Loading...
060518 Planning6 0 MW 97- A mi. -W �A�VMI 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, June 5, 2018 7:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 PC 18-02, Variance to allow second curb cut and driveway at 8416 27th Avenue North, Mark Wagner, petitioner 4.2 PC 18-03, Discussion of New Hope 2040 Comprehensive Plan, city of New Hope, petitioner S. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Design and Review Committee - next meeting 5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. in Parks & Recreation Conference Room 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Approve February 6, 2018, Planning Commission minutes 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 Report Date: June 1, 2018 Planning Case: 18-02 Petitioner: Mark Wagner Address: 8416 27th Avenue North Project Name: 8416 27th Avenue North driveway variance Project Description: Variance to allow for second curb cut/driveway Planning Request: Variance I. Type of Planning Request Variance II. Zoning Code References Section: 4-36 Administration — Variances III. Property Specifications Zoning: R-1, single-family residential Location: 8416 27th Avenue North Adjacent Land Uses: North: R-1, single-family residential (New Hope) West: R-1, single-family residential (New Hope) South: Single-family residential (Golden Valley) East: R-1, single-family residential (New Hope) Site Area: 0.27 acres Planning District: Planning District 16. The comprehensive plan states that the streetscape along 27th Avenue North is in need of improvement and that scattered site single- family redevelopment is needed for select sites. It encourages that the city provide a variety of housing types, styles, and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. IV. Background The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the installation of a curb cut/driveway at the northwest corner of 8416 27th Avenue North. The proposed curb cut/driveway would provide access to the side and rear yards of the corner lot from Zealand Avenue North. A curb cut/driveway currently exists at the southeast corner of the property, with access to 27th Avenue North. The City Code limits single-family Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 1 6/1/18 uses to one driveway access per lot. The applicant is requesting a variance as a result of safety issues related to accessing 27th Avenue North with a boat/trailer. According to the applicant, entering and exiting the driveway on 27th Avenue North with a boat/trailer attached to a truck is difficult and dangerous. An incline on 27th Avenue North makes the applicant's driveway difficult to see for westbound traffic until reaching a point 500 feet from the driveway. The applicant also states that the hedgerow located in the front yard of the property to the east makes viewing oncoming traffic from the east difficult. The hedgerow is located just north of the sidewalk that abuts to 27th Avenue North and is approximately 15 feet tall. In 2016, the applicant installed a 10 -foot by 50 -foot concrete pad at the northwest corner of the lot to be used as a patio and for the storage of recreational vehicles. The requested curb cut would provide access to the existing concrete pad. Property owners are not allowed to drive over curbs with vehicles or recreational vehicles. If the applicant wishes to park recreational vehicles on the concrete pad without installing a curb cut, it would be necessary to access the pad from the existing driveway on 27th Avenue North, by driving through the side/rear yards. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing concrete pad 18 feet to the west, where the curb cut would be located. The concrete pad would not be widened, and would maintain an eight -foot setback from the northern property line and a three-foot setback from the northern drainage and utility easement. The flared ends of the driveway would widen 18 -inches on each side near the Zealand Avenue North curbline, resulting in a 13 -foot wide curb cut. V. Zoning Analysis A. Plan Description 1. Curb cuts Section 4-3(e)(4)h.10. of the City Code limits single-family uses to one driveway access per lot. Some single-family properties within the city have multiple curb cuts. Some are legal nonconforming uses that were lawfully established, but do not conform to the applicable requirements of the City Code. Others may have been installed as a result of a variance. There may also be instances of multiple curb cuts that have been installed without the city's knowledge and/or approval of a permit. In the 1970s and 1980s, the City Council considered several requests for second curb cuts on residential properties, some of which were approved while others were denied. More recently, in 1997, the City Council approved a variance to allow a second curb cut at a residential property at 2865 Quebec Avenue North. The property owner requested the variance to facilitate the loading and unloading of disabled family members. The City Council also granted a variance to allow a second curb cut on a residential property at 9117 35th Avenue North in 2003, as part of a housing expansion focused on improving accessibility for elderly residents. Curb cuts may not be located less than 40 feet from an intersection of two or more street rights-of-way and may not be located less than 40 feet from another curb cut. Curb cuts may not exceed 24 feet in width (residential, two -car garage), measured at a point setback 20 feet from the property line. Curb cut openings must be located a minimum of three -feet from side yard lot lines in the R-1, single-family residential zoning district. The proposed curb cut at 8416 27th Avenue North meets all of these requirements. Planning Case Report I8-02 Page 2 6/1/18 2. Recreational vehicles Recreational vehicles are defined as self-propelled vehicles or vehicles stored on licensed trailers which are used primarily for recreational -leisure time activities including, but not limited to campers, tent trailers, motor homes or other vehicles used for temporary living quarters, boats, canoes, kayaks, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, golf carts, race cars, stockcars, motorcycles, utility trailers, off-road vehicles, and similar vehicles or equipment. No more than three recreational vehicles or equipment may be stored outside as exterior storage on a property. Any recreational equipment or vehicles stored on a property in excess of three must be stored inside of a building. The boat is considered a recreational vehicle, and the property does