040489 PlanningAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1989
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 89-2 -
Request for Preliminary Plat
Variance to Required Lot Area
9213-9215 41st Avenue North
Steven Kaitz, Petitioner
Approval and
3.2 Case 89-3-
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow
Outdoor Storage in I-1 (L~mited Industrial)
Zoning District,
2919 Nevada Avenue North,
Raymond Kmetz, Petitioner
3°3 Case 89-6 -
Request for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Counseling Center to Allow Signage
4203 Boone Avenue North,
Family Hope Services, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Discussion regarding study of property setbacks
6.2 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 7, 1989.
6.3 Review of City Council Work Session Minutes of January 12,
1989, and January 22, 1989, and City Council Minutes of
February 27, 1989, March 13, 1989, and March 15, 1989.
6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of February 27, 1989, March 13, 1989,
and March 15, 1989.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
-~ase 89-6
4203 Boone Av.
Case 89-2
9213-9215
: . ~venb
1.2¸
Case 89-3
~?wda
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 89-2
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
Preliminary Plat Approval
9213-9215 41st Avenue North
18-118-21 23 0079/18-118-21 23 0078
R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential)
Steven M. Kaitz
March 31, 1989
April 4, 1989
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a preliminary plat approval and a 901
square foot variance to the required lot area of 14,000 square
feet. The platting requirements are set forth in Chapter 13 of the
New Hope City Code, and the lot area requirements are set forth in
Section 4.035, sub. 2, of the New Hope Code.
The property is currently a zero lot line development. The
petitioner is proposing to combine the two lots. Attachment A is
the proposed plat.
This neighborhood was platted in 1979. 48 duplexes and 3 single
family homes were developed. A variance was approved at that time
to allow 12,000 square foot lots rather than the required 14,000
square feet.
In order to keep the record clear, staff has required that a
variance request on this specific lot be requested and processed.
Property owners within 350 feet of the proposed plat have been
notified. Staff has received inquiries, but no one has opposed the
platting procedure.
Staff has also notified the utility companies and has received no
comment to date.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner meets the platting requirements set forth in Chapter
13 of the New Hope Code. Section 4.035 (2) required that the lot
area per unit for a two-family residence be 7,000 square feet.
Currently Lot 29 is 6,547 square feet and Lot 30 is 6,552 square
feet. This equates to 13,099 square feet as opposed to the
required 14,000 square feet.
Planning Case 89-2
Page -2-
The variance in this case is supported by past public action. The
1979 approval made all of the lots non-conforming in terms of lot
area. That non-conformity cannot be reversed nor is it increased
by the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Steven Kaitz
Addition, and a 901 square foot variance to the required 14,000 square
foot lot area, finding that the petitioner has met the variance criteria
set forth in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code.
Staff also suggests that the Planning Commission waive their review of
the final plat.
Attachments:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Proposed Plat
Planning Commission/Council Minutes
Planning Case 79-23
LOT CONSOLIDATION
FOR: STEVE KAITZ
- 415T AY~=.
Scale: 1" = 20'
O Denotes Iron Monument set
with cap stamped RLS 12254
· Denotes Iron Monument Found
LOT 29
LOT 30
LEGAL DES(!AIPTION
Lots 29 and 30, Block 1
NEW HOPE HIGHLANDS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
8401-73rd Ave. N. · E63 · Brooklyn Pork, Minnesola 55428
Telephone: (612) 53;5-7595
Wa hereby certify that thl! il a true and corrtK:t rlf:~r~lentation of I lume¥ o'
the ~undlrl~ of the lb~l d~ri~ lind IN of ~e I~lti~ of ill ~ ild,~
if any, thareo~ I~d i1~ V~li~ll I~r~hm~ if iny. fr~ or ~ iiid ~1~
L~ Eu~yor
A1TACHr~]kq' A
-1-
PLANNING CASE 79-23
PLANNING CASE 79-23 - REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT GETTYSBURG/42ND AVENUE - VILLAGE BUILDERS,
7o
PETITIONERS.
Dick Curry, Jim I4erila, and Marv Gordon were present in regard to this case.
Mr. Curry stated they were present only on an informative basis, rather than for the plat approval be
cause they had run into some soil difficulties.
The City Manager noted that the extent of the soil problem had just been determined on Tuesday and the
petitioners were requesting a table of the request. It had been his opinion that it might serve a good
purpose for the petitioners to brief the Commission on what is being proposed and answer any questions
the Commission might have.
Mr. Curry noted that basically the lots were all planned to be zero lot line, duplex lots. Theg had
drawn the plat combining the New Hope property and the Mary Gordon property.
They had believed there was only four - five feet of peat. The initial hand augerings had revealed
pockets of up to ten feet. [~'en the soil borings had been completed they had found soil pockets of up
to 23 feet of peat. The County work on #18 showed that there were pockets than ran as deep as 36 feet.
As of Tuesday, they had begun a revision of the plat, trying to work around the soil problems. Mr. Curry
noted that the overall density of the land was adequate to support the proposed units, but that they will
require variances from the 14,000 square foot requirement for duplex l~ts.
Commissioner Gustafson noted that his reaction to the plat was that in his personal opinion "it would
never fly". He recommended that they go back and replat. There was the 14,000 square foot requirement
for duplexes and they should decide how many could fit on the site using that requirement.
The Chairman stated that this plat had to be treated like any other proposed development. There were
certain standards that had applied to many other developers and there was no reason, just because the
City was mixed up in the project, that they should ask for privileges that would not he extended to other
citizens. He felt some variances could be justified but he would have trouble voting for a plat that
had a 25,000 square foot lot off in a corner being used to meet the overa~ square footage requirement,
just to make it economicaTly feas~Te. He also stated that, in his opinion, asking for 50 foot wide
streets, and 19 undersized lots with no tradeoff, was asking for too much..
Mr. Curry stated the plat was premised on a series of duplexes. They had looked at each lot as being
able to support a building. At the setback line the smallest lot was 75 feet.
Commissioner Bartos con~ented that the Co~ssion had stuck with the 14,000 minimum reqUire~nt for the
past years and he did not feel it would ~ fair to the ~ple who had received approval earlier under
this restriction to make ~Sis kind of exception.
Mr. Curry asked what the reaction would be if they came in with a PUD?
The Chairman noted that perhaps there would be some tradeoffs.
Mr. Curry stated that it had been his feeling they were coming in with a cross between a true PUD and
a plaating. Perhaps they were talking more procedural problems?
T.he Chairman noted that the Con~ission would take no action until they were presented with an actual
request. Since the petitioner now had time to rework the plat they also had the advantage of hearing
the Commission's feeling about the project.
Commissioner Gustafson asked how Marv Gordon's previously approved townhouse project would fit into this
plan?
Mr. Gordon stated t.hat he had received the :o'wnhouse zoning, but was now going to try ~nd put in doubles
on the site.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, the City Manager noted that the original land
owners still had title to the land. Tke City had an agreement, based on the feasibility of the project,
the acceptance of a plat and the ability to sell tax increment bonds.
Mr. Merila noted that there were a number of lots that were less than 14,000 square feet per unit. They
had considered the entire area in fulfilling the requirement per unit. Out!et A was being looked at also
as part of the total area. He had under the impression that they could put duplexes on 11,600 square
feet but it had been brought to h~s attention that it was necessary ~o use the full 14,000 square feet
if townhouses were not built. ~. C. ~--/--7~, ~
A1T. qCH '_ FF B
-2-
PLANNING CASE 79-23 '
They had taken hand borings because of the ~ime element and the need to wait for the equipment to to con-
duct borings to be available. Based on preliminary information, they had proceeded with the plat. The
previous week they had started t9 receive information from the soil consultants about the consistency
of the clay below the peat. Near the Hennepin County r~p there was 12 feet of peat, however, the clay
was so moist that it was necessary to remove 26 feet of clay to get stable ground. A sand fill will be
required before they could put the clay back in. The amount of required soil work makes it unfeasi-
ble to put double bungalows on that area.
