100306 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 3, 2006
City Hall, 7 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, Tim Buggy (arrived 7:02), Pat
Crough, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Tom Schmidt, Steve
Svendsen
Absent: Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Bill Oelkers
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Kim Berggren, Community
Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC06-19 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for
variance to the rear yard setback requirement, 9131 34 1/2 Avenue North,
Item 4.1
Brent and Melissa Wissbrod, Petitioners.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a 12.25-foot variance to the 25-foot rear yard
setback to allow construction of a 20-foot by 28-foot garage addition
approximately 12.75 feet from the property line. The property is located in
an R-1, single family residential, zoning district and is surrounded by
other single family properties. The site contains 11,700 square feet. The
existing home has 1,248 square feet with an attached 440 square foot
garage. The proposed garage would contain 560 square feet.
The existing home was constructed in 1967 and the current owners
purchased the property in 2003. The owners are making significant
improvements to the property, including a new patio, garage addition,
roofing, and painting. Mr. Jacobsen explained the property is located on a
corner lot and the legal front (narrowest street frontage) of the property is
along Gettysburg Avenue, although the home is oriented toward 34 1/2
Avenue. The rear yard setback requirement, according to the city code, is
25 feet; therefore, the garage addition would require a variance, to allow
the addition to be placed approximately 12.75 feet from the rear property
line. The existing home and garage meet all setback requirements.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified. One neighbor to
the west came to city hall to look at the plans for the proposed garage
addition and subsequently had no concerns with the addition. The
petitioner submitted a letter from the neighbor to the east stating they had
no concerns with the addition.
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of
the terms of the zoning code. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical
condition unique to the property, including lot shape, narrowness,
shallowness, topography, etc., and where the hardship is unique to the
property and not created by the landowner. The planner indicated in his
report that for the expansion to occur, the garage addition must be
constructed to the east of the existing home, which is the legal rear yard of
the property. The proposed addition was well designed and was in
character with the surrounding residences. The petitioners had indicated
the addition would match the roofline and building materials of the
existing home. A goal of the city’s Comprehensive Plan is to promote
reinvestment in the city’s housing stock. The reinvestment would add
value to the neighborhood and increase the livability of the home. Similar
variances have been approved in the past for homes on corner lots with
the front of the house facing the side yard.
Mr. Jacobsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with
the applicant’s contractor and discussed the size of the garage addition,
building materials, and the tree in the front yard. Revised plans were
submitted subsequent to that meeting. The garage size was reduced to
comply with the 1,000 square foot maximum garage size requirement. The
driveway would be angled to utilize the existing curb cut. Building
materials would match the existing home. There would be a two-foot
overhang on the front of the garage.
Mr. Jacobsen reiterated that the applicant was applying for a 12.25-foot
variance to allow a 20-foot by 28-foot garage addition 12.75 feet from the
rear yard property line, subject to the conditions in the planning report.
The city has previously granted variances of this type.
Commissioner Schmidt confirmed that the variance would not be needed
if the orientation of the house matched the legal definition for front yard.
Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on the positioning of the
driveway for the garage addition, and the utilization of the existing curb
cut. Mr. Jacobsen confirmed that the layout of the driveway in front of the
new garage addition would cut at a 45 degree angle across the front
toward the existing driveway. The reason was that a large maple tree
existed in the front yard that the petitioner would like to save. Brinkman
was concerned with the difficult angle for vehicles to enter/exit the garage.
Jacobsen explained that the new garage would mainly be used for boat
storage and miscellaneous storage, not vehicles to be used every day.
Jacobsen mentioned that the trailers and other outside storage shown in
the photos included in the packet belonged to the contractor working on
the patio in the back yard.
Mr. Jeff Nordling, contractor for the petitioners, came forward to say that
the existing tree in the front yard was approximately 18 feet from the
2
Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2006
center front of the garage. The driveway would extend approximately 12
feet out from the front of the new garage, which would be enough room to
angle a boat trailer into the garage. He confirmed the petitioner would
utilize the existing garage for their personal vehicles.
Commissioner Anderson stated that this appeared to be a good project.
He added that any future homeowner should be aware that this garage be
utilized for storage, due to the driveway angle. The contractor stated that
if a future owner wanted to pay for the tree removal, the driveway could
be expanded at that time. Anderson questioned what building materials
would be used on the addition. Mr. Nordling stated that the brick on the
front of the house would be hard to match; therefore, the Wissbrods were
planning to use the same type of siding as on the existing home and
decorate the front with pillars. The house would be painted so all the
siding matched.
Commissioner Brinkman asked for the size of the boat and whether there
was any consideration for a single car garage addition. Mr. Brent
Wissbrod stated the boat was 8 feet by 19 feet and that he wanted a double
garage so there would be ample space for the boat, a motorcycle, and
other items that needed to be stored inside. Brinkman stated he was
concerned the large garage didn’t fit into the neighborhood. There weren’t
any other properties that had more than a double garage. Mr. Wissbrod
stated that he had sufficient space to construct a double garage. Most new
homes constructed today had three-car garages. Chairman Svendsen
added that the new homes under construction at 35th and Ensign avenues
all had three-car garages.