not store more than three recreational vehicles on-site. 3. Setbacks Recreational vehicles parked in the front yard (abutting 27th Avenue North) must be setback 15 feet from the street curb and may not encroach onto any sidewalk. When staff visited the property on May 24, 2018, the propeller for the boat's motor was encroaching onto the sidewalk, creating a safety hazard for pedestrians. Trash containers were stored in between the truck and garage and there appeared to be approximately 10 feet in between the front of the truck and the garage. The truck and trailer could be parked closer to the garage to ensure that the motor does not encroach onto the sidewalk. Recreational vehicles parked in the side yard (abutting Zealand Avenue North) and rear yard (abutting property to the north) must maintain a three-foot setback from side and rear property lines. The concrete pad is currently setback eight feet from the northern property line. 4. Surfacing Recreational vehicles parked in the tront yard (abutting 27th Avenue North) must be stored on bituminous, asphalt or other hard surface material that is durable, weather resistant, and suitable to control dust and drainage and at a minimum consists of two inches of rock or other rock -type material. Landscaped yard or grass areas are not suitable for front yard storage. Recreational vehicles parked in the side yard (abutting Zealand Avenue North) and rear yard (abutting property to the north) need not be stored on a hard surface. 5. Open Space In residential zoning districts, buildings and structures of any type, parking areas or other features may not occupy more than 65% of the lot area resulting in less than 35% open space. If the driveway were to be installed, the lot would be comprised of approximately 62% open space, exceeding the 35% minimum requirement. 6. Screening Recreational vehicles parked in the front yard (abutting 27th Avenue North) need not be screened. Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 3 611118 Recreational vehicles parked in the side yard (abutting Zealand Avenue North) and rear yard (abutting property to the north) must be "partially but adequately screened to break up the visual appearance of the exterior storage from adjoining properties through landscaping or fencing." A hedgerow is located between the subject property and property to the north, partially screening items that are stored on the concrete pad. 7. Traffic Count Hennepin County traffic counts from 2017 indicate that an average of 11,000 vehicles pass the subject property on any given weekday. The street is classified as a minor arterial, similar to 42nd Avenue North, Bass Lake Road, and Winnetka Avenue '_North. Traffic volumes are comparable to those along Winnetka Avenue North and significantly less than those along 42nd Avenue North and Bass Lake Road. 8. Sightlines The City Code addresses landscaping within site visibility triangles on corner lots, however, it does not regulate landscaping on standard lots. The city cannot require that the property owner to the east trim or remove the hedgerow located in their front yard. Private property owners may not trim branches or shrubs that do not encroach onto their property. 9. Permits The city requires a driveway/street excavation permit for driveway replacement or installation at residential properties. The same permit is also required for curb cut alterations. Permits are not required for the installation of concrete pads/patios. New driveways must be constructed per city standard details STR-9 and STR-30 (attached with memorandum from city engineer). B. Zoning Code Criteria 1. Variance The purpose of ,i 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: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the city's zoning code. Findings. Section 4-3(d)(9) of the New Hope City Code allows for the storage of recreational vehicles on single-family lots. The applicant is pursuing this use. Currently, the applicant stores a boat in the driveway that abuts 27th Avenue North. This requires the applicant to back the boat and trailer onto 27th Avenue North when exiting the property. This maneuvering arrangement presents a safety concern due to the street's traffic volumes, traffic speed, and sightlines. Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 4 6/1/18 The applicant is requesting to install a curb cut/driveway at the northwest corner of the lot, abutting Zealand Avenue North. This driveway would be located on a local street at a location that offers safer access and egress as compared to 27th Avenue North. The variance would allow the property owner to use their property in a manner that is allowed to other homes in the district while mitigating the traffic safety concern. (2) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property under consideration and not created by the property owner. Findinss. Arguments in favor of the variance focus on safety issues along 27th Avenue North. The street carries high traffic volumes and traffic speeds are much greater than those on a local street. The street grades on 27th Avenue :North present sightline issues for westbound traffic while approaching the subject property. A hill east of the property limits visibility and reduces the time allowed for motorists to slow down. Additionally, landscaping at the property to the east reduces traffic visibility for motorists exiting the driveway onto 27th Avenue North. These conditions are beyond the applicant's control. Owning a boat and opting to store it at the subject property is within the applicant's control. Alternative options include storing the boat at another location, such as a self -storage facility or another off-site location. The property owner may also make alterations to the lot to allow access to the side or rear yard from the existing driveway. Future property owners that do not own boats will not face the same issues, but if the variance is granted, will have a second curb cut/driveway. (3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or permit a use not allowed within the respective zoning district. Findings. The proposed variance would create a second driveway at the subject property, which would provide access to side and rear yards and allow for the storage of the applicant's boat. The curb cut/driveway would be consistent with the driveways for properties located to the north, west, and northwest of the lot, all of which abut Zealand Avenue North. The applicant states that the driveway would be used exclusively for boat storage, which implies that it will be