Loading...
030612 planning commissionCITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2012 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 Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: None Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 12 -01 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, request for site plan review for an Item 4.1 exterior remodel of the existing building and change from single to multi - tenant building, 8001 Bass Lake Road, Brian Fabo /Fabo Enterprises on behalf of Family Dollar, petitioner. Mr. Eric Weiss stated that Fabo Enterprises was representing Family Dollar and was requesting site plan review for the building at 8001 Bass Lake Road for an exterior remodel and occupancy change from single to multi- tenant building. The site is located in a Community Business (CB) zoning district and is surrounded by CB properties to the northeast and east and various multi - family residential properties to the south, west and northwest. The parcel is located on the south side of Bass Lake Road and west of Winnetka Avenue /CVS store and contains 2.31 acres. The building contains 17,467 square feet and Family Dollar would utilize 9,593 square feet. Mr. Weiss explained that the existing building was formerly used as a nursery and currently is being used for furniture sales and storage. The building has been deteriorating for several years. The applicant is proposing exterior facade and site renovations, along with interior changes which would split the building into two tenant bays. Family Dollar would utilize approximately half the building. There is a loading dock at the southwest corner of the building that would be serviced by semi -truck trailers. Plans show adequate truck maneuvering space under normal circumstances. Snow storage has been shown on the plans; however, the location would interfere with the proposed path for trucks. The applicant must demonstrate how the second tenant bay would be accessed for deliveries and trash pickup. The existing outdoor storage area may interfere with access for the second tenant bay. The existing greenhouse would be removed. There would be a pedestrian walkway added between the public sidewalk and the building. The private sidewalk should include a pedestrian ramp to make the walkway accessible for those with disabilities. The sidewalk at the front of the building would connect the two tenant bays. Twenty -four new parking stalls would be added to the site, including four handicap stalls, and curbing around the perimeter. Assuming both tenant spaces would be retail uses, a total of 83 stalls would be required. The entire site has 97 stalls, an excess of 14 stalls. Plans show the stalls in the west parking area are 18 feet deep and city code requires 19 feet. Mr. Weiss reported that the building would be repainted in shades of brown. The bottom two- thirds of the building are concrete masonry units and the top third is wood. A tower entrance would be constructed at the front of Family Dollar and would include the sign. New windows and red awnings would be added to the front and west sides of the building. Family Dollar would occupy the western portion of the building, including a new entrance, retail space, restrooms, office, break room, and receiving areas. Family Dollar indicated they would not be utilizing the basement and would be removing the existing stairway and elevator. Mr. Weiss added that little information was provided on the second tenant space. Before a second tenant would occupy the space, demonstration that the use is in compliance with the zoning and building codes world be required. West Metro Fire and the building official were concerned about the Family Dollar's lack of access to electrical and water controls in the basement. Building services need to be accessible to all tenants. Rooftop equipment would be placed toward the center of the tenant space and should not be visible from the public right of way. All rooftop equipment would be painted to match the building. New landscaping would be added at the edge of the property along Bass Lake Road. Plans indicate hardy species of bushes /shrubs that would grow to about three to four feet in height and would adequately screen parked cars. All landscaped areas would be irrigated. Three new light poles would be installed at a height of 33 feet (30 -foot pole plus three -foot base). City code limits pole height to 25 feet. A partial photometric plan was provided for the new parking area, which indicates a lighting deficiency in several areas. Additional lighting would be required. Exterior lighting fixtures are recommended for the building. Mr. Weiss stated that signage information was submitted for Family Dollar, but not for the second tenant. The freestanding sign would be 20 feet high and 79 square feet in area; the wall sign totals 148 square feet. Proposed signage meets sign code requirements. Two existing signs would be removed. Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 6, 2012 There is an existing storm water easement running through the middle of the existing parking lot and the easement would remain. The Public Works Department has checked the condition of the 24 -inch pipe and it is acceptable. Snow storage has been proposed for the western edge of the parking lot in an area designated for 13 parking stalls. The site has an excess of 14 stalls so this fits within the required parking. Snow storage is proposed in an area for truck maneuvering. The applicant would need to properly store snow to maintain truck movement on the site and to protect a line of nearby trees. A 16,000 square foot area of outdoor storage at the rear of the building was approved in 1992 by conditional use permit, along with an additional 10,000 square feet in front. The rear area is fenced by a seven -foot chain - link fence. The applicant indicated they do not intend to utilize the outdoor storage area. Due to the fact that the outdoor storage area will no longer be accessory to the principle use of the building, the CUP will no longer be legal nonconforming. If outside storage is to remain, a new CUP would be required. Trash service for Family Dollar is shown at the back of the building, inside the fenced area. No details are provided for trash for the second tenant bay. A trash enclosure must be provided for the receptacles. It is recommended the enclosure include space for the second tenant bay. Mr. Weiss commented that the proposal generally meets the requirements of the Design Guidelines. The site is well landscaped, has pedestrian access, the architecture provides a base, middle and top and parking is screened from the public view. The building facade minimally meets the requirements. Storm water ponding for the area has been discussed in the past. Shingle Creek Watershed does not require improvements if the disturbed area is less than 10,000 square feet. In making recommendations for site and building plan review, the Planning Commission should consider the following criteria. Criteria: Staff finding: 1) Consistency with the city's long Site was identified in the Plan for range plans and Comprehensive redevelopment Plan 2) Consistency with the purpose Proposal meets most of the code requirements of the code and where it does not a condition of approval has been placed on the application 3) Preservation of the site in its Site already developed, additional natural state landsca in will be provided 4) Creation of a harmonious Building is existing and will be relationship of buildings and open improved space Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 6, 2012 5) Creation of a functional and Pedestrian access has been added, harmonious design for structures along with parking and land- scaping, building will be repainted and new entrance added, truck maneuvering is acceptable, bike parking is recommended 6) Creation of energy- conserving Building is existing design 7) Protection of adjacent Proposal would not alter adjacent p roperties properties Mr. Weiss reported that staff and the planning consultant met with the applicant and discussed several concerns. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received no comments. Mr. Weiss stated that staff was recommending approval of the site plan review subject to the 14 conditions in the planning report. Commissioner Schmidt confirmed that Family Dollar did not intend to utilize the basement and would remove the stairs and elevator. Mr. Weiss stated that the second tenant would have basement access. Commissioner Anderson stressed that both tenants should have access to utility services. Chair Houle wondered if staff was satisfied with the utility shut offs in the basement and Mr. Weiss responded that West Metro Fire and the building official would address that issue during the building plan review process. There would be a cost associated with moving the services upstairs. Ms. Hunten interjected that the building owner would have access to the whole building or provide an agreement for the tenants for access to utility services. Commissioner Schmidt confirmed that Family Dollar is the tenant not the building owner. Commissioner Onadipe pointed out that even if Family Dollar does not want to access the basement, the city should be certain that the building owner would have access. He suggested a location at the rear of the building for all services to be located, as well as roof access, that would be accessible for both tenants and the building owner. Chair Houle inquired whether there would be any changes to the Bass Lake Road access, due to the potentially hazardous left turn in or out of the site. Mr. Al Brixius reported that Bass Lake Road is a county road and there are no current scheduled improvements. Chair Houle questioned the condition of the parking lot on the west side Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 6, 2012 of the property. Mr. Brixius stated that the bituminous was in reasonable shape, except for the area behind the fence. Chair Houle wondered whether this plan would make the eastern portion of the building land - locked. Mr. Brixius replied that was staff's concern, however, the applicant has made a number of changes to the site plan to make the building more accessible from the front. Staff is recommending eliminating the fence and gate to open up the back for vehicle circulation, garbage hauling, and deliveries. Due to the change to a multi- tenant building, both spaces were reviewed at this time. Commissioner Brinkman inquired where the entrance for the second bay would be. Mr. Weiss pointed out how the building would be divided and the potential location for the entrance of the second tenant (west wall of the northern portion of the building). The entrance for the second tenant bay could be oriented to the north, along Bass Lake Road, as well. Changes were made to the new parking lot to include a sidewalk along the front of the building. The drive aisle will be wider than 24 feet in that area. Deliveries would be handled on the south side of the building for the second bay and at the southwest corner of the building for Family Dollar. Mr. Dean Welch, Fabo Enterprises, 1070 Secord Dam Road, Gladwin, Michigan, Mr. Alex Halamaj, project manager for