The URL can be used to link to this page

040588 Planning AGENDA PLANNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS The City of New Hope Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The Commission is composed of eight New Hope residents who have been appointed by the City Council to review all special procedures pertaining to the sign code and zoning code. The Planning Commission will review a petitioner's case and may act on the case in the following manner: 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the request with or without special conditions; 2. Recommend that the City Council deny the request; or 3. Table the case for further consideration. If the Planning Commission recommends that the city Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning! Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Petitioners are asked to come to the podium when the appropriate case is called. Please state your name, address, the request before the Commission, and discuss any information relevant to the request. Citizens who wish to speak to the Commission regarding the case should be recognized, come to the podium, state your name, address, and concern. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 88-6 - Request for Three Percent Variance to the Required Thirty-five Percent Green Area in an I-1 Zone at 7301 36th Avenue North, AFP Partners/Richard Curry, Petitioner 3.2 Case 88-9 - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a Veterinary Clinic at 3709 Winnetka Avenue North, New Hope Animal Hospital/Randall J. Herman, Petitioner 3.3 Case 88-10 - Request for a Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spaces for a Restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue North, Grobe's Cafe/Larry M. Sandberg, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee Discussion regarding, proposed~amendment to City Code relating to curb cut standards 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Presentation by City Engineer regarding 42nd Avenue Street Improvement Project (431) 6.2 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 1988 6.3 Review of City Council Minutes of February 22, 1988, and March 14, 1988 6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of February 22, 1988, and March 14, 1988 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zone Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: April 5, 1988 Backqround 1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1, 1988 meeting to April 5, 1988. The petitioner was not in attendance at that meeting. 2. Staff has notified the petitioner of the April 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. 3. No new information relevant to the case has been submitted to staff since the preparation of the March 1, 1988 Planning Case Report. The March 1, 1988 Planning Case Report is attached. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of ~he request for a three percent variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6 because the petitioner has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances has been met. Attachments: Planning Case Report (1 March 1988) Application (8 February 1988) David Godrich letter (2 February 1988) Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988) Building Official letter (22 September 1987) Plans City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zone Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: March 1, 1988 Backqround 1. The petitioner is requesting a three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zoning district, pursuant to Section 4.145(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The construction approval for this development was authorized in 1984 with no variances. The building permit was issued in September 13, 1984. The certificate of occupancy was issued on August 14, 1985. 3. In 1987, the Building Official found that changes had been made to the site that were not in accordance with the approved plans. The Building Officials September 22, 1987 letter is attached. The basic problem is that the south yard has been covered with asphalt pavement in order to provide access to an en%tire~ row of new storage bays on the south side of BuildingS#1. This has effectively reduced the green area to 31 percent or 32 percent. Section 4.145(3)of the New Hope Code requires that "35 percent of the lot, parcel or tract shall remain as a grass plot..." 4. The Building Official sent one subsequent letter serving as a final warning on ordinance violation, dated January 11, 1988 ordering that the green area be restored, or that the petitioner file an application for a variance. 5. Property owners within 350 feet have been notified to date, staff has received no comment. Analysis 1. Staff has not been provided with a lot survey. Therefore, the 3 percent reduction in green area is an estimate. 2. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances describes the purpose of a variance. A variance may be approved by the City Council if it can find undue hardship. A variance should not be approved purely for economic reasons. 3. Richard Curry's letter, dated January 19, 1988, and attached to this report discusses the rationale for the variance, and the purpose for the chahge of plans. 4. Staff is concerned with the precedent that approval of this case might set. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of. the request for a three percent variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6. Attachments: Application (8 February 1988) David Godrich letter (2 February 1988) Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988) Building Official letter (22 September 1987) Plans Ai~PL[CATION TO PLANN[N'G COMMISSION City of New Hope ~a;[ Illin' 440[ xylon Avenue North Street ~cation of Property: 7301 - 36th Avenue North ~ga] Description of Property: ,~Qt 1~ Block 1, Stremel Addition O~ER CFI Name: ~P Partners Phone: RECORD ) .~%~$~.f~ U~] .... .~ = Address: P.O. ~x 22630, Long Beach, CA 90801 A~PLICANT (If Other Than ~ner) Name: Richard ~r~ Phone: 829-0100 Nature of Legal or Equitable Interest of Applicant: Property Manager TYPE OF REQUEST: ~ro~n Area Variance Descript:on of Request: Approximately 2500 Square fee~, in reduction of green area - from approved site plan (see attached leter) ~ Why Should Request be Granted: See .attachDd letter Applicant acknowledges mar s/he unGersranas that severe tn:s requec~ can se a~rovec, all fees, includin~ thc basic zoning fee an~ an,/ zo:~nC celeste must ~e ~aL~ 7o the clry and that, Zf addiriona! fees ar~ required ~o cover costs ~ncurr~ ~'f manager has a right re reculre addltional oavmenr. Signed: Fee Owner Con~rac~ for DeeG Owner Ot~er Owner in Chain of T~tle /~]j Pur~,a~/~/~cnase Agreement Other Owner in Chain or Title ~,//~ AppilDa~t 0-rner T~a / / FOR CTT¥ U.~E ONLY Evidence of Ownershi? Submitted: Yes~ No ? Required ~ Certified Lot Survey: Ye$~7//No ~/ Required Lega~ Description Adequate: Yes__~ No Legal Ad Required: Yes~ No Date of Design and Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied:~ By Flannimq Commission on: ApproveO:~ Den~ed:~ By Council on: ..:C:~-~ Subject to the following condlt/ons: -- AUGUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION '' A Glendale Federal Company Long Beach. CA 90801-5630 ....... (213) 424-5100.. _ . ' February 2, 1988 Mr. Doug Sandstad ........ Building Official/Zoning k~i~i'Strator City of New Hope ........... : ......... -- 4401 Xylen Avenue North .... New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: 7301-36TH AVENUE NORTH/MINI-WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT Dealt -Mr. Sandstad: ........... Thank you for the c°urtes~ you extended to me over the telephone- February 1, 1988. In connection with the Application which you have received, in part only, for a Conditional Use Variance, I express to you two positions, as we discussed. 1. Although A.F.P. Partner's signature did not appear on the APplication, A.F;P. Partners supports the application for such variance., 2. As is always possible,...the a. pp. lication may be rejected by both the Planning Commi~sion and for the City Council of New Hope, and we are expressing concern as such a prospect. For obvious reasons, we cannot burden you with the legal ramifications and consequences, in the event of the latter event, above, nonetheless you may rest assured that we will use every effort to bring the property into complete compliance, as is required by law. Very truly yours, David W. K. Godri,ch Vice President DG: j cb '~u, --'i" '~..."-'---'.'- ...... .¢~- ... January 19, 1988 Mr. Douglas Sandstead CITY OF NEW HOPE Building Inspections Department 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Doug, lWe would like to.request a variance from the requ. ired green area requirement at All American Self Storage, New Hope, Minnesota. As you are aware, we blacktopped approximately 10' x 200', and two areas of 5' x 50', or a total of approximately 2500 square feet, which is a deviation from the'approved plan of 2500 square feet. 'There are three reasons for our doing this. First of all, as you will see on the original plan, we have 3 perimeter, or one-sided buildings. This.original layout gave us a higher percent of 10x30 units than the market would absorb. We found it necessary to remodel 20 of those 10x30 units into smaller, more rentable units. Secondly, the approved plan-showed 50' of walkway on both of the units adjacent to the walks were driving with one wheel on the walkway, and one wheel on the ground, thus becoming unsatisfactory. Lastly, at the time this was done, we had a signed purchase agreement for the 2½ acres of land south of our facility. It was our intent to enlarge the facility. We had asked ~h~ council informally for an opinion if we would be allowed tO'do So. we ~ere given an affirmative answer, and to apply upon the expiration of the moratorium. As you are aware, when the moratorium expired, a new ordinance was enacted. With very strict requirements for self-storage, it made it impossible for us to complete the transactions. It was our intent that the remodeling would have no impact on any requirements because it would all become part of a larger facility, and this area would become a driveway. I hope this gives you some of our ~easoning and gives you a better understanding of what happened and why. 8000 TOWN LINE AVENUE, SUITE 203, BLOOMINGTON, MN. 55438 " PHONE: (612) 829-0100 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 September 22, 1987 AFP Partners August Financial P. O. Box 22630 Long. Beach, CA' 90801 ~:=... ~ .... . .. . Attn: P ~Pan .... . · - Regarding: 7301 36th Avenue North, Mini-Warehouse Development Dear Property Owner: Hy routine inspection last week of the warehouse construction site adjacent to your property revealed a serious problem I must bring to your attention; and that you must correct. Planning case 84-12 was approved in 1984 for the construction of seven (7) mini-warehouse buildings including a caretaker unit, with a site plan that ham 5~o. I have attached a reduced copy of the approved a landscaped ratio of 35. ~ site ~lan You wilt note that the south ,,a~d of ~ ~'~" i~ .... ~ ~ =~ of landscaped green area with the exception of three (3) parking stalls 9 feet wide and two (2) short narrow sidewalks adjacent to Building ~l as hiqhligilted by me on the attachment. In addition, please note the copy of the elevation drawing of Building ~l which included (in 1984) no doors or access on the central maj6r portion of the same building. All access was to be from the north driveway area away from the soutb.p~operty line. As of today, virtually all of th'e sou[h yard has been covef~d Wi~h asphalt pavement in order to pro- vide access to an entire row of new doors and storage bays on the south side of Building #l; thereby 'reducing the green ratio on the property to an estima- ted 31 or ~2 .... Our city ordinance minimum of 35% landscaping is no longer met. Your are therefore required to restore the original condition of said property as approved by our planning commission and city council in 1984 or to apply for and obtain a"green area variance" from our city council. ~f ~vou elect to a~ ~,p~ to get the variance you must submit the required documents and fees before Octo- ber 9 of this year to get on the November planning commission and council calendar. I have attached the application form for your possible use. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please call me if you have additional ques- tions. Douglas Sandstad Building Official/Zoning Administrat~xfi~<~ Englosures F/ cc: City IIanager, File K~' ' ~ $6 h AVENUE NO I ~ ( ORIGINAL PROJECT APPROVED WITH 35.5 % GREEN AREA ~' - , , ~.~:~': '~ ~ '~ · '. ' .'1, ,,'"" "'1,': '"..',' .,,,/,/.'