Loading...
1986 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 4401 Xylon Avenue North 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 85-33(Tabled from 12-3-85) Request for Construction Approval for Apartment Building - 8401 Bass Lake Road - Vernon Stuhr,. Petitioner. 4. Planninq Case 85-35 (Tabled from 12-3-85) Request for Con- ditional Use Permit to Allow Car Wash, Motor Fuel Station, Subordinate Sale of Household Items and Construction Appro- val - 9400 49th Avenue North - Tom Schtangen/Amoco Oil Company, Petitioners. 5. Planninq Case 86-1 -Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat (Good Neighbor Land Addition) - 8100 27th Avenue North Ambassador Care Center and Peter Peschenker, Petitioners. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. Report of Design and Review Committee 7. Report of Land Use Committee 8. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 9. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of 12-3-85. 10. Review of Council Minutes of 12-9-85 and 12-23-85. 11. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests, of Public Commissioners, and Staff. 12. Announcements. 13. Adjournment. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1985 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1985, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeing was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman. Roll Call Roll Call was taken: Present: Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards Absent: Bartos, ~riedrich, Anderson (a~rived 7:55 p.m.) Planning Case 85-26 Mr. Troje represented the petitioner. Mr. Parker was also Conditional Use Permit present. Mr. Troje stated they were requesting permission to Radio Tower replace the one tower. The new tower will be of an equal size, Item 3 but will have a stronger base. The cables will be underground until they reach the flood plain. They will then be mounted on poles -- six poles approximately ten feet apart. They need a stronger tower, to accommodate winds, etc. They will also replace the guy wires. He noted that letters had been supplied to city staff and commissioners from a registered engineer, stating he will certify that the tower and base would be secure. He will also design the anchors. They are Unable to tell what type of anchors and supports were originally installed. They are still waiting for more specific information from the transmission line people. The towers will be in the same spot, and will look the same. They will replace only the one tower which is located at the far east, closest to Winnetka. They are requesting the addition of a 65' tower, everything else will be the same. Chairman Cameron asked whether this construction will tear up the landscape. Mr. Troje answered that there would be some knocking over of the reeds, but that they intended to do the work during the coldest months to allow access into the flood plain, and they felt that the natural growth would come back in the spring. They do not feel the construction work will cause damage. Chairman Cameron confirmed with staff that the city will oversee the work to guarantee there is no damage. Discussion then followed between Mr. Troje and the commissioners regarding the security fences at the bottom of the towers. Considerable discussion regarding chain link, versus tight wood construction. Mr. Troje noted that they would do what the city wished, but his preference was for wood, with a security barrier on top, to avoid any chance of the chain link creating a transmisison problem. It was confirmed that it is their intention to secure the base of all of the towers, not just the new tower. The new fences will be much sturdier than what is existing. Mr. Parker asked it if would be possible for the Commission to approve the installation of a secure fence, either wood or chain link. Commissioner Edwards asked why they didn't just say they would install a wood fence. said this would be his Mr. Troje preference. Chairman Cameron stated that the City/Commission was concerned about the fences being secure and the least attractive to kids as possible. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 1 It was stated, for the record, that the fences at the base of the towers will be of a wooden security type, with additional security material on top. In answer to a question, Mr. Troje stated they did not feel the other towers needed maintenance at this time, however, they will be looked at. The engineers say that at this time only the one tower needs replacing. Commissioner Edwards asked about the time frame for constructing the new tower? Mr.Troje said he thought it would be 60 days. Commissioner Edwards asked if the petitioners had a design example of the layout for installing the cable both underground and above ground. The petitioner said they had not brought any pictures of how the poles would look in the flood plain. They will be basic galvanized metal posts that will only need occasional painting. The wire will be strung about ten feet above the ground. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested that the petitioners bring an example of the type of fencing to be used when they appear before the City Council. The City Manager noted that the city's Flood Plain Ordinance did speak to the issuing of the permit, and the standards to be followed in installation. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commission Gundershaug, second by Commission Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a radio tower in the Flood Plain, Planning Case 85-26. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a radio tower in the R-1 Zone, Planning Case 85-26. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-33 Mr. Donahue stated that the petitioner, Mr. Stuhr, had not Construction Approval submitted any revised plans to staff. He further noted that the for Apartments County had stated that they would not allow the curb cut into Item 4 the property from Bass Lake Road. In answer to a question from Commissioner Edwards he stated that once the petitioner develops the site, he will lose the existing curb cut on Bass Lake Road also. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 85-33 until the meeting of January 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-36 Mr. Tom Schlangen and Mr. Jim Phillipi of North Star Engineering Conditional Use Permit Consultants were present in regard to this request. Serlf Serve Car Wash Item 5 Mr. Phillipi stated that the site in question is north of 49th Avenue, and east of County Road ~18. It is a long and narrow site - 320 feet long, and varying in width from 40 feet to 135 feet. They will need to bring in some fill to bring the site up to grade. The property is zoned B-3, and they are requesting permission to build a gas station, initially with only four pumps, covered by a canopy, a small store connected to the station to sell convenience items, and a drive through car wash. The store space will be about 450 square feet. There will be three service bays at the north side. The building will present a uniform appearance and they do intend some landscaping to block off the wall. He then showed the commissioners illustrations of the elevations. The pump area will be screened from County Road ~18, and also from 49th Avenue. Parking for employees will be on the north side and will also be screened. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 2 There will be two parking spots for the convenience store, one in the front of the building and the second one at the rear of the car wash. In addition they will have eight parking spaces at the fuel pumps. They felt that the vast majority of the customers for the store will be people already there to purchase gasoline. They will be a small operation and do anticipate generating the kind of convenience store volume of a Super America. They do not anticipate that they would have any drive in customeres only for the convenience store. The car wash will run on a 60-90 second cycle. They do not anticipate any stacking problems at the car wash. Discussion then covered the car wash, the drive and stacking lanes, and how traffic will be directed to the car wash to avoid cars cutting across the pump lines. It was noted that the blacktop would need to be striped. The petitioner stated he felt there was room for five cars in the stacking lane. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, they noted that they had considered other options for the site, but that the shape of the site and the setbacks required prohibited a different layout. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that they were proposing a maximum development of the site and questioned whether it might not be too heavily developed. Rooftop equipment will be screened with solid cedar, painted to match the building. There will be a 20 foot strip, back 10 feet, that will add additional plantings. They will still meet the minimum parking requirements. The building will be constructed of concrete block, with 1" insulating board. There will be a brick exterior, the top three feet will be grey block, with a metal facia. Pictures were presented of another site, of similar design, to illustrate the proposed exterior finish. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how a gas transport would be able to maneuver on the site? It was noted that one set of pumps would be shut off, when a transport was delivering. The petitioner noted that it had been suggested that transport deliveries be limited to 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. They do plan to be open 24 hours a day. There will be no unpackaged food items sold in the store. Trucks would be able to exist on the north road, out to Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner plans to install only one island of pumps at this time. These will be covered by a canopy. Future additions of pumps would be dependent upon the volume of business. Commissioner Gundershaug then asked about the landscaping, indicating this had been a concern of the Design and Review Committee. The petitioner indicated they are proposing a rock mulch with additional berms to screen and block the view of the parking lot. They indicated they would not be adverse to eliminating the rock mulch, substituting the berms with a hedge row. The berms would be four feet high, and of a triangular shape. Landscaping will consist of evergreen, summit ash, and hedge materials. Commissioner Edwards expressed concern about the amount of blacktop proposed. It was indicated that the drive aisles to the east would be 24 feet wide, with the aisles in the tank area to be 37 feet wide. This would allow the transports to get to the tanks. The driveway to the north is 24 feet. In response to questions regarding blacktop p~oposed for the the southwest corner of the site, the petitioners noted they would prefer to install this now to provide turning movements for transports. The storage tanks will be located on the front of the property. This had been the advice of the Building Official. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 3 Commissioner Edwards stated he would like to see some consideration given to moving the location of the tanks a little farther down. He also felt some of the parking should be moved to other areas than the north and felt they would need more parking spaces up by the front door. The petitioner said the building was positioned as far north as the required setbacks would allow. He stated that he had considered cutting down the size of the building but it did not appear to be viable economically. He felt that three services bays were necessary. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt the petitioners were asking for too much on the small site, especially considering that the land was less than level. They will need about 5000 yards of material to make the land level. They also will have to bring water into the site from the other side. He plans to have two service employees in the store, three mechanics, plus a service person. There will be a second shift at night. Commissioner Anderson commented that it appeared to him that they were asking for three conditional use permits, plus a variance for a driveway of more than 24 feet in width. He felt this made the site extremely tight. He felt the petitioner could do a better job with the site than what was proposed. In response to questions, it was noted that there will be two restrooms in the service facility, and one in the convenience store. Discussion then covered the parking areas, how people would get into the northwest area for parking, and the possibility of replacing three vertical parking spaces with parallel spaces. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the parking for the convenience store being in front of the pumps as people run into the store. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the car wash would be open 24 hours a day and questioned whether the gasoline deliveries would not interfere with the car wash operation as far as traffic was concerned. Transports would block the entrance to the car wash. He also confirmed that the petitioner understood that the city would allow no outdoor sales area. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the size of the site and the maximum use as proposed. He was further concerned about the lack of parking space, close to the convenience store operation. He noted that the city had to be sure, before they allowed such development, that there would not be built-in conflicts. He felt that parking was lacking for the store. He further stated his concerns about the minimal landscaping proposed. The city also had to be concerned about the surrounding areas, some of which was residential. He felt more trees were necessary, felt they could use 20-30 more ash trees or a similar type of tree. He noted that they were removing six or eight 4-6" trees, and they were not going to replace them. The petitioner noted he was willing to increase the number of trees along the front -- he could add four or five trees, and also could add two parallel parking spaces by the pumps, about 85 feet from the store. Discussion followed about the need for the convenience store to attract customers. Their primary use is to sell gasoline. The future owner of the station stated he was looking at the service area only as a means of attracting customers. He did not anticipate ever wanting to expand the sales area. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 4 In answer to a question from Commissioner Lutts, the owner said that generally the people that would shop in the convenience store would be those people that drove in to purchase gas. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the petitioners had heard the concerns of the commission, and asked whether they thought there would be any benefit in the commission tabling this case, to allow them to go back to the drawing board. The owner said he felt this would allow him to present an updated landscape plan and try to provide some more parking spaces. He added, however, that he just did not think additional parking spaces were necessary for the convenience store. He was not looking for people who wanted to do their weekly shopping. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether given the trend in service stations today to increase the number of items for sale, there was not a possibility that they would be back soon requesting a larger store? The owner said that the marketing direction that Amoco was taking, he did not believe this would happen. This was a corporately mandated design, and he would not be seeking to increase his sales. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there was any way that the location of the gas pumps could be changed. He was concerned that the primary movement was across in front of the pumps and then out. The answer was that because of the setbacks, there was no way to shift the building toward the north. This would require a variance. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested making the building smaller. The owner stated this was not feasible. Commissioner Anderson noted that there were options for the petitioner at this time. One would be for the commission to act and send it forward to the Council, another would be for them to table the case until the January meeting to give more time for possible revisions. The petitioner indicated he would prefer a table. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron indicated that he didn't think the commission would be against granting a variance on setback if it could in turn solve some of the present problems with the proposal. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, to table Planning Case 85-36 until the meeting of January 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-38 Mr. John Cassiani represented Offices, America, Inc.. Me stated Conditional Use Permit he was at the meeting as a developer interested in re-habbing the Variance in Parking New Hope Mall. They wish to bring in a major anchor, U. S. Swim Item 6 and Fitness to lease 38,000 square feet in the center. They will build additional square footage to bring the mall space up to the 80,000 square foot range. They plan to take the existing leased space and move it to the perimeter and install glass store fronts with pull-up parking to most of the tenants space. They were appearing before the Commission to secure conceptual approval of their plans for this re-hah project. They realize that the Mall needs a shot in the arm, a~d they feel that U.S. Swim and Fitness will provide this. They feel the upgrading of the mall, with a new exterior finish would be good for the people in the mall and the community. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Tom Zumwold, architect for the project, used illustration boards to give an overview of the proposed project. The plan is to create additional space for tenants and also for U.S. Swim and Fitness at the north side of the existing mall. The perimeter of the mall will all be for leasing space, including any existing tenants who wish to remain. They feel with the new exterior the view from the intersection will be an attractive focal point. There will also be a connecting canopy. Mr. Cassiani said he had a meeting scheduled with the owner of the Winnetka Mall on Wednesday to discuss the possible connection of the malls. This is not in a finalized stage of discussion. The architect noted he had several meeetings with the owner of the Winnetka Mall to discuss the possibility of linking the two malls. He noted that there are also utility easements that would prohibit any future development from straddeling the division lines. They envisioned a visual connection at the very least, between the two malls. The intention is to convert to a strip center with bays 70 feet deep to the west and south. U.S. Swim and Fitness will occupy the north end, plus the proposed addition. They propose a metal canopy to bring out the face of the building, to also provide some shelter for customers. They will use face brick, and typical store front areas, with a uniform sign band. They propose painted concrete block for the north and back sides. Dennis Griswold then spoke to the landscaping. They are proposing 90 trees for the perimeter, including evergreens and junipers, with shrub massing to provide some screening to the back and also to add visual interest. The main entrance will have a row of canopy trees and as a focal point between the two buildings a double row of juniper along the sidewalk with shrubbery behind. They will work with the people from the Winnetka Mall if possible and there maybe some minor adjusting in landscape plans. They are trying to create a garden affect, using raised planters with locusts. Referring to the Design and Review meeting and the concern over parking, the architect stated that they had provided an alternative plan which incorporated the required parking. The change is that they shortened the length and increased the widths of the aisles to 64 feet. Copies of the revision were distributed to the commissioners and a rendering of the proposal was provided. Commissioner Gundershaug asked how much would be cut off the building with the changes. The answer was approximately 10,000 feet. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the changed proposal assumed that they would have cooperation from the people in the Winnetka Mall regarding the joint entrance. The architect stated that the parking proposed was within the required setbacks. Commission concensus was that perhaps a little more landscaping could be provided. In response to a question, it was noted that the shared parking with the Winnetka Mall would hopefully be discussed at the next day's meeting. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the commission was being asked only for Concept Approval, and that actual construction and all details would be back before the commission for review. Discussion then covered commission concerns, which included the need for a second loading dock, where trash would be collected and stored, the appearance of the west and south sides of the new addition and the need to attempt to tie the two buildings together. Also of concern was the view from 42nd Avenue driving east. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 6 The petitioner said they were looking at some greenery, and perhaps a walkway and perhaps using a different type of block, or glass on the back of the store fronts. He said they would be willing to put a nicer type of block on the back. There will be exterior lighting, and snow will be removed f~om the site. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about security between the two malls. He was also concerned about trucks coming in and out of the site and felt there needed to be some type of control, perhaps by signage. The architect noted that a service aisle would run all the way around the building. Alan Brixius from the Northwest Associated Consultants stated that the current parking plan met all requirements. He added that a joint parking plan between the two malls would be helpful for both of the malls. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioners were aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance and its restrictions. He further determined that a walkway was planned for around the entire building, that the parking lot would be curbed and striped, and that there will be lighting in the parking lot. They feel that generally, the existing rooftop equipment will be converted to smaller units. They have also considered the potential of raising the parapet. Chairman Cameron asked whether they had discussed their plans with K-Mart. Mr. Cassini said he had attempted to talk with them, but they had not as yet returned his calls. Commissioner Anderson stated that since the two driveways were very dependent upon the Winnetka Mall's cooperation, he was concerned about losing access between the two malls. Both of the malls would suffer from this lack of access. He asked if, should agreement be reached on shared access, how they intended to manage the relationship into perpetuity. Mr. Cassini said he intended to have documents drawn up by their attornies, that would be simple and concrete in writing, that would be filed along with the property, to be used by future owners also. Discussion then covered the driveway around the back side of the stores, and the need for fire and emergency vehicles to be able to gain access, as well as the traffic pattern between the New Hope Mall and K-Mart. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, the architect stated that there would be enclosed trash storage. Commissioner Anderson expressed 'concern about the proposed extension toward ~42nd Avenue. The architect responded that they were saddled with 60,000 square feet of building that doesn't work today. Mrs. Neff, operator of the Paper Outlet in the New Hope Mall, stated she had been there for three years and expressed concern that she had just moved next door to her original site because she had been assured by Mr. Kelly that she would not be dumped out of the center. She loves her present location and the people and the customers. She was concerned about the purchase of the center, when it would be effective and what would happen to the existing tenants. Chairman Cameron stated he was not sure that these questions and concerns were appropriate at the Commission meeting. Mr. Cassini said he had meetings set up with present tenants, to see if they wished to remain. He stated that the tenants were not going to be bulldozed into decisions. No one would be forced out -- tenants would have plenty of notice regarding any changes. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 7 Chairman Cameron indicated he liked the proposal very much. Commissioner Edwards agreed with this. Chairman Cameron asked whether the petitioner had approached the owners of the Sinclair station. The city manager stated that the city HRA was on record as wanting to try to incorporate the station with any redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cassini said they were going to try to approach them. The city manager noted that the proposed text change must be approved before concept approval could be given. This would include the use in the B-4 zone, as a conditional use permit. Alan Brixius said the commission could give concept approval subject to a text amendment. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending that staff prepare an amendment to the text to allow this use as a Conditional Use Permit in the B-4 Zone. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending concept approval of Planning Case 85-38. Ail present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to an adequate agreement between the Winnetka Mall and the New Hope Mall regarding access, to be reviewed by the city attorney. Voting in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Edwards. Abstain: Gundershaug. Public Hearing on The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the 42nd 42nd Avenue Avenue Improverment Study and Recommendations on Proposed Improvement Study Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Item 7 Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants represented the city. He stated that the 42nd Avenue Study had evolved from the planning process adopted by the city. Things considered were the Comprehensive Plan as previously adopted, the plan for the City Core, and concerns about commercial growth, the 42nd Avenue area, the desired land use of the area, and the problems of excessive curb cuts on 42nd Avenue and traffic/accident patterns. Issues of concern are traffic circulation, the high speeds in the area, and the high number of accidents. New Hope has limited commercial development, and the present strip development has added to the lack of continuity. There is a lack of traffic control also because of the lack of controlled access east of the railroad tracks. He felt that the high traffic volume and accident rate might support a petitioner for a semaphore. There also should be a realignment of Nevada Avenue. They had also studied the land use in the area and the lack of compatibility of the landscaping. They had come up with the following goals. 1. Safer access on to 42nd Avenue 2. Need for harmony of land uses. 3. More positive emphasis of the New Hope Center area. 4. Need to provide for a cooperative agreement between the city and the owners of the businesses in the area. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 8 They propose that west of the tracks the curb cuts should be combined, and left turn lanes provided. On the east side of the railroad tracks they propose to eliminate the small commercial areas, and eventually push for overall high density housing development in the area. Re-alignment of Nevada Avenue was a high priority at this time. This includes redevelopment of three sites, bringing the driveways north of the intersection to direct traffic to Nevada, eliminate some of the curb cuts in the area. He stated that actual implementation is right now, up in the air. This is because of pending legislation at the Federal Level which may discourage any redevelopment projects at this time. They will have to wait until the first of the year. The means of implementation would be through tax increment financing bonds. The first phase would deal with the north side of 42nd Avenue including the access to the print shop and Oregon Estates. Randy Rosengren of the Sunshine Factory asked how much land would be required to expand the right-of-way. It was noted that right now there is 60 feet and they would need at least 80 feet. Seven feet would probably come from the north side and 17 feet from the south. They would like to create some type of positive image for downtown New Hope, how this was to be achieved, would determine how much right of way would be necessary. Ann Liebenstein of Northwest Associated Consultants said they had tried to align the development with the businesses to the west. More extensive engineering studies are required to determine exactly what is required. Commissioner Anderson asked how the right of way would be acquired? Mr. Brixius said first they would have to identify exactly what was needed, then they would try to negotiate with the property owners, and if this did not prove effective, the city could go to condemnation. Ms. Liebenstein said that because it was a county road, the county would have to agree to changes, and that the costs would be split 50/50 between the county and the city. In answer to a question from the owner of Metro Forte, Mr. Brixius said that nothing is proposed at this time to affect the access road to that property. He added that long term development time frame could be 5-20 years, depending upon legislation enacted during the next month. He re-emphasized that this was basically a concept plan. The time table would start, when a developer became interested, and the city would be trying to cooperate with the developer. Ken Johnson, of Hardees restaurants asked about his area. Mr. Brixius stated that at this time they were suggesting some additional landscaping along Winnetka on 42nd Avenue, but that they are proposing no change in land use, or change in access at this time. A citizen expressed concern about the northwest corner of Nevada and 42nd, and the many rumors that were circulating about this potential development. Mr. Brixius stated they hoped to coordinate the properties, the commercial uses in the R-0 are not being proposed for change at this time. Discussion then covered the restricting of access to 42nd Avenue and the fact that both the city and the County see this as a problem, the excess curb cuts, etc. There are too many traffic movements in an uncontrolled area. There is also a problem with sight lines in the area of the railroad tracks. In response to questions the City Manager noted that the present discussion was the official public hearing, that the commission would act, and recommend to the City Council. New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 9 The Chairman noted that one of the purposes of the public hearing was to gain citizen input. He asked whether anyone had any serious reservations or concerns, doubts about this proposal, and suggested that this was the time for them to speak up. A citizen asked what type of development was proposed for the area east of the railroad tracks. Mr. Brixius said they were proposing reducing commercial development and going to a high density residential. They would encourage developers to come in to do this. Following further discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that the city should proceed with these proposals. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the underpass, Mr. Brixius said that the railroad had no plans to change the configuration. The city manager stated that the tracks presently have heavier use than previously. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards stating that inasmuch as the concensus of the Commission was in favor of the 42nd Avenue Report and its recommendations, the report should be accepted by the City Council. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by-Commissioner Edwards, recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended as recommended in the 42nd Avenue Report. All present voted in favor. Design & Review Design and Review had met once in November. Item 8 Codes & Standards There was no report from Codes and Standards. Item 9 Land Use Committee There was no report from Land Use Committee. Item 10 Approval of Minutes The Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, were accepted as November 5, 1985 printed. Item 11 Review of Council The Council minutes of November 12, and 25, were reviewed. Minutes Item 12 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, y~ce ~edde~ker~~-~-~ New Hope Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 10 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved City Council Minutes December 9, 1985 Regular Meeting 934 City Hall, 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in regular session. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Edward Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, to OCTOBER 23, 1985 & approve the Council minutes of October 23, 1985, and November 25, NOVEMBER 25, 1985 1985, as presented. Item 4 Voted in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten Voted against: None Abstain: Williamson POLICE CANINE Mayor Erickson invited Officer Mitchell of the New Hope Police DEMONSTRATION Department to introduce his new partner to the Council and the audience. Officer Mitchell introduced the police dog, Joe, and stated that the dog has been trained for obedience (both hand and voice command) tracking, open field searches, building searches, article searches, and police officer protection. He stated Joe will not attack unless someone were to attack him or the officer. He added that Joe has been trained to attack but to make only bite the one on arm and and then to hang on. Officer Mitchell and Joe demonstrated the command training to those present. Mayor Erickson thanked Officer Mitchell and Joe for their presentation and commented that the program was prompted by the incident when the Robbinsdale police officer was killed last year. CONSENT BUSINESS The mayor introduced for consideration the Consent Agenda items as Item 6 listed: The city manager, Dan Donahue, requested that Item 6.11, Physical Fitness Evaluations for Emergency Service Employees, be added to the consent agenda for consideration. BUSINESS LICENSES Approval of 1986 General Business Licenses as shown on the attached General - Item 6.lA list. Beer - On-Sale Approval of 1986 On-Sale and Off-Sale Beer Licenses as shown on the & Off-Sale - Item 6.lB attached list subject to fulfillment of insurance requirements. CLAIMS Approval of Claims through December 9, 1985, as listed on Check Item 6.2 Disbursement Report 20-85. BIDS CDBG - YEAR X - Ratify Bids from Asleson Construction for $5,605 and Willard Hoff for 555 - Item 6.4 $1,675 for CDBG - Year X - 555. BIDS CDBG - YEAR X - Approval of Bid from Brovold Larson for CDBG - Year X - 555 Home 555 - Item 6.5 Rehabilitation Program - $8,247.75. BIDS CDBG - YEAR X - Approval of Bid from Quality Contracting for CDBG - Year X - 555 Home 555 - Item 6.6 Rehabilitation Program - $2,275.00. SPECIFICATIONS AND Approval of Specifications and Authorization for Bids on (2) 1986 AUTHORIZATION FOR BIDS 3/4-Ton Pickups; (1) 1986 Animal Warden Van; (2) 1986 Cab and Chassis; ON 1986 VEHICLES and (1) 1986 One-Ton Van. Item 6.7 New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 1 MEADOW LAKE HOCKEY Approval of Bid from Crown Fencing for $1,292.00 - Meadow Lake Hockey RINK FENCING BID Rink. Item 6.8 PURCHASE OF 1986 Approval of Bid and Authorization to Purchase Three 1986 Police POLICE VEHICLES Vehicles from Barnett Chrysler/Plymouth - $34,917.00. Item 6.9 RESOLUTION NO. 85-120 Councilmember Daly introduced the following resolution and moved its ACCESS TO SAFETY adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX." The DEPOSIT BOX motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Item 6.10 Councilmember Otten, 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; absent: 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) PHYSICAL FITNESS Approval of Physical Fitness Evaluations for Emergency Service EVALUATIONS Employees. Item 6.11 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the addition of Item 6.11. All present voted in favor. PUBLIC HEARING The mayor opened the public hearing on consideration of application CENTER LIQUORS for renewal of an Off-Sale Liquor License to allow the sale LICENSE RENEWAL of intoxicating liquor at Center Liquors, 4215 Winnetka Avenue North. Item 7.1 Mayor Erickson stated that there have been no problems in the last year at Center Liquors. City manager, Dan Donahue, confirmed the mayor's statement and added that the license holders have been requested to be present to answer any questions of the Council. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve the renewal of an Off-Sale Liquor License to sell intoxicating liquor for Center Liquors, 4215 Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Erickson opened the public hearing on consideration of STAR LIQUORS application for renewal of an Off-Sale Liquor License to allow the LICENSE RENEWAL sale of intoxicating liquor at Star Liquors, 4455 Winnetka Avenue Item 7.2 North. Councilmember Enck stated that he has noticed an increase in the' number of cars parked in the handicap parking stalls in front of the video store and the liquor store and possibly the city should talk to the store owners so that their customers use the parking spaces rather than the handicap stalls in front of the stores. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve the renewal of an Off-Sale Liquor License to sell intoxicating liquor for star Liquors, 4455 Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. PUBLIC HEARING The mayor next opened the public hearing for consideration of renewal NEW HOPE BOWL of an On-Sale Liquor license and a license for Sunday Liquor Sales for LICENSE RENEWAL the New Hope Bowl, 7107 42nd Avenue North. Item 7.3 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve the renewal of an On-Sale Liquor License and a license for Sunday Liquor Sales for the New Hope Bowl, 7107 42nd Avenue North. All present voted in favor. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Erickson opened the public hearing for consideration of renewal PARO'S PUB of an On-Sale Tavern License to sell intoxicating liquor and an LICENSE RENEWAL Off-Sale Liquor License for Paro's Pub, 7180 42nd Avenue North. Item 7.4 Councilmember Enck asked the applicant for Paro's Pub if the tax problem with the State had been cleared. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Greg Meyers responded that it had and that the City should have received notification. The city manager confirmed that the tax clearance certificate had been received from the State. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve the renewal of an On-Sale Tavern License to sell intoxicating liquor and an Off-Sale Liquor License for Paro's Pub, 7180 42nd Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Councilmember Williamson asked Mr. Meyers if he had plans to encourage the sale of non-alcoholic beverages in his establishment and if he was aware of TAM (Techniques of Alcohol Management). Councilmember Otten questioned Mr. Meyers on his policy regarding two-for-one promotions. Mr. Meyers replied that as a means of getting a response to his advertising, he offers a two-for-one coupon but it limits the patron to one coupon per visit. Councilmember Williamson stated that the police report for the past year indicates that most of the incidents at Paro's are DWI's and include statements that "the patron was extremely intoxicated" which implies being over the legal limit. She encouraged Mr. Meyers to work on reducing incidents at his establishment. PUBLIC HEARING The mayor opened the public hearing for consideration of renewal of an SUNSHINE FACTORY On-Sale, Restaurant Liquor License and a license for Sunday Liquor LICENSE RENEWAL Sales for the Sunshine Factory, 7600 42nd Avenue North. Item 7.5 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve the renewal of an On-Sale, Restaurant Liquor License and a license for Sunday Liquor Sales for the Sunshine Factory, 7600 42nd Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Councilmember Williamson stated according to the police report 16 out of the 27 incidents at the Sunshine Factory occurred during November, December and January of the past year which indicates that is a time of the year when the management and employees should be more aware of patrons' consumption. Mr. Rosengren from the Sunshine Factory stated that is the time of year when there are a number of holidays, students are on break and the weather contributes to the increase of people at the Sunshine Factory. Councilmember Williamson also asked Mr. Rosengren if he was aware of TAM and if the Sunshine Factory uses it. Mr. Rosengren commented that the Sunshine Factory has an alcohol awareness program which is administered by the National Restaurant Association and the Licensed Beverage Association. He added that he has heard of TAM. Councilmember Williamson asked if the Sunshine Factory had a happy hour. Mr. Rosengren stated that he was representing Paul Svensson and was not fully aware of the operations at the Sunshine Factory, but did believe that there is a happy hour where drinks are discounted including non-alcoholic but they don't offer two-for-one. Mr. Rosengren added that everyone has to be aware of the problems that are associated with alcohol use but the Sunshine Factory's business is to sell that product, which they are licensed to do. Mr. Rosengren continued by stating that it is very difficult to be 100 percent accurate in assessing the condition of an individual. PLANNING CASE 85-25 Mayor Erickson next introduced for consideration Planning Case 85-25 SANDPIPER COVE HOME- submitted by Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association and the Citizens OWNERS ASSOCIATION State Bank requesting preliminary plat, amendment to PUD, rezoning R-3 Item 8.1 to R-4, and construction approval at 4101 Boone Avenue North. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Jim Hill of James R. Hill Associates, consultant for the developer and petitioner, was recognized by the mayor. Mr. Hill stated that over the last two meetings, Council has reviewed the plans that were submitted and that Alternate Plan B was recommended for approval. He added that Alternate Plan B reduced the parking and paved areas on the northeast corner of Rockford Road. He stated that the building was not moved because of the sanitary sewer line. The landscaping was increased because of the reduction in pavement area. Mr. Hill stated that Alternate Plan B is acceptable to the petitioner; it provides for less pavement allowing additional landscaping; and meets the concerns of both the Planning Commission and Council. Councilmember Enck asked for clarifications on the renderings given to Council as to which was Plan B. City manager, Dan Donahue, presented the Option B, which the staff, Planning Commission and Design and Review have recommended as the best alternative and shows the landscaping. Mayor Erickson asked if it was recommended that Option B be adopted. Mr. Donahue responded that Option B was the plan presented to Council at its last meeting and recommended for approval; however, Council requested a landscaping and berming plan be presented. He added that the Design and Review subcommittee met at Council's request to review the landscaping plan and Option B and its report confirms the recommendation of Plan B. Councilmember Enck asked if the driveway entrance is to be moved to the south end of the building. Mayor Erickson stated that staff is recommending Council approve Plan B with Plan A driveway approach. Councilmember Williamson questioned the width of the driveway entrance. Mr. Donahue stated that it was changed from 24 feet to 30 feet per Council's request to accommodate the required turning radius for large vehicles. Councilmember Enck asked what were the results of the Design and Review meeting in regards to position of the driveway and width of the driveway access on Boone Avenue. Mr. Jim Klungness of the Minnesota Financial Corporation stated that the subcommittee approved the original plan with the additional landscaping and the pathway going up along the north. Councilmember Otten stated that it was his understanding from the last meeting that it was the consensus of Council that the ponding area should be manicured but apparently there has been a change of plan in that regard. Mr. Hill stated small saplings are. growing in the ponding area and that the Homeowners Association has taken a position that they would like to leave as much natural vegetation between the new building and the townhouse units. Mr. Klungness stated that at the last meeting it was stated that the Homeowners Association would haue to agree to the hand culturing of the ponding area. Mayor Erickson questioned who was responsible for maintaining the pond. Mark Hanson, the city's consulting engineer, stated that it isn't part of the storm sewer system so maintenance is up to the Association, unless Council had a desire to excavate the low area and define a pond and retain an easement around it. Councilmember Otten stated that he thought the developer was going to talk to the Homeowners Association and work something out regarding the maintenance of the ponding area. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 4 The city manager Stated ~hat the PUD could stipulate that the ponding area be maintained. The city attorney, Bill Corrick, stated that it would be a reasonable prequisite of the approval of the PUD to stipulate that they create a viable Homeowners Association which incorporates both the prior owners and the new owners because they want to divide it. He added that if approval is given, the approval could be conditional to a joint homeowners association with a legally described area so that an attractive pond whether it is natural or manicured would be the property owners decision but the city has the legal right with the PUD to require the changes and the concepts be in accordance with the Council's position. Councilmember Otten stated that he would like to hear from the Homeowners Association. Mr. Klungness stated that the area in discussion isn't a pond, it's a ponding arga, and the PUD could establish a maintenance agreement. Mr. Corrick responded that the city would not want to be involved in the maintenance other than seeing that the standards are maintained. Connie Bethke, President of the Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association, was recognized by Mayor Erickson and stated that it was the plans of the Homeowners Association to leave the ponding area as natural as possible and they are willing to maintain the area. Mayor Erickson agreed that it should be heft natural since it is a ponding area rather than a pond with flowing water. Councilmember Williamson stated she also agreed it should be left natural. Councilmember Otten expressed his concern that there be an agreement between the two parties to keep the area maintained. Councilmember Enck state feels the ponding should be he, too, area left natural. Mr. Donahue stated that the staff would like to publish the ordinance on the rezoning afte~ the building permit is issued. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Witliamson, to approve the rezoning from R-3 to R-4 as requested in Planning Case 85-25 submitted by the Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association and the Citizens State Bank at 4101 Boone Avenue North. All present voted in favor. ?~OTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Enck, to approve the amendment to the PUD to include construction approval of Plan B with the 30 foot driveway in Plan A and positioning of the driveway at the south end of the building as requested in Planning Case 85-25 submitted by the Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association and the Citizens State Bank at 4101 Boone Avenue North. All present voted in favor. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve the Sandpiper Cove preliminary plat as requested in Planning Case 85-25 submitted by the Sandpiper Cove Homeowners Association and the Citizens State Bank at 4101 Boone Avenue North. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 85-26 Next introduced by Mayor Erickson for consideration was Planning Case RADIO TOWE~. IN FLOOD 85-26 requesting a conditional use permit to allow a radio tower in PLAIN - Item 8.2 the flood plain, public regulated communications in an R-1 zone and a radio tower height of more than 20 feet above the roof at 7980 36th Avenue North submitted by petitioners John Parker and A1Tedesco. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 5 Mr. John Parker from Parker Communications was recognized by the mayor. Mr. Parker stated he plans to rebuild one of the three towers and that the new tower will not be taller but will have a slight width increase. The main reason for the increase is to support a 100 foot pole on the top for an FM antenna. He added that the tower is being rebuilt to assure that it is sufficiently stable to hold the additional weight and that all the transmission lines will be redone. The transmitter will be moved to the new building behind Tom Thumb. Mr. Mike Troje, the engineer for Parker Communications, was recognized by the mayor and stated that the FM antenna will be strapped to the new tower and extend approximately 2-1/2 to 3 feet above the tower. Councilmember Daly asked if the new tower and antenna would cause interference in the neighborhood. Mr. Parker replied that the tower should not cause problems but they would be willing to assist anyone with problems. The problem more than likely would be that something isn't grounded. Councilmember Williamson questioned the fencing proposed. Mr. Parker stated they will be replacing the fences at the base of the towers and they will be made of wood. Councilmember Williamson questioned the use of a wood fence and whether it would rot with all of the water. Mr. Parker stated that a metal fence can throw signals off and presently the fences on the site are wood and they have been there approximately 20 years. Mr. Troje stated that the wood used for the fencing would be treated and that the current fences are too short and do not provide security. The proposed eight foot high fences will have barbed-wire on the top for security. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Enck, to approve public regulated communications and reconstruction in the R-1 zone and a radio tower height of more than 20 feet above the roof as requested in Planning Case 85-26 submitted by petitioners John Parker and A1 Tedesco at 7980 36th Avenue North (M&B Section 18). All present voted in favor. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Williamson, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve reconstruction of a radio tower in a flood plain with the condition that the petitioner follow the flood plain ordinance and that all standards of the CUP are met for construction of the radio. tower in the flood plain zone as requested in Planning Case 85-26 submitted by John Parker and A1 Tedesco at 7980 36th Avenue North (M&B Section 18). All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 85-38 Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly OFFICES AMERICA, INC. requesting an amendment to the PUD, conditional use permit and a Item 8.3 variance in parking at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North was introduced by the mayor for consideration. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 6 Mr. John Cassiani was recognized by Mayor Erickson who stated he is the developer for the project and is requesting concept approval on the redevelopment of the New Hope Mall. He further stated that they are proposing an addition to both the north and south end of the existing mall for a total footage of 80,000 square feet. Mr. Cassiani continued by Stating that the entire facility would be gutted and the main tenant would be U.S. Swim and Fitness and there would be retail space in the perimeter. He stated that construction plans include a service corridor in the back of the bays for deliveries and could be a second exit. The front of the facility would be glass with an awning along the entire outside; the exterior will be brick. Mr. Cassiani stated that they have met with all current tenants and are pursuing new tenants. He added that plans include a quality restaurant and they plan to purchase by March 1 with construction starting in April and completion in October of 1986. He continued by stating that the original request was for a parking variance but is not needed as they are five spaces over the requirement. He explained that the plan is to bring in a common drive between the two malls and then close off the drive that presently runs through. Mr. Cassiani then stated that he and the owner of the Winnetka Mall are in negotiations Councilmember Williamson expressed concern regarding the Winnetka businesses having an entrance in the back. Councilmember Enck asked if the driveway to K-Mart would remain as is. Mayor Erickson added that the addition to the New Hope Mall would block off the entrance to the K-Mart driveway. Councilmember Enck then questioned Mr. Cassiani if their plans included the purchase of the service station on the corner of 42nd Avenue and Winnetka. Mr. Cassiani stated that the plans for purchase do not include the gas station. Councitmember Williamson stated that she was concerned with the driveway access to K-Mart and would like the driveway eliminated. Mr. Cassiani replied that the proposed service lane behind the facility would decrease the use of the driveway. Councilmember Enck asked if there would be enhancement to the driveway on the east. Mr. Cassiani replied that their plans align the drive lanes allowing for a 15 foot setback for landscaping and access to the gas station will be changed. Councilmember Enck asked Mr. Cassiani where he stood on the purchase of the New Hope Mall. Mr. Cassiani replied that the property is under option and the close date is anticipated to be mid-February to March 1 th allow time to get initial approvals, appraisals and to get the ~oan package and financing together. He added that everything is moving along well and he sees no problem in accomplishing it in that time frame. Councilmember Enck asked why they aren't proposing to enclose the store front walkway in glass. Mr. Cassiani stated that the awning which will be either plastic or metal and is an aesthetic improvement as now there is tile on the upper portion of the building. He continued by stating that the awning would cover the tile and would give protection from rain and snow. The plans are to have the signs on the side of the awning. The discussion continued with the City Council questioning the developer on specific details. Councilmember Williamson expressed concern regarding snow build up on the awnings. Councilmember Otten asked if the awning were permanent construction. It was stated that the awning would be either of metal or plastic material and would be permanently affixed to the building. Councilmember Daly asked if there would be a need for a second story. Mr. Cassiani stated that there were no plans for a second story and did not foresee any need in the future. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 7 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve PUD amendment as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by~ Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North (New Hope Shopping Center Section 18; PID 18-118-21 11 0002) contingent on the sale of the property to Offices America, Inc. All present voted in favor. The city manager stated that a text amendment is necessary to allow this use in a B-4 and the Planning Commission has recommended it be a conditional use permit. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve a conditional use permit to include the use in the B-4 zone as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North (New Hope Shopping Center Section 18; PID 18-118-21 11 0002). All present voted in favor. Mr. Donahue stated that also requested under Planning Case 85-38 is preliminary plat to combine the Heise lot with the larger lot. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve preliminary plat as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 84-17 Mayor Erickson introduced the next Planning Case 84-17 submitted by FRANK'S NURSERY Frank's Nursery requesting landscape plan approval for 5620 Winnetka Item 8.4 Avenue North for consideration. Mr. Bill Velch from Frank's Nursery was recognized by the mayor and stated this was the second time he has presented the landscape plan to Council for approval. He stated there apparently has been some misunderstanding since the building official had not received the plans. Mr. Velch continued his presentation by stating that last November (1984) Council had questioned him regarding the number of parking stalls and also requested additional plantings en the seuth side. He stated that this is not possible due to the space limitations. Councilmember Enck asked if a vine had been suggested for the fence. Mr. Velch stated that there was no place to plant as the area is blacktopped and the application presently requests a change in the north alcove. He explained that he would like this eliminated since it serves no purpose. Councilmember Daly commented that during sales and holiday seasons' there appears to be a need for additional parking. Mr. Velch stated he sees no problem with additional parking as it would eliminate sod and plantings and this could be a consideration. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve landscaping plan as requested in'Planning Case 84-17 submitted by Frank's Nursery at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North. Councilmember Enck stated that he would like the planning case ~eferred to staff and possibly Design and Review before giving approval. Mr. Velch commented that this is what happened last year and in order to assure that they will have their plantings next spring approval is needed immediately. The city manager read the letter sent to Mr. Velch dated November 28, 1984, addressed to Frank's Nursery at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North. Mr. Velch stated that for the record his address is 794~ Penn Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431, and that he did not receive the letter sent last November. Councilmember Daly stated that he feels Mr. Velch should be given approval because of the misunderstanding. He further stated it is not reasonable to delay approval. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 8 MOTION Councilmember Enc~ m~ved that Planning case 84-17 be tabled until no later than the first Council meeting in January of 1986. The motion died due to lack of a second. The mayor called for vote on the prior motion for approval of the landscape plan for Frank's Nursery. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve the landscaping plan as requested in Planning Case 84-17 submitted by Frank's Nursery at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North. Voted in favor: Erickson, Daly, Otten, Williamson Voted against: Enck Abstain: None PLANNING CASE 85-39 Mayor Erickson introduced Planning Case 85-39 submitted by S. R. S. R. HARRIS Harris Industries, Inc. requesting approval of a comprehensive sign INDUSTRIES, INC. plan at 9300 51st Avenue North. Item 8.5 The petitioner was not present. Mr. Donahue stated that the comprehensive sign plan does not require a variance. He explained that it is a multiple use building by code and Council approval is required on a comprehensive sign plan. Mayor Erickson stated that the old sign should be removed. The city manager stated that the "spool of thread" sign should be removed. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Daly, to approve the comprehensive sign plan, subject to the removal of the "spool of thread" sign from the existing s~gn, as requested in Planning Case 85-39 submitted by S. R. Harris Industries, Inc. at 9300 51st Avenue North. All present voted in favor. 42ND AVENUE Mayor Erickson next introduced the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study for IMPROVEMENT STUDY discussion. Item 8.6 City manager, Dan Donahue, stated that previously Council had been given a copy of the study and the Planning Commission on December 3, 1985, held a public hearing and recommended acceptance and adoption of the report as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that Council is now being asked to accept the plan and approve the recommendations. He continued by stating that at the next Council meeting on December 23, 1985, staff will come back with a plan that takes the document and puts it into action for Redevelopment Plan 85-2, Redevelopment Project 85-2 and Tax Increment Financing ?Lan 85-2. Councilmember Enck asked if Council and the Planning Commission would meet jointly for discussion of the 42nd Avenue project. Mr. Donahue stated that the meeting could be arranged for next month; however, he would like to have the district and perimeters established at this time. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Otten, to accept the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study and approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission. All present voted in favor. FIRE RELIEF Next introduced by the mayor for discussion was The request of the ASSOCIATION - Item 9.1 Fire Relief Association for an increase in benefits. Mr. Jim Hassing, President of the New Hope Firemen's Relief Association, was recognized by Mayor Erickson. Mr. H~ssing stated that he and other Association officers were present to answer any questions Council has on their request for an increase in benefits. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Donahue stated that last year the city worked with the Association on changing the benefit structure of the plan and at that time an actuarial was done. He added that the Association went back to the drawing board and they are requesting a benefit change from $12.00 per month per yea~ at 20 years to $15.00 per month pe~ year. The city manager further stated that staff did ask them to prepare reasons why there should be a change and would give the Association an opportunity to present their proposal to Council. Mr. Hassing stated that in 1979 the Association requested a number of increases over a number of years and in 1981 the State passed a law disallowing this as this method states that future Councils are subject to pay money that they did not agree to pay. Due to this change and the Association's not being aware of the law, there was a six month delay in having a new actuarial prepared. Councilmember Enck stated that he would like staff to research the capacity of purchasing an annuity that would presume the life expectancy would be 70 years and carrying it at 50 which might soften the financial liability to the city. Mr. Donahue stated that a 20 year vested person is currently based on $12.00 per month per year which is $240.00 per month for a person retiring after 20 years; and a person who has been vested ~or 39 years is $12.00 per month per year which is $360.00 per month for life starting at age 50. Councilmember Enck stated that he thought there was a dollar limit after a certain number of years and it wouldn't go for life. Mr. Hassing stated that for an individual who leaves before 20 years there is a lump sum provision; you can't draw for life if you leave before 20 years. Councilmember Daly asked how the benefits are financed currently by the city. The city manager stated that it is financed through the rebates of the state's insurance program and the city receives approximately $42,000 or depending on the activity in the industry. He added that this year $12,000 was budgeted from the General Fund to cover this year's liabilities, but in the past it has averaged around $2,500. Mr. Donahue stated that the rebates aren't a certainty as to the exact dollar amount that will be received and the city has to guarantee to cover the difference. Councilmember Enck stated that he feels discussion should be held with state legislators and some financial assessment should be done to' determine wh~t might be needed if discontinued. Councilmember Otten asked if the issue being considered is increasing the benefit from $12.00 to $15.00. Mr. Donahue replied that is what the Association is requesting but assuming an additional $223,000 of liability as stated in the actuarial. Mayor Erickson stated that the Council would be having a work session soon to work on next year's goals and suggested that this request be on that agenda and answers to questions presented could be addressed at that time. Councilmember Enck questioned whether the request would be put in a part of the annual budget session and when does it take effect. Mr. Donahu~ stated that the Association would like it in effect January 1 and state laws requires that requests have to be delivered to the city by August 1. He added that the 1986 budget has been passed, taxes have been levied and any increases to the pension fund will have to come from General Fund surplus. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 10 Councilmember Daly sta~ed he would like to see a more positive approach to the request if they have been negotiating for a year, and I would hate to throw at them the fact that the deadline was August so they have to wait another year. He added that if that is the case, the city owes them something to make that up. Councilmember Enck stated that the planning should be done at the time the budget is considered. The city manager stated that he did suggest to the Association since it is expensive for an actuarial to be done everytime they come before Council, and if the dollar amount is changed from the actuarial, another actuarial is required, and he suggested they work with the Council on a policy to review every other year and get an idea of what Council is thinking about and won't have to spend the money having more than one actuarial done. It was the consensus of the Council that the request for benefit increase by the Fire Relief Association be tabled and scheduled for the work session to be scheduled for a future date. BOND SALE BROADWAY Mayor Erickson introduced next for discussion item 10.1 the bond sale LANEL PROJECT for the Broadway LaNel Elderly Apartment Homes project. Item 10.1 The city manager stated that there were five bidders on the $415,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds for the Broadway LaNel project and the low bidder was the Allison-Williams Company with a net interest rate of 8.088%. He stated that the sale was not rated due to the high volume of bond sales this time of year. Mr. Donahue stated that the bonds sold at a good rate. RESOLUTION NO. 85-121 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $415,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1985B; AWARDING THE SALE THEREOF." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: £rickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Wil!!amson; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: 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) RESOLUTION NO. 85-122 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $415,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1985B; AWARDING THE SALE, FIXING THE FORM AND DETAILS, PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF AND THE SECURITY THEREFOR." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing. resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following uoted in favor thereof: E~ickson, ~ly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: 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). Mr. Donahue stated that an agreement has not been reached with the developer on the redevelopment agreement. He added that the bond sale normally is not held without an agreement with the developer but in this p[oject there is sufficient security and time was of the essence. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Corrick, the city attorney, stated the tax increment district has been established and it would be an attractive project. He added that f he is not convinced that the agreement with Broadway LaNel will go through as the two principals of Lange Nelson are accountants and cautious about the risk. Mr. Corrick stated that the development contract is in good shape but an item they are now stuck on is in the event of condemnation that any proceeds from the condemnation would be used to pay off the bonds and Lange Nelson does not want the proceeds used for pay off on the bonds. He stated this is one area that the city must insist on and it could cause the agreement to fall apart. Continuing, Mr. Corrick stated that in the past the lien of the HRA payback was triggered when a sale of the project or a sale by the developers occurred and Council has agreed in the past to have financial transactions between members of a family for estate planning purposes so as not to trigger the HRA lien. He added that in this case there is a limited partnership and Lange Nelson states that they have to be able to sell the limited partnerships and he agreed because he did not know how they would raise money if not permitted. He then recommended Council approval on this issue. He also stated that Lange Nelson also does not want the death of a general partner to trigger the HRA lien. Mr. Corrick stated they also want to be able to refinance and subordinate the HRA lien to additional financing if the proceeds are used for improvement, renovation or repair of the property; and with further limitation it would not exceed twice the value of the HRA lien in market value and he again recommended Council approval of the item. He stated that one of the biggest sticklers is a guarantee that the project will be completed and how the city is to be sure that the tax increment revenues are going to be sufficient to pay off the bonds if there is not an ironclad agreement that the project will be completed. Mayor Erickson questioned what would happen to the project if an agreement is not reached. Mr. Corrick stated that the city has two years in which to find a new developer. He added that the city is in good shape with the bond sale. Even if the deal falls through and he believes that the Setter of credit problem wilt be resolved or performance bond and then the only item is whether an individual guarantee from the substantial developers. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Mayor Erickson, to reconsider awarding of the bid. All present voted in favor. Mayor Erickson stated that his brother-in-law is employed by Allison-Williams Company and would like to abstain. RESOLUTION NO. 85-121 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its. adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $415,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1985B; AWARDING THE SALE THEREOF." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; abstain: Erickson; 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) RESOLUTION NO. 85-122 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $415,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1985B; AWARDING THE SALE, FIXING THE FORM AND DETAILS, PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF AND THE SECURITY THEREFOR." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; abstain: Erickson; 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) The city manager asked Council if they would like to approve the items ~ recommended by Mr. Corrick for the development agreement. It was the consensus of the Council to table until the meeting on December 23, 1985. New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 12 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 85-2 The mayor introduced item 10.2 on the agenda scheduling a public SCHEDULE PUBLIC hearing for December 23, 1985, to act on Redevelopment Plan 85-2, HEARING - Item 10.2 Redevelopment Project 85-2, and Tax Increment Plan 85-2. RESOLUTION NO. 85-123 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 85-2, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 85-2 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN 85-2." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, 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; absent: 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) ORDINANCE NO. 85-29 Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and moved its Item 10.3 adoption: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 85-9 TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION USES, DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET OF 42ND AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WINNETKA AND LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH BY EXTENDING ITS TERMINATION DATE." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Otten, 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; absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) ORDINANCE NO. 85-28 Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and moved its Item 10.4 adoption: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE 85-6 TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION USES, DEVELOPMENT OF SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY BETWEEN 42ND AND 45TH AVENUE NORTH AND.XYLON AND WINNETKA BY EXTENDING ITS TERMINATION DATE." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Da!y, Enck, Otten, Williamson; ~nd the following ~oted ~gainst the same: None; absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) ORDINANCE NO. 85-30 Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and moved its Item 10.5 adoption: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF A RESTAURANT CLASS II LIQUOR LICENSE." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Daly, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daty, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) CITY COMMISSION Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion appointments to city APPOINTMENTS commissions in 1986. Item 11.1 The city manager stated that staff is in the process of confirming reappointments but there will be vacancies in Chemical Awareness Commission, Planning Commission, and Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Mr. Donahue stated that an ad will be placed in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post. PLANNER SERVICES The mayor introduced for the discussion item 12.1 on the agenda Item 12.1 concerning the contracting for services of our planner by a local business. Councilmember Otten stated if the work is only to be marketing study it wouldn't be a problem but if it ends up more than a market study and there are any problems, particularly with litigation, the city would risk showing prejudice or conflict of interest. His comment was why allow it at all. The city manager Stated that the consultant has information relevant to the Sunshine Factory needs. New Hope City Council DeCember 9, 1985 Page 13 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly, to direct staff to advise the Sunshine Factory and the planner that the Council feels it is inappropriate that the city consultant be hired by the Sunshine Factory. All present voted in favor. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Enck stated that he has been asked when an open house will be held at the city hall. Mr. Donahue stated that construction will be finalized at the next Council meeting and will be scheduled. The city manager advised Council that on December 20, 1985, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m., there will be an employee Christmas party and extended an invitation to the Council. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Williamson, to Item 13 adjourn the meeting as there was no further business to come before Counci. All present voted in favor. The New Hope City Council adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol E. Carlson New Hope City Council December 9, 1985 Page 14 DATE: January 7, 1986 CASE: 85-33 PETITIONER: Vernon Stuhr REQUEST: Construction Approval for Apartment Building LOCATION: 8401 Bass Lake Road ZONING: R-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This case was tabled from the November meeting. Mr. Stuhr still has not resubmitted his plans to staff. I had a meeting with Mr. Stuhr around December 15th, to discuss his project. He was again informed of the Planning Commission's thoughts that the project was an over-intensive use of the property and the Hennepin County reluctance to give him a curb cut on Bass Lake Road. 2. Doug Sandstad and I gave Mr. Stuhr some further ideas on what might be acceptable for this property. Mr. Stuhr stated that he would be looking into them and get back to us. As of this date, he has not contacted staff about his intentions or plans. I will try to have his intentions known by Tuesday night so we can move along with this case. DATE: January 7, 1986 CASE: 85-36 PETITIONER: Amoco Oil and Tom Schlangen REQUEST: Conditional Use Permits for Automobile Service Station in B-3 Zone; a Car-wash in a B-3 Zone; Accessory Subordinate Use in a B-3 Zone. LOCATION: 9400 49th Avenue North ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This case was tabled from the December Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission had asked the petitioner to rethink his project along the lines of reducing the over intensive use on the property. 2. The petitioner has re-submitted plans for the project. He still intends to keep the three types of uses on the property (gas station, car wash, and convenience store). The major changes that are being presented are: 1. More landscaping. 2. A re-positioning of the service bays to the north and thus eliminating the driveway to the west that would have gone in back of the entire building. 3. Increased parking from 21 to 26 spaces. 3. Please read over the comments from the planner concerning the new proposal by petitioner. 4. Staff's opinion is that the new proposal is better but it is still a very intensive use for the property. You should know that the petitioner is trying to maximize the number of parking spaces on the lot. I think if he could get more spaces on the lot, he probably would. Vehicle repair and service is going to be a major part of his business. I think if we are not careful we are going to see a lot of extra vehicles parked on site. Twenty-one are needed- by code and I would propose that we only allow 21 spaces. Staff would recommend that spaces numbered 9 - 12 be eliminated and that' it be used for green space. The site plan in your packet shows the numbered parking spaces. 5. An additional comment should be made concerning signage. This will be the only gas/service station in the city with a 30 foot pylon sign. Since the location is next to County Road 918, code allows a 30 foot sign. This will be very visible from County Road 918 and will in fact be visible from quite a distance up and down County 918. Some discussion should take place concerning any additional signage with the petitioner and he should be served notice'that signage in and around the project should adhere to the city's sign code. northwest associated consultants,.inc. TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Ann Liebenstein/Alan Brixius~t/ - DATE: 23 December 1985 RE: Schlangen Amoco Proposal " FILE NO: 131.01 - 85.36 Revised plans were submitted for Tom Schlangen's Amoco in response to review by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1985. The revised plan includes the three uses proposed in the original plan - service station with gasoline pumps and service bays, a car wash and convenience grocery - each a conditional use in the B-3, Auto-Oriented Business District. ANALYSIS Setback Requirements. The setback requirements are met or exceeded in the revised plan. parking. The parking requirements outlined in the 20 November 1985 planning report are still applicable as building'size and uses have not been changed. The revised plan exceeds the number of spaces required for the service bays and employees with a total of 21 spaces located on the north end of the site. Five stacking spaces are provided for the car wash, one of which is located at the air vacuum station. Five parking spaces are provided for the convenience store which does satisfy the ordinance requirement (850 sq.ft. - 85 Sq.ft. (10%) = 765 sq.ft. ? 150 sq.ft. : 5.1 spaces). These spaces are located within 75 feet from the food store entrance. The single western space should be separated from the car wash drive aisle by an extension of the curbing. Circulation. The two curb cuts shown both exceed the 24 foot maximum, being 26' and 28' north and south respectively. Relocation of the service bay entrances to the north reduces circulation conflicts on the east side of the facility. The 21 parking spaces are oriented toward the service center with north curb cut allowing separation from gasoline and food store operations. / 4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 Dan Donahue 23 December 1985 Page Two The gasoline transport will necessarily continue north along the frontage road as originally proPosed. During refueling four of the five convenience store parking spaces may be inaccessible. The transport should therefore be restricted to night time delivery. Similarly, garbage collection could conflict with the car wash stacking depending on time of collection and demand for the car wash. The trash collection would be better accommodated in the parking area west of the service bays. The elimination of the drive aisle around the structure requires gasoline customers to encircle the pumps and exit again by the south access. Landscaping. The proposed planting meets the ordinance requirements for plant size and spacing. The scheduled plant materials are appropriate and hardy. Signs. A sign plan was not included in the plan package. RECOMMENDATIONS- The site is still proposed for very intense use althoUgh relocation of the service bays to the north has separated uses reducing some of the circulation conflicts. Although site design is not ideal because of this intensity, it appears workable, however, acceptance is still the decision of the Council. Following are the remaining basic concerns: · Curb cuts still exceed 24 foot maximum. Transport should be restricted to night time hours to reduce conflicts with parking and circulation for the gasoline and food store patrons. · Trash enclosure should be relocated farther to the north to avoid conflicts with cars waiting for the car wash. · An unloading area could similarly be accommodated west of the service bays to eliminate conflict with other on-site traffic. · Sign plan is required for review. cc: Doug Sandstad NORTH STAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 126'J 0 58TH AVENUE NORTH. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554.42 TELEPHONE (612) 559-364.2 \ December 18, 1985 Mr. Doug Sandstad City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Amoco Oil at County Road 18 & 49th Avenue North Dear Mr. Sandstad: Enclosed are the revised site plan drawings for Mr. Tom Schlangen's Amoco station. The revisions are the result of comments made at the Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 1985, the report by Associated Consultants and your suggestions. Of primary concern with the original plan was the amount of parking available for customers not wishing to purchase gas, the type and amount of landscaping and the large paved areas on the north side of the site. To address these concern~ we have modified the site plan as follows: 1. Rotated the service portion of the facility 90 degrees placing the office area adjacent to the car wash and orienting the service doors to the north side of the building. 2. Eliminated the driveway connection between the fuel facility and the service facility on the west side of the site. 3. Provided additional parking for non-gas customers. 4. Increased the landscaped area of the site from 20.3% to 24.5% and increased the number of trees to be planted along the perimeter. 5. Increased the size of the landscaped area adjacent to the building on the east and west sides to allow larger plantings which will break up the apparent size of the building. 6. Shifted the northerly parking area to the west and south to provide for increased depth of landscaping and berming along the service road. Hopefully, the above modifications should answer the concerns of the Planning Commission and Staff. The changes also result in a better delineation of the uses on the site separating the fueling facility from the service facility and will help in controlling cross-traffic movements between the uses. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any further comments or questions, please contact us. Sincerely, NORTH STAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. s D Filippi, PE President DATE: January 7, 1986 CASE: 86-1 PETITIONER: Ambassador Care Center and Pete Peschanker REQUEST: Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 8016 and 8100 27th Avenue North ZONING: R-O and B-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Both petitioners own the property involved in the proposed plat. The reason the plat is before you is that the two owners wish to straighten out their property lines by the buying and selling of some footage. 