Loading...
090506 planning commission CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 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, Kathi Hemken, Jeff Houle, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgudé, Steve Svendsen Absent: Pat Crough, Bill Oelkers, Tom Schmidt Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Curtis Jacobsen, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC06-17 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, request for variance to the three-foot side yard setback requirement for a driveway, Item 4.1 3325 Ensign Avenue North, Paul Swenson, Petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, community development specialist, stated that the petitioner was requesting approximately a two-foot variance to the three- foot side yard setback requirement to allow a driveway that was installed last spring to remain in place approximately one foot from the side property line. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential, and is surrounded by single family properties in all directions. The site contains 12,524 square feet. Mr. Jacobsen explained that the Swensons replaced their driveway in late May of 2006, and neither the contractor or property owner applied for a permit prior to replacing the driveway. When informed of the three-foot side yard setback requirement, the property owner chose to apply for a variance. The petitioner indicated in correspondence that due to the angle at which the house and garage were located relative to the street, they need the full width of the driveway to turn vehicles to exit. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff received one phone comment from a party who suggested that the added flares at the end of the driveway would make it more difficult to park in the cul-de-sac. Adjacent property owners signed a petition supporting the petitioner’s request for a variance. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the development review team was not supportive of this request, due to the fact that the driveway appeared to be wider than the original, the three-foot setback requirement was not new and had, in fact, recently been reduced from five feet to three feet, and the three-foot setback requirement provided a drainage area between properties. The Design and Review Committee discussed this issue and was generally non-committal regarding the request. The Committee advised the applicant how to better represent his case to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Jacobsen summarized that the applicant had not applied for a permit for driveway replacement and the current location did not meet city code. Staff recommended the variance be denied due to the precedence it would set regarding procedure, enforcement and violation of city code. Commissioner Hemken questioned how much wider the driveway was from the original. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the Hennepin County aerial photograph indicated approximately an 18-inch flare on each side of the driveway at the curb line, for a total of 36 inches. Commissioner Brinkman wondered what changes qualified as requiring a permit. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, replied that the ordinance indicated if there was any enlargement or reduction of the driveway area, or any altering of the driveway within the boulevard, then a permit was required. If the driveway was replaced exactly as it was, then a permit was not required. Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, added that the City Council recently dealt with several properties in the Meadow Lake area whose driveways/curb cuts did not meet the side yard setback requirement. The non-conforming use section of the city code states that any non-conforming use in the city in existence prior to July 5, 1979, could remain as it was – it could be replaced but not enlarged. The Swenson’s house was constructed in 1973. A determination should be made whether or not the driveway was enlarged. If the driveway was not enlarged, technically a variance would not be necessary and the driveway could remain as it is. The issue with Mr. Swenson’s driveway arose in May, and in August the City Council passed a blanket resolution allowing 17 properties in the Meadow Lake area to continue their existing non- conforming use and allowed all of those existing curb cuts to remain in place. Chairman Svendsen questioned the non-conforming use of the Swenson’s driveway. It was determined that the flared ends may be new to this driveway. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner could explain what was replaced and whether or not the driveway had been expanded. Mr. Paul Swenson, 3325 Ensign Avenue North, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Mr. Swenson stated he appreciated the opportunity to speak on behalf of his request for a variance. He pointed out that he was originally told there was no grandfather clause that applied to his situation, and was relieved to see there was a grandfather clause that applied. Swenson stated that he and his wife had been residents of New Hope since 1964. They built the house at 3333 Ensign in 1973. Another family built the house at 3325 Ensign and the Swenson’s 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 purchased that home in 1984. The original driveway was poured in 1973 when the home was built and had deteriorated over the years. There was a streak of blue clay under the driveway, and Mr. Swenson stated they paid extra to have that removed and a better base installed. He stated he felt a better constructed driveway would improve the property value. A contractor was hired to do the work. His contract stated that the driveway was to be replaced, not enlarged. A building inspector stopped at his house when the driveway was nearly complete and informed them of the three-foot setback requirement and the need for a permit. Mr. Swenson stated that his contractor was not aware of the permit requirement, and according to the city attorney’s earlier comment should not have been necessary. He stated he inquired at that time of a grandfather clause and was told there was no such provision, and his choices were to cut back the new driveway or apply for a variance to the ordinance. The main argument