AGENDA ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION. April 17, :00 PM

Transcription

1 AGENDA ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION April 17, :00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. OPEN FORUM 3. APPROVE AGENDA 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approval of the March 20, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Public Hearing to Consider the Following Requests by A.L. Woolhouse Construction, Located at Dehnsfield Road: Variance to Construct a Detached Garage Located in the Front Yard Variance to Add a Second Driveway 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion Regarding Multi-Family Residential Density Changes Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN

2 REQUEST FOR ACTION ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 17, 2018 Agenda Item: No. 4.1 Subject: Prepared By: Approval of the March 20, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Amy Patnode, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description March 20, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes

3 MINUTES ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 2018 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on March 20, 2018 at 7 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Silverstein, Nei, Neis, Kraemer, Jullie, Bryan, Johnson and Terhaar were present. Commissioner(s) absent: Binkley. Also present were City Planner/Community Development Coordinator Ziemer, Deputy Clerk Splett, Associate Planner Patnode and Councilmember Gorecki. SET AGENDA The Agenda was set as submitted. Commissioner Nei moved, Commissioner Silverstein seconded the motion to approve the agenda as submitted. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approval of the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Silverstein moved, Commissioner Nei seconded a motion to approve the February 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as submitted. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Public Hearing to Consider the Following Request by Christian Builders for a Variance to Construct an Attached Garage that Exceeds the Maximum Garage Size Allowed by City Code of 950 sq. ft., Located at Violet Circle City Planner Ziemer provided background information and commented on the following: Provided an overview of the request and the site. The Zoning conditions of the property. City Code regarding urban residential standards for attached garages. Protective covenants with the Augusta Prairie 2nd development. o o Covenant allows for detached garage in neighborhood with a maximum of 144 s.f. Covenant restricts any outdoor storage in the neighborhood vs. City Code allowing. The proposed attached garage would be 1,107 total square feet. Applicant intends to expand the area for woodworking, and transporting goods to shows, etc. Believes this is a reasonable request and recommends approval. Chairman Neis opened the meeting up for public comment.

4 Bill Christian, Rogers Dr.: Disfavors the original covenants in respects to the detached sheds. The homes in the development exceed the value they originally expected. Accessory structures are not encouraged in the development because they decrease home values. Jim Grossman, th Ave. N.: Recently moved in, nice development. Looking forward to many years there. Would rather have a bigger garage than a trailer in the backyard, etc. Hoping for approval. Commissioner Nei moved, Commissioner Kraemer seconded a motion to close the public hearing. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried. The Planning Commission discussed the following: Jullie asked Jason to explain why the City has a max size of 950 s.f. Ziemer stated he doesn t really know the reason or rational. Those are the big questions for the Planning Commission to question and adjust. Kraemer explained that the garage seems pretty small when looking at the plans. This particular garage is extended back, not wider. Aesthetically looks good to him. 950 s.f. seems way too small. Silverstein added that she drove by the neighborhood and it looks nice throughout. Gorecki questioned if Bill would build garages bigger if the 950 s.f. max. was increased. Bill said yes, and stated that Christian Builders loses sales because City Code restricts square footage compared to neighboring communities. Neis agrees with all the comments, Bryan as well. Commissioner Nei motioned, Commissioner Kraemer seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance request to by Christian Builders for a Variance to Construct an Attached Garage That Exceeds the Maximum Garage Size Allowed by City Code of 950 sq. ft., Located at Violet Circle, subject to the following conditions: 1. The maximum size of the attached garage shall be 1107 square feet. 2. The additional 157 square feet of the garage shall only be used for storage or workshop and not for livable or habitable space. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried GENERAL BUSINESS 6.1 Request by Lil Explorers for a Sign Standard Adjustment Located at S. Diamond Lake Road Planner Ziemer provided background and commented on the following: The applicants desire for the location of the sign because of the main entrance and visual effect. Requirements for the sign standard adjustment. The proposed sign is square feet, the allowed is 80 s.f. Withdrew the east elevation signage that was previously shown on plan.