.,,'/,//,,, . '"- '~ .' '".'".' ,~x~s~aa/,.,,.'..',',v/. ' ' ',, ~' .';~ '"'. . ~ '///; ' //~/i//1".%/, ','~//L,' '/ ' ' ~""/ /'" "/I1,',/, //,///, ' ',',,-'//. ~ ~. ~, ~ ,, . ,..,, ., .,' '~:.,.:....~.~;. ~ . ;1 I~../,(/, ,, ,/.EX ST NGC',. ] "' "'/'%"/'"'~"/ ~-'~..i '. ~a / L/,, , ,. . .,,.',' /.'/,' ' .I'.' ',',./,',/.,, 'Y"'//~ L~ Na .',., (,i//"/,,~1 .~::..:. ,.. ~ / . '/. '//"'//','/. ''"/",/.'0. ."Z',, ',,','/'.','/'///,.'/,,//,, . , /',' ".. //~/''/,~,.. , ..,,~.. ; ' I I'//,'~'/., ~ ..... aA ~H~u~ .... '6',.// ' '"'..."/' , ' "': ~ I~)"/,. ,' ,... ~.. ,.' "i~' /.."'Z"' .~ ' / / ' ',// /' ,.' , ' ','~". ,//~ ',.~ ,, , " ', ,.~ .,........ ~ . ~~Y/~,%¢L, ~ ~,~' . /,. ,. ,.,.~;~ :~~~/~.,,,,, ~.,...,, , , ~ i ' ~ ~ ~7, 7777~7 z~Z7 /7,~'~ r~ rTZ z ' ' "" "'" ....... ' ' ,.,.~. ~,v/, ,.' ' ', ' '...' ..... ,', //.. , ,:: , ."7~; ~11 EXISTING/,./7/,'../"/x / .//////'/////////BUILDING . ,;' , .. ~ .... ~ . ///. .'~'".~, ', I.' "'<'?' "r'' · b, ,/.z ,,z,~,,z ,., , ,., ,., /~,...,,,,, · ,,;.: ': ,'/ /.' 7 ~ ,~ / ' ' ,-' z. . , . "~/ ~ ' ,, ' ' ' , ' ~' '~ ~'~ ','~r,, ~ z ,~ ~%I,'1t,... ,,,/, ../. ,' ,~77~7, ~'.. ~: ~-~. ~ ~ , . ,, , ......... (. ' V~/,','~ .. /,,/ ///,', , / ,,,,/ , , , . .,/, ~ b ~ / /I ',t '~'',/' , ,," /,// ,'/,' ,, ,I/' ,, ' , . DUILUII~g, , . , o.~...~ .~; ,,~ k-cL"</~-k-'- ~' ',J~,, ,~. .~:. : ~ ~:,~.. ,. .,.. .~.~ - , , · ~ · , , ~ ~;~ ,~.'..,. · ~ ":.'.~:':.. NEW ASPtlALT (Sod removed) -32 % GREEN AREA City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-9 Request: Conditional Use Permit to A1 low a Veterinary Clinic in and R-O zoning district, and Construction Approval LoCation: 3709 Winnetka Avenue North Zoning: R-0 (Residential-Office) Petitioner: New Hope Animal Hospital/Randall J. Herman Date: April 5, 1988 The petitioner has requested that this case be tabled until the May 3, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. He made this request because he was not represented at the Design and Review Committee meeting. Staff has notified the property owners of the petitioner's request to table this case. City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-10 Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spaces for a Restaurant Location: 7181 42nd Avenue North Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business) Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg Date: April 5, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance of 17 parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North. The petitioner has expanded his business to include a 384 square foot dining area. This was done without a building permit. Staff estimates that the site can accommodate 19 parking spaces. 2. The criteria for calculating parking spaces is found in Section 4.036(10) (r), New Hope Code of Ordinances. The standard is for one space for each forty square feet of gross floor area of dining...and one space for each eighty square feet of kitchen. 3. The property has been subject to a number of planning cases. Please refer to the Plan~e-r's report. In addition to those cases listed by the Planner, the following action has taken place: -Planninq Case 83-17 -Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Video rental facility in a B-3 zoning district with limited hours (11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.). -Planninq Case 84-25 - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to amend hours of operation for Grobe's Cafe to: 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday - Friday 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday Attached are minutes for the Commission's information and review. Planning Case Report 88-10 April 5, 1988 Page -2- 4. Approximately a year-and-a-half ago, the petitioner informed the City that he was interested in expanding his business. Staff researched this and advised him that he did not have adequate parking on site and gave him a few possible options for obtaining additional parking. These options would have required conditional use permits, and no filing was made. 5. On December 18, 1987 a grease fire occurred at Grobe's Cafe. Members of the Fire Department noticed the new dining area and reported it to the Building Official. The Building Official notified the property owner of the zoning violations in his January 6, 1988 letter (see attached). 6. Property owners within 350' have been notified. Staff has received no comment to date. ANALYSIS 1. The parking calculation is as follows: Square Footage Required Spaces Restaurant Dining 1019/40 25.47 Kitchen 591/80 7.38 Barber 432/180 2.88 35.73 or 36 spaces 2. The site sketch submitte~ by Grobe's Cafe shows 17 parking spaces. The design of the parking lot is such that it would be difficult to utilize 3 of the spaces. Staff has prepared a site sketch listed as Exhibit A in the packet. Please note that the pylon sign in parking space 6 would need to be removed in order to utilize that space. 3. The 42nd Avenue street improvement project will require a permanent easement. The impact of the street improvement is minimal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 17 parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North because the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Planning Case 88-10 April 5, 1988 Page -3- Attachments: Planner's Letter (30 March 1988) Staff Sketch (Exhibit A) Site Plan (28 March 1988) Building official's Letter (6 January 1988) Minutes-Planning Case 80-58 Minutes-Planning Case 82-5 Minutes-Planning Case 83-17 Minutes-Planning Case 84-25 northwest associated consultants, inc. " MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius/Sharon Schultz DATE: 30 March 1988 RE: Grobe Cafe Parking Variance FILE NO: 131.01 - 88.10 BACKGROUND The Grobe Cafe expanded their dining area by approximately 384 square feet. The expansion occurred without proper building permits and on a site that is non- conforming with regard to building setbacks and off-street parking. After being cited for code violations, the property owner is now requesting a variance from the City's off-street parking requirements. The variance proposes a reduction of~ parking stalls from the required 36 parking stalls for the restaurant and barber shop. The applicant has proposed a parking arrangement as shown in Exhibit A. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS .. · NONCONFORMING SITE The cafe site prior to the dining room expansion, existed as a legal non-conforming use as defined in Section 4.03 (2) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Under this section of the Ordinance, legal non-conforming uses shall not be enlarged, but may be continued at a size and manner of operation existing upon the date that it became n on- con formi n g. The site in question is non-conforming in the following respects: 1. Side yard setback: Required 10 feet - existing 1.1 feet on east side 2. Rear yard setback: Required 35 feet - existing 30 feet encroachment onto the property to the south. The southern building addition was also constructed initially without a permit. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 · Dan Donahue 30 March 1988 P a ge .Two 3. Off street parking: The site is required to_provide~4~parkjng stalls a.n.d, .~ ,, the proposed site shows 17 parking stalls. /'~a~-.' ~14~ ~ ~l.i~'S~.l~ .cO~, With the expansion of the cafe dining room, the applicant il'l'egally expanded this nonconforming use by increasing the parking demand on a site already deficient in parking. SITE HISTORY The parking shortage on the Grobe Cafe site is well documented in past development requests for the site. In December 1980, Case 80-50, the property owner of the cafe and Frosty Bay Ice Cream petitioned the City for a conditional use permit for a walk up ice cream service facility. During several months of consideration, the City approved the conditional use permit and a temporary occupancy permit conditioned upon the applicant resolving the site's parking concerns. Several options were highlighted: 1. Share of parking between the DEQ store (now Tom Thumb) and the cafe. 2. Employee parking in the bowling alley site. 3. Shared parking between the cafe and Vickers. 4. The cafe operating hours would be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. In November of 1981, the City Council reviewed the Frosty Boy CUP and occupancy permit. In this review, it was discovered that a shared parking agreement with Tom Thumb was not possible and the site's parking shortage had not been resolved. The City denied the extension of the CUP- :~ '~ ; In December 1982, Case 82-5, the cafe owner petitioned that the City reconsider its action on the Frosty Boy CUP. The City again reviewed the parking concern and approved the permit extension contingent upon limited cafe hours and the resolution of traffic and parking problems if they occur. With .this approval, no site changes were required. The ice cream facility did not reopen. Since Case 82-5, the property owner has requested use changes including a video store, expanded cafe hours and most recently the barbershop. In 1987, the owners of the Grobe's Cafe inquired with .the City Building Official as to the possibilities of expanding the cafe. The Building Official informed the property owners that some resolution of the on-site parking shortage must be addressed before any cafe expansion would be approved. To provide some options for the provision of additional parking for this site, the City asked NAC to prepare some site plans that may be considered to relieve this parking shortage. Conceptual plans were prepared as outlined in the attached February 10, 1987 planner's report. Due to the cost involved, the property owner chose not to implement this parking option, rather decided to illegally expand the restaurant without required permits. D~n Donahue 30 March 1988 P~ge Three PARKING LOT DESIGN Exhibit A represents the proposed parking layout prepared by the applicant in conjunction with the variance request. Review of this layout notes the following code deficiencies: 1. The proposed cafe and barber shop use are required by code to provide 36 parking stalls, the site shows only 17 parking stalls. 2. The ~arkihg'l°t should'b6~setback at'least three~fe6t from a p~opert~- Parking stalls abut up to the lot lines on the north and west. 3. Curb barriers aroundlthe entire parking area are required to be located five feet .from all lot lines. 4. The site plan shows three parallel parking stalls along the west lot line. These stalls are difficult to access and egress and will interfere with park_ing stall number 1. The parking stalls will also conflict with on-site deliveries and garbage collection. 5. The front yard setba'ck is 80 feet. The applicant shows the entire front yard as pavement. The same number of useable parking stalls can be accommodated in a parking lot 62 feet wide. The balance of the site should be landscaped to enhance the site. General review of the site plan indicates that it does little to improve the non- conformity of the site or provide sufficient parking stalls. CONCLUSION The applicant's variance request now attempts to administratively rectify site non-conformities and illegal ordinance violations that will increase the existing non-conforming conditions of the site by further intensifying the restaurant use. In this regard, the applicant's request for variance is contrary to the non- conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the variance. The staff is also concerned with the precedent that would be established in the approval of a variance to accommodate the applicant without efforts to upgrade the existing non-conforming conditions. In all past considerations of this site, the City has attempted to respond to the site's parking situation. It is again recommended that the parking situation be addressed prior to allowing any expansion of use. The following options were suggested with previous planning requests: 1. Shared parking with Tom Thumb. This option was first suggested in 1980. When Tom Thumb purchased the DEQ Superette, they opposed the shared parking concept. It is important to note that Tom Thumb has only the 17 parking stalls to meet its individual required parking. · Dan Donahue 30 March 1988 Page Four 2. Shared parking with Vickers. This option was discussed in 1982. At that time, Vickers refused to allow shared parking because they had their own plans for expansion.. To date, Vickers has not expanded, so this may present a currently viable option. 