020585 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 1985
City of New Hope,.Minnesota
MINNESOTA FEDERAL BUILDING 8320 42nd Avenue North
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
· 3. Planning Case 85~4 - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory
Food Sales at 3535 Winnetka Avenue North - Getty
Oil Company, Petitioner.
Planning Case 85-4 - Request for Sideyard Variance at 5910 Xylon
Avenue North - Edward Dooley, Petitioner.
COMMITTEE 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 January 8, 1985.
9. Review of Council Minutes of January 14, and January 28, 1985.
10. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners,
and Staff.
11. Announcements.
12. Adjournment.
MINUTES
CODES AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
January 30, 1985
Members Present: Ken Anderson and Terry Lutts
City Staff: Dan Donahue
The Committee met to discuss the staff proposed code changes to the ordi-
nance concerning single and multi-family residential care facilities. Dan
Donahue presented a planning document prepared by the New Hope Planning
Consultant, Dave Licht, concerning these facilities. The document had been
requested by the city council at its meeting on January 14, 1985. At that
meeting, the city council established a moratorium on these residential care
facilities and directed staff to examine the code and develop recommenda-
tions as needed.
Mr. Donahue informed the Committee that the proposals had been developed
by he and Mr. Licht, along with city attorney Bill Corrick. The Committee
reviewed the proposals and recommended they be brought to the Planning Com-
mission at its regular meeting on February 5, 1985.
In addition to the proposals, the Committee directed the City Manager to
examine the following points and ~eport to the Committee on February 5,
as to whether they could be included in the proposals:
1. Can the city regulate the maximum size of the residential care
facilities.
2. Can the city require any kind of screening or landscaping to
separate these facilities from neighboring properties.
3. Can the city require that all such residential care facilities
be located on property served by at least two entrance or exit
points.
4. Can the city require periodic inspections and review of the
facilities.
5. Can the city regulate parking by establishing a. maximum number
of vehicles parking on the site of the residential care facility.
6. Can the city have any kind of input in determining and requesting
that special transportation needs of residents of these facili-
ties be met.
Chairman Ken Anderson requested that the Planning Consultant, David Licht,
be in attendance at the meeting on February 5, 1985 and that there be a
special meeting of the Codes and standards Committee on February 5, 1985
to further review the proposal and the staff's recommendations on these
six questions.
We adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
!/~/~'~D o n a hu e~ d-~-__~
City Manager
dd/jsb
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
February 5, 1985
85-3
Getty Refining and Marketing
Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Food Sales in a B-3
Zone
3535 Winnetka.North
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
.Staff is not sure what the petitioner is asking for. They apparently
want to sell "soda pop and snack foods" at the station. Staff has
not received any site plans or building plans to illustrate the ex-
tent of sales and parking~
2. Ordinance 4.125 (2) (5) would appear to apply this petitioner's
request.
Based on what is presented on Tuesday night, Planning Commission
should consider the option of tabling for one month in order to pro-
vide staff the necessary documentation in order to present a good
review on the proposals to the Planning Commission.
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
February 5, 1985
85-4
Edward Dooley
S ideyard .Variance
5910 Xylon Avenue North
R-1
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
2o
5o
The petitioner is seeking to place air conditioning equipment in
the sideyard rather than the required rear yard.
Ordinance 4.032 (3) would apply in this case.
A building permit was issued for construction of a single family
home on this lot in mid 1984. Completion is almost done and the
site is surrounded by other single family dwellings and there is a
significant amount of trees on both side yards and rear yard at
this site. The air conditioner would sit on the rear corner of
the lot and would be approximately five feet from the nearest neigh-
bor to the north.
Planning Commission and Council should ask the petitioner about any
neighbor reactions to this request. There is quite a bit of under-
growth and trees between the air conditioning unit and the neighbors
to the north so noise should not be a problem. However, if this is
going to be in the sideyard, I would strongly recommend that it at
least be screened.
If screening is met, and there is no objection from neighbors, staff
would recommend approval.
February 1, 1985
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
City Manager
CODE CHANGES
I have enclosed staff proposals for changes to the Zoning
Code, as it relates to multi-family residential care
facilities. Planning Commissioner Anderson will be prepared
to make recommendations on these proposals at Tuesday's
meeting. Our Planner, Dave Licht, will also be at the meeting.
Dan Donahue
City Manager
dd/jsb
northwest associated
consultants, inc.
January 31, 1985
Mr. Dan Donahue
City Manager
City Administrative Offices
4401Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
RE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance Revision - Residential Care Facilities
File No:
Dear Dan:
131.01
Attached please find a revised report updating the 24 January draft of
matters pertaining to residential group care facilities. This most recent
material is a product of my meeting with Mr. Corrick and Mr. Sondral. While
some of the wording may yet require modification, I believe there is agree-
ment between the attorneys and our office on the approach and scope of
coverage.
Relative to the matters which you outlined as being discussed by the Codes
and Standards Committee, I would again emphasize that it is our conclusion
that no special requirements of any type can be imposed upon residential
facilities housing six or fewer individuals. These are automatically
classified as permitted single family uses. The other items which include
maximum building size, two public access entrances, screen, and parking are
items which are either presently addressed or which are questionable controls
as they would have to apply universally. I can address these items in greater
detail at the Planning Commission meeting on 5 February.
Very truly yours,
~President (
DRL/nd
cc: William Corrick
Doug Sandstad
4820 mir netonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-9420
northwest
associated
consultants,
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Davi~ Licht
24 January 1985 (Revised 31 January 1985)
New Hope Zoning Ordinance - Residential Care Facilities
131.01
BACKGROUND
Within the last several years, the Minnesota State Legislature has enacted
unique zoning enabling legislations which mandate local acceptance of certain
types of housing. This new precedent of state involvement in formerly local
jurisdiction applies to manufactured housing and residential care facilities.