used less frequently than the driveways leading to the other lots. If the property owner (or a future property owner) elected to use the driveway as a parking area for a standard vehicle, there would be no restriction on how frequently it could be used. The impact of the potential curb cut/driveway on the property to the north must also be considered. The driveway and parking area would be located in front of the home located at 2708 Zealand Avenue and will be visible to this property owner. A hedgerow that is located along the property line blocked approximately half of the camper that was parked on the concrete pad when staff visited the site on May 24, 2018. The hedgerow will block most of the boat and trailer, unless trimmed. It should be noted that recreational vehicles can be stored in this area with or without a hard surface or driveway. The challenge that the property owner currently encounters is accessing the space without the curb cut access from Zealand Avenue North. Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 5 6/1/18 (4) 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 proposed second driveway is intended for the storage of the applicant's boat. In this regard, the driveway will not have the same level of activity as the main driveways or other driveways on Zealand Avenue North. The proposed location would provide site access from a local street, which would mitigate safety issues associated with backing a boat onto 27th Avenue North. In this respect, the variance meets this criterion. (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. Findings. Arguments in favor of the variance focus on safety issues along 27th Avenue North. The street carries high traffic volumes and traffic speeds are much greater than those on a local street. The street grades on 27th Avenue North present sightline issues for westbound traffic while approaching the subject property. A hill east of the property limits visibility and reduces the time allowed for motorists to slow down. Additionally, landscaping at the property to the east reduces traffic visibility for motorists exiting the driveway onto 27th Avenue North. b. Practical difficulties may also include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Findings. Not applicable to this request. c. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute a practical. difficulty if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. Findings. The practical difficulties are not the result of economic conditions. 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. Findings. Other corner lots that front on collector or arterial streets exist throughout New Hope. In this light, similar requests may arise. The applicant has identified a number of practical difficulties that prevent the safe use of their property in a manner that is allowed to other lots in the same zoning district. In consideration of this variance request, it must be determined if the cited difficulties in total make this property unique and warrant the approval of a variance. Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 6 6/1/18 C. Design & Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met on May 17, 2018, to review the application. The committee was generally supportive of the request for a variance but had concerns about setting a precedent for similar properties. D. Anyroval 1. Type of Approval i. Variance — quasi-judicial 2. Timeline i. Date Application Received: May 11, 2018 iai. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: July 10, 2018 iii. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: September 8, 2018 VI. Notification Property owners within 500 feet of the parcel were notified of the public hearing by mail, a legal notice was published in the Sun Post newspaper, and a "Notice of Land Use Petition" sign was installed at the corner of 27th and Zealand avenues. The city received several inquiries and some concerns from neighbors who have seen the sign. VII. Summary The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the installation a curb cut/driveway at the northwest corner of 8116 27th Avenue North. The proposed curb cut/driveway would be the second curb cut located at the property, providing access to the side and rear yards from Zealand Avenue North. The City Code limits single-family uses to one driveway access per lot. The applicant cites safety concerns related to accessing 27th Avenue North with a boat/trailer as justification for the variance. An incline on 27th Avenue North makes the applicant's driveway difficult to see for westbound traffic and a hedgerow located in the front yard of the property to the east makes viewing oncoming traffic from the west difficult. In 2016, the applicant installed a 10 -foot by 50 -foot concrete pad at the northwest corner of the lot to be used as a patio and for the storage of recreational vehicles. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing concrete pad 18 feet to the west, where the curb cut would be located. The concrete pad would not be widened and would maintain an eight -foot setback from the northern property line and three-foot setback from the northern drainage and utility easement. VIII. Recommendation There are arguments both in favor and against granting the requested variance. Staff is taking a neutral standpoint on the request and offers the following arguments both for and against the request. a. Arguments Opposing the Variance: 1. Storing the boat at the property is the property owner's choice. Alternative options include storing the boat at another location, such as a self -storage facility or another off-site location. Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 7 6/1/18 2. The practical difficulties that exist will not apply to future property owners who do not own boats. If the variance is granted, the second curb cut/driveway will continue to exist. b. Arguments in Favor of the Variance: 1. Traffic volumes and speed on 27th Avenue North present safety issues for accessing and egressing the property. 2. Street grades on 27th Avenue North present sightline issues for westbound traffic while approaching the property. The hill east of the property limits visibility and reduces the time allowed for motorists to break or stop to allow the boat to be maneuvered. 3. Landscaping at the property to the east reduces traffic visibility for motorists exiting the driveway onto 27th Avenue North. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for a variance to allow for the installation of a second cut/driveway, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with replacement of the street curb and driveway installation. 