Commissioner Buggy stated he agreed that a four-car garage may be
overkill for this neighborhood. Many of his neighbors have boats or
motorcycles, etc. that they store someplace else. The 28-foot depth for the
garage addition seemed just too large to fit in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schmidt wondered if the addition would make it harder to
sell. The applicant maintained that he would look for a house with more
garage space.
Commissioner Nirgudé stated that the Commission appreciated the
changes as recommended at the Design and Review Committee meeting,
and the fact that the garage size had been reduced to meet the 1,000
square foot maximum garage size requirement in the city code.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the city’s Comprehensive Plan
encourages this type of improvement and reinvestment in the single
family neighborhoods.
Commissioner Brinkman maintained he could recommend approval of a
three-car garage, however, he did not agree with the four-car garage.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission.
3
Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2006
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-19. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Chairman Svendsen stated that Commissioner Houle sent an email to staff
with his comments due to the fact that he could not attend the meeting.
The email read, “Based on the information/discussion at the last Design
and Review Committee meeting and the information within the packet, I
support the request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for
9131 34 1/2 Avenue. With respect to the question about applying brick to
the front of the addition, I believe our Zoning Code simply requires
residential additions to use like materials from the main portion of the
house. The front has brick and a horizontal steel lap siding. The gable
ends appear to be a vertical siding, possibly the original hardboard.
Windows are accented with shutters and the overhang has several
decorative wrought iron elements. The property owner/contractor should
state the intended exterior material(s). It seems unlikely the Planning
Commission can therefore require brick if other like materials are used.”
Chairman Svendsen stated he had talked with Commissioner Oelkers
prior to the meeting, due to the fact that he could not attend, who
indicated support for the proposal. Oelkers had stated he did not feel the
need for brick across the front of the garage.
Chairman Svendsen stated he lived in this neighborhood and was
supportive of the request. The petitioner’s lot is large. Another resident
nearby constructed a double deep garage due to the fact they did not have
room in the side yard. Svendsen stated that several years ago another
resident added garage space for his Model A car collection. He added he
was glad the applicant was going to save the large tree in the front yard.
Commissioner Crough stated he was not supportive of the large garage
addition and wondered whether the petitioner was running a business
from his home. He stated he didn’t see a need for that much storage
space.
Commissioner Schmidt stated he would be more comfortable with three
spaces instead of four; however, the if the legal orientation of the lot
matched the house, a variance would not be necessary.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt
Item 4.1 , to approve Planning Case 06-19, request for rear yard setback variance
for garage addition, 9131 34 1/2 Avenue North, Brent and Melissa
Wissbrod, petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1.Building materials of addition to match existing house to the best of
their ability.
2.Building permit to be obtained prior to start of construction.
4
Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2006
Voting in favor: Anderson, Buggy, Landy, Nirgudé, Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Brinkman, Crough
Absent: Hemken, Houle, Oelkers
Motion carried.
Chairman Svendsen stated this request would be considered by the City
Council on October 23 and asked the petitioner to be in attendance.
Design and Review Chairman Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met
with the petitioners in September. The next meeting was scheduled for
Committee
October 19. Staff would contact the committee if a meeting was necessary.
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards Commissioner Buggy stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had
not met.
Committee
Item 5.2
Design Guidelines Chairman Svendsen read an email that Jeff Houle, chair of the design
guidelines subcommittee, had sent to staff. It read, “I thank staff and
Subcommittee
Commission members for productive meetings to date. The site trip to
Item 5.3
Columbia Heights was informative and well worth the time. The
committee has reviewed roughly half of the information prepared by staff
and should complete review/discussion during the next two meetings. I
would expect the committee to review a rough draft of the guidelines in
early November and be able to present to the whole Commission in either
late November (special meeting) or at the December Planning
Commission meeting.” Houle added that the Commission should think
about whether the guidelines would apply to all properties/buildings
including multi-family with more than four units. The guidelines may be
applied in incremental steps, such as less for industrial, more for high
visibility commercial. Three main commercial areas were identified by the
committee: full length of Winnetka including 42nd Avenue from Xylon to
Crystal border, Bass Lake Road, and along Highway 169 at 27th, 36th, and
49th avenues. The committee recognizes that all of these areas are very
different.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Minutes Brinkman, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September
5, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Item 7.2 Ms. Kim Berggren, community development assistant, stated that the city
had received 11 applications for the comprehensive plan update
Comprehensive Plan
committee to date. The deadline for applications was October 6, and she
Subcommittee
encouraged commissioners to give an application to residents or business
owners they felt would be a candidate for the committee. Planning
Commissioners Houle, Hemken, Landy, and Buggy have volunteered to
serve on the committee. Mr. Jacobsen added that the city was encouraging
5
Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2006
ethnic and age diversity on the committee to get a good representation of
the community at large.
Item 7.3 Ms. Berggren stated that the residential recognition program panel was
meeting on October 10 to make recommendations to the City Council for
Residential
recipients of the awards. The panel visited the sites in September, and the
Recognition
Council would select the award winners in late October and present the
Program Panel
awards at the first meeting in November. The city received six
nominations. Commissioner Anderson is serving on the panel.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Svendsen pointed out the update received from the city of
Crystal regarding the redevelopment at the former Thorson School site.
He added that he had been past the site on several occasions and it looked
like a great project.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
6
Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2006