Loading...
070803 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien, Svendsen Absent: Brauch, Oelkers Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-11 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Front Yard Variance to Allow Construction of an Attached Garage, 4053 Nevada Item 4.1 Avenue North, Kurt and Jill Klipstein, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner was requesting a five-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement to allow construction of an attached garage 20 feet from the property line. The property is located on the west side of Nevada nd Avenue approximately 600 feet south of 42 Avenue. The site and surrounding properties are zoned R-1 single family residential. The lot is rectangular in shape and contains approximately 9,000 square feet. Aerial and topography maps were displayed showing the location and setback of the homes along Nevada Avenue. The existing home is a split-level construction with the footprint containing approximately 1,009 square feet with a single car tuck-under garage. The proposed garage addition would be 590 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan indicated that housing conditions are generally good in District #15. The homes are smaller and most have single car garages. Housing maintenance and renovation would be promoted through private investment in the homes. McDonald explained that the home and existing garage lie 39.8 feet from the front property line, and the driveway abuts Nevada Avenue. There are significant trees located on the east and north sides of the property, which limits access to the rear yard. The applicants were proposing to construct an attached garage on the property. McDonald mentioned that Mr. Klipstein had discussed several options with staff and the plans the Design and Review Committee reviewed were revised to the current plan. The variance requested was due to the front yard encroachment. The applicants submitted a written narrative, photos of existing lot, site plan, and building structural sketches. The proposed garage addition would provide a 590 square foot double car garage with storage space on both sides. Most of the trees on the property would be left intact. In correspondence submitted prior to the Design and Review Committee, the petitioner requested the granting of the variance based on the following: 1) park both vehicles in the garage, 2) room in the back yard however there are two trees which prevent installing a driveway on the north side of the house, 3) more space for storage of trash cans, etc., 4) reduced the depth from 24 to 20 feet, and 5) new roof would be just below the bedroom windows giving another means of egress in case of fire in the however there are two trees which prevent installing a driveway on the north side of the house, 3) more space for storage of trash cans, etc., 4) reduced the depth from 24 to 20 feet, and 5) new roof would be just below the bedroom windows giving another means of egress in case of fire in the upstairs of the home. With the suggestions from the Design and Review Committee, revised plans were submitted changing the front of the garage by not covering the front entrance to the home and a 20-foot depth. The applicant discussed the existing trees with the city forester, who indicated that in order to preserve as many trees as possible, the front of the house was the best place for the garage addition, and that the applicant should keep the driveway at least nine feet from the closest tree. Tree preservation could be considered a hardship in this specific case. There was a concern with drainage on the south side of the property. The applicant stated in the correspondence that he would dig a trench along the south side 10 inches wide and four inches deep and lay rubber in it, then cover the rubber with 3/4 inch buff rock to allow water from the back yard to drain into the street. The sump pump drain hose would drain to the north side of the property and out to the street instead of toward the rear yard as it does now. The siding and shingles on the new garage would match the existing home. A statement was submitted signed by neighboring property owners which stated that they approved of the addition. McDonald stated that the code permits a three-foot reduction into a required side yard abutting a street for the construction of an accessory building or garage subject to an administrative permit. He stated that staff was in agreement with the requested side yard reduction. The bigger concern was the five yard encroachment into the front yard. McDonald mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan encouraged residential reinvestment, and the city works with property owners to help them with reinvestment in their property and to remain in the city. Therefore, an applicant’s request to upgrade his property with a garage capable of holding two vehicles should not be discounted. With respect to variances, the applicant must also show the proposal meets the hardship criteria of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the code in unique circumstances on specific parcels of property. The granting of the variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. The application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance would result in undue hardship to the applicant. A hardship may be a physical condition unique to the property and may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, topographic or similar conditions. Economic conditions alone cannot constitute a hardship. The hardship has to be unique to the parcel and not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. The landowner cannot have created the hardship. Additional criteria include not altering the character of the locality, not impairing an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or increasing congestion on public streets, increasing the danger of fire or public safety, and is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. With regard to hardship, the planner indicated in his report that the applicant’s lot was configured in the same manner as other lots along Nevada Avenue. The house placement and tuck under garage are not unique to the applicant’s property but is rather the pattern along the street. Alternative sites for the garage would include the rear or north side yard. Specific characteristics that complicate the rear yard would include the existence of two trees and the topography of the property. McDonald added that at the Design and Review Committee meeting, there was a lot of discussion about alternative locations. The planner reported that with grading, the topography issue in the front yard could be overcome. The existing trees would