Loading...
1975 Planning ~ AGENDA PIANNIHG CU&.IISSICN March 4, 1975 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Case 75-8 Rezoning LI to GB - 8711 Bass Lake Road RCE Corporation, Petitioner 4. Case 75-9 Variance in Sign Ordinance 5. Case 75-10 Variance, PUD Approval, Wisconsin Avenue North Harlan Schmidt, Petitioner 6. Case 75-11 Sign Plan Approval - 4902 Winnetka Avenue North Carmerce Warehouse Company 7. Hearing on Proposed Grant Application Under 1975 Cannunity Developnent and Housing Act O:::iIlMITIEE REPORl'S 8. Report of Codes and Standards Carmittee 9. Report of land Use Cannittee 10. Report of Design and Review Carmittee i'ffiW BUSINESS 11. Appointment of Member to TrafficjTransit Carmission 12. Approval of Cannission Minutes of February 18, 1975. 13. Review of Council Minutes of February 24, 1975 14. Additional CcmnentsjRequests fran Citizens, Carmissioners and Staff 15. Announcanents 16. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY lB, 1975 1. A re9ular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, February lB, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL was taken: Present: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Oswald, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson Absent: Ostlund, Jensen PUBLIC HEARINGS Dr. Cameron announced that there was going to be an informal presentation by Mr. Marvin Gordon, to the Commission. Since the public hearings were probably of interest only to the Commissioners he suggested that the Gordon discussion be held first. Mr. Larson stated that there had been a request to delay discussion of this item until a representative of the Homeowners Association (Mr. Miller) arrived at the meeting. Dr. Cameron then announced that the Commission would then delay discussion of this proposal until later in the meeting. 3. Mr. Larson informed the Commissioners that due to circumstances beyond his control, there would not be a report on the Grant Proposal at this time. 4. PLANNING CASE 75-7 - LIQUOR SALES AS CONTROLLED BY ZONING CODE. The City Manager stated that the item was on the agenda at the request of the Commission at the previous meeting, in order that they could further explore the problem. There was no new information to report at this time. Mr. Allen moved to postpone further discussion on PlanninQ Case 75-7 until such time as there is addition- al information available. Mr. Pakonen second. Discussion held between the Commissioners and the City Manager regarding this case~ and what .the decisions had been at the Council meeting of February 10, 1975. Dr. Cameron stated that at such time as the committee had further information to report, they would inform the City Manager and the case would once again be placed on the agenda. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: " Herman~ London~ Christensen~ Allen: Oswald~ Cameron~ Pakonen~ Gustafson None Ostlund, Jensen 110tion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. Dr. Cameron noted that the committee should establish a meeting date in the near future. 7. Mr. Herman reported that the Design and Review Committee had met on February 19, 1975 and that this meet- ing had been continued to Tuesday, February 25, at 4:00 p.m. He further added that they Were reviewing a proposed development on Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin. NEW BUSINESS 8. Mr. Oswald moved to approve the Commission Minutes of February 4, 1975. Mr. Allen second. - Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman~ london~ Allen, Christensen~ Oswald~ Cameron. Pakonen, Gustafson. None Ostlund, Jensen Motion passed. 9. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of February 10, 1975. He stated that the Council had followed tne recommendations of the Planning Commission in regard to Planning Cases 75-2 and 75-6. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Larson as to the IIno smoking" regulations 'which are now in effect in the Council Chambers and at "open meetingsll held in the City Hall. - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1975 Mr. Larson commented that the City of Duluth had acted to ban smoking schools. Further comments by the Commissioners as to other cities in same direction. in all public buildings, including the state that were moving in this In response to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. Larson stated that the Council had the authority to make this rule in regard to the Council Chambers and that disregarding this regulation could result in commu- nity groups losing the privilege of using the Council Chambers for meetings. He added that at the pre- sent time the rule was still in the form of a resolution, but that if there were violations it could be made an ordinance. Further discussion as to the actual charges that could result if the ordinance were enforced. and whether or not any alternatives to the complete ban of smoking had been explored. Mr. Larson noted that a fairly full discussion had been held including alternative solutions. Dr. Cameron expressed concern that if smoking were completely banned, smokers may not be able to serve on commissions. . 10. Brief discussion about the availability of SR lots in New Hope and their location in reference to the Population Projection report which had been distributed to the Commissioners. Dr. Cameron requested that Mr. Larson give a brief comment, on the Council's move to a committee type of organization. Mr. Larson outlined the background, noting that the intent was not to develop a I1Planning Commissionsru.etc., but to provide more accountability and placement of responsibility for better policy making. Dr. Cameron invited Mr. Marvin Gordon-to come forward and explain his proposed-development to the Commis- sioners. Mr. Gordon stated that he was planning'to develop his propertv on the NW corner of 40 1/2 and Jordan. He presented sOme illustrations of alternate development proposals to the Commissioners and located the area on the map. In answer to a question from Mr. Herman~ Dr. Cameron stated that Mr. Gordon was simply making an informal presentation to the Commission to ascertain whether or not the Commission would be reception to a TR development. Mr. Gordon stated that he realized that he must still go through applying for rezoning and the public hearing steps in order to proceed. He is proposing a 56 unit town house development on the property now zoned MR. The units woul~ be for sale and not rental units. Mr. Gordon added that in-a meeting with the Homeowners Association, there had been discussion as to the need for an additional road out of the area. He would need to have the six acres down-zoned, and the two acres zoned SR would also need to be rezoned. ,~ In answer to a question as to the propriety of the Commissioners making any comments on the project, Dr. Cameron stated that they could respond as individuals, not as Commissioners, but that if they had any strong feelings on such a project, they could be expressed now. Mr. Herman commented that in his opinion, the main concern in the development of the site should be proper planning, and not at this point, the concerns of the immediate neighbors. Mr. Dan Miller, 9000 4~ Avenue Noith, was present as a member of the Homeowners Association. He stated that Mr. Gordon had met wi.th three members of the Association ancl in his opinion, the neighborhood would rather have townhouses built on the property than multiples. He added that they were concerned with traf- fic patterns and felt the need for a service road to get the traffic away from the 40~ and Jordan area. Further discussion betwee,n the Commissioners and the Ci.ty Manager on streets in the area,. The City Manager informed the Commissioners that at the March 4th, meetinQ there would be a propoSal for a rezoninQ of the property located at Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue North. He requested that the Commissioners make an effort to inSpect the property before that meeting. 11. Mr. Pakonen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Oswald second. Voting in favor: Vot-.ing against: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Oswald, Cameron, Pakonen, Gustafson None Ostlund, Jensen ~ The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.