Loading...
030585 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1985 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 85-3 (tabled from 2-5-85) Request for Conditional Use Per- mit for Accessory Food Sales at 3535 Winnetka Avenue - Getty Oil. Company, Petitioner. Planning Case 85-5 Request for Conditional Use Permit, PUD and Construc- tion Approval - New Hope Mall - Construction 10, Petitioner. P~anning Case 85-6 Request for Rezoning from R-O' to.B-3, Conditional Use Permit for Drive Through and Construction Approval - 7500 Bass Lake Road - Taco Bell, Petitioner. Planning Case 85-7 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Drive Through, Variance in Parking, Construction Approval - 7202 42nd Avenue No.- Taco John, Petitioner Planning Case 85-8 Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Use, Conditional Use Permit for Retail Sales Expansion and Construction Approval - 7300 Bass Lake Road - Murphy Oil Company, Petitioner. COMMITTEE REPORTS 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 February 5, 1985. 12. Review of Council Minutes of February 11, and February 25, 1985. 13. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners, and Staff. 14. Announcements. 15. Adjournment. March 1, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager PLANNING CASE REPORTS I would like to change the format a bit on how I present the planning infor- ~'mation to you on upcoming cases. -From now on I am going to include a tech- nical report given to me .by Doug Sandstad on each planning case. I have included those reports in your agenda packet. At least for this agenda, I will put my comments on one memo. In the future, I still may have a separate memo for each of the planning cases. I had our Planning Consultant.look at all five of the planning cases on your March agenda. Each one presents the city unique developments with their own set of complex problems. However, our Consultant was not able to finish his reports in time for them to be mailed out to you on Friday. I will have them in hand on Monday, and will have them delivered to your homes Monday night. / 85-3 This case was tabled from the February meeting. The petitioner did not have a good set of plans or a good site drawing on what he intended to do. The plans are still very sketchy and I think the concerns outlined in the plan- ning case reports are the correct ones. I want to stress that I would like to see a site survey done, prior to the Conditional Use Permit being granted. 85-5 This case is very similar to 81-61 and 82-7 which were both for a Pizza Hut restaurant. I have included in your packet the staff comments for both of those planning cases. I have also included the Finding. s of Facts and Reso- lution for Denial for both of these planning cases. The current petitioner was advised of the past council action and was pro- vided a copy of the resolutions detailing the reasons for denial. He was told that since the proposal was so similar to the Pizza Hut cases, that he would have to meet the objections as outlined. In my estimation it appears he has not. This planning case has profound implications for the whole area of 42nd/ Winnetka. I would ask that you consider what the Planning Consultant has to say in his report, then table the case and request that staff prepare an out- line of options open to the city for overall site development in accordance with the comprehensive plan. I did furnish the petitioner a letter stating that the city was considering options, and one of those options may be declaring a development moratorium on the property. My rationale was that I wanted the developer, from the very beginning, to understand that we may have to take this avenue in order to study the impact of this proposal and other options on the entire site. 85-6 Taco Bell would like to put in a drive-up window to their restaurant. I think the concerns outlined in the planning case report are correct but to it I would like to add that there should also be traffic studies both for traffic on-site, and for traffic impacts in the area. I would recommend tabling this and requiring the petitioner to provide such a study. 85-7 My concerns here are the same as in the previous case. There should be re- quired a traffic impact study, and I am going to ask that this case also be tabled for-the exact same reason. 85-8 This proposal is aimed at upgrading a site that is in terrible condition at this time. Almost anything would certainly improve matters. However, there are two barriers concerning the expansion of a non conforming building and the variance for the setback. I am assuming both of these items will' be covered in the consultant's report. Dan Donahue City Manager dd/jsb PLAN CASE REPORT DATE: March 5, 1985 PLAN CASE:~I.85-3 PETITIONER: Getty Refinin~ Co. REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit for Food sales at Service Station SITE: 3535 Winnetka Ave. No. ZONING: B-3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I. Submittal; A. Fee collected did not include the denosit. No Land Survey has been submitted or oarkin~ layout. II. Background; A. This site was develooed with a service station in 1963. B. Petitioner's aoolication was received at the request of staff when the ooerator.was found to be selling oackaged foods without a vending machine and the required C.U.P. and license. III. Concerns: A. Current Survey is needed to confirm the actual setbacks, develooment extent and lot size etc. B. Parking plan is missing and can only be estimated by staff. Note: the required seven soaces can easily be orovided on the site. C. Sections (f) and (g) of 4.125 (2) are not fully met with this request; The first mentions the traffic volume-nuisance matters that can be questioned because this small site on a busy come has four curb cuts and at least one violates 4.036 (4)h (iv) since it is too close the the intersection. (The survey will confirm whether two violate this ordinance.) The second alludes to' the Rreen ~soace requirements- for this oro~ert~, which is not met,.