5 Take a look at the B-2 zoning code in regards to Child Care. Will not address that today, but worth noting Sign similar to the one in St. Michael off 241. Reasonable use of the property, sign, and staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission commented the following: Silverstein asked if Ziemer stated they could have a sign on all four signs. Ziemer said no, only when a wall is on a street frontage. Kraemer expressed that the sign placement makes sense to have it on the entrance and parking lot side. Neis agreed, no questions. Commissioner Kraemer moved, Commissioner Silverstein seconded a motion to approve the Sign Standard Adjustment, for Lil Explorers to relocate the wall sign from the street frontage adjacent to South Diamond Lake Road to the west building elevation subject to the following conditions: 1. Only one (1) wall sign is permitted on the Subject Property. 2. Total wall sign area shall not exceed 80 square feet. 3. The Applicant shall submit a formal sign permit application and shall comply with the final sign plans submitted to the City shown on the plans with the application, including but not limited to materials, dimensions, illumination, etc. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion Planner Ziemer provided background and reviewed with Commissioners a PowerPoint presentation. Topics include: The discussion from the Joint meeting on February 26, 2018 regarding the 2040 Comp Plan. The land outside the Urban Service area and the Met Council density requirements (3 unit per acre). Rogers long-term goals and how to develop land without negatively affecting future sewer and water expansions. Sylvan Lake as an attractive area for development and extension of services for denser development. Flexible Development Standards (PowerPoint showed examples). Property owners on the fringe want to develop but not to the RE-5 or RE-2 standards. Density ranges that will be coming forward to Commission; increasing density to meet demands. Diversified Rural is the designation for the southeast side of Rogers. Describing Conventional Development, Cluster Development, Ghost Platting. Ghost platting is a good idea for Rogers, particularly outside the Urban Service Area. All have an ultimate goal of 3 units per acre.

6 Build through acreage perspective- also like this type of development. Develop for the Right now, with future development in mind. Community septic systems is something that should be part of the discussion for these types of developments before the urban services come to the area. Flexibility is what we are trying to achieve in the southeast Diversified Rural area. Comments by Planning Commissioners: Silverstein likes the flexibility and options of both rural and compact development. Ziemer states that a few options will be good going forward. The options vary depending on the type of property. Cluster for wetland area, ghost platting for upland. The reality of developing land will help guide these conversations. Jullie questioned the capacity of the Elm Creek Intersector and Met Council plans for a new treatment facility. Will future development be able to be served with the existing sewer system we have. Is there a way to line up the timeframe of those two variables? Ziemer stated that there is a variety of funding mechanisms that can be applied to utilities extensions. City is trying to get the Met Council to take over the current treatment system, then the urban service would be their concern. Ziemer suggested that Code will be amended to have the required 3 units per acre with flexible lot sizes. Nei thinks there will be pressure to allow for density. Keep some open green space while increasing the density. Keep the rural but increase the density. The cluster gives you that option. Couple notes: Next review, Jason will have the first two chapters for review. Update the existing but also look at different approaches. Land Use conversation will continue. See what type of development works best in Southeast Rogers by examining each section in that region. Nei requested Ziemer include what you see from developers and their request both in the entire metro area as well as by community and his personal opinion. For example too much of one type of development is in the Plymouth area. Rogers need more character and diverse housing. OTHER BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion Regarding Chickens Ziemer introduced the topic of chickens, the following was discussed: A Rogers resident came to the podium to present information on chickens. The gentleman told commissioners that he was informed a few weeks ago that chickens are prohibited in his neighborhood; this violation stemmed from a complaint about a rooster in the area. He believes that roosters should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods. He read through Minneapolis ordinance on chickens and asked his neighbors that have chickens, what their thoughts are. He found that his neighbors thought 8 to 10 chickens was the maximum amount that would be satisfactory. He referenced Minneapolis guideline on coops, cleanliness and aesthetics. He lets his chickens roam free, as they don t venture far but staff stated containment would be required. Noise, smell and the issue of other animals came into question. Commissioners feel like gathering information on surrounding cities besides Minneapolis will be beneficial on moving forward. Permitting and enforcement is a concern when it comes to

7 chickens because of the lack of staff available to strictly enforce the ordinance. Neighbor sign off was discussed in allowing chickens, but was opposed. The commission was in support to digging deeper into the subject of chickens. ADJOURN Commissioner Nei moved, Commissioner Kraemer seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m. On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried

