030105 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 1, 2005
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.
OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Kirk McDonald explained that the City Code previously stated that
the Planning Commission may consist of up to 10 members appointed by
the Council and that the City Council may appoint a member of the
Council to serve on the Planning Commission as the 10th member. The
Planning Commission consisted of nine members until December 31 when
two members did not seek re-appointment. The city sought applications
to various commissions, and after interviewing applicants, the Council
determined it would amend the ordinance to increase the number of
persons appointed to serve on the Commission to gain more public input.
In February the City Council amended the City Code to allow up to 12
members on the Planning Commission, including one Council member.
Increasing the number of members on the Commission made room for
four new members to be appointed. On February 14, the Council
appointed four new members. Mr. McDonald added that training
through Government Training Services would be offered to the
commissioners in the next several months and attendance at the training
was encouraged. Funds have been budgeted for this training.
Mr. McDonald administered the oath of office to three new planning
commissioners: Jim Brinkman, Ranjan Nirgudé, and Tom Schmidt. The
City Council appointed Mr. Pat Crough to the Planning Commission,
however, he did not attend the March meeting.
Chairman Svendsen welcomed the new members on behalf of the full
Commission and encouraged them to attend the training offered through
GTS.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy, Jeff Houle, Roger
Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve
Svendsen
Absent: Kathi Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Alan
Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney,
Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist, Ruben
Vazquez, Community Development Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC05-02 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 5.1, Request for
variance to the number of off-street parking spaces required for an
Item 5.1
automobile repair facility, 7900 Medicine Lake Road, Naftali Alkalai –
Mahzal, Inc., Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that
petitioner was requesting a variance to the number of off-street parking
spaces required for an automobile repair facility. The business is located
at the northwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road
and is in a CB, Community Business, Zoning District. Land uses around
the site are community business to the east, north and west (Midland
Shopping Center), and the city of Golden Valley to the south. The site area
contains 13,180 square feet or .3 acres. The existing building is 4,320
square feet and utilizes 33 percent of the site, green space is 15 percent,
and the hard surface utilized is 53 percent.
The applicant received approval in 1992 for a conditional use permit and
variances from the rear and side yard setback requirements, and
site/building plan approval to allow construction of a Car-X Muffler shop
on the site. Previously a Burger King restaurant was located on the site.
The restaurant rented additional parking spaces from Midland Shopping
Center. At the time the restaurant was demolished and the Car-X
constructed, the city required that the shared parking agreement with the
shopping center remain in place. The approval was based on the
applicant renting 12 off-site parking stalls from the shopping center in
addition to the six stalls on the site.
Over the past several years, the applicant has contacted city staff several
times stating that they do not make use of the off-site parking and felt they
were being over-charged for the spaces. The applicant had requested city
staff to reconsider this requirement and waive the off-site parking. Staff
offered two scenarios where the parking could be reduced: 1) code text
amendment that would impact the number of parking stalls for all
automobile facilities in the city, or 2) a variance to the number of parking
stalls for this site only. In February, the Codes and Standards Committee
discussed a potential code text amendment to reduce the number of
parking stalls for all automobile repair facilities and was generally not
supportive of a city-wide text amendment, therefore, the owner applied
for this variance.
Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated in correspondence that
over the past 12 years at this location there is a history of usage of parking
on the property. There are now scheduled appointments for only six to
eight cars per day at the shop. The business is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. Monday through Friday. There are six bays in the shop and six
parking spaces on site. The petitioner indicated that he has never utilized
the parking spaces rented from Kraus Anderson. He was asking for a
variance to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code
requirements. The requirements cause undue hardships and there are
circumstances unique to the property. The petitioner indicated that due to
2
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
scheduled appointments at various times during the day, and utilizing the
six bays and the six outside parking stalls, there was ample parking for
employees as well. The petitioner explained in correspondence that over
the past 10 years the automobile repair industry had gone through many
changes and business had declined dramatically due to better made cars
with stainless steel parts, more leased vehicles that people do not repair as
often, and people buying cars more frequently.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified including
the city of Golden Valley, and no comments were received.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that zoning code criteria was included in the
planning report. He indicated that the code states that automobile repair
facilities must provide five off-street parking spaces plus three off-street
parking spaces for each service stall. McDonald also explained the
purpose of a variance and the criteria to be considered. He pointed out
that economic conditions alone do not constitute a hardship if reasonable
use of the property exists under the terms of the code, and the hardship
cannot be due to circumstances created by the landowner.