2. The storage area shall be screened to a height of six feet along the north property line. 3. The applicant shall obtain a driveway/street excavation permit for the curb cut/driveway installation. The permit shall be finalized after installation of the curb cut/driveway and an inspection by city staff. 4. The curb cut/driveway shall be constructed per city standard details STR-9 and STR-30. 5. The curb cut/driveway installation shall be completed by July 31, 2018, so as not to interfere with street maintenance scheduled for Zealand Avenue North in August of 2018. Attachments • Application (May 11, 2018) • Aerial map • Site photos • Northwest Associated Consultants memorandum from Alan Brixius (May 15, 2018) • Stantec Consulting Services letter from Chris Long (May 17, 2018) Planning Case Report 18-02 Page 8 6/1/18 PLANNING APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope, 4401 Xyton Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 Case # �PC % b-0 -2- Planning Deadline 5-k l-- IS Receipt # Received by Basic Fee Deposit -:�>6c) l' So Land Use Petition Signs(s) -A is Name of Appficant:_ 1 i � �o I /i $L A fn Phone: _ Oro - r$o 6 Applicant Address �y [y Z Ay c. I'k!,,L rl4-r Street Location of Property: Z 7 r� Avc PID: Legal Description of Property: OWNER OF RECORD: Name: (' ' Ar%- tJaq'j.e.r- Add ress: �v 2 A v t_ A) a,r � Me t� li � � 1 � /U 7-7 Home Phone"!�-90 +� z t' Work Phone: Fax: Applicants nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: OL-hn -- r Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) 4l� f VIOle% Com. �10 0, 110 w 'I 5cC-0e1 j1 Aora did �L�1Cli✓���enl •d + t Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary) L{ j s �'- T�O op 1, 5 e cro-Acl Why Should Request be Granted: ,!5 r-- �Jc /47�, c�4 r— v+ -t — (attach narrative to application form if necessary) GICommDeAPLANNINGNISC ITEMMannin® applica6on.doc (01.78) Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and/or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city. There are three city consultants — legal, planning, and engineering _ that generate additional expenses. Expenses incurred that exceed the amount of the zoning deposit will be billed and are the responsibility of the applicant. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 6D days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Department will notify yqyAf all meetings. Signed: Fee Dimer (print or. Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Certified Lot Survey: Legal Description Adequate: Legal Ad Required: Date of Design & Review Meeting: _ Date of Planning Commission Meeting: By Planning Commission on: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: FOR CITY USE ONLY Yes No Required Yes No Required Yes No Required Yes No Required Approved: Denied: Approved: Denied: Why should request be granted: There are many reasons that my request for an allowance of a second driveway should be granted. The most compelling reason is related to the health and safety of the myself and the individuals using Medicine Lake Road. This situation is very unique and unlikely to be representative of any other property in the city of New Hope. Medicine Lake road is an arterial roadway which delivers collector roads to highway 169. My property, 8416 Medicine Lake Road, is located roughly six tenths of a mile, as such most of the traffic collected by Medicine Lake Road passes my property, while on their way to highway 169. This heavy concentration of traffic combined with the fact that I own and tow a boat behind my truck creates a dangerous situation every time I am entering or exiting my current driveway. This dangerous situation is made even more dangerous due to several factors out of my control. Below is an image to which shows where my home is in relation to highway 169. Bral ing/Stopping Distances The first factor, I will refer to is the natural elevation gain why traveling west bound on Medicine Lake Road. The incline makes M it impossible to see vehicles entering or exiting my driveway 0 „ I 13 unless you are within 500ft of my driveway. Highway traffic andm safety engineers have some general guidelines they have '~ l 55 devela ed over the years and hold now as standards. At 40 mph- 90 � - 43 P J 95 513 I -n guidelines show it would take 164 ft to stop, which is more than a K 4` i,8.;_ . 76 4t' of the distance to my driveway once it is visible while driving s i 66 97 up the incline. If 40 mph was the fastest that people drove on $11 173' "g 1� 11° Medicine Lake Road, I think it would still be risky, but not truly 600 Be 172 in dangerous, but people easily surpass 40 mph when driving down ;r ,S Medicine Lake Road past my property. 27 ( IS I 56 I& t� 2" F 304 h#soara Caurt O i RlniW 9Mm . - Rohbinedele® Sonlah knmer dl Hol -day Stillonetores© ';a 5 W% r 26th A"N MOO.Lake Rd Lakerldpe Wine Mi4cloo Lake Rd and SpUft R p R Twin Cities Spurts Caldc 2 h M.e wNrt� P pMedley Perk Tawnhaus& g sea v°M x I�ew Com. � Bral ing/Stopping Distances The first factor, I will refer to is the natural elevation gain why traveling west bound on Medicine Lake Road. The incline makes M it impossible to see vehicles entering or exiting my driveway 0 „ I 13 unless you are within 500ft of my driveway. Highway traffic andm safety engineers have some general guidelines they have '~ l 55 devela ed over the years and hold now as standards. At 40 mph- 90 � - 43 P J 95 513 I -n guidelines show it would take 164 ft to stop, which is more than a K 4` i,8.;_ . 76 4t' of the distance to my driveway once it is visible while driving s i 66 97 up the incline. If 40 mph was the fastest that people drove on $11 173' "g 1� 11° Medicine Lake Road, I think it would still be risky, but not truly 600 Be 172 in dangerous, but people easily surpass 40 mph when driving down ;r ,S Medicine Lake Road past my property. 