2. Several months ago, Mr. Peschanker made a proposal to the city staff about an addition to his dry cleaning business next to the Ambassadsor Care Center. Staff as a part of such request required that a site survey be submitted along with a construction plan. The survey turned up the fact that part of the parking lot of the Ambassadsor Care Center was actually on Mr. Peschanker's property. The two property owners were therefore confronted with a situation that necessitated the exchange of some property. In order to do this, code requires that the property be platted. 3. The proposed plat shows two lots. Lot one is the Ambassador Nursing Home consisting of 3.628 acres. Lot two is occupied by the Midland dry cleaner/laundromat and is .328 acres. Both sites were developed approximately 20 years ago. The Ambassador Nursing Home is an R-O zone, and the Midland dry cleaners is in the B-4 zone. The replatting will keep this zoning. 4. Staff has several concerns about the proposed plat. First is that Lot Two as proposed on the plat is too narrow to permit the existing development on the site to meet our zoning performance standards. At 100 feet lot width, there is not enough room on the west side of the building to permit parking to meet the code. To do so, the lot would have to be 105 feet rather than 100 feet. In this 105 feet, there would be sufficient room to permit a setback of five feet from the parking lot to the property line, 20 feet for parking spaces, and 24 feet for the driving aisle adjacent to the existing building. 5. Another concern, although not critical, is the present non conforming use of the building. The building is now 25 feet from the rear property line and the code requires 35 feet. The proposed plat does intensify the non conformance by keeping the width at 100 feet. Another reason for the additional five feet in width. 6. Another concern is the two curb cuts on to Medicine Lake Road. Code ~equires one curb cut for 125 feet. There are currently two curb cuts separated by a distance of 15 feet. This is clearly a hazard and something that should be eliminated. Staff recommends that the curb cut to the east be closed. -2- 7. Another concern is the lack of screening between the B-4 and R-O uses. Code requires that screening be provided. Also, the plat would require a boulevard tree for Lot Two. Given the circumstances, this would be a desirable item. 8. It should be noted that the petitioner is apparently not too receptive to the increased width of Lot Two. It is my understanding that no sale of property can take place between the two petitioners without a permitted plat. If the city does not allow the plat as proposed by the petitioners, then the situation either remains as is, or the changes are made by the petitioner. . PRELI~ : GOOD ~: ~- ~5, ,~ ~' I t ~,] 'r'r- r.~ ~ ~/,.~ .,,~ .v ~N 770~, ' -,, <[ / 2~ j~/ / ........... ,, ZONING:::: B: I, i ~ ~ I Lgl~ll~' ~--v j F- "', ~ ~ ,LO O. -- [ ~ I t ~ N~9' 52'30" W ~r ~ ,oo~ lg' > 0~.  ~ ,-7~ ~ COUNTY ~OAD NO.I 70 _ N 89° 52' 30" W -- 373.87 '- AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Report of Design and Review Committee 9. Report of Land Use Committee 10. Report of codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 11. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1986 12. Review of Council Minutes of January 6, and 7, 1986 13. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commis- sioners and Staff 14. Announcements 15. Adjournment January 31, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1986 I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 1986. Dave Namie and Doug Sandstad will be present at the meeting in my place. There are some major planning cases before you next week but I think everything is pretty much in good order. City Manager DATE: February 4, 1986 CASE: 85-33 PETITIONER: Vern Stuhr REQUEST: Construction Approval for a 7 Unit Apartment Building LOCATION: Wisconsin at Bass Lake Road ZONING: R-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This planning case has been tabled since November 5, 1985. The petitioner has not come back to the city with any changes in the plan that you had requested. He has been informed that staff would recommend denial of the Planning Case at the February meeting. This advice is based on the whole utilization of the site with the seven units. The plan creates traffic circulation problems and a parking problem. In addition, the County will not allow the curb cut as proposed by the petitioner. Without this curb cut, serious public safety questions arise. Staff then recommends denial of the planning case. DATE: February 4, 1986 CASE: 86-1 PETITIONER: Good Neighbor Corporation and Peter Peschanker REQUEST: Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 8016 and 8100 27th Avenue North ZONING: R-0 and B-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This case was tabled at the January planning commission meeting. You had asked the petitioner to redo his preliminary plat and to give you his site plan showing the changes that were proposed by the petitioner as far as the driveway and parking to the front of the building. Both the plans now show the width at 105 feet instead of the original 100 feet. The petitioner has now removed the east driveway and shows a thirty foot driveway on the west side of the property. Under current code this would be six feet over what is allowed. This driveway however, is existing and has been there fore some time. Since no changes are being proposed for the west driveway I would recommend we just leave it as is. 2. A couple of other items to consider. The ground sign is too near the property line. Code requires ten feet. However, if it was moved to the required ten feet it would stick out into the parking lot and be in front of the existing driveway. As long as the Good Neighbor people don't have any problems, I think we ought to let well enough alone. The last item is the matter or the bond required with the platting. I think we should talk about that a little bit at the planning commission meeting. Staff would recommend that there be a bond in order to accomplish the improvements along the boulevard and the closing off Of the east driveway. Everything else appears to be in good order and the .petitioners appear to have complied with all of the requests from the previous planning commission meeting. Staff recommends approval. DATE: February 4, 1986 CASE: 86-2 PETITIONER: Randy Rosengren,Sunshine Factory REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Construction Approval LOCATION: 7600 42nd Avenue North ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to remodel the existing restaurant by adding 7200 square feet in additions. The only thing needed by the petitioner from the Planning Commission and Council is Construction Approval and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive up window. 2. Parking is adequate for the total square footage of the building of 18,984 square feet. Two hundred and six spaces are required and 222 spaces are shown. Staff and the Planner agree to these numbers. 3. There apparently has been considerable discussion concerning the location of the drive up, pick up window. The petitioner has made all the requested changes posed by the Design and Review Committee except the drive up window. The petitioner states that this cannot be retained in his plans if the location has to be moved. 4. The drive up window is strictly for picking up and not for ordering. Since our existing code speaks to drive up windows for both purposes, staff does not feel that it is appropriate that this petitioner should be held to the same standard. If the curb cut and driveway leading up the pickup window is marked for one way, staff believes that conflict would be minimized. IST. TiR A NS LOADING AREA DELIVERIES 7:30 A.M.-11:00 AM.' New self contained / trash compactor EXISTING REST. Open 11:30 AJVl.L 1:00 AJ~ H_ -ROOFTOP MECHANICA %.:I ~.~ EQUIPMENT PAINTED ~'~i ~ TO MATCH BUILDING COLOR 5' CALIPER FLOWERING CRAB APPf. E ~8' 20' 24' 4,SPACES AT 0' .7 SPACES AT 0' 6 SPACES AT 9' 6 SPACES AT 9' 24' ~; 24' 5'-?" CALl?ER ASH 5'-?" CALIPER ASH - TOTAL PARKING-222 STALLS DATE: February 4, 1986 CASE: 86-3 PETITIONER: Julia Mirman REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Tailor Shop in a Single Family Home LOCATION: 3501 Yukon Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to have a tailoring business in her single family home at the above address. Total square footage will be around 278 feet and code requires 300. 2. Code requires a Conditional Use Permit because of: a. they have a tailoring machine in the home which is very un- usual. b. they have traffic coming and going, c. there are sales and business in the process. 3. The petitioner has put in a new second sidewalk, with lights, leading to the walk out basement side door where the tailor shop will be located. The petitioner has started the business and has distributed flyers (one is in your packet) advertising the business. 4. There have been complaints received by the city's Inspection Department concerning the numerous vehicles at this residence. It appears that the occupants of the residence may have up to six vehicles themselves. One of these was sitting in the boulevard all winter covered with a healthy blanket of snow. 5. The city has also received three letters from neighboring property owners protesting the business and the traffic it is generating. We will probably have some of those representatives at the meeting on Tuesday night. 6. You m~y want to review the Conditional Use requirements in our Zoning Code. Based on those requirements, staff would have. to recommend denial of this request. A CCENT TAILORING 3501 Yukon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 612/541-0460 your mo~ey &~c~ . :~*~,~ .~-~ 1 i~'~ "~'~_i / - ~~ .. ~ ~,~/,"J ',' i~i· . ~ ~...: .--~'~-~-~~ .~ -- ~ --. . ..... .._~ ~. ~ ' 12U' ' ... ..... - ~2,.'L(. ' ~ ~:- ~.~.~ '.~..~.~.~:: ~"'Z :, ,~ , ~ ............ ' ~'.'~ j ' , ._ /~{. ~.. - ' '- . '~ ............. . .... '_ ..... ~--~ ,~,~, ....., . ~)l ,,~.~13501 Yukon 'Aven~ Nodh ......... ' - ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ New Hope, ~N S~27 Il Telephone 612-541~0 DATE: February 4, 1986 CASE: 86-4 PETITIONER: Lang Nelson Associates REQUEST: Construction Approval and Preliminary Plat Approval LOCATION: 6100 West Broadway ZONING: R-5 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The Broadway LaNel project is now back before you for construction approval. Last November, you gave concept approval and rezoning approval to the petitioner for their 75 unit senior apartment building. At that time staff was thinking in terms of a PUD project. It has since been established that a PUD project is not necessary in this case. What they are requesting is under the code required minimums and we are dealing with a single building. There is nothing to be gained by the PUD in this instance. 2. Significant changes have been made in the grading, and therefore, elevations of the building, without Design and Review evaluation. These changes were submitted to staff on 1/27/86. The building as proposed is four stories. The original concept plan called for three stories with the fourth one being the underground garage. This underground garage is now technically considered the first floor. If the petitioners can fill in around the base of this ground floor, then it would not qualify as the first story but rather as the basement. 3. Some of these changes were made necessary because of the relocation of the drainage of the storm water runoff. They were planning to use the storm sewer located on Broadway. Storm waters are now to flow to the east, or back, or the property into a small ponding area. This has necessitated the changes in elevation. Because of this, the proposed plat should all show around 5,000 square-feet of ponding. This ponding area is shown on the grading plan but not on the-pr6posed plat. 4. Staff would recommend revising the grading plan in order to make this a three story building. Staff would also recommend increased landscaping where the garage, without windows, is exposed above grade. Staff would further recommend that the preliminary plat show an easement or storm sewer on the southeast end of the property. 5. Other than the above, the building itself is essentially the same with no major changes.from what was originally proposed. Staff would recommend approval if the other items are completed. THE BROADWAY ® .E.l~er/._y Apartment Homes B3 DATA ~ZONiNG ORDI~C~ COMP[I~C[ DATA Y~D5 I~ed ,~IEA & BUILDING SIZE 84 City of New Hope, Minnesota 2. ROIL,L CAIZ~ 3. Pi~ Case 86-5 ~qmst for const~tion approv~ ~d approval ~r~ensive Si~ PI~- 2703 W~e~ Aven~ ~r~- L~d ~gel~ 4. Plug Case 86-6 ~qmst for ~ ~~t to ~ ~st~ ~n~tional Use Pe~t- 7600 49~ Avin~ Nor~- ~c~d ~o~/~r~est Deliver, Petiti~ers. 5. ~rt of Desi~ ~d ~ew C~ttee 6. ~port of ~d Use C~ttee 7. · ~port of Codes ~d St~~ C~ttee NEW BUSINESS 8. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of Febz~mry 4, 1986. 9. Review of Council Minutes of February 6, 10, 1986. 10. Additional Connmnts, Suggestions, ReqUests of Public Conrmissioners 'and Staff. 11. Announcements 12. Adjournment DATE: March 4, 1986 CASE: 86-5 PETITIONER: Lloyd Enge]sma (Krause-Anderson Company) REQUEST: Canopy Construction and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval ADDRESS: 2703-2767 Winnetka ZONING: B-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1~ Petitioner is seeking to remodel the front of the shopping center by constructing a canopy which will include new signage. 2. The first major portion of the shopping center was built in 1961 and major expansions were added in 1967 and 1978, bringing it to its present size. The center has 70,500 square feet of building area, nearly all of which is leasible space. 3. Existing lot striping and site layout shows about 470 parking spaces, because it was approved many years ago with narrower drive ~]es, cross aisles and smaller parking space standards for vehicles. 4. The Design and Revie~;~ Committee had asked for an improved level of exterior lighting in the~_~ar of the shopping center. Staff asked the petitioner to provide an illumination drawing of the site and we will require the petitioner to provide at least the minimum lighting required f~)r safety in the rear areas. 5. Design and Review had asked that the front parking layout be slightly shifted so that light standards which exist and which will not be removed are not in the center of a parking space as shown on the site plan. This can be done without any net reduction of parking spaces. 6. It is noted that the proposed site plan shows 421 parking spaces, which is exactly the minimum required by our zoning code on the basis of 70,377 square feet of leasable space. It is further noted that 24% of the parking on the site is striped in the rear of the building even though pedestrian and customer access to ~ area is minimal 7. Staff acknowledges major improvement in the traffic layout of the site because they have brought their parking bay and space dimensions up to meet our current ordinance requirements and have provided concrete aisles to improve control of vehicular movement, thereby improving the safety of the site. 8. It is noted that the new canopy as designed and the increased landscaping, along the front center of the shopping center and the southwest corner will be major improvements to the site. 9. Staff recommends approval DATE: March 4, 1986 CASE: 86-6 PETITIONER: Richard Krohn REQUEST: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage ADDRESS: 7600 49th Avenue North ZONING: I-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS L The petitioner was informed that he had to reapply for a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage due to vehicles and trailers stored on site that were not permihted under the current Conditional Use Permit. 2. The petitioner did not provide a scale site plan with his application. Staff has assisted him in developing the attached scale plan that illustrates his request. 3. The building was built as a warehouse and garage in 1962 and no major additions have been made since then. 4. Refer to previous _history involving outdoor storage at ~his site (Planning Cases 82-46 and 83-63 pertain). 5. We are increasing the number of vehicles proposed for outside storage from nine, as approved in Case 83-63, to thirteen. The petitioner is proposing to continue some outdoor parts, empty barrels and equipment storage on the west ~de of this lot in an area shown on the attached drawing. 6. It is noted that the major portion of the parking area to the north of this building is crushed rock, and t~herefore, non-conforming, without curbs. In addition, the area beyond the parking should be effectively seeded beyond the bu~]ding line all the way arol~nd the perimeter of the proprty as shown on the sketch. 7. The security of the site has been maintained, including the sliding cyclone gate across the front driveway. 8. The preliminary draft of vacant land study just received from our consulting planner recommends the high density residential in the area , including this lot and the Jacobwith property to the east. Staff would recommend approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the understanding that the landscaped perimeter will be_ effectively seeded and the equip- ment storage will be confined to the area designated on the plan, at the same time that the petitioner is advised of the long term interest in developing this site for a high-density residential use. PROPOSED OUTDOOR STC~,A: 10 TRUCKS + S TRAIL~RC~ + Misc. Equip. 28 SPACES AVAILABLE 500 s.f. pants, empty barrels & junk rron~; ~oa, ~ r'lap/~s and 24 shrubs West Side; 12 R. 01, ive Slatted fence on We~~ ~ and South borders.~['~ -~ 6. PI~%NNING CASE 82-46 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE.~4IT AT 7600 49TH AVENUE NORTH - RIC}LRRD KROHN, ,~ · PETITIONER. Mr. Krohn, 4060 Trenton Lane, Plymouth stated he was the o',~er of the property'. He is requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to park his tractors at the location. In response to a question from. Cont~issioner Gulenchyn, Mr. Kr~hn stated they also wished the Conditional Use Permit to 'include permission to repair commercial vehicles (installing engine replacements ) and the outdoor parking of at least two commercial vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment f6r chain link fencing. Mr. Krohn stated ~e had owned the property since 1979. In the. past they had rented it to other tenants,.P They now feel they can afford to take over-the building, with a tenant. His business is the truckin~;'~ 6. company -- parking of the tractors on the site. The tenant - C J's Automotive would do the truck an~ car repair inside the building. The third use would be the outside storage of fencing materials for a third parts'. Mr. Krohn said he had four tractors, no trailers, that would be parked on the site, unless there were a custom, er's tractor there for repair. He has been in the trucking business in New Hope for 14 years, renting space on Boone Avenue. He felt the storage of the fencing materials would probably take less than one third of the rear space. C J's Automotive will be the tenant of the building. He will do the car/truck repairs inside the building. Chris Sorenson, owner of C J's Automotive said he now had four signed accounts. He has been in operation at this location for ! 1/2 months. It is zoned for major car repair and minor truck repair. He needed the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to do major ..ruck repair (transmissions and replacement of large engines). He stated that Mr. Krohn's trucks wo,.uld be on the site mostly on weekends. Another trucking company (Russell Delivery) who was one of his accounts, would park two trucks at night. Otherwise the only Urucks would be those in for repair. Commissioner Gulenchyn expressed concern about the unknowns.as far as the actual space each business would cccupay on the site. He said he wanted a full understanding of the businesses that would be on the site. Using a diagram, b~. ~-ohn indicated the areas of the site that would be used by each business. Discus- sion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Krohn. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, it was indicated that the fehce storage operation would take approximately 15' x 145' for outside storage; 15' x 100' for storage of wire, and 15' x 60' for storage of fittings. There would also be a bobcat and truck with mixer for the fencing operation. There will be no office on the site. ~'.Ir. Krohn said his office for his trucking company was located in his home. Russell Delivery would be parking twe, 2-ton trucks. In response_ to a ~uestion_ from Commissioner Gundershaug, it was noted that t~ building could accommodate five trucks inside. In regard to doing major overhaul of trucks, you could get t]~ree in at a time. The trucks would stay inside the building until Uhe work were completed. Mr. Sorenson indicated he contracted with a uowing company if a broken down truck were to be brought to the Site for repair. He felt that most of the repair would be of diesel cars. At the present time the business was approximately 75% car repair and 25% t~uck repair. He has another facility on Bass Lake Road. He will have only one mechanic ~orking at this location. Discussion then centered on the fencing of the entire site. It was i.~.dicated by commissioners .that at the present time, there was a lot of material apparently stored on the site. Mr. Y~ohn said that the existing fence had slats shielding the apartment building. The fence was slatted up to the area of the garages. Discussion continued about the fencing/screening and .;hat was proposed for the future. It was noted that the site was now an eyesore for residents. Cor~aissioner Gundershaug noted that City Ordinance required that all outside storage areas must b~ screened. Cormmissioner Gustafson confirmed that the east side was basically screened now and ~he west side, toward the apartments was screened. ~lr. ;<rohn indicated that there was fencing a!on? the west side of the bnilding. The otker fencing did not have privacy slats -- they extended only to the garage area of the apartments. Thc driveway cannot see anything through the fence, now. Security lights are located on t?,e building, directed down. :.~r. Krohn's trucks will leave the site at about 5 a.m. and would not come in after 10 p.m. If it were after 10 p.m. his trucks would be on the road overnight. They cannot get into the site until 5 a.m. or 7 a.m. Discussion continued about the wire storage and the trucks and tractor for this part of the operation. Commissioner Gustafson indicated that the owner had to speak to and be responsible f~ the entire pro- perty. 'if a tenant had more vehicles than allowed, it would be the owner's problem. ~- The City Manager indicated that the City ordinance did not limit the number of vehicles that could be on the site in this zone. He added that one other point might be some potential problems with too many. vehicles because of gas storage, etc. Mr. Screnson indicated he had been working with the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal on thisbe-i~-~-~ 6. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, regarding the front of the building, 5~. Krohn said he planned to replace the shrubbery that had been destroyed from the driveway going west, and between the two driveways. There presently are two trees in front of the building. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether if, in view of the unanswered questions regarding the exact loca- tions for the storage of equipment and vehicle parking, there would be a problem if the Commission tabled this request to allow the petitioner to prepare a plan that would designate exactly where and what was being stored? The Commission would request a stay of enforc~nent until the petitioner re-ap- peared before the Planning Commission in December. Mr. Krohn said he could handle this. Commissioner Gustafson also expressed concerns about the possible debris that might acc~mu!ate from the car/truck repair. b~r. Sorenson said he did not allow this debris to accumulate. If a part c~e off a car/truck it was thrown away. In regard to trucks, almost everything you removed had a core dsposit and must be returned when replaced. He said that the only thing city code prohibited him from ~oing on ~he site now, was pull- ing an engine out cf a tractor and repairing it. He stated he would not have any vehicles sitting on ti~e site to be used for potential parts. Suggestion was made that additional trees should be planted to enhance the screening between the resi- ddntial area and site. >!r. Krohn said that during the sun, er the existing trees provided leaf coverage as a screen. Th.e whole %~est side of the lot was trees. Commissioner Gustafscn said he would like to see aver,, definite plan that showed exactly what would be located where, storage and parking and where there would be screen and landscaping. Co~missioner Gundershaug said he felt it would also be mandatory that quite a bin of ~=~ ' ~= ..... aping should be added to the site. There will be no add.itiona± signs on the property. The City Manager indicated that this zoning did not require specific green space to be Drcvided. Com_~issioner Gulenchyn indicated that one of the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit '.-:as that uhe use would not create.any adverse affects on the adjacent properties, including noise and dust. Mr. A1 Miller stated they were the owners, managers and operators of the a~artment to the west of this E~roperty. They had spent a great deal of money to upgrade the apartments. He wished it to be a matter of record that they were interested in the site and that they did worry about the noise and dust and ' the possibility of many trucks driving through the area. They were attempting to make it s quality place ~o live. He was also concerned about dropping heavy fencing at 5 a.m. in the mornin7 or anything else that would make it an undesirable place to live. He was concerned about the possibility of late hours and large vehicles. He stared he was very'pleased that the Co,mission went into these issues as they did. Commissioner Gustafson indicated he felt the case should'be tabled until the meetinc in December to allow the petitioner to spec~fically define what he was requesting and indicate where materials/vehicles ~..~uld be stored and how many vehicles would be on the site. Commissioner Gulenchyn made a motion tabling the request in Case 82-45 until the meetimc of December 7, 198'2. Commissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Gustafson, Gundershauq, Edwards Voting against: None f~sent: Troup, Bar tos, Cameron Motion carried. Mr. Krohn asked if he could get an exact listing of what the Commission was requesting the.v do? The City Manager stated he should contact Doug Sandstad after Monday of next week and he would help lay out a pla~.F-~- 4.' PLANNING CASE 82-46 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER ~, 1982) - REOUEST FOR CONqDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7600 - 49TH AVE'~;UE NORTH - C.J~'-~ AUTO:.~OT!VE AL~D RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONERS. ~.~. Krohn and Mr. Sorenson were both present. Mr. Krohn distributed copies of the proposed plat layout to the commissioners. He noted that when he had appeared before the Commission in October they had been concerned about the west property line of the site. There are 15 existing trees on this border. ?he west side fence ~is stripped, and 60 feet of the length of the building, the fence is stripped now. He proposes to add two extra trees in the green area in front, plus an evergreen clump at the corner. Along the east boundary, he plans to put in between 15-20 trees, they will be the same typ_e as on the west boundary - Russian Olives. In the front yard they will put two ash trees. He stated he had spoken to the neighbor to the east, who had said he would prefer to look at trees/bushes th~n strips in the fencing. Another concern of the commission had been a potential dust problem. There will be three ~perations on the site, Russell Delivery with two trucks, Northwest Delivery with four trucks and ~J's Automotive. It was his feeling that the trucks would leave in the morning and return in the evening, basically at the same time the other traffic was going up and down the road. He did not feel they could do much about the dust from the road. Mr. Krohn stated that when he had appeared in October, there had been four potential tenants for the site -- one, ~din City Fencing was planning to store equipment/supplies out of doors, This tenant is' no longer on the site but has moved. There will be only the three tenants. For the record, Con~issioner Gustafson confirmed that Mr. Krohn was proposing 15-20 Russian Olives for the east side of the property. It was noted that city code required 1%" diameter. There are two trees ~roposed for the front off the building. The Commissioners noted that Colorado Blue Spruce grew well in New Hope and would be desirable for these trees. The evergreen requirement is 3-4 feet in height ac- cording to code. The missing hedge on the left side will be replaced with barberry to match the hedge on the other side. Code requirement for shrubs is 24"-30" in height for balled shrubs. Discussion then followed regarding the asphalt and whether it was striped to designate the parking stalls. ~!r. Krohn said it was not now striped, but this could be done. The parking at the rear would not be striped, since it is crushed rock. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the neighbor to the east had requested plant material rathRr than slats in the fence. The Manager not'ed that a green belt could be substituted for required screening, providing it consisted of evergreen or deciduous trees or large shrubs that provided an effective screen. Following discussion it was determined that the Russian Olives as proposed, might be sufficient. Mr. Krohn said the blacktop was mainly for parking cars, employees or visitors. Any truck parking 4. would be at the rear on the crushed rock. Mr. Krohn said he did not allow truck parking on the blacktop any more. Any trucks in the front driveway would be either waiting to get into CJ's Automotive or pre- paring to leave. Trucks will not be able to park in this area except for access to the garage. The fencing to the west would be left as is, with slats the length of the building. There will be three tenants on the site: C.J.'s Automotive; Russell Delivery, Northwest Delivery. As indicated on the site plan, parking spaces 1-13 will be for C.J.'s Automotive and 14-21 will be for truck parking· Stating that the site was at its maximum use right now, the Chairman confirmed that there will be only the three tenants. Mr. Krohn stated that should one of the tenants leave, he-would look for a similar type tenant. In answer to a question .regarding city control of use of the site, the Manager stated that the city could n0t control Who the owner rented to, but there were controls involved in the Conditional Use Permit. Approval of the request could be conditional to a yearly review of the situation by staff. Cormissioner Gustafso~ confirmed that there will be no outside storage of fencing materials/equipment, and that this portion of the original request could be removed from consideration. Ccrmissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ aDDro-.,a] of the Conditional Use permit at 7600 49th A'.'~nue North as requested in Case S'2-46, t~ a!]o%~ truck re~air and ¢,.~door storable of ';chicles, ?~b~ect tc the netitioner examininu the landscaue r,]an as discussed at this meetinG, ~ub4¢.ct. to the zetitioner re,.'iewing the striDinc for so. aces i-].3 for persona! cars and %he area to be desicnated as truck ~arkinc at the rear of the lot. Sub3ec2 also tc the ~2etitioncr's a~reement that ~emi-trucks, exceut '..;hen er. tot- iht or leaving the garage, will be ~arked at the rear of the carace and reuuestinq an annu21 review by staff. Co~missioner Guncershaug second. Voting in favor: Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Troup, Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos -- - · % Motion carried. Commissioner Gundershau~ ~on~-~ +hat there would be no new signs on the site. 2. ~l.annin~ Case.~'!o. ~ZT~h, r__e_quest from C. J. 's Automotive and Richard Krohn for a co_nd_i]..ional use @ermit for _th_e_L~r__gp_e_rty at 76C0 49th Avenue, to allow truck repair and outdoor st,~raee of vehicles and materials, was the second item on ~he ~genda. The petitioner was no~ present. ~!otion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly to table Planning Case No. 82-46 until later in the meeting. Voting in favor:' E~ickson, Daly, Enc~, Otten, Williamson ~otion declared carried. - ~'"'~ ~' :-~'" 2. lhe mayon announzed that item 2 was to be taken off the table, this being P1annqnq Case No. request_ for_ce_nditie }-~l._~.s_?_per::it at 7F~O0 ,~gth Avenue .to allow truck repair and ~(ttdOor vehicles and mater!als, C. J.'s Autometive and Richard Kronn, petitioners. Mr. Chris Sorensen of C. J.'s Automotive represented the petitioner. ,~4r. Chris Sorensen said that they were asking for a conditional use permit so they might rebuild diesel engines at-the shop and for outdoor storage of six trucks--four diese~ tractor's and two strai~:~ trucks. Mr. Chris Sorensen clarified that he was just referring to the semi cabs, not the trailers. Trailers will be in for repair every once in a while, but 'not for storage. The refrigeration units will not be rm~ning. Nhen the trailers ceme in they will be empty with no need for refrigeration. CouncilF,,embeW Enck inquired as to whether the codes for screening and fencing were met. Th6 city manager replied that it is his opinion that the code requirement for sideyard screening is not met. Councilme:':ber Enck commented that he thc:~q,ht there had been a misunderstandinm at P!annina ..... ssion relative to the screening requirements under the cod~.. .'-~e said he did not feet that a suffic;en=, rev,ew had been given by the Planning C,~mn~is$ion. He suggested that the Planning Commission be askem to-reconsider this item. Counci]member Daly inquired as to the timing problems if this matter is delayed. Hr. Sorensen said this would not create a pFoblem. At ti:is time they can do everything but rebuild engines, and they do not have ar~y such work scheduled n.aw. Councilmember Williamson asked fer clarification as to owt~ership of the property. Mr. Sorensen said that Mr. Krohn owned the property and that he leased the property from him. ;.tr. Sorensen said that he, in turn, subleased to Russell Delivery. The only additional vehicles anticipated on the site will be just in-and-out repair traffic. He said most of his accounts run down Quebec Avenue. Councilmember Williamson asked if the building was only going to be used for repair. She commented that there were docks to the rear of the building. Mr. Sorensen said that he would like to get' rid of the docks, but there is nothing he can do about them. Mr. So.rensen then spoke about screening of the fence. He'said they proposed to screen the entire west side, plus the trees. On the east side, there would be 60 feet of screening, plus the trees, Upon'question as to what was required, the city manager said that the sideyards must be screened. Mr. Sorensen said that Mr. Krohn was aski'ng to only screen 60 feet of the east side and, that the balance G. 2. (con~'d] Mr. Donahue Conm~ented tha~ the code required screening, or deciduous trees, or evergreens. Russian Olives do not qualify under the code. He said apparently the Planning Commission had overlooked that pbint. Mr. Sorensen said that the petitioners were planning on adding to the trees to make a total screen of trees, plus the slats in the fence. The trees would help shield the second and third stories at the apartmen ts. City Manager Donahue noted that there was a non-conforming use on the property to the east. That property is zoned [-2, with a single family residence locar, ed on it. Technically, that'does require scr:~,:ning because iL is a residence. He added that the city has always frowned on the use of slats in fences because of maintenance pFoblems. Councilmember Daly commented that redwood slats are available if Council is interested in that approach. ~.Ir. Sorensen said that the plastic slats are guaranteed ,%r life; he did not see why they wn'~ld break. This is wha-t they proposed to use across the fron~ and along the whole west side. The slats would run straight up and down. The mayor inquired as to whether the slats'were also vanHal nrnnf. Cmllld they be cut?C~'-~'~-Jt i;~-~J-~:?.~ Council,member galy commented that there were garages along about half of the west property line. He said his major concern would be for the property to the south--the i~ouses across the street. ,~'e ~.~ould like a good planting in the front. ' Councilmember Daly com~nented ~hat council had approved a truck loading and reloading opera=.i~)n for this building a couple of years ago. That lease fell through. At tibet ~i~e, ti~e plans called for a lot of tree planting in the front, t~e said he wanted to make'sure that screening was provided For the houses across the street. Nr. Sorensen coF.~mented that the cost was the same for a Russian olive and an evergreen. City Manager Oonahue clarified that under code; screening is either a solid Fence, wood or metal, or evergreens or deciduous trees. You ~?,ust effectively screen For.the residents. Mr. Sorensen colnmented that you would have to cut down all the trees that are there ncw to put in ever- greens. It would be like starting alt over. Councilmember Enck said this would be necessary eventually 'anyway. The trees will not last that much longer. .~o_kti_go!]__by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember (Jtten to refer ?]he matter back to the Planning ~o~,~missinn so that ~hey may look at a~l of the issues involved. Discussion followed with Counciln:ember Enck noting that he would want Planninm Con,mission to take into consideration the code requirements as to screening, whether fencing '~as appropriate, etc. ',.!as the ~ntire parcel considered,as opposed to segments of the parcel? Vote was then taken' on the question. Voting in fa'For: Erickson, Daly, EncN, Otten · Motion declared carried.. .... ~-~ ' ' ' ' ' 3. PL~NII~G CASE 82-46 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PER>~IT (CONTI>,~ED FROM COUI~CIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1983) - 7600 49TH AVE~.~UE [.[CRTH - RIC,U_ARD W~RCHN, PEFITIONER The petitioner was not present. .~:ction by ~om~missioner Gustafson, second by Co~issioner Gundershaug to table this case until the e.-.~ of the meeting. Vcting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug .z~ sent: Edwards ~<-~ tion c~rried. ~ Planning Case 82-46 was removed from the table. The City Manager noted that staff, had not heard from Mr. Krohn. He stated that Council had been pr.i- marily concerned about the side yard. They had felt that perhaps the Planning Commission had ntt %~iven enough weight to the sideyard screening and what was required by Ordinance and whether Russian Olives were adequate screening. Council would like the Planning Commission to require more. Chairman Cameron stated he had gone back and re-read the minutes and he thought that the screening re- quirement was for wood, metal, deciduous trees, or evergreens, and Russian Olives are certainly decidu- ous trees. He had not been confused by the ordinance. He had been quite willing to accept Russian Olives as screening. He asked whether anyone else had been confused? Discussion followed about deciduous trees and whether Russian Olives fit that classification. It was the concensus of the Commission that they had not been confused when they approved the Russian Olives as screening for the sideyard. Chairman Cameron expressed the feeling that perhaps this case should be reviewed by Desic. n and Review at their next regular meeting because of the many concerns involved. He requested that ~'-~r. Krohn be invited to the next D and R meeting to review it wi-th the committee. He noted that his cw~ concern was the front of the building and thc landscaping in the front. The City ~'4anager stated staff %~ould try and reach Mr. Krohn. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the co-~mission/council really had to be that concerned abo]t the east side of thc site? The requirement for screening was in the ordinance but ~was it practical? The Manager noted that there was a concern because of the single family residence to the east, but added ~hat' apparently that owner did not care about more screening. Commissioner Fi!wards note~ that Mr. Jacobwith was also a life time tenant only. Co~'nmissioner ,~,ulenchyn moved to table Case 82-46 until the meeting of February 1, 1983. Comr~issioner 3ustafson second. Voting in favor: Friedrlch, Gulenchyn, Ba~tos, C~,ercn, Sus~afson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~d' -- '_ ~ ~ ;F'? '--' ]. =-L.~NNi':.,:G CASE 82-46 - (COL~I:~iUED FgOM DECEMBER !3, !982) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIO~AL USE PEPZIT - 7600 agTH A'.ZENUE [~ORTH - RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONER /he petitioner was not present. '.Rzion bi.' Cc~missioner Gundersh:ug to table Case 82-46 until later ~n the meeting. Con,missioner : ::iedrich second. "-z[ng in ~avor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug 3. '!'he petitioner in C~se 82-46 was still not present. The City Manager indicated that the petitioner had presenued an alternative landscaping and fencing plan to the staff. He had not spoken to hi~. Co~issioner Gundershaug made a motion tabling Case 82-48 until the meeting of March i, 1983.. siouer Friedrich second. V(sting in favor: Friedrich, Gustafson, Gundershaug Votlng agains~: None f%~sent: Gulenchyn, Bartos, C~meron, Edwards Mc~ion carrY_ed. ~ri.uf discuss[on about the problems on the site of Case 82-46 and the proposal for the fencing ]-,-.-]scaping. Also discussed was whether slats ,..