060209 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2, 2009
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chair Oelkers called the meeting to order at 7
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle (left
at 8:15 p.m.), Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé,
Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: None
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development,
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Eric Weiss, Community
Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09-07 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.1, request for side yard setback variance,
2701 Quebec Avenue North, Jennifer Baldwin and Tim Horejsi,
Item 4.1
petitioners.
Mr. Eric Weiss stated the petitioner was requesting a side yard setback
variance to allow for the construction of 264 square feet of living space
over the garage. In 1983 the previous homeowner requested and the city
approved a side yard setback variance of 1 1/2 feet to allow the addition
of a second garage stall 3 1/2 feet from the property line. Currently, there
is a flat roof over the second garage stall. The property is zoned R-1,
single family residential and is surrounded by other single family
residential properties. The site contains 10,625 square feet. The property is
in planning district 16, which encourages redevelopment and expansion
of residential properties.
The petitioners indicated that they desired to construct additional living
space as their family is increasing in size and they preferred to stay in
New Hope. They indicated a gutter would be added on the south side to
drain toward the front of the property and the siding and roofline would
match the existing. They also indicated that if the variance was not
granted, they may have to move out of the city.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff
received one letter of support from the adjacent neighbor to the south.
Mr. Weiss reported that the development review team discussed the
proposal and suggested that the elevation plan and floor plan should
match (window location) and the drainage downspout should be directed
to the front yard. The Design and Review Committee met with the
applicant and indicated general approval of the plans.
City code states a garage can be five feet from the property line, including
living space over a garage. The current application was requesting a side
yard variance of 1 1/2 feet for living space over the garage to be located 3
1/2 feet to the property line. This is not a typical variance hardship, but
Mr. Weiss stated staff felt that due to the placement of the existing garage,
the expansion of the house would not place any additional hardship on
the neighbors. The application was a reasonable request and should
increase the home values in the neighborhood and is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Revised plans were submitted showing the elevation and floor plan
matching. The addition would add a master suite to the home’s south
end. A large bedroom and walk-in closet would be constructed above the
garage. Three new windows would be installed in a manner not to
intrude with the privacy of either the applicant or the neighbor. The
applicants indicated they would utilize the same materials and color on
the addition as on the existing building.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff felt this was a reasonable request and the type
of investment and expansion the city should encourage, and staff
recommended approval.
Mr. Tim Horejsi, 2701 Quebec Avenue, came forward to address the
Commission. Mr. Horejsi reiterated that they liked New Hope and
wanted to expand their home to accommodate their growing family.
No one was in the audience to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Houle, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-07. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on the setback for living space
to the property line and the fact that the city planner had indicated there
was no hardship to grant the variance. Commissioner Oelkers stated that
several years ago the code had been changed to allow living space over a
garage located five feet from the property line. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney,
stated that a non-economic hardship would support the variance. He
explained that the planner’s report indicated there was no non-economic
hardship in this particular variance request, meaning there may be a
hardship to the applicants if the variance was not granted. Variances
typically are supported by non-economic hardships that are not due to
the property owner, but are unique to the property because of the
configuration of the land or circumstances unique to the parcel and not
created by the landowner. Chair Oelkers maintained that the city had
changed the ordinance to reflect living space over a garage could be
located five feet from the property line. Commission Schmidt pointed out
2
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
that this request was to construct living space over the garage to match a
pre-existing variance. Commissioner Houle maintained he was concerned
about setting precedence by granting the variance. The city attorney
pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan encourages residents to reinvest
in the community. Mr. Jacobsen interjected that it could be considered a
hardship if the Planning Commission and Council do not approve this
request that the applicants may decide to move out of the city because
they do not have room for their growing family.