{accordinQ to the clock) until March 4th, 1975. Respectfully submitted. 'I;;...,......J ~" ( ,. jc.vJ lie Boeddeker Secretary February 27, 1975 To: New Hope Planning Commission Re: Rezoning Application 75 - 8 R.C.E. Corporation 8711 Bass Lake Road Limited Industry (Ll) to General Business (GB) Gentlemen: The applicant submits the following reasons upon which the Planning Commission can base a favorable recommendation to the City Council: 1. The rezoning will allow the present owner to dispose of the vacant land for an intended purpose which utilizes the property to its highest and best use. 2. The rezoning and subsequent development will correct the ommission, in the present Zoning Map, of an area for a neighborhood convenience center. years, and more particularly just recently, because of the fuel and energy shortage, is toward small strategically located neighborhood centers. 6. The office building recently developed on the G.B. zoned land at Gettysberg and Bass Lake Road precludes any retail activity in the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the subject application warrants approval. The reason for the requested rezoning is to allow the cons.truction of a multi-purpose development which would house, in addition to the permitted uses of offices and light factory representative type warehousing, the uses generally found in a business district. That is, medical offices, retail sales, cleaners ,be<ltltYIlI1()J:>, .l:>arbeJ; Sh9panl;j DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REqJESI' : LOCATICI'l: March 4, 1975 75-8 R.C.E. Corporation Rezoning LI to GB Southwest Corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue Intersection srAFF FlNDINGSAND co.lMENTS: 1. TIle petitioner 'is proposing to. rezone the subject. property 'irem'the present LI classification 'to' GB (General Business) to allow construction of a multi-purpose developnent containing offices, retail sales :moPS and warehousin~. ~t this point,.the ~titioner does not have a specific developnent plan. prefer-' rng to have a deternu.nat~on on the zollmg frrst. To a degree this is a better approach since the zoning should be able to stand on its own Without regard to a specific developnent. The petitioner indicated he will have a preliminary type site plan and an explanation of the proposed:developnent' to send out to you prior to the meeting. 2. TheGB classification is being requested because aia desire to include regular retail sales in the developnent. Current use lists for the LI VB GB are; LI Permitted Uses OB Penni tted Uses Agriculture Manufacturing Offices Agriculture Autanobile Service Public Public Utility Research Medical Offices Outdoor Advertising (billboard) Public Public Utility Research Retail Shopping . Warehousing Wholesale Warehousing Wholesale Special Uses Special Uses Open Storage Railroad Storage and SWitching Yards rootels and Restaurants Training'SchoQl$ Retail Sales in Conjunction with Wholesale or Warehouse Heavy Equipnent Sales Retail Sales of Products Manufactured on Site Car Washes Sc...'1oo1s 1 Music, Dance or Business Rental of Trailers and Trucks As you can see there are several major differences in- the use list - autanobile service, medical, bill-:- board, retail sales and car washes for the GB. In detennining if the proposed zoning is appropriate for the site, consideration IIDlSt be given to the entire use list - is the site suitable for all of the per- mitted uses? 3. Another consideration in the zoning is the location- of the, parcel both in terms of its p1ac€fIll9nt within the total land plan and of its relationship' to surrounding us~. The parcel is 1.8 acres in size' and averages 295 x 266 feet. The GB has no minimum lot size or bUilding size. Nor does it provide for any specific green areas or limits on lot coverage. The U district on the other hand has a one acre lot minimum, with at least 10,000 square feet of build- ing and must provide 35% green area and not aver 40% lot coverage. These perfonmnce type itans are important when canbined with the possible use list andtheIi considered. in relation to the site I s proximity to the residential to the North and the church and apartment develop- ment to the East. 4. The two zones are defined as: (GB) General Business District Areas which are designed for those businesses that tend to service other businesses and including other. than the haneowner. They also tend to be less canpatiblewith residen- tial areas than other types of. business. Because of these factors, businesses in.. this zoning classification are concentrated and are as insulated as possible fran residential areas. (L1) Limited Industry Districts Areas which have the prerequisites for residential developnent. Because of prax1mity to residential areas, however J there are limitations and higher developnent standards that do not apply to 01 districts. - 2 - The questions then are two: (1) is the subject area one that should berez.oned and (2) if it should be, is GB the appropriate classification. 5. Consideration of rezoning is gen~rally based on the, two factors of: was a mistake made in the original zoning or have there been substantial changes in the surrounding area that now indicate a dif~erent land use. There is also the question of our limited renaming open space, and whether there is a need for a specific type of zqning district simply because there is little or no land left in a given zoning classi- fication. Last m:mth a survey was done of the vacant land which indicated: ~ Vacant A.creage ~ 00.00 ~ 47.ro ill ~.~ ~ ~.U GB 4.16 LI 237.14 ill ~.~ 419.81 acres As is shown, this consideration involves the present zoning which has the IlDst land and the proposed ooning which has the least. The 1960 guide plan states that the areas contanplated for industrial use are those areas having the characteristics required for industry -trucking, access to thoroughfares, buildable- land and lack of residential developnent. As to General Business the report notes; the areas. shown as "geDe}:"al business" is snall - but sufficient for the small number of business that are devoted to vehicle and equipnentservice. When the 1960 plan was considered the area North of Bass Lake Road fran the golf course on the East to Ensign on the West was pretty well platted'and resil:iential developnent was taking place. The entire area South of fuss Lake Road to 49th and lying between Boone and #18 was designated for "Industry". Fran every indication ,'in both the zoning code and the guide 'plan, this, area was intended to be industrial, buffered iran the residential uses North and East by the separation by major thorougb:fares -- Bass lake Road and Boone. ~ The present zoning then is a clear, attempt ,to carry out the intent qf the original guide plan. The sur- rounding ai'ea is alSo developing generally as originally proposed. Everything North of Bass lake Road is residential. Southwest is the Industrial Park, developing slowly but surely, and East of Boone is a heavy concentration of apartments. This is residential, but of greater density than was foreseen in 1960. It is, therefore, IOCIst difficult to make a case for either a mistake or a change in surroundings on which to justify the rezoning. 6. The, desire for GB is based on the specific mix of uses, prop:::>sal. The regular retail salescanbined with office and warehousing would be permitted under GB but not LL This, presents another problan. The area is now industrial and has been so designated for at least 15 years, Just last ronth, the Planning Cannis- sien adopted an amendment to the code to penni t certain limited type retail sales in. conneCtion with in- dustrial' use - thoSe prOOucts nanufactured or processed on the site and the warehouse/wholesale secondary item type sales. The question raised is that of spot zonitlg. Since',.the fee.linga~ to be that general ret~l~es were not ccrnpatible with industrial uses, to drop a' snail, parcel with general. sales 'on the. edge., of a couple of hundred acres of Industrial with Limited Sales appears to be in conflict with the general intent of the. recent. industrial. change. 