050515 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 2015
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Jim Brinkman, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen, Christopher
McKenzie, Wade English, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Scott
Clark
Absent: Greg Gehring
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development, Aaron
Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, Emily
Becker, Recording Secretary
NEW BUSINESS New Planning Commission member, Bill Smith, was officially sworn in by
Recording Secretary Becker.
Item 3.1
PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Case 15-04 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, request for a seven foot rear yard
setback variance in order to accommodate the construction of the
Item 4.1
proposed garage located at 8717 Northwood Parkway, Lawrence and
Armella Setten, petitioners.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, explained that
Lawrence and Armella Setten are interested in tearing down their existing
two car attached garage in order to make room for a new larger attached
garage. The reasons the applicant is interested in doing this, Mr.
Chirpich clarified, are that the foundation of the current garage is failing,
and a larger garage would better meet their storage needs and provide
greater mobility for entering and exiting vehicles. The required rear yard
setback in the R-1 District is 25 feet. The proposed new garage would
have a setback of 18 feet from the rear property line, requiring a seven
foot rear yard setback variance.
Mr. Chirpich went on to introduce the staff’s findings in determining if
the property meets Variance Zoning Code Criteria. It was explained that
the property is unique in that the lot is a corner lot with the home facing
the side lot line. Therefore, the rear yard property line as defined by City
Code actually functions as a side yard property line given the orientation
of the home. The rear yard abuts a public outlot rather than another
private property. This provides a greater separation from the adjacent
residential property. These conditions are not created by the property
owner. Chirpich stated that the applicant’s proposed use has been found
reasonable by staff. Attached garages are permitted uses in the R-1
Zoning District. The setback from 25 to 18 feet, Chirpich added, will not
alter the essential character of the locality or allow a use not permitted
within the R-1 Zoning District. The variance will also not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire
or public safety, as the outlot towards which the variance is oriented
provides significant separation between the proposed garage and the
neighboring home to the east.
Mr. Chirpich introduced other site issues of the property. The aerial
photograph and the submitted surveys illustrate the illegal placement of a
fence and two outbuildings within the outlot. These improvements must
be moved within the private lot. Additionally, a permit must be obtained
to bring the larger outbuilding that encroaches onto City property into
compliance with City Code, as there is currently no permit issued. The
three outbuildings on the lot will have to be reduced to two or less to be
brought to compliance with the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District,
which will be made possible to the applicant with the increased size of
the garage. Finally, the applicants must identify all outdoor storage items
to determine if they are legally permissible under the City Code.
Mr. Chirpich stated that during the design review process, it was noted
that the curb cut for the existing driveway is wider than the 24’ that is
allowed by ordinance. The City Engineer has reviewed the site and
existing curb conditions and recommended that the existing curb cut be
allowed to remain in order to maintain the integrity of the roadway. The
City Engineer offered the following comments:
1. The driveway width will be limited to 24’ from the street to the
property line.
2. The difference in width should be made up in the “wings” that taper
from the curb cut edge to the driveway.
Mr. Chirpich explained that property owners within 350 feet of parcel
were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the SunPost
newspaper. Staff has received some questions regarding the
development, but no opposition.
The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on April 16.
The committee was in favor of the proposed project and variance, and
was excited to see an application for reinvestment in New Hope’s single
family housing stock.
Mr. Chirpich added that Staff is generally in favor of the proposed
variance, but offered a summary of both positions due to the general
nature of variance requests.
Arguments in Favor
The site is guided and zoned for residential land use. Single
family homes with garages are a permitted use within the zoning
district.
The Comprehensive Plan promotes private reinvestment in
residential neighborhoods and directs the City to provide grater
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
development flexibility in the regulation of single family
neighborhoods.
The site has physical conditions that are unique to the property
that present practical difficulties in the home and garage design.
The proposed reduced setback will not change the essential
character of the area and will not negatively impact the adjoining
properties.
Arguments Opposing
There is room on the lot to accommodate an expanded garage in
a different configuration without a variance.
The variance is being driven by the garage design width of 26
feet. The applicant states that the current 22 foot wide garage
lacks the width for practical storage or convenient access to
automobiles. A 22 foot garage is not an unusual width and can be
found throughout the City.
Recommendation
Staff recommended the following conditions of approval if the
Planning Commission agreed with the findings in favor of the
variance:
1.If the applicant wishes to have a parking pad along the
east side of the property, a revised site plan must be
submitted demonstrating required setbacks and surfacing
of the parking pad.