27 ( IS I 56 I& t� 2" F 304 Here is an image taken looking west bound from about 500 feet away from my driveway. As you can see the incline completely obscures my driveway and any vehicles entering or exiting it. The second factor is that from my driveway west bound traffic is not visible due to a large hedge that is on my neighbor's properties. The hedge runs the length of their properties, and completely blocks the sightline to see vehicles heading westbound toward my driveway. As you can see in the picture below taken on September 14th, 2017. Sightlines to traffic is completely obscured. Here is another view of the hedge taken by Google and visible in the street view of Medicine Lake Road. If you look closely at the last image you can see the tail of my boat, however the attached truck is completely obscured. If drivers cannot see me in my truck about to back up, the same is true for me, I cannot see the drivers heading toward me as I start to back out of my driveway. The next picture gives an idea of how much of Medicine Lake Road gets blocked while entering or exiting my driveway. You can also see How far I am already into the roadway before I am able to see west bound traffic. As you can see, I am well into the road, this in and of itself is pretty dangerous, but sometimes drivers don't want to wait for me to finish entering or exiting my driveway and they try to drive around me. This includes driving on the wrong side of the road, into what would be oncoming traffic (see below). There is a simple solution to the dangerous situation that all of these factors have created. My property is unique in that it has all the features making it dangerous, but it is also unique in the fact that it is a corner lot and has the ability to allow for a second driveway. That second driveway would be on Zealand Ave. A residential street with much less traffic. It also is mostly flat In 2016, 1 had a 10x50 concrete pad put in my back yard for use as a patio and recreational vehicle storage. The next page has a diagram of my properties current layout. Current Properly Layout Kedge 8416 2781 Ara. Nord% New Hope, MN 56427 rdws h K Dairen s aqe amt tV Eassm" loft Corsets Ptlb! Reawft VWM 9 - mg, wit :an V c 4 Back aoR 96.7e 65% AM PaW I YO R j i— t I 90R 27th Ave North 1 Medicine Lake Road What I would like to do is add onto the current patio and cut the curb making for a second driveway for storing the boat on my property. Site plan attached at end. Proposed Changes Shown in Green Hodp 6 R drsnepa end utd�ly E.eemem 1011 Cavrete Pilo! Remeftn Vehicle St -w �e>ti M Rt Here is a representation of what i believe it would look like from overhead: Current L_ G I i�; 1 R �1f.1 Proposed - i In summary, here are the main points outlined previously on why my request should be granted: a Public Health and Safety Issue • Unique to my property alone • Sightline of west bound traffic from my driveway is impaired • Sightline of my driveway by west bound traffic is impaired • Boat storage is an acceptable use of my property • Site plan shows a narrow curb cut of only 13 ft wide (10 ft + 18 inches on each side) 1• V C 10 C" 27th Ave North / Medicine Lake Road r f�le M, . IFx. A _ r • 1 � v A _ r V'�In. ttt or . .... FW Av .r `+ r, 3 �- V'�In. ttt or . .... FW Av .r `+ r rt Y R'�,il+ dK le 4 a ! 'tA�IP.a — _r�� '¢e�. -d� + MMM •rt ,,, ell, F � , NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANT'S, INC. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MIS! 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Jeff Sargent FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: May 15, 2018 RE: City of New Hope — Wagner Driveway Variance 8416 27th Avenue N. FILE NO: 131.01 18.02 BACKGROUND Mr. Mark Wagner has submitted an application requesting a variance to allow a second driveway on a single family lot for property located at 8416 27th Avenue N (Medicine Lake Road). This lot takes direct access form 27th Avenue which is classified as a Minor Arterial Street in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. As a Minor Arterial, 27th Street carries higher traffic volumes at higher traffic speeds than a local city street. These features along with the street design (hills) and the landscaping on the adjoining property to the east create an unsafe condition for the property owner when backing his boat out of his driveway. To address this situation the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a second driveway onto their lot from Zealand Avenue. The New Hope zoning code limits single family lots to one driveway 1 curb cut ( Section 4-3(e)(4)h.10). A variance is required to allow the second driveway. The following pages of this report analyze the request against the City's variance review criteria. ISSUES ANALYSIS Variance Criteria. The applicants have applied for a variance to allow a second driveway at 8416 27th Avenue North. The New Hope zoning code outlines the following criteria when considering a variance: 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: The New Hope Zoning Code Section 4-3 (d) (9) allows for the storage of recreational vehicles on single family lots. This use is being pursued by the applicant. Currently, the applicant stores their boat within their driveway per city code. This requires them to back the boat and trailer onto 27th Avenue. This maneuvering arrangement presents a safety concern due to the street's traffic volumes, traffic speeds and sight lines along the street. The applicant is requesting to install a second driveway into their rear yard from Zealand Avenue to allow them to store their boat on their site. This driveway would be located on a local street at a location that offers safer access and egress than 27th Avenue. The variance request will allow the property owner to use their property in a manner that is allowed to other homes in the district while mitigating existing traffic safety concern (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 applicant's submitted information makes the argument that there are practical difficulties unique to their property, which has not been created by the property owner. They offer the following findings: • Their lot accesses onto 27th Avenue, which is classified as a Minor Arterial Street. This street carries higher traffic volumes, higher traffic speeds than a city local street. The traffic volumes and speeds complicate site access and egress. This is particularly true when maneuvering a boat. • The street grades on 27th Avenue present sight line issues for west bound traffic passing the lot in question. A hill east of the property limits visiability which along with the 40 MPH traffic speed limits the braking distance for automobiles that will need to stop to allow boat maneuvering onto the street. • Landscaping on the property to the east of the applicant's property further reduces traffic visiability of the motorist backing out into 27th Avenue. This condition is beyond the control off the applicant. The applicant cites these conditions as being practical difficulties unique to his property that prevents them from using their property in a manner that is allowed other lots within the same zoning district. The requested variance