060485 Planning10.
11.
12.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 4, 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
4. Planning Case 85-13
5. Planning Case 85-14
6. Planning Case 85-14
(tabled from 4-2-85) Request for Conditional Use
Permit for Accessory Food Sales at 3535 Winnetka -
Getty Oil Company, Petitioner.
Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat at 4041-43
Jordan Avenue North - Ken Payne and Bernard Baker,
Petitioners.
Request for Approval of Rezoning from R-2 to R-4,
and Approval of Preliminary Plat at 5801 Winnetka
and 8000 Bass Lake Road, St. Therese Home, Peti-
tioner.
Request for Approval of Variance in Sideyard Set-
back at 9232 40% Avenue North - Donald and Kathleen
Moorhead, Petitioners.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. Report of Design and Review Committee.
8. Report of Land Use Committee.
9. Report of Codes and Standards Committee.
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 7, 1985.
Review of Council Minutes of May 13, 1985.
Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commissioners and
Staff.
13. Announcements.
14. Adjournment.
May 31, 1985
TO: planning Commission
FROM: City Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JUNE 4, 1985
Doug Sandstad's planning case report on each of the four planning cases are adequate and do provide most of
the information. I will use this single memo to fill in further information.
Planning Case 85-3
This case continues to drag on. The petitioner although wanting to partake in household/food sales is
basically unwilling to make the needed changes at this time to accommodate the city's zoning requests.
Most notably is the curb cut nearest the intersection on 36th. However, they are willing to construct a
new driveway, but they are not willing to close it off. This matter should be addressed by the Planning
Commission. Also, in mY opinion the parking although meeting the code and the number of spaces and in
the striping.will not be used by the patrons as it is inconvenient for the public to use. I think the Design
and Review Committee will have a goo~ handle on this case. I have also provided the minutes from the April
planning commission meeting at which Getty Oil last appeared.
Planning Case 85-13
This is a routine zero lot line planning case. The only requirement in the ordinance now, if the properties
meet all zoning requirements, is the pre-platting. Staff recommends approval.
Planning Case 85-14
Many months ago, the administrator Rich Ludwig of St. Therese Home, approached the city with a proposal to
buy the duplex immediately north of the St. Therese property to increase parking for staff. There has long
been a problem with parking in the area and this is a proposal that would seem to address this problem. He
requested from me the best route that the city could advise him on accomplishing this parking objective. After
review, we. recommended that if St. Therese were to purchase the property, then they should seek rezoning of the
property from R-2 to R-4 and replat all of the St. Therese property, including the new parcel. Over the years
St. Therese has acquired various parcels and it has not been put together in one clean plat. This planning
case addresses that particular problem. A rezoning of the particular parcel in question is also recommended.
There has been sufficient change in the area to warrent this serious exs/~ination. Staff believes that the
petitioner has done an admirable job in attempting to put in adequate screening and fencing. On Tuesday night
I will have a preliminary plat for your review.
Planning Case 85-15
In reviewing this case, I can find no basis for granting of the variance at least from the information provided
to us at this date. Their request appears to be of the type that the zoning code sought to eliminate by re-
quiring the units to be placed in the rear yard. The petitioner seems to be seeking to place the noise and
sight problems that he would have to contend with in the rear yard by placing them in the sideyard where they
may very well become noticeable to other property owners in front and to the side. On the basis of the infor-
mation provided, I would recommend denial.
Dan Donahue
City Manager
dd/jsb
City of New Hope
Design and Review Minutes
May 21, 1985
I. Call to Order:
II. In Attendance:
III. Plan Case: 85-3
IV.
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Present:
4:00 p.m.
Jim Edwards, Gale Friedrich, Doug Sandstand, staff
liason
Getty Refining and Marketing Co.,
3535 Winnetka Ave. No.
Conditional Use Permit for food sales
Chuck Gregory and Clint Smith, representing Getty Oil
A brief presentation was made by Mr. Gregory of the changes to the
site that are proposed in order to satisfy the City Ordinance require-
ments for the conditional use permit. The following recommendations
and comments were made by the committee: Verify the accuracy of the
new land survey and resubmit revised document if errors are found
involving the lot lines on the north and east and any~other structures
including showing the missing canopy over the pump island. A curbing
is required on all of the parking and driving area perimeters to
separate those areas from landscaped borders. The drawings should
be revised to indicate that curbing. Additional landscaping was
recommended including the south and west side of the site with a
variety of trees and shrubs and removal of plantings other than
low ground cover type within the site triangle at the intersection.