Family Dollar, 347 Whitehall Drive, Palentine, Illinois, and Mr. Skip Melin, Cushman Wakefield Northmarq Real Estate and representing the owner, 3500 American Boulevard, #200, Bloomington, Minnesota, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Welch stated that currently the electric utilities are in the basement and Family Dollar would have a new service installed upstairs. The water service comes into the front of the building upstairs and a new water meter will be installed upstairs for Family Dollar. The gas is on the outside of the building on the back. The building is sprinklered and all equipment is upstairs. Only one new light pole will be installed, which will be 25 feet in height; the balance of the poles are existing. There will be down lights located under the arch in the sign element so there would be lighting along the front of the building from the sign tower. Chair Houle requested that the applicant provide a revised photometric plan. At this time there are no plans to address lighting on the eastern bay. This would be a landlord responsibility prior to a second tenant occupying the building. Commissioner Svendsen mentioned that the western parking lot must be restriped to 19 -foot stalls. He also requested that signage be installed for no parking by the fire department connection and stripe the fire lane. Commissioner Svendsen confirmed that the building's electrical and water service would be upstairs in Family Dollar's space. A question was raised as to the water service and Mr. Welch indicated that the second tenant would utilize the existing meter and Family Dollar would have a Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 6, 2012 new service and meter installed. Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion regarding painting and screening the rooftop units. He indicated there is a large grade change approaching the site from the east and CVS's parking lot is six to eight feet higher than this site. Mr. Welch responded that he thought the units only needed to be screened from the sidewalk. Family Dollar is proposing to paint the units. Svendsen stressed that the Design Guidelines also call for screening. Commissioner Svendsen stated that landscaping and irrigation must be installed before Family Dollar's occupancy. All light poles in the parking lot should be a maximum of 25 feet in height and a revised photometric plan should be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Commissioner Svendsen stated the southwest corner is the lowest area of the property. Most of the roof scuppers come off the back of the building. All the water flows to the southwest corner and there are no catch basins in that area. A manhole is located in the easement area. There is no curbing around the outside storage area. He wondered where all of the water would drain or if it would sit on the pavement and eventually deteriorate the pavement. A suggestion was made to demonstrate water flow and how it would leave the property. Mr. Welch stated that they were making no changes to drainage. Chair Houle commented that if the water was draining to the property to the west, changes should be made to prevent that. Mr. Melin stated that drainage should have been taken into consideration when previous tenants occupied the building, but they would take a look at building plans to see what could be done. Commissioner Svendsen stated that local ordinances and treatment and management of runoff water have changed since construction of the building. Commissioner Hunten stressed that the store is vacant and runoff water would probably be handled the same way as now. Mr. Brixius stated that this item had not been addressed due to the fact that it is an existing condition. Since no grading is being done in this area, it is being viewed as a grandfathered site with no specific recommendation for changing the drainage patterns or conditions on the site. Therefore, as long as the site is functioning today, the city could not request the property owner to make changes. If the property owner sees that standing water is deteriorating the bituminous, it may be in their best interest to fix the problem. Currently, there is a pond to the south that is raised above this property and the apartments to the west are also at a higher elevation. A trash enclosure constructed of similar building materials must be provided for the receptacles and sized large enough for both tenants. Commissioner Svendsen questioned who would be responsible for opening and closing the gate on trash day. Mr. Melin answered that there would be a professional management company handling the site. Family Dollar would be responsible for the gate at first. Once a second tenant is found, each tenant would have their own key for the gate. Mr. Brixius Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 6, 2012 interjected that staff was recommending that the entire fence and gate be removed. Mr. Melin stated that the landlord would follow the guidelines that the city is requesting. He asked that the fence be allowed to remain until a second tenant is found in the event that tenant would want outside storage. Mr. Melin suggested that if the fence can remain the gate itself could be removed or locked in an open position. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the site plan identified concrete curb around the new parking area and around the balance of the rear parking area behind the fence. No details were provided on the curbing. Mr. Brixius added that concrete curbing is required around the entire perimeter of the property. The city engineer should review the site to determine the drainage flow and the possibility of waiving curbing to allow a rain garden or drainage in the back. New curbing in the front parking area would be mandatory. A housekeeping item was mentioned on the demolition plan item #2 to change the name to City of New Hope. Soil conditions should be consistent with New Hope. Also Gopher State One -Call should be listed on the plans, not Diggers Hot Line. Commissioner Svendsen suggested that a sidewalk be placed along the west side of the building in front of the eight parking spaces to provide a safer access to the building. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the city would require a sidewalk in that area as he did not feel the expense involved for the applicant could be justified. Svendsen stressed the safety aspect for families with children walking behind the cars in the parking lot as opposed to walking next to the building. Commissioner Brinkman stated he was concerned with the entrance to the second tenant space and how people would gain access to the building. Mr. Melin demonstrated that there currently is a door on the western portion of the building that jets out toward Bass Lake Road. Once a second tenant is found, a final determination will be made to leave the door where it is or orient the entrance toward Bass Lake Road. Currently, there is also a door at the rear of the property for the second tenant space, as well as an existing drive -in loading dock door. Mr. Melin stated they were hoping to obtain another large tenant to lease the second space. Commissioner Schmidt questioned whether there was someone interested in the second space and Mr. Melin stated they have a couple different prospects and, hopefully, could fill the space by the end of the year. Commissioner Brinkman inquired of the types of businesses that share space with other Family Dollar stores. Mr. Halamaj replied that small convenience stores, rent -a- centers, medical office are examples. Types of businesses not allowed would include bars, nightclubs, competing discount stores, or thrift stores. Commissioner McKenzie stated that plans show several concrete post Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 6, 2012 holes and he wondered what would happen with these. Mr. Welch stated in the area of new pavement, the post holes would be removed. The ones in the rear would be dealt with at the time a second tenant is found. McKenzie stated he would like clarification on the type of soils on site due to the fact that he did not think they looked adequate. Parking lots with eight inches of granular base and three and one -half inches of bituminous would be okay in sandy soils, but not in clay. Mr. Welch stated that the site was paved previously, and there is a slab under the greenhouse. Commissioner McKenzie stressed that when the concrete posts are removed, the soil will be disturbed and any compaction would be lost. He pointed out that in the plan details, the Wisconsin DOT spec book is listed in error. The plan addresses compaction under the parking lot relating to the removal of the concrete posts. Commissioner McKenzie initiated discussion on the material of the bituminous and what type of concrete would be utilized for the curbing. He also inquired of plans for the ash trees on site. Mr. Brixius stated that the ash trees are an existing condition. Replacement of dead trees and shrubbery is required as part of any landscape plan approved with the zoning application. Mr. Brixius stated that if a second tenant would utilize a door on the north face of the building, there is only a five -foot sidewalk along the front side. It may be advantageous to install a wider sidewalk at this time for wider door swings and allow pedestrians adequate space. There is a 30 -foot drive aisle in that area; therefore, there would be plenty of room for an eight to 10 -foot sidewalk. Mr. Brixius added that in addition to increasing the width of the front sidewalk, it was staff's recommendation that the fence in the back be removed. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, clarified that the landlord was the responsible party for all conditions placed on the request and the enforcement of the conditions. The lease between the owner and tenant would spell out who is responsible for doing what. The applicants indicated they were in agreement with the conditions in the planning report. Discussion ensued on the comprehensive sign plan and Mr. Brixius stated that the applicant should submit information to the city whether or not Family Dollar would be utilizing the entire pylon sign or a portion of it. Mr. Melin stated that Family Dollar would utilize 51 percent of the sign. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to close the public hearing for Planning Case 12 -01. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 6, 2012 MOTION Motion by Commission Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 12 -01, request for site plan review for an Text Amendment exterior remodel of the existing building and change from single to multi- tenant building, 8001 Bass Lake Road, Brian Fabo /Fabo Enterprises on behalf of Family Dollar, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to enter into site improvement agreement with city (to be prepared by the city attorney). 2. Applicant to provide financial guarantee /performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 3. Outdoor storage within the fenced area of the site may be removed. If this is integral to the site, then a new conditional use permit may be pursued. 