Commissioner Svendsen wondered whether the uniqueness of this
planning case would set a precedent, and Mr. Sondrall indicated that
granting one variance did not necessarily set a precedent that would
apply to different circumstances in the future.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.1 Schmidt, to approve Planning Case 09-07, request for side yard setback
variance, 2701 Quebec Avenue North, Jennifer Baldwin and Tim
Horejsi, petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1.Drainage of downspout to the front yard.
2.Siding and roofline on addition to match existing house.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hunten, Landy,
Nirgudé, Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Houle
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on June 22 and asked that the petitioner attend
that meeting.
Mr. Sondrall confirmed that, after checking the city code, living space
above a garage is allowed five feet from the property line.
PC09-08 Chair Oelkers introduced Item 4.2, request for site and building plan
review for a liquor store in an existing building, 9400 36th Avenue North,
Item 4.2
Brooklyn Center Service, Inc./Randy Rau, petitioner.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that the petitioner was requesting site and
building plan review to remodel the interior of the existing convenience
store by eliminating 1,740 square feet and replacing that square footage
with a liquor store. The site is zoned CB, community business. Adjacent
land uses include office and retail to the north and south and low density
residential to the east and south. The site contains 36,000 square feet. The
existing convenience store contains 2,964 square feet. The proposed
convenience store would be 1,224 square feet and the proposed liquor
store would be 1,740 square feet. The lot ratios include: building 17.5
percent, paved 61 percent, and green area 17.5 percent. The
Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this property; however,
3
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
the plan supports reinvestment in commercial properties.
Mr. Jacobsen explained that the gas station with convenience store and
car wash was approved by conditional use permit in 1990 and 1996. In
March 2009, the City Council increased the number of off-sale liquor
licenses and Mr. Rau is in the process of applying for the available license.
Mr. Rau indicated that due to the economic times and the pay-at-the-
pumps, the larger convenience store was not necessary and he could
accomplish the same thing in lesser square footage.
No published notice is required for site and building plan reviews per the
city code.
The development review team met to discuss the proposal and suggested
the applicant submit a new signage plan if changes were proposed, a
separate tenant bay for the liquor store with full height walls, and
separate register areas. The Design and Review Committee met with the
applicant and generally approved of the plans including the full height
walls, as required by the state’s Liquor Control Board.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that the existing gasoline station with car wash and
convenience store are permitted under the existing CUP. The proposed
liquor store is a permitted retail use in the CB district. The convenience
store and liquor store tenant bays would have separate entrance/exit
doors and would be separated by a floor to ceiling glass and aluminum
wall. An emergency door between the two stores would be included per
the building code, which would be for employees. Bathroom facilities
would not be accessible to liquor store patrons and must be accessed
through the convenience store. Parking requirements are based on the
retail use of the property; therefore, no additional parking space would be
required. The site also utilizes the shopping center parking lot to the west.
No changes to the building elevation were proposed. The existing floor
plan would be divided into two tenant bays with separate entrances/exits.
The convenience store cash register area would be located along the north
wall, which staff had recommended be located closer to the exit, but is
permitted as proposed. If additional signage would be proposed, the
applicant must adhere to sign code requirements and obtain a permit.
The off-sale liquor license is separate from this application. The design
guidelines do not apply to this application.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff felt the applicant complied with
recommended alterations to the building and was recommending
approval subject to the door between the two tenant bays being
designated and signed for employee use only. Customer traffic must be
via exterior doors.
Commissioner Brinkman wondered where the closest liquor stores were
located. The nearest liquor store would be in Plymouth across Highway
169 near 36th Avenue; there is also a liquor store in Cub Foods at
Highway 169 and 42nd Avenue, and one in New Hope at 36th and
4
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
Winnetka avenues.
Commissioner Hunten was concerned with the parking. She felt a liquor
store patron was different from a convenience store patron that may be
running into the building to make a quick purchase. There did not seem
to be any parking close to the liquor store. Chair Oelkers pointed out that
there were five parallel parking spaces along the south side of the car
wash for customer parking. There are also five spaces on the north side of
the car wash. Commissioner Houle agreed that parking was not ideal on
this site.