7. The consideration after all is said and done, apparently boils,- down to a question of developnent of .'the particular site. There 'appears to be limited'..justifi~tion for a change in zoning and if rezoneq, the corn,er v,uuld be opened for. uses such as a car wash,., service garage, Service station etc., and v.ould tm- doubtedly be used as an argmnent for additional retail type zoning to extend West to Gettysburg. 8. If the specific uses that will be proposed by the developer are felt to be suitable for the site, it might be possible to put the developnent together as a planned unit canne:rcial developnent with a specific use list authorized, tied into a detailed developnent plan protected by a perfonnance hondo The rezoning VrUUld still be required 1 but it might be IX'ssible to control the uses by a legal contract. ~. ~ ':; fi 0/ VI 1 / / / --""~-- , - .".- / ! /, :, ~ ) , i i i ; ~L r'T I I 1-----. "11 ~: .11 ~ti~' "' ~- ~, ~1 rt:1 ~ t.l ~ <. l!.l t' " " <,0 C"~ '. ':sIU .J' J "':...: c'''' Fi~ 11 '.:! 'Oii-. :=...........""7' "3 NOO'd -1> --i,()- ---.j ---i ~ "--1 __J i -l --j --:-! -~. --H ...:. -1 ....0.:. : C;~. ;~ " .t= ,I " d f-- 11 r--- l r-- ;--- -, I . .J,', c---. ~t L- . , ]";- 'M'S~ 1 '-'-- '~l :; I < , 0 ~ )J ,1, , ' . f--- C>'=~':.. . "'\of"? (.I; . i . ~..1 b;:; r>=>'I:! - Z ON ~"'lc"n'1'iI 3"'T.,I..$. "'''I~:;;:oI'~:':, ',s: , ;!' -.1 _ .-:--1- .~~.~t~~~.s~~?'~ _ ----j-- . . , ~ " . " ....L-~ 1-.J_ ,j . '50::""'1 L i ! ji . " " J :i .. .. ~ J " ~ I J '. l.!...! ~ ~~ Q ... ~j () .. 0 -' - " L2 rr > .. '" C ~I . " I- a u in . . , ~.. " ~; ;I~;...!! oe .. '" .. ...;; ~ ~ :; " ~~ ~ l ~ ;~ .....:;> cO:! Cl ~... .:f ~ ~ <i:.,.l Ilil ~ ""Ill'" =: ~ ~ 8 fliI': l'- = ~ ~ 1IJ 0'1: :2 Ill: % u1 ~.; a .Il.. . ~ ~.z j;~ 41 ~ 'il tVi~ jl ~I ' ~; ~! ~ 'Ii ~ ~ ~ t . . 'I . ~ , l t.-- .. , .t '4T h' ',. t. : . 't . " " t.~ l" "'0: tv Hitj, ,'" , · '1,' I " ., ~ ~L.; · : I " ..,,t ", ! I ~,. <!. . . . .. A ."\ I), 111.'X ~~ "'...., ~. "i , l ; , , , '. " ".,., ~ . . ('\1,,,,," . ~ , . , . . . .. '. , " " I , , , . . . '" '. , . , '- ..... I " 'k , . t-" \~ I~ , . -1-- l~ , l~ . '1- ~ .t~ 1(1\ !~ -+ i\ . () , . t . ,~ , . ,0 , . ! . ~ Jo . , :> , ;. '\ .' ~. \11 rr I1'Q o ~AJ , .' ~ " , . i ,. ~~ I,.: .' ~ ,.. ',. ,', I, ., .... ". '. ".~"l' ",t~'-lQJi.tI." '. - t-~.----~_._- . .', ~..,' .:-'..{... :::>::", ::- ;.':... -=111 ._....r;;-... ~ _r_.,",--\~ ~*, . , - l . ,".--. ,'~' :":,;.. :...f:'. "'.~'-, ...,;. r: , t\ . . - ,}<.b\) '~:'.'~' ',.., ,'..r' ",'C..':' Z "".. "",,,.,'- -.....- '~:"""-':'''~':':'. . .; . .-,..-' . " -' ~', '-'. '.' -- (!\ ", - .~~"-'" ~.-.;.;:. ^. '.. . ....-:=: - ,,~~.~\\~:~~-~ ..<~'<:f';;~" . ..~ . .' ~ ':~'X..::'@g,~:}!:,::::".i: . " .., ~.' ..' . l- ,:'. A'- 'C -'~:~"":"."""" .-.>:~. }:,..;..... .... 'i. :i:':;,:.J:(.: . . .-.... . ";. :-. ..'~ "' ~-.' ..........~,.:,..,......... ,---" .' .',' ' .. .... . . -..-" . ;.;.;~,:..:~t:( -- . . .' re." ~,<>>/,' .' . -. ':,; ~ ~/.:-. ~ 1J C (' ~ ~. .- '. .. .. ~:'. ~.--,-.@ '\)\ \1>' JO~,...,. . fII -( -,. , ~ ,~, , . . ... >,'" .'. ~.~ ., ' . 11....' .... . . 'i~...._~p , l!:; .'- l'..-I " ".- .," .~. "I!' ' . . ~~{',:<:, :. " ...'.........-. j:'::::-" .. .' ~ 'i..' ',... . \" "" ..... "' ., . .. ';' :'-:""-'1'1 :: 2,;,.:. j..o.:;.:::',. ~,.., ~~" ~ ." .'" I"" (\ ~ ... - $I~ w.e ('\ ^ .. ,~: ',:. '. iC~ -.1 rr!~.,...~31 ~. .. ~ I. . 'jl.:.:~, . ) ~.. ; -'r.' .) - \ -...-,;-",.-:- ~ :"-""""':-"\ "'";'" I '1\ .. . ,._ o ,~.,. :'_ '''',0 ~ 1 _,_ _! , '~":~::'... ;1.c~"'!llr'~~', I . . I,'!,-,,,,,,\, ~A:.c'i~.1L.'~..;'.,\~~ . . ~ ; ,.- :~.V~l_~ '; :.j.'.' , --, 'T'.': ~ '-'-; lif '.-'- . '-. 1, ~il@) t'! ~~. rv~~ :~ ll.!I'@':J L l~! c. ":'''''lll '. .. h,._f~~... .__.=:-__':';..~~.,;.=.._. ,. ~~ cli ~. GF 2~ . t.E .m~ ;; "'; c; '1' < . % \' :1 ' 1\("1< 00 {':'I ~.z <l P ~\:1 ~~t ~p. ~.' 'Ol~ Ii I' L.. 'fl...-. A' t, ~ . . r'. .' 'N"" "t{' ~: . - .,. >'" ,. '" .' ~:.; ~r "'@' .;..'.... ,N .". ''1>0. f-..,;' ,':'- i-.~........i..~.:-. :-~;'", ; _~.\i'~: .:,,";. 1;;-,' .-,..;' "--'" .-,...,._.... '.,",:." . ::." - ,".-..... :-@ ."',', . .. (;J - ~~ ~ ::: III i. .~ . \ _.~) .---~- .' ~It o. 11 I . , ~ ._--:=:-:"-:::-:'::::-"':'l_ . . " M I , j -" ~, ~i : NOLLV::xJI : JS:3:fimI : mmOI.LIJ.3:d : asv.:> :3J,VG anuaAV ll>r~aUU1M 8l?617 - Z0617 U'aId illl1S JO TllAO.lddV A:tnldwo::> asnoqa.:rnA\ a;>.l@llllDJ l1-gL 9roI '17 q;>.I'llW : SJliI3Wl'U) ClN1f SDNIONIa: .:1NJS . U;>unO:) pU'a UO']:ss']:UIIK0 aq+ f:q I'llAo.ldd'll spaau Ull1d aq+ 'asn +U'aua+-nTllUl 'll s']: llITTPUnq aq+ a;>ITTS 'llITTPunq am .loJ trnld illl']:s 'll JO +uaunolaAap aq+ 8']: da+s .lOr= V 'S.096I P1lli aq+ u']: papll.I+s -UOO S'llM +']: a;>u']:s llu,]:Pl']:nq s']:q+ q+1=M pa+s']:xa aA'llq +'llq+ SW81qO.ld f:U'llUI aq+ JO +SOUl JO a.:rn;> llupfll+ JO ssa;>o.ld aq+ ITT s']: f:U'lldr.ucx:> MaU am. "IDnaUU1M ptrn q:1:617 +'ll asnoqa.:rnM .laf:Ul.Iai\() PIO aq+ pas'llq;>.md A:T+ua;>a.l Sllq .lauo']:+nOO am. '1 'paq;>'lln'll s']: llu'j:p.lQ\\ aq+ JO f:doo V '%01.10 waJ a.nmbs OOZ JO 8HUIJ:r' am ITTq+V.l. IIaM -- llu'j:punq aq+ JO %Z .10 - +aaJ a.nmbs 06 .10 91 x 9 aq 111=M +I 'llu']:pn:nq aq+ JO ITllM enuaAV 'll>[WUU,]:A\ aq+ uo aq IUMilll']:s UOn'll;>unuap']: tI'll.:taAO am. 'llu']:Punq aq+ uo aq II1=M 8illl']:s IIV '(; 'paq;>'lln'll OSI'll 8']: SUOn'll;J01 asaq+ JO A:doo V . HUIJ:I 'roI aq+ ITTm"]:A\ l1aM u']:'ll1l1l 'f:'llq aSllq q;>'lla JO %S +noq'll aq PInQ\\ s']:m. 'amlds I'll+ua.l aq+ JO +UO.lJ ITT ITllM aq+ uo -- llu']:PUnq aq+ ;]:0 ap']:s q+nos aq+ uo illl']:s +ooJ a.:mnbs ZS - 17 x 8 'll uaLl.']:ll aq IIV.I. +U'aua+ q;>'ll:3: 'S . .:mal;> aq 111=M p.looa.l aq+ os s+trj:od asaq+ uo pauo']:+8anb aqpInoqs .lauonnad am. 2;silll']:s I1mp']:Ll.']:p -u']: a11+ uo llu'j:p.lQ\\ aq+ IO.l+uOO lUM oqM 'OSI'\! . HI aq 0+ a.:m f:aq+ n .10 'u.'itj:s aq+ .loJ pesn aq 0+ I'll1.la+'ll'J! aq+ e+'ll;>'j:pu']: +au saop pan11ll1llS uon=oJ -u']: aq+ +'llq+ s']: UEIqo.ld auo am. '+'lla.:Ul s']: '!lap']: aq+ +'!lq+ .:madd'!l PlnQ\\ +I '17 " ~ "- '"- ~ to x N ~ Q... ..... ~ ~ -I- ..... -.. 'i ~ " . ~ ::!- - f' )i .. ; ~ ~ ~ , ~ ; , ; . ~ ... ,~~".",,>--"..' ~ ,..( 'n" .;..~. , I /"--...._" ," ~ ,<:;:'1 (-:-)' !>~ l\ \""... 'j ,!::~;.t; >;.:L:~ / ) r. t~Y':; 6-:?',\;, "<, tt'l V ,j, ~ ~--~)l'- :j"....,.;j ;:: .," ; . f; ,.,~-~----~~-~;' ,;'::~~, 'T~"':l'" "j ,',' i:', ~ _'" 'j' .. ",.". _ .~7;~Y' '-~,~~...;. , '/;C\ .[:.."" , ;(iP)!,~"" , ,1:'~ w'" ~'f ~ ~. .~ , ",'''-', ~,-.J ,,.....,.. ..':':) 'I ': ;._~"~:'~-l";:"":":'> I'.: ,"f"-~'~ ; , ,. .' ~ .,.'" . ' .." I . ' 'j' ,~,-~ r I' .'.;"-=" ;;(;.~;~;'" t' "."'-......-........> ...<.....~.",.. I ,"~.._'.~.'A{ ":._"-' : I 'j f"<"")' ~, ;,,':"1 r"~'~ , ~:,.,'! ", ""',' j ._...r.. .." .. (..,/ I ...~""k:, i . ".'<0 ,j .",;,~ I : .. ~. ...,_...........-~._t-"' - - " :,.:'...- , i t,r.. i '7~r;:.~"'~ " ~:=~;l~'~'<" ! '" r,; -:' ",,~ ! ' ,tJ ff) I ., J{,l 1. .'~'~""'..i"'''''';':' ../",-~....;;:' II' ,'.:::r>. ~:~,; 'r," ". T , I "'". ~ r'i t ,j -""j t') I & . .,.~.,~ *--,,~ t! '~~, ~. Il>l ',. !' A' ,', ~ ..!"",+........:"~-. r: f~' -:~~f - . ..' I' -- ..' I, .; _i' ;, i ~~. -{ ,t ..,:;:::,:.:,~;:;";:~:;;i 0. ~ ~ .,;~:;.. ," .,>-" rr:r- I leJa)WO l~"1 " < - en 5 z o " -I ;0 )> z CP "'C o ~ ~ - o :z ~ ~ .m ~ - z p .1 ~l ". .~ ~1 '1 ~I J -) ',~ .~ '} ~ :' ~1 ;'1 -:\1 :1 5~ " 1',1"; ~: ~; IT' '-V "- "1 ~ It '\ ~\ ~ f"o 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ (\ '< !l-, t;i ~ .:::: ~ c::..V) .. ~ ~ ~ o /;:; ~ ?i ~ ~ . ~" v.., ~.. ',",,^ IV ~ \., "~'J:--v-\. . ) APARTMENT 4 GOlf COURSE 7 C()\!I'ITRV CLUB 'MARKET 3 4 B I tJ 5 ~ 3 0 IJ3 \C'-, Ie III 3 Q \'--; 10 z;: -'I 0 U .....1 30 r-' '0 III , ' ; ; 3 - , ' :t ,.-.. .--...J 10 -: ~>>> s 5 T H AVE N 6 I T H AV-c N N w ~(J j)~ E MINN ESOTA S G R 0 U N D C OV ERA G E APARTMENTS & ATRIUM OfFICE- STORAGE-DRESS GARAG ES PAR KING tl.. DR IVEWAY GRASS & RfCREATION NEW <! x: I- W Z z ?; ~ " <! HOP E S Q F T 2 O. 8 7 3 840 8) 00 0 3 8, 3 7 9 67,89 7 % I 5.35 .62 5.8 8 2e,22 49.93 L I . . I \n r- ~ '"'- :::- v "._" ('oJ ill - ~ rt: D t".! :1 Ij') "7 -'- .:1 r- ;; ..... If\ r:c rL d - . D :;t - e . . .. ..... >- ~ .