The planning consultant offered arguments for and against the variance
request. Arguments against the variance include: 1) parking demand is
based on the size of building and number of service bays, special
consideration was given in 1992 to accommodate the oversized building,
it is not unreasonable to continue to enforce the parking agreement; 2) the
intent of the city code is to provide sufficient parking for customers and
employees, business should provide parking prior to and after service and
for drive-up customers; 3) a change of business or reuse of the building
could impact the demand for on-site parking stalls, elimination of
required parking would limit the use or resale of the building. Arguments
in favor of the variance include: 1) per the applicant, after 12 years at this
location the actual amount of parking utilized is between six to eight cars
per day; 2) unique shape of the lot complicates the ability to provide
alternate locations for parking on the site; and 3) economic hardship does
not warrant a variance, however, the applicant was required to rent
additional spaces from Midland Center at a price set by Kraus Anderson,
owner of Midland Center. The planning consultant provided examples of
similar situations in other similar sized cities.
City staff and the Design and Review Committee met to discuss the
request and requested information on the number of employees on site.
The applicant explained that there were three full-time employees. The
Design and Review Committee suggested that the applicant be allowed to
count the six service bays within the shop as part of the required parking.
Therefore the applicant could reduce the number of spaces it rents from
12 to six. McDonald added that the applicant had contacted Hennepin
County to determine whether direct access to the site from Winnetka or
Medicine Lake Road would be possible.
McDonald stated that three options were offered in the planning report: 1)
3
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
deny the request and enforce the standards as originally approved; 2)
approve a modified request and reduce the number of parking spaces
from 18 to 12; and 3) approve the request and reduce the required spaces
from 18 to six so no off-site parking would be required.
Mr. Naftali Alkalai, owner, 7900 Medicine Lake Road, came forward to
address the Commission and answer questions. Mr. Alkalai reiterated that
based on 12 years of experience, the business did not utilize all of the
required parking and he wished to reduce or eliminate the spaces he rents
from Midland Center. He pointed out that he had no direct access to his
property from the street other than through the parking lot of Midland
Center, which is accomplished through an easement with Midland
Center, and he is required to pay for that easement as well. Mr. Alkali
added that two employees carpool. He indicated he felt that Kraus
Anderson was over charging for the parking spaces he rents from them,
because he was required to provide additional parking stalls per city code
requirements. He also stated that in Minneapolis and St. Paul, if a
business rents parking spaces, they do not have to pay for the easement to
get to those spaces.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the variance was connected
with the property or business and if it would be valid if the business was
sold. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, responded that the variance would
be connected to the property as long as the use was the same. If the
property was sold and the use changed, the city would need to revisit the
issue due to the fact that the circumstances connected to the variance had
changed. Mr. Sondrall explained deferred/proof of parking and that it was
at the discretion of the city when a business would need to provide all the
parking required by code. In this case, the city allowed the overbuilding of
the property with the condition to provide off-site parking. The unique
condition was not a circumstance of the property it was requested by the
owner.
Oelkers questioned the access easement between Kraus Anderson and the
applicant. McDonald interjected that the petitioner was working with an
attorney and Hennepin County to possibly secure a curb cut at that
corner. The city code states that every property is entitled to have a curb
cut. If Hennepin County agrees, the city would probably have to agree
with the installation of a curb cut, as Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue are county roads.
Discussion ensued with regard to alternative parking on site, possibly
along the drive aisle on the east property line, which may be a viable
option. It was noted that the drive aisle was 24 feet wide, and code
requires 12 feet for a one-way drive lane. With parallel parking stalls
added, there would be 16 feet remaining for the drive lane. It was noted
the curb cut was being requested along Winnetka Avenue. If the county
allows access, it would be right-in and right-out only due to a median in
the street. Three additional parking stalls would be the maximum
provided along the drive aisle. The planner added that if a curb cut was
4
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
installed, the turning radius into the site would consume some of the
parking along the east property line. A two-way drive aisle requires 24
feet.
Chairman Svendsen initiated discussion on the lease agreement which
stated that it was in effect for 10 years, until 2003, and wondered whether
an addendum had been provided to the city. Mr. Alkalai stated that the
lease agreement expired in May 2003. Prior to the expiration, he contacted
Kraus Anderson to negotiate other options, such as buying additional
property on the north side of the shop all the way to the curb, the
easement, parking issues or Kraus Anderson purchasing of his property.