is intended to mitigate safety issues for the property owner and motorists on 27th Avenue. (3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or permit a use not allowed within the respective zoning district. K Comment: The proposed variance will create a second driveway for 8426 27t' Avenue off of Zealand Avenue. This driveway will provide access to the lot's rear yard to allow for the storage of the applicant's boat. The drive will replicate the other lots on the same block which all have Zealand Avenue drive way access. The applicants driveway is to be used for boat storage as such its use will be less frequent than the other lots. An issue that requires attention is the introduction of the driveway and boat storage to this lot and its impact on home at 2708 Zealand Avenue. The driveway and boat storage area will be located forward of the home at 2708 Zealand Avenue and will be visible to this home owner. There is a landscape hedge separation between the two properties; however, the hedge is only 3 to 4 feet in height. The City will need to determine if additional screening will be required for the storage area. (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 proposed second driveway is intended for the storage of the applicant's boat. In this regard, the driveway will not have the same level of activity as the main driveways. The proposed location will provide site access from a local street which will mitigate the safety issues related to backing boat onto 27th Avenue. In this respect the variance meets this criterion. (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. Comment: See previous comments. b. Practical difficulties may also include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Comment: Not Applicable c. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute a practical difficulty if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. Comment: The practical difficulties are not the result of economic conditions. 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 City does have other corner lots that front on collector or arterial streets, in this light, a similar request may arise. The applicant has identified a number of practical difficulties that prevent the safe use of their property in a manner 3 that is allowed other lots in the same zoning district. In consideration of this variance the city must determine if the all the cited difficulties in total make this site unique and warrant an approval of the variance from the City's zoning standard. RECOMMENDATION Based on our review of the information submitted on behalf of the property at 8416 27th Avenue regarding the request for variance to allow a second driveway on a single family lot offer the following findings: The property has practical difficulties unique to the property that prevent the safe use of the lot in a manner allowed by City Zoning including; a. The lot fronts and access via a Minor Arterial Street b. The traffic volume and traffic speeds on 27th Avenue present a safety issues for accessing and egressing the lot. c. The design of the 271h Avenue (grades) limit the sight.distance for west bound traffic. d. The street design and traffic speed limit the braking distance for motorist need to stop to allow boat maneuvering in to the lot. e. Landscaping on the adjoining lot obstruct sight lines along 27th Avenue. f. The approval of the variance will allow the property owner safe use of their property in a manner allowed within the zoning district. If the planning commission and city council agrees with the aforementioned findings the, the variance may be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with replacement of the street curb and driveway installation. 2. The applicant shall apply for and receive a Public Works permit for the installation of a curb cut onto a public street. The curb cut installation shall meet city design standards and shall be inspected and approved by Public Works at time of completion. 3. The applicant shall provide screening of the boat storage area to a height of 6 feet along the north property line. 4. If the variance is approved the Applicant shall complete the curb cut installation prior to July 31St so as not to interfere with City street a maintenance project scheduled for Zealand Avenue in August. Cc. Jeff Alger Aaron Chirpach Chris Long Bernie Weber 2 Stantec May 17, 2018 File: 193804506 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651 ) 636-1311 Attention: Jeff Sargent Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Reference: 8416 27th Avenue North - Driveway Variance Review Dear Jeff, We have reviewed the proposed driveway variance for 8416 27th Avenue North as submitted by Mark Wagner on May 11, 2018. The following are our comments and/or recommendations: General Comments 1. Allowing a 2nd driveway on Zealand Avenue North will increase safety for this property, as well as all other vehicles on Medicine Lake Road. 2. There are other properties in New Hope along collector or arterial roadways which currently have two driveways allowing for safer vehicle movements. 3. If the 2nd driveway is allowed, we require the following: a. The new driveway shall be constructed per City Standard Details STR-9, and STR-30. b. Construction of the new driveway, curb replacement, and bituminous patch in the street shall be completed by July 31, 2018. Zealand Avenue North is scheduled to receive a seal coat and fog seal improvement in August of 2018, and all driveway work needs to be completed prior to the street maintenance work. If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (651)604-4808. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Design with community In mind May 17, 2018 Mr. Jeff Sargent Page 2 of 2 Attachments: Standard Detail STR-9, STR-30 c. Aaron Chirpich, Jeff Alger, Susan Kaaer, Bernie Weber, Dave Lemke, Shawn Markham, Andrew Kramer, Megan Albert, Jeff Alger, Dean Blom - New Hope; Alan Brixius - NAC Planning; Shelby Wolf - West Metro Fre; Kellie Schlegel, Adam Martinson, Ann Dienhart - Stantec. Design with community in mind O r, CONCRETECURB—\ zz AND GUTTER 0 n SECTION NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE TO BE 6" THICK (MIN. RESIDENTIAL) AND HAVE 6" OF COMPACTED CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE. 0 z >- Ln W X r Q W H 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0 6" AGGREGATE, CLASS 5 �.._.,�....., ..