- L> "0 '15-(0 . ;t '\ , > , ~. DATE: CASE: PErITIONER : RE<lIEST : IJX:ATION: March 4, 1975 75-10 Harlan E. Schmidt Variances in Parking Setbacks and Approval of PUn South of Bass. lake IlDad, We'>t of Country Club Market Parking Lot. STAFF FINDINGS AND <n1MENI'S: 1. The petitioner is proposing a POD multiple developnent in the area shoWn on the attached map. It is IIDst difficult to provide a meaningful review at this time. The petitioner has met twice. for close to f01.lr hours, with the Design and Review Carmittee. Several major questions were raised at both meet- ings. At the conclusion of the first meeting, the petitioner left with the cannent that he \\QuId review and respond to the ,questions raised. At the second meeting, only a very weak effort had been shown in resfX)ose to the concerns. At the conclusion of the second meeting, the petitioner left saying, he was going to redo the entire site concept. 'The-plang,as suhnitted did not begin to meet tbe technical require- ments for a PlJD. Only time will tell as to what will be subnitted by meeting date. 2. The site is the -one on which at least t~ other projects have been proposed. It is zoned MR and has sane 3.12 acres of land. The buildings proJ;Xlsed are two 24 unit structures - 48 total units - half one and half two bedrcx:m. This provides sane 15.4 units per acre. About 17.5 are permitted at top density. The one bedroan units will have 626 square feet. - the' two bedrocm units 830 square feet. We require 600 and 750 respectively. All density requirements are, therefore, met. Access, is previde<l, by a drive out to Bass lake Road, at the West edge of the Country Club parking lot. 3. The, bu;i.ldings ar"e unique. They are p:rofK)S€d to be constructecl witha concrete fra.rrJE: into whiqbpre:r:,~bri- cated i\OOden housing units are to be placed-. Four wings of the building would fOTIn-a central court-over an atrium in which sane type of undefined recreation open space ~ to be provided. Variances will be required to two i tans,;~' Parking reqq..iranents are for. one enclosed garage and tVoQ open spaces per housing unit. The 48. garages .will be provided but sanewhat less. than 96 open. stalls. The last discussion v.as 75 open stalls. ,'.-", For setback purposes, Wisconsin is the front of the project. Access will be off Bass Lake Road, however, and a technical setback problan exists becalise garages are propoSed for the East edge of the site by the parking lot for the store. Therefore, a rear yard variance will be needed. 4. The idea of the PlJD is twofold. First , is to have all the details tied do\'<D so that the City will know exactly what is to be developed. Second, the RID enables the developer to have 17 plus units per acre instead.of 8 1/2 units if not POD. For this extra. density, the.developnent is. to provide sane justifi- cation as to what is to be provided. that justifies the extra 1.Dlits. It is next to irnpossibleto tel,l what is being pro}Xlsed. The plans sutmitted and the discussion to date, have not resulted in firm understanding as to building details, use of recreation space, landscaping screening, garage. details, screening. exterior design of the. buildings etc. 5. It is impossible to review the site plan at this time since there is no specific proposal sutmitted. A najorquestionraised at the Design and Review meeting 'was that of landscaping, benns, etc. to provide screening for the adjacent residential to the West and North. There are only t\ID specific screening, landscaping requirements. First, a 20 foot landscaped yard must be maintained on Wisconsin avenue. Second, only parking lots of 6 or roore spaces within 30 feet of an adjoinitig residential zone must . be sereened. At the same time, as part of approval of PlJD, additional screening and landscaping can be required in order to make the higher PlJD density acceptable to the general neigbborhood. 6. A major consideration of this entire project is the building proposal. Apparently, they do ~t state approval. Yo1.l.have sane control, however, because. of the,PUD. Even though the construction.details are probably outside the jurisdiction of the City, details. such as. appearance, finish. details at the point of joining of the prefab units etc., are open for discus:s_ion - aga,in based on the highE~r density requ€$ted. As noted, there is not reallYI'IRlChwe can say alx>ut the project since details are not subnitted. ( - ji,;- , t', , .. ._t ~ .' f':: ~ " " I . [;1 LJ t I ~ ! ~- I ~ id ~ q ! I ~ ~ U r I .. z if !Ii" L "~N3 lIsn:f3H t I f;z '"'~Y& ~ ;;;~l\~ ~~.~:#; f'N\ ~'" ~B ~"0 i~~!-."- .~. .- ~"v~ . e ~ ~ DO DD ~'\l& ~~~:-~ ":m-~ ~ .> .?:?.{/d'61 37----_. . 01 ~5Ls ~<"'V7 . a/ffPFFIJ\ JV!t{q, .. ONnUIWIlI ~....~. ~~ ~~~ ~ .. z ... Z .. z .. L .. "'w?- ~{~I " * ~~0 -:;'1'l~ . 74ii\.~ . e '. ~ 'D 0 DO' ~('* . ~ ~ N i ~w "",r,,;' €f[ . 'l/Ijl~' '''' ~~p'- ~4J~ SINN .1 >l:l3Q I \ OI.1.~d ,OOd , , 3:l1.::J.:IO ==;:,\\"I'~ ~~(J'~Y~1f7~~_~t0~ ~~"';I/a~~~ n N 3 ^ 'f ~~ ~~ ~1\~ ~e e :! z ... Z .. z 0: .. €I .~ ~ .. . ~i. ~\r, .~ ~"",--". N .....Ii~,' 1/1/' - ~~~;g --.......~~ ~f\\~ ~/l .. z i:o z.. 0: N I . N 0 , . . j Il .. " Q ... ~ U ~ ... o J ' : : 'I ~ i 1i . ... d ! :ae u.. .. . J , L \\ : I i 1 .,l , . .' ~ : \ .~ ~ Q~,.,' . ~ -; .' .' z --- ~........,. ~"..". tt" It''''' '{:~ -t.. it J 'OSIll suondo .1a'l+o AlqllqO.ro a.re a.1attI, 'ans a'l+ lID.1J paAOlID.1 a.re sllilW .ra'l+o rre n a::ltIllT.1llA II .10 'LL6I Inun All+S -- .reaA 100'108 a'l+ '13no.nn All+S 0+ nuuad 'MOU 03 -- n JO a.In+nJ a'l+ uo pa'l::>'lla.1 aq os'['ll +SlUU UOTS -T::>ap V 'ans a'l+ uo loo'l::>s II .1oJ llilTS .ra'l+o auo +saq +ll OSlll ST a.rattI, '17 '~q+as a'l+ .1oJ pa.raPTS -uoo aq oS'['Il +snru a::>U'llT.reA II ua'l+ 'ffiP'llCl+as pa.:q:nba.1 a'l+ +OOIll 0+ 'Is1M- +ou op Aa'l+ n 'a~hquo.1J .lad +ooJ a.:rnnbs snld 01 ll.1+lro a'l+ nuuad 0+ auo aq PTTIOM papaau a::>UllT.1llA AIUO a'l+ ua'l+ 's+UO.1J wa.1+s a+'ll.redas a'l+ .1oJ u3"]:s a'l+aq 0+ pa.1apTsuoo a.1aM ful '1::>'lla n pUll '+001 s.rn ffil::>llq+as s'l+ n . 8 . auoog lID.1J +ooJ <':/1 L1 pUll P'llOB: s1flTI SS'llg 1ID.1J +aaJ 9<': sq +snru a3ps 3UTP'llal a'l+ 'ffil::>llq +as +aOOl 0+ .1Sp.10 UI . sa.%e+uo.1J +aa.1+s a+ 'll.redas a'l+ .1oJ llilTS a'l+ aq 0+ pa.1aPTSUoo sq Plnoo 3al '1::>'lla +'ll'l+ 'rillTs AIUO a'l+ sq 0+ sT sT'I+ n pUll 'llilTS a'l+ JO sd-eqs aq+ USAT3 +'llq+ .1'lledd'll PTTIOM n . P'llOB: a1flTI sseg UK:l.1J waJ 01 AIUO :l{::>llq ws n aA'llq 0+ pssodO.1d uaaq S'llt]: OSI'll n . +aaJ a.renbs 19 JO 1'll+o+ 'll .10 'SPTS .1sd +saJ s.:rnnbs 08 .1SAO +snf .10 ,,9,01 x .8 'lO'lla '"s3s1.. 0M:j. as'llq 0+ pasodO.1d ST rillTs aq+ i3lITM'll.Ip paq:mn'll aq+ UK:l.1J uaas sq Ull::> SV . PP+STP at]:+ .1oJ :l{::>'llq+8S .relrilla.1 at]:+ JO <':/1 +S'llel +ll :l{:mq +as aq H'll'ls sllilTS attI, . sa&quO.1J +8a.1+S at]:+ JO '1:ma uo 'lla.1'\l lIT WSJ s.:nmbs 0<': paa::>lro 0+ +ou llilTS 'll pSn]Ulied sT +01 .1SU.100 'll UO t]:;).Int]:::> V 'paAloAuT SlUalqo.1d 1'll.1SASS a.1'\l a.1sttI, '<,: ''1::>.Inq;) aq+ Aq.paPTAO.1d MOU llilTS i3UT:l{001 P'llq .1at]:+'ll.1 +ua.1.In::> st]:+ s::>'ll"{da.1 PlnOA\ sTq+ +'lllI+ i3uWU'll+S.1Sp -un n'll+s sT n . auoog pUll p'llOB: a:lfll'1 sseg +'ll Apado.1d t]:;).In'l;) at]:+ JO .1au.1OO at]:+ uo llilTS +uaUllUUsd 'll Hll+SUT 0+ i3lITsodo.1d sT .1auOTn+ed attI, '"{ : sJ.NID\1Iim CINV, SDNICINId .;[ill1JS auoog ptI1l P'llOB: a1flTI ss'llg JO .1SU.1O;) :;IS az,s llilTS '1::>.Inq::J lIT <XlUllT.1'\lA ('1;).Int]:::J +snd'llg +saMt]:+.10N) . ;)U1 i3.%e.IJ 6-9L 9L61 'v t]:;).rer! : NOI.LV:xn :~ : B3:NOI.L1J3:d ::;ISV::J ::;r.:r.va . '. , E~] CRAGG , SGG P,I'-L ,a~~ - 122 Weft .~4w.y . Miftft..~li.* Miaft. 55411 1500~€::>I>' +1J""'. "';A-SS . . ....t. "-& """:---'\ ~ _ . . .~,~~_-;c~. . >-.... . I a 'S-" ~I~ ~ Ib' SGT: 11;t.C~ ii n" ~>,;, ~I r n On: h lLl ~.. ~-l. '1 ' ;: i i"l! pO" '; [i;: I J ..L. ~ ' i '.. ..3 ,I.! f. .;/..-...~" . !i' . ',', . /' ,~"-\,." J c''' r~' I .. .......,... .. ~ ""t-" 5~ ~ .51E-6'L I ~e'r LlSII ~'_d =-_ .., N J STYif;'- !S(?f't,t'!".P /- ..-- .. ~ -- c-- ~............... f ~ J . @ J u...v1/11"11t-~ ~ .3 X 10 ' ~" LiZ-xii^! ~19'~ :9~ - e#~,.e.~ U61J o A-M? f2,JPr7^/~ ~. yo ro-tz- '$I' v,v,l7.t ~. itg I. (, 0_ 7. f7 0 AMI'S J, , AGENDA PLANNING cx:MvIISSICN April 1, 1975 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC IlEARmGS. 