080305 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 2005
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to
order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle,
Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt,
Steve Svendsen
Absent: Jim Brinkman, Tim Buggy
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Shawn Siders, Community
Development Specialist, Charles Carlson, Community
Development Intern, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC05-10 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a
variance to the front yard setback requirements for a garage addition,
Item 4.1
4308 Flag Avenue North, Tim and Dianna Utter, Petitioners.
Mr. Charles Carlson, community development intern, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a two-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard
setback requirement for a garage addition. The property is surrounded by
single family homes. The lot contains 10,000 square feet. The existing
building contains 1,617 square feet and the proposed addition would add
152 square feet. The lot is predominantly green space with extensive
landscaping in the rear yard. The house has a tuck under garage. Together
the house, garage and driveway occupy less than 2,500 square feet of lot
area, leaving approximately 75 percent of the lot as green space. The
proposed addition would not change the amount of green space as the
addition would replace driveway area.
The garage would add an 8-foot by 19-foot addition on the front of the
existing garage, with building materials to match the house. The area
would contain a 9-foot by 12-foot workshop and storage area and a 19-foot
by 22-foot garage. Trash storage would be in the garage. There would be
an overhead garage door powered by an electric garage door opener,
which would be installed in front of the existing header. The apparatus in
front of the existing header necessitates the proposed eight-foot addition,
resulting in a two-foot variance request. The existing header and jambs
would remain in place due to structural support of the house. The existing
jambs would probably be replaced with Microllam™ laminated lumber,
for a slimmer appearance.
Mr. Carlson explained that the addition would be constructed eight feet
from the front of the house, or six feet from the front of the existing
cantilever. Plans indicate that the front entrance to the house would be
revised to allow for a front walkway on the side of the garage and to
provide access to the front steps. A large tree located near the garage
addition would be removed and replaced with smaller shrubbery.
Landscaping along the front of the house would be altered to
accommodate the new walkway. Parking would remain the same with
two vehicles in the garage and ample space for two vehicles in the
driveway. Currently, there is a 31-foot front yard setback for this property,
and 25 feet is required by code. The proposed addition would reduce the
setback to 23 feet, therefore, a two-foot variance was requested.
Mr. Carlson added that staff and the Design and Review Committee were
recommending that the roof on the addition be constructed as a shed style
rather than a pitch style so it does not interfere with the upstairs windows.
One goal of the city’s Comprehensive Plan is to protect property values
and maintain a strong tax base by promoting private reinvestment in New
Hope properties through building renovation, expansion and
maintenance.
Mr. Carlson stated the petitioner’s moved into this home in March 2005.
The basement of this home was completely finished, which created a
storage problem. The proposed addition would alleviate the need for
additional storage. The rear yard is sloped significantly toward the house,
therefore, an addition into the rear yard would be nearly impossible.
The petitioners indicated they contacted surrounding homeowners who
signed a petition in favor of the addition. Due to summer vacations, they
were not able to obtain all signatures prior to submittal deadlines.
Mr. Carlson stated the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from the
strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue
hardship, which may exist by a physical condition of the property. A
hardship is unique to the parcel and cannot have been created by the
landowner. Additional criteria to consider include not altering the
character of the locality, not impairing an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent parcels, would be the minimum action required to eliminate
the hardship, and cannot involve a use not allowed in the respective
zoning district. Carlson explained that in the past requests for front yard
variances were approved or denied on a case-by-case basis. Recently, two
front yard variance requests were approved for corner lots where the
additions were constructed on the narrower street frontage, technically
defined as the front yard. One front yard variance request for a 20-foot
garage addition was approved by the Planning Commission and denied
by the City Council on the grounds there was not sufficient hardship and
the proposed addition did not match the character of the neighborhood.
In the past 25 years, the Planning Commission and City Council have
approved 16 requests and five were denied or withdrawn.
2
Planning Commission Meeting August 3 2005
Mr. Carlson stated staff felt the variance was justified due to small two-
foot variance requested, neighborhood compatibility, and topographical
hardship. Also, the Comprehensive Plan encourages investment in
residential properties within the city. Staff recommended approval subject
to the conditions listed in the planning report.
Commissioner Crough suggested that the roof overhang on the front of
the garage be kept to a minimum, possibly six to eight inches, rather than
the typical larger overhang on the balance of the house. He initiated
discussion on the lack of a swale in the side yard for drainage purposes
from the rear yard to the street. Mr. Tim Utter, 4308 Flag, came forward
and explained that the previous owner installed drains between the patio
and garden/pool that run to the street. Discussion ensued on the size of
the soffit and it was noted that the overhang was not considered an
encroachment.