4. All parking must be properly dimensioned and striped on site (8 feet 9 inches by 19 feet). All parking lot improvements, paving, striping, and curbing shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 5. Snow storage shall not interfere with delivery vehicles maneuvering and shall not damage the existing trees. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate how the delivery vehicles shall access the second tenant bay. Staff recommends the removal of the fence and gate across the parking area to provide improved access to the back of the building. 7. Exterior trash enclosures shall be constructed to match the building and serve both tenant bays. 8. The applicant shall provide an exterior lighting plan for the entire site that complies with city requirements with regard to pole heights, required light levels, and light locations. 9. The approved landscape plan with irrigation plan to be installed prior to building occupancy. All plants shall be kept alive or replaced according to the approved plan. 10. Roof top equipment shall be screened and painted to match the building. 11. The pedestrian sidewalk provided between the public sidewalk and parking lot shall have an accessible ramp. 12. Building services shall be accessible to all tenant spaces, not isolated. 13. Consider bicycle parking near the building entrance. 14. Submit comprehensive sign plan. 15. Provide concrete curbing around all parking areas, pending review by city engineer. 16. Consider eight to 10 -foot sidewalk across north side of second tenant bay. 17. Consider six -foot sidewalk along west side of building in front of the eight parking spaces. Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 6, 2012 Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Nirgude, Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider this request at its meeting on March 26, 2012, and asked that the petitioner be in attendance. Planning Case 11 -09 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, request for a variance from the side Item 4.2 yard setback requirement for a driveway expansion, 8424 46th Avenue North, Dawn Niess, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen stated that the petitioner, Ms. Dawn Niess, at 8424 46th Avenue North, was requesting a variance to expand their driveway to the property line. The property is zoned R -1, single family residential and is surrounded by single family homes in all directions, with the New Hope Learning Center to the north. The lot area contains approximately one - quarter of an acre. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the applicant installed an area of pavers on the east side of the driveway and extended it across the property line from the curb to the back of the garage, without first obtaining a driveway permit. The area has been used for parking vehicles beside the garage. At times the applicant has stated the area was intended for parking, while at other times stated it was intended as landscaping. At the December 2011 Design and Review Committee meeting, the applicant was requested to submit a registered survey indicating the exact location of the garage, driveway, and paved areas, setbacks and property lines or have the property lines clearly marked. At that meeting, the applicant verbally requested an extension of 60 days of the planning review process. On January 23, 2012, the Council approved the extension request to April 7, 2012. Ms. Niess supplied a narrative to the city on February 24 explaining that a representative of Acre Land Surveying Inc. had marked the property lines. No visual proof of the staking of the property lines was provided and the site is no longer visibly marked due to snow cover, per staff's inspection. The narrative suggested there is six feet from the concrete driveway to the property line. The pavers extend from the driveway seven feet two inches, a total of one foot two inches over the property line. The applicant realizes the pavers extending over the property line may need to be removed. At minimum, the Planning Commission should recommend the pavers extending beyond the property line be removed. The Commission must consider the appropriateness of a three -foot variance to allow the driveway to extend to the property line, and whether or not the requirements of a variance have been met. While the applicant has stated the area is intended as a paved landscape area, staff has observed on multiple occasions the parking of vehicles and Planning Commission Meeting 10 March 6, 2012 trailers on the pavers. As a result, the improvements should be considered an expansion of the driveway. If the area is utilized for storage of trailers, the side yard storage area must be screened with a fence or landscaping. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code. Variances may be granted when the following requirements are met. Requirement Staff finding 1) Request is in harmony with the Code does not allow for the general purpose and intent of the extension of improvements across zoning code property lines without a legal agreement or easement 2) Request is consistent with the Plan calls for reinvestment in comprehensive plan residential neighborhoods, however, improvements must be done with minimal impact on nei hborin properties 3) Applicant establishes practical Property to be used in a difficulties in complying with reasonable manner, circumstances zoning code are unique to property and not created by owner, use will not alter essential character of zone, and will not impair access to light or air, cause congestion, or increase fire danger Mr. Jacobsen indicated the city does not believe the expansion of the driveway beyond the property line to