Relative to residential care facilities, the objective has been to provid6 a
non-institutional environment for those individuals which can generally
function in an open community setting. Cases of local opposition to such
objectives are the apparent basis of the State of Minnesota "directing"
acceptance of residential care operations.
The City of New Hope, as is the case with surrounding communities, is presently
anticipating requests which involve both single family and multiple family
residential care facilities. This situation is complicated by the fact that
during the 1984 Legislative Session, the statute governing such uses was
modified. As a result, the City Council has directed that the residential
care facility use be looked into to insure that City Codes and Ordinances
are adequately structured to insure the protection of both the neighborhoods
in which such facilities will be located, as well as the protection of the
residents which occupy such units.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, minnesota, ste. 420 55416 tel. 612/925-942
9a. Donahue
24 January 1985
Page Two
ISSUES
Residential care facilities pose issues which are both physical and social in
nature. In summary, these issues are:
Building and site development standards.
Concentration of facilities.
Operations and care of residents.
The State has established control and regulation procedures through legislation
and administration regulations which address these aforementioned issues. The
most recent 1984 legislation, in our office's interpretation, basically pre-
cludes local control of residential care facilities of six or fewer individuals,
as they are specified as permitted single family uses. I would request that
Mr. Corrick's office verify this reading.
Regarding residential care facilities which house from seven through sixteen
individuals, the legislation does suggest that a conditional use permit.may
be required by a local jurisdiction "...in order to assure proper maintenance
and operation of the facility..." Our opinion would suggest that this does
open the door for the City to exercise local control and in the case of multiple
family facilities does allow the City to approve, deny or terminate a facility's
right to operate within the limited bounds provided by the legislation. Addi-
tionally, we believe it is acceptable to address the concentration issue as long
as the City's standards are the same as those of the State.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the constraints noted above, it is assumed theCitycan pursue measures
to address the three issues previously cited. In this regard, we offer an
initial draft of suggested conditional use permit language to be added to the
New Hope Zoning Ordinance. This material was generated from our evaluation
of the matter plus information supplied by Golden Valley, other Hennepin
County suburbs and Hennepin County.
Group Homes - Multiple Family should be removed f~om the permitted
use section (4.072 (7) - page 4-51) of the R-3 Section.
To be added to the conditional use section (4.074) of theR-3 District:
(4)
Multiple Family Residential Care Facilities as defined by (cite
State Statute), provided that for the protection of the residents
of the facility:
(a)
The facility is licensed by the State of Minnesota and
the operator of t~e facility provide documentation of
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Metropolitan
and County regulations.
Dan Donahue
24 January 1985
Page Th ree
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
*(f)
The facility is in compliance with and is maintained in
accordance with the ~linnesota State Code and Uniform
Building Code.
The facility is in compliance with protections as specified
by the City Fire Marshall and City Sanitarian.
The facility is not located within one thousand three hundred
twenty (1,320) feet of any similar type use or care facility.
The entrance of the facility is located within four hundred
(400) feet of a public transit route and stop, and pedestrian
access is available, or the operators provide a transportation/
access plan which is found acceptable by the City Council.
The operation is subject to annual review and continual
monitoring by the City's Human Services Committee and is
found to be in compliance with all applicable construction
and operation regulations and standards.
(g) The criteria as specified in Section 4.212 of this Ordinance
are considered and found to be satisfactorily met.
*A special committee composed of the Mayor, one or two members of
the City Council, the Chairpersons of the Planning Commission and
Citizens Advisory Commission, the City Manager and the Environmental
Inspector are suggested as the group constituting the "Human Services
Committee". If this concept is pursued, a resolution creating the
body should be drafted for enactment.
CONCLUSION
~le emphasize that this is a first draft proposal addressing the~residential
care facility issue. We are available for further staff discussion, as well
as review with the Planning Commission and City Council.
cc: Doug Sandstad
William Corrick
MINUTES
CODES AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
January 30, 1985
Members Present: Ken Anderson and Terry Lutts
City Staff: Dan Donahue
The Committee met to discuss the staff proposed code changes to the ordi-
nance concerning single and multi-family residential care facilities. Dan
Donahue presented a planning document prepared by the New Hope Planning
Consultant, Dave Licht, concerning these facilities. The document had been
requested by the city council at its meeting on January 14, 1985. At that
meeting, the city council established a moratorium on these residential care
facilities and directed staff to examine the code and develop recommenda-
tions as needed.
Mr. Donahue informed the Committee that the proposals had been developed
by he and Mr. Licht, along with city attorney Bill Corrick. The Committee
reviewed the proposals and recommended they be brought to the Planning Com-
mission at its regular meeting on February 5, 1985.
In addition to the proposals, the Committee directed the City Manager to
examine the following points and report to the Committee on February 5,
as to whether they could be included in the proposals:
1. Can the city regulate the maximum size of the residential care
facilities.
2. Can the city require any kind of screening or landscaping to
separate these facilities from neighboring properties.
3. Can the city require that all such residential care facilities
be located on property serVed by at least two entrance or exit
points.
4. Can the city require periodic inspections and review of the
facilities.
5. Can the city regulate parking by establishing a maximum number
of vehicles parking on the site of the residential care facility.
6. Can the city have any kind of input in determining and requesting
that special transportation needs of residents of these facili-
ties be met.
Chairman Ken Anderson requested that the Planning Consultant, David Licht,
be in attendance at the meeting on February 5, 1985 and that there be a
special meeting of the Codes and Standards Committee on February 5, 1985
to further review the proposal and the staff's recommendations on these
six questions.
We adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
C±ty Managor
dd/jsb