complicate access to the rear or side yard. Staff 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 believed that one tree may need to be removed to accommodate the garage at either of the alternative locations. The Planning Commission should decide whether or not tree preservation would be achieved by granting the variance. Another negative of locating the garage at the rear grading, the topography issue in the front yard could be overcome. The existing trees would complicate access to the rear or side yard. Staff believed that one tree may need to be removed to accommodate the garage at either of the alternative locations. The Planning Commission should decide whether or not tree preservation would be achieved by granting the variance. Another negative of locating the garage at the rear of the property would be that it would be very close in proximity to the attached deck with the driveway running close to the house. With regard to adversely affecting the neighborhood with the granting of the variance, the planner stated that the proposed front yard variance would alter the site in comparison with the character of the surrounding residential properties within the block. The proposed garage would stand out and be different than the homes on both sides of the property. Per the current code, the applicant could build out 15 feet without a variance and is requesting an additional five feet into the required front yard setback. With regard to allowing special privileges that may be denied to other property owners, the planner indicated that staff was concerned with the precedence that could be established with this variance approval. The lot size and shape of the applicant’s lot is not unique to this property but is the standard throughout much of the city. Approval of a front yard encroachment for a garage could result in other applications of a similar nature. Without solid demonstration of hardship unique to this property, it would be difficult to say that other variance requests of a similar nature would not be appropriate. The Planning Commission should make a determination whether this type of variance would be acceptable. With regard to the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship, the planner indicated that the applicant could construct a garage in either the north side yard or rear yard, however, there would be different implications than a front yard garage. The rear yard garage must meet the required accessory building setbacks, must provide a longer driveway with some change in topography, would result in loss of a significant tree, and may have an impact on the location of the existing deck. Many of these items could be overcome through proper site design. In early meetings with the applicant, staff informed him that if the front yard variance was pursued, it should be the minimum action required to provide garage space. McDonald reported that staff reviewed the request and the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and comments from both meetings included: the city encouraged expansion but this was a large encroachment into the front yard, concern about setting precedent, blocking view of neighboring properties, and discussion of alternative locations for the garage. The Committee encouraged the applicant to reduce the depth to 20 feet, and indicated it may support a five-foot variance with additional input from the full Planning Commission. The petitioner was informed that there was no guarantee the request would be approved, but the petitioner desired to proceed with the five-foot variance request. McDonald stated that the garage would extend 20 feet in front of the existing tuck-under garage. The front width would be 26 feet with a length of 30 feet on the south side and would extend seven feet out from the existing garage on the south side. The existing garage would be utilized as a workshop and the existing garage door would remain as a portion of the back wall of the new garage. The front elevation would have an 8-foot by 16-foot garage door with a rounded top window above and five feet of storage space on either side of the garage door. The north side would have a service door with a rounded top window, and the south side would have two small windows. A service door would be installed on the rear elevation. 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 The siding and shingles would match the existing home. a service door with a rounded top window, and the south side would have two small windows. A service door would be installed on the rear elevation. The siding and shingles would match the existing home. McDonald stated that significant trees are located on the property: one large tree on the front property line by the driveway, one large tree in the center of the front yard, one tree between the north side of the house and north property line, and two trees in the rear yard. The petitioner had the city forester look at the property to help him determine the best location for the garage and yet save as many trees as possible. In correspondence the forester stated, in his opinion, the best place for the new garage would be the front yard, with care taken to avoid excessive root damage to the tree closest to the driveway. There is a six-foot wood fence on the west property line, a five-foot utility easement on the west property line, and a four-foot wood fence on the south property line. McDonald stated that the city engineer reviewed the plans and offered the following comments: 1) a limited drainage area from the applicant’s backyard and the neighbor’s backyard drains to the front yard along the applicant’s south lot line. Stored materials, a hedge and other plant materials already compromise drainage along this route. This expansion would impact the hedge and could further complicate drainage. The garage would also contribute storm water to this property line. The applicant addressed this issued with the revised plans. Shortening the driveway would reduce the area to park vehicles in front of the garage and increase the slope of the driveway. The setbacks of adjacent properties are the same, and the garage addition may impact sight lines to the house fronts of these properties. In summary, McDonald reported that in examining this request, the Planning Commission should determine whether or not the variance would be justified based on the criteria in the zoning code. In staff’s review, the belief was that the building addition may change the character of the neighborhood, may set precedent for future garage additions, and have an impact upon drainage on the south property line. However, the applicant modified the request to minimize the front yard encroachment and attempted to respond to the Design