2.The applicants must reduce the number of garage and
accessory buildings to one attached garage and one
outbuilding that meet the City zoning requirements for
size and setback.
3.If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property
remains, it must be moved onto private property and
meet the proper setbacks. The applicant will also be
required to obtain a building permit to bring the building
into compliance with the Building Code.
4.The existing fence and retaining wall along the east side
of the property shall be removed from City property.
5.Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved
into the garage and/or remaining outbuilding.
Mr. Chirpich expounded that if the variance is not granted, the issues
relating to the encroachments, outdoor storage, and number of allowable
outbuildings would still be addressed through City ordinance and code
enforcement.
Chair Svendsen motioned that the applicant come forward to address the
Commission. Petitioner Mr. Lawrence Setten, resident of 8717
Northwood Parkway, stepped forward.
Mr. Setten clarified that the fence that is currently encroaching on city
property was built prior to his occupying the property and would be
removed. The retaining wall would also be removed if it posed an issue,
but Setten would like to keep it as it prevents erosion of his garden.
3
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
Mr. Brinkman was concerned about the parking pad on the left of the
driveway and questioned if it would remain and need to be expanded.
Mr. Chirpich clarified that it was a condition of approval that the Settens
resubmit a site plan with plans indicating dimensions and location of the
parking pad. Commissioner Schmidt questioned if a variance would be
needed to construct this parking pad. Mr. Alan Brixius, City Planner,
clarified that a setback of three feet is required for recreational equipment
and vehicles, and that there would likely be room for a parking pad in the
proposed location.
Chair Svendsen inquired if the material of the driveway would be
replaced with a hard surface such as concrete, as the surface is currently
gravel. Mr. Setten replied that the surface would be changed to a hard
surface, but it has not yet been decided what type exactly. Chair
Svendsen asked if the siding of the garage would be the same as the
siding of the house. Mr. Setten explained that it would be a different type
of siding but the color would match the siding of the house. Mr. Dean
Johnson of Dean Johnson Homes, who has been contracted by Setten for
the construction of this garage, asserted that the garage would have LP
SmartSide siding with a different lap configuration than the house, and
that Setten plans to side the house with this type of siding in the future as
well. Mr. Johnson admitted that the calculations of the site plan were off
but that a new site plan with the correct dimensions would be submitted.
Chair Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission. Being that there was no one else in the audience that
wished to speak at the public hearing, he asked for a motion to close the
Public Hearing.
,
Motion by Commissioner Landy seconded by Commissioner Brinkman
to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 15-04, request for seven foot rear yard setback
variance in order to accommodate the construction of the proposed
garage located at 8717 Northwood Parkway, Lawrence and Armella
Setten, petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1.If the applicant wishes to have a parking pad along the
east side of the property, a revised site plan must be
submitted demonstrating required setbacks and surfacing
of the parking pad.
2.The applicants must reduce the number of garage and
accessory buildings to one attached garage and one
outbuilding that meet the City zoning requirements for
size and setback.
3.If the outbuilding that encroaches onto City property
remains, it must be moved onto private property and
meet the proper setbacks. The applicant will also be
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
required to obtain a building permit to bring the building
into compliance with the Building Code.
4.The existing fence and retaining wall along the east side
of the property shall be removed from City property.
5.Except for firewood, all outdoor storage should be moved
into the garage and/or remaining outbuilding.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English,
Landy, Smith, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: Gehring
Motion approved 8-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its May 26 meeting.
Planning Case 15-05 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, request to consider a text
amendment to Section 3-50 of the New Hope City Code exempting
Item 4.2
municipal signs from adhering to provisions outlined by the Sign Code,
City of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that The Codes
and Standards Committee met on March 25, 2015 to review a text
amendment proposal to the City’s Sign Code in relation to an exemption
for city signs. As a part of the Xylon Avenue streetscape improvements,
the city intends to construct a freestanding digital sign at Xylon Avenue
and 42nd Avenue that will be used to advertise local events. The
proposed sign would be located in the City Center zoning district and
approximately 24 feet tall. The Code allows one freestanding sign per lot,
with a maximum area of 100 square feet for each side, and a maximum
height of 12 feet in the City Center zoning district. The Code would need
to be amended to allow for the construction of this sign. Such an
amendment would also limit restrictions on potential future municipal
signage, including signs at city hall, the golf course, the ice arena, the
pool, and all city parks.
Mr. Alger said that in researching how surrounding cities address
municipal signs within their zoning code, it was determined that
municipal signage is addressed in one of two manners:
1.Municipal signs are exempt from requiring a permit, but must meet
all sign code criteria.