was the use of an aerial photo from Hennepin County’s website that indicated the driveway had been expanded at the curb. He further explained that the angle of the aerial photo seemed to exaggerate the curb lines. He stated he had contacted the Hennepin County surveyor’s office to determine the accuracy of the photos, and he was told the photos were not intended to be used for that purpose and exact dimensions could not be determined from the photos. Mr. Swenson stated that his neighbor to the south had commented relative to the flared ends being a safety issue in the cul-de-sac. Since that time, this neighbor had submitted a letter stating that he was not in opposition to the variance. Mr. Swenson showed photos indicating that his property was at a higher elevation than the property to the south, and his neighbor had installed a trench along the property line, allowing water to flow from the back of the properties along the neighbor’s property line to the street. He also showed photos of the flares at the end of his driveway and the distance to property line. The flared end extended 22 inches into the three-foot setback area on the south side of the driveway. He added that he did not have an old photo of the driveway showing how it looked before the replacement. Mr. Swenson reiterated that he would appreciate favorable consideration of the variance and allow him to leave the driveway as it was constructed. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-17. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Jacobsen confirmed that staff had not been to the site prior to the driveway replacement. City records included a survey of the property without the driveway. Mr. Swenson drew the driveway on the survey when plans were submitted. Discussion ensued on the photos and the apparent angle of the driveway. 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 Chairman Svendsen stated he felt the variance should be approved. Commissioner Houle initiated discussion on whether or not a variance was required for a non-conforming driveway under the grandfather clause of the code. Mr. Sondrall explained that the threshold question was to determine whether this driveway had been changed in any way. The petitioner submitted information to indicate the driveway had not been changed. The petitioner stated that his contractor installed the driveway in the same location as it was when it was poured in 1973. The grade had not changed and the surmountable curb had not changed. There was no indication as to where the previous driveway hooked into the curb. There were a number of driveways in the area that had flared ends. By taking the applicant at his word that the driveway was not changed, then under Section 6-7 of the city code dealing with street excavation and the need for a permit, a permit would not have been needed. As a result, it would not be appropriate to consider a variance. Mr. Sondrall recommended that no variance be approved, because in the future if the driveway would be enlarged or changed, he could then apply for a variance. Chairman Svendsen maintained due to the fact that a variance was not required now, he did not see a problem leaving the driveway as it was. Commissioner Buggy questioned whether or not the old driveway tied into the curb cut prior to replacement. Mr. Swenson stated that the driveway did tie into the curb as it had before. Mr. Sondrall interjected that there was no separate curb cut; the curbing in the cul-de-sac was continuous. Discussion ensued on how to proceed with the motion. It was determined that if the decision was that no variance was required, the application fee would be refunded. Mr. Sondrall responded to a question that the petitioner had been informed a variance was required due to the fact that there was a dispute over whether or not the driveway had been enlarged or changed. By looking at the driveway, it can be determined that there had been no alteration in the driveway curb, gutter or apron. The surmountable curb looked intact the same as it would have been prior to the driveway replacement. It was fairly obvious that there had been no change to the driveway grade. The other criteria to look at were whether the location had been changed or the driveway had been enlarged or reduced and the applicant indicated no change. Staff reacted to information in the photos and information received from a property owner who indicated the driveway had been enlarged. There may have been a misunderstanding to the facts and circumstances of the requirement for a variance. Sondrall indicated that staff was not at fault. The Planning Commission should look at all the facts and determine whether any of the facts would support that a variance would be needed. Sondrall stated that the only information in the record suggested that a variance would not be needed due to the fact that there was no evidence of an alteration to the driveway. Commissioner Houle confirmed that there was no other information that 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 the city had to identify where the previous driveway had been located. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Landy, with Item 4.1 regard to Planning Case 06-17, that the Planning Commission found it probable that the driveway reconstruction that occurred this year at 3325 Ensign Avenue North was within the previous footprint of the old driveway and therefore would fall under the grandfather clause for non- conforming use and a variance was not required, Paul Swenson, petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Oelkers, Schmidt Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen stated that the variance had been dissolved and the driveway could remain as is. The variance application fee and deposit would be refunded, and the application would not proceed to the City Council. PC06-18 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, request for side yard setback variance for house addition, 3532 Decatur Court, Brian and Item 4.2 Shelly Gilbert, petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that the petitioner was requesting a 2.4-foot variance from the 10-foot side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a house addition 7.6 feet from the property line at the closest point to the addition. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential, with single family properties to the north, south and west, and St. Joseph’s Church to the east. This property was platted as Kimball Addition in the mid-1990s and subdivided into nine single family parcels. This lot contains 11,493 square feet. The petitioner purchased the model home in 1995 and is now ready to add the 14-foot by 13-foot room addition with a six-foot by eight-foot deck onto the rear of the existing home. There is a bay window protrusion at the center of the back of the house which limits where the addition could be constructed. The property slopes from the front to the back and adjacent properties have retaining walls in the side and rear yards to create usable property. Mr. McDonald stated that property owners within 350 feet were notified and staff did not receive any comments. The applicant submitted a petition signed by all neighboring property owners who were in favor of the addition. The petitioner indicated in correspondence the building materials and roof line of the addition would match the existing home. A hardship could be cited due to the unique shape of the property, which was not 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 necessarily applicable to other lots in the subdivision. The topography of the property could also be cited as a hardship. McDonald added that staff and the Design and Review Committee felt this was a minor variance request and were recommending approval, subject to the conditions in the planning report. Mr. Brian Gilbert, 3532 Decatur Court, came forward to address the Commission. He stated they were the original owners and would like to expand now as their family has grown since 1995. He confirmed that due to the bay window at the rear of the home, the expansion could be no larger than 14 feet. There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 06-18. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Houle, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.3 approve Planning Case 06-18, request for side yard setback variance for house addition, 3532 Decatur Court, Brian and Shelly Gilbert, petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1.Building materials of addition to match existing house. 2.Building permit be obtained prior to start of construction. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Crough, Oelkers, Schmidt Motion carried. Chairman Svendsen stated this request would be considered by the City Council on September 25 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 August. The next meeting was scheduled for Committee September 14. Mr. McDonald stated one pre-application meeting was held Item 5.1 and may come forward. Codes and Standards Commissioner Hemken stated that the Codes and Standards Committee had not met. Committee Item 5.2 Design Guidelines Commissioner Houle reported that the subcommittee met to begin the review and another meeting was scheduled later this week. He stated Subcommittee recommendations should be ready for the Commission to review in Item 5.3 November. The goal of the design guidelines is to establish a dialogue between 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 property owners looking to improve or develop property in the city as it would relate to a number of issues not specifically covered in the Zoning Code. It should not dictate specifics but set out guidelines that the city, staff, and the Commission and Council can utilize in discussing potential redevelopment or new development. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Minutes Houle, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 2, 2006. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Item 7.2 Mr. McDonald stated that the City Council had approved the revised proposals from NAC and Bonestroo for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan update. Staff will be requesting that the City Council approve a motion Subcommittee forming a comprehensive plan update committee of approximately 15 people. Staff would be recommending that members from city commissions and volunteers from the business and residential community, and applicants for the potential City Center advisory committee serve on the comprehensive plan update committee. Staff would recommend that one council member also be designated to serve as a liaison to the City Council. The time commitment for the committee may be approximately 12 months, meeting one time per month. There would be opportunities for two or more open houses to draw public input into the plan. The Comprehensive Plan would need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council prior to December 31, 2008, and the plan amendments would need to be submitted to adjacent cities for comments approximately six months prior to that time. The goal is to have the update completed by fall 2007. The current comprehensive plan is a good document; portions of it just need to be updated. In the last update, the Met Council closely examined transportation and water issues. Commissioners Houle, Hemken, Landy, and Buggy volunteered to serve on the committee. Item 7.3 Mr. McDonald reported that the City Council established business and residential recognition programs this year. Outstanding businesses are Residential recognized on a quarterly basis. Residential recognition awards would be Recognition handed out on an annual basis and selected by a panel. There are several Program Panel categories in the residential recognition program, including gardens/landscaping, building remodels/additions, general property improvements, and environmentally sensitive improvements such as a rain garden. The city received four nominations to date in the gardens/landscape category. Nominations are due September 30. Staff was recommending, and the City Council concurred, that the panel be comprised of commission and garden club members, and staff was seeking a volunteer from the Commisison. Commissioner Anderson volunteered to be on the panel. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006 ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Hemken will present the Planning Commission quarterly update to the City Council on September 11. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2006