposed new garage would have a setback of 18 feet from the rear property line, requiring a seven foot rear yard setback variance. Mr. Chirpich went on to introduce the staff’s findings in determining if the property meets Variance Zoning Code Criteria. It was explained that the property is unique in that 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. The rear yard abuts a public outlot rather than another private property. This provides a greater separation from the adjacent residential property. These conditions are not created by the property owner. Chirpich stated that the applicant’s proposed use has been found reasonable by staff. Attached garages are permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District. The setback from 25 to 18 feet, Chirpich added, will not alter the essential character of the locality or allow a use not permitted within the R-1 Zoning District. The variance will also not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or public safety, as the outlot towards which the variance is oriented provides significant separation between the proposed garage and the neighboring home to the east. Mr. Chirpich introduced other site issues of the property. The aerial photograph and the submitted surveys illustrate the illegal placement of a fence and two outbuildings within the outlot. These improvements must be moved within the private lot. Additionally, a permit must be obtained to bring the larger outbuilding that encroaches onto City property into compliance with City Code, as there is currently no permit issued. The three outbuildings on the lot will have to be reduced to two or less to be brought to compliance with the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District, which will be made possible to the applicant with the increased size of the garage. Finally, the applicants must identify all outdoor storage items to determine if they are legally permissible under the City Code. Mr. Chirpich stated that during the design review process, it was noted that the curb cut for the existing driveway is wider than the 24’ that is allowed by ordinance. The City Engineer has reviewed the site and existing curb conditions and recommended that the existing curb cut be allowed to remain in order to maintain the integrity of the roadway. The City Engineer offered the following comments: 1. The driveway width will be limited to 24’ from the street to the property line. 2. The difference in width should be made up in the “wings” that taper from the curb cut edge to the driveway. Mr. Chirpich explained that 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. 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. Mr. Chirpich added that Staff is generally in favor of the proposed variance, but offered a summary of both positions due to the general nature of variance requests. Arguments in Favor The site is guided and zoned for residential land use. Single  family homes with garages are a permitted use within the zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan promotes private reinvestment in  residential neighborhoods and directs the City to provide grater 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 development flexibility in the regulation of single family neighborhoods. The site has physical conditions that are unique to the property  that present practical difficulties in the home and garage design. The proposed reduced setback will not change the essential  character of the area and will not negatively impact the adjoining properties. Arguments Opposing There is room on the lot to accommodate an expanded garage in  a different configuration without a variance. 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. A 22 foot garage is not an unusual width and can be found throughout the City. Recommendation Staff recommended the following conditions of approval if the  Planning Commission agreed with the findings in favor of the variance: 1.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. 2.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. 3.If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property remains, it must be moved onto private property and meet the proper setbacks. The applicant will also be required to obtain a building permit to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code. 4.The existing fence and retaining wall along the east side of the property shall be removed from City property. 5.Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved into the garage and/or remaining outbuilding. Mr. Chirpich expounded that if the variance is not granted, the issues relating to the encroachments, outdoor storage, and number of allowable outbuildings would still be addressed through City ordinance and code enforcement. Chair Svendsen motioned that the applicant come forward to address the Commission. Petitioner Mr. Lawrence Setten, resident of 8717 Northwood Parkway, stepped forward. Mr. Setten clarified that the fence that is currently encroaching on city property was built prior to his occupying the property and would be removed. The retaining wall would also be removed if it posed an issue, but Setten would like to keep it as it prevents erosion of his garden. 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 Mr. Brinkman was concerned about the parking pad on the left of the driveway and questioned if it would remain and need to be expanded. Mr. Chirpich clarified that it was a condition of approval that the Settens resubmit a site plan with plans indicating dimensions and location of the parking pad. Commissioner Schmidt questioned if a variance would be needed to construct this parking pad. Mr. Alan Brixius, City Planner, clarified that a setback of three feet is required for recreational equipment and vehicles, and that there would likely be room for a parking pad in the proposed location. Chair Svendsen inquired if the material of the driveway would be replaced with a hard surface such as concrete, as the surface is currently gravel. Mr. Setten replied that the surface would be changed to a hard surface, but it has not yet been decided what type exactly. Chair Svendsen asked if the siding of the garage would be the same as the siding of the house. Mr. Setten explained that it would be a different type of siding but the color would match the siding of the house. Mr. Dean Johnson of Dean Johnson Homes, who has been contracted by Setten for the construction of this garage, asserted that the garage would have LP SmartSide siding with a different lap configuration than the house, and that Setten plans to side the house with this type of siding in the future as well. Mr. Johnson admitted that the calculations of the site plan were off but that a new site plan with the correct dimensions would be submitted. 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 Brinkman to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 15-04, request for seven foot rear yard setback variance in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed garage located at 8717 Northwood Parkway, Lawrence and Armella Setten, petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.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. 2.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. 3.If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property remains, it must be moved onto private property and meet the proper setbacks. The applicant will also be 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 required to obtain a building permit to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code. 4.The existing fence and retaining wall along the east side of the property shall be removed from City property. 5.Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved into the garage and/or remaining outbuilding. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English, Landy, Smith, Clark Voting against: None Absent: Gehring Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its May 26 meeting. Planning Case 15-05 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, request to consider a text amendment to Section 3-50 of the New Hope City Code exempting Item 4.2 municipal signs from adhering to provisions outlined by the Sign Code, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that The Codes and Standards Committee met on March 25, 2015 to review a text amendment proposal to the City’s Sign 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. Mr. Alger said that 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. Mr. Alger explained that 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. 