2.Municipal signs are exempt from requiring a permit and from
adhering to provisions outlined in the sign code.
Mr. Alger explained that The Committee evaluated both options and
determined that exempting municipal signage from adhering to
provisions outlined in the Code was appropriate. In order to ensure that
any sign erected by the city is safe and meets building code requirements,
a permit with construction drawings would be required for any
permanent signs.
5
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
Mr. Alger said that in reviewing language related to exemptions within
the Code, staff discovered references to an outdated subsection (3-40)
within the Code. Ordinance 08-03, subsection 1 was adopted on May 27,
2008, repealing subsection 3-40, which pertained to the Code and derived
from Code 5-14-2001. The draft ordinance corrects these references and
applies them to the current Code.
Mr. Alger concluded that The Committee was in favor of adopting a text
amendment to the Code exempting municipal signs from paying permit
fees and from adhering to provisions outlined by the Code. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed text amendment exempting
municipal signs from paying permit fees and from adhering to provisions
outlined by the Code and correcting outdated references to subsection 3-
40.
Chair Svendsen opened the opportunity for questions.
Ms. Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney, added comments that the
amendment must be based on valid time, place and manner restriction.
She stated that she needs to do more legal research to conclude that it is a
valid exemption, as there may be potential challenges. She asserted that
other cities do have similar language in their Codes. She proposed that
fficial sign
Section 3-50(d)(2) be amended to read as follows: O means any
type of sign described in the definitions herein that is of a public
noncommercial nature or municipal purpose, including public
notification signs, informational signs, safety signs, traffic signs and
direction to public facility signs.
Because of this proposed amendment, there was discussion as to whether
or not the Commission should go through with the vote. Ms. Woods
stated that she had anticipated that the Commission goes through with
the vote but that it would be subject to review and confirmation. Mr. Jeff
Sargent clarified that the amendment was brought to the Planning
Commission for review because Planning Commission administers signs
on a regular basis, and the intent was to get the Commission’s input and
feedback. He clarified that signs are addressed in the Building Code, not
the Zoning Code. He stated that there would likely not be issue with
modifying the amendment by the time this case would be brought to City
Council on May 26.
th
Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was
no further discussion, he opened for a motion.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 15-05, request to consider a text amendment to
Section 3-50 of the New Hope City Code exempting municipal signs from
adhering to provisions outlined by the Sign Code, City of New Hope,
petitioner subject to and including the revisions stated by Assistant City
Attorney Woods and subject to review concerning any potential issues
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
before consideration by the City Council.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English,
Landy, Smith, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: Gehring
Motion approved 8-0
Planning Case 15-06 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, request to consider a text
amendment to Section 4-20 and 8-16 of the New Hope City Code in
Item 4.3
relation to the requirements for truck and trailer rentals, City of New
Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich acknowledged that Staff has discovered a conflict
between the City’s licensing requirements for truck and trailer rental
businesses and the New Hope zoning code. The city currently requires a
license for the rental of utility trailers and trucks. Such activity is also
regulated through the zoning code, specifically in the Community
Business District, where vehicle rentals are allowed as part of an auto
sales and service business. Language in the licensing section conflicts
with the standards found in the zoning code in a variety of ways. Staff
would like to clear discrepancies by removing the land use language from
the licensing section. The goal is to have the license regulate the activity,
and the zoning code work to determine location and performance
standards of sites where truck and trailer rentals are permitted.
Additionally, Mr. Chirpich explained, staff has discovered that the zoning
code does not allow truck and trailer rentals in the Industrial District.
Staff is in favor of allowing this as an accessory use to an approved
Conditional Use Permit for a self storage facility.
Mr. Chirpich said that the Codes and Standards Committee met on
March 25, 2015 to review text amendment proposals to the Zoning and
Licensing sections of the City Code in relation to the requirements for
truck and trailer rentals. The committee was in favor of adopting text
amendments that would achieve the following:
Remove the land use language from Section 8-16 which is
the business licensing section for the rental of trailers and
trucks.
Use the zoning code to determine the location and
performance standards of sites where truck and trailer
rentals are permitted.
Allow truck and trailer rentals in the Industrial District as an
accessory use to an approved Conditional Use Permit for a
self storage facility.
Mr. Chirpich stated that Staff recommends approval of the proposed text
amendments.