Chairman Cameron confirmed that a 50 foot street would have the same amount of asphalt but would have only
ten foot boulevards.
It was Mr. Merila's feeling that with the type of street, with no proposed future sidewalks, this street
width reduction would be practical.
Mr. Merila asked the Commission to consider the uniquemess of the situation. First of all was the soil
conditions and the configuration of the area itself. Tf~e variances would be applied to a down zoning
type of situation. There will only be a ch~ge in density. The type of development as proposed would
be more acceptable to the neighborhood than that which the current zoning provides for. However, there
are problems in accomplishing this.
Co~nissioner Gustafson asked whether it was impossible to put anything at all on the bad soil?
Mr. Merila stated they were planning to pull the street in and they were now looking at fewer total
units than they had before. They are now down to 28-29 total units overall, maintaining the five sin-
gle family units on Gettysburg. They are considered a ~oadway outside of the peat area. He said the
feasibility of putting any units on the poor soil depends upon the number of units and the cost of
putting the units on the soil. With piling ~nd a higher densia~, i.e. fourplexes, maybe, but with
duplexes it was not feasible.
Commissioner Gustafson commented on the possible PUD trade.offs. It was his opinion that the degree of
trade off would be too great for the development as proposed. Something had to be worked out for the area.
Commissioner Bartos made a motion to table Case 79-23 until the meeting of JUne 5th, 1979. Con~issioner
Gustafson second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Motion carried.
Daly, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafaon, Gundershaug, Edwards
3. PLANNING CASE 79-23 - REQUEST FOR PLAT/DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 42ND/#18 - VILLAGE BUILDERS, PETITIONER.
Mr. Dick Kauffman and Mr. Dick Curry were present. Mr. Kauffman presented a large site illustration
for the Commissioners to review. He noted his appreciation for the Plar~ing Conm~ission's willingness
to hold a special meeting.
Mr. Kauffman stated they had entered into a purchase agreement with the HRA of the City for this parti-
cular piece of ground. In their original agreement there had been 32 lots, or 56 living units. After
more complete examination of the proposal and the site, a number of problems had been discovered with
the soil conditions. Because of those conditions the configuration of the plat as proposed had been
prepared. They now propose 51 living units, 24 double bungalow lots and three residential lots that
will face Gettysburg and exit on to Gettysburg.
The development is planned to be a zero lot line development which will allow each half of a double bun-
galow to be sold separately. The plat had been drawn according to this type of plan that will allow
individual purchasers complete ownership of their unit and property. This was the reason for the small
lots.
Using the illustration Mr. Kauffman pointed out the area of land on the site that was poor, consisting
of peat and wet clay which causes a sliding action for anything built on it. It would require total re-
moval of this material if anything was to be built on it.
They have now shifted the road to the east, the units will have walkouts facing on to the street, with
the ponding area behind. They intend to make use of the ponding area with the storm sewer to maintain
control of the ponding area. There are some extreme grades on the site and some lots will have to be
filled to bring them up to the street level. The street will now be a 60 foot street.
Mr. Kauffman noted that the site plan indicated different types of units in order to illustrate that
each lot could be built on and that each lot, at the building line, contained a 75 foot minimum width.
The area within the plat does exceed the requirement of 14,000 square feet per lot, but there are lots
within the plat that run only 12,000 square fee~.
Chairman Cameron asked for clarification that 30 of the lots (15 double lots) were undersized. This
was confirmed. There are no lots, however, of less than 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Kauffman noted that the assessed valuation of the proposed double bungalows was $120,000 and excess.
There will be two and three bedroom doubles consisting of 1200 to 1400 square feet on each side and the~
will also include double garages. He added that if rental property were developed on this site, it could
involve from 165 to 175 units. Ail of =ne .~p~o/posed units wil~ be privately owned.
-3-
PLANNING CASE 79-23
He ao~ea :nar =n~x= were a number of engineering ~tems to be worked out.~ but he felt that they could
be worked out with staff. They intend to treat the pondin~area either by dedication as a ponding area,
or in some way to make access always available, and in~ure ~t would always remain in that state.
Illustrations of examples of the types of doubles that are intended for the site were presented.
Mr. Kauffman stated they had done all they could to make the best of what existed and they had met with
the HRA and all for intents and purposes had a basic approval of the plat.
Commissioner Bartos asked about the need for refilling some of the poor soil to construct on the site.
Mr. Kauffman said they would have to take some of the poor soil~peat out and replace it, but that it
was dry peat and would not be extensive.
In answer to a questi~ from Commissioner Bartos, the City Manager said that drain tile was not a condi-
tion of basement construction in New Hope unless soil conditions called for tile.
Mr. Kauffman stated that he could guarantee that when he built, he put in drain tile and did not take
Commissioner Gustafson asked about the "open ponding" ground and whether the property owners would ~'
1/51 of this area?
Mr. Kauffman said he could not answer this at the present time. They did not know whether to treat it
as an outlot, dedicate it to the City, or maintain it as open area for the control level of the storm
sewer. He doubted that it would be deeded to the residents. It would not, however, remain in the con-
trol of the developer or be subject to future sale to a developer.
In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Kauffman stated that he felt the decision on the treat-
ment of this area would be made by the engineers.
The City Manager stated that it was staff's preference that the City retain an easement over the backs
of the lots with the lots in private ownership.
Mr. Kauffman stated the decision on what to do with the open area would be made before the approval of
final platting.
Commissioner Gustafson asked whether removal of one lot on the outer ring would bring all of the lots
into size conformance?
Mr. Kauffman doubted this, but was not able to answer definitely.
The City Manager stated that if this property were going to be developed as a PUD, the plat as it was.
presently laid out would be no problem. The problem was that the developer could not pin down indivi-
dual lot development. The layout would be the same.
The Chairman commented that with a PUD there were some tradeoffs possible, other amenities could be re-
quired to compensate for the smaller lotS.
T~e Manager noted that with a duplex PUD the City had never required anything extra, it was simply a
way to get lower density.
Mr. Kauffman noted that they had attempted to follow the guidelines of a PUD with the exception of the
pinning down of the individual lot development and the sodding. He noted that they had an agreement
with the HRA whereby they would furnish a landscape plan and ask the HRA to approve it so there would
be sQme control. ,
The Chairman confirmed that all that was being discussed was the plat and questioned whether Village
Builders would construct all of the units?
Mr. Kauffman said they would build some of the units but some would be constructed by other contractors.
They would retain architectural control on all lots.
In answer to a question from the Chairman, the Manager noted that there was no requirement for the buil-
der to reappear before the Commission for construction approval unless there were a need for variances of
some type.
In answer to a further question regarding landscaping, Mr. Kauffman stated that the HRA had requested
they submit to them a landscape plan which would be considered as the minimum they would provide. HRA
would consider and approve this.
The Chairman asked about Planning Commission appr~vat?
The Manayer noted that the agreement with the
landscape plan but that it would not be identified per lot.
-4-
PLANNING CASE 79-23
Mr. Kauffman stated that the purchase agreement contained one item stating that landscape requirements
would not be included as a condition for approval. In a discussion of the purchase agreement terms, the
Council had asked if they would at least submit a landscape plan to the staff and they had so agreed.
Chairman Cameron expressed confusion, noting that since the petitioner had met already with the HRA,
which is merely the Council with another h~t on, and received commitments from them, he did not know
what they were doing wasting the time of the Planning Con~ission?
Mr. Kauffman said they wished to expose the Commission to the plans and, hopefully, gain their approval
and receive any recommendations they felt might contribute something to the plat. Also, the Platting
Ordinance required that the Planning Commission take action on any and all plats.