3. Case 75-12 - Variance - Setback and Garage Size - 8457 North Meadow Lake Road - Richard Board, Petitioner. 4. Case 75-13 - Special Use Permit to Permit Sewing Classes - Post Haste Center - Stretch and Sew, Petitioner 5. Case 75-14 - Approval of Preliminary Plat - NE Corner of 35th and Hi11sboro - Hewitt Peterson, petitioner. 6. Case 75-15 - Waiver of Platting Ordinance - 7202-7204 Bass Lake Road - Mark E. Lipps, Petitioner. 7. Case 75-16 - Variance in Sign Ordinance - Winnetka Avenue near North entrance to New Hope Center - New Hope State Bank, Petitioner. ffi\1MITIEE R.EroRTS 8. Report of Codes and Standards Carmittee 9. Report of Land Use Carmittee 10. Report of Design and Review Carmittee NEW BUSINESS 11. Approval of Conmission minutes of March 18, 1975. 12 . Review of Council Minutes of March 24, 1975. 13. Additional Ccmnents and Reports from Citizens, Carmissioners, and Staff. 14. Adjournment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH lB, 1975 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 18, 1975 at the City Hall. 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Herman. London. Allen. Christensen, Ostlund. Jensen, Gustafson. Absent: Cameron, Pakonen ~ . ~ ~:> PUBLIC HEARINGS rl1-l$rL& 54- /..dl- Z-.$/L I !iLl 17 .s i/7to2 ~ :-37-7'7</7 3. PLANNING CASE 75-8 - REZONING LI TO GB - B711 BASS LAKE ROAD - RCE CORPORATION. PETITIONER. Mr. Curtis A. Pearson, 1100 First National Bank Building, an attorney retained by Mrs. Clemens and the RCE Corporation. the petitioner, was present to discuss this request. He stated that they were asking for a down zoning of the property. He added that Mrs. Clemens had been attempting to sell this proper- ty for ten years and the large house and the surrounding land were too much for her to care for consi- dering her health and age (78 years old). Mr. Pearson gave the following reasons for rezoning: Zoning anticipated as business. development in the neighborhood, is no longer available. The area to the West has developed primarily into warehousing. This is the use desired by the petitioner for the lower section of the property in question. There have been changes in the land use -- a large number of multiples to the Southeast. He suggested that the GB zoned properties at 62nd and #18 and at 49th and #18 would probably also need to be rezoned in the future, because the land was not suitable for GB development. There is a trend- to return to the neighborhood stores, and such a store would be a convenience to the neighborhood. This is the type of operation that they were hoping to build. Mr. Pearson indicated that statistics show that this change was not predicted in 1960 when the property was zoned. The advantages he listed for this return to convenience stores were: 1) Walking distance from a great many of the surrounding homes. 2) The proliferation of shopping centers, with the inconvenience of parking etc. in these centers, (inconvenient to stop for just one or two items). 3) Familiarity of the people. knOWn by name. ability to cash che~ks etc. 4) Greater number of working women today. This customer will stop at the convenience stores on her way home to pick up a few items because she doesn't have the time to stop at a shopping center. 5) Ability to purchase "fill-in" items, for impromptu get togethers. 6) Gasoline shortage -- people are more willing to walk -- more concerned with saving energy. 7) 40% of the sales in convenience stores take place after 7:00 p.m. He re-stated that they were requesting the rezoning because of what they wished to put into the basement--- warehousing -- upstairs they planned to put in a 7/11 Store. He added that the purchase agreement speci- fically provided that it was contingent upon the Obtaining of a 7/11 franchise. and that Mrs. Clemens was willing to add. an amendment to the purchase agreement protecting the property from being developed into a gasoline station. The amendment to the purchase agreement reads as follows: NOW, THEREFORE. it is agreed by and between the parties: 1. That the Purchase Agreement dated January 9, 1975 is hereby amended to Provide that the warranty deed or conveyances from the seller to the buyer shall contain a deed restriction providing that there shall be no retail sale of gasoline, kerosene or other motor fuel for operating motor vehicles where said sale or delivery would be made directly into a motor' vehicle. This deed restriction .shall terminate on July 1. 2001. R.C.E. CORPORATION. Buyer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUtES - 2 - MARCH 18, 1975 3. Mr. Pearson stated that they would be willing to sit down with the City Attorney and work out an agree- ment whereby the more objectional uses of a GB district would be prohibited. ~ In a reference to the possible traffic that wouJd be generated" he felt that a convenience store would not bring traffic into the area, but would serve the immediate area and existing traffic. An industrial zone on the other hand, would draw trucks and cars from all areas at the busiest times of the day. Mr. Pearson presented a petition to the Chairman, Signed by the residents on the North side of Bass Lake Road and West of Boone indicating their desire to have the site rezoned. He added .that, in his opinion, there was no chance for strip zoning to develop because Of the fact that to the South there was indus- trial development and to the East there was the church and multiple development. He stated that i.n this particular case, he felt that the'economics of the situation should also be consi- dered. Mrs. Clemens has' had only two offers ioten years for the property. She isa non-conforming use, if she were to tear down her house and try to build another one, she would not be allowed to do so. They feel that there have been substantial changes in the neighborhood. in the City, and in the demand for con- venience centers, to justify the down zoning. Mrs. Ida Clemens was present. She expressed to the Commission her hopes that the Commission would pass the rezoning for her. She said she had been trying to sell the property since 1966 and wondered what she was gOing t~,do with,it since Knutson did not want it, the house was 70 years old, andwa$too large for her to care for. Mrs. Barbara Brandt. 5801 Decatur Avenue. stated that she had been informed that the neighbors who had signed the petition in favor of rezoning, had been told that the property would be used for an office building, and that they also Objected 'to a convenience center because of the attraction to the children. She was against the rezoning. Mr. Kenneth Squire, 5801800ne, stated that he had seen the plan for the property 3 weeks ago, was aware of the inclusion of the 7111 store and that he was still the first signature on the petition. He'was in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Ostlund reported that the petition, signed by six people, did state that there would be retail sales included in the project. ~'. Discussion followed as to whether or not the signers of the petition had read the petition before Signing. Chairman Ostlund re-stated that the proposed project could not be considered, .since the issue before the Commission was the rezoning. He added that once the property was rezoned, the Commission would have no control of how it developed within the zoning. Mr. Herman commented that there was a question of the legality of the amendment to the purchase agreement. He stated that in his experience, such amendments were not legally sound. Mr. Pearson responded that in his opinion,-the. chances were 95 to 1 that the houses they lived in had deed restrictions that were valid and enforceable. He added that private deed restrictions were an en- tirely different thing than the City trying to impose a condition as a requirement before issuing a permit. Lengthy discussion followed between Mr. Pearson and the Commissioners as to the legality of deed restric- tions, the potential problems of such a convenience center as an attraction to the children of the neigh- borhood, the traffic problems that might be caused on an already busy corner, the possibilities that if this property were rezoned there would be additional