and Review Committee’s comments. The shallower garage is a positive alternative to previous requests, and the applicant had proposed a means to deal with drainage along the south side of the lot. The city promotes renovation and reinvestment in its single family housing stock. The Planning Commission should determine whether the existing site conditions warrant variance approval and whether the variance requested is the minimum encroachment required. McDonald stated that staff offered two options. If the Planning Commission desired to approve the request, the criteria for approval would be that the New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment, the existing site conditions present a physical hardship, it was the minimum encroachment required, there would be no negative impact on site drainage and to comply with city engineer recommendations, comply with building official recommendations, and siding and shingles would need to match existing house. If the Planning Commission denied the request, the specific criteria involved would be that there was no physical hardship unique to the property, the variance would alter the character of the neighborhood, the variance may have a negative impact on site drainage, precedent for future request, and that an alternative location on the site could be utilized. Mr. Kurt Klipstein, 4053 Nevada Avenue North, came forward to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Klipstein thanked staff and the Commission for their time in reviewing and discussing his garage plans. 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 questions of the Planning Commission. Klipstein thanked staff and the Commission for their time in reviewing and discussing his garage plans. Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee appreciated the fact that the petitioner utilized the Committee’s suggestions in the revised plans. Svendsen questioned whether or not the hedge on the south property line would remain with the construction of the drainage ditch, and Klipstein responded that the hedge would remain. The drainage ditch would be dug just to the north side of the hedge. Gutters would be placed on the garage to direct rainwater. The sump pump currently drains to the rear yard, but would be changed to drain to the north and along the north property line toward the street. Svendsen clarified that the petitioner had indicated to the Design and Review Committee that he may further expand the home to the north, which was another reason not to place the garage and driveway in that area. Discussion ensued on the driveway placement and the recommendation from the forester to keep the pavement at least nine feet from the large tree. Klipstein asked about the construction and frost footings for the alcove area on the south side of the garage and was told that frost footings would probably be required, but it would be best to check with the building inspectors. Commissioner Hemken initiated discussion on moving the garage back into the existing garage by five feet. It was determined that this would not be possible with regard to weight bearing walls, and a large elevation change between the existing and new garages. That change would also reduce the amount of workshop space. Klipstein explained that his truck was 19.5 feet long and he had planned to build a small indentation into the existing garage for the front end of the truck. Commissioner Buggy questioned why the preference was to not place the garage on the north side of the home. Klipstein explained that the reasoning was to preserve as many trees as possible and that some day they may want to add a family room onto the home on that side. The existing chimney would remain if an addition were constructed in the future. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Barrick to close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-11. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Svendsen read for the record comments from Commissioner Oelkers, who could not be at the meeting. “When we changed the city zoning code, we reduced the front yard setback to 25 feet. As I recall, I was very proactive in this change. I think that 25 feet is a very reasonable and fairly common setback throughout the northern suburbs. I recently sold a new home in the city of Brooklyn Park and the setback in that development was actually 30 feet. “I have been pretty willing to look at variances throughout my service on the Planning Commission. I tend to try to find a way to make a variance work. This variance however does not make sense to me. It appears to me that the proposed garage will be setting under 20 feet from the lot line and only about 32-34 feet from the curb. This seems way too close to the street. It would change the site lines for the entire street. 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 “If we were to allow this variance, I fear we would be setting a precedent that we surely would regret in the future. “If I were to attend the meeting on Tuesday evening, I would vote against any variance into the 25-foot setback.” Commissioner Svendsen stated that he strongly supported this variance. When the subdivision was developed, all of the houses were set back to 40 feet. This variance would change the character of the neighborhood, but he stated he felt it would be a positive change. The addition to the house would be good for the current homeowner and for any possible future homeowner. The value of the homes in the neighborhood may be increased. With regard to setting precedence, each variance is viewed on a case-by-case basis. As an example, the six-foot front yard variance that was approved on Northwood Parkway has only increased the character of the neighborhood. In looking at all of the variances applied for in the last 13 years, there have only been two front yard variances versus 43 side/rear yard variances, therefore, he said he did not feel a precedent was being set. Svendsen reiterated that by constructing the garage on the north side of the property, three trees would be lost. With the garage addition on the front of the home, there may be a small possibility that one tree would be lost, but by keeping at least a nine-foot clearance to the tree, it may be saved. Commissioner O’Brien wondered about setting precedence for other variance requests of the same type. The city attorney stated that applicants could come to the city and compare their application to previous applications. The fact that the Planning Commission and City Council have granted other variances does not mean that a variance had to be granted. Each case would stand on its own. When the city starts approving too many variances, and the exception becomes the rule, then maybe the