8 REQUEST FOR ACTION ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 17, 2018 Agenda Item: No. 5.1 Subject: Prepared By: Public Hearing to Consider the Following Requests by A.L. Woolhouse Construction, Located at Dehnsfield Road: Amy Patnode, Associate Planner Recommended City Council Action Motion to recommend approval of the construction of a detached accessory structure in the front/side yard, and to allow a second access to the property located at Dehnsfield Road. Overview / Background A.L. Woolhouse ( Applicant ) submitted a land use application on behalf of Wade & Bonnie O Malley ( Owners ), requesting a variance to locate a detached accessory structure in the front yard and construct a second driveway access on the property at Dehnsfield Road ("Subject Property"). The Subject Property is located in the RE-2 zoning district in the Cambria Farms Addition. It is 1.62 acres and is located on the corner of Dehnsfield Road and Pembrook Circle. City Code permits detached accessory structures on the Subject Property up to a maximum square footage of 800 square feet. The applicant is proposing to build a 790 square foot detached accessory structure. The variance is for the location of the structure and for a second driveway access. Primary Issues to Consider Zoning Detached Accessory Structures Additional Access Variance Standards Analysis of Primary Issues Zoning The Subject Property is part of the Cambria Farms Addition, which was platted and recorded in The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Rural Estate, and the properties within the Cambria Farms development are zoned Rural Estate 2 Acres (RE-2). The subject property is outside the urban service area, thus requiring a private well and septic. Detached Accessory Structures City Code Section (a)(10) allows detached accessory structure as a permitted accessory use. The maximum size of such structures in the RE-2 zoning district for parcels from 1.00 to 1.99 acres of land is 800 square feet. As stated above, the property is 1.62 acres allowing a maximum of 800 square feet for a detached accessory structure. However, City Code Section (b)(6) restricts the location of accessory structures, requiring them to be placed only in the rear or side yard. The Applicant, on behalf of the Owners, have submitted a variance request to locate the

9 detached accessory structure in the front yard. According to City Code Section 125-1, the front yard is defined as follows: A yard extending across the portion of the lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest building line, except for buildings on recreational or natural environment lakes where the front yard faces the water. The performance standards for accessory structures in the RE-2 District are in compliance with requirements for side wall height and setbacks. Additional Access The narrative states that the homeowners are requesting to use their detached accessory structure to store and maintain their antique car collection. Throughout the year the homeowner expects to move the cars in and out of the detached accessory structure approximately a dozen times a year. The Applicant is seeking approval for a second access due to the topography of the property. City Code prohibits more than one access to residential lots. Listed below is City Code: Section (f): The number of access points to a residential lot shall be restricted to one driveway to serve the principal residence on corner lots and double fronted lots. Section (b)(6): The number and types of access drives onto major streets shall be limited to one for residential properties in the interests of public safety and efficient traffic flow. Dehnsfield Road is a local street meaning the road is used primarily for access to abutting properties and the local need of a neighborhood [Sec 121-1]. Dehnsfield Road is also a Cul-desac which means a minor street with only one outlet and having a turnaround [Sec 121-1]. The additional access would serve the detached accessory structure and would not be used to access the primary structure. Variance The application request is to approve two variance requests that would allow the placement of a detached accessory structure in the front yard and to permit a second driveway access to the property. The Variance section of City Code requires the following: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of city code and consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) Variances may only be permitted when the applicant establishes that there are non-economic practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance, meaning the property owner proposes to use the lot or parcel in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. (3) The plight of the property owner must be due to circumstances that are unique to the lot or parcel and is not created by the property owner. (4) The variances must not alter the essential character of the locality including all zoning district and overlay district provisions. Although the practical difficulty aspect of variance requests looks at the reasonable use of a property, that consideration by the Planning Commission should also take into account whether a variance is absolutely necessary. In other words, is the Applicant able to comply with current zoning code as stated without the need for a variance. The subject property is a corner lot, thus has two street frontages. The home is located in the southern portion of the lot with its primary access to and from Dehnsfield Road. Because of the position of the home a large portion of the Subject Property is considered front yard. Additionally, during original construction of the home, the septic system and drain field were placed to the rear