Mr. Randy Rau, business owner, came forward to answer questions. Mr.
Rau confirmed there were five parallel spaces on the south side of the car
wash and two spaces parallel to 36th Avenue near the entrance. There are
12 spaces by the pumps as well. Mr. Rau agreed that some customers
utilized the shopping center parking lot while doing business at his
facility. Discussion ensued on how to control the patron parking in front
of the doors and a suggestion was made to post no parking signage in
that area. Mr. Rau stated he would be agreeable to posting signage on the
canopy column near the front door.
Commissioner Schmidt questioned the compliance check history for the
convenience store for the sale of beer and cigarettes. Mr. Sondrall pointed
out that the property owner would be responsible if employees fail the
compliance check. Mr. Rau indicated he gave up the beer license several
years ago.
Commissioner Nirgudé pointed out that each business would be
addressed with a separate suite number.
There was discussion on the number of off-sale liquor licenses in the city
and how that number was established and the fact that the City Council
sets the number.
Mr. Jacobsen pointed out that the main reason this issue came before the
Planning Commission was that there were security concerns by the Police
Department due to the proximity of the business to the highway. The city
consulted with a representative of the state Liquor Control Commission
to explain to staff and consultants what was required by the state and
whether or not this use would be allowed. With the changing economy,
the state is looking more favorably on a request for a liquor store
partnered with a gas/ convenience store. The two businesses are required
to have separate registers. The city code requires a separate address for
the liquor store. Due to the fact that there are two registers required, two
staff people are also required for security reasons. A plan review was
required so the Planning Commission and City Council could verify that
all recommendations for building changes and security measures comply
with state and city regulations. Mr. Rau indicated that the existing
security system can be monitored from his residence and satisfied police
personnel. The police were concerned due to potential for robbery and
5
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
the close proximity to the highway for fast escape.
Discussion ensued on hours of operation. Mr. Rau indicated that the
pumps close at 10 p.m. during the summer. The liquor store would be
open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and the convenience store would be open
from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. There would be at least three employees on site,
including the person operating the car wash. If business is slow in winter,
the hours may change back to 9 p.m. for closing. Mr. Rau confirmed that
the liquor store would never be open when the convenience store was
closed.
Chair Oelkers asked for clarification on signage. Mr. Rau stated that the
monument sign would not change per his agreement with Shell Oil. The
building currently has signage in blue letters indicating Perfect Car Wash
and Food Store. He would like to put letters for the liquor store on the
front of the building. On the south side, he would like to install “liquor,
beer, wine” in 20-inch white aluminum letters. Commissioner Schmidt
indicated concern that there was no sign plan to review. Mr. Rau stated
the sign company would be applying for the sign permit.
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Houle,
to close the public hearing on Planning Case 09-08. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioners Schmidt and Brinkman indicated they did not like the
proposed plan. The parking situation was a big concern and the liquor
store and gas pumps together were not a good match. A question was
raised whether or not the existing CUP needed to be amended, and it was
noted the planner had not mentioned that in his report. The liquor store
is a permitted use in the CB zoning district. The City Council would deal
with the licensing issue separately. The request before the Commission
was the building plan review for the two tenant bays.
Chair Oelkers stated that he was not concerned with the parking situation
and compared this location to a nearby grocery store where there was a
lot more traffic to walk around.
Commissioner Nirgudé pointed out that the city code requires a certain
amount of spaces for the business use but does not specify where the
parking should be located.
Commissioner Houle maintained that he felt there was a public safety
issue to be concerned with in the site plan review. It was noted that the
review was for the building plans and the separation of the two tenant
bays not the site itself. Mr. Jacobsen added that this plan was being
reviewed under the code section for site and building plan review even
though this particular review was only for the building, and would be
sure that it was compliant with state law.