No agreements were reached. At this time, Mr. Alkalai stated he is waiting
for a court date to resolve the issues with Kraus Anderson, and there is no
lease agreement in place now. The city attorney interjected that the
agreement indicated an option to renew the lease agreement for 10
additional years at $1,450 per month, which covered the cost of the
easement, plus additional monies for the cost of the parking spaces. The
city attorney stated that the lease agreement did not give any ownership
in the land. He stated he felt the agreement more closely resembled a
license agreement.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he supported small businesses in New
Hope. He asked the petitioner for confirmation whether he felt the
shopping center owner was inflating the prices for the parking spaces. Mr.
Alkalai stated he felt that was true as the shopping center owner knew he
did not have a choice but to rent the spaces as it was a requirement of the
city when the building was constructed.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned whether Kraus Anderson was
obligated to reduce the cost to the applicant. It was noted that there was
no city code that indicates what one property owner could charge another
in any situation.
Mr. Sondrall reported that the parking situation was created in 1993 when
the applicant originally decided to build a larger building on the property
and could not provide all the parking on site. The real issue is how many
parking spaces are necessary for the business and how many the city was
requiring the applicant to provide off-site.
Commissioner Landy confirmed the number of cars serviced per day and
the number of employees, and stated he felt all of the parking spaces were
probably being utilized with customers parking vehicles prior to service
and employee autombiles. Mr. Alkalai responded that the business never
services more than eight cars per day. Cars can be left in the shop until
the customer returns to pick up the car. In the early years, more parking
was needed due to more drop-in customers.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
5
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-02. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on whether the off-site parking
could be located some place other than the Midland Shopping Center.
The planning consultant stated that city code requires parking be within
300 feet of the building entrance.
Chairman Svendsen stated he was in favor of utilizing the six service bays
as part of the parking requirement and potentially having three more
along the east side property line. With the code requirement of 18, this
would reduce the number of parking spaces to rent to three. If Hennepin
County approves the curb cut, the applicant would need to rent
additional spaces from the shopping center.
Commissioner Nirgudé concurred with including the six bays in the total
count. He also stated that he felt the petitioner should be released from
the lease agreement as it was evident that there was price gouging on the
part of the shopping center owner. The price should be at market price.
He stated he felt the city should provide an opportunity to get out of the
lease because it was clear that the petitioner’s business was hurting due to
the decline in automobile repairs. The petitioner was doing his best to
comply with the conditions and the city should be helping so he is not
bound by this particular code.
Commissioner Anderson remarked that he disagreed totally. He owns a
small business along 42nd Avenue, Universal Color Lab. He stated he felt
the city did not have any business dictating prices between landlords and
tenants. He empathized with the applicant’s problems, however, he did
sign the lease agreement with a set price. The circumstances have
changed. The compromise suggested by the chairman was appropriate.
Chairman Svendsen confirmed that the city could not dictate price. The
city attorney responded that the Planning Commission should determine
whether it would approve a variance for three spaces or allow parking
less than code required. The city could inspect periodically and determine
whether or not the parking supply was meeting the demand. The city
attorney suggested that the 18 spaces be required but the city would allow
the business to operate with 15 spaces with the condition that if the
parking demand necessitates the applicant would need to get and
additional three spaces from Midland Center or somewhere else within
300 feet of the business entrance. The best option would be to negotiate a
land purchase from Midland so to not be held captive to the lease
arrangement.
Commissioner Houle questioned whether or not a code text amendment
would be appropriate so the parking was consistent throughout the city. It
was noted that may be an option for the long term, however, for this
request, a variance would be the appropriate action. The city attorney
6
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
interjected that the city was still requiring 18 spaces, but based on the
petitioner’s business experience, would allow deferment of some of the
parking stalls now, and if at some time in the future the city felt the spaces
were needed, the petitioner would have to provide them.
It was noted that the dumpster is on the north side of the building was at
the lot line as well as driveway access to the service bays, therefore, the
applicant would still need an agreement with the landowner to access that
side of the property. The planner added that even with a curb cut from
Hennepin County, access to the back of the building would be limited.
Commissioner Houle concurred that the site was overbuilt in 1993 and the
parking and shared access was a requirement. He stated he liked the idea
of proof of parking.
Commissioner Anderson questioned what would happen after the 10 year
option to renew the easement agreement expired.