The City Manager noted that the HRA could do whatever they wanted, but that law required that any plat
plan had to be submitted to the Planning Co~aission a~at the had to be reviewed by
the Planning Con~ission. ~ redeveloped plan
Mr. Kauffman noted it would be nice to have a harmonious situation between all parties concerned with
the plat. He would like to get the Commission's approval.
The Chairman stated he felt their approval was meaningless if agreemmnts had already been made with the
HR./Council regarding the plat and proposed development. The Commission was just wasting their time.
Two citizens were present in regard to this proposal. Mr. Kauffman explained the proposed site to them
and also showed them illustrations of the type of units that would be constructed.
In answer to a request regarding starting time for the project, Mr. Kauffman stated they would appear
before the Council on the 29th, and hope to begin on the 30th.
Mr. Curry noted that they had mortgage commitmsnts on the three singles. They will be built by Sand-
piper Builders.
Chairman Cameron asked what the additional costs ~ould be if the lots were all brought up to a 13,000
square foot minimum size?
Mr. Kauffman stated it was a question of what would cost whom. A certain number of lots were a part of
the original transaction with the HRA. If there was a reduction in the number of lots there would also
he a reduction in the amount of the purchase price. Tax increment money is being used for the purchase
and improvements and this bec~e a problem not only for himself but the HRA and the City of New Hope, if
tax increment dollars had to be increased to make it work.
Chairman Cameron asked if Mr. Kauffman knew how the City of New Hope HRA got themselves into this bind?
Mr. Kauffman said he thought it might have been the previous zoning that caused the problem and that
the HRA thought this was t~ best solution to the zoning.
~e Chairman stated he was questioning the amount of buildable space that had been paid a certain amount
of money for.
The City Manager stated that the problem was that the land was being purchased as multiple development
property. The property was worth $320,000. The problem was that after it was purchased how much could
be recovered and how soon.
The Chairman noted that he felt the project ~uld look like a Monopoly Board, and questioned why the num-
ber of units could not be reduced even if the return time on the investment was longer?
Commissioner Bartos commented on the City restrictions for lot sizes and the fact they were being changed
for this project.
The City Manager stated that if the developer brought in a set of plans stating that a particular build-
ing were going to be placed on each individual lot with landscaping, they could add another 13 units to
the property under a PUD.
Chairman Cameron requested that a motion be made.
Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ denial of Case 79-23, with a recommendation that the
petitioner revise the outer string of lors by removing one 12,000 square foot lot and redividing the
area among the existing parcels, so that only one lot was undersized on the outer ring, further giving
recognition to the odd shapes of the interior lo~s and recommending that those be left as proposed.
Commissioner Bartos second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Edwards
None
-5-
PLANNING CASE 79-23
Chairman Cameron noted that, in his opini, on, Case 79~23 had been a. weird case and he was not sure he
understood it all.
Con~issioner Gusta£son noted that it was the political pressure of one group being enough for the City
of New Hope to pay the tab for the development of something other than an apartme~t_buil~nq., /
Planninq Case No. 79-23, request for approval of development proposal includin9 approval of
preliminary plat and variances in lot sizes_for the property at the southeast corner of 42nd
and County Road 18, was considered by the Council.
Messrs. Kauffmann and Curry were present to review the proposal. Mr. Kau~fmann presented the
proposed preliminary plat. He sai~ the nreliminary plat consists of 24 double bungalow lots
and three residential lots. The three residential lots are those facing on Gettysburg, Lots
15, 16 and 17, Block 2. A zero lot line approach will be used for the double bungalow sites
so that each unit may be sold separately. (Total of 51 lots). Two lots will be utilized
for each double bungalow. He then said they had considered the placement of a typical double
bungalow on all of the lots. The area of each lot will facilitate the construction of the
double bungalows. Four variations of double bungalows are proposed. He said that the exterior
double bungalow lots have approximately 12,000 square feet. The interior double bungalow
lots have in excess of 12,000 square feet, but less than 14,000 square feet.
Mr. Kauffmann then spoke on the soil conditions on the west side of the property. All of
the building construction will take place to the east of the poor soil. However, work
must be done in the area where from zero to five feet of peat exist. That peat must be
removed and replaced with other soil. The lots are to be raised up to the elevation of the
street. There will be a minimum of.a 2½ foot grade from the garage to the street. The lots
abutting the ponding area will have walkout basements to the rear. Standard 60 foot streets
are proposed. He said numerous soil tests have been taken throughout the area with information
furnished to the City Engineer. There will be engineerinq supervision of the compaction that
Mr. Kauffmann said they would like to create a berm all along the ramp area coming off County
Road 18. This would be a six or seven foot berm with a three to one slope. The ramp will run
all the way to Gettysburg.
Question was raised as to what effect the berm would have on visibility at Gettysburg. It
would be constructed so it would not be a hazard at that intersection. It was noted that the
berm could not be constructed on the highway right-of-way; they would have to stay back on their
own property.
Mr. Kauffmann then stated that the double bungalows will carry a proposed valuation of from
$120,000 to $140,000. The three lots on Gettysburg wou]d carry a valuation of from $85,000 to
$95,000. The single family residential homes will also have walkout basements to the rear.
Mr. t~illis Holmquist will build the single family homes. Mr. Kauffmann said he would build
some of the double bungalows and other of the lots will be sold to other builders. Quality
will be controlled through the agreements, so the area will be developed in accordance with
the agreement with the HRA. Mr. Kauffmann then showed sketches of the proposed buildings.
· Discussion followed as to the effectiveness of the berming along the ramp as to noise abate-
ment, and whether a 3 to 1 slope could be effectively maintained.
Mr. Kauffmann stated that his engineer had determined that a six to seven foot berm would be
above the elevation of the ramp as you come nOrth. He said an engineering report could be
submitted on the berming.
The City Engineer stated that the berm would not be any higher than the Jordan Avenue. It
would be lower, than Jordan Avenue. The ramp must be higher than the ramp elevation to be
effective. Mr. Kauffmann replied that an alternative would be to build the berm with a
fence on top if necessary.
Upon question, the City Engineer said that there would be di.fficulty in maintaining a 3 to
1 slope. Brome grass would grow and look decent, but if it were part of someone's yard, cutting
would be difficult, if a wide~ spread were used, the berm would not be as high. Either height
or slope must be sacrificed.
Mr. Kauffmann was then asked to address the utility and street installations. He explained "'
how the sanitary sewer installation would be handled and pointed out where storm sewer catch
basins would be 'installed. They are going to ask the highway department for a control level
of the ponding area of 893. The pond is for an overflow type situation. If that is not
possible, they will have to go underground with the storm sewer. The plans were furnished
to the City Engineer today, and it is understood that staff approval is necessary. The water.
is to be looped throughout the whole area. ~ ~._~_7~;~y~, (~..
PLANNING CASE 79-23
Village Builders intends to do the street work. Village Builders would like to, this fall,
come in with a coat of blacktop in lieu of gravel. This would serve as the base during the
fall and winter months.
Mr. Kauffmann was advised that the street construction would have to be worked out with the
City Engineer.
Question was raised as to whether chanoes in the tax increment laws would affect the proposed
development. The City Attorney said that the changes would not be a problem.
Discussion was then opened to the floor.
Mr. Marv GOrdon inquired as to whether screening would be a condition of approval. It was noted
that there was no ordinance requirement for screening for'the proposed plat. The City Manager
was asked to check the records to see if Mr. Gordon was required to screen his property.
Discussion was held as to whether the ponding area would be dedicated to the City or remain
under private ownership with an easement to the City.
Staff recommended that the easement approach be used so that the City ii not responsible for
maintaining the area.
Councilman Otten noted that there had been a question as to the cost of the additional soil
tests. It was clarified by Council that all soil test costs were included as part of the $31,850.