A description of a shed roof was requested and it was explained that this
type of roof would be constructed across the front of the house parallel
with the existing roof, rather than perpendicular to the existing roofline.
Tim and Dianna Utter, 4308 Flag Avenue, came forward to answer
questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Nirgudé welcomed the Utters to the city. He stated he was
concerned that the eight-foot by 19-foot garage addition and new roofline
would not match the character and architecture of the existing home. He
stated he was in favor of the expansion, however, would like to see some
modification to the proposal. He suggested the expansion be the entire
length of the cantilever and match the brick on the front of the house. It
was noted that the cantilever on the existing home was 28.6 feet in length.
Mrs. Utter asked for clarification on the suggestion and stated she did not
want to lose the window and room on the south side of the garage.
Commissioner Hemken inquired why the workshop couldn’t be made
smaller so a variance would not be required. Mrs. Utter responded that
they also needed storage space. It was noted that the expansion to the
front would still have to be eight feet due to the existing header and ample
room to operate a garage door. Hemken questioned whether the adjacent
neighbors to the north and south had been contacted. Mrs. Utter stated
that they have tried to contact them several times, but the two families
had not been home. She stated that they did speak to one of the couples at
the National Night Out party and they indicated they were in favor of the
addition. Commissioner Schmidt interjected he had spoken to the
property owners to the south at 4300 Flag and they were in favor of the
addition.
Commissioner Schmidt stated he liked the suggestion to extend the
expansion the full length of the cantilever. He initiated discussion on the
jambs that would extend in the middle of the garage. It was noted the
3
Planning Commission Meeting August 3 2005
jamb size would be reduced due to the utilization of another type of
construction material.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated he understood the situation with the
topography in the rear yard and the need to expand to the front. He
reiterated the petitioners should make the addition as aesthetically
pleasing as possible. Mr. Utter stated they appreciated the comments
from the commission.
Commissioner Landy reported he is a neighbor of the Utters and that he
had not signed the neighborhood petition at the request of the Utters.
They did not want to put him in a difficult position. He stated there was
no one in the audience because all of the neighbors approved the
variance.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Houle, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-10. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Houle reiterated that the obvious addition would be to the
rear of the property, however that was not possible due to the grade of the
site. The eight feet to the front was driven by the need for the garage door;
thus the two-foot variance. He stated he could not support the suggestion
for the width to increase from 19 feet to 28.6 feet, which would be a
significant increase in the cost to the petitioners.
Chairman Svendsen stated he agreed with the two-foot variance request,
but would defer to the petitioners whether or not they wanted to stay at 19
feet or increase the width of the addition.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the variance was limited to
the two feet requested into the front yard setback regardless of the width
at 19 feet or 28.6 feet. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, replied that the
Planning Commission could impose conditions on the variance. The
conditions could limit the size to 19 feet or it could be open ended so the
petitioner could increase the expansion to 28.6 feet. Commissioner Oelkers
stressed that the condition should be limited to 28.6 feet so the addition
would not be the entire length of the house. He also stated that the job of
the commission was not to be architects or spend the petitioner’s money,
but to be sure the request complied with the zoning ordinance. He stated
he completely supported the variance and felt the shed roof would look
attractive if done properly.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 05-10, Request for a two-foot variance to the
front yard setback requirements for a garage addition, 4308 Flag Avenue
North, Tim and Dianna Utter, Petitioners, subject to the following
4
Planning Commission Meeting August 3 2005
conditions:
1.Review and approval of plans by building official.
2.Comply with the planning consultant’s recommendations:
a.Build addition roof in shed style, rather than pitched style.
b.Match building materials of existing structure.
3.Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
4.Additional comments from the Planning Commission and City
Council.
5.Two-foot variance for 19-foot width, with potential to revise plan
not to exceed 28.6 feet in width.
6.Soffit to be the narrowest allowed by the building code.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé,
Oelkers, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Brinkman, Buggy
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on August 22 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in July
with the petitioner. The next meeting would be on August 18 and several
Committee
applications may be submitted for the September meeting. Commissioner
Item 5.1
Crough was invited to attend the next committee meeting.
Codes and Standards Mr. McDonald stated that staff and consultants met at the end of July and
the committee would probably meet in August or September to discuss
Committee
several code amendments. Chairman Svendsen suggested one of the new
Item 5.2
commissioners be invited to attend that meeting.
OLD BUSINESS Chairman Svendsen reported that discussion on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment would be back on the Planning Commission agenda in
Miscellaneous Issues
October.
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by
Commissioner Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
July 12, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS A question as to when CVS would open and Mr. McDonald replied staff
had not been notified of the date, but it would probably open sometime in
August.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:38
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
5
Planning Commission Meeting August 3 2005
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
6
Planning Commission Meeting August 3 2005