requests for rezoning further West on Bass,~ake: Road which would in turn result in strip zoning. . ",:...,-': Mr. Herman. commented on the fact that the comprehensive plan had not been updated since 1960, and. that perhaps there was a need to do this. Mr. Pearson requested permission to: make a statement in rebuttaL He said that he. feJt t.hat if the Com_ mission Were to refuse such a down'zoning~ it-was- incumbant'upon them tQ rnake' findings indicating,why. He added that the traffic situation seemed to be one of themaincoocernsof the Commission. Hestated that more than 40% of the business would be conducted after 7:00 p.m. With an industrial plant, there would be heavy traffic during the two times of the day, where there is already the heaviest traffic. Mr. Allen moved to recommend to the Council denial of Planning Case 75-8 for the reason that the traffic hazard would be difficult to'control. Mr. Jensen second. Mr. Herman proposed an amenqment to the motion forde~ial,statinqthatthe proposed zoninqwasinconsis- tent,with the comprehensive plan of the City. Mr. Gustafson second. Mr. Gustafson proposed an amendment to the motion stating that the original criteria for rezoning had not been met. Mr. London second. .--. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH 18, 1975 Votjng on the second amendment: Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafson. None Cameron, Pakonen Amendment_passed. Voting on the first amendment: Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafson. None Cameron, Pakonen Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion to deny approval of Planning Case 75-8. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman,London, Allen, Christensen,. Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafson. None Cameron, Pakonen Motion passed. Mr. Pearson requested that the Council hearing be postponed to a later date due to the fact that he would be out of town. The City Manager pOinted out that it would be better to forward the case to the Council on Monday, with the understanding that it would be tabled to a later date, and thus enable the interested parties to call the City Hall to ascertain exactly when the case would appear before the Council. The petitioner aqreed tothis,notinQ. he would meet with Mr. larson as to an exact date. 4. PLANNING CASE 75-10 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN PARKING, PUD APPROVAL - WISCONSIN AVENUE AND BASS LAKE ROAD - HARLAN SCHMIDT. PETITIONER. Mr. Harlan Schmidt and Mr. John Miller were present with regard to this case. Commissioner Herman stated that Mr. Schmidt had met with the Design and Review. Committee on the 18th, tOday, and that substantial revisions had been made in the plan since the last meeting and that he felt that Mr. Schmidt should re-present the project including the changes that they are making in the site plan and the development in general. Mr. Schmidt presented his revised plans for the Commissioners to review, and explained the changes that- he had made. These changes included putting garages along the North edge of the property to shi~lathe four-plexes and single family houses on Wisconsin and putting a large berm with substantial plantings on the West edge of the property. . He stated that he had also brought pictures of the Mankato project for the Commissioners to review, although they were proposing changes for the New Hope project. There were also two models of similar developments for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Schmidt gave a brief review of his decision to build with pre-constructed modules and described the Mankato complex. He added that the 20 units in Mankato had a high occupancy rate and that the tenants appeared to be satisfied. Mr. Herman commented that he felt that Mr. Schmidt had incorporated most of the recommendations made at previous meetings in the present proposal. The Design and Review Committee at their latest meeting had suggested that the Western refuse enclosure be moved. had felt that the entrance driveway seemed to be too narrow and suggested that the first stall at the Northerly edge be removed and the driveway widened. They had also expressed concern about the appearance of the Shed and office building and requested some design modifications be made in the exterior of the building and in screening the roof top equipment. They had suggested cedar siding be used instead of masonite. The Committee had also requested that they have some further review approval of the project as far as the construction elements inorder to enable the Commission to be kept informed, especially because of the newness of the design. They also suggested that there be some material besides dirt in the open space in the atrium. Discussion followed about the traffic situation on Bass Lake Road and the potential problems involved with turning on and off Bass Lake Road. a , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUtES - 4 - MARCH 18. 1975 4. Mr. l>Iin~r remarked th~t apparently th~ Cp~nty doeS not feel it is a problem sinc~ they feel that the ~. exit is ok. Mr. Schmidt pointed out that they had be~n.attempting to avoid the traffic on Wisconsin Avenue because of the residential aspects of the street. . In answer to a question from Mr. London. the City Manager stated that the staff feeling was that the one entrance was adequate for emergency vehicles. He added, however, that the police were concerned about the access on to Bass Lake Road. In answer to questions from Mr. London ,Mr. Schmidt stated. that there would also be artificial lighting in the courtyard, in addition to the sky lights, and that there would be a refuse enclosure for each building. Discussion' was held as to the connections in the' buildings"between the units " and how they wi 11 be' se- cured to the frame, and what wind velocity they could withstand. . Mr. Schmidt stated that they were at least as concerned as the Design and Review Committee ~b04t the safety of the buildings and that they would certainly appre~iate h~v.iQg future. input from the Commission as the project proceeds. . Further discussion about the separations between the parking areas and whether or not there will be a pro- blem created with children cutting through the Gomplex andvand~lizing. After disc~ssion about the screen- ing requirements. the City Manager stated that screening was required (not less than four feet high), if the driveway for a parking lot is for mOre than six cars and is within 15 feet of residential property. In answer to questions from several of the Commissioners, Mr. Schmidt stated that the units were of 650 and 830 square feet respectively, that 2 x 415 (1611 on. center) were used because of the stress involved in handling, that the units were welded to the frame, and that the units were designed to withstand winds of up to 130 miles per hour. The number of- required versus necess,ary parking spaces: was.. discussed at~length.. Theconcensus'sE!'emed to be that because of the relatively small size of the units~ there waS adequate parking space provided, es- pecially since there was a reserve area that could be adapted to additional pa~king if a need developed. ~, Mr. Herman commented that the Design and Review Committee had recommended that a reduction in the required parking spaces was preferable to giving up some valu.able green area. Chairman Ostlund expressed his personal concern about the parking space variance and stated that he felt that the project was too much density for the ~ize of the property. Mr. Art Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin Avenue~ was present. He stated that he was very concerned about the possibility of a driveway being opened up on to Wisconsin Avenue and that he had always been opposed to this type of zoning on this property. He added-that there would be no possibility of parking on Wiscon- sin, particularly during the summer months, because of the ball field. He was also concerned about the exterior finish of the buildings. Chairman Ostlund answered that they were to be treated cedar wood and masonite. Mr. Grapentin expressed his dislike for that t.l'p,,'of finish and said he felt itwouid look old before thE! end of the summer. In ansWer to a question from Mr. Allen, the City M~nag~r ~tated that the City had no requirements with regard to opening up additional exits, but that they.h~d the right to deny such requests. He added that he felt that there would probably not be a problem with head lights shining into the homes because the grade. on the parking lot was four feet.lower than the grade on the street and that there would al so be a four foot berm. Mr. Raymond Thompson.. 