rule needs to be changed. Zoning codes are living documents that change with the times, and as the Planning Commission and City Council would need to react to that. The key point in granting a variance is a physical, not economic, hardship. In this particular case, there is not a purely economic hardship, but a condition on the lot not created by the property owner that is unique to the lot that warrants the granting of a variance if the Commission so desires. By granting this variance, it would not mean that every other variance request needed to be granted. O’Brien was concerned that the next request may be for seven or 10 feet and wondered what the limit might be. Commissioner Buggy commented that residents reinvesting in their homes was a good thing for the city. He felt that due to the large housing stock of similar type homes, the city may be dealing with this type of request more often in the future. He also wondered if the loss of the trees on the north side of the home was necessarily a hardship now as opposed to the loss of the trees when they want to construct a family room addition in a few years. Commissioner Anderson reminded the Commission that a goal of the Comprehensive Plan was for property owners to reinvest in their homes and remain in the city. MOTION Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Item 4.1 to approve Planning Case 03-11, Request for Front Yard Hemken, Variance to Allow Construction of an Attached Garage, 4053 Nevada Avenue North, Kurt and Jill Klipstein, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 1. Applicant to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact on the site drainage and comply with the city engineer recommendations. 2. Comply with the building official recommendations. 3. Siding and shingles to match existing house. 4. Applicant to consider city forester’s recommendations with regard to tree preservation measures. Voting in favor: Anderson, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien, Svendsen Voting against: Barrick Absent: Brauch, Oelkers Motion carried. Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on July 28 and advised the petitioner to attend. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners to review their plans and discuss several options. He added that Committee it was very helpful to have a certificate of survey to know the exact location Item 5.1 of the building on the property. McDonald added that staff expected a request for a total redevelopment of the Sinclair station on Medicine Lake Road/Highway 169 and a sign th variance for the station on 36 Avenue/Highway 169 to be submitted for the August meeting, therefore, the Design and Review Committee would be meeting in July. Codes and Standards Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in June. McDonald added that there may be several items for the Committee Committee to discuss later this summer. Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Chairman Landy stated that the City Center Task Force would be meeting Miscellaneous Issues on July 10 and gave a short update on what the task force had been doing. An open house may be held on the concept plans in September or October and then proposals would proceed to the Planning Commission for review. McDonald addressed rumors of the potential closing of Bally’s Fitness Center, and reported on additional financial information for the City Center study. Also discussed at the task force meetings was the inclusion of the city pool and City Center Park into the redevelopment. Discussion ensued on the proposed Culver’s redevelopment on nd 42/Nevada avenues, Ahren’s Trucking vacation of the property and demolition of the existing building. McDonald stated that the city expected construction plans to be submitted soon for Navarre, St. Joseph Church, the pet hospital, and Woodbridge Senior Cooperative. The city had been continuing the negotiation process with a developer for the East Winnetka Livable Communities area. Special TIF legislation was passed by the legislature which must be used within one year. A grant had recently been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for the East Winnetka site and the golf course site. The course of action would be to come to an agreement with a developer, agree on a plan, create a TIF district and acquire the balance of the properties. O’Brien initiated discussion on several vacant properties. McDonald stated that the Egan property was on the market and the property may be subdivided prior to sale. The Ware Manufacturing property is vacant at this time. The city had been coordinating with a new company desiring to move into the vacant building at 4000 Winnetka Avenue, as well as a new 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003 company moving into 5001 Boone Avenue. time. The city had been coordinating with a new company desiring to move into the vacant building at 4000 Winnetka Avenue, as well as a new company moving into 5001 Boone Avenue. McDonald informed the Commission that the city would possibly be acquiring the fourplex property on Bass Lake Road that was recently partially destroyed by a fire. The property is included in the Livable Communities redevelopment area. The city processed an administrative permit for the 24-hour drive through operation at McDonalds Restaurant. McDonald stated that in 2001 the Planning Commission and City Council approved plans for the Mid-America Financial Plaza on Bass Lake Road. At the time of the planning approval, the city required a solid wood fence from the highway to the edge of the building and left the balance of the landscaping as it was. The city was now receiving calls from neighboring residents complaining about the windows on the north side of the building overlooking their back yards, and the lack of proper screening between the building and the residential neighborhood. City staff has contacted the owner of the building who has agreed to add more landscaping. McDonald added that he may have the owner submit landscaping/screening plans for Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded was made by Commissioner Svendsen, by to approve the Planning Commission minutes of Commissioner Buggy, June 3, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTSMcDonald reminded the Commission that the August meeting would be held on Wednesday, August 6, due to National Night Out on the regular Tuesday meeting night. Commissioner Svendsen stated he would not be able to attend the August meeting. McDonald informed the Commission that due to budget cuts there would not be a volunteer recognition picnic this year, but that all the work the Commissioners did was much appreciated. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2003