Loading...
090605 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 6, 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, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Tim Buggy, Bill Oelkers Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC05-12 Chairman Svendsen stated this item would be postponed until later in the meeting due to the fact that the petitioner was not in attendance at this Item 4.1 time. PC05-11 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for rezoning from R-4 high density residential to R-1 single family residential, Item 4.2 preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Mona Addition and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setback requirements, 2701 Xylon Avenue North, AMC Properties – Aaron and Mona Crohn, Petitioners. Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, stated that the petitioner was requesting rezoning from R-4 high density residential to R- 1 single family residential, preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Mona Addition, and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setbacks. The proposed parcel of land was excess land for the apartment complex at 2701 Xylon Avenue North. The petitioner was proposing a subdivision of this parcel of land and rezoning of the parcel to accommodate a new single family home. The total lot area of the 32- unit apartment complex is 1.821 acres and the building area is 11,601 square feet. The petitioners purchased the Sunset Apartments in January 2005. After the sale the petitioners inquired whether or not it would be possible to subdivide the excess land that formerly housed the swimming pool and pool house. Excess land on the site was due to the city updating the Zoning Code in 1999, which lessened the square footage needed per apartment unit. All land surrounding the proposed parcel to the north, west and south is R-1 single family residential. A garage for the apartment complex is located along the common property line adjacent to the proposed parcel. The proposed lot would be 7,200 square feet in size. The city’s R-1 standard is 9,500 square feet, therefore, a 2,300 square foot variance would be required. The proposed front yard setback for the house would be 20 feet requiring a five-foot variance from the 25-foot setback requirement. The rear yard setback would be 16 feet requiring a nine-foot variance from the 25-foot setback requirement. Both of the side yard setbacks would be compliant with 33 feet on the west and five feet on the east. The proposed building footprint would be a 1,200 square foot house with an attached 720 square foot garage. The petitioners have indicated in correspondence that they have already made significant building improvements to the Sunset Apartments and proceeds from the sale of the lot would allow them to make additional improvements to the property. Siders informed the commissioners that the applicants had approached Mr. Dahl, the property owner to the south of the proposed parcel, in an attempt to acquire additional property to comply with R-1 lot area requirements, however, that property owner was not interested in selling any of his land due to a recently constructed shed near his rear property line. Mr. Dahl did indicate to the petitioners he would be in favor of a new single family home on the property. Petitioners within 350 feet of the site were notified, including the city of Golden Valley, and neighbors did sign a petition in support of this development. Mr. Siders stated that the property is currently zoned R-4 and immediately transitions into an R-1 zoning district to the west. The Planning Commission and City Council would need to determine if there is a value in developing the land into a single family property even though the parcel would have size limitations or keep the current zoning associated with the apartment complex. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this property, however the plan does support investment in single family residential neighborhoods. Several variances are being requested with this request. The front yard of the proposed home would be set back 20 feet from the property line requiring a five- foot variance and the garage would be set back 22 feet from the property line requiring a three-foot variance. It was recommended by staff that the garage be set back 22 feet to accommodate parking in the driveway without infringing in the boulevard area. A nine-foot variance would be required for the rear yard. A 2,300 square foot variance to the lot size requirements would also be required. A five-foot utility and drainage easement would be located on the east, south, and west side yards, with a 10-foot easement along the front property line. Access to the site would be provided at the intersection of 27th Place and Yukon Avenue. Water and sewer service would be available from existing lines in 27th Place. The petitioner would be required to pay a fee in lieu of providing on-site ponding in the amount of $1,522 and the required park dedication fee of $1,500 per single family lot. The petitioner did request that the Planning 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Commission waive review of the final plat. Mr. Siders commented that it was the petitioner’s desire to create a single family lot for development that would blend into the existing R-1 neighborhood. His only other option would be to expand the number of apartment units on the site or provide additional parking or garages, or something else associated with the R-4 use. The planning consultant provided options for approval or denial of the request, however, staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Siders added that the distance between the proposed building footprint and the house to the west was approximately 50 feet. Staff met with that property owner who was comfortable with the position of the house, but was concerned with drainage issues. Overall, the