Inquiry was made as to the bonding for the proposed development. Mr. Kauffmann said they
understand that they will have to bond for the development plus the tax increment bonding. He
then pointed out timing problems with the development and the time restraint under which they
must have a certain portion of the project completed and asked whether permission could be
obtained to proceed immediately with sitework. ~ ~-~.~~~
The City Manager noted'that a grading permit could be obtained subject to approval of the
City Engineer. It was noted that a condition of such a permit should also be that should the
deal fall.throug~ the grade would be restored.
Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Otten approvin9 the development plan as
presented under Planninq Case No. 79-23, includinq approval of preliminary p)at of the
orea (New Hope Hiqhlands), variances in lot sizes and approving the street_,.sanitacy s~
water and storm sewer installations and allowinq qr~dinq, all subject to the approval of the
City Epgineer. The gradinq p~rmit is authorized with the understandinq that the 9[qupd ~l_
be returned to grade if the development does not proceed. Further, if the City E~iQqe~
determines that the berminQ and noise abatement is inadequate, that matter is to come back
to Council and that bonding for improvements be posted.
The City Engineer expressed concern with the proposed berm constituting an effective noise
barrier because of the lay of the land. It was noted that the motion includes the provision
that the berming issue will be brought back to Council if the City Engineer does not feel
that the noise abatement is adequate so that alternatives can be considered.
Councilwoman Hokr inquired as to whether Mr. Kauffmann would be willing to work with Design
and Review as to the berming and landscaping. Mr. Kauffmann said they had agreed to submit
planting plans to staff for approval. As to the berming effectiveness, he felt that should
be an engineering determination to be made by Mr. Cook. Mr. Kauffmann said he preferred to
work at the staff level.
Councilwoman Hokr noted that her co~cern was with the aesthetics as well as technical aspects.
Mr. Kauffmann again stated that he would prefer to work with staff because of the reasons
stated as well as time constraints.
Motion by Councilman Plufka to amend the motion to include that the construction a~p~yal is
subject to the completion of e~6~ment_~egq~o~s a~[a_nting of the easement to the City
fo[ the area designated as PgP~9_g, that the soil test costs be interpreted as ~i~g_included
i~_the_$~l~850_~.n~.prior to full develo~m~__a landscaping ~lan sho~pg_~aj~£ ~er~ and othe~'
l~nd~cape chanqes be brouqht back for Council approval. Motion to amend was seconded by
Councilwoman Hokr.
It was noted that the landscaping requirements were covered in the purchase agreement and
that the easements would be shown on the final plat.
Vntm was taken on the motion ~o amend.
Voting in favor: Ericks..~, £nck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka
Voting against: None
Mg~ion declared carried.
Vot~ wa~ ~hen taken on the motion as amended.
Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka
Voting against: None ~~_~~--~o ~
~otion declared carried.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 89-3
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage
2919 Nevada Avenue North
20-118-21 34 0007
I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning District
Raymond Kmetz
March 31, 1989
April 4, 1989
CASE UPDATE
Staff has met with the petitioner twice since the March 7, 1989,
Planning Commission meeting. Staff and the petitioner have agreed to
information required by the City for review of conditional use permits
for outdoor storage. Staff and the petitioner request that the case be
tabled until the May 2, 1989, meeting.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 89-6
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
4203 Boone Avenue North
18-128-21 21 0107
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Family Hope Services/Fred Peterson
March 31, 1989
April 4, 1989
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to a conditional use
permit for a youth counseling center. The permit, which was
approved in 1980 was subject to:
1. Annual review
Written agreement with church for perpetual parking
rights.
That the property revert to single family use with garage
required if use changes.
That there be no signs permitted other than indicating
the entrance.
The petitioner is now requesting that he be allowed to place a 20
square foot (2'6" x 8') sign at the corner of Boone and 42nd
Avenues. Attachment A is a sketch of the sign.
The petitioner is requesting this permission in order "to assist
youth and families in finding our facility; and to encourage us in
our commitment to improve the quality of life of many area youth
and families in conflict" (Petitioner's application, 3-7-89).
Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified.
has received no comment to date.
Staff
Planning Case Report 89-6
Page -2-
ANALYSIS
Section 3.463 of the New Hope Sign Code provides the maximum
signage requirements for churches, schools, and non-profit
institutions. The maximum signage is 20 square feet. The
petitioner falls within this guideline.
The signage must be placed at least 25 feet from the property
lines. Attachment B indicates the proposed placement of the
signage.
The signage proposed by the petitioner is wood and is very similar
to the signage placed on the southwest corner of Boone and 42nd
Avenues (Valleywood Condiminiums).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit
allowing signage which conforms to City Code as proposed in Planning
Case 89-6. This conditional use permit amendment incorporates the
conditions required as a part of Planning Case 80-8.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Sign Sketch
Attachment B - Proposed Placement of Sign
Attachment C - Planning Commission/Council Minutes,
Planning Case 80-8
· e tee:
· e Fee:
· e Fee~
t~e
~h./P
~/
2
ROCKFORD
'° I
C
i
il,..
I
· ROAD .:
,/7--:.i4::- ;'k;L/' T~; ;-,; ~ .~________
'
-f
.... -4. ~lannlng Case No. 80-'08~ recuest from Youth Investment Foundation~ for conditional
se ermit to allow the sin 'ie family house a~ U620 42nd Avenue, now used for
· church activity? to be used as a combination residential rental prop,.r~ wz~n .~_ .
.j., ~._r. ~ffice in ~he lower area for Youth'Investment foundation; was considered by .... ~ .....
I . C~ounc i 1 ~ .
,~ '-,'~ ~ Mr. Fred Peterson, area director for Crystal, Robblnsdale, New Hope Youth
C ~" Investment Foundation represented the petitioner. He said Youth Investment
- ~, .~. was founded in 1970 and ~s committed to serving suburban alienated youth. He
~, ..... said they work with the schools, police, etc., to help in any way possible.
.~.~ .... ~:--: . . o
'~ '- ' .... Mr. Peterson said that the building at 8620 42nd Avenue was owned by the
~ ~ ,~.~ -, Menonite Brethren. Youth Investment is considering the possibility of purchasing
~.' .'~'~'-' ~he property contingent upon permission to use the building as proposed combinatio ~ .-..~
~-'.~:'~'~".. rental residential with offices in the lower level for Youth Investment Foundation. ' .-~
~'.'~.~.L~: · -. ...... ~ .... . - ' - . ' ~.~-~i.-
i~ '-'~'~i~iMr. Peterson said his office would 'be in the lower' levei. It wo~ 1d ~ 1 , o b e ~ , e dfor II '~1~
'~_.~'.."?~i~!~.i- a small group meeting area for staff training, counseling and other small group ,
~ -~-!'~meetings. He said they also own Timber Bay Camp. He then spoke on the camp
j~ ''J/.~.~'~'-activities. If Council approves the conditional use permit, they .will begin to '~ ~'i-~'
~.'~ii:.'-negotiate the phrchase with the church ...... ' .... . - . -_' '.'.
~ '~-~!~'~!i!i· Mr. Peterson th~n reviewed his qualifications for counseling. He.said he has " '-/L~
~i~ ~ L-L~?~/". Just completed a ten year teaching career with the Robbinsdale School District.
~.~-~ He said he had been in special education and that he holds a masters degree in
'~.-'-. special education. Mr. Peterson stated that he wants to become more involved
~ with youth outside of the school setting.
'>\/':~ Mr. Peterson continued that the other staff members were college graduates with
'..~- degrees in various areas of counseling. He said the foundation operates in
· New .Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Minnetonka, Chaska, Hopkins, Golden Valley,
~ Brooklyn Park and BemidJi. The focus is on suburban youth in conflict. They
~ -: work hand in hand with the schools, the courts, probation, o~ficers, parents,
~ ' ~ etc. They also work with the YMCA.