-0rdt'nance 4.~36 (~) h (xv) requires a five foo.t.imndseaoed area at the oerimeter of the lot, between the requ%.r~d curb and the orooerty line. ~None exists at oresent, D. We, now, know the extent of the food sales area to be minor (115% of bldg.), but see no effor't on the Dart of the oetit- to document their case and meet the minimum reouirementso PLAN CASE REPORT r~ O r~ O DATE: March 5, 1985 PLAN CASE: 85~5 PETITION~iR: Kentucky Fried Chick~en & Jerome Kelley REQUEST: P.U.D. and Conditional UsePermlt for drive-in to Cony. Food SITE: 4245 Winnetka Ave. No. ZONING: B~4 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I. Submittal; A. Everything is in order to Oermit our evaluation of a portion of this lot. II. Background; A. The original Shooping Center was built in 1965. B. Many permits, have been ±s-sued, since then, for interior remodeling and the construction of the satellite "Photomat" booth adjacent to Winnetka Ave. 'Minor exterior remodeling has occured at the entryways. C. Plan Case 82~7 was denied on January' Il, 1982 for a "Pizza Hut" restaurant in the same olace, with a similar layout and no drive-in service. III. Concerns; A. Concept: The general idea of a satellite structure in the City Center, according to our Comorehenslve Plan and the Commercial Core Design Guidelines*is not to detract from, or obstruct the visibility of interior Building masses. The proposatlmay do both, In addition, the recommended locations for freestanding Derioheral Buildings is" adjacent to another or at least 300 feet aoart~ whldh means that this Use would be adjacent to a somewhat blighted service station site and not, therefore,enhanced. The Landscaoin~*and Architecture*recommendations have not been suitably met in this oroposal, either. B. Ordinances: Section 4.134 (15)b is not met with the oroDosed vehicle stacking of 100 feet at the drive~in. The~.Planned Unit Develonment documents do not reflect the entire lot and its multinle uses, traffic flow etc. C. Ail ohases of the P.U.D. ordinance, 4.1~6, must be addressed by the oetitioner. This stage is. his "'General Conceot Plan" Numerous revisions can be made orior to his submittal of the "Develooment Stage Plan" D, The traffic s-tudy does not' ana-wer ~11 que~i.ons in tha~ regard, and is-based uoon one. day.~ ob~ery~ons of the site. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUE ST: LOCATION: December 1, 1981 Case 81-61 Antler Corporation Variance for Second Building Winnetka Avenue/42nd STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: Se 6o The petitioner w~uld like to construct a Pizza Hut Restaurant on part of the old New Hope Shopping Center property. The restaurant site would just be leased from the center, it would not be cut out as a separate parcel. The proposed site is on Winnetka, just to the north of the service station at 42nd Avenue, as shown on the attached site plan. The proposed building site is one of those indicated as a potential site for a free standing building on the original City Center Plan. That plan '~has, of course, been almost completely violated in the development that has taken place over the past five years, but it at least does indicate the po- tential of this site. A variance is requested since the ordinance limits each lot to one free standing principal building. There already is the shopping center on the lot. The service station and the old house are on separate lots. The question is not particularly that of if this building is one that should be permitted, but rather one of what is the total development package for the area? Mr. Kelly was in this week to discuss the future of the Center. He is pro- posing to make the old center building into a factory outlet type center. I see no problem with this as a general use within the zoning district. They intend to have this ready to go in the Spring of 1982. The inside, general areas, would be upgraded. The lot would be fixed up, some landscaping added, etc. I further told him that I did not believe he would get approval of adding a building to the site unless the Commission and Council understood what was planned for the future. I also asked about the business decision to put a pizza place in to go head to head with Chuck E. Cheese. He did not see any problem since it is felt there are many people who will not use Chucky Cheese because of the noise, games, etc. but would like the pizza restaurant. The other issue I raised is that of the site of the old house. Kelly stated his company plans to take over the site and would like to develop - probably an office building. The problem now is that the option to purchase at the end of use by the old Mrs. Heise has been challenged in court by ~e remain- ing members of the heise family. Kelly felt he would have the property, since his option goes back to the original land deal. This is probably also the time to ask again abo~t the cross drive to 'the new Center since it may be the only time that something is needed from the city. As noted above, the specific issue here is to permit the second building on the lot. It does provide an opportunity to get some information on the total future plans of the center. DATE: CASE: PET IT IONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: January 5, 1982 82-7 North Star Financial Variance for Second Principal Building New Hope Shopping Center STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: This case is the same as the one heard last month in 81-61. As you will see from the minutes and probably read in the ~o.st, the Council turned down the application for a second building. The rationale appeared to be that they wanted to see what happened with the outlet mall before approving something that will take up part of the parking lot. As per last month the petitioner would like to construct a Pizza Hut on part of the New Hope Shopping Center site. The site would be leased from the center, it would not be cut out as a separate parcel. The location is the same as last month - Winnetka, just north of service station. The site is one of those proposed as a potential site for a free standing building on the City Center Plan. The variance is needed since the ordinance limits each lot to one free stand- ing principal building. You have heard Mr. Kelly's proposal for the center. You also heard the indication that work would be started on the cross over drive, etc. Now it appears as if the development from Kelly's side depends on getting the Pizza Hut to provide the financial base for the other improvements. This is not the same as the original story which indicated that the Hut was one project and the center another. Mr. Kelly was told that it appeared to be a waste of time to come back since Council seems to want to see what happens with .the total property before acting on this. He still wants to run it through again. I did tell him that the only thing I could see was to develop some good traffic data to,~ hopefully, show there would be no conflict. I don't know if this will be submitted. The site does have adequate parking, according to ordinance, to support both the Mall and a free standing res- taurant. oo RESOLUTION CONSIDERING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SECOND PRINCIPAL BUILDING, NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER (PLANNING CASES 81-61 and 82-7) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals of the City of New Hope, Minnesota: WHEREAS, Chapter 4.21 of the City Code authorizes the Board of Adjust- ments and Appeals to vary the requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance in harmony with general purposes and intent of the Ordinance, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done, and WHEREAS, the Council, in addition to its own observations and familiarity with the City Center area, and specifically the New Hope Shopping. Center, has considered the following in arriving at its determination as expressed hereinafter: Staff report of the City Manager, dated December 1, 1981, Case 81-61, and its attached undated memorandum from Jerome Kelley of North Star Financial Services of St. Paul, Inc. Planning Commission minutes of December 1, 1981, pages 3 through 5, in which the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to the Council. Presentation of Planning Case 81-61 by the Antler Corporation to the City Council meeting of December 14, 1981, and Council minutes of that date, pages 2 through 6. Staff report of the City Manager dated January 5, 1982, Case 82-7 and its attached memorandum from Paul H. Nahurski of North Star Financial Services of St. Paul, Inc. dated December 17, 1981. o Planning Commission minutes of January 5, 1982, pages 10 through 12, in which the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to the Council. e Presentation of Planning Case 82-7 by North Star Financial Services to the Council meeting of January 11, 1982, and Council minutes of that date, pages 8 through 11. WHEREAS, in considering a variance the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. WHEREAS, the General Policy Plan of the City of New Hope of ~{arch, 1976 establishes Commercial Policies as they apply to the proposal at hand, as follows: COMMERCIAL POLICIES General 1. Develop commercial and service centers as cohesive, highly inter-related units with adequate off-street parking. Ensure that service and commercial uses are adequately and appropriately landscaped according to community requirements as may be amended. e Strongly discourage any further spot or uncoordinated linear commercial development, in favor of a unified development pattern. WHEREAS, the foregoing goals were expressed as Policies of the City in the same document, as they apply to the proposal at hand, as follows: City Center 1. Establish the 42nd and Winnetka commercial center as the primary retail and service focal point of the community . . (The City Center is intended to encompass major retail, service, cultural, entertainment and governmental Uses, as well as higher density housing on the periphery.) 2. Establish a cohesive, integrated image for the City Center. Where feasible, provide better connections between existing, un- coordinated elements of the City Center. Climate-controlled connections shall be considered the most desirable type of connection. 4. Relate and integrate new development within the City Center to all adjacent development. - 2- WHEREAS~ the Commercial Core Design Guidelines pertaining to the New Hope City Center, dated April, 1977 stated as a goal the massing of buildings in such a manner that they create a cohesive identity for the Commercial Core within the City Center. NOW, THEREFORE, the New Hope City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposed variance to permit free standing Pizza Hut would, if approved: a. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street, and thereby endanger the public safety contrary to Chapter 4.213 of the City Code. b. Is in violation of the Commercial Policies of the City, as expressed in the March, 1976 General Policy Plan of the City as it will not develop the New Hope Shopping Center as a cohesive, highly inter-related unit, but instead will tend to scatter the develop- ment. c. Is in violation of the Commercial Policies of the City, as the proposal does not ensure that service and commercial uses are adequately and appropriately landscaped according to community requirements. d. Is in violation of the Commercial Policies of the City, as the proposal constitutes further spot and uncoordinated linear commercial development and is a negative influence in the development of a unified development pattern. e. Is in violation of the Commercial Policies of the City, as specifically related to the City Center as it detracts'from a cohesive, integrated image for the City Center, does not provide better connection between existing, uncoordinated elements of the City Center, does not provide climate-controlled connections, and does not relate and integrate · new development with the City Center to all adjacent development. f. Does not provide for the massing of buildings in such a manner that a cohesive identity is created for the Commercial Core, but instead dissipates the effect of the existing mall-type construction. -3- 2. That the present status of the New Hope Shopping Center develop- ment does not warrant further fragmenting of the existing use. The proposed variance as expressed in Planning Cases Number 81-61 and 82-7 is hereby DENIED. Dated the 22nd day of February, 1982. Attest: Edw. J~Erickson, I~_ayor Betty P~uliot, Clerk-Treasurer -4- PLAN CASE REPORT DATE: March 5, 1985 PLAN CASE:85-6 PETITION~iR: Taco Bell REQUEST: Rezone, C.U.P. and Construction Aooroval SITE: 7500 Bass Lak Road ZONING: R-O ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I. Submittal; A. Everything is in order. Revised plans have been submitted since Design & Review. II. Background; AK This site was developed with a service station in about 1962, across the street from Crystal homes. B. In 1977, the station closed and Taco Bell built a new building. C. In 1979, the Zoning was changed to R-O for several sites in this area, downgraded from the "GB" and "B-3". III. Concerns / Comments; A. Landscaping has been increased, and a screening fence has been added along the north and half of the east frontage, which complies with our ordinance. B. I recommend that we require a Noise Impact Statement from the oetitioner on the "Food order board vs. adjacent residential" issue. The noise source will be 115 feet from aoartments and Il0 feet from homes who will have ooen windows on warm weather nights when the soeaker system will be in use. C. No details have been provided on the lighting which must be hooded. D. Traffic safety remains a concern with all oedestrians crossing the drive-through vehicle drive. E. The rezoning from R-O to B-3 has merit, because of the change in character that has occured with the rezoning of the "adjacent" A.C. Carlson site from R-O to B-2, recently and the street buffer to the east. PLAN CASE REPORT DATE: March 5, 1985 PLAN CASE: 85-7 PETITION~iR: Tom Winterhalter (Taco John's) REQUEST: C.U.P. , Varaince and Construction Aoor°val SITE: 7202 42nd Ave. No. ZONING: B-3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I. S'uhmi',ttal; A. Everyt~.ing i's: in o~der. Re~is'ad ~lans h~e been ~e.c~d ~ !I{~ Background; A. This-s-i~te. was de~'elop'e.d with. a s-e~vice station ~n B. That use was-abandoned ab-out lqTgo The underground tanks were remcrved in 1980. C~ The present renter ~.as, a Non.conforming ns-e without a C,U.P. and has been .reoeated!y alleged to o~erate an illegal us-ed car s-ales~ lot on th~s s-ire. Concerns-/ Comments-; A. Landscaoin~ has been upgraded~ and th_e ~-creening fence is detailed. B. Traffic flow-within th~el site i's- congested at the SW, where the driveway is not ~e.roen~cu!ar to 42nd Ave. and one-way flow is-indicated' to park on s~i'te with 'one~,way e~iti'ng dri~ve-through vehicles oonosed. C, If the, home that is-85 feet from the ""order board"" is- a one story-, then the screeni:ng fence can be changed to serve as- a noise barrier, ~locktng thee ~'"l£ne~of~.si. gh~' and acoustically designed with minimum ~,, thick tongue= and groove solid wo'od s~yle~along the north s-ide. D Within these narameters-~ th.e nroDos-ed use_ i~ are, a~enabl'e one for the site and would be a huge imoroyement PLAN CASE REPORT DATE: March 5, 1985 PLAN CASE: 85-8 PETITIONER: Minnesota-Ohio Oil & MurohyOil REQUEST: C.U.P., Variance and Construction Aooroval SITE: 7300 Bass Lake Road ZONING: B-3 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I'. Submittal; A. Everything is in order. II. Background; A. This site was solit off from a large oarcel in the early 1960's to permit the construction of the eight aoartment buildings to the north (7302-7316 BLR). That left the present structure four feet from the north 9rooerty line. This service station has no vehicle service. III. Concerns; A. Ail oarking curbs should be shifted a minimum of five feet fro-m the property lines. ' B. No details have been offered on the required six foot screening fence. C. Caution should be used in considering the 75% exoansion of the Non-Conforming building Variance, because of our distinct ordinance wording on the subject in 4.031. D. It is unclear whether the location of the oresent building is sufficient to be the "non-economic hardshio" needed to justify the setback Variance.