3. Purchase of land located south of the cafe from the multiple family development and the development lot as shown in Exhibit D. The idea to locate a parking lot south of the cafe was first suggested in 1980 by the property owner. The concept plan was developed in 1987 and discussed with the property owner when they initially suggested the cafe expansion. This concept was recently revised to reflect the 42nd Avenue Improvement Plan. The parking options present both benefits and detriments to the area~ BENEFITS The area in front of the building off of 42nd Avenue North can accommodate 16 - 9 foot wide parking spaces. The handicap space would have to be located on the end as shown to provide the additional area for door swings/movement required by the handicapped. To provide the additional spaces required, it is suggested that another parking lot be provided east of the site near Maryland Avenue and a drive to this lot is provided along the side and rear of the cafe for access. This drive would-also serve as access for a loading zone for both the cafe and Tom Thumb (see Exhibit D). This concept was recom- mended on a sketch prepared by our office in the February 1987 42nd Avenue Development Analysis (see Exhibit C). As mentioned in this February 1987 report, the vacant land south of Tom Thumb has been offered by the owners of the adjacent apartments for such a use. This concept also recommends a redesign of the Tom Thumb parking arrangement in order to gain uniformity and better circulation between the two sites. Tom Thumb currently has all their parking along the' side of their building. The access drive from Maryland Avenue to Tom Thumb and the additional parking lot for Grobe'~ Cafe could be combined to reduce the number of curb cuts required to Maryland. In summary, it appears that the additional required parking could be provided in a reasonable arrangement with the offer and cooperation of the adjacent property owners. The concept is beneficial in the respect that it: 1. Provides all the required parking. 2. Improves traffic through the site for both automobiles and delivery truck traffic. 3. Provides a loading area exclusive of any required parking. Dan Donahue 30 March 1988 Page Fi ve DETRIMENTS While it has been mentioned that the property owner to the south is willing to sell the vacant parcel of land to Grobe's Cafe, this sale will impact the multiple family development. The multiple family development is zoned R-3, requiring 4,000 square feet per unit. Currently this development is nonconforming in that it offers only 1,788 square feet of lot area per unit. The parking lot concept would require the sale of approximately 7,000 square feet of land. This sale would increase the nonconformity of the multiple family site by reducing the lot area per unit 1,594 square,,.feet' per,.u,nit,. . ~ While the multiple family site nonconformity would be increased, it is important to note that after the land sale, the multiple family site would still have 36% green space, well in excess of City requirements. The proposed parking lot area is currently just sodded green space with limited use. Another option available to the City would be to deny the variance and deny the use of the new dining room area. Review of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance and past City actions indicate a variance to accommodate the expanded restaurant based on the submitted site plan is not appropriate. The City must weigh the options available and make its determination as to the degree of code enforcement it will require. cc: Steve Sandrall ; ' - ,,/o,~/,/,,/---- t,-,,,,/- I ~ ~ , ;~'. ' i I.'..F~ - ~ -'-- ~ -m---~~-_..:-._.---...~: " " [ I::'~ ::.". -~, ---7 ' ,..'.ti " '~ .. ~ J'"'-- ~ A , xl:"l~., ' ' "~' ":' '~'--I ,/ "~,i-' ~ ,, , ~ ~?J-' .... '1 · ~ '~.. i ,~'. .. ~.; '-.', " EXH. IBIT B - SITE SURVEY northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Jeanine Dunn/Dan Donahue FROM: Curtis Gutoske DATE: 10 February 1987 RE: 42nd Avenue Development Analysis and Concepts FILE NO: 131.10 The following is a summary of the analysis and concepts that have been completed regarding the proposed42~d Avenue development. The area included in the analysis extends from the New Hope Bowl west to All Star Sports and from 42nd Avenue south to 41st Avenue. Two different concepts have been developed based on the findings of the analysis. It should be noted that these concepts are preliminary and are presented as possible solutions to the issues raised by the proposed expansions and redevelopments. - ANALYSIS Exhibit A illustrates the major issues fac~ing the development of the sites located south of 42nd Avenue. These issues were identified earlier--in the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study and remain as concerns in the present analysis. Highlighting these concerns are as-follows: · The proposed realignment of the 42nd Avenue/Nevada Avenue intersection] · Introducing the streetscaping along the south side of 42nd Avenue as. called for in the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study (see Exhibit B). This includes the provision of a pedestrian walkway and a bicycle treadway along with boulevard plantings and benches. · Buffer areas are needed between the.commercial and residential uses. These buffers should screen any commercial parking and loading areas from the residential uses. This screening should be accomplished by using a combina- tion of deciduous and coniferous plantings due to sight lines originating from the apartment buildings, as well as from ground level. Fences should be avoided since space is at a premium in these areas and they will only contribute to making them appear smaller and more confined. EXHIBIT C - 1987 AREA CONCEPT PLAN PLANNER'S REPORT 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 ~0 February 1987 Page Two · The vacation of Maryland Avenue. With Nevada Avenue proposed to be the primary access to 42nd Avenue, vacating Maryland Avenue is seen as imparative to pro- mote its use. This will also allow for additional open space to be cre~ted between the apartments and the New Hope Bowl site. · Reduce the number of curb cuts along 42nd Avenue. Reducing the number of access points to 42nd Avenue will allow for a smoother traffic flow along 42nd Avenue and also help reduce the number of traffic accidents which occur in this area each year. · Improve internal circulation within the Grobe's Cafe block as well as provide for the proper expansion of Grobe's Cafe. These issues were taken into consideration when developing the following two concepts. The concepts attempt to deal with and solve these concerns as they apply to the proposed expansions and redevelopment of the area. CONCEPT A Concept A is illustrated in Exhibit C. It includes a 3,000 square foot expansion of All Star Sports onto the vacant site to the east, a 1,000 square foot expansion of Grobe's Cafe into the vacant Video Store, and a proposed two story, 32,000 square foot office/professional building on the New Hope Bowl/Broadway Pizza site. These expansions.and proposed developments were designed with regards to the issues i'dentified in the analysis. The following describes how these issues were handled with respect to each site. All Star Sports This concept illustrates a 3,000 square foot expansion to be added to the east side of the present building. Thirty-seven parking spaces have been provided and the existing curb cut to. 42nd Avenue has been eliminated. Access to the site may be from Nevada Avenue or Oregon Avenue at existing driveway locations. The loading area is located at the rear of the building and uses a shared drive with the apartments to the south. By placing the loading area in the rear allows for a parking arrangement which provides for the proper right-of-way width to incorporate the streetscaping along 42nd Avenue. However, this placement of the loading area will require visual screening to be placed on the apartment property as there is insufficient width to provide for a buffer area on the All Star Sports property. This is not viewed as a crucial problem with the limited use of loading area and will actually enhance the apartment property with the addition of the landscaping. ', ~.0 February 1987 Page Three Grobe's Cafe/Tom Thumb/Vickers With the proposed expansion of Grobe's Cafe, additional parking will be required. The vacant area south of Tom Thumb has been offered from the apartment owners to be available for such a use. The concept plan uses this property to provide for an additional 22 space parking lot. The existing parking arrangement has also been redesigned to more efficiently utilize the site while allowing for the streetscaping to be implemented'for the full width of the block. A curb cut along 42nd Avenue has been eliminated and the Vickers curb cut has been shifted to the east so it can become a shared access for the convenience store and the cafe. It should be noted that while ~this concept is still 16 spaces short of the required 55 spaces, it represents the maximum number of spaces physically possible on the site without compromising these concerns. The two parking areas have been connected by a private drive which.runs behind the cafe. Due to the limited space in this area, the apartments' driveway north of the garages will have to be reduced to 24 feet to - allow for a buffering strip to exist between the two driveways. This buffer strip will have to be very intensly planted due to its narrowness and it being the sole screen between the cafe and the apartments. Maryland Avenue has been vacated and has become a private drive to be used by the cafe and the Tom Thumb store. This allows both establishments access from either westbound or eastbound traffic traveling on 42nd Avenue. It also allows the apartment complex additional open space and buffer zone to the New Hope Bowl site to the east. CITY OF NEW HOPE .......................... Staff Skit ch .......... ~ ................. ' I ,7.. ~ Restaurant Dining 1,019 / 40:25.47 591 / 80= 7.38 B5.73 MARYLAND AVENUE 0 EXHIBIT D - NEVADA AVENUE 1988 CONCEPT PLAN REVISED E PLAN nort_h I GROBE'S CAFE EXPANSION scale 1"=50' Prepared by: N.A.C., Inc. March 28, 1988 / 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, k4innesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 January 6, 1988 Mrs. Grobe 7181 42nd Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mrs. Grobe I have reviewed the City's official files on the 7179-7181 42nd Avenue property and various changes to it that have occurred over the years. Several changes have been made to a conditional use permit that restricts both your restaurant operation and the 7179 leasable space that is currently used as a barber shop. As you know, the hours of your restaurant business, for example, were limited because of the parking shortage on your property. It %~s brought to my attention that you have recently expanded your restaurant and added a dining room that seats approximately 35 custcmers;Ln addition to the 35 ~xisting seats you have:without prior City approvals and permits. This has intensified the use of the property beyond the scope of earlier City Council action with the very limited parking available on the pr~o~pert¥. I must require you, therefore, to submit the attached application to our planning co~m~ission within the next two weeks in order to obtain a parking variance which would permit you to continue to operate a 70 seat restaurant, if Council approves. Please note that the property owner must sign in addition to the business operator if those are different parties and a $400.00 (total) filing fee is required in addition to a pair of plans that sho~.,; both the floor plan of the building in and a site plan that sho%~'s the parking situation and the two businesses on the lot. Both dra,~ings must be to scale. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mrs. Grobe Page 2 j~ 6, 1988 Please ~]] ma if you have additional questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I~ sanclstacl Building Official/Zoning Administru-~or ~/mlr Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue Jeannine Dunn .