Loading...
020288 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 88-5 - Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage and Accessory Outdoor Sales and Leasing in an I-2 Zone 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North Autohaus of Minneapolis/Tom Boettcher Petitioners 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 Consideration of Ordinance 88-5. An ordinance amending the New Hope zoning and subdivision codes by defining administrative costs for zoning and subdividion application fees. 6.2 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 1988. 6.3 Review of City Council Minutes of December 28, 1987. 6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of November 23, 1987, and December 23, 1987. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 88-5 Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Storage and Accessory Outdoor Sales and Leasing in an I-2 Zone Location: 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North Zoning: I-2 "General Industrial District" Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis, Inc./Tom Boettcher Date: February 2, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage/leasing in an I-2 zone for a period not to exceed six months. 2. Attached are minutes from the March 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting and the March 9, 1987 City Council meeting. 3. Property owners within 350 feet of the subject site have been notified. To date, staff has received no comments. 4. The petitioner's concept A identifies the acquisition of the adjacent property occupied by the New Hope Animal Hospital. Concept plan B proposes improvements with no additional property acquisiton.- ANALYSIS 1. The planner's report is attached. The report reviews both concepts that the petitioner is proposing. 2. When the petitioner met with City staff in January, 1987, staff understood the petitioner's business to include major automobile repair, and accessory automobile leasing and brokerage. This brokerage activity was to take place over the phone with a limited amount of outdoor storage occurring for short periods of time. RECOMMENDATION The development of this site and its proposed association with the adjacent property gives the city some opportunities, but also requires that some changes to the code or the zoning of the property. The property adjacent to the petitioned site is non- conforming. It has very limited parking, and is a residential- office zoned property surrounded by I-2 properties. Staff is not recommending that either the property be rezone~ or that a text amendment take place at this time. Staff will want to discuss with the Commission the overall design and implications of this proposal on 42nd Avenue corridor. Staff recommends that there be no outdoor storage or display or vehicles in the front of the building and that the petitioner address all of the site deficiencies listed in the planners report in future proposals including: 1. Development of a parking and circulation pattern which conforms to City Code. 2. That the petitioner identify an area for off-street loading. 3. That revised plans show location of trash handling equipment and screening. 4. That revised plans include green space and landscaped areas. 5. That future signage be in compliance with the City's sign code. 6. That staff review all lighting plans before installation. Attachments: Planner's .Report (28 January 1988) Planning Commission Minutes (3 March 1987) City Council Minutes (9 March 1987) northwest assoc ated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Ken Roberts/Alan Brixius DATE: 28 January 1988 RE: Autohaus Conditional Use Permit FILE NO: 131.01 - 88.05 BAC KGROUN D Autohaus of Minneapolis has applied for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage and accessory outdoor sales and service at their location at 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North. The site is currently zoned I-2, General Industrial District, and is occupied by ICU Film Processing and the Autohaus business. The current approved Autohaus conditional use permit includes the following elements: auto- mobile major repair, automobile storage and leasing, as the operation was to have very limited on-site customer contact. Automobile sales were not approved at that time. Within the I-2 Zoning District, major automobile repair is a permitted use and outdoor storage and rental is allowed by conditional use. Additionally, accessory outdoor sales and service is allowed by conditional use. Motor vehicle sales and accessory uses are not generally permitted in the I-2 zone. We have also received two study plans for the site and offer the following review comments. CONDITIONAL USE The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for both outdoor storage and accessory outdoor sales and service to expand the operation to include on-site automobile sales. Both of these conditional use permits are allowed in the I-2 Zoning District, however, the performance standards for these conditional use permits vary slightly, as shown below. (1) .Open Storage, Accessory. Open and outdoor storage as a conditional accessory use provided that: (a) Screened from Residential Uses. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Section 4.033 (3). 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 '" Dan Donahue 28 January 1988 Page Two (b) Surfacing. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. (2) Outdoor'Sales and Service, Accessory. Open or outdoor service, sales and rental as an accessory use, provided that: (a) Area Limit. Accessory outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with a principal use is limited to thirty percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. (b) Screened from Residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses. (c) Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. Storage/Leasing Area Size The area restriction for the outdoor sales and service is intended to limit the amount of actual customer service on an industrial site. The conditional use provision for outdoor sales in the I-2 District is intended for the industrial uses. The proposed automobile sal~.es use raises some concern from the standpoint of customer service and retail sales in the I-2 District. Customer traffic generation might become a problem from this site with retail patronage entering and leaving the site. The size of the outdoor sales area becomes a concern due to the type of use now being proposed for the site. This sales activity would appear to be incompatible with the industrial zoning designation of the site. Rezoninq Motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales and garages accessory thereto are per- mitted uses in the B-3, Auto-Oriented Business Zoni.ng District. Based on our interpretation of the City Zoning Ordinance and the proposed uses, the proposal for this site appears more compatible with the B-3 zoning designation than that of the I-2 District. If the City determines that it is desirable to allow this proposal for this site, the City may wish to consider a rezoning of this property and the adjoining Pet Hospital, or a zoning text amendment of the I-2 District to more readily permit this plan as outlined herein. In addition, the adopted 42nd Avenue Improvement Study recommends maintaining high quality commercial and industrial land uses along this portion of 42nd Avenue. The City must determine as a matter of policy what types of uses are appropriate along 42nd Avenue. · '. Dan 'Donahue 28 January 1988 Page Three SITE REVIEW Si te P1 ans Two site or study plans have been submitted for staff review. Exhibit A is Study Plan B of the proposal. This would keep the site virtually as is, while adding the automobile sales and display areas along 42nd Avenue North. Study Plan A, as shown in Exhibit B, would be larger as it would incorporate the Animal Hospital adjoining its east side. That building would be removed and additional mechnancial stall would be added to the east side of the Autohaus building. Lot Size and Setbacks The lot on which Autohaus is located is currently 1.7 acres and the adjoining lot with the Animal Hospital is currently 16,269 square feet (.37 acre). Both the Autohaus property and the Animal Hospital property exceed their respective zoning district's lot area minimum requirements. The existing Autohaus building complies with all of the I-2 requir, ed setbacks. Access and Parking The site is located along 42nd Avenue which is proposed to be widened in the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study. To accomplish this street improvement, an additional 20 feet of right-of-way is to be acquired from the Autohaus site and the Animal Hospital to the east. This right-of-way acquisition will affect the site access and parking in the north end of these sites. This will require some site redesign for both of these properties. The two site plans for this site which have been submitted for staff review do not take into consideration the additional right-of-way that will be required for the 42nd Avenue improvements. As such, the plans will require major revisions to incorporate this additional 20 feet of right-of-way. As such, staff should only provisionally review the submitted study plans with. the understanding that revisions will be forthcoming. Points of concern which must be addressed in revised plans are as follows: · Curb Cuts. The curb cuts on both sides of the property must be consolidated with the adjoining cuts as a part of the site improvements and street widening. Through'shared. access'es and driveway easements, adjoining properties on both sides of this site would benefit through improved access and parking between the buildings. The maximum permitted width of the curb cuts is 24 feet. · Setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance requires a three foot setback from all property lines and a perimeter curb barrier for all parking areas. The submitted plans have a number of locations of driveways and parking areas abutting property lines. This also makes on-site