5518 Wisconsin, stated that when he saw the models,he was just a little shoGked at the stacking of the trailer houses. and that he was not in favor of this project. Chairman Ostlund moved to recommend denial of Planning Case 75-10 - Request for Parkinq.Variance and PUD Approval. Mr. Jensen second. . Mr. Ostiundfurther state:d that he felt there was noway to support that much development on that piece Of property . Commjs,s.ioner Herman expressed the opinion that' while he did not disagree with the Chairman's objections) he felt. that they should have been stated two weeks ~go. before the petitioners had been advised to come back with a revised site plan. '. . ~, Further lengthy discussion about the parking situation, the problems of Snow removal and large amounts of accumulated snow which might cause a shortage of parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 18, 1975 4. Voting in favor of denial of the request: Voting against: Absent: Ostlund, Jensert - - Herman, London.; Allen,' Christensen,; Gustafson Cameron, Pakonim Motion failed. Mr. Herman moved to recommend approval of PlanninQ Case 75-10 ~s a PUD. with a Variance in the P~rkinq Spaces from 96 to 72 open spat~S supject to the followinq tontinq~roties: 1. That the applicant indicate on his site plan an extension in-a Westerly direction of the open parking areas indicating them as future parking by a dash line. 2. That verification barnacle of the screeninq requirement for the main entrance driveway and that a solid fence, be provided alonqthe West side of the main entrance drive to within 15 feet of Bass Lake Road as itis applicable to the ordinance requirements. - 3. That the West refuse enclosure be moved to a point between the garaQe and the West bundin~ at the mid point. adding 2 or 3 additional parking stalls as would fit the space where the enclo- sure is now shown. 4. Increase the width of themain entrance dri-vewavat its: connection point to the:-parkin~Llot by_ eliminatinq the, Northerly most parking stall' alonq the. Eastern edge of- the parkfnq, lot and~in- creasing the radius of the throat of the driveway. 5. That the exterior side material for the module units be grooved cedar plywood siding. 6. That prior to the issuance of the"buildinq permit the applicant be required to submit, to the Design and Review Committee, further detailed drawinqs,and information relative to construction methods and connections of the basic structural system. Mr. Schmidt asked whether the Committee would like to approve the working drawings? Mr. Herman said he did not know. His concern was with specific elements and he did not know what the working drawings would show. 7. The roof-top equipment be screened usinq a material to blend or otherwise compliment the basic materials of the building. 8. That the office and storage buildin~ structureservicinq the swimming pool area be modified in exterior design subject to the approval of the Design and Review Commi ttee 0 Mr. Christensen second. Further discussion. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen. Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafson Cameron, Pakonen Motion passed. Chairman Ostlund announced that the petition would be before the Council on Monday, March 24th. The sug- gestion was made to the petit.ioner that the suggested changes be incorporated onto the' site'plan b~fore that meeting. Mr. Schmidt indicated that this would be possible. Chairman Ostlund declared a five minute recess. The meeting was reconvened by Chairman Ostlund at 10:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. Chairman Ostlund requested that the-record show,that Commissioner Allen was the new Chairman of the Codes and StandardS Committee. - 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. Mr. Herman reported that the Design and Review Committee had met on Tuesday. March 18th, at 4:00p.m. 8. Mr. London moved that the Commission minutes of March 4th, be approved. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafsono None Cameron, Pakonen L . PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH 18, 1975 9. The City Manager reported that because the City Clerk had been at a conference last week, the.. . i1lin~tes of the March 10th, Council Meeting wer~ unavailable. 11. Mr. Larson r~ported that the grant application had g~he before the County, and wa~ nOw awaiting feijeral approval. In answer to a question from Mr. Christensen. the City Manager reported. that there had been an opinion given by the Attorney General that the benches with aqvertising that had been placed by the transit company were not under the control of local ordinance because they. were a convenience. He added that the City was presently waiting for a copy of this opiniOn. In answer to.. a question . from 'Mr,' Gustafson about the propo'sed rezoni og on the ,NorthWest. corner of 62nd and Boone, Mr. Larson stated that a letter had been sent to BrOOklyn Park recomm~nding. that thezon- ingchange be denied and that at the subsequent me~ting on the 12th of March, the BrOOklyn Park Plannin9 Commission had recommended denial of th~ petition. The City Manager announced that he would advertise for a new member to the Planning Commission in the March 27th issue of the Post, 12. Mr. Jensen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen; Ostlund, Jensen, Gustafson. None Cameron, Pakonen Motion ~ssed. The me~tinq was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. by Chairman Ostlund. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~.. IJ.llvJ Joyce Boeddeker Secretary ~ ,~, "",'-". ROY C: CARLSON, PRES. r0600SHSI~t6AN AVE. SO. 881-4870 55431 CE,RTlFICATEOF SURVEY Survey forI Richard BOll.rd WILLIAMA. CARLSON, V.P. 2324 'W. 11 OT HSt . 888-2084 55431 ~, LANDSlJ'RVEYORS Lice~sed, Insured & Bonded r. " IV ' . /&~ ,~()O/17' , , ( ~"" AJ/r 1:' ~, <..:: / --. - . ~ ' '----// /~~~ '-'-~'~- -"-~""-~-:.::~._~.:--. . ~ -- -... Iv: -~ '- - r: .. "".. '- ______ -" 1c:.A,OOW - .._-:;::~--~' - -;':?,' -~---""'-- --- . .... ,,- L:4....-~....~ f\t..'-- /._-.... -- , , ',------, - I ~. I I i':c 0' ~v '\ I , " . ,; /' " '" ,'"" 30' '- -. ;- , , " - '- '- .. " /0 ........,...-:<2 ...... r:9_ '- , '- - , . , -' 1" ~ . ~ ~ ....'..: \,,- -' " '- '- ~ ~ " '";-- II -I: "',f ,~ . ,We hereby o~rtiry that this is a true and oorrect representation of a survey <It ':.... ~. Lot 8'; 'Block 5, Meadow Lake Park md Tract "r", 'Reghterd Land SurYeY H11Illber 120Z;" As ." suryeyed by us tllia Znd da y of' February, 1968. ~/;~al?D a ;;;:; , ". jj /711J/x/ . '.....' :/08-57 ,..... '. "", DATE: CASE: PEI'ITIONER: RH;lUFSr : LCX;ATICN : April 1, 1975 75-12 Richard Board Variance in Front Yard Set.back and Garage Size for Garage Addition. 8457 North Meadow Lake Road STAFF FINDINGS AND <XlMMENTS: \ .1. The petitioner now lives, and has for sane time, on the property in question. In 1968 under Planning Case 68-15, a variance was granted to expand the single car garage from about 14 feet to about 22 feet in width. It would appear from the site that the expansion did take place and a permit was issued. The expansion at that time was to within 4.5 feet of the side lot - 5 feet are required,SO a variance was granted. . 2. If the file dimensions are correct, the present garage is about 30' x 22' or 660 square feet. The code provides for 700 square feet max:imum. The petitioner would now like to add additional space. According to the petition: ''My present garage is 4.5 feet from the lot line which does not allow me to add a double garage. My current garage is 30 feet long and because of an 8 foot drop at the back of my present garage, I would like to request a variance to build on to the front 10 feet to allow a double garage in tandem. To build on to the back would be a great expense., because of the 8 foot drop." 3. If the addition is permitted, it would add fran 220 to 264 square feet to the building or up to a garage of 864 square feet. This is not an unusually large garage, but considerably over the normal. 