Councilman Otten inquired as to whether this would also be a drop-in center and
whether parking was adequate.
'Mr. Pete~son replied that they are not planning a drop-in center. The church has
agreed to let Youth Investment share their parking facilities, and they are
prepared to sign such an agreement if it is required.
Mr. Peterson continued that they are working mainly with Junior high, young
people. These youngsters are not driving yet. Consequently, they are not involved
in parking a lot of vehicles. The facility will be used as an office and as a place
to bring a couple of young people after school, as a workshop for 8 or 10 peop%e,
... that type.of activity.
Councilwoman Hokr commented favorably on the work done by this organization and
recommended that the conditional use permit be granted.
Further discussion followed as to possible future parking needs. Mr. Peterson
was asked whether he could commit that they would have perpetual use of the
church~s parking facilities
The chairman of the Board of Trustees for the-church waspp~eeent and said that
he, personally, did not see any problem with the church working with Timber Bay
for perpetual parking rights. It would have to be okayed by the church'board or
church membership. He did not foresee any problem.
Upon inquiry as to the number of employees that would be on the premises, Mr.
~et~$on~s~atedr$~atht he was the ares director and that he uses volunteers. If -
it were a staff training session before camp, there might be three or four people
......... on ~he premises. They use one counselor for every three or four young people.
Mr. Peterson confirmed that they would be ren~ing the house out at t~is time,
· but eventually the tenant would b~ s~aff member. Currently. they need the rent
~. to help them get started. Funds come from individuals, organizations, local . '
churches and so forth - mostly from individuals
.
Discussion followed as to whether Youth Investment would have the financial
capabilities of returning the structure to single family status if necessary,
and, if not, who would do it ....
Mr. Peterson said the property would be owned by Youth Investment Foundation, and,
~ if put on the market for sale, it would be with the understanding that it would
meet all the standards set by the City of New Hop~. As be ,saw it, it ~ould.~eturn '
to residential, if not used by Youth Investment.~~C~ % ~]k'%%'~(~
Councilman Enck stated that as far as he was concerned, approval of the proposed ,
use would have to be contingent upon the property reverting to single family use if
no longer used by Youth Investment Foundation.
Mr. Peterson said the only changes being considered at this time is to put in a
'small bathroom in the lower level, a kitchenette and an office. Basically, this
would be like finishing a family room. The entrance is to the Boone side. It
is.a walkout. Occupancy of the lower level will not disturb the tenant upstairs.
Mayor Erickson stated that any approval should be on a year to year basis.
Discussion was then opened to the floor.
Mr. Paul Franke, 4200 Decatur Avenue, expressed concerns as a resident of the
- area. Concerns related to th~s use not being strictly residential. He was
concerned that the amount of activity would grow and further infringe on the
residential character of the neighborhood.
.Mr. Franke also noted that at least one garage is required for a residential
structure. A garage is not provided. This is an ordinance violation.
Mr. Franke said that 42nd Avenue is ~ problem now because of the heavy traffic.
'If this venture is allowed to move into the area, it could.pave the way for
other similar uses in the residential area.
The Mayor pointed out that any approval of 6he Youth Investment Foundation request
would be subject to annual review. This should be ~ safeguard against the use
increasing to the point where it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The
garage situation Should be addressed as. a separate issue.
Councilman Enck said that, while Council will ask for an annual.review, that
does not preclude citizens coming in before that time if there is an adverse
impact on the neighborhood. The people in the neighborhood could keep Council
informed.
The Mayor noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that, if the
property ever reverted back to single family use only, the garage be built.
Councilman Enck said that there 'had been a garage on the property. It had been
closed in.
Mot~o~by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Otten to mrant the conditional
.use permit for the Oronertv at 8620 ~2nd Avenue North to allow combination rental
r~nt~ wfth~ut ~e ~n~ w~tb off,ce s~ee. ~ lower level for Youth
~Mvestment Foundmtion ms reouested under Planninm Case No. 80-08 subject to the
~llowinm conditions:
~. ~nnual review by staff.
~. Written agreement with church for peroetual parkin~ rights.
~, That She prooerty revert to single family use with garage reQuire~
~f the orooosed use should change. ~
4. There be no' signs oermitted other than perhaos indlcatin~ the entrance.
Councilman Plufka pointed out that similar property uses are not uncommon around
churches. He noted that churches are non residential uses. Although this use is
not controlled or owned by the church, it is near; the use is not unlike activities
that do go on in proximity to churches. This use should not represent a. change ~
in the residential character of the ne~_Ehborhood..~ , ~-' I
Vote was then taken on the quest'ion.- ......... - ................... ~--~- ]
Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka ~
Motion declared carried~ C~~ ~'~ '
kr. Peterson assured Council that he was totally responsible for what might happen
at the property. He also said that they have been using the building for the last
eight months without any problems, and they do not intend to change the use.
PLA~NING CASE 80-08 - REQUEST FOR REVISION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 8620-42ND AVENUE NORT~ - YOU~W
INVESTMENT FOUNDATION, PETITIONER
Mr. Fred Peterson represented the ~etitioner. He noted he was the Area Director for the Foundation,
serving the Crystal-New Hope area.
Be noted that the previous time he had appeared before ~he C~ission there had' been concern expressed
about the need for a garage. The Foundation is now in the position where they can purchase the home
and are asking permission to amend the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to construct a garage now.
They will then use that space for their activities and this will eliminate the need to completely re-do
the lower level of the home, from which they had originally planned to operate. Constructing the garage
now will also solve a problem in the long .run, since when the property reverts back to a single family
~welling, the garage will already be there.
The garage will be 20' x 30'. The access will be from Boone Avenue. The windows facing Boone will
the location for the future double garage dOOr. The entry door now, would convert to the service door
when the building is used for a garage. -,- ' '
The Chairman clarified, for the record, that the Foundation already has a Conditional Use Permit to oper-
ate at the site and' they are only requesting an amendment to the conditions of the permit.
Mr. Peterson stated that their original request for the Conditional Use Permit was to guarantee they
could use the property for this purpose. They are now in a position to purchase the property and have a
closing scheduled for the third week in July.
Commissioner Daly asked for clarification of the use of the property now and how this would change with
the addition of the garage.
Mr. Peterson answered that the church has currently been using the building for meetings and as a Sunday
School annex. The Foundation has been sharing it with them once a week. The use will not change much
except that the upper level will now be used by Foundation Staff people as living quarters. The lower
level was to be. used for counseling services, small group meetings, etc. The meetings are all scheduled
and the building will not be used as a drop-in center. The Foundation would instead use the new garage
for its programs. ·
In response to questions from Con~issioner Daly, Mr. Peterson stated that they have an agreement with the
church to use their parking lot, subject to annual review, and that the hours of operation are not ex-
pected to change. He noted that the use of the site fluctuates because, especially during the su~er
months, they go on more trips, etc. with the kids, and could be gone for up to 10 days at a time.
Chairman Cameron confirmed that there would be a normal driveway but that there would not be additional
parking on that driveway in connection with Foundation use.
Mr. Peterson stated that the exterior of the building will remain as it is now. Everything will be the
same as under the terms of the Conditional Use Permit except that they will build the garage now and
use it for theiz programs. Be added that the garage would be one level and that the roof line and ex-
terior texture and color will ma~ch the rest of the house. There will not be additional staff, but the
~ount of time s_Dent at the site would fluctuate fro~ week to week,
4. Commissioner Daly made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permi~
re~uested in Case' 80-08. Co~u. issioner Bartos second.