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
Chair Svendsen asked for clarification on where trucks would be allowed
to park. Mr. Chirpich clarified that trucks do not need to be parked in
designated outdoor storage areas, but that they can park anywhere where
there is a designated parking area. Mr. Alan Brixius suggested that the
storage
term in the ordinance amendment may be confusing it be changed
designated display area
to separate from parking.
Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was
no further discussion, he opened for a motion.
Motion Ms. Woods clarified that because two separate ordinances, Ordinance No.
15-06 and Ordinance No. 15-07, were being amended; two motions were
Item 4.3
needed for Planning Case 15-06.
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 15-06, request to consider a text amendment to
Section 4-20 of the New Hope City Code in relation to the requirements
for truck and trailer rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner, changing
storage to display areas.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English,
Landy, Smith, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: Gehring
Motion approved 8-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its May 26 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 15-06, request to consider a text amendment to
Section 8-16 of the New Hope City Code in relation to the requirements
for truck and trailer rentals, City of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English,
Landy, Smith, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: Gehring
Motion approved 8-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its May 26 meeting.
Planning Case 15-08 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.4, request to consider a text
amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17, and 4-20 of the New Hope City
Item 4.4
Code to provide for the establishment of taprooms and brewpubs, City of
New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jeff Alger informed the Commission that The City Council discussed
a possible amendment to the city’s liquor licensing codes to provide for
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
the establishment of taprooms and brewpubs at the April 20, 2015 Work
Session. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission
examine the business concept from a land use perspective and provide
recommendations as to appropriate locations and desired performance
standards for regulating these uses.
Alger explained the differences between brewpubs, taprooms and
production facilities and offered definitions of each to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Alger explicated that in order to accommodate the mix of uses
allowed by a brewer/taproom license, an amendment to the zoning
ordinance is necessary to address the land use issues raised by a proposed
facility. Alger stated that some considerations to be made include the
combination of commercial and industrial land uses, appropriate
locations, production scale, shipping and receiving, parking and access,
and ancillary uses.
Alger said that such establishments are consistent with the intent and
purpose of the city’s commercial zoning districts. City staff recommends
that brewpubs be listed as permitted uses within both the Commercial
Business (CB) and City Center (CC) zoning districts and be held to the
same performance standards of restaurants. It is recommended that
production breweries with taprooms be listed as a conditional use within
the CB and CC or Industrial (I) zoning districts and meet the conditions
outlined by the draft ordinance. Alger noted that the proposed
conditional use requirements for the CB and CC zoning districts differ
from those in the I zoning district.
Chair Svendsen showed concern about Page 4, Section 6-17(f). of the
ordinance, which prohibits outdoor dining, drinking and service. He
declared that many taprooms have outdoor facilities. Mr. Alan Brixius
said that he would modify this section. He explained that he had added
this prohibition, as outdoor dining may not work in some industrial sites
as it may not be compliant with other industrial uses. He went on that
outdoor dining could be allowed, subject to conditions that will set forth
performance standards.
Chair Svendsen also inquired about restrictions on food trucks, as food
trucks often park near similar facilities serving as their foodservice. Mr.
Alger clarified that food trucks must maintain a distance of 100 feet from
the entrance of any other permanent food establishment on a separate lot,
as measured from the entrance of the building.
Commissioner Clark inquired how taprooms and brewpubs would be
defined in terms of parking regulations. Mr. Brixius clarified that they
would adhere to the same parking regulations as Restaurant/Tavern/Bar
& Clubs.
Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015
no further discussion, he entertained a motion.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Item 4.4 Brinkman, to approve Planning Case 15-08, request to consider a text
amendment to Sections 4-2, 4-16, 4-17, and 4-20 of the New Hope City
Code to provide for the establishment of taprooms and brewpubs, City of
New Hope, petitioner, subject to amending Section 4-20(e)(17)(f) to allow
outdoor dining and set forth performance standards.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Schmidt, Svendsen, Mckenzie, English,
Landy, Smith, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: Gehring
Motion approved 8-0
Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning
case at its May 26 meeting.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Chair Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee was held on
April 16, 2015 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled for May
Committee
14, 2015. It was stated there was potential for two cases to be reviewed at
Item 5.1
this meeting, one potential case a variance.
Codes and Standards Mr. Jeff Sargent stated that the next Codes and Standards Committee has
not yet been scheduled.
Committee
Item 5.2
NEW BUSINESS No new business.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 7, 2015. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Svendsen once again welcomed Commissioner Smith, and it was
decided that Commissioner Smith would serve on the Design and Review
Committee and that Commissioner Landy would serve as Floater between
the Committees.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Becker, Recording Secretary
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 2015