= 3. PLANNING CASE 80-58 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7181 42nd AVENUE NORTH - BM PROPERTIES, ~ · ' ROBERT ~ENDT D2~D HARVEY LIGHT, PETITIONERS Mr. Wendt and Mr. Light were both present. They stated they wished the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to open a soft ice cream franchise operation at 7181 42nd Avenue North, next to George's Cafe. Mr. Wendt said there would be no inside seat.lng as it w~uld be a walk-up type of business. He felt it would benefit the community as it would be for the younger people as well as the older people. Mr. Light stated they would share the parking facilities with George's Cafe and the DEQ Superette next door. The soft top would be located next to the DEQ. He felt the traffic w~)uld be minimal due to the hours of operation. The Cafe usually closes between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and the ice cream prJ2n, e business would l~ between 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. He thought they 'would probably open up about 10:00 a.m. It is similar to a Baskin Robbins type of operation only they do have a drive-up facility. Customers do not actually stay there but pick up sundaes, bulk ice cream, etc. They plan to have some seating facilities outside by installing two or three cement tables in case anyone wants to eat on the premises. -_ Mr. Wendt noted t. hat George felt it might complement the Cafe business. Mr. Light stated in answer to a question from the Chairs.an that he had Consulted City Ordinances in regard to the Conditional Use Permit and had discussed this with Doug Sandstad and the City Manager. Mr. Wendt stated that he did not think there would be more than 10-12 cars per hour at peak times and that the traffic would be L~ and out. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Wendt said their hours would be roughly' from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 10:30. They did not want to be open any later. He felt that some tyne after 6:00 p.m. would be their prime business time. At the present time the cafe is open from 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Mr. Wendt felt that r~ha balanc~ of the business ~a~uld be of a walk-up tyimm. Discussion regarding the traffic and parking situation. ~.~. Wendt stated they %~uld share the parking spaces wi~ George'-s Cafe and the DEQ Superette. o In regard to probable changes to the site, Mr. Light stated they might extend the marquee to six feet or might k_nock out the existing wall and put in some different windows and go back into the building six feet to provide adequate room for the outside seating. Co~issioner Gustafson confirmed that the only products would be ice cream type products. He then asked what the petitioner's options would be if, after a year of operation, there developed a traffic problem on the site? Mr. Light stated they feel there will be adequate parking, otherwise they would not be interested in i~.vesting their money. However, they bad also investigated the area behind the cafe, which belongs to the apartment building. The apartment owner had indicated they would sell approximately 40 feet, that stretches out to the road behind the DEQ, if they wish to buy it. This would provide overflow parking. The City Manager noted that the petitioner should 1~ aware that the apartment complex might not have enough land to sell and still be in accord with the-city greenspace requirements. He noted that accord- ing to Ordinance, each housing unit had to have 4000.square feet of lot provided. In answer to a question from Commission Gustafson, Mr. Wendt stated that the property was owned by George Svolopulos, of the Cafe. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that George was in agreement with the plans for parking as stated by the petitioner. Mr. Svolopulos was present and stated he .was in agreement with the proposed plans. The Chairman commented that'he felt that any approval of the ~onditional Use Permit should include an annual review by staff in regard to hours of operation and any traffic/parking problems. He felt it would not take too many additional cars per day to create a potentially hazardous situation. 3. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending a~proval of the Conditional Use Permit for 7181 42nd Avenue North, as requested in Case 80-58, subject to annual review by staff in retard to potential traf- fic or congestion hazards that micht exist on the site, and that the oetiuioners, by ~he time of the ~ity Council meeting, determine what ootential land is available at the rear of the site for over-flow ~_~pking in terms of Ordinance recuirements and have some kind of basic outline of a potential Dian if, in fact, CitZ staff determines next veer that there is a congestion or traffic :~roblem on the site. Cor~%missioner Gundershaug second. In answer to a question from Com=missioner Edwards regarding potential signs, Commissioner Gustafson stated that the petitioner had already indicated he was aware of the City's Sign Ordinance and its res- trictions. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, G~dershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Gulencl~yn The Chairman confirmed that the Commission was not approving any signs and that the petitione~ was aware that he must check with the City staff before installing any signs. %. ~]~7~nJ. nq_~..... Case No. 80-58.&_conditional~ use~ = ep~_~j~ermJt~ =__7181 42nd Avenue North, BH_. · .r~P~~~~~_ ice cream~ise, w~s th~_n~t ~ The petitioners did not appear. ~p~.by Councilman Enck, second by Councilwoman Hokr to table Planning Case ~%.Q~8~Dj~it la~er in the meetin~ -- Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Ot~en, Plufka Voting against: None ~ .~,~. ~ ~ ~ by Councilman Enck, second by Mayor Erickson, that items 2,3, and 4, relatin~ ~Q.~~q_=~Or5)~ 80-57 and 80-58 be tabled u:~%%~ %he ~ti~C~c~b~rS~~ w~ th t.%~.~D~.~S~D~2n~t~oners be advised J~a~ i~keY_ ~o~ot auoa~ ~meet$~,9,req~%ts will automatically be d~ Voting in favor: Erickson,..~ck,;~ok~w-~tte~_~ufk~ Voting against:. None : ~.~6'~ ~, W' ~O R ~j~? ~om~ec~%red carried., -'~--~ .... .-~_~ 3. Pl~n~ase No. 80Z,~8z request,from, BH,, PrQ~r~ies. for a conditional use o~t to ~~~~~~~z~f~ too ~r~n~hi~ ~ 7]~1 42nd .Av~nu~ Mr. Harvey Light and Mr. George Sv~f~ulos appeared on behalf of the petioner. Mr. Light said they want the conditional use permit so as to be able to operate an ice cream shop in part of George's Cafe building. The Planning Commission recommendations were reviewed. The city manager inquired as to whether Mr. Light had come up with an alternative for parking. Mr. Light replied that they were working on it. He said he did not understand the conditional use permit to be granted on the basis that they had to have ~n alternate~ parking proposal. Mr. Light continued that in case a problem would come up, they would want additional parking. Mr. Light said ~e did appear to be a lot of land available on the apartment site, behind the cafe. The city manager noted that the apar~lent site was overbuilt by about 10 units. Discussion followed with Mr. Light pointing out that Mr. Svolo~os's building came right up to the property line. If some of the apartment land could be utilized by the cafe, then there would ~t least be room to get to the back of the building with deliveries. The city manager said that the point the P'lanning Co~nission had made was that, if the apartment site was up to d~nsity, then another way should be found to handle the parking. Is there any other solution than trying to use the apartment property? Mr. Light siad that perhaps something could be worked out with the superette. He said he thought they had more than ample parking, parking that was never used. It was again pointed out to Mr. Light that the Planning Con~ission had asked the petiti'0ner to work out the alternates for parking. 'Councilman Enck noted that there was not sufficient parking at the cafe site, that the adjoining apartment site is overbuilt as is and this Council would not look favorably on taking land fr~ the apar~]ent site and that the petitioner must come to Council to tell them where the cars will be parked. Mr. Light said that he had understood that the conditional use was granted with the existing parking. In consideration of the fact that there could be a problem with parking in the future, he had agreed to look at availability of additional parking. The city manager clarified that the Planning Commission recommendation was to grant the conditional use permit provided the petitioner could find a way to do something about the parking if it becomes a problem in the future. Councilman Enck said that he understood this to mean that Planning Commission had reco~ended in favor of granting the conditional use permit provided the petitioner can solve the future parking problem. He said he did anticipate that there would be a future parking problem. This ~roblem should be a~dressed prior to going into business. ~-~%~ i~" '~ '~-- <. ~- ~ 3. Mr. Light said that he had understood there to be sufficient parking for the cafe and the proposed ice cream shop . He noted that the east side of the building had been occupied before. These businesses also brought additional traffic. Mr. Light repeated that he ~nder~tood that the conditional use was granted without the word "providing". .~ ' ....... ~ - ' ~ Councilman Enck said that with the current standards,he doe~ not feel that there would be sufficient parking on th~ si{e~for any going business. He said he could ~ foresee a lot of problems. The driveway is shared with DEQ, cars must be able to turn on the site. People are not usually willing to walk a long distance to get an ice cream cone, etc. Councilman Enck said he would l~ke to see the petitioner go back and address what could be dOne about a~erna~i~ ~ing~ Council then would hold up a decision until the petitioner can come back and tell them what he could do with the cars. Mr. Light again asserted that this had not been his understanding. He thought the business had been approved. This was news to him. It was pointed out to Mr. Light that previous action was by the Planning Commission, which only recommends to the C~uncil. The Chairman of the Planning Commission had told the petitioner that he must appear before the Council t~e following Monday. The Council must ma~e the d~cision, not the Planning Commission. Mr. ~,olopoulos indicated that he had also misunderstood the Planning Commission action. Mr. Light ~£d he had brought plans into the building department. He had been told the plans were insufficient and that he had hired an architect which would cost him money. Further discussion followed as to whether the petitioner should pursue additional parking or whether Council should take action on the request at this time - either approve or deny. Mr. Light said that~hey would be putting from $50 to $60,000 into the business. He asked what period of time the conditional use permit would cover. The city manager advised that the Planning Commission had recommended annual review because of the parking problems. It was pointed out to the petitioner that with that kind of an investment future parking problems should be resolved prior to going i~to business. Mr. George Svolopoulos asked whether there had been parking problems when the restaurant and the barber shop occupied the space now proposed for the ice cream shop. The city manager said that it had been a problem. There had been a parking. spill over to the liquor store lot across the Street even. Mr. Svolopoulos asked whether he could extend his restaurant. The city manager replied that there would be a ~roblem from the staff enforcement standpoint if Mr. Svolopoulos were to come in with remodeling plans for his restaurant because he does not have enough parking under the current ordin-ance. He would be told to co~e in and apply for a variance for parking. / Upon inquiry as to whether the problem had been caused by change in the ordinance, the city manager stated that, for all practical purposes, the building was built before the city really had an ordinance. That is why the building is back on th~ lot line. The little addition that encroached on the abutting property had been buil~ without a permit. He notified that the Council and the Planning Commission had, over the years, worked hard to make this a situation as workable as possible, for this b6ilding and Other buildings in similar circumstances. Mr. Light commented that he was concerned with putting that much money into the operation if the permit were to be on a yearly basis. The fact th&t 42nd was a heavily traveled street which would not lend itself to people crossing if cars were parked north of 42nd was noted. It was also mentioned by Councilman Enck that there were times when the bowling alley and Broadway Pizza did not have adequate parking available. There is relatively little parking space available to ~eorge's Cafe. ~o~, ~ ~ ~-~!.~. ~3~ ~ ~ Mr. Light sa~d that the hours of operation of the different businesses should also be taken into consideration. The heaviest business for the ice cream shop would most likely be on Sunday, when the liquor store was closed. Further discussion followed as to the need to look for additional parking, Mr. Svolopoulos stated that Dr. Herman was willing to sell some property to him at anytime, if the city will permit him to do so. Mr. S~lopoulos then asked how he could find out whether the city would permit this. The city manager said that first a preliminary plat would be required showing the proposed division. The preliminary plat would need to be approved. Also, a variance would be needed to reduce the lot size for the,.apartments. The possibility of obtaining an easement across the apartment site was mentioned. ~It was clarified that the burden was to be 6pon the petitioner to research additional parking possibilities and come back and show the city how ~he additional parking needs will be met. The conditional use permit could not be granted until the parking problem is resolved. The conditional use permit must be approved by the Council, the Planning Commission being only an advisory body. Motion b Counci !..m~_an Otten to ta.