~e~e really deq4rable ~r~ rh~ fL~:ce, i~ ?;ns :.' ted 3. P~NNING CASE 82-46 - (CCNTINUED FRO:4 DEC~4BER 13, 1982) - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT AT 7&f.3 ~~49TH AVENUE NOR~ - RICHARD KROHN, PETITIONER[ Mr. Krohn was present and stated that the basic plan was the same as had been presented before. He now intends to slat the fence on both sides the entire way back and across the front. He will also put in the shrubs that had been indicated before, as welt as additional landscaping. The'City Manager distributed site plans indicating the landscaping to the Co~issioners. Mr. ~oh'n stated that he would like to request that the gate area, along the drive, not be slatted so that there would be visibility for the police in checking the site. He also stated that the neighbor to the east, would prefer that there not be slats in the fence next to his property. Mr. Krohn posed that he not slat the fence for the first 60 feet along the blacktop on that side, and instead install some trees in that area. He proposes to put six Colorado Blue Spruce in that area if he can eliminate the slats in the fence. He added that if and when, the property to the east does change, he could add the slats at that time, if it is desired. Co~issioner Gustafson confirmed that it was at the request of the neighbor to the east, that he was proposing to not slat the fence on the east side. He further confi~ed that it was his intenticn to place six trees in the 60 foot area. Mr. Krohn said he would stripe the lot, designating the parking area. The s~i parking will be at the rear of the lot behind the building. Th'is area will have crushed rock, and not striped. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Krohn said that he would put 48" spruce trees along the east side. He added that there were the same three tenants in the 'building as noted at earlier meetings, and that the only trucks that would be in front would be when they were going in or out of the garage. There was no one present in regard to this case. co~issioner Gustafson made~a motion reco~mendin~ auoroval of the Conditional Use Permit at 7600 - 49th in Case 82-46, includinu Alternates A and B, specifically allowing the netitioner to eliminate the slats on the east fence and the ~ate a~-ea, for security reascns, and also to add in the first-.~0 feet six 48" Colorado Blue Spruce, con~]istent wzth ehe' New H~?e City cuideliues, that the asohatt area in the front be striped acccrdinc to the dimensions on the site ?lan, that the area in the back of the site have crushed rock, and that 5he area in the back of the site be desicnated as "truck parking". Co~is- sioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: None ,~.~' __~ ' (- l:~ ~ ~:': ; ~stain: Edwards . Motion carried. 2. .P_la~3ing_C-.a.s~e_No .... _8_2-__46, ~r~q~_e_s~t from Richard Krohn for a conditional use permit to a~.l__l_o3_~_!_r__u_ck rgpai_r, and oq~.~,og_r__s t_prag_e_ of _vehicles __a_nj_~a tqr__i_a_l North, was considered by Council. This Planning Case had been held over from th~ meeting of December 13, 1982. Mr. Krohn appeared. He said they ~re proposing that the fence be slatted on the east side of the property from 60 feet back to the back of the lot, the entire west side of the property from the front to the back and the front of the property with the exception of the gate. It would actually be slatted all the way around except for the back the lot and the front gate. The fence would be a six-foot cyclone fence. Mr. Krohn said that new shrubs and trees sre sched'uled for the front of the property. The planting on the west is existing stock. On the east side, the neighbor had asked that ~he front sixty feet of fencing be slatted. He would rather look at trees than a slatted fence. Mr. Krohn said he will put in six spruce trees on the first sixty feet of the east side. The mayor inquired as to what was meant by major truck repair garage. Mr. Krohn replied that he would be renting the building to C. J.'s Automotive. C.J. does truck repair. City Manager Donahue said that major truck repair means that he can do everything including pulling and repairing the engine. Mr. Chris Sorenson (C.J.) says that there would also be a possibility that they would .work on semi trailers. There is enough room to bring the tractor and trailer inside the shop. Question was raised as to the number of spruce trees that would be planted on the east side. Mr. Krohn confirmed that there would be six trees and that he had also told the Planning Commission that six trees would be planted. Councilmember Enck inquired as to what provision would be made to maintain the slats. He asked what material the slats were made of. Mr. Krohn replied that the slats were of plastic. City Manager Donahue advised that the conditional use permit, if granted, could be sub- ject to annual review by staff, thus assuring maintenance of the fenCe slats. Councilmember Daly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROffJ~_~G CONDITIONAL USE PE_R>~IT NO. 82-46 ." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten 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; where- upon the resolution was declared duly p_a_s_s_e_d_a_n_d_adop_te_d_ and was signed by the mayor which was attested by the city clerk-treasurer. (Page Extract Book.) Councilmember Daly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ILRESOLUr TION SETTING_FORTH~_CONDITIONS ON CONDIT!QN~SL__'~SE_P_ERMIT ?OR PLAI'~NtNG_C_A__S~_No. 82-&6." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmembe~ Ottcn, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the followinE voted against the same: None; where- upon the resolution was declared duly p_~_~q[~__a~!~d__ad~optqd.~nd was signed by the mayor which was attested by the city Clerk-treasurer. (Page. Extract Book). Councilmember Williamson_ inquired as ~to what the planting in the front of the building would consist of. c,,-~.;,~.~.,,,~ ~-0~-'-~=~ '' PLANNING CASE 83 - 63 - REOUEST FOR ~ENDMENT TO EXISTI~;G CQ~ITI©NAL USE PE~iT _ 7600 49th Avenue Nortk - Richard Krobn, Petitioner. Mr. Krohn stated he was requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow him to park two small school buses on his property. The buses belong to Calvin Christian School. Chairmanthe existing Cameron Conditional asked whether Use Permit? the city had had any problems with the ~Darking allowed ~Dresently under The City Manager stated that he personally had not heard of any problems. check with the Building Official on this. ~= would, however, Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the school buses would be ~arked where the trucks are parked on the paved portion to the north end of the lot. ~ Mr..~rohn noted that the amendment was for two buses -- of a size that held 20-25 passengers. He added that he had not~ heard of any problems in regard to the .present Conditional Use Permit. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the requested landscaping, it was noted that this had been completed. The~e was no one present in regard to this case. ~omm~sioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ approval of the ~mendment to th__e Conditional Use P~rmit at 7~00 49th Av_~enue North, as requested in Case ~-~3. Com~missioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Friedrich, Gulenchvn, Bartos, Cameron, ~otion carried.Voting against: None ~ ~._ ~ ~ ~ ~ %~ustafs°r~Gundershaug, Edwards, Dunn__ ~ ~ Planning Case No. 83-63, request for an amendment to the conditional use permit at 7600-49th Avenue North to allow ~he Darkin~ of two school buses on the site, was considered by Council. Mr. Krohn appeared before Council to answer any questions regarding the request. Upon inquiry, Mr. Krohn said that the buses would be parked in back along the north fence line of the property. He said that the buses would not be seen from the houses across the street. No one appeared in regard to this planning case. Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Enck to approve the amendment to the conditional use ~ermit to allow parkin~ of the two school buses at 7600-49th Avenue North as requested under PLanning Case No. 83-63 with the unders~andinc tha~ this conditional use permit is subject ~o annual revle~v by s=aff. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Votinc a~ainst: None Dan Donahue AGENDA PLANNING COMJ~ISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-7 - Request for Construction Approval- 3531 Nevada Avenue- Carl David and Howard Larsen, Petitioners 4. Planning Case 86-8 - Request for Construction Approval- 5600 International Parkway - Rosewood Corporation- Gary Nordness, and A. Peter Hilger, Petitioners. COb~ITTEE REPORTS .5. Report of Design and Review Committee 6. Report of Land Use Committee 7. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 8. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1986. 9. Review of Council Minutes of January 23, February 24, and March 10, 1986. 10. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and Staff. 11. Announcements 12. Adjournment DATE: April 1, 1986 CASE: 86- 7 PETITIONER: Karl David REQUEST: Construction Approval ADDRESS: 3531 Nevada ZONING: I-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Petitioner is developing a 24,400 square foot office, warehouse, manufacturing building at 3531 Nevada. No variances or conditional use permits asked or required. Building sprinkled. 2. Land: 97,400 sq. ft. or 2.24 acres Building: 24,400 sq. ft. or 25% (40% maximum) Green Area: 37,682 sq. ft. or 39% (35% minimum) Parking: 65 spaces provided (required 61) 3. This property has been undeveloped till now due primarily to poor soil conditions. It was platted by Stremel Brothers several years ago. This development isp'robably the best and highest use for this property. 4. Design and Review had a couple of concerns: - Trash storage should be shown on the plans as "interior" - Screen rooftop equipment - Provide drainage easement over west 40 feet and show grading and storm sewer details - Provide for a "Vistor Parking" sign which would be posted or mounted in front. 5. Staff recommends approval. DATE: April 1, 1986 · CASE: 86~8 PETITIONER: Gary Nordness/Rosewood Corp. REQUEST: Construction Approval ADDRESS: 5600 International Parkway ZONING: I-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Petitioner is developing a 42,764 square foot office, warehouse, manufacturing building at 5600 International Parkway. This is an odd shaped lot caused by a curved railroad spur track. No variances or conditional use permits required. Building sprinkled. 2. Land: 183,914 square feet or 4.22 acres Building: 42,764 square feet or 24 percent Green Area: 70,555 square feet or 38 percent (35 percent minimum) Parking: 112 provided and 112 required 3. All Design & Review suggestions have been taken and shown on the revised plans except for one; The required drainage easement along the railroad tracks, including a small "pond", must be illustrated on the blue- prints, and then recorded with Hennepin County. The recent survey does not even reveal an apparent easement to the railroad, which might conflict. Snow storage was to be only in the back pond. 4. The Comprehensive Sign Plan on sheet N3 violates Section 3.465 (1)a of the City Code. We permit wall signage in this zoning district to be no more than 10 percent of the front face of the building: In this case, a front face of 19' x 400' x 10% : 760 square feet TOTAL. They have a total of 1102 square feet proposed and have not filed for a Sign Variance. 5. Staff recommends approval of the project, other than the Comprehensive Sign plan, subject to providing us the drainage easement requested by our engineer. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6,, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OLD BUSINESS COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. Report of Design and Review Committee 4. Report of Land Use Committee 5. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 6. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 1986 7. Review of Council Minutes of March 24, April 2, and April 14, 1986 8. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests, of Public Commissioners, and Staff. 9. Announcements. 10. Adjournment. May 2, 1986 TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager PLANNING COMMISISON MEETING OF MAY 6, 1986. We have a rather light agenda for .this planning Commission meeting. In fact, we have no planning cases. I believe this is the first time in four and a half years that this has ever happened. I would like to spend some time Tuesday night discussing the vacant land study. Commissioner Bartos and myself can discuss the study in more detail, and recommend how we want to handle the adoption of it to the Comprehensive Plan. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Dan Donahue City Manager ad/j sb AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-9 - Request for Variance to Retain Second Driveway - 5605 Wisconsin Avenue - Robert Busch, Petitioner. 4. Planning Case 86-10- Request for Variances to Expand a Non-Conforming Dwelling - 8260 Del Drive North - Jeffrey and Jane Rudy, Petitioners. 5. Planning Case 86-11- Request for Rear Setback Variance - 3332 Ensign Avenue - William Lyman, Petitioner 6. Planning Case 86-12- Request for Conditional Use Permit and Construction Approval - 42nd/Winnetka - Jerry Kelly and Offices America, Inc., Petitioner. 7. Planning Case 86-13- Request for Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Construc- tion Approval - 9400 36th Avenue North - Archie Mosher, Petitioner. 8. Planning Case 86-14- Request for Variance to Expand a Non-conforming Home, and Rearyard Setback - 5904 Aquila Avenue North Delmar Lindberg, Petitioner. Planning Case 86-15- Request for Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Home - 8119 50th Avenue North - David W. Hanson, Petitioner. 10. Planning Case 86-16- Request for Construction Approval and Variance to Allow Frontyard Parking - 5651 International Parkway - Veijo Tarnanen, Petitioner. 11. Planning Case 86-17- Request for Rezoning, Concept Approval for PUD, Approval or Preliminary Plat and Approval of Easement Vacation - 36th Avenue North, East of Winnetka - New Hope Terrace Limited Partnership, Petitioner. 12. Planning Case 86-18- Request for Setback Variance and Concept Approval for Construction of Apartment Building - 8201 Bass Lake Road - Vernon Stuhr, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS 13~ Report of Design and Review Committee 14. Report of Land Use Committee 15. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 16. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1986 17. Review of Council Minutes of Ma'y 13, and 28, 1986 18. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and Staff 19. Announcements 20. Adjournment' DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-9 PETITIONER: Robert Busch REQUEST: Variance for Second Driveway on Non-conforming Home LOCATION: 5605 Wisconsin North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This home was first built around 1950 and was first occupied as a basement home. Several additions have been made but the records give no clue as to who did what and when. City water and sewer were added in 1959 and no major work has been.done since that time. 2. The new owner, Robert Busch, was issued a building permit on 4-22-86 for a new 900 square foot detached garage with the condition that the existing driveway running to Wisconsin be removed per ordinance for 4.036, Subd. 4 H (x) of the City Code. The new garage has a driveway to 56th Avenue. The petitioner is here before the Planning Con%mission ....... 5eca~se he has~ecided that he does hot want to remove the original driveway. 3. Staff has required a current land survey from Mr. Busch because of the degree of non conformity, age, and condition of the building; and because of the variance request. 4. The city encourages adding garages to homes that were originally built without them. However, the driveways are a separate issue and in this case there appears to be no real need for the original driveway and curb cut. Staff reco~ends denial. '~t; DI..SCRIi-'T]ON: Th~ bu,,th 10.5.00 feat uf thc- t~'cest 210.00 feut o w West b~]f ol flu blc, rtheast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter c o Section 6, 'i ] ~8, ~. 21, Hennep~n County, Minnesota. c c Except l. h3[ pat~ Lak~3n for 56th Aveenue Nort.], arid WiscoBsin D u Avenue N~z th. ',,' Z:'[ '/ t : ., ~ ~: ~ , C ~ <') DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-10 PETITIONER: Jeff and Jane Rudy REQUEST: Variance to Expand Non-Conforming Home and Setback Variance LOCATION: 8260 Del Drive .. i ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The corner lot across from Cooper High School was developed in 1961 with a home facing west on a lot designed to have a north facing building. This corner lot situation is like a hundred others around the city. The code requires that single family homes have an orientation to the short side of the lot. Throughout the city, there are countless examples of the orientation to the wider side. Corner lots are required to be 15 feet wider than the inside lots in order to acco~odate a typical home facing the "front" and that setbacks on both streets can be maintained.~ (ordinance 13. 052 Subd. 2) 2. The petitioner is seeking to construct a 22' x 16' addition to the garage. Other than a general site plan, I have no building details nor were any submitted. 3. The Building Official has met with the petitioners and has attempted to work with them to squeeze an attached garage on to what is the legal buildable yard without success. The proposal is the best compromise given this current lot situation. Staff recon~nends approval with the submission of the land survey. DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-11 PETITIONER: William Lyman REQUEST: Rearyard Setback Variance LOCATION: 3332 Ensign North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS ~ 1. This house is located on a cul-du-sac adjacent to the west side of Hidden Valley Park and was constructed in 1972. No major work has been done since that time. 2. The petitioner is seeking to construct a three-season porch with decks that will come to within 25 feet of the rear property line. The required setback is 35 feet. 3. The Joseph Merila construction company attempted to begin construction on this in April without submitting a site plan. Staff held upkth~issuing of the permits until a site pla~was submitted. On review it was noted that a variance would be needed for this work. 4. Because of the nature of the lot sitting on a cul-du-sac, it would be impossible for the petitioner to construct any kind of an addition without going into the required setback areas. He could build the deck without the variance but because it is a "three-season" porch a variance is needed. Also, the park is direct east of the petitioner's property so the impact on other residential properties is very minimal. Staff reco~_~nends approval subject to the petitioner's submitting evidence of ownership. -"~'*^"'"'~""' '~ 'LOT SUR~Y'S CC~MPANY ~~AVE.~. = . ~ ~Y~ND~PRA~ '~' ,..~L~N VALLEY, MINN. . ~ . ..-~- ~:<,..: ..~ . ~171DAHOAVE. N, .'.:' , -. ;~ .:~;-..:~-~; ',- ~-;.-'" . ,T..~.~~ ~ ~Wl OZ I~ATI ~ ~lOTA MINN. REG. ~.674~ "rye" ~6'~ "~ ...... ~"' ..... ~- ..' ......... . - ..~.., - . .iL,. ~'*~,; '*. , :.. - . ~;:.. -' ""-'" ...:.. _ ,-?' ~:' :~'~,. ;'J.--- '-:,~: . . '..' ..4- ~~'-,. ..,7.-S..+~ ,.,..,.; .., ;S:....: ?~.~..~'-~:,~,:.: ..... -~ :~;:..-~' ..,. -~ .... . ~. · % ' ,.. ;~:~ ~. . . .- .~ '. y~..'~.' ~ ..*. .-;~.'~ ~ ". .'~ ' * · ' - '* ' · - '.- ' ' -' '* ':~ '- ' ~':'~-, -.,'.-.¢. ':' 1: 7:5 -- "'.":"-.. ":~, S,'~ -.~?~':~- ~ -...~"~ .~ ~ :.. _-- -. ':'-;':"' :" i~" " = ~ ~*'="~-~ " - .~.~. :~.~-'., ,. - ....... , . ,, ~.: ~.'.:~'~ ~ ..... ~ . .: .- ,.'.:. .... ~"~'~ I 4 , -*-'"- -~'q ,*~- *'~'* · ~, ~* '~ ' ': · t ~"' .... * ~:~**~' · ~ ~ .',;-~m .* . -. *~: _.. ,.* . ~ .. ~ [ .::~,.'-'~ .*. . . .;..~:,~ .. ~. ..;. .... ~. ..~..- . .... ~ .-~..,~ ,.. ¥~ -~-_.~. ~ .,~.~.~,.~"~-,-. ,.-..:? , .-, ~ -. %' · . ~ ~ - .: · ~%, * ,~ ~', · . . :, .~ ..... .[ .... ~ .~..=,..,.¥ .,, ...... ~.~, ... .... ..... ,:..,~ ... ~,,....,~...~,,_.~.~,~_., ' ~fl : *,-~'~'- ~ ' .' '~ I ~*~J; 1~ ' ' - - ~ [. ,~ .'-;':'~ -~~ ~A..~'- ~," · .~ ..... ~.~ ~. r~ ; [ ' '.~~, '.;., '~ ~i :-' .:~ ': ~-/ ', r--.. . ~, '~5~o'..;.,:-.-''' . ,~. ~ ,,-...~. ~ ~* .,. ~ :~ ' · "~. ..~x ' / : ~~/~ ' ' ,......, ~..,... ~ ~,~ ~ ......... ~-;..: . ~':' ~ ...... ~. ~ ...... ~ ~ ,'~ ' ~ ..........~ /~ "~(-~'_~O _ .....~. ~ _..,~~~: .'.~. ~ ~..~ ..~.~-.. .-.. .....~,..;~ ~ '-. .~ .... ~ , I :.,,. .- -~ t ~ j:'. '~'~'" ~ ' "' '~' ' "' ,-: . .... . ~ ' ,, .... ~,~ --.~... ~ ?~. .. ~ ~ ' .-.. .~ , . ~. ~ - · "' ' 2-~ /7' . ' :.~ ",~ : .... '. '.,:~ . -.~ ' ,. ~...,.. , ~.~ -~ (;..- :- DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-12 PETITIONER: Jerry Kelly and Offices of America REQUEST: PUD-Development Stage, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit for a Co~aercial Recreation Building in a B-4 Zone, and Construction Approval. LOCATION: 4203 Winnetka Avenue North ZONING: B-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The old shopping center is back before you having received concept approval in Planning Case 85-38 on 12-9-85. The plan that will be before you is essentially identical to the one receiving the concept approval on that date. I have included the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council meetings concerning that planning case. 2. The Design and Review sub-committee's concerns appear to have been addressed. There seems to be no outstanding construction type ~problems" from a staff perspective 3. ~There is going to be a need for a formal agreement on shared parking and access with the corner property (Sinclair). If that property is to be developed there has to be some type of shared parking. I only bring it up here in that the petitioners need to be aware of it and agree to negotiate. 4. We need to have a letter from the adjacent property owners to the north confirming that the site combinations as illustrated in the plans are agreeable to that property owner. 5. Last year, the Planning Commission and Council approved a change in the Zoning Code to allow the commercial recreation in the B-4 Zone. Although the ordinance has been passed, it has not been published and we are waiting to do so when the development is assured. The Conditional Use Permit then is for the US Swim and Fitness as a commercial recreation organization to locate.in the B-4 zone. 6. No comprehensive sign plan is included in this request. Such a sign plan will have to be submitted at a later date. This should be pointed out to the petitioners. 7. Staff recon~nends approval. In answer to a question from Commissioner.. Lutts, the owner said that generally the people that would shop in the convenience store would be those people that drove in to purchase gas. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that the petitioners had heard the concerns of the commission, and asked whether they thought there would be any benefit in the, commission tabling this case, to allow them to go back to the d~awing board. The owner said he felt this would allow him to present an updated landscape plan and try to provide some more parking spaces. He added, however, that he just did not think additional parking spaces were necessary for the convenience store. He was not looking for people who wanted to do their weekly shopping. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether given the trend in service stations today to increase the number of items for sale, there was not a possibility that they would be back soon requesting a larger store? The owner said that the marketing direction that Amoco was taking, he did not believe this would happen. This was a corporately mandated design, and he would not be seeking to increase his sales. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether there was any way that the location of the gas pumps could be changed. He was concerned that the primary movement was across in front of the pumps and then out. The answer was that because of the setbacks, there was no way to shift the building toward the north. This would require a variance. .. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested making the building smaller. The owner stated this was not feasible. Commissioner Anderson noted that there were options for the petitioner at this time. One would be for the commission to act and send it forward to the Council, another would be for them to table the case unt%l the January meeting to give more time for possible revisions. The p~titioner indicated _he would prefer a table. There was no one present in regard to this case. Chairman Cameron indicated that he didn't think the commission would be against granting ' a variance on setback if it could in turn solve some of the present problems with the proposal. Motion 'Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, to table Planning Case 85-36 until the meeting of January 7, 1985. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-38 Mr. John Cassiani represented office, s, America, Inc.. ~e stated Cond-itional Use Permit he was at the meeting as a developer interested in re-habbing the Variance in Parking New ~ope Mall. They wish to bring in a major anchor, U. S. Swim Item 6 and Fitness to lease 38,000 square feet in the c~nter. They will build additional square footage to bring the mall space up to the 80,~00 square foot range. They plan to take the e~ ~ting leased space and move it to the perimeter and iostall glas/ sore fronts with pull-up parking to most of the tenants spacr~ They were appearing before the Commissioh to secure concept~a . Dproval-.of their plans for this re-hah project. They realize ~!~ ~ the Mall needs a shot in the arm, and they .feel that U.~. Swim ~d Fitness will provide this. They feel the upgrading of the m~l~, wi~h a new exterior finish would be good. for the people in the mall and the community.. New Hope Planning Commission Dece~be~ {. 1985 .Page 5 Mr. Tom Zumwold, architect for the proj'ect, used illustration boards to give an overview of the proposed project. The plan is to create additional space for tenants and also for U.S. Swim and Fitness at the north side of the existing mall. The perimeter of the mall will all be for leasing space, including any existing tenants who wish to remain. T~ey feel with the new exterior the view from the intersection will be an attractive focal point. There will also be a connecting canopy. Mr. Cassiani said he had a meeting scheduled with the owner of the Winnetka Mall on Wednesday to discuss the possible connection of the malls. This is not in a finalized stage of discussion. The architect noted he had several meeetings with the owner of the Winnetka Mall to discuss the possibility of linking the two malls. He noted that there are also utility easements that would prohibit any future development from straddeling the division lines. They envisioned a visual connection at the very least, between the two malls. The intention is to convert to a strip center with bays 70 feet deep to the west and south. U.S. Swim and Fitness will occupy the north end, plus the proposed addition. They propose a metal ....... canopy to bring out the face of the building, to also provide some shelter for customers. They will use face brick, and typical store front areas, with a uniform sign band. They propose painted concrete block for the north and back sides. Dennis Griswold then spoke to the landscaping. They are proposing 90 trees for the perimeter, including evergreens and junipers, with shrub massing to provide some screening to the back and also to add visual interest. The main entrance will have a row of canspy trees and as a focal point between the two buildings a double row of juniper along the sidewalk with shrubbery behind. They will work with the people from the Winnetka Mall if possible and there maybe some minor adjusting in landscape plans. They are trying to create a garden affect, using raised planters with locusts. Referring to the Design and Review meeting and the concern over parking, the architect stated that they had provided an alternative plan which incorporated the required parking. The change is that they shortened the length and increased the widths of the aisles to 64 feet. Copies of the revision wer~ distributed to the commissioners and a rendering of the proposal was provided. CommissiOner ~Gundershaug asked how much would be cut off the building with the changes. The answer was approximately lO,~ feet. Chairman Came[on confirmed that the changed proposal assumed that they would have cooperation from the people in the Winnetka Mall regarding the joint entrance. The architect stated 'that the parking proposed was within the required setbacks. Commission concensus was that perhaps a little ~r~ landscaping could be provided. In response~to a question,, it was noted that ia- ~%red parking with the Winnetka Mall would hopefully be discu~ at the next day's meeting. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the commission was ~eing asked -. only for Concept Approval, and .that actual construction and all details'would be back before the commission for review. Discussion then covered commission concerns, which ~'~cluded the need for a second loading dock, wh'ere trash would - ~ collected and stored, the appearance of the west and south sido~ .gl the new addition and the, need to attempt to tie th~ t~ buildings '' together. Also of concern was the view from 42nd ~ .~e driving east. ~ ~w' ~npe Planning Commission Oecembe~ 3, 19~5 Page 6 The petitioner said they were looking at some greenery, and perhaps a walkway and perhaps using a different type of block, or glass on the back of the store fronts. He said they would be willing to put a nicer type of block on the back. There will be exterior lighting, and snow will be removed f~om the site. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed concern about security between the two malls. He was also concerned about trucks coming in and out of the site and felt there needed to be some type of control, perhaps by signage. The architect noted that a service aisle would run all the way around the building. Alan Brixius from the Northwest Associated Consultants stated that the current parking plan met all requirements. He added that a joint parking plan between the two malls would be helpful for both of the malls. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioners were aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance and its restrictions. He further determined that a walkway was planned for around the entire building, that the parking lot would be curbed and striped, and that there will be lighting in the parkinq lot. They feel that generally, the existing rooftop equipment will be converted to smaller units. They have also considered the potential of raising the parapet. Chairman Cameron asked whether they had discussed their plans with K-Mart. Mr. Cassini said he had attempted to talk with them, but they had not as yet returned his calls. Commissioner Anderson stated that since the two driveways were very dependent upon the Winnetka Mall's cooperation, he was concerned about losing access between the two malls. Both of the malls would suffer from this lack of access. He asked if, should agreement be reached on shared access, how they intended to manage' the relationship into perpetuity. Mr. Cassini said he intended to have documents drawn up by their attornies, that would be simple and concrete in writing, that would be filed along with the property, to be used by future owners also. Discussion then covered the driveway around the back side of the stores, and the need for fire and emergency vehicles to be able ~o gain access; as well as the traffic pattern between the New Hope Mall and K-Mart. In response to questions from Commissioner Anderson, the architect stated that.there would be enclosed trash storage. Commissioner Anderson e×~ressed concern about the proposed extension toward 42nd Avenue. The architect responded that they were saddled with 6~,~0 square feet of building that doesn't work today. Mrs. Neff, operator of the Paper Outlet ~n the i~ew Hope Mall, stated she had been there for three years and e×~ressed concern that she had just moved aex~ door to he~ origi? ~ito because she had been assured by Mr. Kelly that she woui~i ?~ be dumDed out of the center. She loves her present location ~ the people and the customers. She was concerned about the punch, e of .the center, when it would be effective and what would h~'~3~ to 'the exis'ting tenants. Chairman~Cameron stated he was not sure that these q~estions and concerns were appropriate at the Commission ~eeting. Mr. Cassini said he had meetings set up with presen~ ~e~ants, to see if they wished to remain. He stated that ~he t~nts were -.not going to be bulldozed into decisions. 'No one wc~ ~e forced out -- tenants would have plenty o~ notice regarding ~? changes. New Hope Planning'Commission December 3, Chairman Cameron indicated he liked the proposal very much. Commissioner Edwards agreed with this. Chairman Cameron asked whether the Petitioner had approached the owners of the Sinclair station. The city manager stated that· the city HRA was on record as wanting to try to incorporate the Station with any redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cassini said they were going to try to approach them. The city manager noted that the proposed text change must be approved before concept approval could be given. This would include the uss in the B-4 zone, as a conditional use permit. Alan Brixius said the commission could give concept approval subject to a text amendment. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Edwards, recommending that staff prepare an amendment to the text to allow this use as a Conditional Use Permit in the B-4 Zone. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending concept approval of Planning Case 85-38. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to an adequate agreement between the Winnetka Mall and the New Hope Mall regarding access, to be reviewed by the city attorney. Voting in fauor: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron, Edwards. Abstain: Gundershaug. Public Hearing on The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the 42nd 42nd Avenue Avenue Improverment Study and Recommendations on Proposed Improvement Study Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Item 7 Alan Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants represented the city. He stated that the 42nd Avenue Study had evolved from the planning process adopted b~ the city. Things considered w~e the ~6~re-~-~Sive Plan -as previously adopted, the plan for the City Core, and concerns about commercial growth, the 42nd Avenue area, the desired land use of the area, and the problems of excessive curb cuts on 42nd Avenue and traffic/accident patterns. Issues of concern are traffic circulation, the high speeds in-the area, and the high number of accidents~ New Hope has limited commercial development, and the present strip development has added to the lack of continuity. There is a lack of traffic control also because of the lack of controlled access east of the railroad tracks. He felt that the high traffic volume and accident rate might support a petikioner for a semaphore. There also-should be a realignment of Nevada Avenue. They had also studied the land use in the area and the lack of compatibility of the landscaping. They had com'e up with the following goals. 1. Safer-access on to 42nd Avenue -- 2. 'Need for harmony of land uses. 3. More'positive emphasis of the New Hope Center area. 4. Need to provide for a cooperative agreement between the city and the owners of the businesses in the area. New Hope Planning C~mmission December 3, Page 8 Mr. John Parker from Parker Communications was recognized by the mayor. Mr. Parker stated he plans to rebui~ld one of the three towers ~- and that the new tower will not be taller but will have a slight width increase. The main reason for the increase is to support a 100 foot pole on the top for an FM antenna. He added that the tower is being rebuilt to assure that it is sufficiently stable to hold the additional weight and that all the transmission lines will be redone. The transmitter will be moved to.the new building behind Tom Thumb. Mr. Mike Troje, the engineer for Parker Communications, was recognized by the mayor and stated that the FM antenna will be strapped to the new tower and extend approximately 2-1/2 to 3 feet above the tower. Councilmember Daly asked if the new tower and antenna would cause interference in the neighborhood. Mr. Parker replied that the tower should not cause problems but they would be willing to assist anyone with problems. The problem more than likely would be that something isn't grounded. Councilmember Williamson questioned the fencing proposed. Mr. Parker stated they will be replacing the fences at the base of the towers and they will be made of wood. Councilmember Williamson questioned the use of a wood fence and whether it would rot with all of the water. Mr. Parker stated that a metal fence can throw signals off and presently the fences on the site are wood and they have been there approximately 20 years. Mr. Troje stated that the wood used for the fencing would be treated and that the current fences are too short and do not provide security. The proposed eight foot high fences will have barbed-wire on the top for security. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daiy, second by Councl~me~Der Enck, to approve ( public regulated communications and reconstruction in the R-1 zone and a radio tower height of more than 20 feet above the roof as requested in Planning Case 85-26 submitted by petitioners John Parker and A1 Tedesco at 7980 36th Avenue North (M&B Section 18). All present voted in favor. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Williamson, second by Councilmember Daly,. to approve reconstruction of a radio tower in a flood plain with the condition that the petitioner follow the flood plain ordinance and that__all standards of th~ CHP ~r~ m~ ~n~ ~n~,~ctien cf thc radi~ tower in the. flood' plain zone as requested in Planning Case S5-26 submitted by John Parker and A1 Tedesco at 7980 36th Avenue North (M&B Section 18). All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE 85-38 . Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly OFFICES AMERICA, INC. requesting an amendment to the PUD, conditional use permit and a Item 8.3 variance in parking at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North was introduced by the mayor for consideration. New Hope City · Page 6 Mr. John Cassiani was recognized by Mayor Erickson who stated he is the developer for the project and is requesting concept approval on the redevelopment of the New Hope Mall. He further stated that they are proposing an addition to both the north and south end of the existing mall for a total footage of 80,~0 square feet. Mr. Cassiani continued by stating that the entire facility would be gutted and the main tenant would be U.S. Swim and Fitness and there would be retail space in the perimeter. He sta~ed~ that construction plans include a service corridor in the back of the bays for deliveries and could be a second exit. The front of the facility would be glass with an awning along the entire outside; the exterior will be brick. M~. Cassiani stated that they have met with all current tenants and are pursuing new tenants. He added that plans include a quality restaurant and they plan to purchase by March 1 with construction starting in April and completion in October of 1986. He continued by stating that the original ~equest was for a pa~king variance but is not needed as they are five spaceS.over the requirement. He explained that the plan is to bring in a common drive between the two malls and then close off the drive that presently runs through. Mr. Cassiani then stated that he and the owner of the Winnetka Mall are in negotiations Councilmember Williamson expressed concern regarding the Winnetka businesses having an entrance in the back. Councilmember Enck asked if the driveway to K-Mart would remain as is. Mayor Erickson added that the addition to the New Hope Mall would block off the entrance to the K-~art driveway. Councilmember Enck then questioned Mr. Cassiani if their plans included the purchase of the service statios on the corner of 42nd Avenue and Winnetka. Mr. Cassiani stated that the plans for purchase do not include the gas station. Councilmember Williamson stated that she was concerned with the driveway access to K-Mart and would like the driveway eliminated. Mr. Cassiani replied that the proposed service lane behind the facility wou~d decrease the use of ~he driveway. Councilmember Enck asked if there would be enhancement to the driveway on the east. Mr. Cassiani replied that their plans align the drive lanes allowing for a 15 foot setback for landscaping and access to the gas station will be changed. Councilmember Enck asked Mr. Cassiani where he stood on the purchase of the New Hope Mall. Mr. Cassiani replied that the ~ property is under on~ and tkc cl~sa ~-e ~s anticipated to be mid-February to Hatch 1 to allow time to get initia~ approvals, appraisals and to ~et the loan package and financing together. He added that everything is moving along well and he sees no problem in accomplishing it in that time frame. ~Councilmember Enck asked why they aren't proposing to enclose the store front walkway in glass. Mr. Cassiani stated that the awning which will be either plastic or metal and is an aesthetic improvement as now there is tile on the. upper portion of the building. He continued by stating that the awning wou~d cover the tile and would ~ive protection from rain and snow. -The plans are to have the signs on the side of the awning. The discussion continued with the City Council ques'tioninq the developer on suecific details. CouncilmemDer williamson expressed concern regar'din~ snow build up on the awnings-. CouncilmemDer Otten ~sked if the awning were permanent construction. It was sta~ed that the awnisg would be either of metal or plastic material and ~wouid be permanently affixed to the building. Councilmember ~aly asked if there would be a ~eed for a second story.. Mr. Cassiani stated that there were no p~ans for a second story and did not foresee any need in the future. New Hope City Council _ Decem~r 9, 19~5 ~ · '' Pa~e 7 MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve PUD amendment as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by ~ Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North (New Hope Shopping Center Section 0002) contingent on the sale of the property to Offices America, !nc. All present voted in favor. The city manager stated that a'~tSxt amendment is necessary to allow this use in a B-4 and the Planning Commission has recommended it be a conditional use permit. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten, to approve a conditional use permit to include the use in the B-4 zone as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka Avenue North (New Hope Shopping Center Section 18; PID 18-118-21 11 0002). All present voted in favor. Mr. Donahue stated that also requested under Planning Case 85-38 is preliminary plat to combine the Heise lot with the larger lot. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, to approve preliminary plat as requested in Planning Case 85-38 submitted by Offices America, Inc. and Jerry Kelly at Rockford Road and Winnetka .... · , _ .Aven_~_e__No~.th. All present voted in favor. PLANNING CASE~ 84-17 Mayor Erickson introduced the next Planning Case 84-17 submitted by FRANK'S NURSERY Frank's Nursery requesting landscape plan approval for 5620 Winnetka Item 8.4 Avenue North for consideration. Mr. Bill Velch from Frank's Nursery was recognized by the mayor and stated this was the second time he has presented the landscape plan to Council for approval. He stated there apparently has been some misunderstanding since the building official had not received the plans. Mr. Velch continued his ~resentation by stating that last November (1984) Council had questioned him regarding the number of parking stalls and also reauested additional plantings on the south side. He stated that this is not possible due to the space limitations. Councilmember Enck asked if a vine had been suggested for the fence. Mr. Velch stated that there was no place to plant as the area is blacktopped and the application presently requests a change in the north alcove. He explained that he would like this eliminated s~nce it serves no purpose~ C-~urrc-' ~y ~m~a-t~d that during sa~es and holiday seasons there appears to be a need for additional parking. Mr. Velch stated he sees no problem with additional parking as it would eliminate sod and plantings and this could be a consideration. MOTION Motion by Councilmember Otten, second . by Councitmember Oaly, to approve landscaping plan as requested in Planning Case 84-17 submitted by Frank's Nursery at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North. Councilmember Enck stated that he would like the planning case referred to staff and possibly Design and Review before giving approval. Mr. Velch commented that this is what happened last year and in order to assure that-they will have their p~antin~s next spring approval is needed immediately. The city m~nager read the letter sent to Mr. Velch dated November 28, 1984, addressed to Frank's Nursery at 562~ Winnetka Avenue North. Mr. Velch stated that for the record his address is 794~ Penn~ Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431, and that he did not receive the letter sent l~st November. Councilmember Daly stated that he feels Mr. Vetch should be given approval because of the m~sunderstanding. .He furt.her stated it is ~o~ _reasonable to delay approval. . . New Hope City C~unci~ ~ecemo~r Page ~ DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-13 PETITIONER: Archie Mosher REQUEST: Conditional Use Permits for: Expansion of Service Station; Expansion of Bait Shop Sales Area; Expansion of Locksmith Business; and Relocation of Car Wash LOCATION: 9400 36th Avenue North ,~ ~. ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to expand his building in order to increase the size of the building to accon~nodate his ancilary businesses. " 2. The site was developed with the Shell Oil Station in 1967, remodeled in 1972 and 1980. What was once strictly a service station is now that and a bait shop, a locksmith business, and the car wash. 3. Upon initial review of this request by the petitioner, it became very evident to staff that the proposal could not be considered without also considering the impact upon the shopping center. The two sites do not work alone and rely on each other. The parcels are separate with the shopping center having a B-4 zoning. Staff is recommending that we consider making some modifications to the shopping center site and thus consider this a planned unit development. The owner of the shopping center, Mr. Showalter, agrees that the proposal by the petitioner in this case warrents serious consideration and that he needs time to consider the impact upon the shopping center and to consider what site changes he would be willing to make. 4. Originally, the petitioner was only recon~r~nding an increase in his building. Staff strongly recommended that the west driveway entrance be moved further west. As it currently sits, the driveway causes all sorts of problems for both parcels, with people coming and going. Hennepin County apparently has no objections for moving the driveway f,~rther--~-~he-east-and-i% further--appea~--that Mr. Show~it~ iik~ ~i~ idea and would be willing to participate. What is recommended is that the 49 foot wide common driveway, shared with Post Haste be located about 30 feet west and evenly split the two property lines. In other words, coming in would be on the petitioner's property, and going out would be on the shopping center's property. There would a concrete divider in the middle. 5. Another problem is the tanker trucks coming into the gas station. Currently, the trucks come in and because of the location of the tanks, they end up using the shopping center property to maneuver around the site and exit. It w~s recon%~ended to the petitioner and he is apparently agreeing, to relocate the tanks to the front of the'site. Moving the driveway to the west would then accommodate the trucks in such. a manner that they would not have to use the shopping center site for maneuvering. 6. The parking provided meets ordinance requirements if the easement language is changed from at least 24 feet of ingress along the north property line adjacent to the proposed 20 feet of parking spaces. The current easement language on the north propertyline gives the petitioner only ten feet for vehicles to drive and out of the site. Since there is parking on the north side of the building, a minimum of 24 feet would be needed for this purpose. 7. Staff also believes that there should be some changes on the shopping center property. Moving the driveway would allow for some parking deficiencies to be created. There appears to be space on the Post Haste parking lot that is under-utilized because of the current driveway situation. Moving the driveway would straighten out and define the driving lanes and therefore better definition of where the parking spaces are in the shopping center lot. Also missing from the shopping center is a designated loading berth. The delivery trucks end up parking all over the place, causing serious flow problems. 8. At this time, the Post Haste shopping center owner would like more time to consider the proposals by the petitioner. The petitioner wants to get going on his building. Staff wants the two to work together and it is not reconraended that the petitioner be allowed to proceed until arrangements have been worked out with the shopping center owner. Staff recon~ends that this case be tabled until such time as this is done. DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-14 PETITIONER: Delmar Lindberg REQUEST: Variance to Expand Non-Conforming Home Rear Setback Variance LOCATION: 5904 Aquila Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: '.~ %. The petitioner is seeking to construct a car port measuring 24' x 9' on the south end of his current garage. 2. The corner lot was developed in 1959 and no improvements have been made to the structure since then. 3. This is another case of a corner lot developed with the home facing the wrong way instead toward the narrow street frontage. It leaves the property with a very small rear yard. Because of this, anything the petitioner would do to expand his garage would require a variance. 4. Esthetics should be addressed because the petitioner wants to build a carport instead of an expanded garage. The danger is that the carport becomes unscreened exterior storage. Also, such a carport will not match the original house in style, roof line, and harmonious design considerations. 5. The carport will come to approximately 7 feet from the south property line. On a normal conforming building, the garage setback is five feet. Staff does not reconwaend the carport but if approved, the petitioner should be notified that a lot survey is needed. DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-15 PETITIONER: David Hanson REQUEST: Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Building and Front Setbacks LOCATION: 8113 50th Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Here again, we have a corner lot with the building facing the wrong direction. The hon~e was constructed in 1962 with no major work occurring since then. % 2. The petitioner is seeking to construct a 22' x 28' garage addition to this home. jThe petitioner has worked with staff and has carefully considered all possible locations for the garage. If the house were facing the proper direction, then this proposed addition would not require a variance. As it is now, only a few feet of the proposed garage actually would be in the setback area. Staff reconxnends approval as the proposed' addition has minimal impact on the surrounding property and will conform with the existing building. ENGI NEF-R~ ~D 3URVEYOR3 '- ':' ; ,.. g41&-~TM AVENUE -. ~/ ~ ~ UILDABLE YARD" DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-16 PETITIONER: Veijo Tarnanen REQUEST: Variance for Frontyard Parking Construction Approval LOCATION: 5651 International Parkway ZONING: I-1 " STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This vacant piece of property at the corner of County Road ~i8 and Bass Lake Road is being proposed for development of an office/warehouse of approximately 21,000 square feet. Of this, 3500 square feet will be for office, 8,000 square feet for manufacturing, and 9500 square feet for warehouse. Fifty-six parking spaces will be provided and there will be a 35% coverage for green area. 2. A technical variance is needed because the front of the lot which is actually facing east will have parking. This is a non economic hardship caused by the shape of the property and staff would recon~nend approval. 3. A couple of minor points staff would recon~nend. First, is to move the west 70 foot loading dock from a 35 degree angle to a 30 degree angle from the building. This would allow a 70 foot truck to not stick out in the driving lane and to better maneuver the 50 foot turning radius around the parking lot. 4. The petitioner wants to submit a drainage plan to the Hennepin County Engineers because of the 18 inch storm sewer at the northwest corner which drains the ditch adjacent to the County Road ~18 ramp. Also, the storm sewer at the north side of the property that is proposed by the petitioner should be located at least ten to fifteen feet from the building. Also, the petitioner will have to verify the recording of the easement for the north/south existing 24 inch storm sewer. 5. SLaff would recon~re~d--~ppr-OV~ of this project. 'iRe petitioner should be advised that there is not comprehensive sign plan at this time and that 'one would be needed in the future. DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-17 PETITIONER: Frank Kubidschek New Hope Terrace Liquidated Partnership REQUEST: Rezoning from I-2 to R-4, Preliminary Plat, PUD Concept Approval and Easement Vacation LOCATION: 7601 36th Avenue North ZONING: I-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to construct a 140-150 unit apar~nent complex on this property. The petitioner will at a later date seek permission from the city to create a tax increment district and may be using housing revenue bonds to construct the building. 2. At this time, the petitioner is only seeking concept approval for the PUD. The concept here is the rezoning along with the rough site plan and building plans. 3. ~Two parcels of property are being combined here to form a ten acre site. There are very pool soil conditions and the placement of the building will take into account these poor soils. 4. Complicating this whole project are sewer and sanitary pipes running diagonally across the property. Both of these pipes will have to be relocated to run along the property, lines. For this reason and the pool soil conditions, the petitioners will be seeking a tax increment district. The Planning Cor~aission should consider the petitioner's intentions here about their plans and intentions for the creation of a tax increment district. A motion is need from the Commission indicating that you considered the plans for the creation of a tax increment district and you either approved or denied. 5. I would like to ask the Planning Con~nission to not table this case as only the concept for the apartment complex is being considered. Staff i-~r_oposing_a_heD~r_inq on the tax increment district in front of the City Council in June. The petitioners~ need to know prior to that hearing if the overall Concept, along with the rezoning and the platting have preliminary blessings from both the Con~nission and Council. As we have done in many 'other cases, the platting and the rezoning would not actually take place until the project actually begins. If the project falls at the last minute, then there would be no changes to what current use is. 36TH AVENUE NEW HOPE TERRACE SCHEME C PRO~ECT DATA; 90 TWO B[DROO~, UNITS 975 S.F. Uz,~,q~ ~..~ ~. .~ lS0 TOTAL UNIT~ 1:1 iNTERIOR PARKING 150 1:1.25 EXTERIOR PARKING 186 LAUNDRY ROOM AT EACH FLOOR DATE: June 3, 1986 CASE: 86-18 PETITITIONER: Vern Stuhr REQUEST: Setback Variance and Concept Approval for Apartment Building LOCATION: 5641 Wisconsin ZONING: R-4 " STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Mr. Stuhr has worked with the city staff over the past many months in trying to develop his property at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin. Mr. Stuhr is very unhappy with the way things have turned out for him over this past several years on his attempts to develop his property. As a result, numerous conversations have been held with many people, and the City Council, by Mr. Stuhr. I have decided that I would waive certain requirements in order to demonstrate to the petitioner that the city is honestly trying to work with him and do what it can do to assist in the development of his property. I have not required any fees from Mr. Stuhr for this Planning Case and I am going to ask the Planning Con~nission to consider Mr. Stuhr's proposals and give him your opinions as to whether you would agree to the setback variance and if the concept merits further review. I have informed Mr. Stuhr that since his apartment building has not gone to Design and Review, that I could not ask the Planning Commission to approve his building plans at this meeting. 2. The rearyard setback being asked for is 25 feet. The plans show the rear of the building coming ten feet from the property line instead of the required 35 feet. The real problem here is density on this corner lot. Its size and location next to single family properties realistically only support an R-3 zone rather than what is currently there for an R-4. The current vacant land study, which has yet to be approved recon~nends only a four unit apartment with the corresponding down zoning to R-3. Such a down zoning would eliminate variances and increase usable open space and be a reasonable transition between high d~nsity and--low-dens~ty-r~~l. 3. Mr. Stuhr originally submitted plans to me that showed two requests for setback variances. The first was for the front yard he wanted a 15 foot variance instead of the 35 foot required setback. I informed him at that time that I didn't believe the planning Con~nissionf would even consider such a request as to my knowledge, none had ever been granted under simlar circumstances. I also told him that I thought the rearyard setback was excessive but that he could at least propose it to the Planning Commission and Council for their consideration. 4. The issue here is to let Mr. Stuhr know once and for all What is acceptable. I think the Planning Con~nission and City Council have attempted to do this in the past. We have consistently told Mr. Stuhr that a 7 unit apartment building is too much for this site. The plan that is being presented is probably the best to date 'in terms of answering the objections that have come up in the past. However, there is still the- rearyard setback and the parking lot going into the setback. Also, Planning Conr~ission will have to consider the recon~nendations of the Vacant Land Study and the down zoning to R-3. Mr. Brandell stated that he had a purchase agreement from the owners of the property. It has not yet been accepted because the owners were out of the country. He had been working on this purchase for quite some time. Commissioner Edwards asked whether there could be some assurance that if the deal did not go through, the city would not end up with a landlocked piece of property. Discussion followed regarding this potential problem, and whether this could be guaranteed legally. Chairman Cameron asked whether the attornies could work out some iron-clad deal to assure this. The city manager 'Said yes. In answer to a question about a potential table for one month, Mr. Brandell stated that a delay could hurt the dea~. They are just waiting for permission to conclude the sale. He felt he was within a few days of completing the sale. The city manager noted that the owners of the property interested ....... in buying Mr. Brandell's property had been before the Commission a year ago seeking extra parking. The city had suggested at that time that they pursue purchasing some extra land. Motion Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Friedrich, recommending approval of the preliminary plat at 92~0 49th Avenue North, Planning Case 85-32, contingent upon the city attorney's approval, that the parcel is actually sold, and that easements are provided as outlined by staff. Voting in favor: Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Edwards Voting against: Anderson Motion Carried Mr. Bransdell asked whether the Letter of Credit presently held by the city for landscaping, which would be over the easements, would still be in effect. The city manager said he wou~d look into this issue. Planning Case 85-33 Scott Stuhr and Frank Pattee represented the petitioner. Mr. Construction Approval Stuhr said they wished to build the apartment house on the Request property adjacent to the existing home. Item 10 The building will have 7 two bedroom units, have aluminum siding, asphalt shingles on the roof. The driveway is designed for no traffic off Bass Lake Road. It would have the entrance to the site on Bass Lake Road and the exit on to Wisconsin. Chairman Cameron asked Whether the proposal had been designed by a registered architect. Mr. Pattee said yes, he' had drawn the plans. It was a difficult site to work with. The only way they could get seven units on the site was to have access off Bass Lake Road and exit on to Wisconsin; one way traffic. ~ Commissioner Edwards expressed concerns about the are~ mentioned .~ at the Design an~ Review meeting. y Mr. Pattee said that each unit would have separ' heating units. There~ will be a washer and dryer on the fir~ ~3. The heat in each unit would be electric. There is a separa room on the first floor for t~e laundry and this is where !~ ~ meters ~', would be. Commissioner Edwards asked where maintenance equipment ~,~ch as hoses, rakes, etc., be kept~ Mr. Pattee said at the end of the garages. He confi ~ ~ ~ that ~hey were requesting no variances for the construction~ Page 8 Discussion was then held regarding a green space requirement, the width of the driveway around the south side of the building, and the traffic flow, and the possibility of relocating the existing curb cut. Commisssioner Edwards asked whether ~there had been any traffic studies conducted and noted that the curb cut might have to be moved. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the traffic problems on Bass Lake Road, and indicated he might be willing to consider a variance in setbacks to have two driveways on Wisconsin and closing the curb cut on Bass Lake Road. Mr. Pattee noted the requirement for one uncovered parking space per unit, and noted that this had been designed to give the maximum return for the space, and he felt that changing driveways would end up in an entire corner of asphalt. Discussion continued regarding the entrance and exit, and Mr. Pattee said he did not know how they could build the building without using Bass Lake Road - The city manager confirmed that city code required 3500' of green area. Discussion then about garbage collection and whether the driveway as proposed would allow enough turning radius for a garbage truck, and the danger if the truck had to back up on to Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Anderson' asked where snow would be piled. Mr. Pattee said the,! would have the corner of the Dropert,! to pile snow on and also five foot strip at the rear at the end of the parking stalls. Commissioner Anderson stated that in his opinion this proposal was over utilization of the site. He felt they were asking too much from the City and that he would have a hard time supporting this proposal. He was a~o concerned about cars getting in and out of the parking stalls. Commissioner Bartos ~stated he felt there were some inadequacies with the site, adding, that the entrance on Bass Lake Road, with the traffic on that street scared him. Mr. Stuhr asked whether they could receive a variance on the amount of the green space required. Discussion continued 'regarding the curb cuts, the required distance for a curb cut from the corner (40 feet) and possible alternatives to these problems. Mr. Pattee stated it would cost too much money to build fewer units. It would not be economically, feasible. The plan had been designed to get the maximum use of the land. Chairman Cameron expressed concerns about the la~-~cscaminq,, or lack of. He felt that there needed to be addition~' landscaping to protect the- tenants in the building from noise to enhance their sight lines. He personnaly would like to see '~ce greenery provided. Motion Motion by Commissioner Edwards, second by Commissioner ~ ~iedrich, ' I to table Planning Ca-se 85-33 until the meeting of D~cember 5. ~ · .[ 198!. All present voted in favor. Planning Case 85-35 Mr. Pope, the plan architect, represented the petitic~ers. He Concept Approval of stated that the site in question was 2.27 acres at '..~'e~t Broadway Preliminary Plat and 61st Avenue North. They are proposing a thre~ stor'/? 72 unit Item ll apartment building for elder[y. There .will be ~rground 'parking for tenants and guest parking in the ~ of the ' building. They are requesting the rezonlng from the ~sting R-1 to R-5 which is for e%derly. Page 9 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 1, 1986 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 P.M. lo CALL TO ORDER 2, · ROLL CAT,T. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-13 - Request for Conditional Use Permit and CUP Development Stage - 9400 36th Avenue North - Archie Mosher, Petitioner. 4. Planning Case 86-18 - P~quest for Setback Variance and Oonstruction Approval for Apartment Building - 8201 Bass Lake Road - Vernon Stuhr, Petitioner. 5. Vacant Land Study COb~I1TEE REPORTS 6. Report of Design and Review C~mittee 7. Report of Land Use C~a~dttee 8. Report of Codes and Standards Oa,~dttee NEW BUSINESS 9. Approval of Planning Conmission Minutes of June 3, 1986 10. Review of Council Minutes of June 9 and 23, 1986. 11. Additional Conments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Conmissioners and Staff 12. Announcements 13. Adjournment DATE: July 1, 1986 CASE: 86-13 PETITIONER: Ar chie Mosher REQUEST: The Second Stage PUD and Conditional Use for: Expansion of Service Station; Expansion of Bait Shop Sales Area; Expansion of Locksmith Business; and . Relocation of Car Wash lOCATION: 9400 36th Avenue North ZONING: B- 3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMEMiM: 1. This planning case was tabled from the June Planning Conmission Meeting. It was tabled on reconnmndation from staff and in the opinion of the Planning Commission that Mr. Mosher should work with the adjoining property' owner and come to an agreement with him about shared parking, ingress and egress and general site development before the Planning Conn~[ssion and the City pass on the request by Mr. Mosher. 2. Apparently the two parties have reached an agreement on the above matters and staff reconmends proceeding with the planning case as requested by Mr. Mosher. In order to accomplish the joint improvements, staff has changed this to a PUD so that the agreements between the two parties will become official. It also appears that every concern that the staff had is being addressed with only minor concerns remaining. 3. The concerns are minor and they are found on page 5 of the Planners Report. The first is parking. Technically, Mr. Mosher will be shy one parking space. This is being addressed by Mr. Mosher having an agreement with Mr. Showalter to have two of the parking spaces off-site on the northside of his building. Staff recomrmn~ this approach as there is adequate parking to Mr. Showalter's property. The Planners Report, has a reconmmndation to shift the parking on the northside of the building to the west. Staff is recon~ending that we not do this. The one space should be removed next to the car wash 'and there should be no shifting. This removed space and the one still needed will be the two that will be located on Mr. Showalter' s property. 4. The only other concern is that we in fact get the written agreen~mts between the two parties. During discussions on Tuesday night, we should have both parties affirm that the ingress and egress easements as proposed in the plans are acceptable to both parties and that two parking spaces will be allowed to Mr. Showalter's property. northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 24 June 1986 RE: Archies Standard - Conditional Use Permit FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.18 BACKGROUND Archies Standard Station at the corner of Highway 18 and 36th Street wishes to expand their operation by adding three new service stalls, additional storage area, and enlarging their retail sales area. Initial review at the staff level revealed site parking and circulation problems that involved not only the Standard Station site but also the Poste Haste Shopping Center which shares site access with the Standard Station. The originally proposed expansion of the Standard Station compounded existing internal circulation and parking problems as such the applicant was instructed to work with the owner of the Poste Haste Center to resolve these design problems. The currently submitted site plan is an effort to respond to City Staff recommendation. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Zoning Archies Standard Station site is zoned B-3 Auto-Oriented Business District. Within this district an Automobile Service Station is allowed by conditional use permit. Since this use shares an integrated site design with the Poste Haste Shopping Center, a CUP for Planned Unit Development.is also required. This allows for shared use of driveway's and some flexibility from the performance standards to make the site plan'both functional and compatible. 4820 minnetonka b/vd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Dan Donahue 24 June 1986 Page Two Conditional'Use Permit: Automobile Service Station 1. Safety. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires all motor fuel operations to comply with all local state and federal safety standards. The proposed site plan offers some change from the current layout that will serve to im- prove the safety of the motor fuel operation on this site. a. The applicant is replacing the existing tanks with new underground fuel storage tanks. The installation of new tanks will comply with all City and State building performance standards to prevent leakage or infiltration. b. The new location of the fuel storage tanks at the front of the building will also relocate the intake valves for the tank to the south side of the site. This location is advantageous in that it will simplify tanker truck access to the site and provide a greater segregation of truck and automobile traffic. Currently, with the loading area on the west side of the building, fuel trucks must circle the shopping center to exit the site. Staff feels this current circulation pattern unsafe from both a traffic and fire perspective. 2. Compatibility. The Service Station CUP requires that the architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site be designed so not to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence. The applicant indicated an improvement of appearance in the existing building through a building redesign. The building elevations will be upgraded and with the same architectural treatment around the entire building. Signage on the building will alsO be limited on approved signage plan. The proposed site plans show a 25' landscaping strip along the eastern property line. This wide landscape area will contain a fence along the parking, with a berm and landscape plantings to screen to residential areas to the east and southeast. These proposed site improvements will serve to enhance the appearance of the site and improve the facilities compatibility in the area. Dan Donahue 24 June 1986 Page Three 3. Lot area and setbacks. Review of the applicants site plan reveals that the applicant's site exceeds the lot area and width requirements for a ser- vice station. The building complies with the required setbacks as follows: Required Provided Compliances Front - East 35' 71' Exceeds Side - North 10 24' Exceeds Side - South 35 85' Exceeds Rear - West 35 43' Exceeds 4. Parking and Circulation. The applicant is proposing an integrated in- ternal circulation system to be shared with the Poste Haste Shopping Center. The proposed site plan design displays a number of changes to the existing Poste Haste/Archie site circulation system. a. The shared southern access is proposed to be relocated approximately /~J~he~-~sT-~~eas~ of its present location. This driveway will be centered on property line. This change improves the internal circulation by straightening the drive aisle and increasing the maneuvering area on the Archies site. The relocation of the southern access has been approved by the county and agreed upon by the two property owners. b. With the relocation of the southern driveway, some minor changes to the Poste Haste Center parking lot are required. These changes do not reduce the site's parking below what is required for the facility. The changes also provide a loading area for the shopping center. This is a design feature that is currently absent from the shopping center and its absence has created problems with the circulation around-,the .'. shopping center. c. Archies Standard Station is proposing a tier of parking stalls along the north side of their building. These parking stalls will be accessed from the shared driveway extending from the shopping center to Jordan Avenue. Archies has secured a 24' driveway easement to en- sure that sufficient maneuvering area is available to access these parking stalls. Dan Donahue 24 June 1986 Page Four The shared access arrangement offers a more efficient use of the site allowing for a more functional circulation pattern, locates employee parking at the rear of the building screening it from the street, the design separates the parking area from the gas pump area reducing the traffic conflicts, and the shared arrangement also makes available a greater amount of green spa~e for screening and landscaping. Due to the shared access design, the two sites are being treated as a PUD to allow some flexibility in the City performance standards but to insure that the design of both sites is coordinated and functional. While the overall design of the site circulation appears to be accept- able, there are a few design changes that staff recommends. a. Based on the following parking, we have calculated the parking requirements for Archies Standard Station. Use Total Spaces Motor Fuel Station. At least five off-street parking spaces plus three off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in com- pliance with other applicable sections of this Code. 5 Bay X 3 = 15 ± 5 20 Retail Store and Service Establishment. At least one off-street parking space for each one hundred fifty square feet of floor area. 1120 X .9 = 1008 - 150 = 6.72 or 7 7 Car Wash. (In addition to required stacking space): (iii) Motor Fuel Station Car Wash. Zero in addition to that required for the station. 0 Total Required Stalls 27 Dan Donahue 24 June 1986 Page Five Staff's calculation indicate that Archies proposed facility require 27 parking stalls. By Ordinance standards, the site plan show 26. An addi- tional stall should be provided. b. Parking Stall 13 located on the north side of the building abutts the car wash exit. To avoid potential traffic conflicts, some type of physical separation"between this parking stall and the car wash exit should be provided. The parking stalls along the north side of the building could,be shifted to the west to provide some separa- tion. c. The site plan does not show where the trash handling equipment is to be located.. As such,~there is no way of determining how garbage collection trucks will.be accommodated. d. To better facilitate the tanker'trucks leaving the site, staff re- commend that curb radius on the eastern curb cut be reduced to simplify the truck movement from the storage tank intake areas. 5. Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan should be submitted for review and approval by the City. 6. PUD Agreement. The City should require a PUD agreement to be signed by both property owners to insure that both sites will be improved in accor- dance with the submitted plans and that the shared access easements are established. RECOMMENDATION Based on our review of the applicant's site plan, we found that the proposed changes should not only improve the~appearance but also the operation of the sites. We would recommend that the City approve the conditional use for ex~ panding the service station and for the PUD with the following conditions. 1. The applicant provide an additional parking stall. 2. The northern tier of parking be shifted to the west to provide a separa- tion between the parking area and the car wash exit. 3. Access to the trash handling equipment be demonstrated. 4. The radius on the south-east curb cut be reduced to better facilitate tanker truck traffic exiting the site. Dan Donahue 24 June 1986 Page Six 5. Provision of a detailed landscape plan for City review and approval. 6. Both property owners enter a PUD agreement to insure compliance with the approved plans. 7. The items listed as negotiations should be confirmed prior to City approval and included in the PUD agreements.' cc: Doug Sandshad Steve Sondrall Exhibit A PUD P1 an DATE: July '1, ~ t986 ~ CASE: 86-18 PETITIONER: Vern Stohr REQUEST: Setback Variance for 6 Unit Apartment Building lOCATION: 5641 Wisconsin ZONING: R- 4 STAFF FINDINGS AND CC~YI~S: 1. ¥~. Stuhr is back in front of the Planning Commission. His case was tabled at the June Plam~ Conrnission M~eting after much discussion. Mr. Stuhr has down-sized the apar~mnt building from 7 units to 6 units. However, the foot- print of the ap~rtnmnt' building itself has not changed but has been shifted 10 feet east. Originally the building would have come 10 feet from the rear property line instead of the required 35. feet. Now the building has been shifted 10 feet so the building will come 20 feet instead of the required 35 feet from the rear property line. This shift has been accomplished by eliminating one of the garages on the east side of the building. 2. The Planner has reviewed Mr. Stuhr's proposal. His reconn-~ndation is to deny and staff concurs with the reconnmndation. There are two reasons. The first is that this variance sets a precedent for our setbacks for R-4 buildings. that I do not think the City should give. We're looking at the possibility of other future multiple family housing developmmnts and I think we should stick with our standards. If this is given up here, then we don't have a leg to stand on if there are future challenges on this standard for other R-4 buildings. The other reason which is outlined in the Planners Report is the incompatibility with the neighborhood. What is being proposed is just simply not going to fit and work with the rest of the neighborhood. northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 18 June 1986 RE: 'Stuhr Six Unit Apartment FILE NO: 13'1.01 - 86.18 BACKGROUND Mr. Vern Stuhr is proposing to build a six unit apartment at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue North. The proposed lot is zoned R-4, High Density Residential District. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Land Use. The applicant's site is zoned R-4 which is an extension of the High Density District located to the west. The R-4 district is established to permit high density multiple family development. While the land use is consistent with zoning and the development to the west, the multiple family development does raise some compatibility concerns with the single family homes to the south along Wisconsin. In this light, development of the applicant's lot must be des. igned to integrate with the neighborhood. Lot Area and Setbacks. The R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a lot area per unit of 3,000 square feet per unit. The applicant's lot is 100 feet wide and has 21,332 square feet of area. This complies with the lot width standard and exceeds the lot area standard by providing 3,555 square feet per unit. The following setbacks are applicable to the applicant's proposed development: Setback Required Provided Front/East 35' 35' Conforms Side/South 20' 20' Conforms Side/North/Bass Lake Road 35' 35' Conforms Rear/West 35' 20' Violation The ~pplicant,is..~questing.a ~ariance from the required 35' rear setback. 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Dan Donahue 18~June 1986 Page Two The New Hope Zoning Ordinance states: The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique-to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this Code or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this Code would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner 'customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon such lot or parcel that another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if it were to be developed in a manner proposed by the appellant. Review of the applicant's site plan does not reveal any undue non-economic hardship that would prevent compliance with the established rear.yard setback standard. Undue hardship is defined by Section 4.221 (1) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance as follows: Undue HardShip. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance request stems from the desired building size and configuration which fills the site beyond the buildable area of the lot as defined by the required setbacks. If the existing building cannot be redesigned to fit the site, scaling down the density or building size provides options to bring the building into conformance. In this light, the hardship appears to be economic and does not warrant a variance from City zoning design standards. Drainage and Grading. The proposed grading plan shows the stormwater drainage is intended to be directed north to Bass Lake Road. The City Engineer should review and comment on the acceptability of the grading plan. Parking. The applicant'.s site plan shows six single stall garages and nine parking stalls for a total of 15 parking stalls. The 15 parking stalls satisfies the City parking requirements. The parking stalls and drive aisles comply with the City dimensional standards. The proposed parking area is indicated as having a perimeter curb and bituminous surfacing. Dan Donahue 18 ~-une 1986 Page Three Landscaping. The applicant's landscaping plan shows an effort to screen the parking area with both berms and plantings. The plant schedule indicates an acceptable variety of plant materials that conform to City size standards. The site plan indicates that some Black Hills Spruce are being proposed in the boulevard area along Wisconsin Avenue. The. Black Spruce is not identified as an acceptable boulevard tree. Also, the location of the spruce trees next to the driveway presents a visibility concern for the car exiting or entering the apartment site. The spruce trees should be replaced by acceptable boulevard trees and low growing shrubs to screen the parking area. ~ The landscape plan shows a Marshall Ash in the northeast corner of the site. This ash is located within a 20 foot traffic visibility triangle. This tree should be removed to avoid the potential obstruction of motorists view of traffic on Bass Lake Road. Trash Han.d]..i.n~..E~uipment. The applicant shows the location of the trash enclosure alo. ng the south side of the garage area. This location visually exposes this receptable to the single family area to the south. This location should be fenced and screened from the public view. RECOMMENDATION The applicant's proposed development presents some land use compatibilty concerns for the single family areas to the south and the introduction of a high'traffic generator at close proximity to a busy intersection. In this light,'the design of the more intense use must be integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. This integration should be demonstrated through full Compliance with City performance' standards. The applicant's variance request indicates that an exception to the City standard is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. Review of the request reveals no physical hardship unique to the site exists that prevents reasonable use of the site. Rather, the reason for the request appears to be the size and/or configuration of the building. This represents an economic hardship that does not warrant a variance. Based on our review, we cannot recommend approval of the variance, and we would recommend revision of the plans to fully comply with all of the City setback standards. If the City chooses to approve the variance and permit the development, the follow- ing site plan elements should be addressed: 1. Drainage plan should be reviewed by the City Engineer. 2. Remove the Black Hills Spruce from the Wisconsin Avenue Boulevard and replace the Spruce trees with acceptable boulevard trees and low growing shrubs to screen the parking lot. Dan Donahue 18 June 1986 Page Four 3. Remove-the Marshall Ash from the 20 foot traffic visibility triangle in the northeast corner of the site. 4. Trash handling equipment should be fenced and screened from public view. cc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall ~j , , ~'~ I, ,' ,,:. ,, ?