snow storage difficult with no place to pile snow. Revised plans shall be in conformance with all applicable setback requirements. Danf Don ah ue 28 January 1988 Page Four Parking and Circulation. Both of the submitted site plans show angled parking along driveways wi th two-way traffic. In areas of angled parking, a one-way circulation pattern is required, as insufficient driveway width prevents the turning around and manuevering of vehicles. To accomplish this, however, customer traffic would have to pass through the fenced storage area. Another concern is the proposed layout of angled parking. It is facing the same direction on both sides of the building as shown in the study plans. This design would conflict with one-way traffic movement, as automobiles would be forced towards each other. A determination of the parking configuration and circulation patterns for the site must be coordinated to ensure conformance with the aforementioned requirements. Section 4.036 of the City Zoning Ordinance has established design standards for parking areas and drives as follows: - Parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9' x 20'. - With 90 degree parking stalls, drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24' in width. (This may be decreased with angled parking and one-way traffic.) - All areas must have a paved surface and perimeter curbing. Plans for these areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to the written approval of the City Engineer. - All parking stalls are to be striped. - Lighting for parking or storage areas shall be in compliance with Section 4.033 (5) of the City Zoning Ordinance. - The curb barrier shall be no closer than five feet to any lot line. - Plantings and/or landscaping shall be provided in all areas bordering parking areas. The revised plans for this proposal shall meet all applicable parking area and design standards. The current plans have a number of areas that do not meet the aforementioned standards. ' The proposed parking arrangement is not convenient or functional as it is currently proposed. Some revision to the parking layout will be necessary if angled parking and a one-way circulation system is proposed. The applicant must demonstrate that the one~way circulation system on the site is a workable arrangement. Amount of Parking. Each site concep,_t plan differs in Size and uses, thus requiring separate calculations. Based on the parking requirement for industrial uses and auto intensive uses, the following amount of required parking was calculated: Dan Donahue 28 January 1988 Page Fi ve ~ - Study Plan A Gross Net Total Floor Area Floor Area Spaces Auto intensive use 17,215 x .9 = 15,494 ~ 800 = 19 + 8 = 27 (Not including future stalls) Excluding the storage and display areaS, 38 spaces are shown on this plan. Not all of the required design standards have been met, making this analysis subject to change. - Study Plan B Gross Net Total Floor Area Floor Area Spaces Scenario One Industrial 6,540 x .9 = 5,886 - 350 = 17 17 Auto Intensive Use 10,760 x .9 = 9,683 ~ 800 : 12 +8. 20 Scenario Two Auto Intensive Use 17,300 x .9 : 15,570 ~ 800 : 19 +8 27 This proposed site plan shows 13 customer parking spaces adjacent to the north one-half of the building and 18 employee parking spaces on the south one-half of the site. This is a total of 31 spaces, excluding storage and display areas. · Off-Street Loadin9. Commercial and industrial buildings are requireJ to be served by an off-street loading area. The study plans apparently are designating a door on the west side of the building for the loading area. This would appear to be an inappropriate location for this. If a truck was pulled into the drive aisle parallel to the building, it would most likely block a number of spaces. A revised plan designating an appropriate loading area on-site should be submitted for staff review. · Trash Handling Equipment. The submitted plans have not shown the location or methods of trash handling for this proposal. Any trash handling equipment visible from a public right-of-way should be enclosed or screened from view. Revised site plans should show the location of and screening for the trash handling equipment. · Display Areas. Both study plans have display areas abutting 42nd Avenue North. These areas will be significantly reduced in size with the acquisition of 20 feet of additional right-of-way, tn addition, these areas shall conform to the applicable zoning ordinance standards including setbacks, landscaping, etc. The City should also consider as a policy matter, the approprateness of having a "car lot" along 42nd Avenue North. Dan ..Donahue 28 January 1988 Page Si x · Hours of Operation. If this proposal is found to be an acceptable use, the hours of operation might need to be limited. These might be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as is permitted for retail sales in the I-1 zone. · Landscapin'g/Green Space. The proposed study plans show little landscaping on site, while having nearly 100 percent impervious