be a reasonable use. Even if the driveway is reduced to the property line, staff feels this would alter the character of the neighborhood and would have an impact on present and future adjacent neighbors. The applicant's narrative states the purpose of the paved area is to enhance the appearance of the property suggesting it would limit the growth of weeds. No practical difficulty has been established by the applicant explaining why the pavers are the only option available to improve the appearance of the property and limit weeds. Weeds are not a circumstance unique to this particular property. Staff has observed the area is not being used solely as landscaping. No practical difficulty has been established for the need for additional parking. The Design and Review Committee met in December 2011 to discuss the proposal and was not supportive of the variance request due to the driveway not meeting code and extending onto the adjacent property. Property owners within 350 feet were notified. One neighbor had visited city hall a handful of times to inquire about the public hearing. The neighbor suggested they were not in support of the variance. Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 6, 2012 Mr. Jacobsen commented that without the information requested (full survey) from the applicant, staff was unable to make a full determination of the situation. Staff would never recommend approval of improvements being made across a property line without an easement. Even if the pavers beyond the property line are removed, a variance would still be required. The applicant failed to explain how they would meet the requirements of the variance. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff was recommending denial of the variance application based on the following: 1. There was no practical difficulty unique to the property not created by the landowner. 2. The approval of the variance is inconsistent with the city's zoning requirements related to the location of parking and /or screening of side yard storage. 3. The approval of the variance may establish a precedent for similar requests in the uniform application of the city's zoning code. 4. Economic consideration alone is not a basis for a variance. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff's findings, then a recommendation for denial would be appropriate. If the Planning Commission finds the project to be a reasonable use and that practical difficulties do exist, the following conditions are recommended: 1. Remove all pavers that extend across the property line. 2. No parking of vehicles shall be allowed on the area of pavers. 3. Installation of a fence or landscaping to screen outdoor storage area. Commissioner McKenzie asked for clarification on the survey. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the city was informed the property line was marked; however, staff did not receive a copy of the survey or evidence of staking on the site. Mr. Mick Niess, 8424 46th Avenue North, came forward to address the Commission. He stated that he and his wife have owned and lived at this home for 14 years. They are the second owner and have done many improvements to the property including a new roof, siding, windows, and furnace. Permits were obtained for all of these improvements. The intention was never to avoid getting a permit for the driveway. In September 2011, they hired a landscaper to put in the pavers. The first paver job this contractor did for them several years ago in the back of the property was landscaping and did not require a permit. Mr. Niess pointed out the photo of the driveway with the gravel expansion and the intention of the pavers was to get rid of that eyesore. The landscaper had mentioned to them that a city official had stopped to take photos, but did not mention a driveway permit was needed. The city notified them after the job was finished that it was not in compliance. When the pavers were being laid, Mr. Niess stated they did not know where the property line Planning Commission Meeting 12 March 6, 2012 was. He spoke to the neighbor and they agreed verbally they would not be concerned with the exact location of the property line. Mr. Niess stated that he and his wife are in agreement that the pavers over the property line will need to be removed. They were asking for the three -foot variance to leave all pavers in place up to the property line. Three years ago, someone from the city came to the property stating that they were parking too close to the curb. There was no direction at that time or since that a car could not be parked close to the side yard property line. For practical purposes, they currently keep all of their vehicles in the garage. Mr. Niess stated that they felt the paver driveway expansion helps to beautify the neighborhood. He stated the placement of the pavers over the property line and not obtaining a permit was unintentional. They understand that next summer they will have to pull out about one and one -half feet of pavers from the front to the back of the garage. He said a surveyor marked the lot with stakes in the front yard. They couldn't place a stake in the paver, but there is a nail in the paver with a piece of reflective tape. Commissioner McKenzie stated he agreed that the area was an improvement. He questioned whether or not the surveyor provided them with a paper copy of the survey. Mr. Niess stated that they only marked the property. When meeting with the Design and Review Committee, they were told they only had to have the corners marked. Having the corners marked cost $400 and to get a paper copy was significantly