development of the property would probably alleviate some of the current drainage problems. All of the storm water drainage would be directed toward 27th Place. Chairman Svendsen interjected that, per city code for non-conforming lots, the proposed lot size would meet the 75 percent lot area requirement to build on this lot. It was noted that there currently is a fence with a locked gate separating the vacant parcel from the apartment complex. The fire department could access the hydrant, if needed, by cutting the lock on the gate. Commissioner Nirgudé initiated discussion on the layout of the home on the proposed lot and whether that was the only option. Mr. Siders indicated that the proposed building footprint was the maximum size allowed for the property. Nirgudé stated he would like to leave some options open for the layout of the house on the property. Siders suggested that the Planning Commission possibly approve a range of variances to allow some flexibility in the development of the property. Discussion ensued on the common property line between the proposed two lots. Mr. Siders explained that on the original plan the common lot line was shifted to the west another five feet. It was suggested at the Design and Review Committee meeting to move the lot line to the east to provide additional lot area for the new lot to meet the 75 percent lot area standard. The common lot line cannot shift any further to the east otherwise the apartment complex lot area would not be compliant. A question was raised regarding the storm water pond fee and it was explained that with the development of a new lot on-site ponding would be required or a fee paid due to the increase in impervious surface area. Mr. Aaron Crohn approached the podium and stated he and his wife, Mona, own the Sunset Apartment complex at 2701 Xylon Avenue. He explained that the proposed 720 square foot garage would provide three 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 stalls, typical of newer homes. Additional east side yard footage would be possible if the developer would only construct a two or two and one-half car garage. Mr. Crohn indicated that he was trying to provide building size guidelines for a developer prior to selling the new lot. Chairman Svendsen interjected that the Design and Review Committee tried to establish a maximum building envelope and provide ample driveway parking space. He stressed that the committee was not designing the house, just establishing the maximum size. He added that even though there appears to be additional area at the curved intersection, that is city boulevard area and cannot be utilized for additional parking. Commissioner Nirgudé commended the petitioner for taking the initiative in creating a new single family lot in the city. He stated that the city was encouraging apartment owners to convert apartment units into owner- occupied condominium units and asked the petitioner to consider this in the future. Mr. Crohn mentioned that a great deal of renovation had been done to the property since he and his wife took ownership in January 2005. Several new tenants have moved into the complex since January as well. Their desire was to provide a new lot in the city for new homeownership. Chairman Svendsen clarified that the petitioner was not intending to provide any driveway or access from 27th Place to the apartment complex. Commissioner Nirgudé expressed appreciation for the petitioner improving his property. Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for comments from the audience. Mayor Martin Opem, 2733 Zealand Avenue North, came forward to address the commission as a citizen and neighboring property owner. After polling the neighbors in the area, Mayor Opem stated that all the neighbors were supportive of constructing a single family house on that lot. The desire was that the new home would meet or exceed the value of homes currently in the neighborhood. A two-story house would be preferable for added screening from the apartments. He stated there is a home near 27th Place and Aquila that was placed at an angle so no parking problem exists and may be a potential layout for a home on this property. Mayor Opem stated that some of the long-time residents had informed him that when the Sunset Apartment property was converted to R-4 and the apartments constructed, the agreement was that the property would be fenced, gated and locked at 27th Place and Yukon Avenue so there would be no through traffic from the apartments into the single family neighborhood. The fence had previously been removed and Mr. Crohn had reinstalled the gate with a chain and padlock. The fire department can utilize the hydrant, if needed. That area was never intended for personal vehicle use. Mr. Don Onnen, 8408 27th Place, came forward. He stated that the 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 petitioners made a lot of improvements to the apartment buildings since purchasing in January. He stated he agreed with the mayor that some flexibility should be given for the footprint of a potential new home. Something similar to the home at the western end of the street would be nice and would block the view of the apartments for many residents on the north side of 27th Place and for some residents on Yukon Avenue. There was no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-11. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen questioned the city attorney whether another variance would be required from a builder if the footprint changed from what was proposed now and Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, confirmed that scenario. He stated he was concerned that a builder could construct an undersized house. The Planning Commission should consider approving the rezoning and the variance relative to the lot size. Mr. Sondrall pointed out various reasons the Planning Commission may or may not want to approve setback variances depending on the type of building plan that a developer may want to construct. The Crohn’s should receive approvals to allow them to market the lot, with the understanding that the city would go along with a building proposal, but it would also be conditional on the Planning Commission and City Council seeing the final plan of the house that would be constructed. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the maximum variances acceptable. Mr. Sondrall also suggested that no other variances be recommended for approval other than for lot size until a building plan was submitted. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the city attorney was recommending rezoning from R-4 to R-1 and 2,300 square foot reduction in lot size, without a maximum building envelope so a developer would need to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of a building plan and setback variances. The city attorney added without establishing front and rear yard variances at this time, any developer or builder would be required to bring plans to the commission and council for approval and the city would have some say in how the lot would be developed. The commission and council could consider a maximum envelope at this time, but not approve the envelope until the city sees an actual plan. Upon further discussion, the city attorney reiterated that the city was considering creating a new single family building lot by correcting the zoning for a single family dwelling and approving a variance for the lot size. A developer/builder looking to build on this vacant lot would know that the city was recommending a five-foot front yard variance and a 16-foot rear yard variance, however, building plans would need to be submitted for final city approval. 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 A question was raised as to the timeline for selling the property and Mr. Crohn confirmed that the lot would be marketed as soon as possible after approvals were received and platting completed. Mr. Crohn stated that he was trying to give a potential builder the opportunity to construct as large a home as possible. A builder may be hesitant to purchase the parcel if all variances were not approved. The petitioner stated that it would not be practical for them to go through this rezoning process to create a single family parcel and then not be able to sell it as such. In that case, it would be better to utilize the parcel as an R-4 use with a swimming pool, party room, or garage/parking area. Mr. Crohn stated that the parcel would be sold for a significant amount of money and it would not be financially feasible for a developer to construct a small, inexpensive home. He stressed that it would be easier for him to market the parcel if all zoning and variances were approved and a builder knew exactly what there was to work with. Mr. Crohn stated he would like to inform a potential developer that the city had already approved all variances, show them the maximum footprint allowed, and if interested, the project could start after building permit approval. Mr. Sondrall interjected that if the city approved the proposed footprint at this time and a developer desired to construct a larger home, it would not be allowed. Mr. Siders suggested that to provide some flexibility the commission and council could approve a variance which stated that the developer would have to have a 1,920 square foot footprint, including a garage up to 720 square feet. Mr. Sondrall responded that would probably require a building covenant, which may make it difficult for the petitioner to market the property. According to code, the minimum house size is 1,000 square feet, therefore, the parameters for a house would be between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet. Any developer would be required to construct a house with a minimum of 1,000 square feet. If the commission recommended approval of the variances, there would only be a 200 square foot difference. A question was raised whether or not there was precedent for approving a rezoning and setbacks when there was no proposed building plan. Mayor Opem reiterated that Mr. Crohn desired to sell a parcel of land and get a reasonable price for it and wanted to overcome any impediments to selling the lot. The neighborhood indicated it would like a single family home equal to or better than the existing homes. Mayor Opem stated he saw no problem with the rezoning or with the variances. If a builder wanted some leeway, he could come to the council with a request and, if reasonable, the city could work with him. The petitioner could let a potential developer know that the City Council had reviewed a preliminary request for variances, endorsed the plan for a single family home, and were favorable to variances to make it happen. The city attorney concurred, and added that if the Council goes on record saying that this was the footprint it could live by, it would be difficult to renege 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 from that proposal. Mayor Opem stated it should be conveyed that the city had looked at this proposal and was willing to work with a developer to fit a house onto the lot and into the neighborhood and help the builder that way – not be negative. Mr. Sondrall suggested that the city defer the approval of the setback variances until the city sees the house plan and hopefully the footprint would meet the recommended setback requirements. Commissioner Schmidt confirmed that if the city approved the setback variances it would be easier to market the property. If preliminary approval with guidelines were given, he wondered if it would be more difficult to market the property. Mr. Tom Hodorff, Harry Johnson Land Surveyors, came forward to address the commission. Mr. Hodorff stated in his opinion the lot was not buildable until the variances were in place, due to the fact that a house would not fit on the lot with regulation setbacks of 25 