Discussion ensued on the problems that can arise by allowing an
applicant to overbuild a property. Business owners take a risk when
entering into shared access agreements. Mr. Alkalai reported that he
obtained the building permit in January, finished the building in April,
and opened for business in May. He signed the lease agreement in June.
The verbal agreement had been for $850 per month, but when the
agreement was written up it was for $950, and the renewal terms were for
$1,450 per month. He stated he felt he was in a corner because he had to
provide the city with an agreement for the off-site parking.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, interjected that, per the applicant,
the business parking demand had declined and the commission could
approve one of the variances and add a condition that any change of
occupancy or change in parking demand on the site would generate the
need for off-site parking. Mr. Brixius stressed that with or without a curb
cut, the applicant would need access around the building. Based on the
information provided by the applicant, staff was comfortable that 18 stalls
were not needed at this time.
Commissioner Oelkers commented that he agreed that the city should not
be involved with the negotiations between the applicant and shopping
center. Commissioner Landy concurred.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 5.1 approve Planning Case 05-02, Request for variance to the number of off-
street parking spaces required for an automobile repair facility, 7900
Medicine Lake Road, Naftali Alkalai – Mahzal, Inc., Petitioners, subject
to the following conditions:
Approval of a modified variance request reducing the number of
required surface parking spaces from 18 to 15:
1.The parking bays inside the structure should count toward
7
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
tabulating the parking requirements, including the existing six
outside stalls and the three proposed stalls along the east property
line.
2.Stipulation for any change of occupancy that creates greater parking
demand is then provided.
3.Owners are aware this doesn’t resolve the ingress/egress issue.
4.Show three new parking stalls on a revised site plan.
5.Provide proof of parking agreement between applicant and city
indicating that additional parking spaces would be available if
deemed necessary.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 14 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC05-03 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 5.2, Request for
variance to maximum curb cut width, residential off-street parking, and
Item 5.2
prohibition against parking on the boulevard, 4717 Independence Avenue
North, Barbara Bruemmer, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that Ms. Barbara Bruemmer,
owner of Heartfelt Homes, Inc., owned a group home at 4717
Independence Avenue North. The house has a tuck-under garage which
was converted to storage by the owner, and the owner expanded the curb
cut and parking area in the front of the home. In 1995, the city deleted the
code requirement for a driveway permit. Two contractors performed
work on this driveway and the expanded parking area, which was
installed illegally. A number of items are in violation including: parking in
boulevard area which is prohibited by city code and width of curb cut
was expanded to 36 feet when 24 feet is allowed for a residential
driveway. Once this issue was discovered, it was brought to the
applicant’s attention, staff met with her, and options were offered, such as
pursuing a variance or redesigning the site. Ms. Bruemmer had gone to
considerable expense to make these changes including grading the
property and installing retaining walls for better drainage. She submitted
correspondence identifying hardship unique to the property and its
operations for consideration of a variance.
Mr. Brixius explained that the group home, which houses four
developmentally disabled adults, is allowed in any single family
residential area. The site is located on a cul-de-sac and therefore is a
triangular shaped lot with a narrow frontage. Parking demands for the
group home include a large van to transport residents, staff parking and
service vehicles, all of which contribute to a greater need for parking than
a normal single family property. Monthly house meetings generate
8
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
additional vehicles. Prior to the installation of the expanded driveway,
vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac which hindered mail delivery and snow
removal. The applicant was trying to resolve the parking issues with the
expanded driveway/parking area.
In the applicant’s correspondence, justification for each of the variances
was explained. 1) Residential off-street parking: The van was sized to
accommodate four consumers and due to the low height of the garage
door does not fit in the garage; state law requires that consumers have
access to their belongings; garage is used to store lawn mowers, patio
furniture, and seasonal items; 24-hour supervision is required; and
remodeled driveway and landscaping doesn’t interfere with character of
the neighborhood. 2) Curb cut maximum: Changes to the driveway
reduced street congestion and unusual shape and topography of the lot
makes any other solutions difficult; several cars are parked at the site at
any given time; grading, pavers and retaining wall have all helped to
reduce water runoff into the garage and basement. 3) Boulevard cannot be
used for parking: Expanded driveway is safer for consumers, street
parking was causing problems for neighbors. Mr. Brixius stated that the
applicants felt they had attempted to reduce congestion in the street and
had improved the site.