Voting in favor: Wheelock, Gulenchyn, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, GUstafson, Gundershaug, Edwards
Voting against: None
from Youth £Bvestment Foundation fo= revision of t, hei~
enndiri~nal use hermit tO p~rmit an addition to the east side of the structure at 8620 42n,1
i~,~ ~atH~r ~ba~ +amddalin~ the basement.to provide office and meetin~space~ was considere{
by the Council. ._
Hr. Darrell Hanson represented Youth 'Investment Foundation. Mr. Hanson said that they were
requesting an amendment to the conditional use permit for Youth Investment Foundation.
He said last time they had asked for permission'to use the facility at 8620 42nd Avenue
to house their foundation and work out of. He said the house is currently oWned by the' ] '. '
./%~nonite Church and is being sold by the church to Youth Investment Foundation. They have
entered into a purchase agreement and will be closing within the nex=.couple'0f weeks.
Hr. Hanson said that, at the' time =he conditional use permit was ~ranted, Youth Investment
Foundation had been asked to' consider adding a garage area to, the building. He Said they
have found some funding sources which allow Youth Investment =o entertain that.request at
~he time of purchase of the building. They propose to.build on a~ additi°n tha~ would house.~-J
a garage. The space would not be used as garage space by Youth Investment. It would instead.
be used as a small office for the area director, Fred Peterson, and a general meeting room t6
acccumodate from 8 to 15 youths on occasion. If the house is resold at some future time, '-
the design would be such that the garage doors could be installed and iu~nediately converted
to garage area. Nothing else changes from-the original presentation. Youth Investment
will put the garage'on right now.
No one appeared in regard to the requested-amendment ~o the conditional Use permit.'
~oti0n by Councilwoman Hokr, second by Councilman Otten .to Krant the amendment to ~he
_conditional use permit for,,Y~uth Investment. Foundation to allow construction of future
~araee spa9e for use as office and meetinK space for Youth Investment FoUndation, 8620
~2nd Avenue North, as recuested under Plannin~ Case No. 80-08.
Voting in favor:
Voting against: None ~.~ ....... ~
~?)t~on declared carried.~-~C~\'~.~\I
CITY OF N~ }~DPE
4401 XYIDN AVt~KIE NOR/~
H~qNEPIN OOUNTY, M//~qESfY~A 55428
March 7, 1989
PC 89-3 (3.1)
FOR OUiIDOR
STORAGE AT 2919
A regular meeting of the Planning Co~m~,~ssion of the City of New
Hope w-as held on Tuesday, March 7, 1989 at the New Hope City
Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman
Cameron.
Present: Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
Chairman Cameron noted that there had been a request from
staff to table this Planning Case for one month.
Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner was in the audience and
perhaps was interested in discussing the need and type of
screening and landscaping required by city code.
Mr. Kn~tz stated he would like to do everything possible to
satisfy the city but didn't know what that will take. He
stated he ran a small landscaping business from his home. He
parks three trucks and three trailers on three acres of
commercially zoned land.
chairman cameron stated it sounded as if Mr. F~m~tz had not
spoken to city staff about this problem.
Mr. Kn~tz said he had spoken to staff, but was not sure about
requirements. That is why he was present. He had talked about
this with staff.
Mr. Kmetz said he had a limestone driveway and parking area.
In his mind, what he had was sufficient.
Ms. Dunn stated that Mr. Kmetz needed to better define the
storage area, that the exterior storage area had to be
'screened, and that a Conditional Use Permit required that
exactly what w-as to be stored in the space was on record.
Nothing else, other than what was included in the Conditional
Use Permit approval would be allowed. The Conditional Use
Permit also requires exact materials for the screening of the
storage area, the type of surface in the area as well as the
exact area to be used for storage.
Chairman Cameron stated there had been some complaints about
-2-
the condition of the property. He added that the petitioner
had to com~ up with a specific plan for his property, to be-
presented to the Planning Commission for review. This plan had
to include the specific types of equipment/materials to be
stored, the type of screening or fencing he intended to
provide, and a plan showing the exact location on the site of
the storage area. Without that information the Planning
Cu~,,~,~ssion could not consider his request for a Conditional Use
Pen~t.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city must know the precise area that
the storage area would be located.
Mr. Kmetz said he had submitted a plan showing the designated
area for storage.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff did not feel the petitioner needed
as large an area as he was proposing, and another issue was
that Mr. Kmetz had not indicated what type of fencing or
screening he proposed to protect the residential areas adjacent
to the property.
Mr. Kmetz said the need for screening was all new to him. He
felt the Commission/city should keep in mind that the neighbors
were 600 feet from the property, and that was only two
residences. The other buildings are 1000 feet from his site.
Mr. Kmetz said had talked to the Building Official and Ms.
Dunn, but every ti~e he talked to someone, what was required
was changed. He wants to do what is required.
Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Kmetz would have to come to
the city hall and sit down with Ms. Dunn and the Building
Official to discuss exactly what screening was required, and
that he would have to provide the city/commission with a
specific plan which would include the exact equipment/materials
to be stored, the location of the storage area, and the type of
fencing or screening he intended to install around the storage
area, before the Conditional Use Permit request could be
considered. The city had to be very careful about granting
Conditional Use Permits.
Mr. Kmetz stated the entire property was screened with lilac
bushes. When he purchased the property he had asked whether
he could run a business on his property. At that time he
thought everything was fine. Nothing had been mentioned about
the need for a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the
property was in a warehouse environment.
Planning~ion~ March7, 1989
-3-
PC 89-4 (3.2)
RM~UEST FOR ~NS~UC-
5000 WllqNETKA NOIr/4
PC 89-5 (3.3)
R~ FOR AM~D-
AT Z Cf~ ~INATE
USE AT 7231 42ND.
Co~umissioner Sonsin asked staff about the complaints about the
site.
Ms. Dunn stated that there had been complaints in 1980, and
1985.
There was no one present in re~ard to this case.
Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 89-
3 (1~~ for Oo~itiomal Use Pm~m~t for Ou~doo_ r Storage),
until the Planning COmmission meeting of April 4, 1989.
Co~u~,~ssioner Oja second.
Voting in favor: Cassen, Sonsin,
Watschke.
Absent: Friedrich, Zak
Motion carried.
Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
The petitioner was not in attendance.
Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug to ~mhle Case 89-4 until the
end of the public bx~rings. Commissioner Oja second.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Watschke
None
Friedrich, Zak
Oja,
Mr. John Cosmos of KK Design and Mr. Randy Kenny of Total
Petroleum represented the petitioner.
A landscape plan was distributed to the commissioners.
Mr. Cosmos stated that Total Petroleum was in the process of
upgrading their facilities. This site has an existing
Conditional Use Permit. The service bay area is no longer used
in the statiOn and they wish to convert the space to additional
storage, including a w~lk-in cooler and a freezer unit. They
are planning to redecorate and remodel within the existing
building. This was the reason for the request to amend the
Conditional Use Permit now in effect. They intend to convert
the existing two bathrooms to one handicapped, unisex bathroom.
Planning C~Lu, i~sionMinutes March 7, 1989
-4-
The revised site plan basically reorganizes the site. It had
been reco~u~ded that one access be closed and they wish t~o
realign the parking along the south and west sides of the
building. They will retain the green strip on the east and
south. The moveable curbs will be replaced with permanent
curbing. They plan a new landscaped strip along Rockford Road
and Nevada which will have low plantings according to city
requirements. There had been a request from staff for another
tree along 42nd Avenue. The existing pumps and canopy will
basically stay the same.
Conmnissioner Sonsin asked whether the exterior dimensions would
remain the same, when the grocery area was increased to 1100
square feet.
It was noted by the petitioner that the original service bays
had not been in use since a previous remodeling when a cooler
and walls had been installed. The front half of the building
consists of retail sales area now. When the bathrooms are
relocated, there will be space for a walk-in cooler in the
storage space.
The petitioner indicated that there will be no cooking on the
premises. They will handle packaged foods and are currently
consulting with staff and the sanitarian as to whether or not
they will be allowed to install a microwave oven for heating of
prepackaged foods.