surface. With revised plans, landscaping and green space shall be included in the required setback areas and wherever else feasible. · Signage. The proposed plans show what appears to be a monument type sign along 42nd Avenue. All signage for this proposal shall be in strict conformance with all applicable City ordinances. Plans detailing the signage proposals for this project shall be submitted for staff review. · Exterior Lighting. As with the project's signage, plans detailing the lighting for the site shall be submitted for staff review. CONCLUS I ON Any change of use in an existing structure or site is complicated by existing develop- ment conditions. In our opinion, the addition of automobile sales to this site may over intensify the uses and activities on this site. In consideration of the pro- posed application, the Planning Commission must evaluate the appropriateness of this use wi.thin the I-2 Zoning District, and the site impact in regard to the City's plans for the 42nd Avenue Corridor. If the City feels that this is an appropriate use for this site, then the City must determine whether a rezoning or a zoning text amendment is most appropriate to accomplish its goals and objectives and to permit this proposal to be implemented. Additionally, the City should impose conditions on the CUP to upgrade the site, reduce the site nonconformities and to implement the City's planning objectives for the 42nd Avenue Corridor. cc: Doug Sandstad Jeanine Dunn .......... · "0~ ~G " Adj 'Traffic,. ~.: :¢:... ....... o,n,ng Curb Cuts Narrow Aish -- .......... ~V / / .STUDY PLAN B trow Aisle ' " ' ;!'Curb Cut " -'- ', Na Aisle ~1 ... , rrow ........................................... between the Autohaus site .and the Animal Clinic.} ...,~ ......... L..- ,~., . ........ ~ :~"~ ,,~,~/'. ~ .............. Drainage problem area ,~. /' .... [ . Curb cut violations< / ~,-' ...":;' ~' ~. ~.~d~,i f-----l~ ....... / .. //., /,,. /// / .L~ ....... , .' .,' .. ,x<<xtht~/J. ' -: ..' / ,--,-,' // ,' ,, - --- ~ , Perimeten curb needed Parking lot setback- , ....................... violations ORIGINAL SITE SURVEY.AND ISSUES Mr Zeman said "no" they were surrounded by apartment buildings The City Manager stated that notices had been sent to a 350' radius and there had been no response to the city. In response to a question from the Chairman, the petitioner said he anticipated no deliveries of supplies to the house. His wife usually picked up supplies herself. The Chairman asked what the petitioners would do if the business outgrew the present quarters. Mr. Zeman said he thought at that point, his wife would have to turn down business, if she got too busy. There was no intention to ever have any employees working in the shop. There was no one present in regard to this case. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 8431 Bass Lake Road, as requested in Planning Case 87-1, subject to their being no employees other than Mrs.~Zeman, no exterior signing except a wall plaque near the door, and subject to an annual review by staff to determine that there was adequate space for parking. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 87-2 The petitioners in Planning Case 87-2 were not in attendance. APPLEBEE'S - Item 5 MOTION Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to table consideration of Planning Case 87-2 until the end of the meeting. All presentlvoted in favor. PLANNING CASE 87-3 Mr. Tom Boettcher represented Autohaus. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Item 6 He stated he was requesting a Condtional Use Permit to allow him to conduct a leasing business at 77~1-7709 42nd Avenue North, and to permit outside storage of some of the vehicles. He also would do repairs and service on the site for the cars that he leases. He presented an illustration of what he hopes to do to the building. There will be some storage of rebec!es inside. Parking would be at the rear of the building, there are usually not more than three or four cars a day. Chairman Cameron asked about the repair service and whether this would involve only the leased cars. Mr. Boett~her said the work they do is mostly for their own customers. 'It is custom work.. He has been in business for 14 years. The City Manager noted that his was a specialty type of business, it is much more than a "body shop" type of business. Mr. Boettcher stated he dealt with high line cars - mostly in the $15,~00 to $25,00~ range, mostly brand new cars. Chairman Cameron confirmed that Universal Color Lab would continue to utilize their present space. Mr. goettcher said they would re-lease their space. He is now the owner of the building. Commissioner Anderson asked about possible sales. Mr. Boettcher said that most of the inventory would be insid~ the building. Me catered to the custom leasing customer. He also had about 3/4 of an acre, fenced, at the rear of the s~te. There were trees around this area. He has no intention of selling cars in front of the lot. Commissioner Anderson said he was concerned that there not be a