feet in the front and rear yard. The lot would not be buildable without the variances. Commissioner Anderson commented that he saw a problem with telling the petitioner that this was an unbuildable lot until a developer went through the whole planning process again. He stated he did not feel that a builder would purchase the lot for potentially $70,000 and then only construct a $100,000 home. With setback requirements, the house could not be placed at any other angle on the lot. If the developer wanted to change the layout of the home other than the suggested footprint, it would be his prerogative to apply for an additional or revised variance. Commissioner Nirgudé reiterated that the lot meets the 75 percent standard with regard to lot area and could be considered buildable. He stated he supported changing the zoning from R-4 to R-1 and the variances requested. Mr. Hodorff pointed out that in early meetings with city staff and consultants the front and rear variances requested were the most the city would allow. Mr. Sondrall maintained that with a minimum house footprint of 1,000 square feet and a maximum footprint of 1,200 square feet, if the commission recommended approval of the variances and layout, the city would essentially lose control over 200 square feet. He stated he agreed with the petitioner in that a builder would probably want to construct a larger rather than a smaller house to maximize the return on the property. The size of the garage may vary depending on the builder or potential homeowner and the budget for the project. Mr. Sondrall stated that normally the city would see the project prior to granting any variances. In this instance, the city would be granting variances prior to a project proposal. The city would lose control of the review process if the developer stayed within the footprint. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Commissioner Crough called attention to the fact that the developer would be required to apply for a building permit. The plans would be reviewed and would need to meet all building codes. Mr. McDonald responded that the Planning Commission does not review single family home plans. He stated he supported the report the way it was written with all the recommendations. This application was no different than Hillside Terrace where the commission and council approved a seven-lot subdivision. The building envelopes and setbacks are shown on all of the lots. The lots are selling for approximately $100,000 and the city just received the first building permit application for a house to fit within those setbacks. This application is very similar. The footprint is a little smaller, but whoever purchased the lot would be required to construct a house within that footprint and if they want something different, they would need to come back before the commission and council. Chairman Svendsen stated that a motion should be entertained either with or without an envelope and with or without building setback variances. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he was ready to vote on the request according to staff’s recommendations. He stated he felt a builder would construct a nice home on the property to best utilize the space. Commissioner Hemken raised the issue of waiving review of the final plat. Mr. McDonald added that waiving review of the final plat by the commission expedited the process for the applicant. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 05-11, Request for rezoning from R-4 high density residential to R-1 single family residential, preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Mona Addition and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setback requirements, 2701 Xylon Avenue North, AMC Properties – Aaron and Mona Crohn, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.The rezoning to occur with the recording of the final plat at Hennepin County. 2.The plat shall provide all drainage and utility easements necessary to comply with city code. 3.The applicant will be responsible for any costs associated with improvements within 27th Place that are necessary to provide utilities, drainage or access to the site. 4.As a condition of variance approval, the front yard setback for the house is a minimum of 20 feet and the minimum setback for the garage face to the right-of-way line is 22 feet. 5.To mitigate the issue of the reduced rear yard setback, the applicant must provide fencing or screening to minimize the impact on the property to the south. 6.A fence should be placed along the east property line of the newly created lot to prevent any traffic movement from 27th Place directly 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 into the Sunset Apartments parking lot. 7.Pay the required park dedication fees. 8.Pay $1,522 in lieu of providing on site ponding. 9.Comply with all city engineer comments dated August 18, 2005. 10.Comply with all city attorney comments dated August 31, 2005. 11.Comply with all planning consultant comments dated August 30, 2005. 12.Pay all applicable building permit fees, including but not limited to SAC fees, prior to building permit issuance. 13.Planning Commission to waive review of the final plat. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Buggy, Oelkers Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on September 26 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance. PC05-12 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a four-foot variance to the 20-foot corner lot side yard setback requirement Item 4.1 to allow an addition on the rear of the house, 2924 Sumter Avenue North, Michael Berg, Petitioner. Mr. Berg was not present. Mr. McDonald stated he telephoned the petitioner at his home at 7:15 p.m. and left a message. Normally the petitioner should be present when the Planning Commission reviews the request. Chairman Svendsen stated that after the Design and Review meeting the petitioner submitted revised plans and he stated he was comfortable with moving forward if the commission desired. The petitioner wanted to begin construction this fall. Commissioner Schmidt stated he would agree with discussing the request as long as the petitioner attended the City Council meeting. Commissioner Crough questioned whether the petitioner had made any changes to the plans other than what was provided in the packet and was told no. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he did not approve of the proposed plan and had several questions for the applicant and suggested that the request be tabled. Motion by Commissioner Nirgudé, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to table Planning Case 05-12 without discussion to the October Planning Commissioner meeting. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt Voting against: Anderson, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Svendsen Absent: Buggy, Oelkers Motion failed. 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Motion by Chairman Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Crough, to open the public hearing, discuss Planning Case 05-12 and make a recommendation to the City Council. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: Nirgudé Absent: Buggy, Oelkers Motion carried. Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner was requesting a four-foot variance to the 20-foot corner lot side yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the rear of the house. The site is located in a single family zoning district and surrounded by single family homes. The site is located on the northeast corner of Sumter Avenue and Viewcrest Lane. The existing site is 10,695 square feet. The impervious surfaces on the lot would increase from 26 percent to 31 percent. The Comprehensive Plan stresses the importance for housing maintenance and improvements to existing homes. The proposed building addition would be placed behind the existing house, adjacent to Viewcrest Lane. The back yard is generally flat and drains to the north. The house is a four level split entry with a single car garage. The addition would extend rearward from the dining room, which placed the northeast corner of the proposed addition four feet into the required 20-foot setback for corner lots. Most homes in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1950s. The lot has a chain link fence on the side yard. Mature fir trees provide further separation of the house from the street. The house and addition are above the grade of the street. The applicant submitted correspondence that described the evolution of the proposed addition, explaining that their family has grown since purchasing the home in 2001 and the need for more space. The addition would allow the family to remain in their home in New Hope. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated in correspondence that the property line on the north side is not parallel to the north wall of the existing structure which is why the addition encroaches into the side setback line. The best place to construct an addition on this particular home was toward the rear yard off the dining room. The petitioner explained the family desired to utilize the rear yard and be able to see his children playing in the yard, therefore, it was not possible to construct the addition any other way. The plan would significantly increase the property value of the house. The applicant understood the intent of the building setback ordinance was to prevent buildings from encroaching in the right-of-way and impeding the flow of traffic, and didn’t feel the addition violated any of those principles. Neighbors signed a petition of support of the project. The petitioner stated he intended to most of the work himself to stay within the family budget. 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner indicated that this project was designed to not match the existing building finishes, but to contrast and complement it. Generally, the city requires that applicants match existing materials, however, in this case the applicant is requesting to construct a more contemporary addition on the house and are asking the city to allow them time to match the existing house to the new addition. They would be using high grade finishes, such as cement-fiber siding (James Hardie siding) and cedar siding, which provide better longevity and durability than the existing vinyl siding. A masonry retaining wall is planned on the street elevation to match the color and texture of the brick chimney into the new addition. Colors on all materials would be compatible with the existing finishes on the building exterior, including tan masonry, white vinyl or clad wood windows and beige/gray cement board siding. At the request of the Design and Review Committee, the petitioner modified the addition by reducing the size and moving it to the south as far as possible without compromising the project. This modification reduced the variance request to four feet. Site and roof drainage were added to the plan for review. Property owners within 350 feet were notified and no comments were received. A petition of support from the neighbors was included in the packet. Mr. McDonald stated the planning consultant prepared recommendations for and against the variance. Staff was supportive of the request due to the fact that it supports residents improving their property and staying in their homes. Chairman Svendsen reported that at Design and Review the petitioner pointed out the need to view his children in the back yard. The revised plans indicate the sight lines. If the addition would be angled, approximately 21 percent of the viewing area would be lost. Svendsen reiterated that this proposal was a major change in that the building materials would not match the existing. He stated the Design and Review Committee did not have an issue with the building materials not matching. The petitioner wanted to