Mr. Brixius pointed out that arguments against the variance and for the
variance were laid out in the staff report. He explained that the city would
look at a variance as a necessity to provide reasonable use and is specific
to this site with regard to physical hardship. While group homes are
permitted in single family neighborhoods, they are not exempt from the
zoning standards. It was the applicant’s decision to purchase the home on
a cul-de-sac with a narrow frontage; the site may not be large enough to
provide the operational characteristics of the use. Parking performance
standards are established to control access to public streets. Boulevard
areas are utilized by the city for utilities and snow removal. On this site,
the driveway occupies all of the front yard except five feet at each
property line, therefore, snow storage would need to be pushed to a
neighbor’s property. The parking stalls behind the retaining wall are 21
feet deep and standard stalls are 18-19 feet deep, so snow removal could
damage vehicles parked in this area. The maximum curb cut for a
residential property is 24 feet and this curb cut is approximately 36 feet
wide, which is out of character with surrounding properties. The
applicant’s are utilizing the garage for storage of personal items which
creates a greater parking demand outside and the need for the expanded
driveway. It appears that there would be room for expanded parking on
the east side of the garage eliminating some parking need at the front of
the property.
Arguments in favor of the variance include: group homes are allowed in
an R-1 District by state law, the unique shape of the lot complicates
options available for off-street parking, group homes have unique
transportation and parking needs, and economic hardship doesn’t
warrant a variance, however, the property owner’s investment in the front
9
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
yard has been considerable.
Mr. Brixius stated that the Design and Review Committee made
suggestions for relocating the parking to the east side of the driveway and
possibly constructing a storage shed to free up the garage for parking. The
applicant’s written response stated that any alternative was not practical
due to the fact that on-site staff would then have to park back-to-back in
the driveway and shuffle vehicles to allow ingress and egress from the
parking areas. State law mandates that residents cannot be left
unattended. The city attorney responded to specific points in the letter
from the applicant, which is included in the planning report.
Mr. Brixius added that staff had met with the petitioner early in the
process and suggested that she have neighbor’s sign a letter of support for
the changes to the property. Three of the four neighbors in the cul-de-sac
signed the letter of support (the fourth property is a rental with an
unknown owner).
Mr. Brixius pointed out that two solutions were offered from staff: 1)
Denial based on the following findings: the decision to purchase this site
was made by the applicant, cul-de-sac lacks sufficient frontage for
parking, applicant uses garage for storage rather than parking; city has
established parking performance standards to control traffic, expanded
parking provides more access points, little room for snow storage;
residential curb cut limited to 24 feet and this has been expanded to 36
feet; two spaces in garage not being used for parking; there is room on the
east side yard for an additional parking space. 2) Approval with the
following conditions: newly constructed parking be limited to compact
cars, city would not be liable for damage to vehicles parked in the
boulevard, city would not be responsible for snow removal in the parking
or boulevard area, excess parking area to be removed and restored to
original condition if the group home changed back to a single family
home.
Commissioner Brinkman questioned the number of vehicles that could be
parked on the site. It was noted that there was room for four side-by-side
parking spaces and the applicant had indicated compact cars would be
parked in front of the retaining wall. There may be opportunity for
tandem parking in the driveway as well.
Commissioner Nirgudé raised the issue of parking in the garage and why
a storage shed was not being utilized. He also questioned the timeframe
from when the driveway was expanded until the applicant was notified
there was a problem. Mr. Brixius responded that the applicant had
indicated in correspondence that as a group they were required to
provide easy access storage for the consumers and a storage shed would
be more difficult to access. It was noted that the expanded parking area
was installed in October 2004 and the Inspections Department sent
correspondence in November 2004. Mr. McDonald interjected that after
Ms. Bruemmer received the letter from the inspector, she contacted the
10
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
city and staff had been working with her since that time. No citation had
been issued for the violation.
Ms. Barbara Bruemmer, owner of 4717 Independence Avenue North,
came forward. Ms. Stephanie Payne, program administrator, 314 5th
Avenue South, Hopkins, also approached the podium.
Commissioner Anderson initiated discussion regarding the use of a
storage shed to free up the garage for parking. Ms. Bruemmer answered
that the consumers want access to stored items and to have them close at
hand. When she purchased the home, there was one consumer and now
four consumers plus staff live in the home, therefore, is not a lot of extra
storage space inside and many other personal items or seasonal
belongings need to be stored elsewhere. Also, the van is too tall to fit into
the low tuck-under garage. The double garage is small in size, both in
height and square footage. She pointed out that the recently replaced
garage door had to be custom made to fit the short opening.