more. Mr. Brixius stated that the applicant was informed that absent a survey, if the property line got delineated that showed the proximity of the garage to the property line as well as the driveway and pavers, that would be satisfactory. With the subsequent snow, staff did not pick up on the fact that the yard had been marked and did not see the nail in the pavers. Staff based its reports on the letter that was submitted by Ms. Niess. Chair Houle indicated that the nail was not a legal marking. Measurements could be taken from the marker on the west side of the property. Based on the letter, Mr. Brixius stressed that the pavers are over the property line and the driveway goes up to the property line, which is what is being considered. Chair Houle wondered if staff was confident that the distance from the property line to the garage was accurate. Mr. Brixius stated that based on the as built survey the city had, the feeling was that there is a five -foot setback. The city has not measured the area, but based on the letter received from the applicant, the setback is assumed correct. Commissioner Schmidt stated that the city realized the situation had been frustrating for the applicant, however, there are procedures and guidelines that the city had to follow. He clarified that the survey was not done prior to the installation of the pavers. Mr. Niess stated that the landscaper was working to find the property irons and he thought the Planning Commission Meeting 13 March 6, 2012 corner irons had been found. He reiterated that the property line was not even a consideration when the pavers were put in because there was a verbal agreement between him and his neighbor. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that the contractor did not take steps to determine the exact location of the property line and assumed that a permit was not required. Mr. Niess replied that he had a statement from the contractor saying "I have never encountered a city requiring a permit for residential paver work flat on the ground not cutting the curb." Schmidt stated that the ultimate responsibility of whether or not a permit is needed falls with the homeowner. Commissioner Brinkman clarified that approximately two rows of pavers at the street would need to be cut back and then in a straight line to the back of the garage. The bump out area would disappear. Mr. Niess stated that they would have the contractor cut the pavers back and asked that they could have until August 1 to get the job completed. Their intention is to not park cars in that area on a regular basis. Chair Houle asked what the space beside the garage would be utilized for and Mr. Niess replied that they occasionally push a trailer in that area. The reason they put pavers beside the garage in the first place was because it is a shady area and grass does not grow there. The pavers also allow for easier snow blowing to the back yard. Chair Houle questioned whether there was anything in writing from the neighbor to the east stating they were in agreement with the requested three -foot variance. Mr. Niess stated "no" but indicated he could provide a letter. Commissioner Brinkman confirmed that the photo showing a truck parked beside the garage was over the property line. Discussion ensued that a vehicle could not be parked beside the garage without being over the property line. Commissioner Brinkman requested clarification on any potential issues if the property was sold. Mr. Brixius responded that even if the variance would be granted, the pavers would need to be cut back to the property line. Mortgage companies would flag that as an issue and it would need to be resolved prior to a sale or financing. City ordinances are established where improvements must stay on the property and setbacks are established to provide that separation. Mr. Sondrall added that the agreement may be between property owners, but the city cannot grant a variance to encroach on another person's property. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether the code stated landscaping pavers could not be installed up to the property line. Mr. Brixius stated that the code provision allows for the side yard to be utilized for the storage of vehicles or other equipment on an extended driveway, whether pavers or concrete. Code stipulates that it has to be three feet from the property and screened. In this circumstance the width extends into the three -foot setback and does not provide any screening. If it is going to be Planning Commission Meeting 14 March 6, 2012 used in that fashion, it has to meet those conditions. Mr. Sondrall added that pavers in a back yard that cannot be used for a dual purpose would be considered landscaping, such as a patio. Pavers laid in the front up to the garage would be considered driveway and from there along the side of the garage to the back would be storage. He indicated that a landscaping contractor would probably not think that a permit would be required and the city inspector should maybe have stopped and told the contractor a permit was required, but that does not impose any responsibility on the city. He stated he would clearly interpret this improvement as a driveway. Mr. Brixius added that the landscaping ordinance states in part that the "lot area remaining after providing for off - street parking, off - street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and /or other requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping." He added that the city does allow green space to be landscaped using patio blocks, etc. With regard to side yards, if it has the feel of a driveway, it is treated