new and used car lot in fron~ of the bui[disg. New Hope Planning Commission March ~, 1987 Page 2 The Chairman said he was concerned that the city would lose all control of the site, and the needed improvements. The Manager sa~d there could either be a time limit on the Conditional Use Permit, or a bond could be required to guarantee that the improvements would be made. He said personally he would prefer to have the city work with the petitioner over the next six months until the plans were finalized. Commissioner Sonsin stated that he concurred with Chairman Cameron, he shared his concerns with the future of the site. He felt the property had some problem that needed to be addressed, i.e. the shared driveway, outside storage and the delay in construction until later in the year. He had concerns about the quality and condition of the property. Chairman Camero~ confirmed that the petitioner had seen the items that the City Planner ~ecommended for changes on the site. Mr. Boettcher said that he felt that he and the city had the same goals. However, he did not feel he should be held accountable for all of the past sins of the property and past owners. He felt if the city wanted to issue a six month Conditional Use Permit, he would be able to have everything done. The Chairman noted that he just wanted to be sure that the petitioner was aware of all of the city code requirements. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the city would know the County's final plans for the roadway in six months. He personally did not have any problems with g~v~ng the petitioner one year. Commissioner Sonsin said he personally would not want to wait that long. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that he would like to see all of the improvements to the front of the property completed in six months. Considerable discussion followed between the commissioners regarding the six month or one year restriction on the Conditional Use Permit, the correction of the drainage problem on the site, the re-paving of the rear of the lot, and the proposed landscaping for the site. Mr. Boettcher asked whether it was necessary to install curbing around the entire blacktopped area. A swale needs to be cut to correct the drainage problems. Chairman Cameron said that they should work with staff regarding the city code requirements. Commissioner Anderson asked how a one month delay in approving the request would affect the petitioner's plans. Mr. Boettcher said it would cost him about $1~,~00. He had submitted a rendering of his proposals to the city staff. He did not know that the blacktop needed replacing at that time. Chairman Cameron noted that the city staff should have informed him of the rules, and the restrictions of the city codes, and the need for the City Engineer to look at the proposed drainage. He felt the Commission could not give approval until they were sure that the city's ordinances wou~d be net. ~e added that the Commission could either table the request for one month, or give Mr. Boettcher a Conditional Use Permit for six months. Mr. Boettcher said he could live with the six months, ge could come back and show the Commission what he had done, and what they plan to do. { ~ew Hope Planning Commission >4~rch 3, 1997 i ?age .~ He then questioned what Mr. Boettcher was going to do about the curb cuts and driveways. Mr. Boettcher stated it was his understanding the intention was to widen 42nd Avenue. They intend to sealcoat the area in front but will not install any additional signage until after they see what happens with the road. They have already contacted Nordquist Sign Company, and any signs would comply with city code as far as size and placement. In response to questions regarding the driveway, Mr. Boettcher said they were already sharing the driveway with Country Kitchen and this seems to work fine. The City Manager said that the present proposal called for them to continue sharing the driveway. Chairman Cameron noted that the City Planner had recommended a lot of upgrading for the site. He questioned why the city should hold off on requiring this upgrade at the present time. The City Manager said that what was being proposed was no different from the situation as it has existed for some time. Nothing had been required previously and nothing had changed with the new owner at this time. From that point of view the city is not recommending there be any major remodeling at this time, since the owner is planning to do this in the future. The Chairman noted that in the past, when a property changed hands, this was when the city required that a property be brought up to code. The Manager stated that there were no changes planned for right now. Commissioner Edwards commented that historically, the city has required the upgrading of a property when a Conditional Use was requested, or any other changes. The Chairman said he had to be convinced that the city should not insist on all of the upgrading at this time. Jeannine Dunn, the Administrative Assistant, stated that a lot of the