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