Loading...
090704 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 7, 2004 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; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: Buggy, O’Brien Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC04-23 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for variance to the eight-foot fence height requirement, 9209 59th Avenue Item 4.1 North, William Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that petitioner was requesting a three-foot variance to the eight-foot fence height requirement to allow an 11-foot fence along the rear property line. The property is located in a single family residential zoning district and the Mid America Financial Plaza abuts the site to the south, which is a residential-office zoning district. The site contains 12,568 square feet. There is a five-foot drainage and utility easement along the rear property line and there are side yard fences in the rear yards of the properties on both the east and west sides of the applicant’s property. In 2001, the city approved a conditional use permit to convert the Mid America Financial Plaza building to a multi-tenant building, and windows were installed along the north building elevation. Over the past several years, the applicants voiced their concerns about the lack of screening and felt that their backyard privacy was reduced. They wish to install an 11- foot fence to 1) create a screen between their home and the Mid America building, 2) restore the privacy of their back yard, and 3) improve the look of their home and increase its value. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff did not receive any comments. McDonald explained the purpose of a variance and criteria to consider including the physical conditions being unique to the property, hardship was not created by the landowner, change would not alter the character of the area or impair light and air to adjacent properties. Comments from the planner’s report indicated that the applicant’s parcel is at a lower elevation than the two-story Mid America building and screening the property was challenging due to the orientation of the building and the new windows in relation to the applicant’s property. The physical conditions are present for the applicant’s parcel and are generally not applicable to other residential properties. The applicant’s concerns were originated by the recent installation of windows in the second floor of the Mid America building facing the applicant’s property. Eight-foot fences are allowed in single family zoning districts and the proposed fence design would meet code requirements for five percent open for passage of air and light. There do not appear to be other options that would be more cost effective in mitigating the applicant’s concerns. City staff, consultants, and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans and were supportive of the request. Issues discussed included insuring there would be no obstruction of natural drainage with the construction of the fence, verifying location of rear property line, owner must submit written acknowledgement that city is not responsible for restoration of fence if future work is necessary in easement, and provide engineering wind load calculations to building official with permit application. McDonald stated that the existing home complied with all setback requirements. A site plan was submitted indicating the location of existing trees, storage shed, and Comcast boxes. The fence would be placed inside the rear property line and angled into the side yard lot lines at both the southeast and southwest corners, but would not connect to the neighboring side yard fences. The fence structure would consist of 22 treated posts and 20 panels consisting of 1” by 6” by 10’ cedar boards. The fence would range in height between 10’-6” to 11’. The applicant was unable to locate the property irons, therefore, staff supplied a copy of the survey of the Mid America property and the building official indicated that survey would be adequate for the location of the applicant’s fence. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the planning report. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that staff had received no comments from neighboring property owners. A question was raised regarding the original CUP approval for Mid America in 2001 and the fact that no additional screening was required at that time with the addition of the windows. Chairman Svendsen responded it was felt the existing vegetation would be adequate. None of the adjacent residents voiced any concerns at that time. Subsequently, residents came forward, and after discussion at the Planning Commission and City Council level, it was concluded that no additional conditions could be placed on the owners of the Mid America Financial Plaza building. 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 2004 Mr. Bill Gabrys, 9209 59th Avenue North, came to the podium. A question was raised whether or not his fence would match the two adjacent fences. Mr. Gabrys stated his fence would be constructed of wood and would be taller than the neighbor on the west with a chain-link fence and the neighbor on the east with a six-foot wood fence. It was confirmed that the fence height would screen the commercial property from their back yard and deck. Mr. Gabrys stated that the fence may not be the maximum 11 feet in height due to it being somewhat cost prohibitive and due to the wind load calculations. Chairman Svendsen asked for clarification on the exact length of the fence and whether there would be adequate distance on the sides to get a lawn mower between the fences at the side yard to maintain the south side of the fence and property. Mr. Gabrys stated that the length of the fence would be 93 1/2 feet long and then the fence would angle to the side yards and stated he was confident there would be adequate space. Svendsen reiterated that the city would not be responsible for any disruption of the fence in the easement and the applicant confirmed that he would submit a letter stating that fact. Mr. Gabrys added that there would be 19 panels rather than 20 and 20 posts rather than 22 as stated in the planning report. Svendsen inquired whether the petitioner would be providing a professional registered engineer’s stamp on the plans showing the wind load calculations and the petitioner responded affirmatively. Chairman Svendsen asked whether anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Mr. Steve Lovcik, 9225 59th Avenue North, came forward to offer support for the proposed fence. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 04-23. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 04-23, Request for variance to the eight-foot fence height requirement, 9209 59th Avenue North, William Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. A utility locate be conducted along the south lot line in the construction zone where the fence is to be installed. The existing Mid America survey is adequate for fence location. 2. That the applicant submit a written acknowledgement that the city is not responsible for restoration of the fence if future work is necessary in the easement. 3. That no obstructions of natural drainage occur with the construction and on-going existence of the fence. 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 2004 4. That engineering calculations of wind loads be determined and submitted with the building permit application. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Buggy, O’Brien Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on September 13 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance. PC04-24 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for text amendment, 4000 Winnetka Avenue North, Spirit United Interfaith Item 4.2 Church, Petitioner. Commissioner Landy reported that petitioners met with the Codes and Standards and Design and Review committees. The committees were not supportive of a church use in an industrial zoning district, consequently, the petitioner withdrew the application. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the reasons the city does not allow churches in industrial zoning districts and, specifically, the tax exempt status as stated in the planner’s report. It was noted that other items discussed included safety factors and co-mingling with industrial and semi-public uses. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to Item 4.2 accept the letter of withdrawal for Planning Case 04-24, Spirit United Interfaith Church, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Buggy, O’Brien Motion carried. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in August regarding the request for an 11-foot fence and the church use in an Committee industrial zoning district. The next meeting would be September 16, if Item 5.1 needed. McDonald added that staff had conducted a pre-application meeting with Dakota Growers Pasta regarding short and long-term expansion plans some of which would need Planning Commission and Council approval, but he did not anticipate they would be ready to submit plans by the deadline for the October meeting. Codes and Standards Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met in August regarding the request for a text amendment for a church use in an Committee industrial zoning district. McDonald added that there may be a committee Item 5.2 meeting in September or October. Items for discussion include the transit 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 2004 shelters, minor amendment to the sign code regarding political sign setbacks, living spaces above garages, and other minor items. OLD BUSINESS A question was raised as to how the drainage would be solved for the Project for Pride in Living project and it was noted that the drainage Miscellaneous Issues would be extended north along the west property line toward Science Center Drive and would not be directed toward the intersection at Boone Avenue. NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 4, 2004. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Commission discussed Ryland’s proposal for the vacant city-owned property north of the railroad tracks and recommended the city go out for bids if the Council decided to develop the property rather than considering only one developer. McDonald stated discussion of that issue had been postponed for a while and the Council would need to decide whether it wanted that property developed or not. Discussion ensued on the Hillside Terrace project and the construction of the regional pond improvements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 2004