�, .._..G BEYOND [ THE EXISTING TION WILL BE: V16"CL5OR W/ 6" CL 5 SOF ISOMETRIC NOT TO SCALE RO-yi4 Y CONCRETE PAVEMENT TO MATCH BACK OF CONCRETE CURB AT THIS POINT CONTROL JOINTS IN CONCRETE CURB NOT TO EXCEED 10' SPACING THROUGH DRIVEWAY SECTION. i i LAST REVISION: CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON MAY 2017 Stantec RESIDENTIAL PLATE NO. j CITY OF NEW HOPE, MN STR-�-J iCL REMOVE EXISTING EXISTING CURB DAMAGE DRIVEWAY REMOVE EXISTING (MINIMUM ONE PANEL) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SURFACE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER BACK OF CURB SAWCUT Z 2' ONE PANEL 2' IMIMUM REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS rk EXISTING ROADWAY PLAN D428 CONCRETE EXISTING BITUMINOUS Stantec FELT EXPANSION JOINT 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE. SECTION CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENTfDE VISION: DRIVE LOCATION 2017 (CONCRETE D/W APRON) PLATE NO. CITY OF NEW HOPE, MN STR-30 d d d a . d d SAWCUT Z 2' ONE PANEL 2' IMIMUM REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS rk EXISTING ROADWAY PLAN D428 CONCRETE EXISTING BITUMINOUS Stantec FELT EXPANSION JOINT 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE. SECTION CONCRETE CURB REPLACEMENTfDE VISION: DRIVE LOCATION 2017 (CONCRETE D/W APRON) PLATE NO. CITY OF NEW HOPE, MN STR-30 PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 Report Date: June 1, 2018 Planning Case: 18-03 Petitioner: City of New Hope Planning Request: New Hope 2040 Comprehensive Plan Type of Planning Request Staff is requesting that the Planning Conu- ission review and recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. 11. Background Per state statute and Metropolitan Council requirements, the city is required to update its Comprehensive Plan by December 31, 2018. All cities, counties, and townships within the seven -county metropolitan region must prepare a Comprehensive Plan and update the plan as needed every 10 years. The current update will extend the plan through 2040. At the February 13, 2017, City Council meeting, the appointment of Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) as the city's consultant for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update was approved. The city is also contracting with Stantec to provide specific updates to the plan. A Comprehensive Plan Committee was formed and a joint meeting with the City Council was held on June 19, 2017. The Comprehensive Plan update was introduced to the public on June 21, 2017, with a meeting at City Hall. The Comprehensive Plan Committee continued meeting regularly to provide input on specific chapters and make updates to the plan. A workshop for the City Council and Planning Commission took place on April 26, 2018, updating the City Council and Planning Commission on the process. An open house was held on May 30, 2018, to allow the public the opportunity to review the plan, ask questions, and make comments or suggestions. The Metropolitan Council offers the option of a preliminary review of the draft Comprehensive Plan update. Before formally submitting the final plan to Metropolitan Council, the city must provide adjacent and affected jurisdictions the opportunity to review and comment on the Comprehensive Plan update. A mandatory six-month review period accommodates this requirement. Any comments must be included with the formai plan update submittal. The city intends to submit the draft plan to Metropolitan Council and the following jurisdictions by June 30, 2018: Jurisdiction Type Jurisdiction Name School District Robbinsdale 281 Watershed Management Organization Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Adjacent ommunity Brooklyn Center; Source Water related Adjacent Community Brooklyn Park Adjacent Community Crystal Planning Case Report 18-03 Page 1 6/1/18 Jurisdiction Type Jurisdiction Type Adjacent Community Golden Valle Adjacent Community Henri e in County Adjacent Community Maple Grove Adjacent Community Minneapolis; Source Water related State Agency MnDNR State Agency MnDOT Adjacent Community Plymouth Adjacent Community Robbinsdale; Source Water related Watershed Management Organization Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Regional Park Implem2nting ImplementingAgency Three Rivers Park District State law requires that communities hold a public hearing on their draft Comprehensive Plan update, prior to submitting the plan to Metropolitan Council. The public hearing will be held at this meeting. After the public hearing, the City Council must authorize the plan to be submitted to Metropolitan Council for review. III. Recommendation/Next Steps At this point, the Comprehensive Plan update is nearly complete. Following review by the Planning Commission at this meeting, the Comprehensive Plan will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the June 25, 2018, meeting. The Comprehensive Plan will then be submitted to affected jurisdictions for the required six -moth review period. Following review, the Comprehensive Plan update, along with comments from affected jurisdictions, will be submitted to Metropolitan Council for final review and approval in late 2018. Attachments • 2040 Comprehensilve Plan available on city website (htip://www.ci.newiho e.mn.us/eservices/documentcenterdf/com dev 2040 corn 121an draft- 053017.pdf) Planning Case Report 18-03 Page 2 6/1/18 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 6, 2018 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 Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Scott Clark, Jim Brinkman, Matt Mannix, Chris Hanson, Torn Schmidt, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Michael Redden Absent: Cedrick Frazier Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.1, building and site plan review for Planning Case 18-01 renovation of an existing building and modification of a current drive Item 4.1 through service lane to accommodate a second ordering board for the McDonald's restaurant building located at 4201 Winnetka Ave N; Kevin Shay, petitioner. Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, gave background on the planning case. This case involves a complete renovation of the McDonald's restaurant, which includes replacement of the entire exterior of the building, ADA accessibility updates, parking lot improvements, new signage, and installation of a second drive- through ordering board. The site is part of a larger PUD that established certain design elements and associated agreements that will remain intact as part of this project. Next, Chirpich reviewed the zoning analysis. A map was shown of the location of McDonald's in relation to the strip mall. The overall building location is not changing, thus setbacks would not be affected. The site requires 61 total parking stalls per code requirements, which makes the site reliant on shared parking. Through a cross access shared parking agreement there are 67 parking stalls, thereby meeting code. The proposed drive-through service lane will introduce one additional ordering station, for a total of two. The new menu boards are compliant with the city's requirements for signs. Chirpich then showed the drive traffic through the site parking lot and the two ordering stations. The submitted landscaping plan details the plantings that are included with the drive-through re -design. There are three green space areas identified on the plan that do not have specific planting details. The landscaping plan shall be revised to illustrate plantings for these areas. The applicant's plan for the proposed changes to the building's exterior meet the Design Guidelines in materials used, placement of windows and entryways, and the trash enclosure materials. The site plan shows two pedestrian connections, one from Winnetka Avenue and the other from 42nd Avenue. Both of these connections will be ADA handicap accessible. There is also a proposed bike rack located on the southern side of the building. A full signage plan was not submitted with the application; any new signage will require a sign permit after staff review. Chirpich concluded that staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the site plan with the one condition outlined in the report. When Chair Schmidt questioned whether any of the Commissioners had any questions for staff or the applicant, Commissioner Schmidt commented he noticed the land use signs at the location and appreciated that. Commissioner Smith questioned if the purpose for the two ordering boards is to speed up the ordering process. Chirpich confirmed the idea is to increase efficiency and this was their best option since the site does not allow room for a double ordering lane. Chair Schmidt invited the applicant to the podium. Kevin Shay, representing Landform, 105 S 5th Avenue, Minneapolis MN came to the podium. Commissioner Landy said he appreciated the second ADA crossing being included in the plan and wanted to verify the applicant was comfortable with the southwest ADA crossing from a safety perspective. Mr. Shay said they were proposing the two crossings and were comfortable with them. Commissioner Landy wanted to state his concern for the record from a safety standpoint for the southwest ADA handicap accessible crossing. Commissioner Brinkman suggested a speed bump be installed by the southwest ADA crossing to help increase safety. The applicant replied at this time they are not proposing a speed bump; however, they could look into it. Commissioner Brinkman asked if the current ordering location would remain where it is. Mr. Shay replied the location would generally be the same with the two new ordering boards installed. Brinkman then asked if this proposal for two ordering boards would eliminate a staff person standing outside during peak business times taking orders. The applicant was unaware of staff taking orders outside, but the hope of installing two ordering boards is to increase the efficiency. Commissioner Brinkman mentioned the stacking at the drive- through interrupts the flow of traffic through the site and questioned if this proposal would help to correct the issue. Mr. Shay responded the goal is to reduce the amount of stacking occurring. Unfortunately, the property just to the north is not part of McDonald's and they are unable 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2018 to utilize that for increasing space to reduce stacking. Commissioner Brinkman asked if the drive-through business is continuing to increase. The applicant stated that regionally, McDonald's serves roughly 65% to 75% of their customers via the drive-through. Commissioner Hanson stated concerns with the handicap parking spot on the southwest corner of the lot. Typically, the handicap spots are located closest to the front entrance and not across a drive aisle. Mr. Shay responded they did look at locating the third handicap accessible parking spot near the front door. The existing curb line and the closeness of the door makes it very difficult to meet ADA requirements without making significant changes to the layout. Aaron Chirpich asked if it was required to have three handicap accessible parking spots. Shay confirmed it was required based on their overall number of parking stalls. Chair Schmidt inquired if anyone in the audience would like to address the Planning Commission. Being that no one wanted to speak, Chair Schmidt asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Redden, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Commissioner Dandy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 18-01, building and site plan review for renovation of an existing building and modification of a current drive through service lane to accommodate a second ordering board for the McDonald's restaurant building located at 4201 Winnetka Ave N; Kevin Shay, petitioner, with the following condition: 1. The landscaping plan shall be updated to show details on how the green space on the south and east of the building will be landscaped with plantings, shrubs, and ground cover. Voting in favor: Clark, Brinkman, Mannix, Hanson, Schmidt, Landy, Smith, Redden Voting against: None Absent: Frazier Motion approved 8-0 Chair Schmidt stated the case will move forward to the February 26, 2018 City Council meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS No meeting scheduled for next week. It is anticipated there will be no Design and Review March Planning Commission meeting. Sargent clarified if there are no Committee outstanding code issues the meeting would be cancelled. Item 5.1 Codes and Standards No meeting scheduled and staff will let the committee know when one is Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2018 Committee scheduled. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS Al Brixius informed the Commission that a Comprehensive Plan meeting is scheduled for February 21, 2018 from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm. OLD BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Mannix, to Approval of Minutes approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 2018, Motion Item 7.1 carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �puM Vi1A-&+ Jessi Weber, Recording Secretary 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 6, 2018