~bl~g~_.P _ ' . - ' ' Second by Councilwoman Hokr. *~ 'i ;~ ~ -~" ~ "~ Voting in favor: Enck, Hokr, Otten ~-k~ ' Votin9 against.: None Absent: Erickson, Plufka The Manager said that the petitioner for the ice cream store had misunderstood the need for an alternate ~arking plan. Council was concerned and ~abled the case until this problem could be solved and the pe- titioner came back to Council. ~ ~ i-%-~( ~ ~ 1. Plannino Case No. 80-58. reouest from BH P~gperties for a conditional use oermit to allow development of a walk-uD ~q9 grpam soft-tqp franchise at 7181 4fnd Avenue (continued from 1Qst meeting) was considered by Council. ! -' Mr. Eouglas Turbak, Attorney, appeared on behalf of BH Properties. He said they had spoken to Dan Quast, owner of DEQ Superette, and that Mr. Quast will permit them to use the entire parking lot for any parking needs they might have. He then presented a drawing showing a proposed parking layout. Upon inquiry as to whether it was proposed to chahge the parking for. the existing facility, Mr. Turbak said that there was even more parking available than Shown on the drawing. Discussion followed as to whether the proposed parking arrangement would lend itself to an adequate traffic flow. It was suggested that the parking layout be reviewed by Design and Review. Upon .inquiry as to whether the ice cream store would seat customers, Mr. Turbak replied that it would not; there would be a walk-up window and possibly a table outside. Mayor Erickson noted that the parking needs were not long term and people would not be inclined to use the overflow area and walk to the window for ice cream. Question was asked as to code requirements for parking for the cafe and ice cream store. The city manager replied that the restaurant would need forty spaces less a deduct for kitchen space. H'e did not know what was required for the store. Councilmember Plufka indicated that further information was needed as to the amount of required parking for the restaurant and the ice cream store. The city manager reviewed the Council action at the last meeting and stated that this is why the petitioner is back before Council. Mr. Larson also said that staff had not seen the parking layout prior to this meeting. The Mayor suggested that the plan should ~han be referred to the Design and Review committtee and to staff for review. Mr. Turbak stated that there was only so much land available, and they had gotten permission from Mr. Quast to use the superette site for parking space. He said they do have an easement from Mr. Quast for parking purposes. Mr. Turbak said he thought the code required 57 spaces and that, if the employee parking were eliminated, they would have the space. ~06~.~ d~ i ~ - , -~ ~ _.~ -' ?!~ ~ ~ , Counci!member Plufka question whe~%er traffic generated would create a problem on the street. He said it was difficult to estimate how much Darkina would be needed i. and whether the available parking space will support all the uses on the two pieces of property. Mr. Turbak was asked to furnish a copy of the lease for parking space to staff. The copy of the lease was then submitted. Following further discussion, Mr. Turbak stated that the ice cream store would not be open during the winter months - four months. Mr. Light, BH Properties, pointed out that the traffic would be able to flow through the site, exiting to the side street. The plan presented tonight is their proposal for more parking space as asked by Council at the last meeting. Concensus was that there could be a better solution to the parking needs. Mr. George Svolopoulos, owner of George's Cafe, said that the cafe is only busy a couple of hours during the day, the breakfast trade aD~ again at lunch. He said that he closes the cafe at 3:00 o'clock p.m. ~.i!-~{~, t i~ ~ ~- :~i ~ The need to consider poSsible Changes in the h~urs Of operation of the cafe was pointed out. Mr. Svolopoulos replied that the site had ~supported parking for a barber shop and for a full restaurant operation without a problem. Councilmember Plufka inquired as to w~th~r there was any assurance that the superette parking lot would be striped as shown. Following discussion as to whether the parking plan was correct, Mr. Turbak said that the lot would accomodate twice as many parking spaces as shown. ~j~by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten to___r~fer the matter back to staff and to D~$iqn. a~d. Revi~v, if nncessarv, to work with the petitiOner Q2P.2p.~.rkin~ alternatives, with_the ma~ter ~o qo back to Council .for the meetinq Df January 26, 1981.. - ' Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, .Plufka Voting against: None ~C~ . ~- ~..~---'~i ~-~ 1. Planninq Case No. 80-58~ continued from the meetinq of JaDuarY 12, 1981. request for ~_qcond~.i~onal ~se ermit to allow~~ion of a walk~uD_ice cream ,soft-toD .franchise at 718]. 42nd Avenue Nortb_~_w__a~ considered ~ Mr. Doug Turbak, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Council. Mr. Turbak ~aid that, since the last meeting, the architect involved in the project had been able to sit down with city staff and prepare a drawing for the parking layout and traffic flow through the area involved. This is the reason the matter was tabled at the last meeting. The city manager said that the code calls for from 57 to 59 parking spaces, de- pending on how the code is interpreted, and that the petition shows 43 spaces on the parking layout. The Mayor said that he concurred with the Manager's comments that the superette does not generate much traffic. Two or three cars at the most seems to be the rule. It is a steady thing, but seldom do they have a lot of cars. Councilmember Enck inquired as to how the petitioner proposed to get access to spaces one, two and three, immediately west of the cafe. Mr. T~bak replied that those three spaces would be used by the employees, who will be the last to leave after buisness hours. He said they do not forsee a problem with those three spaces. Councilmember Enck then inquired as to how access to the trash receptacle would be gained. Mr. Turbak said that the diagram was very misleading to the extent that it appears to show that 'only one car could be parked, when, in fact, two cars can easily be parked between the building and the trash receptacle. Two cars could be parked in that area, and there would still be plenty of room for any size truck to drive in and dump the trash container. Inquiry was made as to when the trash was collected. ' Mr. George Svolopoulos said that it was picked up every other day around 2:00 to 2:30 P.m. BV this time, the waitresses have ~one Mr. Turbak stated that, while~the diagram makes it appear like there would be a problem in getting to the trash receptacle, if you look at the site you would see that the dumpster is not in the parking area at all. Councilmember Plufka inquired as to whether the city had the necessary legal documents to show that, despite the different owners involved, the owners are in agreement as to the parking plan and that the lot will be striped as shown. Mr. Turbak replied that they did not have an agreement that the lot would be striped as shown, but, they do have the work or promise of the petitioner that they are going to stripe as shown. You would certainly expect them to follow through. As to the legal right to use the adjoining property, there is an easement which gives the ability to park there. He said he did not have any signed document by the adjacent property owner saying that he specifically approves of the parking layout. The reason for that is that he had not been able to get the diagram in front of Mr. Quast. It was not until last Friday that the diagram had been prepared. He had tried to reach Mr. Quest. Mr. Turbak said that Mr. Quest has expressed absolutely no hesitation as to the project and that he was sure Mr. Quest would be pleased with the layout. The city manager advised that striping of the lot could be tied to the occupancy ~ bv Councilmember Plufka, second by Council'member Enck ~a o_p_9/_~%he con, d~tional use permit for the wa]k-up ].ce cream s~gre a~ 71~1 4?nd ~°'.re(~uested under P]annina Case ND 80-58. ~llhjDct rD_ the occup)ncv oerm]_t 1. A request was received for a temporary occupancy permit for Frosty Boy ice cream store 7179 42nd Avenue. ' ! Mr. Turbak, attorney representing Frosty Boy owners, acknowledged that they did not have~ anything in writing from the fee owner of the property to the east as to the parking easement. The fee owner is Mr. Stanley Peterson. Mr. Turbak said he had t~lked to Mr. Peterson at great length on the telephone. Mr. Peterson is very determined to ~ sell his property as soon as he can; he has had it appraised, and he is morally, if ~ 'not legally, ~ommittedto sell it to the present occupant of the store, Mr. Dan Quast. ~owever, he has not entered into a written agreement with Mr. Quast. Mr. Turbak said that he did not have any reason not to suspect that that.~sale will. be closed sometime · n the near future° The Mayor noted that the Council approval had been subject to the parking easement being obtained from the DEQ store owner. Mr, Turbak stated that they do have the right to lay out the parking area the way the New Hope Council has approved and, also, to have the traffic flow in the manner that has been approved. What they do not have is the right for this parking and traffic flow to continue into the unlimited future. They do have the present right Me said they have no reason to believe that the right will not continue. ~iscussion followed as to the possibility of granting a t~mporary permit until such ~ime as the easement is actually obtained. ~¢~c~ _i~ ~.-~ ~ - The city manager informed the Council that when the petitioner was before Council last time, the cafe owner, George Svolopoulos, had said there would be no parking 1. problem because the hours would not conflict. T~e cafe was going to close at 3:00 p.m. Now they are staying open until 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dan Quast stated that, as the owner of the Superette, there was no problem with parking. Councilmember Williamson inquired as to the problem with refrigeration or sanitation. The Attorney stated that he was not aware of any such problem. He also stated that the problem as to laying out the parking related to the temperature. The weather is not warm enough to stripe, but it will be done as soon as the weather permits. The city manager inquired as to what type of instrument gave them the right to stripe the parking lot. Mr. Turbak said that the right to stripe the lot was derived from Mr. Quast, who has the right to occupy the premises. The city attorney said that, if Council wanted to take the position that the present occupant of the superette has the right to give a temporary easement, we do have a document that supports that easement. It is a private easement between the parties and can be terminated by the parties without notice to. the city. It would be possible to have a temporary occupancy permit which would be conditioned upon the . superette owner remaining in legal possession. If he does not acquire the fee title, then the permit could be terminated. The problem is that, in the long range, if Mr. Quast does not succeed in buying the property, the easement is only as good as the ownership of the contract purchaser. If the occupancy permit were made on a temporary basis~ contingent upon the ownership of the superette staying the same, there would not appear to be much of a problem. Cou~cilmember Enck expressed concern with George's Cafe staying open until 8:00 when a covenant had been made, especially with parking problems that arise during the day. This is a breach of the commitments made to this Council as to the capacity to maintain a non conflicting use of the property. We were also told that the easement for parking had previously been negotiated; now this is not true. Councilmember Enck then spoke against granting the temporary occupancy at this time. The petitioner should have the responsibility of presenting to Council all of the items covering these commitments, giving the Council the opportunity to