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 Mr. Alger said that 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. Mr. Alger concluded that 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. Chair Svendsen opened the opportunity for questions. Ms. Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, added comments that the amendment must be based on valid time, place and manner restriction. She stated that she needs to do more legal research to conclude that it is a valid exemption, as there may be potential challenges. She asserted that other cities do have similar language in their Codes. She proposed that fficial sign Section 3-50(d)(2) be amended to read as follows: O means any type of sign described in the definitions herein that is of a public noncommercial nature or municipal purpose, including public notification signs, informational signs, safety signs, traffic signs and direction to public facility signs. Because of this proposed amendment, there was discussion as to whether or not the Commission should go through with the vote. Ms. Woods stated that she had anticipated that the Commission goes through with the vote but that it would be subject to review and confirmation. Mr. Jeff Sargent clarified that the amendment was brought to the Planning Commission for review because Planning Commission administers signs on a regular basis, and the intent was to get the Commission’s input and feedback. He clarified that signs are addressed in the Building Code, not the Zoning Code. He stated that there would likely not be issue with modifying the amendment by the time this case would be brought to City Council on May 26. th Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 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 subject to and including the revisions stated by Assistant City Attorney Woods and subject to review concerning any potential issues 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 before consideration by the City Council. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English, Landy, Smith, Clark Voting against: None Absent: Gehring Motion approved 8-0 Planning Case 15-06 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, request to consider a text amendment to Section 4-20 and 8-16 of the New Hope City Code in Item 4.3 relation to the requirements for truck and trailer rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Aaron Chirpich acknowledged that 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 clear 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, Mr. Chirpich explained, staff has discovered that the zoning code does not allow truck and trailer rentals in the Industrial District. Staff is in favor of allowing this as an accessory use to an approved Conditional Use Permit for a self storage facility. Mr. Chirpich said that 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. Mr. Chirpich stated that Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments. 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 Chair Svendsen asked for clarification on where trucks would be allowed to park. Mr. Chirpich clarified that trucks do not need to be parked in designated outdoor storage areas, but that they can park anywhere where there is a designated parking area. Mr. Alan Brixius suggested that the storage term in the ordinance amendment may be confusing it be changed designated display area to separate from parking. Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Ms. Woods clarified that because two separate ordinances, Ordinance No. 15-06 and Ordinance No. 15-07, were being amended; two motions were Item 4.3 needed for Planning Case 15-06. Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 15-06, request to consider a text amendment to Section 4-20 of the New Hope City Code in relation to the requirements for truck and trailer rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner, changing storage to display areas. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English, Landy, Smith, Clark Voting against: None Absent: Gehring Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its May 26 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 15-06, request to consider a text amendment to Section 8-16 of the New Hope City Code in relation to the requirements for truck and trailer rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English, Landy, Smith, Clark Voting against: None Absent: Gehring Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its May 26 meeting. Planning Case 15-08 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.4, request to consider a text amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17, and 4-20 of the New Hope City Item 4.4 Code to provide for the establishment of taprooms and brewpubs, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger informed the Commission that The City Council discussed a possible amendment to the city’s liquor licensing codes to provide for 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 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. Alger explained the differences between brewpubs, taprooms and production facilities and offered definitions of each to the Planning Commission. Mr. Alger explicated that 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. Alger stated that some considerations to be made include the combination of commercial and industrial land uses, appropriate locations, production scale, shipping and receiving, parking and access, and ancillary uses. Alger said that 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. Alger noted that the proposed conditional use requirements for the CB and CC zoning districts differ from those in the I zoning district. Chair Svendsen showed concern about Page 4, Section 6-17(f). of the ordinance, which prohibits outdoor dining, drinking and service. He declared that many taprooms have outdoor facilities. Mr. Alan Brixius said that he would modify this section. He explained that he had added this prohibition, as outdoor dining may not work in some industrial sites as it may not be compliant with other industrial uses. He went on that outdoor dining could be allowed, subject to conditions that will set forth performance standards. Chair Svendsen also inquired about restrictions on food trucks, as food trucks often park near similar facilities serving as their foodservice. Mr. Alger clarified that food trucks must maintain a distance of 100 feet from the entrance of any other permanent food establishment on a separate lot, as measured from the entrance of the building. Commissioner Clark inquired how taprooms and brewpubs would be defined in terms of parking regulations. Mr. Brixius clarified that they would adhere to the same parking regulations as Restaurant/Tavern/Bar & Clubs. Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015 no further discussion, he entertained a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Item 4.4 Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 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, subject to amending Section 4-20(e)(17)(f) to allow outdoor dining and set forth performance standards. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English, Landy, Smith, Clark Voting against: None Absent: Gehring Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its May 26 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Chair Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee was held on April 16, 2015 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled for May Committee 14, 2015. It was stated there was potential for two cases to be reviewed at Item 5.1 this meeting, one potential case a variance. Codes and Standards Mr. Jeff Sargent stated that the next Codes and Standards Committee has not yet been scheduled. Committee Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS No new business. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 7, 2015. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Svendsen once again welcomed Commissioner Smith, and it was decided that Commissioner Smith would serve on the Design and Review Committee and that Commissioner Landy would serve as Floater between the Committees. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Emily Becker, Recording Secretary 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015