Indicate trash storage area and screening if stored outside. Indicate
site lighting and whether or not it is shielded or hooded away from
residential areas. Recommended closing east curb cut on 36th Ave.
The petitioner was advised to resubmit revised drawings by May 28th,'
one week before the scheduled June 4th Planning Commission meeting and
include five sets of drawings.
Plan Case: 85-14
Petitioner: St. Therese Home, represented by Rich Ludwig and
Mark Andrew
Address: 8000 Bass Lake Road
Request: Rezoning from R-2 to R-4 and Preliminary Plat Approval
Site Address is 5801 and 5803 Winnetka Ave. No.
After a brief discussion of the proposal by Mr. Ludwig, the committee
made the following recommendations: Revise parking layout to meet
ordinance standards for minimum size and dimensions. Indicate revised
plan to erect the new fence right on top of the retaining wall which is
proposed at the north property line, and illustrate how this may be
screened or buffered from the adjacent residential property. Indicate
on the drawings whether the islands will be landscaped. Additional
landscaping was recommended along the golf course border to the west
and a low screening along Winnetka Ave. in the three to four foot high
range, possibly a hedge to screen the vehicle parking from the residential
across the street. The City Engineer will review the proposed drainage
plans for the site because it will be converted to a primary parking
use. Revised drawings, again, are required to be submitted to staff
by May 28, one week before the June scheduled Planning Commission
meeting and five sets are needed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
III.
PLAN
CASE
REPORT
DATE: May 29, 1985
PLAN CASE: 85-3
PETITIONER: Getty Refining Co.
REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit - Household/food Sa]es at Service Station
SITE: ~ 3535 Winnetka Ave. ZONING: B-3
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS;
I. SUBMITTAL:
Everything is in order.
II. BACKGROUND:
A. This site was developed with a service station in 1963.
B. Petitioner's application was required by staff when the operator
was found to be selling packaged foods and beverages from coolers
without the required conditional use permits and licenses.
C. Application for this conditional use permit was received in
January and this is the°revised plan case report on the matter.
CONCERNS/COMMENTS:
A. Exhibit #2 has been submitted by Getty Oil and is based upon the
current land survey, but is difficult.to read with missing details.
Exhibit #1 has been revised by staff to clearly indicate landscaping
details and presence of curbing throughout the site, as required by
ordinance.
B. The petitioner decided not to take the advice of staff and Design
and Review and has not proposed to eliminate any of the four curb
cuts on the small site.
C. Trash storage has not been detailed on the plan. We, therefore,
must presume it is stored within the building until its removal
from the site.
D. A ten-foot wide permanent easement exists across the north side of
this lot, but it is not shown on the recent survey. Reference
Hennepin County D~cument #3305428, in book 2311 on page 420.
E. The petitioner has apparently backed off on plans to remodel the
interior of the store at this point. We must confirm that fact, so
the retail sales area does not expand beyond 170 sq. ft. Reference
Ordinance 4.125 (3) regarding the subordinate use requirements for
a conditional use permit of this type.
F. Sizes of the landscaping which is now detailed by species and
number should be confirmed.
-.-
40
EXCEPTIO
ETKA
~Foo~
-E~LOG,
I
400 E ET GERMAIN S~~
I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey · Description E] Easement El Plan El ~eeification
El or Building Location El was prepared by me or under my direct supervisio~ and that I am a duly
Registered Land Surveyor · under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
L.P ~1'
C. 'L.
:!. ~ .;.
,j
PLAN CASE
DATE: May 29, 1985
PLAN CASE: 85-13
PETITIONER: Ken Payne
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval
SITE: 4041-4043 Jordan Ave.