evaluate the documents. Mr. Harvey Light, Frosty Boy'operator, said they had originally proposed confining their parking to George's parking lot. At that time, George had not intended to be open during the evening. Council then said, at another meeting, that Frosty Boy should obtain some additional parking. Then they pursued the superette parking arrangement. This additional parking was obtained after George had made the co~Unitment not to be open in the evening. Now the number of parking stalls has been doubled-approximately. There is also access out to the road through the DEQ lot which will further alleviate the traffic flow. Councilmember Enck countered that the parking was never adequate in the first place. He said he was uncomfortable with the parking arrangements. Mr. Dan Quast noted that he had always permitted the overflow from the cafe to park around to the side of his store. ~ . '! ~ ~ ~'~. The Mayor inquired as to the schedule for the grand opening. Mr. Turbak said they would like to open within two weeks. The Mayor then inquired as to what would happen if the occupancy permit were issued on a temporary basis and then a problem developed. He asked if it would be possible for all the employees in the entire complex to park across the street in the bowling alley lot. · Mr. Turbak commented that they are not asking the Council to prejudice itself or its position. The Mayor asked what would happen if, at some time down the line~ the permit was revoked and the ice cream store had to go out of business. That would also be a possibility if a serious traffic problem did develop. He said the owner should be prepared for such a possibility. Then he could support a temporary occupancy permit. He again mentioned that arrangements might be made for the employees to park on the bowling alley lot. Councilmember Williamson inquired as to how long the petitioner had had to acquire the · . easement. C~.,?~' ~-. ~?'° '~?/ ~ Mr. Turbak said they had started the planning process last November, but he had not found out who the fee owner of the-real estate was until rather recently. It just 1. turns out that the lee owner wants to sell it. .Mr: Peterson wants whoever buys the property to talk to the owners of Frosty Boy. Mr. Turbak again stated that, with a fair degree of certainty, is Dan Quast. Mr. Quast stated that he believed that 75% of the ice cream store business would be walk-in and business from his store customers. Councilmember Daly spoke in opposition to the issuance of the temporary occupancy permit. He said he had voted in favor of the ice cream store earlier based on the statement that the cafe would be closing at 3:00 o'clock, '~by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, to deny the issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for Frosty Boy as requested this meetinq. D~scussion followed with Councilmember Otten inquiring as to the status of the ownership of the DEQ. Mr. Quast stated that he was the lessee. He said he had two.years left on the option, ·_hat Mr. Peterson had the property appraised two weeks ago and that it is up for sale. He said he had operated the store for 18 years, and it is his intention to purchase. Thi~ should a~ ~ place within the next three months. upon lnquiry, Mr. Quast said that the purchase o~ the real estate hinged on the sale of his home. He said he does own the business; what he would be buying is the shell of the building and the land. Mr. Turbak said that if Mr. Light could not open his business, that space would probably sit vacant all summer. They have several thousand dollars invested in the business. It would not be surprising to find that, if they cannot open this summer, T-hey never will be able to open because they cannot afford that kind of a loss. Mr. Turbak continued that they were not asking for anything that had not already been granted. He said he apologized for Mr. Svolopoulos opening his business until 8=00 p.m. He undoubtedly extended his hours to support himself and his family. This should not be held against him. It was suggested that Council might talk to George relative to cuttin~ ba~ on his hours. Mayor Erickson then spoke against the motion to deny. He said he would preIer to issue a temporary permit for six months. If the purchase of the superette is completed within three months, there should not be a problem. Mr. Quast spoke on behalf of the owners of Frosty Boy, saying that they should be given a chance. Councilmember Daly stated that, in his opinion, two months ago Council was presented with a questionable traffic and parking situation. The conditions of the conditional use permi% which he had voted for in January, have not been met. O~her business must meet conditions imposed. Frosty Boy was given a chance, but the agreement has been breached. The city manager clarified that the one condition for the conditional use permit has been provision of the parking easement. Councilmember Otten spoke on behalf of the petitioner saying it was unfortunate · .hata final agreement on par~ing was not available at this time. He said he was assuming that it was only on account of a pending sale that Mr. Light does ~ot hav~ the agreement. He said he favored a temporary occupancy.( ~¥~;.~ -~-~'~/ The Mayor spoke on behalf of the petitioners, noting that this wasa problem area, and that ice cream stores do not generally generate much traffic. He =ec~nunended that a temporary permit be issued for a six month period. Then it V~ be looked at at the end of that six mont~s. was then taken on the motion to deny. Voting in favor: Enck, Williamson, Daly Voting against: Erickson, Otten M~tion declared carried /temporary occ~pD~z, denied) 12. Motion bY Councilme~er Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson tO reconsider the request for a tem~qrary occuoancy permit for Frosty Boy J~-' Voting in favor: Erickson~ Daly., Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None ~D~i ~--)~--~ Motion declared carried ~-~ ~ 12. ~he Mayor co~mente~hat he had forwarded a letter from the owners of the.bowling alley and from George's Cafe to the Councilmembers. He said Mr. Wendt had contacted him relative to trying to solve the problem. Mr. Wend% advised Council that he had taken it upon himself to get letters from the owner of George'.s Cafe and from the bowling alley owners. The letter gives permission for the employees to park at the bowling alley. Also George Svolopoulos. had indicated that he changed the hours of the cafe from 3:00 p.m. to an 8:00 p.m. closing. Mr. Svolopoulos has also indicated that if there is a problem, he will go back to the 3:00 p.m. closing of the cafe or even close up entirely, if necessary. Mr. Wendt asked that this be made part of the record. Mayor Erickson stated that George Svolopoulos had commented to him that he could make more money on the lease to Frosty Boy than on the restaurant and that he would close the restaurant if necessary. Mayor Erickson confirmed that the Frosty Boy season would normally run from this time of the year un~il October. He suggested that a temporary permit be granted until the end of October with the understanding that all of the employees would park over at t~e bowling all-ey. By the ~nd of October, perhaps Mr. Quast will have purchased the dairy store. The operation could be monitored during the temporary occupancy period to see if there was any traffic or parking problems. Frosty Boy would be able to recoup part of their investment and the city would be able to look at the impact of the operation. He. then said he favored the issuance Of the temporary occupancy permit. Mr. ~'Tendt stated that, if there was a problem, George's Cafe would be closed. It was clarified that the original conditional use was contingent upon an easement for overflow traffic to park on the dairy store lot. Mr. Quast had given an ease- ment, but inasmuch as he is not the fee owner, the easement would only be good for as long as Mr. Quast operated the dairy store. The M~yor also stated that Mr. Quast had again assured him that he does plan to purchase the dairy store as soon as possible and will then give the permanent park- ing easement. The city attorney clarified that the city does have a copy of an easement frcm Mr. Quast which is good for as long as Mr. Quast operates the dairy store. This easement runs to George Svolopoulos. Mr. Quast does have a right to let George's traffic come over to the dairy store lot. Mr. Wendt said that he would llke to have it on record that, if a parking or traffic problem develops, George is the one who would have to make the move and that George has made this com~itment. It was noted that this commitment was to Mr. Wendt, not to the city. Councilmember Enck spoke in opposition, saying that if there were someway the driveway to 42nd could be closed and the street to the east used instead, the problem would be reduced. He said Council should look at the traffic, including pedestrian traffic. ~. Further discussion followed as to the zoning, children crossing the street, the chance of watching the situation if the temporary occupancy is granted, and the possibility of ever changing ingress and egress to the site.- Mr. Wendt said he agreed that there would be children crossing the street but that there would not be many cars coming to the store based on experience at the Spring Park store which is at least 75% walkup traffic. Councilme]~ber Enck said that he would be concerned with the walkup traffic, notin the large nu~oer of apartments to the north of 42nd. Further discussion followed concerning the trsffic now generated by the cafe and the dairy store. Mr. Wendt said that the Frosty Boy business was heavy on Saturday and Sunday. Upon inquiry, Mr Wendt said they planned to stsy open until. 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Wendt stated that Mr. Svolopoulos was in a position where the Frosty Boy must be allowed to open. He is willing to close his cafe to accomplish this. Councilme~aber Daly reviev~ed the history of the request for the Frosty Boy store, noting that the key itcm, as far as he is concerned, is that the cafe close at 3:00 p.m. so there is no conflict with the busier hours at the Frosty..Boy.~ Mr. Wendt said that. if the temporary occupancy permit is grantcd, he will see 12. the parking lot is striped before they open the door for business. Councilmember Daly questioned whether they would actually get more than 30 parking spaces. He commented on what had been stated for the record as opposed to what actually had been done. Mr. Wendt replied that he also had been led to believe that there was an easement from the fee o~l~er of the dairy store or he would not have invested in the ice cream store. Councilmember Daly said that he had moved for denial of the~occupancy permit at the last meeting because of the breach of the agreement for the conditional use permit as relates to the hours the cafe would be open. Further discussion followed with Mr. Wendt pointing out that he had not changed the cafe hours, and the Mayor noting that Mr. Svolopoulos has agreed to cut back on the hours. Councilmember Daly said that if Mr. Svolopou!os closed the ~afe at 3:00 o'clock as he had earlier stated, he would not object to the temporary occupancy. Question was raised as to the possibility of issuing a temporary occupancy permit for three months as opposed to through October. Comment was that the business would need a longer time to build up to the point where the traffic i~act could be properly evaluated. The Mayor again spoke in favor of issuing the ~emporary occupancy permit through October and said that Mr. Wendt can request Mr. S¥olopoulos to cut back the cafe hours. Upon inquiry, Mr. Wendt said that he had a $60,00'0 investment in the Frosty Boy store in equipment and remodeling. Motion by Councilmember Otten to aDDrove the temporary occupancy for Frosty Boy through November 13, 1981, subject to striding of the parkiqg .lots, employees parkin~ at the bowling alley lot and that the cafe cut back to a 3:00 p.m. closing. Second by Councilmember Williamson Councilmember Daly commented that Mr. Wendt must be aware that, if there is parking problem and Mr. Wendt does not have an easement to take care of it, Frosty Boy might be out of business. Further discussion followed as to what would happen if Mr. Wendt lost the right to park at the dairy store during the period of the temporary permit. Mr. Wendt said he felt that they could get permission from whomever owned the dairy store to park on the dairy store lot. Vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Otten, Williamson Motion declared carried 21. The city manager advised that a copy of z letter to George Svolopoulos from Stan Peterson's attorney (owner of the DEQ Superette at 7141 42nd Avenue) had been received. -'-The letter informs Mr. Svolopoulos th'at the Peterson ~roperty can no longer be used for parkin~ for the Frosty Boy operation. 