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)