10 of the home, or the backyard. As a result, this prohibits the placement of the detached accessory structure as required by City Code Section (b)(6). The Owners purchased the property in 2017 with the existing, as-is conditions on the property. Thus, the need for the variance request is not based on conditions created by the Owners. The variance for the location of the detached accessory structure is in harmony with the general purpose of the City Code. The detached structure will be setback behind adjacent properties and maintains the historical land use pattern of the Land Use designation. Additionally, the essential character of the locality will not be altered by the proposed location. The topography of the site poses a challenge for the homeowners to reasonably use the detached accessory structure. Access to the proposed detached structure is limited with the existing driveway, however if the vehicles from the detached accessory structure only leave a dozen times throughout the year, an additional access may not be necessary. The applicant is asking for an additional drive because they feel access to the shed would be otherwise challenging due to the topography (i.e. slope from Dehnsfield Road to the detached accessory structure), the location of septic system, the landscaping and trees. The proposed additional access would be grass covered with a culvert and decorative rock to match the neighbors to the north. The City has granted variances in the past for second accesses. The last documented variance for an additional access was June 17, 2014 for the property located at Cherokee Drive North. That property is in a RE-2 zoning district and is a corner lot with a detached accessory structure. Although there has been precedence for granting additional property accesses (i.e. driveways), it is important to understand that the basis for variances require that each request is considered on its own merits. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval for the Variance request of a detached accessory structure in the front yard of the principle building at Dehnsfield Road as shown on the site plan; subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached garage shall not be used as livable or habitable space. 2. The maximum size of the detached accessory structure shall be 800 square feet. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction. 4. The detached garage shall be in-line or setback from the neighbor s chain link fence, as shown on plan. Staff recommends approval for the variance of an additional access to the property located at Dehnsfield Rd as shown on the site plan; subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway must meet access requirements, including but not limited to property line setbacks and width. 2. The applicant must apply for a road access permit through Public Works. 3. The additional access shall only be used as a driveway; no parking on the driveway. ATTACHMENTS: Description Narrative Lot Survey Proposed Shed Plan Pictures from Road

11 Justification Statement for Variance at Dehnsfield Road 1. The main structure (home) sits on the highest elevation of the lot. The North side of the property line, which is the rear yard, abuts the neighbor s property line. This area has the most gradual grade stretching from East to West on the lot. This property is a corner lot, the street frontages have an aggressive grade. 2. The mound septic system is located at the Northeast corner of the property. This site would not be available for the detached garage site. 3. The location of the new detached garage would be located on the North property line twenty-five feet West of the end of the mound system. At this point, the detached garage would be visible to neighbors only from their backyard because it would be parallel with the neighbors existing fence. 4. Mr. O Malley has a health condition which allows him to walk only a limited distance without difficulty. Therefore, this would be the most convenient access for him to the detached garage due to his condition. 5. The elevations of the lot do not allow us to enter the construction area of the new detached garage on the South and the West side due to the depth of the ditch on Dehnsfield road. Therefore, we would also like to ask for a grass covered approach with the Culvert on the West side property line for access to the new detached garage. The new approach would appear similar to the neighbor s approach with the decorative rock but with a grass surface, not gravel. This approach would be used maybe a dozen times a year to bring antique vehicles in and out of the new detached garage. This new access to the garage would be more appealing than driving off the existing driveway around the home to the new structure. A.L. Woolhouse Construction

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 REQUEST FOR ACTION ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 17, 2018 Agenda Item: No. 6.1 Subject: Prepared By: Discussion Regarding Multi-Family Residential Density Changes Jason Ziemer, City Planner/Comm. Dev. Coordinator Recommended City Council Action The purpose of this item is to discuss the proposed change to the multi-family residential land use density range in preparation for the May 15 public hearing. Overview / Background Work on the Rogers 2040 Comprehensive Plan is underway, with the majority of the current emphasis being placed on the land use section. Essentially, land use addresses where and what types of development shall occur throughout the City from residential to commercial and industrial and from land held for agricultural purposes to parks held in open space for recreational purposes. As part of that determination comes the decision regarding residential densities how many units will we permit per acre. Recent and historic Rogers planning policy has limited density ranges as a means to guide larger lot development. However, as discussed, the three (3) to four (4) recent Rogers subdivision residential developments were approved with greater densities more units per acre than guided by policy minimums. More units per acre continues to be the development theme for single-family residential projects in the Twin Cities market. Such is also the case for high-density residential (HDR) developments. In the past several months City staff have visited with several multi-family residential developers considering projects in the Rogers. However, their projects proposed densities in excess of the City s current allowable maximum density 20 units per acre. As we continue to work on the land use section of the City s Comprehensive Plan, which will include determinations on residential densities through 2040, City staff has proposed and discussed with both the Planning Commission and City Council a preliminary adjustment to the upper end of the HDR land use. I fully anticipate a recommendation to increase to all density ranges, especially the maximum for HDR, with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Making an adjustment to the HDR range will provide more immediate benefit to the City. Primary Issues to Consider 1. Current Comprehensive Plan High Density Maximum 2. Increasing High Density Range 3. Recommended High Density Range Analysis of Primary Issues 1. Comprehensive Plan High Density Maximum