changes hinged on how much land would be taken from the property for the roadway. It was felt it was difficult for the petitioner to improve the property until he knew where the roadway w~s going to be. Mr. Boettcher said that for right now he intended to paint the exterior, upgrade the building, resurface the blacktop where needed. He also would like to do something with the landscaping between his property and the Country Kitchen. The gas tanks at the rear of the property have already been removed, and he plans to re-do the fence. His plan is to eventually clean and bring everything up to code; he wants to improve the outside appearance of the property. He did not feel he could operate out of a building in its present condition. Chairman Cameron said that part .of his concern is about barriers between the two businesses. He was concerned about the traffic patterns. He questioned whether curbing would be installed when the area was re-surfaced. Mr. Boettcher said the front area would be seal coated, and the entire rear area would have to be re-black topped, and the drainage problem corrected. He did not want his cars standing ia water. Chairman Cameron said it was a huge lot, and he was concerned about the fact that the city was not requiring improvements at this time. The City Manager 5tared that there could be a t~me 1Lmit placed on the CondL~tonat Use Permzt. New Hope Planning Commission March 3, 1997 Commissioners Sonsin and Anderson expressed concern about the petitioner's discovering in six months that the costs would be more; that he would be the one taking the risk. Mr. Boettcher said he would be willing to take a chance, he had already invested in excess of $400,000. The City Manager said that he was primarily responsible for encouraging the petitioner to take over this property. ~ased on the petitioner's other business, he felt he will do ten times . . better for the site than anything that had been there in the past. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission's questions were not a reflection of the petitioner's operation, but he felt out of fairness to other people who had appeared before the city they had to be concerned. Commissioner Edwards said that the Commission had yet to address the issue of rooftop equipment, trash and lighting. These need to be addressed and put within the time frame. Ms. Dunn said that the ~petitioner had been provided with the Design and Review criteria. MOTION MOtion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit at 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 87-3, for a six month period, subject to there being no outside parking of vehicles for sale, and further subject to Mr. Boettcher appearing before the Planning Commission again to address the normal review items. All present voted in favor. Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to remove Planning Case 86-12 from the table. Ail present "~=d in favor. ~NNING CASE ob Mr. Feter uu~essor and Mr. Paul Nielson represented the COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN petitioner in Planning Case 86-12. APPROVAL - Item 3 It was noted that they had met with Mr. Donahue, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Sandstad. They were requesting at this time that the case be tabled until the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Obernessor stated he felt there had not been sufficient communication with the city that there should have been. They will come before the Commission in April and request approval of their tot~t sign plan, including the pylon sign as well as request for a variance for the Applebee's sign. In reference to the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the canopy and the fact that Applebee's canopy was different from the main canopy. It was noted that it was their intention to conform to the style of the building. They don't have a formal agreement as yet, but should the tenant leave, it would be their intention to go back to the original canopy as planned. Mr. Nielson then addressed the concerns of the Commission regarding the durability of the vinyl canopy. He stated that the canopy was of the heaviest vinyl they could purchase. It is stitched consisting of individual pieces, and it would be a relatively simple procedure to repair it ~ necessary, on sections could be removed for replacement if this should prove necessary. He stated he had contacted the supplier of the canopy, J.W. Holm, and ~e had submitted a recommended maintenance schedule to insure a longer life for the canopy. The material is a dense vinyl, that will not crack or fade. In addition the material had been treated with an ultra violet inhibitor which would also increase the life of the fabric. Chairman Cameron stated that the city was ~oncerned about the appearance of the canoDy %nd [ts ~urability for · ten year per~od. He wanted reassurance that it wou[d not become tacky looking. Hope Planning Commission March 3, ~987 Councilmember Otten questioned the fascade on the west side of the facility. The architect noted that the west outside wall would have a stucco finish which would enhance that corner of the building. He 9ointed out on the drawing that the stucco would run approximately three-fourths of the length of the west wall with the trash area at the end. Mayor Erickson suggested that the entire west wall should have the stucco finish, even the area behind the trash enclosure. The developer and architect agreed that the area on the west wall would have stucco from above the trash enclosure to the roof. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve revised plans submitted by T.J. Apptebee's/Donald Strang in Planning Case 87-2 for curbing, fencing, trash enclosure and  andscaping as requested by Resolution 87-27, adopted by the City ouncil on February 23, 1987. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 87-3 Mayor Erickson introduced Planning Case 87-3 submitted by Autohaus of CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Minneapolis, Inc. requesting conditional use permits for 7771-7709 7701-~9 42ND AVE. N. 42nd Avenue North for consideration. Item 8.4 - Mr. Donahue stated that the petitioner was aware of the city's plan for the redevelopment of 42nd Avenue and was in agreement with staff's proposal for upgrading the building, landscaping, signage, etc. The Cit~ Manager pointed out that the redevelopment on 42nd will require taking an easement for the street right-of-way in front the of building. He continued by stating that staff would like to include the petitioner's development with the taking of the property to eliminate the need to redo any construction. He further noted that the Planning Commission at its March 3, 1987, meeting recommended approval of the conditional use permits for a six ~onun period. Mr. Thomas Boettcher, petitioner representing Autohaus, ~as recognized and stated that he has requested conditional use permzts for outdoor storage of vehicles and outdoor sales in an I-1 zone. The mayor inquired if the petitioner has purchased the entire building and if the current occupant would be leaving. Mr. Boettcher responded that he has purchased the building and the current occupant would remain in the front of the building and his business would occupy the back section of the building. Mayor Erickson asked what plans for parking would be proposed when the city starts with the redevelopment of 42nd Avenue. Mr. Boettcher stated that his business does not requir~ alot of parking like the other occupant and that there would be adequate parking indicated on the back of the plan and if the front parking plan changed only five stalls would be eliminated. The mayor commented that vehicles cross through this property to get to or comiog from Country Kitchen and creates alot of interference for customers shopping at Universal Color Lab. He suggested that proposed plans might include blocking the area. Mr. Donahue advised that future discussions will include shared driveway with Country Kitchen and Autohaus and the second entrance closed with one additional entrance for the New Hope Pet Clinic. Mr. Boettcher noted that t~hey have started upgrading the site and plan to repair the blacktop, stripe the parkinq area, ciean up the grass areas, and repaint the facility. Councilmember Otten commented that the petitioner appears willing to work with the city on the redevelopment plan; ,%nd, th?refore, sees no reason why the conditiona~ ~se permits should not ~e granted for % six month period. New Hope City Council March 9, 1987 Pa~e 7 Councilmember Williamson questioned how Autohaus functions or operates. Mr. Boettcher stated that the facility leases cars, has a body shop and acts as a broker for car dealers. He further noted that the cars would be stored inside as the cost of the vehicles range from $20,000 to $50,000. The petitioner commented that the majority of his business is done over the telephone. RESOLUTION NO~ 87-38 Councilmember Otten introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING CASE 87-3 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SUBMITTED BY AUTOHAUS OF MINNEAPOLIS, INC./THOMAS BOETTCHER IN 7701-09 42ND AVE. N. PLANNING CASE 87-3 FOR 7701-7709 42ND AVENUE NORTH." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Daly. Steve Sondrall, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the resolution approving the planning case needs to be amended to include an exemption to the moratorium as the property is located in the redevelopment district. Councilmember Williamson stated that she would like to amend the motion also to include the Planning Commission's stipulations. The Assistant City Attorney stated that Council could by motion amend the resolution to include an exemption from the moratorium and the inclusion of the Planning Commission's stipulations. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Daly, to amend Resolution 87-38 to include exemption from the construction moratorium in the redevelopment district and the Planning Commission's stipulations. CALL FOR VOTE The mayor called for ~ vote and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Otten, Wiliiamson; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: Enck; _ whereupon the resolution was declared duly__;~assed and adooted, and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the ci5y clerk. (Page Extract Book) NEW HOPE MALL PUD Mayor Erickson introduced for consideration Item 8.5 requesting AMENDMENT - Item 8.5 approval of the amendment to the PUD conditional use permit for the proposed New Hope Mall. .. The City Manager stated that the amendment to the PUD for the New Hope Mall accepts and amends the plan by including Applebee's construction plans. He ~.noted that it also includes the stipulation that if Applebee's did not locane in the mall, the mall developers would extend the awning to the end of the building. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed New Hope Mall (Planning Case 87-3) between the City of New Hope and New Hope/U.S. Swim Partnership. All present voted in favor. STORM SEWER FUND The mayor introduced for consideration the resolution establishing a Item 10.1 storm sewer maintenance/improvement fund and authorization to transfer funds. Mr. Donahue noted that the purpose for the resolution is to Fake' the interest earned from Improvement No. 354 revenue bonds sold six years ago for the Bassett Creek Storm Sewer project which was assessed in 1986. He continued by stating that the city wishes to use the interest earnings for ~he dredging of Northwood Pond 3nd the Minneapolis project for which the city would be assessed appro×~mately $1~U,0%SD and any remaining funds could be used for other projects. ~;ew HOPe City Council March 9, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance 88-5 "An ordinance amending the New Hope zoning and subdivision codes by defining administrative costs for zoning and subdividion application fees" DATE: February 2, 1988 The attached ordinance basically clarifies some ordinance language relevant to zoning fees and deposits. As you are aware, the zoning deposit is utilized for expenditures associated with planning, legal and consultant fees. If expenses incurred by the City exceed the fee, the petitioner is billed accordingly. Petitioners are reimbursed if the expenses incurred the city are less than the deposit. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 88-5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODES BY DEFINING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR ZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FEES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.363 "Zoning Deposit" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.363 Zoning Deposit. In addition to the non-refundable Basic Zoning Fee, each applicant shall pay a Zoning Deposit in an amount prescribed in Chapter 14 of this Code at the time of application. All Actual B~ee~ Costs, including, but not limited to planning, engineering and leqal costs, incurred by the City in the processing of the application shall be paid from or reimbursed to the City, from the Zoning Deposit. Actual B~ee% Costs not fully paid or reimbursed from the Basic Zoning Fee shall be paid or reimbursed from thi's deposit or the Supplemental Zoning Deposit. Section 2. Section 4.364 "Supplemental Zoning Deposit" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.364 Supplemental Zoning Deposit. At any time while the application is pending and before its final conclusion, if the City Manager determines that the amount of the Zoning Deposit required by § 4.363 of this Code is or is estimated to be in'sufficient to pay for present or anticipated Actual B~ee~ Costs of the application, a Supplemental Zoning Deposit shall be required by the City Manager to be paid by the applicant. The one or more Supplemental Zoning Deposits shall be in an amount sufficient to pay all Actual B~ee% Costs, ~ a~y o~e~a~e e~ ~ee~ ~e~ of the City. -- Section 3. Section 13.111 "Base Application Fee" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 13.111 Base Application Fee. The ~pplicant shall pay a base application fee as reimbursement for all - Actual Costs incurred by the City including but not limited t__o planning, ~ngineeri99 and legal costs ~e ~e~ay a~m~s~a%~ve ees%s for processing of subdivision applications, variances or appeals. A The base application fee shall be the amount as prescribed in Chapter 14. s½a~ Be Section 4. Section 13.112 "Additional Fee" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as followS: 13.112 Additional Fee. D~ese~Bea ~ Sha~%e~ ~4~ At any time while the application is pending and before its' final conclusion, if the City Manager determines that the Base Application Fee is estimated to be-- insufficent to pay for the present or anticipated Actual Costs as defined by § 13.111 of this Code, an additional fee shall be required as determined by the City Manager and' be paid by the applicant. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated: , 1988. Mayor Attest: City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of , 1988.)