Ms. Dunn stated that discussion is continuing regarding
sanitation issues.
Mr. Cosmos noted he felt there was a very fine line in this
issue. Basically customers would be simply re-heating pre-
packaged food.
It was noted that all portable curbs will be replaced by
permanent curbs.
Discussion then centered on the shared driveway between the
station and Grobe's Cafe. Mr. Cosmos stated it was his
understanding that this drive was basically closed. He did not
think there was any problem with the restaurant if this drive
remained closed.
Planning~.~sionMinut_~3~ March7, 1989
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin, Mr. Cosmos
stated that the proposed parking spaces conformed to city
standards. The reason for changing to one unisex bathroom
instead of two is because a handicapped facility requires n~re
space. The proposed unisex bathroom meets both State and local
The petitioner will look at the signage situation on the site.
They are aware that there is a strict city code regulating
signs. They intend to comply with the city code.
Ms. Dunn stated that the lettering on the present canopy at
this time exceeds the allowed signage for the site.
In response to questions from Commissioner Oja, it was noted
that all curbs will be permanent, separating the green area
from the driving aisles. The existing bituminous surface is in
good condition and does not require replacing at this time.
Co~aissioner Oja asked why the parking was proposed for the
rear of the building instead of on the sides?
The petitioner stated that this was the only way to include the
required number of spaces on the site. For security reasons,
it is not feasible to have a back door on the building for
customer use. There is usually only one attendant on duty at a
tin~ in the retail area. It is felt that 90% of the retail
custon~rs will also be gasoline customers and that the extra
stalls will very seldom be used. There will be three parking
stalls and one handicapped parking stall near the front
Commissioner Oja asked how the green areas will be maintained.
The petitioner said that the grass will be sprinkled only with
hoses. Usually the station managers maintain the landscaping.
Cu~dssioner Oja said in her opinion the landscaping was
inadequate. She felt there should be more plantings, especially
near the building with more shrubs and perhaps different
varieties.
The petitioner noted that delivery trucks will have to park in
the rear. However, there will not be any trucks of the over-
the-road size, basically the milk truck size. If the pumps
were full of cars, the delivery truck would have to wait or
come back.
Commissioner Gundershaug stated he felt the petitioners had
Planning(kammission~ March7, 1989
neglected the landscaping in their plans. He felt there should
be double the amount proposed. He did not feel additiona~
plants would cost that much to provide a first class job on
Commissioner Gundershaug verified that the wooden fencing would
remain.
Chairman Cameron said he agreed with Col~a~,~ssioner Gundershaug
and would also lik~ to have the landscaping increased. That
would help the sight lines for the neighbors from the south.
He then asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of
the landscaping.
The petitioner stated that depended upon how busy the facility
was. Sometimes outside help is hired. It depended on the
individual station manager. He felt there would be no question
about the landscaping being taken care of.
(~airman Cameron said he would also like to see at least 1/2
dozen more trees, perhaps T.~ndens.
In response to question regarding snow, the petitioner felt
there would be adequate space for snow storage with the extra
parking spaces. Snow would not be piled against the building.
If it proved necessary the snow would be hauled away.
Commissioner Cassen inquired what the city requirea~nts were as
far as number of fire escapes for a facility?
Ms. Dunn stated that the Building Official and Fire Marshal had
reviewed the proposal and had not identified a deficiency in
fire egress. She indicated that they would confirm that the
building complied with Fire Codes prior to the City Council
review.
Co~u~Hssioner Watschke verified that there should not be a
drainage problem on the site when the permanent curbs are
installed.
The petitioner stated that Total Petroleum was committed to
upgrading and remodeling their sites. The station should look
like a new unit when finished.
In response to questions from Commissioner Sonsin regarding a
micro-wave oven on site, it was noted that dialogue was
continuing between city staff, the sanitarian and the
petitioner.
Planning C~mmissionMinutes March7, 1989
-7-
PC 89-4 (3.2)
Co~Ldssioner Sonsin made a motion recuam~ing approval of the
~ to the Conditional Use Permit at 7231 42~ Avenue
(as requ~ed_ in Case 89-5) subject to the following
oonditions:
1. Permm~ c~rb will replace the existing moveable curbs.
2. ~ driveway on the east side is closed.
3. Parking lot is striped to meet city codes.
4. A] 1 signage w~ 11 conform to city code.
5. Landscaping is increased to double the origir~l proposal.
6. Petitioner gives serious oonsideration to r~m~ving snow
Commissioner Gundershaugsecond.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Ca~_ron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Commissioner Gundersh~ug made a motion r~wwin~ Case 89-4 from
the ~mhle. Commissioner C~a seoor~t.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Mr. Bradley Hoyt, President of Hoyt Development, stated that
they were proposing to build a warehouse/industrial facility on
a 16 acre site. In the future they intend to re-plat 3.2
acres. The building will have access from Winnetka. They are
attempting to resolve a problem with the exit on the adjacent
property to the north. He wishes to work with that property
owner but has been unable to meet with him. Their proposal
exceeds the green area required by code. All ponding and
possible snow storage problems have been taken care of.
The building will have a 24 foot clear height facade, with 28
feet to the roof. It will be built of pre-cast, tip up,
panels. The windows will be dark anondized aluminium with
termal pane glass. There will be a contrasting color band
around the building approximately seven feet in height. The
truck docks are to the south, facing the existing railroad
Planning C~,,uissionM_inutes March7, 1989
-8-
spur. The office space will be to the north, toward the
residential property. This also keeps the truck docks out ~f
the north wind. The building could be served by~ rail.
Referring to discussions at the Design and Review Committee
m~eting, Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they had done
anything about aligning 50th Avenue and the driveway.
Mr. Shopek stated they had locked at this but had chosen the
option to share the driveway with the property to the north.
They felt there were problems with the grade and attempting a
turn the grade would be too steep and too fast for trucks to
stop if necessary.
Cu~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked whether the drive around the
back side of the building would be designated "one way" for
trucks?
Ms. Dunn stated that the option of a shared driveway would
require a Conditional Use Permit from the city~ If the
petitioner can work out an arrangement with the neighbor to the
north, there would have to be a public hearing.
Commissioner Gundershaug verified that the the drive aisles
would be adequate for a 55 foot semi trailer truck and that
there would be adequate room for trucks to back up.
He then asked about the suggested sidewalk to the building as
discussed at Design and Review.
Mr. Hoyt said this would be no problem. There will be security
lighting at the rear, with 250w lights. They will shine
downward. All building lighting will also be down directed.
All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building and
there will be inside trash storage.
Coltm,~ssioner Gundershaug reminded the petitioner that the city
had a strict sign ordinance. He noted that the building
proposed is 800 feet in length. He questioned whether they had
considered any treatment to break up this long expanse. He
recommended that before the petitioner appeared before the City
Council he have some treatment of this long expanse laid out.
He also felt there should be som~ additional treatment to the
side of the building toward Winnetka. He hoped they would be
somewhat imaginative on that side also.
Noting that Design and Review had recommended the petitioner
double the amount of landscaping, Commissioner Gundershaug
asked whether they had done so?
Planning Ommnission~
March 7, 1989
The petitioner said they had come pretty close, they were
possibly within ten trees of doubling the landscaping. They
had also attempted to enhance the entryway areas. They also
plan to put trees along Winnetka and sormm trees along the
loading area. They have increased the landscaping on the
island and also in the back of the site.
Commissioner Gundersb~ug noted that he really wanted some heavy
landscaping along Winnetka Avenue.
Mr. Hoyt stated it appeared that there was already a heavy
concentration there. There will be evergreens in the corners
and additional coniferous and deciduous trees as well. Mr.
Hoyt said that all the green areas will be sprinklered.