REPORT
ZONING: R-2
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS;
I. SUBMITTAL:
A. Everything is in order.
II. BACKGROUND:
Ae
The area was platted in the early 1970's. This site was
developed with a side by side duplex in 1978 on a single
lot. The structure is conforming.
III. CONCERNS/COMMENTS:
A. The base lot and the proposed two lots meet our minimum
ordinance requirements in all ways.
B. Proposal looks routine and tends to be an improvement and
property value enhancement
PLAN
CASE
REPORT
DATE: May 30, 1985
PLAN CASE: 85-14
PETITIONER: St. Therese Home, Rich Ludwig
REQUEST: Rezoning from R-2 to R-4 and Preliminary Plat
SITE: 5801 Winnetka Ave. and ZONING: R-2
8000 Bass Lake Road
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS;
I. SUBMITIAL:
A. Everything is in order, with fees and documents approved by the
City Manager.
II. BACKGROUND:
III.
A. This single lot was developed with a double bungalow in the 1950's
between the city golf course and Winnetka Ave.
Be
The proposal is to demolish the old home and convert the use of
the site ~ parking facilities for St. Therese employees,
with landscaping along the border.
COMt~ENTS/CONCERNS:
Note: Revised drawings after the Design and Review Meeting of May 21,
have~ been received by staff, as of this date.
A. Parking layout should be revised to meet ordinance minimums for
9 ft. by 20 ft. spaces in addition to 24 ft. driving aisles.
Be
Design and Review recommended landscape screening along the golf
course west border and a three ~or four foot high hedge-type
screening along the east side of the lot, adjacent to Winnetka Ave.
Ce
A revised detail was requested on the screening between the existing
residential to the north and this new parking lot, because the
submitted drawing showed the fence in a location that was apparently
erronous. Design and Review recommended that the appearance of the
retaining wall and fence be softened from the north side as well as
landscaping shown to the south side of the screening fence.
D. City Engineer must approve the proposed drainage.
Ee
The proposal for the use of the site would serve as a major improvement
to the St. Therese use because of a parking shortage on the site which
has caused and continues to cause parkiq9 problems on Winnetka Ave.
Fe
The rezoning issue would be justified on the basis of sufficient change
in the use of the adjacent property to justify the need for expanded
parking in this area as long as reasonable screening of adjacent low-
density residential is included in the design.
PLAN
CASE
REPORT
DATE:
PLAN CASE:
PETITIONFR:
REQUEST:
SITE:
May 30, 1985
85-15
Don and Kathryn Moorehead
Variance to permit air conditioner in side yard
9232 - 40% Ave. ZONING: R-1
III.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS;
I. SUBMITTAL:
A. Everything is in orders.
II. BACKGROUND:
A. The lot was developed with a single family home in 1972. A large
deck was built in the back yard in 1983.
CONCERNS/COMMENTS:
Am
There are two issues which form the basis for our ordinance which
prohibits such equipment in a side yard. First the aesthetics is
a consideration when equipment can be veiwed from the front yard
or street. Second, noise has been a problem on a number of these
cases when they are between buildings and adjacent properties are
negatively affected.
In this particular case, homeowner has proposed a dense coniferous
type screening on the front side of the equipment so that it would
not be visible from the street. This would address the aesthetic
issue.
Noise could be a problem in the future although the present neighbor
at 9224 - 40½ is apparently supporting the request at this time and
has an adjacent garage rather than bedrooms in this immediate area.
_.- ,... s,~_'-~"/'O
., ,-
AO~ Av~. ~o. .
~'~J~L.~_ ,' ,..-z; i~," --'
~.,,.. ..
...... ~ ~ ~ ~z '~-
:--' .: :.. '~/'
~- '~.~.. . s'.
I hereby certify ~hat ~his is a true and correct representation
of ~he boundaries of: ~ /
Lot ~, Block 2, Go~don"s ~kovie;v Te~ace -;/, ~os' -.7 ~
And of tho location of ail buildings, ~he=eon, and all visible
encroachments, i~ any, on said land. As surveyed by me this
2GCh day of Octobe~, 1969.
APPROVED
Land Surveyor, N~inn. Reg. No. 7979