Commissioner Nirgudé raised the issue of whether or not the applicant
was aware of the driveway requirements when she purchased the home.
Ms. Bruemmer responded that when she purchased the property she was
the only manager and there were no live-in staff on site. There are several
managers now as well as live-in staff. State laws are stricter and there are
more quality checks. All group homes have unique needs and the
residents here have different needs than other programs. Commissioner
Buggy inquired whether there was any thought given to asking the city
about requirements prior to having the work done. Ms. Payne responded
that the landscapers had inquired of city staff. She maintained if they had
known the requirements they would have requested a variance first. Mr.
McDonald explained that until 1995 city code required a permit for
driveway work. In 1995, the city code was amended to eliminate that
requirement and only require a permit if there was a change to the curb
cut. The city understood that the contractor had inquired whether a
permit was necessary to work on the driveway and was told no, but may
not have mentioned the boulevard work. Mr. McDonald advised that
Community Development and Public Works staff would like to re-
implement driveway permits to allow inspectors the opportunity to
review plans for the proposed work. Ms. Bruemmer indicated that city
staff had been at the site several times throughout the project visiting with
the landscapers and did not mention a problem until November, after the
project had been completed. Commissioner Schmidt commented that the
ultimate responsibility to find out code requirements was with the
homeowner.
Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, stated he wasn’t sure that obtaining a
driveway permit would have indicated that cars were going to be parked
in the boulevard area. A driveway contractor was not working on a
driveway in this situation. The curb cut was widened due to the fact that
the pavers were installed all the way to the surmountable curb. There
wouldn’t have been any curb cut work done because there was no change
11
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
to the surmountable curb, the only difference was to add pavers in the
front yard and boulevard area where there was grass previously. A
landscaping contractor may not have questioned what the homeowner
was going to do with the paved area, such as a patio or parking.
Chairman Svendsen asked for clarification on staffing at the group home
and why four parking spaces were needed. Ms. Payne responded that
daily there would be the house van, live-in staff vehicle, the vehicles to
pick up and drop off the consumers for their day programs, and house
supervisor. The maintenance schedule was also explained. The consumers
leave the property between 7 and 9 a.m. and return between 2 and 4 p.m.
Concern was expressed for the safety of the children residing at
neighboring properties.
Discussion ensued on the location of the mailboxes and the fact that there
was basically no curb space available for parking for any of the cul-de-sac
properties. Ms. Payne confirmed this was true.
Question was raised whether staff had parked on nearby streets and this
was confirmed, however, it was not as convenient, especially if there was
an emergency on site. With the expanded parking available, parking on
site is adequate.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-03. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Chairman Svendsen commented that he would like to see parking on the
east side of the garage. Ms. Bruemmer disagreed. She stated there was 21
feet four inches between the houses and there would not be enough space
to install a parking stall in that location and allow for the proper setback
from the property line. She also stated that the grading issue had just been
resolved and felt that any grade change at the side of the garage may
create more problems. Ms. Bruemmer reiterated that due to the lot shape
and topography there was no other option for them for the parking.
Commissioner Houle stated he did not see a hardship with regard to the
variance request. There was a trade off in lot size/frontage living in a cul-
de-sac for less through traffic.
Commissioner Schmidt stated he was in favor of the variance, with the
hesitation that step two was done before step one.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he was in favor of the variance.
Question was raised whether this use would be considered a home
12
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
business. It was noted that State Statutes allow group homes in single
family districts if under six occupants.
Mr. Brixius corrected statements that there was no specific driveway
length established in the city code. Typical boulevard areas are
approximately 15 feet and the front yard setback in single family zoning
districts is 25 feet. He stated that parking in the side yard could be three
feet from the property line measured five feet in from the curb.
Mr. Brixius clarified that with regard to variances, whether denying or
approving, the staff report outlined conditions that would single out this
property to avoid setting precedent for other property owners. The
conditions were written to identify the uniqueness of the property itself
and identify the unique use of the property.
Commissioner Anderson called attention to specific items in the planner’s
report identifying this property as a unique situation.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Buggy ,
Item 5.2 to approve Planning Case 05-03, Request for variance to maximum curb
cut width, residential off-street parking, and prohibition against
parking on the boulevard, 4717 Independence Avenue North, Barbara
Bruemmer, Petitioner, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1.The proposed use is permitted by state law within any R-1 Zoning
District. As such, it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
R-1 Zoning District.