In response to questions, Mr. Hoyt said that the two anchor
tenants will be on the corners of the building. The middle
section has not as yet been leased. Tenants will have ten year
leases. Mr. Hoyt intends to retain ownership of the building.
The building has been designed to have flexibility to allow for
adding to, or not using the dock area.
Chairman Cameron complimented the petitioner on the proposed
landscaping.
There was no one present in regard to this case.
Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion r~commmndi~ app~ of
the warehouse proposed for 5000 Winnetka, as requested in Case
89-4, subject to:
1. The addition of a sidewalk f£um the east parking lot to the
2. A sign to be located on the ~ driveway .i.pdicz~t~ "all
truck entr~'.
3. ~hat the recommendations of the city Engir~r be mt.
4. ~at a c~mprehensive sign plan be submi~ to the city for
5. %hat the plans be forwarded to Shingle Creek Watershed
Cc~.~sion and that H~nnepin County review driveway
entz-dnces on Winnetka Avenue.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city was concerned about the proposed
joint driveway, and the fact that Northland did not seem to be
very positive about the suggestion.
Mr. Hoyt said the Northland driveway is presently in bad
condition. He would endeavor to reach an accommodation with
Planning Cc~i~sion Minutes
1989
CC~TrEE REPORTS
4.1
4.2
OLD ~JS/]qESS
5.1
NEW BUSINESS
6.1
the Northland within the next week.
Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Hoyt thought he would have
something worked out, prior to the City Council meeting on the
13th? If this could be worked out, he did not see a problem
with forwarding the case to the City Council. He noted that
the petitioner was now aware of the Planning Commission's
feelings.
Co~L~,~ssioner Oja seoor~l.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motioncarried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Ms. Dunn stated that the resolution recommending the change in
certain zoning classifications (as attached) and an~nding the
Zoning Ordinance, was the result of the Vacant Land Study
findings. State law requires that a public hearing be held by
the City Council.
Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by C~amissioner C~a to
accept Resolution 89-1 and that a public hearing be scheduled.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Cassen, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja,
Watschke.
None
Friedrich, Zak
Ms. Dunn stated that members of the City Council had requested
that staff look at the type of variances granted by the city
and the frequency of variances granted, to determine whether
city code as it relates to variances should be amended.
Council was particularly concerned about frontyard variances.
Planning O,,.,H ~sion Minutes March 7, 1989
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
In regard to landscape requirements in the city, Ms. Dunn
stated that the present code lists a number of acceptable trees
that are not working out in New Hope. The City Forester is
recoi~u~nding that the list of approved trees be amended. There
was also a question as to whether the planting guidelines were
adequate.
Staff also wanats to work with the Codes and Standards
Committee regarding construction approval requests, and whether
they should be subject to a public hearing.
Chairman Cmmm~-~, referred thi~ issue to Codes and Standards
Cmmm~ttee for -~view and rec~,,,~ndation.
~he Plannir~ Co~ion ~ of February 7, 1989 were
accepted~printed.
The City Council Minutes of January 23, and February 13, were
reviewed.
The HRA Minutes of January 23, ar~ February 13, were reviewed.
8.0
~ meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
oyce Boeddeker, Secretary
Planning (kmmn~ ~sion Minutes March 7, 1989
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 31, 1989
Planning Commission
M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant
VARIANCE REQUESTS
The City Council has asked that the Planning Commission review
the variance requests for single family homes. The purpose of
the review is to determine whether the setbacks are too
restrictive and whether a code amendment should be considered.
The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed this information on
March 16, 1989. Staff will discuss the attached information with
the Commission on Tuesday night.
VARIANCES-SINGLE FAMILY
1985 - 1988
Front yard Setbacks
Side yard Setbacks
Rear yard Setbacks
Expansion of Non-Conforming
Other
Requested
Approved
3 2
11 10
10 7
5 5
TOTAL 39 33
Denied
Withdrawn
1
3
Planninq Case/Address
85-2/7308 39th Av.N.
85-4/5910 Xylon
85-10/8200 49th Av.N.
85-15/9232 40-1/2 Av.N.
85-20/3240 Ensign
85-21/4730 Quebec
85-24/9016 44th Circle
85-28/3018 Indep. Circle
VARIANCES-SINGLE FAMILY 1985
Setback
3' side
5' side
5' side
4' side
5' side
15' rear
3' side
Siqn Parkinq Othe~ PC Action
x
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
CC Action
A- 1/14
A - 2/11
A- 5/29
A- 6/10
A - 8/12
A - 9/9
A- 10/15
a- 11/12
Front yard Setbacks
Side yard Setbacks
Rear yard Setbacks
Expansion of Non-Conforming
Other
TOTAL
Requested
6
1
Approved
6
1
Denied
Withdrawn
Planninq Case/Address
86-9/5605 Wisconsin
86-10/8260 Del Drive
86-11/3332 Ensign
86-14/5904 Aquila
86-15/8119 59th Av.N.
86-22/9225 29th Av.N.
86-29/5641 Wisconsin
86-30/4673 Ensign
VARIANCES-SINGLE FAMILY 1986
Setback Siqn Parkinq
15' rear
10' rear
7' rear/exp.
15' rear
1' side/6' front
Other
2nd drive
exp. non-
conf. home
exp. non-
conf. home
lot size
variance
PC Action
CC Action
A A - 6/9
A A - 6/0
A A - 6/9
A A - 6/9
A A - 6/9
A A - 9/8
A A - 11/11
A side A - 11/11
D front D - 11/11
Front yard Setbacks
Side yard Setbacks
Rear yard Setbacks
Expansion of Non-Conforming
Other
Requested
1
1
4
2
2
ApDroved
1
4
2
2
Denied Withdrawn
TOTAL 10 9 1
VARIANCES-SINGLE FAMILY 1987
5' front
17' rear
4' front
Sign Parking Other PC Action
Planning Case/Address Setback
87-11/3236 Ensign Ct. 26' rear
87-12/4812-44 Erickson Dr. 5' side
87-14/3231 Flag Court
87-15/5833 Meadow Lk. Rd.
87-17/9120 61st Circle
87-18/4948 Wisconsin
87-21/4617 Nevada
87-24/3581 Independence
87-26/7406 60th Av.N.
87-27/5436 Rhode Island
87-28/7300 36th Av.N. 5' side
87-36/5406 Utah
87-38/3930 Boone
loc. AC A
A
A
loc. AC A
fence height A
lot size D
2nd drive D
A
carport A
exp.non-conf. A
CC Action
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
a - 6/8
a - 6/98
Withdrawn
a - 9/14
a - 8/10
a - 9/14
D - 9/14
a - 11/9
a - 9/14
a - 11/9
a - 12/14
Front yard Setbacks
Side yard Setbacks
Rear yard Setbacks
Expansion of Non-Conforming
Other
TOTAL
Requested
2
2
2
1
6
13
Approved
2
1
1
9
Denied
1
1
Withdrawn
1
2
3
Planninq Case/Address
88-2/4884 Erickson Dr.
88-11/5908 Boone
88-13/3243 Flag
88-16/8115-21 62nd Av.N.
88-18/3341 Flag
88-22/3551 Wisconsin
88-24/4417 Decatur
88-29/9117 34th Av.N.
Setback
1' side
2' side
5~' rear
4' rear
11' rear
VARIANCES-SINGLE FAMILY 1988
Siqn Parkinq Other PC Action
ex. non-
conf. home
lot size
exp.non-
conf. home
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
CC Action
A- 1/11
A - 5/9
A - 5/23
A - 7/25
A - 7/25
A - 9/12
Withdrawn
a 1/9/89
Front yard Setbacks
Side yard Setbacks
Rear yard Setbacks
Expansion of Non-Conforming
Other
TOTAL
Requested
2
3
2
1
Approved
2
2
2
1
7
Denied
Withdrawn