make a design statement and make the addition functional. The petitioner would be completing a lot of the work himself and wanted to begin construction this fall and work on the project during the winter months. Question was raised whether there was design criteria in the zoning ordinance and it was determined there is no criteria for single family homes. Commissioner Nirgudé stated he had read in past City Council minutes that the council had not approved projects where the project did not architecturally match the neighborhood or the original house. He stressed that it was important for the Planning Commission to uphold the proper design standards. He stated he felt that the proposed architectural design 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 did not fit in that neighborhood nor did it fit with the existing house. Commissioner Schmidt stated he felt that this proposal was like two separate buildings connected together. He was concerned with the pitch of the roofline. Further discussion revealed that the roofline did meet the building code. Commissioner Houle pointed out that the proposed home in the first planning case discussed tonight would project forward of other existing homes along 27th Place. He stated he liked the design, there was good balance, and felt it would enhance this property and other properties in the neighborhood. The building materials would be an upgrade from the existing home and possibly of most homes nearby. The four-foot variance was the real issue and the architecture had no merit for disapproval. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that two of the neighbors that signed the petition live directly across the street and the addition would be most visible to them. He commended the petitioner on the addition and stated he was glad the family intended to remain in New Hope. Commissioner Nirgudé called attention to the fact that the variance request was driven by the applicant and not due to an undue hardship unique to the property. He stated he was not against the variance, however, felt the layout and architecture of the addition could be improved. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 05-12. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen stated that this was the first planning case in approximately 10 years that had recommended a certificate of survey. Requiring a certificate of survey for variance applications had been discussed in the past. He questioned whether it was right to request this applicant to provide a survey when others had not been required to do so. He suggested that if a survey would be required that the City Council amend the zoning code to require a signed survey for all variance applications. Mr. McDonald stated that staff had made that suggestion in prior years, took the request to the City Council and it was denied. It was the consensus of the commission to ask the council to review the certificate of survey issue. Mr. Siders interjected that the petitioner was agreeable to providing a survey, however, due to timing for the submission of revised plans it did not work out. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff suggests that a survey be added to the conditions of approval. It was noted that a site plan would be submitted at the time of building permit application and plan review. 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 05-12, Request for a four-foot variance to the 20-foot corner lot side yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the rear of the house, 2924 Sumter Avenue North, Michael Berg, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1.Review and approval of plans by the building official 2.Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire. 3.Existing deck on property repaired and improved to meet applicable building codes. 4.Construction of screening for non-screened side yard air conditioner. 5.Additional comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: Crough, Nirgudé Absent: Buggy, Oelkers Motion carried. Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on September 26 and asked staff to be sure the petitioner would be in attendance. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met in August with the petitioners. McDonald added that at this time, staff did not Committee anticipate any applications would be submitted for the October Planning Item 5.1 Commission meeting. Tom Schmidt was invited to attend the next Design and Review meeting. Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee would be meeting on September 21 to discuss several items. Committee Commissioner Crough was invited to attend that meeting. Item 5.2 Discussion ensued on whether or not an October Planning Commission meeting would be held to discuss the Comprehensive Plan amendments. It was determined that the amendments would be discussed at the November 1 meeting. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Hemken, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 3, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Crough questioned the procedure for group homes to move into the city, as there are three within three blocks of his residence. Mr. Sondrall replied that group homes can occupy homes in residential 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005 neighborhoods. The program is administered by Hennepin County, and there are licensing requirements that must be followed. Chairman Svendsen requested that staff research the requirement for variance applicants to supply a certificate of survey. Mr. McDonald reiterated that several years ago the City Council denied that recommendation from the Planning Commission. Staff could research current costs to homeowners, which was the reason it was denied previously. McDonald stated he would provide information for the commission on this matter. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 14 Planning Commission Meeting September 6, 2005