20 The Metropolitan Council defines Rogers as an Emerging Suburban Edge community with a required density of 3.0 units per net acre. This is a residential determination. The community s overall residential net units per acre is calculated by using the bottom end of the range for any land use that includes residential. The upper limit of that range has no bearing on the net units per acre calculation, but is a maximum at which development may occur. For land guided as High Density Residential the Rogers 2030 Comprehensive Plan currently states the following: High density residential uses include a range of housing types that cater to people s housing preferences during different lifecycle stages and are located near desirable community amenities. The intent of this category is to encourage higher density housing options that are supported by convenient access to amenities such as transit, local shops and services, parks, trails, schools and other institutions. The most common housing types that fit this category are apartments, stacked townhouses, lofts and flats. The density range for this residential category is 10 to 20 dwelling units per net acre. 2. Increasing High Density Range Again, at maximum end of the range the net density for a project or development cannot exceed 20 units per net acre. However, as referenced above, the current density trend for multi-family projects within the Twin Cities housing market is triggering greater and greater units per acre. The driving factors are competing factors the rising cost of development vs. the need for more available affordable housing. Increasing the units per acre enables developers to drive down rental rates and maintain the marketability of rental units by spreading out development costs over more units. Additionally, developers are also trying to maximize development opportunities through redevelopment and/or infill. Long-term, Rogers would likely be looking at redevelopment and/or infill projects to meet its highdensity residential needs. An example of this is a proposed multi-family housing project here in Rogers. City staff have been working with Sand Companies on a 49-unit, affordable multi-family project on 1.88 acres. As proposed, this development if approved would have an overall density of units per acre. As currently guided, the City would not be able to approve the development as it exceeds the maximum density as determined by the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: The current property would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment as it is currently guided as commercial. Staff has indicated to the developer that an amendment to re-guide the property would be required by the City. Additionally, the City s current Commercial land use does not include language allowing residential uses.) It is common that a developer would seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to enable the development to move forward. The onus, then, is on the developer to convince the City that the change makes sense and does not create conflicts between land uses. So why not make Sand Companies seek the change? First, Sand Companies is not the only developer looking at multi-family projects that have densities above the current 20 units per net acre maximum. Again, the trend is for greater and greater densities for high-density residential. We know it will likely be commonplace for developers to seek amendments to the City s Comprehensive Plan to allow their projects to move forward. From a good planning perspective, it is best practice for a City to understand trends and anticipate changes and plan for them versus continually making little changes to policy over time to the point that the intent of the original vision is lost. Planning and preparing for such changes also enables the City to be more nimble and not require additional, unnecessary steps for development.

21 3. Recommended High Density Range As we are in the process of re-visioning Rogers as part of preparing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan City staff is recommending an interim density range adjustment for High Density Residential. The proposed new range would retain the existing bottom end at 10 units per acre, but increase the maximum density to 40 units per net acre. Again, this change will not affect our actual community-wide units per net acre but will create new opportunities to consider multi-family projects. Although we anticipate the high density range to remain greatly enhanced with the 2040 update, we cannot predict what that number will be at this time. With that said I do not anticipate it being less than 40 units per acre. Next Steps: Any change to the Comprehensive Plan requires a public hearing; this has been scheduled for the May 15 Planning Commission meeting with action by the City Council scheduled for May 22 if recommended for approval. Typically, Comprehensive Plan amendments require a 60-day review by our neighboring communities. However, Metropolitan Council staff has waived that requirement, noting this change is administrative. The amendment would still be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee. Although no local government review is being required I have already contacted our adjacent cities Corcoran, Dayton, Otsego and St. Michael to inform them of the recommended change. The purpose of this item is to discuss the change in preparation for the May 15 public hearing. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending an interim density range adjustment to the High Density Residential density range in the City's current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. No action is requested at the April 17 meeting as a public hearing is required and will take place on May 15. ATTACHMENTS: Description Map_High Density Residential Areas

22

23 REQUEST FOR ACTION ROGERS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 17, 2018 Agenda Item: No. 6.2 Subject: Prepared By: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Discussion Jason Ziemer, City Planner/Comm. Dev. Coordinator Recommended City Council Action Receive an update from City Planner Jason Ziemer regarding work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.