21. Councilmember Daly asked for a CODY of this letter. 8. Upon Motion.by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Oaly that consideration of the request to extend ~b~_~qnd~_~iosal._us~_permit for the Frosty Boy ice. cream store be held over for the next meeting. (The petitioner was not present.) Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None. 15. Extension or,he cond]tfonal use permit t~r the Frosty Bo~ store at 7l'79 42nd Avenue North was con- altered by Council. The city manager advised that Frosty Boy was apparently closed and recommended that the best action to protect the city at this point, would be to deny an extension of the condi- tional use permit. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten denying extension of the conditional use permit for Frosty Boy (Planning Case No. 80-58). Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Motion declared carried. PLANNING CASE 82-5 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7179 42ND AVENUE NORTH - GEORGE SVOLOPOULOS, PETITIONER ~.Mr.Bob Wendt, owner of the Frosty Boy, represented Mr. Svolopoulos. He stated they now have a track record as far as volume at certain hours of the day. With the cafe closing in the summer months at 3:00 p.m., they feel that the parking does not create a probtem with their busy time, which is 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Co~issioner Gustafson asked about parking considerations, noting that previously they had looked for a place for overflow parking. They had not been able to arrange parking at the dairy store and he did not see where they had any overflow parking space. Mr. Wendt said this was correct. The only thing they had been able to arrange was for the employees to park at the bowling alley. He said they had been open from April until the first part of September. They had experienced no problems. There had always been adequate parking, since the volume of customers was in the evening hours when the cafe was closed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the~City Manager said there had been no traffic pro- blems that he was aware of. He added that there were two concerns, one was what the actual volume was, and whether the new operators of the cafe were in agreement with the closing of the cafe at=3.~0~0_~p~. He said ~t was also hxs understandlna that the operators of the cafe regu~red 15 spaces.''' Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Wendt that there was a szgned agreement w~n the new opera- tots of the cafe that they would close at 3:00 p.m. The new operator said there was no such agreement, if they have to close, they will. It was noted that the purchase agreement specified a 3:00 p.m. closing. In response to a question from the CommOn, Mr. Wendt said therewas no other option for extra parking. They had approached the apartment property to purchase some extra land but their land was needed for the apartment building, even though the owner had been willing to sell to them. He understood that the Superette had been sold to Tom Thumb but that it was presently vacant. Commissioner Gustafson asked if they had contacted the Vickers people? They had not. The City Manager said that the land at the rear of the station was now vacant. Mr. Wendt said this was worth pursuing. However, most of the employees are temporary and do not drive to work. Employees can park at the bowling alley. Commissioner Gustafson stated that parking was the real concern. He felt they should explore the park- ing at Vickers before they appeared before the City Council. He confirmed that Mr. Wendt understood that if staff determined at a later time that parking was a problem, he might be asked to close. Mr. Wendt said "yes", they had received approval in the same manner before. The Chairm~n commented that Commissioner Gustafson had raised some good points that had to be signed, sealed, and delivered before Planning Commission approval. He asked about the possibility of a table to allow them to contact Vickers and get a signed statement from them and the restaurant that they will close at 3:00 p.m. during the summer months. He asked if ~his seemed reasonable? Mr. Wendt said "no". Mr. Harvey Light stated that the ice cream store on Bass Lake Road was a very busy site and he had never seen more than 10 cars in that lot. He said he had never seen anyone park in front of the superette frc~n the Frosty Boy store. A citizen commented that he had never experienced any problem with parking at the Frosty Boy. He had been in and out of =here within five minutes. The present operator of George's stated that if there were only 20 spaces to park, George could only ac- count for five for the Frosty Boy. Mr. Svolopoulos stated that he had operated the restaurant last summer and the ice cream store had opened at 11:00 a.m. and he had seen only two or three people come for ice cream while the store was open. The business did not pick up until after 5:00 p.m., that's why they went broke, there was no business. The operator asked why he wanted to open again if there wasno business, that was silly? Mr. Svolopoulos replied it was building and he had to pay the rent. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 82-5 until 'the meeting of February 2, 1982. Commis- sioner Gulenchyn second.. Voting in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: ~neelock, Friedrich Motion carried. Mr. Wendt asked if he could proceed before the city Council before the Planning Co~aission met again? He would like to open the store in March.~ .... - The Chairman questioned what would be acomplished by this? He noted that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on February 2, 1982. The answer was "no", the Commission had the right to review as needed and make a recommendation before the petition went to the Council.~'-2 .-,!i.~-- ~_ ~ ~ ~F/ 4. PLANNING CASE 82-5 (CONTINUED FROM JkNUARY 5, 1982) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7-1-7~-42ND AVENUE NOR~6 - GEORGE SVOLOPOULOS, PETITIONER Mr. Bob Wendt and Mr. George Svolopoulos were present. Mr. Wendt distributed a letter from the present operators of George's Cafe to the Commissioners. The letter (attached) stated that the cafe would close at 3:00 p.m. during the months that Frosty Boy would be in operation to avoid any parking conflicts. Mr. Wendt stated they had contacted the Vickers Company in regard to using some of their surplus space at the station across the street and ~ad received a polite, but definite "no". Vickers intends to ex- pand their operation. Me added that with the cafe closed he did not feel there would be any parking problem. Commissioner Gustafson commented that his main concern, and he felt of the other Commissioners, was the on-site parking. He asked what other options there were, now that the Vickers station would not let them park~ Mr. Wendt said there were no other options, other than the cafe being closed during Frosty Boy's peak hours. From 3:00 p.m. until closing (approximately 11:00 p.m.) they would have exclusive use of the parking lot. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that there had been no complaints in regard to parking last summer when Frosty Boy was open. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the status of the dairy store, Mr. Svolo- poulos said no one knew anything, supposedly it had been sold to Tom Thumb. He added in response to another question; that the hours of operation of the Frosty Boy would probably be 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. He will perhaps open in March, depending on the weather. He will be closed four to five months a year. Discussion followed on the percentage of customers that might stay on the site to eat. Mr. Wendt said there was one table on the patio in front of the store, but no space for seating inside the store. They did not feel that very many people stayed on the site to eat their ice cream. Sales were conducted from the walk-up window. The Chairman stated, for the record, that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Guillet, present operators of the cafe, that they WOuld close the cafe at 3:00 p.m. during :he months that the Frosty Boy was open. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested for 7/~! ~t-90 42nd Avenue North, Case 82-5, subject to the fact that the Plannin~ Commission ~ave permission, until the time that the health license came uo for renewal again. At this time staff will roview the -~arking requirements on the site and bring the matter in front of the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil if there is a problem. Commissioner Edwards second. _~9~'~ ~-~-~ ~-~ 4. Voting in favor: Gul~-n~hyn, ~ar~o~,~ ~er~ ~st~f~-on, uunGersnaug, nGwarus Voting against: None Abstain: Friedrich ~ .' ~ Motion carried. ]. Pl~sning C_ose ~o. 82.:5, [eques_i~ from George Svolopoulos, for a conditional ~se pk~rmit to allow an ice sream store/cQnvenience fo__od e~tab~ishment in a B-_J_lone aJL_~]Z9__-~nd_Avenue_~lorth, was con- sidered by Council. Mr. Bob Wendt and George Svolopoulos were present. Mr. Bob Wendt stated that the Planning Co~mission had recommended approval of the request. He then p~esented a letter from George Svolopouios, dated January 5, 1982, providing information as to percentage of sales by time of day during the last business season. Hr. WenOc commented that Mr. Svolopoulos woulo De operating the Frosty Boy store this year. Mr. Svolopoulos confirmed that he was buying the business and that he currently owns the building. Councilmember Otten commented that the big issue last year was traffic. He said the traffic had not been a problem. He asked what would be done,'inasmuch as they are anticipating increased business, if there were a traffic problem. Mr. Wendt pointed out that George's Cafe was going to close at 3:00 p.m. which would alleviate any potential congestion in the evening hours. He said there was no additional parking to be had in the area. They had checked with Vicker's. Councilmember Otten then inquired as to the relation with the dairy store owners. Mr. Wendt said that they. did not know who was going into the dairy store. The store is new empty. They thought it was Tom Thumb. At this point they do not know whether parking would be available on the store site. The employees will be parking at the bowling alley lot. The cafe will close at 3:00 p.m. and will do so until the Frosty Boy closes in the fall. NO one appeared in regard to this planning case. ~lOtion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councl ~memDer DaVy .orantlng a conditional use permit to ~ermitthe operation of the Frosty Boy ice cream/convenience food .store at 7179 42nd Avenue North, ~ith the understanding that the city has a letter on file stating that the cafe wil~lo~--~-~) p.~-~hi~e'~h6'F~o~t~ B~ is ~-n- ~-~ration, this bei~-g be a signii~icant traffic or parking problem, the matter will come back to Council immediately. Fur- ther, the conditional use permit will be subject to review during annual licensing process. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None ,~..~C.~'~~--~ ~ ~'~' Motion decla_re_.d_ c~a. rried. 5. PLANNING CASE 83-17 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT FOR RE~AIL/RENTAL ACTIVITY AT 7109 42ND AVENUE NORTH - LENNY DE MANN, PETITIONER Mr. DeMann was present and gave his address as 41111 133rd Lane, Ham Lake, Minnesota. He said he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to operate a video sales/rental facility at the stated address. It is an existing business. He needs the Conditional Use Permit because the property is zoned B-3. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the hours were stated as being 11 a.m. until 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. He noted that he was leasing the space from George Svolopoulos. Mr. Svolopoulos was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson asked what hours George was running the cafe. It was stated that they were usually 6 a.m. until 3 p.m. Mr. DeMann said he believed that the cafe was closed by noon on Sunday. Commissioner Gustafson then referred to the parking and asked what volume of traffic Mr. DeMann ex- -. pected. Mr. DeMann said that he had done a simple count and come up with 124 cars a week. There are usually no more than 3-4 at a time -- 42% of the business is on Saturday or Sunday. Saturday is his biggest day, Sunday is second. The next busiest time is Friday, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. There is 900 square feet total space, with 350 square feet being used for retail sales. The remainder is used for small office and storage. In answer to a question the City Manager noted that there had been no complaints ~bout the parking situation in the past couple of months. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about new signs. Mr. DeMann said that a sign plan had been gl.yen to the Inspections Department and that he had seen a copy of the city Sign Ordinance. He had presented a scale drawing to the city staff. Commissioner Edwards noted that the city already had G~Q~ge,s hours of operation on record and he did not think it was necessary to ~et it again.~'C' ~'~ ~- ~ ~ 5. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending._93?proval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 83-17, subject to the hours of operation of George's Cafe being as indicated on l~revious petition, and that the hours of retail activities for this activity being 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Satur- day and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Fridrich, Bartos, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~ --.-r ~ . ~ Absent: Dunn, Gulenchyn, Cameron Motion carried. j2_n_d__?fe__n_u~.- ~_r_~, was considered by the Council. Mr. Leny DeMann said that he was asking for a conditional use permit to allow a video rental shop at 7109 42nd Avenue. The hours w~uld be Monday through Saturday, i1:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Sunday from no~n Unt%l 5:00 p.m. They would be handling rental tapes and rental machines. They do very little retail sales.. Hr. DeMann said that they were not aware that they needed a permit when they moved in. Upon inquiry, Mr. DeMann said that they do not intend to add any other products· Councilmember Daly conm~ented that the Planning Cor0mission had stipulated the hours of operation in their motion. Mr. DeMann stated that there was no problem with the hours stipulated by the Planning Co[mnission. Councilmember Williamson clarified that Mr. DeMann does not have any video games in the store. Mr. DeMann said he did not want any video games in his stores. No one appeared regarding this planning case. Councilmember Daly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 'J~E~IO~ · App_RO~IN~ONDIT%O?~_~JE__P_~B~__r~_F ~©=_~,%~!-_17..." The ~o.~.i_on for the adoption of the fore- going resolution was seconded by Councilmember Enck, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Williamson; and the follow- ing voted against the same: None; absent: Otten; whereupon the ~s_o_~9~%gn_was declared duly ~assed and adop~j and was sigued by the mayor which was attested by the city clerk- treasurer· (Page Extract Book). (This conditional use permit is subject to the hours of op~Ka~iQ~_o~_G..eP.rg~.!_S__CBf~ being as indicated on previous petition and that the retailfrental shop hours being as stipu- 9. PLANNING CASE 84-25 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT.TO CC~DITIO~JAL USE PEP. HIT ~ ALLCW CHANGE IN RESTAURANT OPEPJ%TI::G }{OURS AT 7181 42nd AVE~rdE NORTH - STRATOS ATSIDACOS,PETITIONER. Mr. Atsidacos- stated he operated George's Cafe on 42nd Avenue North and he would like permission to expand his Operating hours until 9:00 p.m. " _.,.'~, In answer to a question from Commi~si0~er Anderson as to why he wished the change in hours, ~r. Atsidacos said that he was barely making it right now, and hoped to expand the hours to give him more business. It is basically a breakfast and lunch establishment, with no liquor or wine. Commissioner Anderson comented on the fact that they were short of parking spaces and that at the present time ~he~e is often parking on the street. : .. The petitioner said that the employees parked on the side of the building toward the east -- two spaces. Chairman Ca~eron note~ that this property has been a tortuous piece of property for the city, but that recently there had been no particular traffic complaints. He did not know what the afternoon traffic ~uld do to the site, but he felt it was worth a try. If a problem was created, it would have to be changed. There was no one present in regard to this request. Noting he was concerned about parking during the winter months, especially from the video business, he suggested that staff review the parking situation in six months. Commissioner Anderson made a motion reco~ending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow extended hours at the restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue ~;orth, Case 84-25, with the stiuulaPion that stazf would review the ~arking situatlon at slx ~onth intervals. Comzalssloner ~riedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrioh, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. . ~ The City Manager reviewed for the commissioners, the recent developments with the Charles B. Edwards case, whic~ had been tabled by Planning Commission the previous month. He noted that because of the IRB request, and the need to adjust to new State regulations about the amount of money that could be requested~ in an rRB, they had been forced ~o act quickly - before SeptemDer 1, 1984. This was the reason for the~' special meeting of Planning Co~ission. He added that the request for a variance for the tower, had been withdrawn, and it was to be lowered. They had met all of the contingencies that the Planninq Commission had set and construction approval was the only approval needed. Mr. Kolander and Mr. Edwards had attended the meeting. City Council subsequently approved the request. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it had been an unfortunate set of circumstances. ~ Plannino Case 84-25. request for amendment to the conditional use permit at 7181 ~2nd Avenue. Stratos Atsidacos / . Mr. Atsidacos appeared before Council requesting the conditional use restricting the hours of operation of / ~-.,~ 'his restaurant, George's Cafe, be amended from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. He felt the expanded hours would help ~/~x"~ increase his business. . ,1 /l~'''1~.J sl'hh°ert:ra?°rursadi~i~de tphaarLint~ere°~iugi'r~r~enatg~ene°ie:nt°uh~hd) bweae: wta~avted?e°rge's Cafe would accept the stipulation of (~,~jLD/ $~/-~ Mr Atsidacos said he was aware of this but felt the additional hours would not cause an undue traffic roblems ;'l!~I\ The city manager advised Council that they have not had any significant problems with the site of late and staff is recommending reviewal on a six month or as complaints are received, basis. Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-25" Themotion forthe adoption ofthe foregoing.resoluti6n was seconded b~,, Councilmember Williamson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) (7181 42nd Avenue North, George's Cafe) MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING CURB CUT STANDARDS The Codes and Standards Committee met on March 25, 1988 to discuss curb cut standards. The current ordinance states: "No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four feet in width" (Section 4.036(4) (h) (vl). The City has found that in commercial and industrial areas, this width has created a difficulty in vehicular movement. As a result, staff has reviewed ordinances from other cities, as well as state aid manual recommendations. The Codes and Standards Committee recommends approval of the sample ordinance contained in the Planner's memorandum. northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Jeanine Dunn FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius DATE: 24 March 1988 RE: New Hope - Curb Cut Standards. FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.03 The City requested NAC to research curb cut width regulations in the City Ordinance to determine if a larger curb cut width would be more appropriate in commercial and industrial areas. Our investigation yielded the following information and the attached proposed ordinance amendment. Currently, the City Ordinance requires a maximum curb cut width of 24 feet. Exceptions to this are allowed by variance only. We have contacted other suburb communities to find out how they regulate curb cut widths. All of the cities contacted allow the City Engineer to determine, on a case by case basis, if a greater width is warranted. The comments of the contacted communities are as follows: Brooklyn Park: Curb cuts range from 12' ~t~ 40'. The actu'al footage is reviewed by the Engineering Department on a case by case basis. Criteria used to establish the appropriate curb cut is the amount of and type of traffic anticipated. Crystal: 12 - 22 foot for residential. 31 foot maximum allowed for commercial. Exceptions are allowed should the Engineering Department deem it necessary. Eagan: 30 - 36 foot width handled on a case by case basis for exact size. Eden Prairie: Curb cuts range from 24' - 30' This is handled on a case by case basis and subject to the F. ngineering Department's review and approval. Maple Grove: 24 - 36 foot range. Case by case basis subject to Engineering Department's review and approval. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 Jeanine Dunn 24 March 1988 Page Two Plymouth: 24 - 36 foot range. Strictly case by case depending on type of traffic. Subject to review and approval by. Engineering Department. The criteria for evaluating the appropriai~e curb cut width includes: · Type of land use · Amount of larger' vehicle traffic · High traffic areas · Type and width of street serving the property After reviewing the information provided in the phone survey, as well as information from the State Highway.Department, we would suggest the following' ordinance changes. cc: Steve Sondrall ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING AND SIGN CODE TO CURB CUT WIDTHS TO VARY BY PROPOSED USE.AND OTHER CRITERIA. THE CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4.036 (4) (A) (vi) "Curb Cut Maximum" of the New Hope city code is hereby amended to read as follows: (vi) Curb Cut Maximum Standards: No curb cut access shall exceed the following width dimensions at the property line: Residential 24 feet Commercial/Industrial 26 feet · All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the City's curb cut design standards. Exceptions to the maximum curb cut width, of up to 32 feet, can be obtained subject to review and recom- mendation of the 'City Engineer and approval of the City Council. Section 2. Section 4.022 (32a) Amendment to Definition. (32a) Curb Cut Width: Curb cut width will be measured at. the property line on a curb face to curb face basis. Section 3. 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). ; DRIVEWAY DIMENSIONS ,7:, ...... Minimum Driveway Width (W) 12' 12' Recommended Driveway Width ~V) 16' 16' 26' 26' Maximum Driveway Width t'W) 22' 22~ * * * * Radius of Curvature (Rl) -x~ 5' min. $' min. 5' min. 5' min. 10' min. 10' min. 15' max. 15' max. BO' max. BO' max. 40' max. Radius of Curvature {R2)*~ 5' min.' 5' rain, 5! min. 5' min. 5' min. 5' mia, --! 15' max. 15' max. 15' max. 15' max. 15' max. '15' max. " m Minimum Edge Clearance (E) ; 5' 5' 10' 10' Minimum Distance Between : Double Driveway~ (D) 20' 30' 20' 20' 30' . 30, Minimum Corner C Jearance [rom Major Slreet lC) BO' 60' :30' :30' 60' 60' I-' Minimum Corner Clearance from .Minor Street (C) 20' 60' 20' 20' 60' 60' * Driveway widths up to 50 [eet will be permitted only by special permission of the Commissioner of Transportadon These maximum widths are intended for driveways used nearly exclusively by tractor-trailer combinations. Required width is to be determined with vehicle wheel pzLh templates. *k For optional tangent apprb.ach see Standard Plate 9001 for details. NOTE: See Fig. F(1) 5-892.210. Feb. 25, 198.3 STATE AID MANUAL Fig. F(1) 5-892.210 NOTE: 1. See Minn. Hwy. Reg. No. 36 "Rules and Regulations Establishing Along the Trunk Highway System of the State of Minnesota" 2. See Fig. !:'(2) 5-892.210 ~ ~. Dashed line .... indicates optional t~ngent approach. See . . Stnndard Plate 900]. [or detai!s. " I Not to be used in curbed sections. 4. For curb return details, see . + ~ [ ~ ~Variable ~ C ~ ~ D PROFILE WITH CURB AND SIDEWALK ~/ A to B ~ Slope from gutter to meet sidewalk ( Max. diff. PROFILE IN CUT SECTION C Lo D = Variable distance D to E = ~8% max, for commercial driveways, 15% for others A to B = Same pitch as shoulder slope. B to C = -- 8% max.(Min, pitch same as shoulder slope}. ~ C C to D = 8% max, tot commercial driveways~ 15% for others. ] CurbA___ _~~ PROFILE IN FILL SECTION ~C A to B: Slope upward to a min. height equal to curb height. (Max. dirt. between dow~ard slope of highway and A to B = Same as shoulder slope, the upward slope o~ the driveway equal to 15%). B toC = 8% max. for commercial driveways, 15% for others. B toC =~8% for commercial driveways, 15y, for others . DESIGN OF DRIVEWAYS'