- it ' I I~ O // /~t i~=~-----~- ~ ~ '~ . "/I ~1 ~. II, ~-~: , .' i' ! . ~'~' ... _ ........................ ', ........................... / .~ 3 ~ ~ I t t ~ .................. ~) ................... r.~~'"- ~-- -- ~ ~ Exhibit A .~,'~ / / ~ Site Plan ~ '~ ,., ~ '/ Remove Marshall Ash ~ ~ .; , -- traffic visibility ~ ', ~'.". "' '! ............ ' ' ......... ~q '"'~ ~ "-'Z .X~ '/~. ~= , -~ ............................. ' .... ~ ....... ' ' k ~ '~ ~"~ " '~ ''~ i Z '~' ' :: ~:~?TT'2T.'.~'~ '" , ~ -. ! ~ '~~ Replace B]ack H~lls Spruce ~ ' ... trees with boulevard trees. ~.i ~- .'~ ~ .. ~. ~ 6~'<~4L ~,. ",,~ ~ ~ ' .. ~ ~ ' . DATE: July it 1986 VACANT LAND STUDY At this Planning Conrmission Meeting, there will be a public hearing on the Vacant Land Study which you received two months ago. City staff has mailed notices to all the affected property owners and other property owners in the vicinity of the targeted properties. The p~rpose of the study is to receive comnmnt about the proposals in the study. My ~nderstanding is that there will be a n~mber of people at the public hearing. It seems that moSt .people are not sure wb~t is going on with the City. The prevailing thought is that the" City is going to imnediately start developing these properties. It should be carefully explained at the onset of the hearing that this study is for future development plmnning and if approved will bec~r~ part of the comprehensive plan and general guidelines for future development. The Planning Conmission is free to move on whatever piece it would like concerning this Vacant Land Study. The public hearing can be continued or can be closed at the end of the hearing. You can reconnmnd approval of the study or you can'direct staff to develop more information on specific recom- mendations in the study. There is no hurry, we can certainly take our time. The two Planners that did the most work on the study will be at the meeting on Tuesday night to address the Council and the audience and give a brief overview of the study. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota~' 7:30 p.m. ROLL C~LL PUBLIC HEARINGS ~- Planning Case 86-17 - Request for Construction Approval - 36th Street North, East of Winnetka - New Hope  Terrace Limited Partnership, Petitioners lanning Case 86-19 - Request for Text Change of Section 4o102 of City Code - Roland deJolsvay/River City Pizza, Petitioner. ~. Planning Case 86-20 RC~luest for Approval of Preliminary Plat and Construction Approval - 9401 Science Center Drive - Rosewood Corporation, Petitioner. 6. Planning Case 86-21 - Rc~/uest for Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Construction Approval - 7100 Bass Lake Road - gantigo Corporation, Petitioner. COMMITT~ REPORTS 7.Report of Design and Review Corrmittee 8.Report of Land Use Corrmittee 9.Report of Codo$ and Standards Committee N~BUSINESS 10.Approval of Planning Comission Minutes of July 1, 1986 11.Review of Council Minutes of July 28, 1986 12.Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners, and Staff 13. Announcements 14. Adjournment northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 23 July 1986 RE: New Hope - Terrace PUD FILE NO: 131.04 - 86.17 Background: On June 9, 1986, the City of New Hope approved a rezoning from "I-2" General Industrial to "R-4" High Density Residential, on a ten (10) acre parcel located near the Winnetka/36th Avenue Intersection. With the approved rezoning in place, Mr. Frank Kubitschek and Mr. Dick Curry has put together a development plan for the site. The development plan proposes two buildings containing a total of 150 units over the ten (10) acre site. To provide for a more coordinated site design and to allow for two buildings on a single lot, the applicant is request- ing approval of a Planned Unit Development. Issues and Analysis- Use: The applicant is proposing to construct two 75 unit apartments on the ten (10) acre lot. Multiple family uses are perm'itted in the "R-4" Zoning District. The construction of two buildings on a single parcel in an integrated design requires a residential PUD which is allowed by conditional use in the "R-4" Zoning District. The applicant is now pursuing this CUP/PUD request. Density: The proposed lot greatly exceeds the "R-4" minimum lot area and width standards. The permitted density in a "R-4" Zoning District is one unit per 3000 sq. ft. of lot area. The applicant is also eligible for a 10% density bonus since the site development is being handled by PUD. The permitted density is shown as follows: 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, m nneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Dan Donahue New Hope - Terrace PUD 23"July 1986 Page Two Lot Area Area Per Net 10% Density Permitted Gross Sq. Ft. Unit Densi.ty. Bonus (PU~ Density 435,623 ~ 3000 = 145 Units + 14 Units = 159 The applicant is proposing 150 units which complies with the permitted density for this "R-4" PUD. Building Height: The applicant is proposing a three story apartment on grade, this complies with City "R-4" standards. Parking: Based on the size of the facility, 338 parking stalls are required. The site plan shows that the facility will provide 345 parking stalls exceeding the City requirement. The site plan shows a single site access and a driveway that extends 1100 feet to a loop. This driveway is intended to provide access to 150 households. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, it is estimated that a 150 unit apartment in a suburban community would generate an average of 915 weekday trip ends. Based on this type of traffic generation, the single site driveway is anticipated to result in some internal traffic congestion particularly at peak commuter hours when it is estimated to average in. excess of 90 trip ends per peak hour. The single driveway access also raises concerns for maneuvering space for large trucks such as moving vans, garbage trucks, and fire trucks. While the driveway width is 24 feet, this can result in a narrow drive lane for the trucks when parking stalls are full and two way traffic is present. The. fire chief has also noted that the looped turn around also lacks sufficient radius to allow the lar- ger fire truck to turn around on site. In addition to the traffic circulation concerns, the single long driveway also presents a public utility concern. The utility plan shows the water service will be stubbed in from 36th Street and follow the driveway to the dead end at the rear of the lot. This extens'ion will be in excess of 1100 feet. The length of the watermain that will be dead ended raises some concern for water pressure at the rear of the property. This presents a public safety concern with regard to fire protection. ~an Donahue New Hope - Terrace PUD 23. July 1986 Page Three In an original site plan presented to staff, the applicant provided an internal circulation system that looped around the buildings and provided a second drive- way access point on 36th Avenue. Based on our review, we strongly recommend a return to this concept to alleviate internal traffic congestion, to accommodate the movement of larger tr ' ~o allow for't~e-qt~H~tg~_.~e water- F~ exterior parking area indicate that the applicant has com- ) pl~onal and design standards of the parking areas. The site~/ lan must be revised to show necessary handicapped parkina ar~a~ The underground parking ~ayout shows a 64 foot wall to Wall dimension which is adequate to provide ~or the parking stall length and necessary driveway width. The underqround parking layout does present some functional concerns. (See Exhibit F ). The design does not provide for any turn around areas for the ~ parking stalls at the ends of the building. The lack of the turnaround area makes exiting these stalls difficult requiring the motorist to back down the driveway to a vacant parking stall or to the door area. The underground parking may require some building alteration to provide the needed turn around areas. ~oadin~ Areas The site plan doesn't make any provision for a loading area to accommodate cars with trailers, and moving vans that are ancillary to rental multiple family use. The site plan should be revised to provide a loading area for each building in close proximity to a building entrance. Utility Easement The Western building is proposed to encroach over an existing utility easement containing a 42 inch storm sewer and a 24 inch sanitary sewer. The building cannot be located on the utility easement. Either the building or the utilities must be relocated. If the applicants choose to relocate the utilities, it will be at their expense. It is our understanding that this may be a tax increment project, as such the utility relocation could be financed with the TIF revenues, the project revenues are sufficient. The City should not incur any cost in the relocation of these existing utilities. Dan Donahue Ne~ Hope - Terrace PUD 23 July 1986 Page Four Drainage Plans The grading plans indicate that the majority of the site will drain to a catch basin in the southwest corner of the site, then piped to an outlet at the western property line. The acceptability of the on-site drainage plan and its impact on the adjacent industrial sites should be reviewed and.commented on by the City Engineer. Accessory Uses The site plan shows a variety of accessory recreational amenities to cater to the various household members. This is an active amenity to the overall Site plan. The applicant will be required to provide fencing around the swimming pool to restrict pool access. Landscapin9 The applicants site landscape plan shows extensive landscaping at the perimeter of the site. The site is screened from the railroad tracks industrial area, and the church with existing trees along the east lot line and a thick landscape screen of Austrian pines along the south and west lot lines. The Austrian Pine are proposed to be 5 feet in height. Based on the height and number, this screening should be very effective. The landscape material must meet City type and size standards. Based on the quantity of landscaping and the variety of landscape materials, we strongly recommend that the City require some security guaranteeing the implementation of the landscape plan in the PUD Development agreement. Trash Handlin~ Equipment The proposed facility has trash rooms in each building where the tenants dis- pose the garbage. The trash pick up area, however, is located outside the building next to the garage driveway. The applicant should provide a descrip- tion of how the trash containers will be transferred from the trash room to the pick up area. Development C~ntract The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant enter into a develop- ment contract prior to final PUD approval. This Development Contract is in- tended to guarantee that site improvements are done in full accordance with the approved PUD final plans within a defined time frame. The contract will be secured by a cash escrow or surety bond in an amount satisfactory to the City. Our review suggests that the following items be specifically addressed in the Development Contract. ~an Donahue New Hope - Terrace PUD 23~July 1986 Page Five 1. The relocation of the utility easements. 2. Security guaranteeing the landscape plan. Recommendations Based on our review of the PUD site plan, we would recommend the following design changes prior to PUD development stage approval. 1. Provision of a looped driveway system providing two site access points. 2. Looping of watermain through the site. 3. Provision of handicapped ~arking stalls. 4. Provision of turn around area at the end of the underground parking lots. 5. Approval of the drainage plan by the City Engineer. 6. Provide a security fence around the swimming pool area. 7. Provision of on-site loading area that are in close proximity to the building entrance. 8. Description of how the trash handling equipment will.be moved to the pick up site. cc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Jeanine Nunn DATE: August 5, 1986 CASE: 86-19 REQUEST: Zoning Text Change and Conditional Use Permit PETITIONER: Oliver Tam/Domino's Pizza LOCATION: 7811 62nd Avenue North ZONING: B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~ENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to put in a Domino's pizza shop at the small strip center at 62nd and Winnetka North. Currently the B-1 zone does not allow restaurants. The petitioner is proposing a change to the text to allow a take out restaurant only to be allowed in the B-1 zone under a Conditional Use. 2. Our planning consultants have reviewed the case and have prepared a report for your review. It covers all points in this case and staff is recormaending the text change and the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. DATE: August 5, 1986 CASE: 86-17 REQUEST: Construction'Approval LOCATION: 36th, East of Winnetka PETITIONER: New Hope Terrace Limited Partnership STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This is the 140 unit apartment complex being developed on 36th, east of Winnetka. They have already received PUD approval but they are required to come back for approval on the actual construction plans. 2. All the Design and Review suggestions have been made by the developer. A new easement will be necessary across the Val Spar lot foro proposed new watermain loop to Winpark Drive, as recon~ended by the city engineer. A PUD contract must be drafted with the corresponding bond to insure timely completion of the project according to approved plans. The' plat should be revised to show new drainage and utility easements across the northwest corner of the lot, per city engineers description. The width on the site plan at this time may be too narrow. Lastly, staff reco~ends approval of this excellent site plan. northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE' 21 July 1986 RE- Dominos Pizza FILE NO: 131.04 - 86.19 Background: Domino's Pizza has requested that the City of New Hope amend its zoning ordinance to allow a take out/delivery convenience food establishment in the "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District. This requiest stems from the desire to open a take out/delivery pizza shop at an established neighborhood shopping center at 7811 62nd Avenue North in New HoPe. Issues and Analysis Use: By Zoning Ordinance definition, the proposed Domino's Pizza sho is a convenience dfood establishment as follows: P ,C.~,~//~ CO~e Food Establishment An establishment which serves food in or on ,~?~/~F ~]sposal or edible containers in individual services for consumption on or Owaf~ttr~sesePsr.eml~o, Sc~mrmVlonC~yt~,n~wU~taO~e~sltSfogoe~e~ltla~l~sYhmCleen~S' rather than This definition encompasses the larger variety of fast food establishments ranging from McDonalds to Domino's Pizza take out. Convenience food facilities are only allowed in New Hope's "B-3" Auto Oriented Business District and the "B-4" General Business District by conditional use permit. 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Pan Donahue 22 July 1986 Page Two The district restriction and need for conditional use permit have been established to respond to the use characteristics associated with convenience food facilities. Use characteristics include: Architectural compatibility, high traffic generation, high parking demand, site deliveries, operational noise and odors, and the desire for drive thru windows. These use characteristics generally demonstrate the commercial intensity of convenience food facilities and is the reason to segregate these uses into the more intense commercial zoning districts. Domino's Pizza is requesting a text amendment to allow convenience food establish- ments in the "B-I" Limited Nieghborhood Business District. The purpose of the "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighbor- hoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. The uses in the "B-i" are very select and limited to commercial facilities that are compatible to adjacent residential areas and are limited to serving the re- sidential neighborhoods. Review of the "B-I" zoning districts indicate that they are located in area between the residential and more intense commercial zoning districts. The large variety of restaurants that fit the convenience food establishments definition raise land use compatibility concerns in the "B-I" zoning district and are contrary to the intent of the "B-I" district. Domino's Pizza is an operation that differs from the more typical convenience food establishments in the following ways: 1. The majority of its business is done through delivery. 2. The balance of its sales are take out orders with no, on-premises dining. 3. The facilities are generally small, and located in existing shopping centers. Currently, there is one in New Hopes Midland Shopping Center facility. 4. Due to its size and operation, the facility's trade area is generally more limited than the large convenience food establishments. Dan Donahue 22 July 1986 Page Three Recognizing Domino's operation characteristic, the City must evaluate the proposed use within the "B-I" environment. While the Domino's facility differs from large convenience food establishments in use intensity, the facility will bring addi- tional traffic to the "B-I" area and other operational nuisances such as noise and odors not currently found in the "B-I" District. Under current regulations governing convenience food operations, it would be difficult to prevent a facility such as Domino's from expanding into a larger scale operation. E~ven with more re- strictive ordinance language, staff feels that the introduction of this type of operation will not only create compatibility concerns but also problems for code enforcement and policing. Re comme nda ti on: Based on staff review, we feel that the ~and "B-4" zoning districts offer the~appr~o_priate opportunities for convenience food~establishments and are contrary to the intent of the "B-i" zoning district. However, the determination as to whether the proposed use is acceptable in the "B-I" will be a policy decision left to the Cit. y. If City determines that the use is acceptable, s'taff wo~l-d 6'ot suggest 'a-TT6-~-Tng the facility as a permitted use as requested by the applicant, rather staff offer the following suggestions for consideration in a text amendment. 1. To limit the type of convenience food establishments i~n the "B-I" District. Staff recommends that a specific definition be developed for Convenience Food Take Out/Deliv~e.ry. Facilities to separate these facilities from larger convenience food restaurants. 2. The convenience food take out/delivery facility only be allowed by condi- tional use permit in the "B-I" zoning district. The conditional use per- mit provides the City with greater review and enforcement control. Use conditions that should be addressed should include: a. Architectural compatibility. b. The facility must be a total take out and delivery operation, no on premise dining. c. The proposed "B-I" site must be conformiSg site under the current zoning standards. d. Since should have access to a collector or arterial street. ~ e. Parking areas must comply with all City parking standards. ~'~ g-1 Zon~in~ D~s~cr~ct GOLDEN {~ I Exhibit A Zonin9 Map DATE: August 5, 1986 CASE: 86-20 PETITIONER: Rosewood Corporation REQUEST: Preliminary Plat and Construction Approval LOCATION: 9401 Science Center Drive ZONING: I-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to build and office/warehouse building on this "L" shaped lot. The site in question is part of a nine acre parcel that was developed by International Multifoods with a research facility on it 20 years ago. The proposed lot for this development is "L" shaped around the east and south sides of the multifoods building. The proposed lot will have street frontage on Science Center Drive and County Road ~18. 2. The petitioner has slightly revised the plans since it was reviewed by the Design and Review Con~nittee. The building is now slightly larger, there is smaller asphalt area and some changes in the green space. However, the plan the city has received may have calculation errors. It may be that the plan to be reviewed on Tuesday night may have less than the required 35% green area required by code. Staff will try and get this worked out in time for the meeting. 3. Easements will be needed to cover the shared truck driving on the east 30 feet of the site and the proposed new storm sewer through the site and under the building serving this and the multifoods property. In addition, an easement for drainage and utility purposes is needed by the city to cross the Precision Engineering site at 9300 52nd Avenue North and the Soo Line tracks to permit the storm sewer proposed. 4. All the Design and Review reconraendations otherwise have been addressed. Staff reconm~ends approval if the calculations meet code minimums. northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Ross Harris/Alan Brixius DATE: 23 July 1986 RE: Science Center Business Park Subdivision FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.20 The Rosewood Corporation has proposed the development of the remainder of a lot currently occupied by Multifoods Corporation, located in the I-I District at 9401 Science Center Drive. (Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Science Industry Center). As such, the applicant's proposal requires subdivision review and approval as well as review of site, building, and landscaping plans. Our comments relative to the proposed subdivision and required plans are as follows. Please reference the attached exhibits for sire'location and detail. SUBDIVISION ISSUES AND ANALYSIS .~ Section 13.04 of Chapter 13, City Code of Ne~ Hope, provides criteria for sub- division approval.. It has been determined that data supplied by the applicant on the site survey is consistent with general subdivision regulation provisions, and that identified boundaries, utility easements, topographic data, and property description as illustrated is in conformance with Chapter 13 of the City Code. Lot Development 'Requirements: The propos6d development is compared below to I-I District development standards: I-1 District Proposed DevelgPment Minimum Lot Area ~ I acre 6.254 acres Minimum Lot Width 150 ft. 178 ft. (minimum) Maximum Building Height 3 stories/36 ft. 20 ft. above grade Maximum Lot Coverage 40%/108,970 sq.ft. 26%/69,340 sq.ft~ 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Dan Donahue Science Center Business Park Subdivision 23 July 1986 Page Two Lot Development Requirements Continued I-1 District Proposed Development Minimum Setbacks: - ~ Front Yard 50 ft. 2~5 ft. Side Yard 20 ft. 40 ft. Rear Yard 35 ft. - 81 ft. Minimum Green Area 35% of site/95,349 sq. ft. 35% of site/95,855 sq. ft. Minimum Parking Setback 10 ft. from adjacent 10 ft.(minimum) non-residential Our review indicates the proposed development meets minimum and maximum I-1 Dis- trict lot development ~tandards. _ ~og.raph~. and Drai99ge: As illustrated on the attached site survey (Exhibit "B"), the eastern one-third of the property in question exhibits little variation in topography. The following drainage concerns, therefore,~ have been analyzed based on the site survey and visual inspection: 1.) Storm water ponding, as apparent during a site inspection, was evidenced in the wooded eastern and southern portions of the site. This is a con- cern due to future impervious surface development runoff, which would only serve to exacerbate drainage problems. 2.) The concrete drainage culvert under the Soo Line Railroad is the only apparent overland drainage control mechanism on the portion of the site affected by poor drainage. However, the Building Official has noted that water ponding problems in adjacent private property to the south due to the culvert would likely increase with the proposed development, as well as runoff into the adjacent development to the east. Drainage plans as submitted-do not address these concerns. Therefore, alter- native storm water runoff control methods should be submitted on a revised drain- age plan for inspection and comment by the City Engineer. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Parking: ' Site parking requirements as required are compared to the development proposal..A ten percent gross floor area reduction, as permitted by Section 4.036i4~.') of the Ordinance, has been applied to each building element to determine parking needs. Dan'Donahue Science Center Business Park SUbdivision 23 July 1986 .Page Three Buildin9 Element Ordinance Proposed Office Space I space per 200 sq. ft. 76 (18,720 sq. ft.) : 94 spaces Warehousing I space per 1,000 sq. ft.. 26 (24,966 sq. ft.) = 25 spaces Manufacturing 1 space per 350 sq. ft. 55 (18,720 sq. ft.) = 53 spaces TOTALS 172 Spaces 157 Spaces As illustrated, total proposed parking is 15 spaces deficient of the Ordinance requirements. These spaces should be provided 61sewhere on site, respective to greenspace standards, which is currently at the 35 percent minimum requirement, and minimum 10 ft. parking setbacks. The site plan indicates stall size and handicapped access requirements are in conformance with the Ordinance. Loading. Areas: By Ordinance, one loading berth is required, whil~e 18 have been proposed. The truck loading docks on the east side of the site at 70 feet by 11 feet are of adequate length and midth, and are spaced in such a manner that will cause little interference with the adjacent industry's loading area which will also have access to a proposed 30 foot driveway on the east side of the subject property. The nine drive-up delivery truck loading areas on the south side of the site, however, raise the following issues: e A total of 44 ~eet has been allocated~for delivery loading area and drive access between the building and curb lines. While side yard setbacks have been observed,.an insufficient width remains for loading purposes. Archi- tectural standards require a 33 foot turning radius for a standard 30 foot delivery truck, which leaves an inadequate width for a traffic lane. A one-way traffic lane would require a minimum 12 foot width. One-way truck circulation in the loading area would be hampered by the in- adequately-sized lane, but two-lane circulation would become nearly impassi- ble as illustrated. -. Dan Donahue Science Center Business Park Subdivision 23 July 1986 Page Four The southside loading and the parking shortage suggest that this portion of the site is overutilized, and that the site plan-should be revised to address these issues. In our opinion, the following alternatives are available to the appli- cant to mitigate these concerns: 1. Acqui.re land from the Multifoods property to increase the lot size to shift or reorient the building and parking areas respective to loading and circulation needs. - 2. Reduce the size of the structure respective to truck loading and cir- culation needs and parking requirements on the south side of the site. It is understood that the lot line as proposed by the applicant is negotiable with the Multifoods Corporation. If the property line is shifted northward, a revised site survey must be provided to iidentify easements. The utility access pole will not affect the building shift, and parking can be located under this easement. Frontage Road Access: The grading plan indicates a six (6) foot elevation in- crease from the center of the County Highway 18 frontage road to the first pro- perty elevation line shown. The site plan, however, illustrates that the pro- posed access drive to the frontage road will be gradually recessed to the fron- tage road elevation, which may cause visual obstructions and potential ingress/ egress traffic hazards at this intersection. Vision is also hampered by limited sighting to the south due to the curvature of the railroad trestle. The sight line view orientation should therefore be shifted to improve the visibility at this intersection. Traffic Circulation: Clearly, traffic separation between semi-trailers, delivery trucks, and other vehicles is desirable. A one-way circulation route, therefore, should be provided on the south side of the site for delivery trucks, which should be allowed to exit, but not enter, the driveway access to the Highway 18 frontage road. Entering delivery trucks should be limited to the east curb cut access from Science Center ~Drive. Similarly, all other vehicular traffic should be routed to the west Science Center Drive curb cut and Highway 18 frontage road accesses to decrease circulation conflicts with lar,ger trucks. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan as illustrated conforms to minimum ordinance standards. Site lighting should conform to the provisions as stated in Section 4.033(5) to reduce glare. Dan Donahue Science Center Business Park S~bdivision 23 July 1986 Page Fi ve It should be noted, however, that the provision of an additional fifteen (15) parking spaces will not only decrease the amount of required greenspace, but will also likely require a revision in the landscape plan. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed subdivision is an appropriate use in the I-I District, and based on our review, we recommend approval of the Science Center Business Park proposal. There are, however, several items which need to be addressed before the subdivi- sion can proceed, including the following: 1. Proper loading berth manuevering space and one-way driveway access lane width should be provided at the south loading bay area. 2. A grading and drainage plan should be submitted to address stormwater runoff concerns, as noted, subject to the City Engineer's review. 3. The access drive approach to the County Highway 18 frontage road should be resighted to improve visibility at' this intersection. 4. Loading areas should be evaluated by the Building Inspector according to architectural standards for proposed uses as building plans are reviewed. 5. An additional fifteen (15) parking spaces should be provided, unless the build- ing size is reduced, at which time parking needs should be reevaluated. 6. Any site alterations or further development intensifications should address greenspace requirements and parking setbacks, which are currently at the minimum ordinance requirements. 7. Proper informational signage should be provided to route traffic and separate vehicles. A one-way delivery truck access route entering from the east Science Center Drive curb cut and exiting at the Highway 18 frontage road should be established. 8. Any exterior refuse area should be scneened or enclosed pursuant to Section 4.033 of the Ordinance, as well as screening of exterior mechanical equip- ment and exterior site storage as applicable. 9. The City should require a signage plan when final occupancy status of the building has been determined. _10. Snow storage provisions should be addressed by the applicant. 11. Other comments as determined by' City staff. cc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Jeanine Nunn AREA IN QUESTION Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Science Industry Center EXHIBIT A Negotiable property line .<,:,: , ....... , ............................. , . .,~ %'~ ................................................ _ ... A / L ~ ~ A D .... ~ drainage and ponding concerns J ,, !;~'-,~"~,r~.~, .... recommended del i very truck entrance SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ............. 'r~.y.,-~ REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED ON SITE PLAN~ --- o ,'~.., .... ~ ..... , ~S C I E N C E C E N T E R ~_,.~"~'C~''., ,,, ~~,,-: ....... -.._,. ...... LEGEND INTERN~T ON~L E RO~C~ co~r~o~ BAR~IE ;~ t~~~~ _~l,- -- -~-v,. MULTIFOOD.g INDUSTRY .~..T+ :;~.~[',:,,"~:, .... /-'I-l~r/--:,..:~,~,... need for additional parking ~ '... ". I",.. >.< · 'T LOCATION MAP c~ :.~-= '7-::: -:::': ...... II '" '-- '-- '- -'" ~ "" "' ........... -- - ~ · ~-- .... ~ __ ' ..... :]-.':-z~:.SITE DEV~OPMENT PL:~j~ ~ '~-r ;-~,~-~.~ ....... r-, ',,.L,',~. o.~l"~--J. I I .... "i'~.-~._7 poor visibility nonconforming loading des i gn culvert orains into ........... . adjacent private property SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE ................................ ;,:?~,, ')1: I ~ I i ' - ................ :,,; ...... ,*,. ( .... ..................... I:II ' - - .................... · ....... · ..................,, ,.,.,. .... -' ' ......................... I.~. ~ ' ........................................................ ; ..................... j ......... ~ 500 LINE RAIlrOAD VIEW LOOKING NW VIEW LOOKING NE VIEW FROM SCIENCE CENTER DRIV PROPERTY VIEWS EXHIBIT F DATE: August 5, 1986 CASE: 86-21 PETITIONER: Zantigo Corporation REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Drive Up Service Window Variance for Parking, and Construction Approval LOCATION: 7100 Bass Lake Road ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: The petitioner called this week and has decided to withdraw their request to construct a drive-up service window. After meeting with staff and the Design and Review Committee, they decided that there were too many hurdles to overcome. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTemBER 2, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2, ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-22 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval with Zero Lot Line - 9225 - 29th Avenue North - John R. Gries, Petitioner. 4. Planning Case 86-23 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval with Zero Lot Line - 4001-4003 Jordan Avenue - John R. Gries, Petitioner. 5. Planning Case 86-24 - Request for Conditional Use Permit and Construc- tion Approval - 5600 Winnetka Avenue North - Gas II, Inc., Petitioner. 6. Planning Case 86-25 - Request for Conditional Use Permit - 2720 Winnetka Avenue North - Little Caesars Pizza, Petitioner. 7. Planning Case 86-26 - Request for Conditional Use Permit - 7811 62nd Avenue North - Roland DeJolsvay, Petitioner. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8.Report of Design and Review Committee 9.Report of Land Use Cor~nittee 10. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 11. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 5, 1986. 12. Review of Council Minutes of August 11, and 25, 1986. 13. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Con~nissioners and Staff 14. Announcements 15. Adjournment DATE: September 2, 1986 CASE: 86-22 PETITIONER: A. and M. Neptstad REQUEST: Preliminary Plat (Zero Lot Line Duplex) and Lot Size Variance LOCATION: 9225-29 29th Avenue North ZONING: R-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to divide the duplex by platting for a zero lot line develoument. Since one of the lots would be under the 7,000 square foot minimum, a variance is needed. 2. This is an odd shaped lot comprising 14,000 square feet. Because of the location of the duplex, one of the lots will be 5900 square feet and the other 8455 square feet. Code requires 7,000 square feet for duplexes. Each of the duplexes will be above the 1,050 square feet code required minimum. Because of the existing odd sized lot, staff would recor~nend granting the variance for the one lot on t6tal square.footage. ,, ~ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION __ ~ ~ Lot 2, Block 2, FLggT~OOB ~ST~TES, / ~ ~ I ooo.o ) Denotes surflce L~O SWVEYOaS, ~C. A ........ . ~...,.~e~_~ ~ffe . ,ef~ -'~'~- -";~- P~ E PA RED ~0 ,, ~. ~ ~' . . _ DATE: September 2, 1986 CASE: 86-23 PETITIONER: Gary Scherer REQUEST: Preliminary Plat (Zero Lot Line Duplex) LOCATION: 4001-4003 Jordan Avenue North ZONING: R-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~ENTS: 1. This planning case is also a zero lot line request. Here both the lot sizes and the building sizes .meet minimums. There are no variances or conditional uses being asked for here. Staff reco~ends approval. _ 177.04 N89'OI'46'W ' ~' ' ' ' ;. .u I ' '. :. -/T.~:,i/.:.,!,~ ~?~.:.-7. ,/.". ,./. ,.' ' ~ ' /'J~ .b?if{?.~!?'Y:'' /.'u:" // ,. / " ' ' '~'" "": '""X:"/:~o/ ' ~ i ~&c~,.~' .~ ~~~~ ~ ~_.z .:.lk.:..~,.. _~/ , ............ o o - ~ ~ ~ ~ -~1 I ........... ~.' /2 '. I ~ ~ ~ -. ' ~ ~/ v~ , ~ 0 i I .............. I ~ ~NCH MARK ~" 140.00 N 89'01'46" W DEMARS · GABRIEL . // ........ '" PREPARED FOR: DATE: September 2, 1986 CASE: 86-24 PETITIONER: Steve Hendrickson(Midas Muffler Franchisee) REQUEST: Construction Approval and Conditional Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair Business LOCATION: 5600 Winnetka Avenue North ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to raise the old Shell gas station and build a 6,188 square foot building that will serve as a Midas Muffler Shop. Code requires both construction approval and a Conditional Use Permit for locating a minor auto repair business in a B-3 zone. 2. This site was developed in 1966 with a Shell oil station. During the past five or six years, the use was as a minor auto repair business. The property has been vacant for about a year and new owners are now taking over the site and will be constructing a building for minor auto service business that will have six bay doors facing the west, and three bay doors facing the east. 3. The proposal meets all of our performance standards except for a 10' x 70' loading berth which is required for all corrmercial, industrial buildings over 5,000 square feet. However, the blueprints do illustrate a reasonable limited access for semi-truck service to the site. Problems exist but are caused by the platted lot size, rather than this new proposal. 4. Parking is adequate and all other concerns seem to have been addressed to date. The only real concerns left other than esthetics, is the storm sewer connection which must be approved by Hennepin County. Staff recommends approval. DATE: September 2, 1986 CASE: 86-25 PETITIONER: Gary DeWees and Little Caesar's Franchise REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Take Out Restaurant Service LOCATION: 2720 Winnetka Avenue North ZONING: B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~ENTS: 1. The petitioner here is seeking the identical approval as in the next planning case (86-26, Domino's Pizza). 2. Here, we also have a former convenience grocery store in a B-1 Zone that developers are seeking to use as a carry-out pizza store. 3. The structure was built in 1965 and the site is across from the Midland Shopping Center. It is sandwiched among properties zoned R-4 (north and east), B-3 (south), and B-4 (west). Tom Thumb occupies approximately 25% of the building at the present time. 4. The Planning Cor~ission and Council are yet to consider the text changes in order to allow the Conditional Use Permit in this case. The matter of changing the text must come before this planning case or the next planning case can adequately be considered. It is the first issue that should be addressed by the Corrmission and the Council. If the text change is denied, then the request by the petitioners here and in the next planning case would have to be denied. 5. The changes to the site that are required by code have not been addressed in the site plan. The plans submitted are not detailed enough concerning: a. No curbing on sides or rear or site b. No five foot green strip around the perimeter of the site as required in 4.036 (h). c. No conditional use permit for joint parking with Standard Oil to the south, which is presently using about 5,300 square feet for employees and customer cars. Some agreement has to be worked out between the petitioner and the Standard Oil Station. d. The site is largely devoid of any landscaping. e. Loading berth and access is not indicated on the submitted site plan. 6. The site is large enough to accon~nodate the intended use and possibly the joint parking but improvements should be part of their proposal. In this particular planning case, I suspect the petitioners are trying to determine as to whether the city will change the text in order to allow the use before they get into spending a whole lot of money on site plans. I think it is entirely appropriate in this case to table everything but the text change part of the request. If the text is approved by the Planning Corm~ission and the Council, then the site plan details can be taken up next month. 7. See the Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. and their report and recor~mendations in the next planning case. DATE: September 2, 1986 CASE: 86-26 PETITIONER: Roland deJolsvay and Joe Kory REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Take Out Restaurant Business LOCATION: 7801 - 41 62nd Avenue North ZONING: B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS 1. This case is identical to the previous case. The Planning Commission heard the request at the August Planning Commission Meeting. The matter was tabled and the Planning Consultants have come up with some language for a text change that the Planning Commission should consider. This case as in the past one should first be considered on the text change issue. If there is recommended approval by the Planning Cormlission then that part of it should go to the Council for their consideration. If the Council approves the text change, then the Planning Commission can deal with the site plans at the October meeting. 2. Staff also has not received a good site plan for the changes here. It appears that the parking and driving dimensions are sub-standard and that the parking spaces may not meet code. Also, there is no truck loading, or driving access and there is no five foot green border between property lines. northwest associated consultants, inc. AUG I 9 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Sondrall FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 18 August 1986 RE: Domino's Pizza FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.19 At the August 1986 meeting the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the New Hope' Zoning Ordinance to permit a Domino's Pizza operation in a "B-I" Neighborhood Business District. Please review our attached July 21, 1986 Planner's Report for background. The Planning Commission asked that a draft amendment be prepared for their consideration in conjunction with the Domino's request. We were instructed to provide you with the planning staff's ideas for text amendment to assist you in drafting the amendment. DEFINITION: By Zoning Ordinance definition, the proposed Domino's Pizza shop is a convenience food establishment as follows: Convenience Food Establishment. An establishment which serves food in or on disposal or edible containers in individual serviceS'.'for c0nsumption. on or off the premises. Service to customers is generally by clerks-r~the~..