as a driveway. To clarify, Mr. Sondrall added that the area beside the garage is considered a storage area, not landscaping. Side yard storage must be three feet from the property line and screened. Mr. Sondrall suggested that if the Planning Commission was in favor of granting the variance, screening of the area should be required. It was his opinion that this was an unfortunate situation where no one was at fault. Chair Houle asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ron Frain, 8501 46th Avenue North, came forward. He stated that the paver driveway expansion looked nice and he supported the variance for the pavers beside the garage, not necessarily the driveway. He stated he did see the surveyors mark the corner irons. There was no one else in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the public hearing for Planning Case 11 -09. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Sondrall clarified that the pavers from the curb to the front of the garage would be considered driveway and the pavers from the front face of the garage to the rear of the garage would be considered storage. The storage area would have to be screened. Mr. Brixius added that city code allows parking no closer than three feet to the property line. City code allows storage in the side yard including recreational equipment at least three feet off the property line and must be adequately screened for fenced. Chair Houle pointed out that for a variance to be granted, a Planning Commission Meeting 15 March 6, 2012 determination on the reasonable use of the property and whether practical difficulties exist must be determined. Discussion ensued on what was considered practical difficulties for the side yard, such as no vegetation growing in the shaded area, and for the driveway in the front yard. Mr. Sondrall indicated that there were no practical difficulties for granting a variance for the front yard and prohibiting parking on the landscaping in the three -foot setback area may be difficult to enforce. He determined that the city would need to be careful not to set precedent by approving this request. Commissioner Hunten questioned the wording of side yard storage and the screening requirement if the applicant was not going to store anything in that area and the response was that city code defines the side yard as a storage area. Mr. Niess interjected that their intention was not to use the area for storage. MOTION Motion by Commission Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 11 -10, request for a three -foot variance from Conditional Use the side yard setback requirement for a driveway expansion, 8424 46th Permit Avenue North, Dawn Niess, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of a fence or landscaping to screen outdoor storage area. 2. Obtain a driveway permit. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, Nirgude, COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Onadipe, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: Houle, McKenzie Absent: None Motion approved. Chair Houle stated the City Council would consider this request at its meeting on March 26, 2012, and asked that the petitioner be in attendance. Commissioner Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee met with staff and Ron Clark Builders who is interested in constructing a high- density residential project at 62nd and West Broadway. The conceptual drawing for a three -to -four story, 75 -unit building looked nice. The building was oriented toward 62nd Avenue with parking in the rear and some underground parking. The project would be marketed as work force housing and financing for the project would be dependent on tax credits. The Design and Review Committee was supportive of the concept. Mr. Brixius suggested a meeting with the City Council to see if they are agreeable with the concept for the very dense project. They would be asking for flexibility in density and parking. Codes and Standards Mr. Jacobsen stated that no Codes and Standards Committee meeting is Planning Commission Meeting 16 March 6, 2012 Committee scheduled at this time. The full Planning Commission will be initially Item 5.2 reviewing the proposed City Center code changes, along with a couple other items, in April. After the initial review, one or two open houses will be scheduled, and then formal review at a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting, followed by final approval by the Council. NEW BUSINESS Chair Houle introduced PC12 -02 for an amendment to Section 4 -32. Mr. Weiss stated that currently there are three criteria to consider prior to amending the zoning code. The first one questions whether "the zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake." Staff feels this is vague and hard to make a finding for or against. By removing this requirement, the process would be made a little easier. The two additional criteria would be more than enough to ensure zoning amendments are carefully considered. Mr. Jacobsen added that the public hearing on this change would be held at the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jacobsen stated that about a year ago the Planning Commission had been asked to be the review group for the city in regard to the Third Generation Water Plan for Shingle Creek Watershed District and information is now ready to review. A representative from the watershed will make a presentation at the April meeting. There may be one more review meeting sometime later this summer. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, Item 7.1 to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 17 March 6, 2012