6
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he had been concerned with the security
issues, but after hearing about the existing security system, cameras and
monitoring, and separate cash registers, his concerns were alleviated.
Commissioner Schmidt concurred.
Commissioner Schmidt initiated discussion on the landscaping and
suggested the applicant make needed improvements. Mr. Rau agreed that
improvements would be made to the landscaping.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 09-08, request for site and building plan review
for a liquor store in an existing building, 9400 36th Avenue North,
Brooklyn Center Service, Inc./Randy Rau, petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
1.The door between the two tenant bays be designated and signed for
employee use only. Customer traffic between the two tenant bays
shall be via exterior doors only.
2.No parking sign to be installed in front of the building (west side).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Houle, Hunten, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: Brinkman, Schmidt
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Chair Oelkers stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council at its meeting on June 22 and asked that the petitioner attend
that meeting.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee
met with the petitioners, and a representative T-Mobile. Mr. Jacobsen
Committee
added that T-Mobile should be ready to move forward in July, as well as a
Item 5.1
company interested in purchasing the Master Transfer site. There are
several pre-application meetings scheduled for this Friday. The
committee will be notified of the meeting on June 18.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee did not meet in May.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS Chair Oelkers mentioned that the City Council wanted to meet with the
Commission on July 20, at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the
Miscellaneous Issues
Council wanted input on how the planning process could be made better,
Item 6.1
any concerns the Commission may have, where the city was going, and
whether the Commission felt the Council was paying attention to its
concerns. A suggestion was made to provide an agenda before the
7
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
meeting so commissioners could be ready with ideas. Chair Oelkers
suggested communication between staff and the Commission and staff
and the Council.
Commissioner Houle left the meeting (8:15 p.m.).
Mr. Jacobsen gave a brief update of Planning Case 07-03, Bill Karges, 3317
Ensign Avenue, rear yard setback variance. He stated that from a
planning standpoint, the project worked fine. The final grading for the
Karges project, burying electric lines, and landscaping would be
completed this spring.
Commissioner Nirgudé inquired whether there were items that the
Planning Commission should look at when reviewing applications. Mr.
Roger Axel, building official, answered that it would be difficult to
establish core criteria applicable across the city. The Commission would
need to look at projects on a case-by-case basis. Issues for cul-de-sac
projects include site restrictions, traffic needs, parking, and staging of
materials.
Mr. Axel reported on the construction aspect of the Karges project.
Questions were raised regarding the bump out area at the rear of the
house and whether or not the driveway met code requirements. Mr. Axel
added that concern had been raised that this house would be a “show”
house which would produce a lot of neighborhood traffic, and he
indicated this was the property owner’s home and did not intend for the
public to be touring his home.
Mr. Sondrall added that at the time of the planning application for this
project, there was some concern due to restrictive covenants imposed on
the property many years ago, which had since expired.
Commissioner Crough commended the Commission, Council and city for
allowing this construction as it would provide an opening for other
residents to improve their properties.
Mr. Sondrall interjected that there was a noise concern with the proposed
wind generator, which had not been installed. Mr. Axel added that the
house was constructed with a platform in place in the event a wind
generator was found in the future that met the noise and height
restrictions of the city.
Next, Mr. Jacobsen reported on Planning Case 08-04, Conductive
Containers, Inc., 4500 Quebec Avenue, front yard setback variance. Chair
Oelkers wondered whether or not the city should adjust the front yard
setback in the city code and the consensus of the Commission was to
review each request.
Chair Oelkers requested an update on the Winnetka Green project at the
July meeting, in August the Village on Quebec and Winnetka Townhomes
8
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009
projects, and in September the Holy Trinity Church and school project.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Jacobsen reported that Ryan Companies would be meeting with the
school district in early June and with the City Council later in the month
to give an update on the potential redevelopment project.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
Motion to Approve
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 2009. All voted
Minutes
in favor. Motion carried.
Item 7.1
ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
9
Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2009