2.The unique shape of the cul-de-sac complicates the ability to
provide alternative locations for off-street parking.
3.As a group home, it does have unique transportation and parking
needs that are dissimilar from any other single family use within
the R-1 District. This provision makes the property unique.
4.An economic hardship cannot be the basis for granting a variance
request, the property owner has made a significant investment in
altering the front yard to accommodate the additional outdoor
parking.
5.The newly constructed parking area would be restricted to compact
car parking.
6.The city would not be held liable and would be indemnified
against any damage to vehicles that are parked within the city
boulevard.
7.The city will not be responsible for any snow removal within the
parking area or boulevard area of the street.
8.The excess parking area is removed and restored to its original
condition so that it complies with city ordinances upon sale of the
property for a single family use.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Schmidt
Voting against: Oelkers, Svendsen
13
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 14 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC04-26 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 5.3, Consideration of
Ordinance No. 05-06, An ordinance amending setback and placement
Item 5.3
regulations for accessory antennas, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald stated the amendment was to bring the city ordinance
into compliance with Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
regulations. The existing ordinance regulates placement on mounted
antennas less than 24 inches in diameter and states that they cannot be
placed within the required front setback of 25 feet or in a required side
yard abutting a street. The FCC has strict rules that state local
governments cannot regulate placement of satellite dishes under one
meter (39.37 inches) in size unless the placement has adverse impacts on
public safety or property of historic value, therefore, the city code was
amended accordingly.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 5.3 approve Planning Case 04-26, Ordinance No. 05-06, An Ordinance
amending setback and placement regulations for accessory antennas,
City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated the public hearing on this planning case would be held at
the March 14 City Council meeting.
PC04-19 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 5.4, Consideration of
Ordinance No. 05-04, An ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning
Item 5.4
Code regulating side yard setback requirements for living space built over
attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, City of New Hope,
Petitioner.
Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, stated that in 1998,
when the Comprehensive Plan was updated, the city identified living
space over garages as one component of revitalizing the existing housing
stock. This amendment would allow living space over the garage with a
five foot side yard setback, the same as the current garage setback. Any
additional living space constructed behind the garage would need to be 10
feet from the property line.
The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed the ordinance amendment
14
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
and offered three options: 1) allow living space within five feet of a side
lot line only above a garage footprint; 2) allow living space within five feet
of a side lot line along the garage side of the house over and beyond the
garage foundation; and 3) reduce all single family lot side yard setbacks to
five feet. The recommendation from the Committee was option 1.
It was noted that the building code requires six feet of separation between
buildings.
Question was raised as to how may requests of this type come to the city
and the response was there were two requests in 2004, and this
recommended ordinance amendment was initiated because of those
requests, which were approved. This ordinance amendment would apply
only to R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. With the city encouraging property
owners to re-invest in their properties, this type of request may be more
frequent. It was mentioned that many new homes being constructed offer
living space over the garage.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Houle, to
Item 5.4 approve Planning Case 04-19, Ordinance No. 05-04, An ordinance
amending the New Hope Zoning Code regulating side yard setback
requirements for living space built over attached garages in the R-1 and
R-2 Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated the public hearing on this planning case would be held at
the March 14 City Council meeting.
PC03-13 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 5.5, Consideration of
Ordinance No. 05-05, An ordinance amending the setback requirements
Item 5.5
and sign locations for permitted signs, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius stated several amendments have been adopted to
address open house, garage sale, and political signs. This amendment is to
clarify setback requirements for political signs and make the placement
consistent with other temporary signs. Placement of the signs is measured
from the back of the curb for easier placement. One issue not previously
addressed is the sight visibility triangle. The existing code states that for
permanent signs the visibility triangle is measured at the property line
and 20 feet in both directions with a line drawn between them. No signs
over a certain height or size are allowed in that triangle to allow good
traffic visibility at the intersections. The Codes and Standards Committee
and staff felt that the zoning code was too restrictive with regards to
locating temporary signage on corner lots. Several options were reviewed
for temporary signs and the committee was recommending that
15
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
temporary signs on a corner lot be measured from the back of the curb 20
feet in both directions. Permanent signs that require a permit, will
continue to be measured from the property line.
Chairman Svendsen questioned how this change would affect
landscaping or fencing on the property. Mr. Brixius stated that the
amendment only related to the Sign Code. The Zoning Ordinance states
that landscaping under two feet or over eight feet in height would be
allowed in the traffic visibility triangle. The change should clarify for
residents and realtors how to measure for the placement of temporary
signs.