~' than waitresses. Also, commonly known as fast food establishments. This definition encompasses the larger variety of fast food establishments ranging from McDonalds to Domino's Pizza take out. Convenience food facilities are only allowed in New Hope's "B-3", Auto Oriented Business District and the "B-4", General' Business District by conditional use permit. This definition is too broad in its range of uses to simply allow it in the low intensity "B-i" Commercial District. The large variety of restaurants that fit the convenience food establishments definition raise land use compatibil, jtv conce~nsBZ~l in the "B-I" zoning district and are contrary to the intent of the "District. 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 · , · ~teve Sondrall 18 August 1986 P~ge Two The uses in the "B-I" are very select and limited to commercial facilities that are compatible to adjacent residential areas and are limited to serving the resi- dential nei§hborhoods. Review of the "B-I" zoning districts indicate that they are located in area between the residential and more intense commercial zoning To limit the type of convenience food establishments in'the-B-I" Dis't~i'ct',~ta~f~ '' ' ' recommends that a specific definition be developed for Convenience Food Take Out/ Delivery Facilities to separate these facilities from larger convenience food restaurants. The following definition is an example of'the language that we would suggest. You may choose to modify or expand the definition in your. ordinance draft. Convenience Food Take'Oet/DeliVery.'Facilities: An establishment where sole operation is the preparation and sale of food in disposable containers for con- sumption off the premises. The operation of these facilities will be limited to over the counter sales to customers who pick up and take out food orders or to food - - order sales which are delivered directly to the customer's hOme or business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Recognizing 'Domino's operation characteristics, the City must evaluate the proposed use within the "B-I" environment. While the Domino's facility differs from large convenience food establishments in use intensity, the facility will bring additional traffic to the "B-I" area and other operational nuisances such as noise and odors not currently found in the "B-I" district. Under current regulations governing convenience food operations, it would be difficult to prevent a facility such as Domino's from expanding into.a larger scale operation. Even with more restrictive ordinance language, staff feels that the introduction of.this type of operation will not only create compatibility concerns but also problems for code enforcement and policing. The Planning Commission has requested that a draft ordinance amendment be prepared. Under these circumstances, staff has suggested that the proposed use be 'allowed by conditional use permi.t to permit a'greater degmee of review and control. The following conditions are also suggested: 1. Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional 'plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to existing buildi.ngs or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot.. 2. The facility must be a total take out and delivery operation, no on-premise dining. No drive-up, ser.vice, windows are permitted in ~the "B-I"~ ,zoning district.~ · S-'teve Sondrall 18 'August 1986 Page Three 3. The proposed "B-I" site must be a conforming site under the current zoning s tan da rds. 4. Sanitation: Any' sale of food items is subject to the approval of the City sanitarian who shall provide specific written sanitary requirements'for each proposed sale location based upon applicable state and county regulations. 5. The site must have access to a collector or arterial. 6. Parki.ng areas must comply with all city parking standards. PARKING: The current parking standards of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance would be as follows for the proposed take out facility: "Drive-in Establishment and Convenience'Food~ At least one parking space for each fi'fteen square feet of gross fl'o'o'r area, but 'not less than fifteen spaces." In our discussions with Doug Sandstad, we have come to the conclusion that in most cases the 15 parking spaces for these facilities are excessive. The B-1 zones all are developed with retail commercial buildings, which if they comply with City standards have provided parking in compliance with the following parking, requ i remen t: · Retail Store and Service Establishments. At least'one off-street parking space for each one hundred fifty (150) feet of floor area. If convenience foOd take out/delivery facilities are to be allowed in New HOpe's· existing B-1 districts, their parking requirement must be the same as the current retail sales establishment standard. This raises some concerns regarding, adequate amount of parking, however, in a multiple occupancy buildings-there can'be ~hared'" . ..i.'... overflow parking. ':-~¥ ~:.~ .... '~ .. ~- .'.~. ...... ~....~.~ cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad Jeanine Nunn northwest associated consultants, inc. · '~."~'"~ '~" ":"' ' i.- ~" '~ MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 21 July 1986 RE: Dominos Pizza FILE NO: 131.04 - 86.19 Background: Domino's Pizza has requested that the City of New Hope amend its zoning ordinance to allow a take out/delivery convenience food establishment in the "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District. This requiest stems from the desire to open a take out/delivery pizza shop at an established neighborhood shopping center at 7811 62nd Avenue North in New Hope. Issues and Analysis Use: By Zoning Ordinance definition, the proposed Domino's Pizza shop is a convenience food establishment as follows: Convenience Food Establishment. An establishment which serves food in or on disposal or edible containers in individual services for consumption on or off the premises. Service to customers is generally by clerks rather than waitresses. Also, commonly known as fast food establishments. This definition encompasses the larger variety of fast food establishments ranging from McDonalds to Domino's Pizza take out. Convenience food facilities are only allowed in New Hope's "B-3" Auto Oriented Business District and the "B-4" General Business District by conditional use permit. 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)92'5-9420 D~n Donahue 22 July 1986 Page Two The district restriction and need for conditional use permit have been established to respond to the use characteristics associated with convenience food facilities. Use characteristics include: Architectural compatibility, high traffic generation, high parking demand, site deliveries, operational noise and odors, and the desire for drive thru windows. These use characteristics generally demonstrate the commercial intensity of convenience food facilities and is the reason to segregate these uses into the more intense commercial zoning districts. Domino's Pizza is requesting a text amendment to allow convenience food establish- ments in the "B-I" Limited Nieghborhood Business District. The purpose of the "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighbor- hoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. The uses in the "B-I" are very select and limited to commercial facilities that are compatible to adjacent residential areas and are limited to serving the re- sidential neighborhoods. Review of the "B-I" zoning districts indicate that they are located in area between the residential and more intense commercial zoning districts. The large variety of restaurants that fit the convenience food establishments definition raise land use compatibility concerns in the "B-I" zoning district and are contrary to the intent of the "B-I" district. Domino's Pizza is an operation that differs from the more typical convenience food establishments in 'the fol:lowing ways: 1. The majority of its business is done through delivery. 2. The balance of its sales are take out orders with no, on-premises dining. 3. The facilities are generally small, and located'~'~ ~existin'g.'~hoppi~n~ ~'~L]ii.i].'''' ~'':' centers. Currently, there is one in New Hopes Midland Shopping Center facility. 4. Due to its size and operation, the facility's trade area is generally more limited than the large convenience food establishments. 'D"an Donahue 22 July 1986 Page Three Recognizing Domino's operation characteristic, the CitY!'must.eValuate.the-Proposed use within the "B-I" environment. While the Domino'S facility diffe~rs ~from..lar-ge. 'convenience food establishments in use intensity, 'the facility will bring addi- tional traffic to the "B-I" area and other operational nuisances such as noise and odors, not currently found in the "B-I" District. Under current regulations governing convenience food operations, it would be difficult to prevent a facility such as Domino's from expanding into a larger scale operation. Even with more re- strictive ordinance language, staff feels that the introduction of this tyPe of operation will not only create compatibility concerns but also problems for code enforcement and policing. Recommenda ti on: Based on staff review, we feel that the "B-3" and "B-4" zoning districts offer the appropriate opportunities for convenience food establishments and are contrary to the intent of the "B-I" zoning district. However, the determination as to whether the proposed use is acceptable in the "B-i" will be a policy decision left to the City. If City determines that the use is acceptable, staff would not suggest allowing the facility as a permitted use as requested by the applicant, rather staff offer the following suggestions for consideration in a text amendment. 1. To limit the type of convenience food establishments i]n the "B-i" District. Staff recommends that a specific definition be developed for Convenience Food Take Out/Delivery Facilities to separate these facilities from larger convenience food restaurants. 2. The convenience food take out/delivery facility only be allowed by condi- tional use permit in the "B-I" zoning district. The conditional use per- mit provides the City with greater review and enforcement control. Use conditions that Should be addressed should include: a. Architectural compatibility. b. The facility must be a total take out and delivery operation, no on premise dining. c. The proposed "B-I" site must be conforming site under the current zoning standards. d. Site should have access to a collector or arterial street. e. Parking areas must comply with all City parking standards. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-25 - Request for Conditional Use Permit - 2720 Winnetka Avenue North - Little Caesar's Pizza/Greg DeWiese, Petitioners 4. Planning Case 86-26 - Request for Conditional Use Permit - 7811 62nd Avenue North -Domino's Pizza/Roland deJolsvay, Petitioner 5. Planning Case 86-27 - Request for Variance in Letter Height of Sign - 7300 Bass Lake Road - Murphy Oil USA, Inc./ Dennis Hansen, Petitioners. 6. Planning Case 86-28 - Request for Conditional Use Permit - 8421 58th Avenue North, Apartment 93, Parent Child Center (District #281)/Carroll Vomhoff, Petitioners COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Report of Design and Review Com~ittee 8. Report of Codes and Standards Con~nittee OLD BUSINESS 9. Vacant Land Study NEW BUSINESS 10. Interview of Planning Con~nission Candidates 11. Approval of Planning Co~mission Minutes of September 2, 1986. 12. Review of City Council Minutes of August 25, 1986 and September 8, 1986. 13. Additional Con~nents, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Co~missioners and Staff 14. Announcements 15. Adjournment DATE: October 7, 1986 CASE: 86-25 PETITIONER: Little Caesar's Pizza/Greg DeWiese REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food/Take-out Delivery Establishment in a B-1 Zone LOCATION: 2720 Winnetka Avenue North ZONING: B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS 1. This case is very similar to the Domino's Pizza planning case. This case was tabled from the September meeting in order that the site plans could be worked out. The principal concern has been the shared parking with the Amoco gas station next door. Apparently there is or will soon be a signed agreement between both parties. If there is shared parking, then the zoning code requires a Conditional Use Permit. The parking is needed by Amoco and not by the petitioners in this case. I would hate to tie them up if the agreement or that Conditional Use Permit is delayed. 2. The Design and Review con~nittee recommended that 1) snow be removed from the site; 2) that new rooftop units be screened to match the existing; 3) that in the event the Amoco Oil shared parking arrangement cannot be worked out that there be a separation of the two properties with landscaping and a curb. 3. See the Planner's report on this planning case. Everything else appears to be in order and staff would further recommend that there be a performance bond to insure that all of the improvements, including landscaping are completed within one year. 'l northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Curtis Gutoske DATE: I October 1986 RE: Little Caesars Pizza FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.25 BACKGROUND BVC Properties is proposing to open a Little Caesars Pizza establishment at 2720 Winnetka Avenue North. The applicant is requesting that a conditional use permit be approved that allows for a convenience food take out/delivery establishment to be located within a B-1 district. The' property in question is currently zoned B-1. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Parking. While the number of parking spaces provided exceeds the requirements of the ordinance, certain changes need to be made in the parking arrangement: · The 20 foot aisle on the west side of the building must be expanded to 24 feet which is required by the ordinance. This additional width may be obtained by reducing the width of the concrete walk adjacent to the building to 6 feet and also reducing the width of the green strip from 6 feet to 4 feet 7 inches (see plan). The parking stalls at the rear of the site are measured at 18 feet in length. The ordinance requires that unless-proper overhang is required, all stalls must be 20 feet in length. This can be accomplished by making the aisle between the two rows of parking 24 feet wide and the green strip.along the back property line 4 feet 3 inches wide (see plan). 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 ,Dan Donahue 1 October 1986 Page Two · An agreement must be reached with the Amoco Station to allow for a shared access and parking and to install a curbed island as indicated on the plan. This is to better define the circulation pattern between the parking lots and to avoid vehicles cutting across existing parking spaces. This island shall be landscaped similar to the two islands branching off the curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue. Curbs. It is recommended that the proposed bituminous curbing for the parking lot be changed to concrete curbing. This is due to maintenance and durability concerns with the bituminous curbing which is seen as an inferior material. In addition, concrete curbing would be more consistent with other parking areas in the City. The curb cuts illustrated on the plan indicate a reduction from 32 feet to 24 feet as suggested by the Design Review Committee. Loading Area. It is suggested .that a loading area be located on the south side of the building. It should be indicated with proper striping and signage. Landscaping. The landscape plan is acceptable, provided the above identified landscaping is provided. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit that would allow for the establishment of Little Caesars. Pizza is recommended based on the follow- ing conditions: 1. The parking changes cited previously and shown on the site plan are completed. 2. The proposed bituminous curbing is changed to concrete curbing. 3. The loading area is designated and identified. 4. Landscaping is completed as specified in this report. cc: Doug Sandstad Jeanine Dunn ~ , ~ ~ ~ I ~ i , .--?~~~? ........... '~. ~ ,f' .; ........ ~ ~., c-l""f' ~',-r ]' -~ ....... r'-r-- ~ "¢ ; ~~~--~ i .....~ ~ -=¢ - ";"Z:'.:,¥;:'~; "d-' WI ET LANDSCAPING PLAN SITE PLAN .o.t. ¢~ tlllL[ CAISAR'S ' . _ · .,,~ .j '" ' :Z eXHibIT ~ DATE: October 7, 1986 CASE: 86-26 PETITIONER: Domino's Pizza/Roland DeJolsvay REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Convenience Food Takeout Delivery Establishment in a B-1 Zone LOCATION: 7811 62nd Avenue North ZONING: B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~4ENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to establish a take-out restaurant in a B-1 Zone. At the September Planning Commission meeting, the matter was tabled in order to allow the petitioner time to put together his site plan. The matter of the text change to allow the restaurant in the B-1 Zone was approved. The matter was subsequently approved by the City Council and they have approved the ordinance in its final version. 2. Most Design and Review suggestions have been taken care of. The petitioner has not closed the east curb cut, nor is it recor~nended that he should. Please see the Planner's report concerning this matter. The security lighting has not been indicated at the rear in the plan and the rooftop units do not show screening. Plans also show that existing trees are to be removed and staff recommends that they remain. This should be clarified. 3. Concern has been voiced by the Fire Chief about emergency service vehicles' access to this non-sprinkled building. They take exception with the Planner's recommendation that the 62nd Avenue drive-way be eliminated. They strongly recommend that this driveway be maintained as it gives them excellent access to the front of the building. If this 62nd Avenue driveway is not closed off, then the site will be at least under the required parking by two spaces. 4. Staff recommends approval of the project with a performance bond to make sure that all improvements are done in one year's time. northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Ross Harris DATE: 2 October 1986 RE: Domino's Pizza CUP FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.26 BACKGROUND Domino's Pizza has requested a conditional use permit to operate a pizza take- out/delivery establishment in the Oliver Tam Building, located at 7811 62nd Avenue North. The property is zoned B-l, Neighborhood Business District. Based on the City's. recently amended Zoning Ordinance which allows by conditional use such an establishment in the B-1 District, the applicant has submitted a site plan which proposes to address truck loading and circulation routing, automobile access, circulation, and parking and landscaping. It is noted that a loading zone variance exists for this building. Please refer to attached Exhibits A and B for site location and site plan details. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The following issues and analysis review has been prepared in accordance with procedures set forth in and regulated by Sections 4.212 and 4.033, in addition to the amended Section' 4.104 of the City's Zoni.ng Ordinance as follows: I. SECTION 4.104 (Subd. 4) (a) .Compatibility with'Surrounding PrOperty. "The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and/or site shall not be so dis- similar to existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in pro- perty values or constitute a blighting influence." Comment: While other tenants in the Oliver Tam Building dispense limited services unrelated to take-out/dlivery food, the atypical nature of the proposed convenience food establishment (i.e., delivery orientation, small size, no on-site dining, and limited trade area) 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 D~n Donahue 2 October 1986 Page Two suggests the business will remain .compatible with other local service tenants in this neighborhood shoppi.ng center, and thus compatible. The architectural compatibility of the building, with the proposed food take-out/delivery business will'not be altered. (b) .Operation Limited. "The establishment'must be exclusively used as a take-out and delivery facility for over the counter food sales as defined in Section 4.022 (30) of this Code. On-premises consumption of food in any form or manner shall be prohibited." Comment: The applicant's proposal will be used in accordance with limited operational standards. (c) Street Access. "The establishment must have access to a collector or arterial street." Comment: While the proposed take-out/delivery establishment will have access to Winnetka Avenue, a number of other access and circulation issues exist based on the applicant's proposed site improvement plan, including the following: e AcCess Closure from 62nd Avenue North - The closure °f this curb' cut will eliminate egress/ingress issues from'the shopping center's midpoint between Winnetka and Sumter. A minimum of three addi- tional parking spaces will also be created. The Fire Chief has expressed concern.for fire department access of the site if the 62nd Avenue entrance is closed.' We suggest that fire 'protection to the site could be addressed from 62nd Street right-of-way. This should be confirmed by the City Fire Chief. Traffic Circulation - Non-delivery truck.vehicles will be able to access the site from either Winnetka or Sumter Avenue with the closure of the curb cut to 62nd Avenue North, but the same vehicles would be barred from exiting onto Sumter Avenue due to the proposed separate truck exit. These vehicles would likely attempt to exit onto Sumter in spite of the design, creating a potentially hazardous traffic circulation pattern (see Exhibit B). As such, the island proposed to separate delivery truck and other vehicular traffic should be repositioned to abut the building on the east side to permit a two-way access/egress driveway to Sumter. This is similar in design to the access onto Winnetka. The driveway should not exceed 24"feet in width. The island's repositioning in this location, however, would serve to provide adequate access as discussed above, while retaini.ng or possibly increasing site green space. Dan Donahue 2 October 1986 Page Three Loading - The on-site loading zone is proposed as a 12 foot wide, one-way traffic lane on the south side of the building. While the width of the one-way truck traffic route permits adequate space 'for loa'ding, there remains inadequate manuevering space to the rear of the building to accommodate a truck over 30 feet in length, and the one-way circulation route proposed would require all trucks to exit onto Sumter, which is a local residential street. The existing loading conditions and truck circulation pattern do not conform to required ordinance design standards. These conditions were established prior to the adoption of the current ordinance and since no changes beyond those proposed are possible, the loading area will remain a nonconforming use. (d) Parking Requirement. "The establishment must have sufficient parking spaces to comply with the requirements of Section 4.036 (10) (p) of this Code, but not less than six spaces. The parking facilities must also comply width all other off-street parking requirements required by Section 4.036 of this Code." COmment: As illustrated on the site plan, 43 parking stalls have been provided, including 2 handicapped'accessible spaces.. Forty-two spaces are required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for joint use parking. Six spaces will be utilized by the proposed take-out/delivery establishment. However, all parking spaces proposed on site at 19 feet in length are one foot short of the ordinance requirement. The City does allow for parking overhang-into green area and'sidewalks, as such the 19 foot length is acceptable. Access conflicts may arise from the parking stall located closest to the traffic lane egress to Winnetka Avenue. To 'provide a less-hazardous .egress to Winnetka Avenue,. and given that the site contains an optional parking stall, traffic/parking separation should be provided by a green space median, similar to the median'provided on the east side of the site. (e) Sanitation Requirement.."All food preparation, packaging, sale and delivery shall be subject to regulation and approval by the City Sanitarian. The Sanitarian shall provide specific written sanitary requirements for such establishments pursuant to applicable state and county regulations." COmment: The City Sanitarian shall prescribe requirements for the proposed take-out/delivery establishment, and shall prepare a written statement for the establishment's use. D~n Donahue 2 October 1986 Page Four (f) Hours of Operation. "Hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare." Comment: The applicant's proposed take-out/delivery establishment is noted for conducting business in late evening hours. Given that the proposed use is located adjacent to low density residential neighbor- hOods, the City may wish to enforce a reasonable operation schedule to mitigate evening nuisances from delivery vehicles such as noise and headlight glare. II. SECTION 4.212 Items not addressed by the aforementioned review criteria pertaining to this section of the City's Zoning Ordinance include the following: · ComprehensiVe Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan recommends low- intensity commercial use in the proposed take-out/delivery establish- ment location.' The proposed use is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. · No Depreciation in Value. The established commercial character of Oliver Tam Building relative to the proposed take-out/delivery establishment will lead to no depreciation in local property values. · Effect on Other BusineSses. Adjacent businesses in the neighborhood shoppi.ng center will not be adversely impacted by the proposed take- out/delivery establishment. III. SECTION 4.033 Performance standards not included in the aforementioned review criteria pertaini.ng to this section of the City's Zoning Ordinance include the following: · Fencing and Screening. The site's existing fencing and screening is proposed to be maintained, with the exception of existing trees on the east side of the site. The green belt strip has been provided in accordance with ordinance requirements, as has the green belt strip on the north side of the site. Based on staff review of the plan, we do recommend preserving the existing trees along the east property line. · LandScaping. The landscape plan indicates that the proposed landscape spacing, design, and species are in conformance with the City's ordinance requirements. Dan Donahue 2 October 1986 Page Fi ve Glare. Existing lighting is in conformance with ordinance requirements. Trash Enclosure. A screened trash enclosure has been provided on site. The trash screening materials should, however, be of a similar composi- tion as the screening fence. · Signage. Proposed signage for the 'take-out/delivery establishment and truck deliveries mus't be in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and reviewed.in coordination with the building's comprehensive sign plan. RECOMMENDATION Based on our review and the judgement criteria outlined in Sections 4.212, 4.033, and 4.104 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, we recommend approval of the proposed take-out/delivery establishment CUP, subject to the'following conditions: 1. Revision of the curb access approach at Sumter Avenue so that two-way, shared truck/non-truck traffic is provided. 2. In conjunction with #1, relocate the island at.this curb access to abut the east side of the building as illustrated in Exhibit B. 3. A green space median strip should be provided at the egress to Winnetka Avenue as illustrated in Exhibit B. 4. The City Sanitarian shall approve all food preparation, packaging, sale, and delivery methods and shall prepare a'written statement for applicable state and county sanitary requirements. 5. The City shall reserve the night to limit the applicant's hours of business operation. 6. All proposed signage on the site must conform with the City's Sign Code, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the'City Building Official. 7. All site screening and landscaPing shall be performed in accordance with Section 4.033 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. We also recommend that the existing trees along the east side of the'site be preserved. 8. All other comments as deemed appropriate by City staff. cc: Doug Sandstad Jeanine Dunn . _. m .X ......... : ....... .:. ~ ' j.=.(.---. ~-'-.----" ,'-,.. ' ...... K~-~?.~;.*, ~ '; .... ~,: ~ :. li'~j~l /'~'"'L ., ~ t , ~. · ' ' /~ · , ~ ~,t- ' ~?:-:':'.'-'-:.:.:+:':':'-'.:.:-:-:-:':~ ........ ~ I ~- ~ r- ~ " '" '" ~ k::-:-:.'"':': : ::-:.:- ':':': ::~::-:': :': ' J ~ ~-' ,, ~ f...........- ...... .... ...... ...,..:~ ~ ,. · ~ ~ : ..................... ~ ............ :-.-.~:,, , ~ ~ ~L ~ e' ~- ~ ~ ~ , ~. - L I~'~':'~:::'~':'~'~""~'~' ' I · ,. '~ ~ ~ ~ / o . , · ~ ~ . .~~,;~,~C.~ · ~ ~ ~ I sil.. I "J~' .. ~.~_ .......... ~ ' ~.~ ~ ',-' ~ - .: ~ ........ ~-.- l~ 1~'1 ~: .,.,= · : ,.' '.;~. . / ; ~ ~ ~ ~'"~, -: ' "j~.'~' ~ "'~"'; :.~/'" '~ (; ~ ,~: ............. j..-.-.: '.== ................... '~_.~ _ ~-=~;::::':__] {~. :~, · . .... --~ ................ ~ ...................... ~. ~-~ ~' ; ~ ................. ~ ........ ., S]TE/LANDSCAP]NG PLA~ DATE: October 7, 1986 CASE: 86-27 PETITIONER: Murphy Oil Company USA/Dennis Hansen REQUEST: Variance to Sign Ordiinance for Height of Letters LOCATION: 7300 Bass Lake Road ZONING: B-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COF~ENTS: 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance from Section 3.465 of the City Ordinance. This requires that the letters on canopy signs not exceed 12 inches in height. The proposed letters are 30 inches in height and have already been installed on the canopy. They are placed on the east and west sides of the canopy. 2. The petitioner contends that the trees, shrubs, and buildings at both east and west property lines block the view of the station within 200 feet of the entrance. It is staff's opinion that there is adequate sight line to the canopy. 3. In order to authorize a variance, the Planning Co~mission must identify the unnecessary hardship as caused by the ordinance and staff cannot reco~end a good hardship. Recon~end denial. DATE: October 7, 1986 CASE: 86-28 PETITIONER: Parent Child Center of Robbinsdale School District #281/ Carroll Vomhoff REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for a Parent Child Center in an R-4 Zone LOCATION: 8421 58th Avenue North, Apartment ~3 ZONING: R-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS 1. District 9281 is proposing to operate an early childhood/family education program in the apartments located on Bass Lake Road, just west of the golf course. The city ordinance allows a day care center as a Conditional Use in an R-4 zone. The petitioner maintains that this program is significantly different than a day care center in that it is more educational in nature. Attached is a memorandum from District ~281 regarding this facility. 2. The petitioner has indicated that most of the clients will be residents of the apartment complex or residents in the nearby vicinity. 3. No additional parking is proposed to accommodate the facility. The proposed hours of operation are in compliance with the city ordinance. The teachers and staff will be licensed by the State of Minnesota. 4. The center has been in operation for several months. When it was discovered that it was in operation, they were directed to apply for the Conditional Use Permit. Since there is no in~ediate rush on this matter, I would recommend that we table it until a good site plan is submitted and further study is done on the parking and other impacts that this facility will bring to the apartment complex. PARENT-CHILD CENTER 5400 Corvallis Avenue North MinneaooN$, Minnesota 55429 Phone 537-2270 Delores Fletcher-Program Director September 12, 1986 To Whom it May Concern: Re: Use of space at Bass Lake Road Apartment 8421 58th Avenue North, Apt. #3 New Hope, MN The Parent-Child Center is a program that serves over 400 families in the Robbinsdale Area Schools. We have two locations: Cavanagh Early Childhood Center, 5400 Corvallis Avenue North, Crystal, and Olson Early Childhood Center, 1751 Kelly Drive, Golden Valley. We have been providing a positive learning experience for parents and their young children for eleven years. We have been urged by Independent School District 281 to reach out further into the community to bring parent education to the residents living in lower socio-economic areas. In our research of the community, the Parent-Child Center decided on the Bass Lake Road Apartments. We felt this site was centrally located to include many families with young children who live in apartment housing. We intend to use the apartment site as a base for outreach to parents and children living in the community. This program is funded by Independent School District 281 Community Education and Services. Parents will be asked for a voluntary donation in return for their participation in the program. We are coordinating closely with social workers and psychologists in the school district, social service, public health and law enforcement agencies. Presently, we will use the apartment as a visible resource for parents and young children. In addition, we will include home visitations and door-to- door contacts. We will also invite parents and children, in small groups, for a specific class time. The classes will run for two hours several days per week. A parent must accompany the child and be present in the apartment during the entire class time. In addition to each parent being present and responsible for his/her own child, a minimum of two professional teachers will be with the group to direct learning activities and discussion. We will use the living room area as a learning/activity center for the chil- dren. The bedroom has been converted into an area for discussion by parents on a variety of parenting topics such as discipline, self-esteem, nutrition, and family budgeting. Our hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday. We are very excited about this new program. The tenants in this complex are enthusiastic, and the community is very supportive and encouraging to us. A one-year lease has been signed with the approval of the superintendent and Community Education director of Independent School District 281. We have invited our colleagues in the school district to an open house at this Independent School District 281 · Robbinsdale Area Schools · Donna Jean Carter, Ph.D., Superintendent location on September 16 and 17, 1986, from 12-2 p.m. We wish to extend this inviation to you and to other interested officials in the City of New Hope. Sincerely, Lonnie Grabham, Lead Teacher Parent-Child Place Apartment Site /bio MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Vacant Land Study Final Revisions DATE: October 2, 1986 Attached you will find the concept plan changes for the Vacant Land Study. These changes, along with deletions which were identified by the Planning Commission, will result in the final draft of the Vacant Land Study. Section 462.355 of Minnesota Statutes document the procedures that the:~City Council must follow to adopt the Vacant Land Study as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The statute requires that after the Planning Commission closes the public hearing, it must make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the study as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. At least 60 days must elapse before the City Council accepts the Vacant Land Study. This amendment must be approved by a resolution passed by two-thirds of the Council. The Planning Commission did not close the Public Hearing on the Vacant Land Study held on July 1, 1986. I request that the Planning Commission accepts the revisions that are attached and close the public hearing. The Planning Commission should then recommend that the City Council accept the final draft of the Vacant~Land Study as an amendment to the comprehensive plan at its December 8, 19.86 City Council meeting. SITE V This site is in an R'I area surrounded by single family homes, with park land to the west.family. The proposed use is to remain single This site is zoned R-1 with a single family house to the south and the rest of the block is utilized by a school. Commercial uses dominate the north and east. The concept plan shows a combination of the lot with adjacent single family home and redevelop- ing at a higher density with six units .......... It would be a difficult single family site to develop due to high traffic levels and the adjacent commercial uses. SITE X This parcel is a fully developed single family neighborhood. Although it adjoins 49th Avenue, it is suggested that the site remain single family. SITES Y AND Z The railroad sight line triangle makes these parcels extremely difficult to develop. For this reason, in addition to the neighboring industrial uses, the sites have been combined on this plan and a twin home shown located toward one side of the parcel. This plan would still require a relaxation of the sight triangl~e distances to approxi- mately 150 feet along each property line. This is a difficult site to develop, due to the narrowness of the lot and the extra- ordinary setbacks required from both Winnetka and 49th Avenues. The site plan shows a four unit townhouse development with single drive- way entrances on the Winnetka frontage. The lot is over .6 acres and is not likely to be developed single family, as is the rest of the neighborhood, nor is it possible to efficiently subdivide the lot into smaller single family parcels. SITE BB These parcels are .located in established single family neighborhoods and should be developed as such. SITE CC This site has significant soils prob- lems and no site plan is included here. If it does develop, it is recommended that it'be developed single family, considering its location in a single family area. SITES GG AND HH These properties are located along Winnetka Avenue in the southern portion of the City. The area is zoned I-1 and is developed industrially in all directions except to the west across Winnetka in Crystal, which is single family residential. The proposal for this area is to combine the two parcels, and continue the industrial usage. The site plans show 13,000 square feet of in- dus tri al/warehouse development. $][TE ]' ]' This site is located north of the Soo Line railroad tracks from the Model Ready Mix area. The site is approximately 8 acres and is bordered by several single family homes, some in Crystal, some in New Hope. The concept plan shown here shows 16 single family homes served by a new public street bordering the rail line. The site is not wide enough to efficiently allow the street to split it in half and front lots on both sides. Approximately 2.6 acres of the site is in street right-of-way with an average lot size of 14,700 square feet. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dan Donahue, City Manager SUBJECT: Planning Commission Applicants DATE: October 2, 1986 The Planning Commission has received two applications to fill the existing vacancy. I have attached the application forms for your review. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission interview and recommend a candidate for the position. The candidates will be interviewed at the October 7, 1986 meeting. The interviews will be one of the last items on the agenda so that the candidates have an opportunity to observe . the meeting. CITY OF NEW HOPE I NTERESTS/BACKGROUND/QUAL I FI CATIONS APPOINTEES TO COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS In order to obtain 'some basic information on potential appointees for use by the City Council and its advisory boards and commissions you are requested to provide the following information. The completed form can be given to any member of the Council, the City Manager's office or a present member of the boards and commissions. 1. Boardor Commission in which interested ~[Ekr~r~fl~ct O~brrxCn~'~5 2. Your name ~-~kJC>A- ~q- Home phone No. Bus. phone No. 3. Address S~ ~%~oT~ ~ ~ ~ 4. Family Make Up - Spouse ,]-~% Number of children 0 5. How long have you lived in the city? 7. Formal education: Degree ~<~ ~ ~v~-~ O~¥q( Major ~e.~,, 8. Practical experience: ~ U~w~ ~ ~ ~q~ .; 9. Why do you want to serve on this pa,rticular commission or board? 10. Do you have a practical skill or experience that you feel would be especially pertinent to this board or commission? · 11. What other civic activities are you involved with? Si,ned Dated CITY OF NEW HOPE INTERESTS/BACKGROUND/QUALIFICATIONS APPOINTEES TO COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS In order to obtain ]some basic information on potential appointees for use by the City Council and its advisory boards and commissions you are requested to provide the following information. The completed form can be given to any member of the Council, the City Manager's office or a present member of the boards and commissions. 1. Boar~or Commission in which interested ~L-~Yt~?-- 4. Family Make Up - Spouse ~"~/ Number of children 5. How long have you lived in the city? ~ ~ 6. Occupation ~~~ P~,w 7. Formal education: Degree m~-c'~ Major ~~ Z 9. Why do you want to serve on this particular commission or board? 10. Do you have a practical skill or experience that you feel would be especially pertinent to this board or commission? 11. What other civic activities are you involved with? Si ~ned Dated AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-28 -Request for Conditional Use Permit - 8421 58th Avenue North, Apartment ~3 - Parent-Child Center (District ~281)/Carroll Vomhoff, Petitioners 4. Planning Case 86-29 -Request for Variance, Construction Approval - 5641 Wisconsin Avenue North - Vernon and Natalie Stuhr, Petitioners 5. Planning Case 86-30 -Request for Variance - 4673 Ensign Avenue North-- Jim and Sue Carlson, Petitioners 6. Planning Case 86-31 -Request for Conditional Use Permit - 7800 Medicine Lake Road and 2720 Winnetka North - Amoco Oil and Little Ceasar's Pizza, Petitioners 7. Planning Case 86-33 -Request for Construction Approval - 9200 49th Avenue North - Clarence Brandell, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Report of Design and Review Conmittee 9. Report of Codes and Standards Con~nittee NEW BUSINESS 10. Approval of Planning Con~nission Minutes of October 7, 1986 11. Review of Council Minutes of September 22, 1986 and October 6, 1986 12. Additional Con~nents, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and Staff 13. Announcements 14. Adjournment DATE: November 5, 1986 CASE: 86-28 PETITIONER: Harry Lebow/School District ~281 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Parent/Child Center LOCATION: 8421 58th Avenue North ZONING: R-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS" 1. This case was tabled at the October Planning Commission Meeting. Apparently there was a mis-co~unication and the petitioner did not show up at the meeting. 