Loading...
070588 Planning AGENDA PLANNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 P.M. PLANNING COM~4~ISSION 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 JULY 5, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 88-10 - Request for a Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 for a Restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue North, Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg, Petitioner 3.2 Case 88-18 Request for a Variance to Allow Expansion of a Non- conforming Structure at 3341 Flag Avenue North, John and Louise Young, Petitioners 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 7, 1988. 6.2 Review of city Council Minutes of May 23, 1988 and June 13, 1988, and Joint Meeting of City Council and Fire Services Strategic Planning Committee of May 24, 1988. 6.3 Review of HRA Minutes of May 23, 1988, and June 1, 1988. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-10 Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spathes for a Restaurant Location: 7181 42nd ~Avenue North Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business) Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg Date: July 5, 1988 CASE UPDATE City staff met with Mr. Larry Sandberg, Mr. Fung Kong, owner of the Grobe's property, ~and Mr. Scott Cooper, who represents Dr. Irving Herman, owner of the apartment complex. The site plan submitted, which indicates parking on the apartment site, was not acceptable to Dr. Herman or City staff. The attached letter summarizes Mr. Sandberg's requirements for approval of a conditional use permit for off-site parking. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 88- 10 be tabled until August 2, 1988. Attachments: Correspondence from Administrative Assistant (6-30-88) 4401 ~n Avenue Norm New H~e, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 June 30, 1988 Mr. Larry Sandberg 8041 Idaho Circle Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 Subject: PLANNING CASE 88-10 RE: 7181 42ND AVENUE NORTH Dear Mr. Sandberg: The purpose of this letter is to summarize our June 28, 1988 meeting. As we discussed in the meeting, it is necessary to apply for a conditional use permit to allow off-site parking pursuant to Section 4.036(12) of the New Hope Code. I have enclosed this section of the code which lists the criteria for approval of a permit. You should revise the plans per our discussion and submit eight sets of plans, an application, a proposed lease agreement between Dr. Irving Herman and Grobe's Cafe for use of the apartment complex property, and a letter from Dr. Herman indicating that the plans as prepared are acceptable. The city must receive this information by July 13, 1988 in order for it to appear on the August 2, 1988 Planning Commission agenda. In addition, you should send a letter to City Manager Dan Donahue requesting that the Planning Commission to table the case until August 2, 1988. This letter must be received by City staff no later than July 5, 1988. You are also reminded that until appropriate approvals have been obtained, the dining area in Grobe's Cafe should not be used. If you have questions, please contact me. Sincerely, M~jeannine Dunn Ad~nistrative Assistant MJD/lb cc: Scott Coooper Doug Sandstad, Building Official Fung Kong FamilyStyledCity ForFamilyLiving 4.036 (11) (a) (ii) - (12) (c) (ii) Night Time or Sunday Uses. Up to fifty percent of the off-street parking facilities required for any use specified under (iv) below as primary daytime uses may be supplied by the parking facilities provided by the following night-time or Sunday uses; auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars, restaurants or apartments. (iii) Schools, Auditorium and Church Uses. Up to eighty percent of the parking facilities required by this section for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or parochial school may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by uses specified under (iv) below as primarily daytime uses. (iv) Daytime Uses. For the purpose of this section the following uses are considered as primarily daytime uses: banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale and similar uses. (b) Additional Criteria for Joint Parking. In addition to the preceding requirements, the following conditions are required for joint parking usage: (i) Proximity. The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within three hundred feet of such parking facilities. (ii) Conflict in Hours. The applicant shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. (iii) Written Consent and Agreement. A legally binding instrument, executed by the parties concerned, for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to title of grantors or lessors, and form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the City Clerk and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City within 60 days after approval of the joint parking use by the City. (12) Off-Site Parking. (a) A Conditional Use. Any off-site parking which is used to meet the requirements of this Code shall be a conditional use as regulated by Section 4.20 of this Code and shall be subject to the conditions listed below. (b) Code Compliance. Off-site parking shall be developed and maintained in compliance with all requirements and standards / of this Code. (c) Access. Reasonable access from off-street parking facilities to the use being serviced shall be provided. 4-39 072684 City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-18 Request: Variance to Allow Expansion of a Non-conforming Structure Location: 3341 Flag Avenue North Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: John and Louise Young Date: July 5, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow expansion of a non-conforming property at 3341 Flag Avenue North. The petitioner proposes to build a sixteen (16) foot x twenty (20) foot family room on the rear of the house. Section 4.031(f), New Hope Code of Ordinances, states that, "Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-forming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or size or volume of the building." 2. This property is a corner lot which was affected by the 1979 code change ~which established the front yard as "that boundary abutting a public right-of-way having the least width". However, this property was non-conforming prior to this change in the code. The property was built with a rear yard setback of 32 feet, rather than the required 35 foot setback. 3. Recent request for expansion of corner lots brought to light many problems with the 1979 code change which established front yards on corner lots. In many instances, the legal front yard does not coincide with the front yard as developed by the property owner. The City Council directed staff to prepare a policy or ordinance for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Staff is in the process of preparing this information and anticipate Codes and Standards will meet in July to discuss this issue. We must apply the current code to this petitioners request which establishes Flag Circle as the legal front yard. 4. Notices were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the area. No public comment has been received to date. Planning Case 88-18 July 5, 1988 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The legal front yard is Flag Circle. The proposed expansion lies within the buildable yard and does not increase the non-conformity of the property. Attachment A describes the buildable yard. Attchment B is the petitioner's site plan. 2. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code establishes the criteria for approval of variances. In this case, the property has a non-conforming rear yard as a result of the 1979 code change. The City has established a precedent by allowing the expansion of non-conforming corner lots where there is no additional encroachment into the required setback areas. In this case, the hardship is caused by the 1979 code change as well as the provision in the code which allows no expansionof a non-conforming property. 3. Section 4.222 describes other criteria for approval for variance. Staff has noted that this addition is unlikely to impair light to the adjacent property owner because of the difference in elevation, nor will it create public safety problems or street congestion. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to allow an expansion of a non-conforming property at 3341 Flag Avenue North as proposed in Planning Case 88-18 because the variance criteria in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code have been met. Attachments: Attachment A - Buildable Yard Area (June 22, 1988) Attachment B - Petitioner's Sketch (June 7, 1988)