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