2. ~ne site is a five building apartment complex built in 1962, adjacent to the New Hope Golf Course. No major improvements have been made to structures or property. However,this past year new windows and siding were put on. The complex is non conforming for a variety of reasons including density to acres, lack of garages, elevation below roadway, setbacks to property lines. 3. The proposed use is appropriate for the building from a zoning standpoint. The Parent Child Center targets the single parent f~mi~ies in this complex and in the neighborhood. It is compatible to R-4 uses. 4. The available parking spaces on the site are adequate in number to serve both residents and the likely maximum four cars at the Parent/Child Center. However, the condition and striping of the parking lot is substandard. Staff recommends that the parking lot be re-striped by May 10, 1987. In addition, staff further reco~ends that prior to May 10, 1987, the non-parking area adjacent to each apartment building have the asphalt removed and replaced by sod up to the curb line. There is too much potential for vehicles coming up along side the buildings and idling, getting exhaust fumes into windows ...... 5. Staff is going to recor~nend approval .on this planning case. PARENT-CHILD CENTER 5400 Corvallis Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 Phone 537-2270 Delores Fletcher-Program Director September 12, 1986 To Whom it May Concern: .Re: Use of space at Bass Lake Road Apartment 8421 58th Avenue North, Apt. #3 New Hope, MN The Parent-Child Center is a program that serves over 400 families in the Robbinsdale Area Schools. We have two locations: Cavanagh Early Childhood Center, 5400 Corvallis Avenue North, Crystal, and Olson Early Childhood Center, 1751 Kelly Drive, Golden Valley. We have been providing a positive learning experience for parents and their young children for eleven years. We have been urged by Independent School District 281 to reach out further into the community to bring parent education to the residents living in lower socio-economic areas. In our research of the community, the Parent-Child Center decided on the Bass Lake Road Apartments. We felt this site was centrally located to include many families with young children who live in apartment housing. We intend to use the apartment site as a base for outreach to parents and children living in the community. This program is funded by Independent School District 281 Community Education and Services. Parents will be asked for a voluntary donation in return for their participation in the program. We are coordinating closely with social workers and psychologists in the school district, social service, public health and law enforcement agencies. Presently, we will use the apartment as a visible resource for parents and young children. In addition, we will include home visitations and door-to- door contacts. We will also invite parents and children, in small groups, for a specific class time. The classes will run for two hours several days per week. A parent must accompany the child and be present in the apartment during the entire class time. In addition to each parent being present and responsible for his/her own child, a minimum of two professional teachers will be with the group to direct learning activities and discussion. We will use the living room area as a learning/activity center for the chil- dren. The bedroom has been converted into an area for discussion by parents on a variety of parenting topics such as discipline, self-esteem, nutrition, and family budgeting. Our hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Monday through Friday. We are very excited about this new program. The tenants in this complex are enthusiastic, and the community is very supportive and encouraging to us. A one-year lease has been signed with the approval of the superintendent and Community Education director of Independent School District 281. We have invited our colleagues in the school district to an open house at this Independent School District 281 · Robbinsdale Area Schools · Donna Jean Carter, Ph.D., Superintendent location on September 16 and 17, 1986, from 12-2 p.m. We wish to extend this inviation to you and to other interested officials in the City of New Hope. Sincerely, Lonnie Grabham, Lead Teacher Parent-Child Place Apartment Site /bio OUR MAIN GOAL IS TO HELP ~ THE PARENTS ENJOY PARENT-CHILD THEIR CHILDREN i!! CENTER PARTTCZPATTO# COST Tuition is based on the following sliding fee scale: Family's Yearly Tuition for ~. ~ '~ Gross Income One Child SO-lO,O00 $14 $10-20,000 $28 · · $20-30,000 $42 · $30,000+ $56 Fees can be waived. Sibling care is an additional fee. The Parent-Child Center is a pro- gram of the Community Education and Services department of - ~ ' ~ I} !~ Independent School District 281. ~,~.~ __ The center's office is located in ~ ~ "~'~j ~iii, ~i" ][ ]_. -]] AvenueCavanaghNorth,SChoOl'crystal.5400 Corvallis ~ ~t ,,, ,ii .~i:~o,~.,,,,:-~] ~..~'~: ] .... ~ Visitors are welcome! Call us tO ............ We'd like you to see our '~,~i and meet our staff. '~,~_11 ........ L'~x..!!~,,~,_~_ .... Registration precedes each 14-week i~ ]!~ii~\ series. Call us during business An Early Childhood and hours for further information, O ~~~:!!ili::¢~ s37-227o, o'>~' . i~' Family Educalion Pro0ram -- 5400 Corvallis Avenue North ,? ........1[ .... '~'~,,'"x.. ~ ....... ~ ~ o ~ ~ Crystal. MN 55429 537-2270 , '-:[:-:T:':::'~'~:~ CHILDREN'S ACTIVITY TIRE sion, their children learn through play with guidance from early childhood instructors. In the activity rooms specially designed for small children, instructors provide activities for large and small muscles, stimulation of senses, creative dramatics, music, art, and social development. A special time is provided during each class for pa~'ents to interact r with their children in planned activities. INFANT/TODDLER CLASSES In the infant/toddler room, parents and children remain together. Parents have thei~ discussion within sight and sound of the playing children. They join together for songs, activi- ties, and games. This format  meets children's need for secure attachment. OUR PHILOSOPHY PARENT DISCUSSION GROUPS STAFF CLASS SCHEDULE In the early years, a child's Parents meet with other parents in The Parent-Child Center is staffed Classes meet once a week for 14 first and most significant teacher a group to discuss ideas and by competent teachers who are weeks during both the fall and is a parent. Parent education, concerns ranging from physical, licensed in early childhood spring semesters. Mini-sessions then, becomes the most effective social, and emotional development education and vocationally are held in January. Most class way to support parenting and to to creativity, toilet training, certified in parent education and periods are one and one-half hours produce long-range benefits for and discipline. A trained parent group facilitation, with some classes scheduled for the child, facilitator leads the discussion two hours. groups, and a curriculum is used FACILITIES . The center's programming takes a as the focus of discussion. Families may register for sessions positive approach to family Classes for parents of elementary- The administrative office of the in the morning (9-10:30 a.m. or education. We believe that it is age children use a discussion-only Parent-Child Center is located in 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.), afternoon important for parents to feel good format with no parent-child the east wing of Cavana9h School. (1-2:30 p.m.), or evening (6:30-8 about themselves and about the interaction. Classrooms are specially designed p.m.). Evening classes may be roles they play in raising each for families with young children, especially convenient for single parents, dual-employed parents, child as a unique individual, and couples. DATE: November 5, 1986 CASE: 86-29 PETITIONER: Vern Stuhr REQUEST: Rearyard Setback Variance and Construction Approval LOCATION: Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin ZONING: R-4 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. In August, Mr. Stuhr came in front of the Planning Con~ission and Council asking for concept approval for his apartment building. He wanted a variance granted for his rearyard (15 feet) and construction approval. After much discussion, Council formally indicated to the Stuhrs that they would be willing to consider such a request if he were to go back and obtain good construction drawings, and pay the proper fees. 2. I think the enclosed report from the Planner adequately states the issues. Other than the rearyard setback, the only item not being provided that was asked for by staff and the Design and Review sub-con~ittee was the loading berth. This can be discussed further at the Planning Con~nission meeting. Lastly, staff recon~lends that a performance bond be given for the proper landscaping and screening assurances. northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Curtis Gutoske DATE: 23 October 1986 RE: Stuhr Six Unit Apartment Complex FILE NO: 131.01 - 86.29 BACKGROUND Mr. Vern Stuhr has submitted a revised proposal to build a six unit apartment at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue North. The proposed lot is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Changes. Although this is a revised site plan, the changes are minimal from the site plan reviewed on 18 June 1986. The only changes that have been made in the revised plan are the provision of a walkway between the garages and the apart- ment building and the removal of the landscaping at the building entrance. The second level of the apartment building also has experienced changes in its layout, but still maintains the same number of units. Due to the insignificance of these changes, the issues that were identified in the June 18th planning report remain as concerns in this review. These issues are reiterated here as a reminder of the items that need to be addressed in the revised site plan. Land Use. The applicant's site is zoned R-4 which is an extension of the High Density District located to the west. The R-4 district is established to permit high density multiple family development. While the land use is consistent with zoning and the development to the west, the multiple family development does raise some compatibility concerns with the single family homes to the south along Wisconsin. In this light, development of the applicant's lot must be designed to integrate with the neighborhood. (In the City's Vacant Land Study, use for this site indicates a four-unit mid-density residential development with access to Wisconsin Avenue. This would be a more compatible use with the surrounding neigh- borhood, while still complying with all the R-4 zoning requirements.) 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 Dan Donahue 23 October 1986 Page Two Lot Area and Setback. The R-4 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a lot area per unit of 3,000 square feet per unit. The applicant's lot is 100 feet wide and has 21,332 square feet of area. This complies with the lot width standard and exceeds the lot area standard by providing 3,555 square feet per unit. The following setbaCks are applicable to the applicant's proposed development: Setback Requi red PrOvided Front/East 35' 35' Conforms Side/South 20' 20' Conforms Side/North/Bass Lake Road 35' 35' Conforms Rear/West 35' 20' Violation The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 35' rear setback. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance states: The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to bei~ keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this Code or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of'a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this Code would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizi.ng the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon such lot or parcel that another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if it were to be developed in a manner proposed by the appellant. Review of the applicant's site plan does not reveal any undue non-economic hardship that would prevent compliance with the established rear yard setback standard. Undue hardship is defined by Section 4.221 (1) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance as follows: Undue Hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. ~an Donahue 23 October 1986 Page Three Along with the requested setback variance, the applicant is also requesting a variance from the required loading area for which one is to be~provided. This request indicates that over utilization ~s occurrilng on the site where the design of the proposal does not allow for the proper loading area to be provided. The variance requests stem from the desired building size and configuration which fills the site beyond the buildable area of the lot as defined by the required set- backs. If the existing building cannot be redesigned to fit the site, scaling down the density or building size provides options to bring the building into conformance. 'In this light, the hardship appears to be economic and does not warrant a variance from City zoning design standards. Drainage and Grading. The proposed grading plan shows the stormwater drainage is intended to be directed north to Bass Lake Road. This becomes a concern as the sidewalk on the south side of Bass Lake Road lies in the path of the stormwater runoff. An alternative would be to provide a drain within the parking lot and have the stormwater drain to Bass Lake Road via an underground pipe. The drainage and grading plan is subject to the comments and approval of the City Engineer. Parking. The applicant's site plan shows six single stall garages and nine parking stalls for a total of 15 parking stalls. The 15 Parking stalls satisfies the City parking requirements. The parking stalls and drive aisles comply with the City dimensional standards. The proposed parking area is indicated as having a perimeter curb and bituminous surfacing. Landscaping. The applicant's landscapi.ng plan shows an effort to screen the parking area with both berms and plantings. The plant schedule indicates an acceptable variety of plant materials that conform to City size standards. The site plan indicates that some Black Hills Spruce are being proposed in the boulevard area along Wisconsin Avenue.' The Black Spruce is not identified as an acceptable boulevard tree. Also, the location of the spruce trees next to the driveway presents a visibility concern for the car exiting or entering the apart- ment site. The spruce trees should be replaced by acceptable boulevard trees and low growing shrubs to screen the parking area. The landscape plan shows a Marshall Ash in the northeast corner of the site. This ash is located within a 20 foot traffic visibility triangle. This tree should be removed to avoid the ]otential obstruction Of motorists view of traffic on Bass Lake Road. Dan Donahue 23 October 1986 Page Four RECOMMENDATION As was found in the previous reviews, the applicant's proposed development presents some land use compatibility concerns for the single family areas to the south and the introduction of a high traffic generator at close proximity to a busy inter- section. In this regard, the design of the more intense use must be integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. As was recommended earlier, this integration should be demonstrated through full compliance with City performance standards. The applicant's variance.requests indicate that an exception to the City standard is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. Once again, review of the requests reveal no physical hardship unique to the site exists that prevents reasonable use of the site. Rather, the reason for the continued request remains to stem from the size and/or configuration of the building. This represents an economic hardship that does not warrant a variance. Based on our review, we cannot recommend approval of the variance, and we would recommend further revisions of the plans to bring them into full compliance wth all City standards for an R-4 district. If the City chooses to approve the variance and permit the development, the follow- ing site plan elements should be addressed: 1. Drainage plan should be reviewed by the City Engineer. 2. Remove the Black Hills Spruce from the Wisconsin Avenue Boulevard and replace the Spruce trees with acceptable boulevard trees and low growing shrubs to screen the parking lot. 3. Remove the Marshall Ash from the 20 foot traffic visibility triangle in the northeast corner of the site. cc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall I ¢ ¢¢.t¢_-.~ wr-m I , i' ,~. LANGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY T,, UNIT AF'Ar~-F~r_mT bUlL~)INC; DESIGNERS · BUILDERS · DEVELOPERS / /, __¥. DESIGNERS · BUILDERS · DEVELOPERS ~/,;-': ..... LANGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DESIGNERS · BUILDERS · DEVELOPERS DATE: November 5, 1986 CASE: 86-30 PETITIONER: James and Sue Carlson REQUEST: Front and Sideyard Setback Variance LOCATION: 4673 Ensign North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to expand his single car garage to a double. In order to do this he wants to extend to the front by six feet and thereby going six feet into the require~ 30 foot setback. He also wants to extend to the side to four feet from the property line instead of the required five feet. 2. The sideyard variance is common to many that have been given in the past and staff would reco~end this without any problem providing the neighbors do not object. The front yard setback is not a routine request and without a real yardship, is not a request that the staff would reco~end granting. The variance to the front yard is because of cost and the petitioner not wanting to disturb some landscaping in the rear. Also, the design the petitioner has come up with appears to be quite pleasing to the front. 3. The fact that the petitioner is asking for two variances is also not routine. I don't know of any instance where such a variance has been granted. Staff recon~nends denial of the frontyard setback. DATE: November 5, 1986 CASE: 86-31 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Off-Site Parking PETITIONER: Amoco Oil Company LOCATION: 7800 Medicine Lake Road and 2720 Winnetka North ZONING: B-3 and B-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This is a continuation of the Little Caesar's Pizza planning case from last month. A Conditional Use Permit is being requested by kmoco Oil Company. They wish to park some of their vehicles in the Little Caesar's/Tom Thumb parking lot which is just to the north of them. Staff has recommended that the petitioner seek this Conditional Use Permit and straighten out the parking situation between the two businesses. As of this writing I do not have a copy of the agreement as it will be enacted by both parties next Monday. Staff recommends approval. SITE PLAN NOTES ,,,:,,,,.,- ~ SITE PLAN __WAREHOUSE WEST SOUTHsWEST ELEVATION ..~ DATE: November 5, 1986 CASE: 86-33 PETITIONER: Clarence Brandell and E-2 Construction REQUEST: Construction Approval LOCATION: 9200 49th Avenue North ZONING: I-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to construot a 24,500 office/warehouse building. Staff has evaluated the plans and is enthusiastic about the planned construction. 2. All Design and Review suggestions have been taken care of except for rooftop screening. The petitioner has indicated that there will be screening although-the plans do not show it. Also, the drainage/grading plan is incomplete and has apparently one error. The City Engineer's approval needs to be given prior to final action on this planning case. 3. The petitioner has been put on the Shingle Creek Water Co~issi0n agenda for 11-13-86. Watershed approval is r~uired because it is adjacent to a public water. The petitioner must submit evidence of DNR consent to staff prior to any construction permits being given. Also, staff is reco~ending that a Performance Bond for landscaped boulevard improvements be given. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-34- Request for Conditional Use Permit-5430 Boone Avenue North- North Ridge Care Center'Charles Thompson, Petitioners. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Report of Design and Review Committee 5. Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 6. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 1986 7.Review of City Council Minutes of October 13, 1986 and November 10, 1986 8.Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and Staff 9. Announcements 10. Adjournment DATE: December 2, 1986 CASE: 86-34 PETITIONER: Chuck Thompson (Northridge Care Center) REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Employee Daycare Center in R-4 Zone LOCATION: 5430 Boone Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The building in question was built in 1977 with major remodeling again in 1982 when it was converted from an apartment building to an intermediate care facility for the elderly. It is connected by enclosed walkways to the old original nursing home and the new apartment building at 5500 Boone Avenue. 2. This proposal is unique. We have not had a request, in memory, for an"employee" child care center. Our ordinance is slanted toward the traditional day care center where the public is invited to a remote building and drops off children before leaving the site. 3. Here, we will have a maximum of 25 (total) infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers dropped off by the parent after they park their car for the workday. The employee will then walk to their work area within the Northridge Care Center comp_lex, returning by foot to pick up the child after their shift ends. The obvious differences from the proposed traditional center are influenced by a significant national trend that encourages this kind of family support center, that has economic long-term benefits for the ~mployer in some cases and the employee in all. 4. Section 4.074 (2) of our code lists 7 conditions for such a traditional day care center: All items will be met by the petitioner, including extensive State regulations from three agencies. In this instance, no additional ~a~king spaces are required because all children would be riding in vehicles~ Currently parked at the site. 5. Staff would recommend that a single condition be placed upon the use: that all children enrolled have a parent or guardian employed within the Northridge Care Center complex. 6. Parking in general for the complex is still a bit of a problem. Mr. Thompson continues to work hard at keeping his employees from parking on the street (principally Zealand). Perhaps a review of the efforts is advisable. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1986 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Case 86-34- Request for Conditional Use Permit-5430 Boone Avenue North- North Ridge Care Center/Charles Thompson, Petitioners. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Report of Design and Review Committee 5. Report of Codes and Standa.rds Committee NEW BUSINESS 6. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 1986 7. Review of City Council Minutes of October 13, 1986 and November 10, 1986 8. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and Staff 9. Announcements 10. Adjournment CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 Approved Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. City Hall Call to Order A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, November 5, 1986, at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. Roll Call Present: Anderson, Lutts,o Cameron, Gundershaug Friedrich, Edwards Planning Case 86-28 Delores Fletcher represented the Parent-Child Center. Mr. Harry Request for Conditional Lebow, owner of the building was also in attendance. Use Permit I tern 3 Mrs. Fletcher stated that they wished to conduct the parent child center at the above location, as a benefit to the people of the complex and surrounding area. She stated that there are parent child centers in Canada and in Rochester, New York. One reason for the location is that lack of transportation is a large concern for the people that would use the parent-child center. There is no cost for the participants of the center. The apartment is rented from Mr. Lebow. They will serve a maximum of six families at one time. There will be two certified staff people on duty at all times. Because most of the participants will either be in the complex, or within walking distance, they do not believe there will be any parking problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the Planning Commission was not concerned with the program as such, but was interested in the building, and whether or not it meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for this type of use. The Planning Commission had to ~eview the proposal as it affected and met the ordinances of the city. Cor~missioner Andersor{ asked how the pe'~tioners had selected this location. Mrs. Fletcher said they had looked at several locations, and this one had been selected because of the economic need of this area for such a service, and the safety of their staff. Mrs. Fletcher distributed brochures on ..~the..~ogram to the Planning Commission and staff. Stating that a Conditional Use Permit was not portable, but was specific for only this apartment unit and building. Commissioner Anderson asked how long the Center planned to remain in'this location. Mrs. Fletcher said they had signed a one year lease. She said they would work with no more than six families at one t~me, and had a goal of reaching 40 families. Their hope is to provide a service for the apartment tenants, and who would not need cars fo~ transportation to the site. It ~s also walking distance from several other apartment complexes. Commissioner Anderson said the city/commission were concerned about parking in areas where cars should not be parked, and the city staff had requested that the owner remove the blacktop from next to the buildings and replace it with sod. The parking areas should also be re-striped. This would be one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. ~;ew Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 1 Lonnie Grabhan was introduced as the person who would be inc charge of the center on Bass Lake Road. Commissioner Anderson referred to the staff recommendation that the lot be re-striped prior to May 10, 1987, and that prior to that time, the asphalt near the buildings be replaced with sod. Mr. Lebow, owner of the complex, asked why it is now sub-standard, when it had been resurfaced according to the city's directions. He added that only 42 of his 60 tenants even had cars. Jeannine Dunn, the Administrative Assistant for the city, stated that the Building Official had indicated that parking lots are often striped every year and that the existing parking lot was sub-standard. He had recommended that it be re-striped. Mr. Lebow stated this was the first he had heard of this problem, and that if the city wanted something done, he would like to hear about it. He indicated he could re-paint the stripes. Commissioner Anderson stated it could be re-striped in the spring. He further indicated his and the city's concern with the non-parking areas that were blacktopped. Mr. Lebow said the parking area was thirty feet away from the building windows, not facing the apartments. Ms. Dunn referred to the site plan, and indicated the area in question was next to the buildings. This is what staff is proposing to be green area. It is currently asphalt. She further indicated that the City Manager had recommended that the repairs to the site be made by 1987, when the re-striping is done. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the petitioners planned no~ structural changes to the site. There was no one present in regard to this case. Ms. Dunn stated that the tenants of the building had been notified of the Center, and that the city had received no objections to the plan. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending grahting the Conditional Use Permit for the Parent-Child Center for one year, at 8421 58th Avenue North, Planning Case 86-28, with a staff review at that time, with the stipulation that at the time of the review by staff, the re-striping be done and the green space areas be sodded. voti~Q,in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Gundershaug Votii~ against: None Absent: Friedrich, Edwards Motion Carried Commissioner Anderson stated that this motion would give the petitioners from now until the year's end review to make the changes on the site--Fall of 1987. Planning Case 86-29 Vernon Stuhr was accompanied by his architect Mr. Pattee. He Request for Variance, stated they were requesting a 15 foot setback variance on the Construction Approval west side of the site. They plan to construct a six unit Item 4 apartment building with six enclosed garages. ?he building will be built on grade. They are requestin~ a 20' setback instead of the code required 35' Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the parking lot will have~.__~ continuous concrete curb, will be blacktopped, and that the parking spaces will be striped. The trash enclosure will be enclosed with cedar fencing. New Hope Planning Commission ~ovember 5, 1986 Page 2 Discussion held regarding the required loading berth. It was noted that this was the reason for the turn-around on the east side of the property. They have moved the north parking to the right and decreased the parking spaces by one. The only sign will be one "no parking" sign. There will be no identification signs. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance, in case in the future they desired an .identification sign. He further confirmed that the building will be sprinklered. It was suggested that Mr. Pattee consult with city staff as to the type of sprinkler system. It was further noted that the city staff has recommended the sprinkling system, because of the difficulty of an emergency vehicle getting on to the site. Mr. Pattee said they were planning to install a Japanese green barberry hedge which was a hardy plant and grew to between 3-5 feet high. It was noted that the Marshal Ash should be moved about 20 feet to the west to provide a sight line at the corner. There will be both a front and rear door in the garage. The green area on the site will be sodded. Ms. Dunn noted that the City Engineer had ~eviewed the drainage plan for the site. Commissioner Gundershaug stated he still felt that the proposed building was too much for the site. Commissioner Lutts asked about snow removal. Mr. Stuhr stated that they would have to haul it away, if they could not pile it on the lot. Mr. Pattee commented that storage of snow was a problem in Minnesota. Commissioner Gundershaug said it would be a definite problem if they piled the snow on one of the parking spaces. Chairman Cameron asked whether there was any way that the petitioner could design the building to requir? 3nly a 10 foot variance. Mr. Stuhr said they had tried, but this was the ~st they could do. Mr. Pattee noted that it was a rough site to develop. Chairman Cameron said his number one concern was the heavy use that six families would put on this particular property. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Anderson, recommending approval of the setback variance and the variance for loading berth, at 5641 Wisconsin, Planning Case 86-29, subject to a performance bond being provided to guarantee that the required landscaping would be provided within one year. Voting in favor: Anderson, Lutts, Cameron Voting against: Gundershaug Absent: Friedrich, Edwards Motion carried. Planning Case 86-30 Mr. Carlson said he was requesting a one foot sideyard variance, Request for Variance and a six foot frontyard variance to allow him to expand his one Item 5 car garage to approximately a two and a half car garage. This would give him four plus feet to the sade lot line, and 24 feet to the front line. He said he could not go too far to the rear because of his landscaping in the rear yard. He distributed pictures illustrating the site. He felt the addition would make the entire site more attractive. Hew ~ope Planning Commission ~ovember 5, 19~6 Commissioner Lutts asked what the extension of the house was now to the rear. The answer was about eight feet. Mr. Carlson said if he had to go only to the rear, he would lose the two top tiers of the landscaping, and have to fill in the yard. There will be an overhang of one to one and a half feet on the north side. This would put the wall about four feet from the lot line, instead of five. The neighbors dwelling is over ten feet from the lot line. In response to questions from Commissioner Lutts, Mr. Carlson said he did not plan any driveway work, and would probably put cedar siding on the front of the dwelling. It is presently masonite. He had talked to his immediate neighbors, and they had no objections to his plans. Commissioner Anderson said that the City had been reluctant to allow people to go into the frontyard setback. He asked whether the garage could be expanded without going into the front yard. Mr. Carlson said it would be a great deal more expensive. He would have to undo all of the landscaping and fill in the back yard. He added that the garage next door is only 29 feet from the curb, and he did not think this addition would stick out that much more. Commissioner Gundershaug asked why he didn't just expand to the rear, since he was going to expand four feet back anyway. Mr. Carlson said the existing garage was 24 feet. He wished to be able to tandem two cars on the one side of the garage. There is also a chance that in the future he would want to expand with a family room next to the kitchen. Mr. Carlson said he thought the addition would make the dwelling~ look more attractive. He couldn't imagine that anyone would even notice that the building extended out six feet to the front, because of the curve of the street. Chairman Cameron stated that the charge of the Planning Commission was to enforce the city's ordinance requirements, and to grant a variance of this type required a very good reason. The city just did not grant very many frontyard variances. Mr. Carlson asked ~what the purpose of the 30 foot setback was. Chairman Cameron said it was to keep houses from being too close to the street, and too close to the neighbors. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Brixius of the city'~ consulting firm said that the size of the expanded garage wou~-~ot exceed the city's maximum of 900 square feet. Discussion followed about the possibility of extending the garage a lesser amount, and whether or not the petitioner would like the case to be tabled for one month. Mr. Carlson said he wished to start as soon as possible on the addition. He said that he felt the smallest frontyard extension he could use would be four feet. There was no one present in ~egard to this case. Motion Motion by Commissioner Lutts, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of the one foot sideyard variance at 4673 Ensign Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug, recommending approval of a four foot frontyard ~ variance at 4673 Ensign Avenue North, as requested in Planning Case 86-3~. Voting in favor: Anderson Voting against: Lutts, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Friedrich, Edwards Motion failed. ~lew Hope Planning Commission !:ovember 5, !986 Planning Case 86-31 The petitioner stated they were requesting a Conditional Use Request for Conditional Permit to allow off-site parking by Amoco Oil. This request had Use Permit been recommended by staff. Item 6 In response to questions from the Chairman, Ms. Dunn stated that the agreement for the shared parking is in the process of being developed, but has not been finalized. The parties involved have not been able to get together as yet. She stated that the City Manager had recommended that this be approved, since the agreement· will be made available to the city prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. There was no one present in regard to this case. Motion ·Motion by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending that the Conditional Use Permit for off-site parking at 2720 Winnetka Avenue be granted. All present voted in favor. The petitioner requested that this case be considered by the Council at the second meeting in November as he was afraid they would not have the completed agreement until that time. Chairman Cameron directed staff to inform the City Manager of this. Planning Case 86-33 Clarence Brandell said he was requesting construction approval Request for Construc- for a 24,800 square foot office/warehouse building. There will tion Approval be 20% of the land used for the construction, 39% of the site Item 7 will be green area, blacktopped area will be around 40% of the site. Mr. Brandal said that since he had appeared at the Design and Review Committee he had talked to the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. He spoke to a Dale Claridge and had been informed that if a site had less than 2 1/2 acres they did not have to have approval from the Commission. His site is 2.8 acres. ~e had then talked to the DNR people and they had no interest in the site at all. Mr. Claridge had requested a pond with a wier (a way of catching gasoline and oils from the blacktopped area) but this request has not been made officially yet. Mr. Brandell said that the area at the northeast corner of the lot was large enough for this pond. He has added bushes and trees to the' plan .~e Design and Review. There are no variances requested, or ~ ~sary for this development. Chairman Cameron asked when Mr. Brandell might receive the official request for the pond. Mr. Brandell said that the next Shingle Creek Committee meeting was scheduled for November 13, 1986, and he would be on the agenda. All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building, trash will be stored inside, there will be continuous concrete curbing except at the northeast corner where there will be the drainage area. The parking lot will be striped. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that another concern of the Design and Review Committee had been that there be signs indicating "one way" traffic for trucks. He confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the city's Sign Ordinance. The building will be of concrete construction, and will not be sprinklered. A hydrant will be added at the rear of the site. This will provide for two hydrants on site. They have increased the truck maneuvering room. All green space will be sodded and will have a sprinkling system installed. In response to questions, Mr. Mrandall said he would prefer to use his Letter of Credit to providing a mew performance bond. New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Brixius said that actually this was even more desirable. Ms. Dunn said that this would allow the city to draw on it if necessary. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the wier would be at the northeast corner of the site. He expressed concern about the location of the pond, and that it not be in the parking area. Ms. Dunn noted that Mr. Hanson had reviewed the plan. Mr. Brandell said that Shingle Creek did not know exactly what they wanted, since it was such a small piece of land. However, if they want the pond and wier, that area would not be blacktopped. Chairman Cameron stated he felt it was a class plan. Motion Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Lutts, recommending approval of the construction requested at 9200 49th Avenue North, Planning Case 86-33, with the stipulation that a Letter of Credit be provided for the landscaping. All present voted in favor. Design and Review Design and Review Committee met once in October. Item 8 Codes and Standards There was no report from Codes and Standards. Approval of Planning The Planning Commission minutes of October 7, 1986 were accepted Commission Minutes as printed. Item 9 City Council Minutes The Council Minutes of September 22, and October 6, were reviewed Reviewed without comment. Item 10 Comments In response to questions from Chairman Cameron, Ms. Dunn stated Item 11 that the Council had not yet acted on the new appointments to the Commission. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~foy~e Boeddeker, Secretary New Hope Planning Commission November 5, 1986 Page 6 DATE: December 2, 1986 CASE: 86-34 PETITIONER: Chuck Thompson (Northridge Care Center) REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Employee Daycare Center in R-4 Zone LOCATION: 5430 Boone Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The building in question was built in 1977 with major remodeling again in 1982 when it was converted from an apartment building to an intermediate care facility for the elderly. It is connected by enclosed walkways to the old original nursing home and the new apartment building at 5500 Boone Avenue. 2. This proposal is unique. We have not had a request, in memory, for an"employee" child care center. Our ordinance is slanted toward the traditional day care center where the public is invited to a remote building and drops off children before leaving the site. 3. Here, we will have a maximum of 25 (total) infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers dropped off by the parent after they park their car for the workday. The employee will then walk to their work area within the Northridge Care Center complex, returning by foot to pick up the child after their shift ends. The obvious differences from the proposed traditional center are influenced by a significant national trend that encourages this kind of family support center, that has economic long-term benefits for the ~ployer in some cases and the employee in all. 4. Section 4.074 (2) of our code lists 7 conditions fcr-J ~ch a traditional day care center: All items will be met by the pe~sioner, including extensive State regulations from three agencies, in this instance, no additional parking spaces are required because all children would be riding in vehicles currently parked at the site. 5. Staff would recommend that a single condition be placed upon the use: that all children enrolled have a parent or guardian employed within the Northridge Care Center complex. 6. Parking in general for the complex is still a bit of a problem. Mr. Thompson continues to work hard at keeping his employees from parking on the street (principally Zealand). Perhaps a review of the efforts is advisable.