Commissioner Buggy stated that the Codes and Standard Committee was
aware of negative feedback regarding the previous Council’s management
of the sign ordinance and the removal of people’s signs. He stated he felt
it was appropriate for the city to continue to police the code and be sure
that the signs are placed properly, but would encourage the Council,
mayor and staff to work with the residents when enforcing the codes. If a
sign was placed in the wrong place, he stressed that every effort be made
by the city inspectors to contact the homeowner. He realized that time
was of the essence, but felt the approach should be changed in how staff
deals with the public and the signs. There have been too many public
relations issues and problems over the sign ordinance and it should not be
that way. Mr. McDonald stated that Commissioner Buggy’s statements
would be recorded in the minutes so the Council members would be
aware of his opinion.
Commissioner Oelkers added that real estate agents should get a copy of
the sign ordinance. The ordinance should be sent to the board of realtors
and it would then be forwarded to all realtors. He stated he had signs
removed last year. Mr. McDonald stated that the current ordinance had
been forwarded to the realtor’s association and the revised ordinance
would be forwarded to them upon adoption.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 5.5 approve Planning Case 03-13, Ordinance No. 05-05, An ordinance
amending the setback requirements and sign locations for permitted
signs, City of New Hope, Petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on March 14.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in
February with the petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that staff was not
Committee
16
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
Item 6.1 aware of any applications for April. He reminded the commissioners of
the joint meeting with the City Council on March 21. Staff was
anticipating that applications would be filed for the May Planning
Commission meeting.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Buggy reported that the Codes and Standards Committee
had met several times to discuss the ordinances on this agenda. The
Committee
committee was still discussing transit shelters and meeting with several
Item 6.2
shelter companies.
OLD BUSINESS Chairman Svendsen expressed concern with regard to off-street parking
and infill development, such as the Alfa Muffler parking situation.
Miscellaneous Issues
Discussion ensued that for future satellite sites as part of a subdivision the
city would require a permanent easement be established as part of the
subdivision.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that the City Center Task Force members
contributed over a year’s worth of time on the task force, as well as
Planning Commission time, in reviewing the recommendations for the
City Center redevelopment. He expressed his displeasure that the City
Council was now abandoning the plan. He felt it had been a waste of time
and money for those that served on the task force and an insult to him
personally. He stated he talked to several members of the task force who
stated they were very irritated that their time was wasted. Commissioner
Oelkers stated he did not agree with all recommendations, but there had
been a lot of time and effort put into the project. Sister cities, such as
Richfield, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Lakeville, Roseville, and Hopkins,
are all doing multi-family, high density city centers and they are all
working. For the City Council to abandon the work done by the task force
and recommendations made, he felt, was a huge error in judgment.
Several other members of the Planning Commission concurred.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner
Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 7,
2004. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council minutes were reviewed.
The City Council has requested its packets be published and delivered
earlier in the week and with the tight schedule between the Planning and
Council meetings, beginning in April all Planning Commission items will
be considered by the City Council at the second meeting of the month
(fourth Monday). The timeline still falls within the 60-day rule. This
modification was discussed with the chair of the Commission.
Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for nominations for chair, vice chair
and third officer. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by
Commissioner Landy, to nominate Steve Svendsen as chair, motion by
Chairman Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to nominate
Kathi Hemken as vice chair, motion by Chairman Svendsen, seconded by
17
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005
Commissioner Landy, to nominate Bill Oelkers as third officer. All voted
in favor. Motions carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen reminded the commission of the joint meeting with
the City Council on March 21.
Chairman Svendsen explained the two subcommittees of the Planning
Commission, the Design and Review Committee and Codes and
Standards Committee, and the responsibilities of each. Due to the open
meeting law, there can be no more than five commissioners on each
committee. Commission assignments are as follows: Design and Review –
Steve Svendsen, Bill Oelkers, Paul Anderson, and Jeff Houle; Codes and
Standards – Kathi Hemken, Tim Buggy, and Jim Brinkman. Ranjan
Nirgudé and Tom Schmidt would alternate between the two committees
prior to making a final decision. Roger Landy will be an alternate member
for either committee, as needed. Each committee will elect its own chair.
Mr. McDonald announced that there would be a Community
Development/Parks and Recreation bus tour of city projects scheduled
sometime in June.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
18
Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2005