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