4. The major concern is the extension of the garage into the front yard. The required setback is 30 feet. The 1968 addition brought the garage just about out to this 1inlit. Adding 10 to 12 feet would reduce the front yard to 18 to 20 feet. There is, of course, about a 15 foot boulevard also before the actual street. The 18 feet would just permit a car to be parked in front of the garage on the lot. 5. The. stre.et does curve sanewl1at so the sight lines fran the house to the Northwest would not be too bad. There are then at least three concerns to consider against the "hardship" of the lot slope: the total size; the potential park- ing problem and the sight lines. ( r ' i , ,': jN ...., '- .....,.1-~,1..-"'. . : I - , J ~_..t::- ,.' ...,.."""'0....,....._ 'A ' ' ....,,!.:-~., i. T 4, ii ...........- ~ . .. ~ I I ~ \' -\-; . ~ I ..::. -- r '" ~ . . . ~ \ ; . t~- j. l ~_. , . . L~ . J ~- I S-FAc{;: ________1_.____. A _~~~1 _ _ t "'=:--'l:J,. 'i - -. ! ~-~.'? "-"--.~~~~~._= ---:-~=-- .,.-", ." .L!o.~."o.........tn..~r...SI;oI'''...... .k."....,.O.A_M.U. _~~-0-~<l.o~,,_ .. . _:___ I t--:--T-,------ -~-T----- , S~A-C6:-- 13 -_. - ._....;~. ._~ ! ..i.__. ~1AL *' "'..~... Io.-:.;.r,,;t:1, ft.. h:l;...,~.C'O..A.-,.,.....;. .... .....~'.;.o.-=-. l2E.U- ,,,- /"2-""" ',e. ""...,... ;.,........-...R...c:.. 'l:~4~';.:.' C..u..A:..._:...r I '~.d' I ~!l~.0:.' . EJ yIUOtJ'.......~~I, V,..I\4.'.:'5'9""" HAM co. IIJC. COL.17~.~_i \' ,~....!. '~~:~~L'I.:...'"'' tit..':'........ !_".~'''' 'T.,.O;.... -FLOO~ I>L....."-l, _ .... ".". .....Po_J...~. .._~" ':,[,~ "';.1, -1 _~;t'''';''''r ".-. .~..._.._...._.__.....- .-. ,. ..-...-----....-'--...... 1S-13 , 1'\1' I -I ....-.'..-,.. . . . . ~ lH.'Ji"'Co"-'\ !! e';nor ':I1I~'~ ~ . . ~ I '0 -tg I I I , Or ., N, I i I I I + , J "' -j 0 I i:i- i .- .0 r ~Il; ~ .. C~~E.~"" UIIrl'U.. L 7.... o......~.. ;.f...~..... ...."- &..,.....;,..~.......~... ~~;...... ,.... &........~.......I..,_..._c...".. I....~.......i,~.. 0.;&....>,.... T. ,k...... -"c';..l...._rC;,..._r...._... tJ!-~_a.'..1,. 1I....~..."a...;..,.,.....c....._ L..v.......TT....,~,...~,.........,.,,~ two. :..;.......... ......., ....~ .-~..u._ Iw~.....~..~..r........;...u....$o ,..l..o...........t_~.....,:......Ct._ ......~... ..... ""'..~-.-'''"~i 1.I...!Io,....._;.w:...,~.....'i".....fl 11 ~ ,- '!lHV.. I _I :.\Jt- ~_..__J _~_....'t 1 ~-~ ~ " ---~ .. . DATE: CASE: PEl'ITIONER : ~UEST: I.CX;A'i'ION : April 1, 1975 75-13 Stretch and Sew Fabric Center Special Use for Sewing Classes Poste Haste Shopping Center - 36th and #18 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENrS: 1. The petitioner currently operates the Fabric Center in the Post Haste Center. The Stretch and Sew Fabric Center as part of their operation apparently provides sewing lessons. These lessons were "discovered" as a result of advertisements distributed in the coomunity. 2. In 1973, the zoning code was amended to provide for a special use provision for training schOOls. The provision reads: In Retail Business, Limited Industry and General Indus- trial Districts - Training Schools, provided such school is operated by the principal use SlOeking the permit to provide training for the consumer, distributor, or in- staller of the product, process or service which is sold, distributed or manufactured by the principal use and sub- ject to the following: (i) obtaining separate occupancy permit for the space occupied by the school; (ii) compliance with City and State life and safety codes ; (iii) adequate on-site parking so that no customers, visitors or enp10yees are required to park outside the existing off-street parking areas of the busi- ness as a result of the operation of the school. 3. The store opened in mid 1974 and apparently started the classes Shortly after. They were, therefore, required to have a special use permit in order to operate. There is also the prob1el1l with the general neighborhood as a result of the center. It wol.11d appear that the criteria for issuing the permit are met. Ques- tioning should be directed to the point of is the training pro- vided for the products used. The parking has been a problem in the center, not because of space, but because of the way it is used, Overall, it may be to the advantage of the neighborhood problems to have the type of customer in the area that probably uses the classes. (' " .\"'! ~\'SO ~\i \t , ~,: ~ lIt: ..... \.... !'f)'..,ro. 0,\ . . . 1 /,.~\ ~\ ,~\ " . "'" I j _..~ .~t r-r:)~ riled 5'2369 t' , '. \ so . 545./ ~'L;t6'h ~ AVE''':'i:'~.o. "~';I;;;i ~:t; . i/ f '.....;:!'. ':~~U' ,.; ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ t "''- , . 75 c,..st:- 1$-,.., c Q o o '" , I I , I .. + ~~ .. 14 n I 16 ;; 7 -. - ~1.1:: !,~!1 + ---,- .. . -, ' ./. s ", :"J'lI 14 1"-" .\' 13 17~ ,,, e\..;OC~ 14 , " . ~. " n I''> ., ;:' ;-::0. ";;-: u. ~ i u." ~ !~'lJ... I~ o~ Ii) :;~ fI' IqJD'"$ (:I~ () 14 1=-= 0-. ~ ._.~::."..~_'~,:" _ ___~_Z_~_._to__~/,~_ ~: ~- -'-l~L, . -~-_.- ':'l" u. --- .., ..~l' ,.- ;.:.t'j j 71 "'IIlII~. ~:;~fj! ~ I ."0 I' ,1 ~ '-', -1' '-...,I '...J- L J~_ __ _L! . j ~'..I!..~ --1 !.l " (973.)) oliver '0 ( , ~ if ...: ,~. .. '" '; (28J5) Mork 0.. iL..li /!to (/). t-..13c.iUS ",,'v o ~ I u (mo) ~..,;- f. H, Slec ., (, I -- -of!.,":,~__ -~~,., Z~~..!L~,_ . , S Ii' (mo) -\---)-..-(~' I 1~ " ~ \ 'I r. -_~.."1 -""t ----,~.'('y-_".. t I,' t ! "- ,3 t 4.S . ~ ~ , j~ ~'4 ~:~~ 1"' b I ;: i ; i :? . (Hoo) )~~~J~" n (1&11) { :l o R. DJriielson~ ~ st'.'nn. - J;).vi ... <p- :':! 10 Kj" P Z' !~Ot'l .....,:.... ;:;- i ':iii'lzt ...... :'-':'..n~ lv'.f' 9W..1 h: I;~ i!~~b.l'['r'Y" ..S f :::., - ~_. u...._ ~" ..1HV4 'n.~~".: '" '\r,,;,of ...~. '1' 8 .. ~ ...J .... 1.(;1 . ,.e :: . .~ ~.~P_;.Kl;; ~I~_L ~!l~ll:'",< J :t' 1"lrh'::..~t'~'V~(t. :;0': t -1u \H1 ~;'~l:~ J ~'llZ.Z~ ;J:,}.~~.-':' I ~ :~~JS.~;~ '" 14 t.~,~~ \'~~,. 1":':'" - 'OJ "'\ Jt1fi I;.i~'. L-'. r- 13 jr- ~., l- (cmo) x 1":;!~~-~f1'IJ . T .f ~.: ell'LOT 2 :;.. ;.,.. " 11 -:;.~~Z ..~ ",J ~-:".,~.~~. '. ......... ~...I' ~' ;';35th- AV,NO: ,. t.", "1...' .......... _ ~ 1.'1.11 'J.7:~~'.}f .,. ~ .." 5' 0 c -,,:1 0 '-:';:t'i(~4$i~~'""~':~"\"8~'" ~~e,~:':S:. " AVE; ji- ~ n ~'C) !0 n ~'!4,(J'{:."4-'4 ~~':~. ,l lq~;',~ i OJ .. ~ 19 .......... la ~"...., 17...., (1...., 12_..,15 .r" '4 "'10 . . --....... - ~~....- -.. "'11 ~ .. " .(~~ 13 n ~_-0__' f:j h '.g!'~!6 ~.~ 15 't.~. S':-- . . __So ~I ._~ J:;o ~:t~;':~I~Zl':'5"iI-" r::'1 I tI~.'(11 ~ :; 2 '~'7;'~ .~.t\-W41 's~: .5" ,;~r, ~~''\J~;r'~j..l..:,.1. :C-1Z(l~ --: ...., "';';c '":';r-, 6 rs .ijU!,Ia;.C, ~,:;.,\~ '_~j-J;:: 12 ~~ .. ~,n .,..'. U 11 I. 0:;1 IN~~bli ......Z,:lN ,- r -- ><,...-. 5 '_."~ Z(31.:"...... '1._ 'I" r -65'- f8~'JZ'5'jlj ~ [;) ~ ' . -~'''; ~ .- ~ ..-; - !..{.. ~ - 3 ~.~ .;:.;, "0 r'"..", 7 .~;~. ..". 2 '/0 <::!~.~, 0_....,1)3. - ......,~ 01:"'8~" ''''. 10 W' -. ? 0 C1"" .I~" 'S ..... ... 0 r- .'T',....~.- ....'Z:...!I'l....c'....... -. -'... IJ .Q > . .-. "-. '., ,"" ," '," ~ ,f! ,."-'; 1.'~.n:l~ 15;'~ 1; lh <( !! 4 ~~ 'So .:; . '.':: ~gq~"'Jc.': r.O' "':N . ry. --- oN.-. <'''''"-341f2-..._L AVE."'.....,,:; 12C.OZ Z~J".,fl . ~ t... :~ '~rl5-""w ~'L l", . t.15, L...;.. _L.J1-.._..J..--'_ f ,'4 --.. . -~.." , 12 cnir -~.~ "ZjJ ~1'", ...;~ ;#; , " , , q :1[" 1~ l~ I '" .J:--__ /'J~! !):C 2 1i1:L-J:::1I7.<ft a-2 .~ .." .......~It.'. III '> <:t- ;~ ~ - --"- w o DATE: CASE: PETITIONER : ICCATION: REQUESI' : April 1, 1975 75-14 Hewitt L. Peterson 35th Avenue and Hillsboro -- NE Corner Approval of Preliminary Plat STAFF FINDINGS AND ca.1MENl'S: 1. The petitioner has submitted a preliminary plat for the single family area at 35th and Hillsboro. The area in question has been before the Conmission on several occasions with plans for various developnents. It is now proposed to plat the property into 10 single family lots and one outlot. The outlot line is the dividing line between the Peterson and Saliterman properties. In Case 74-30, the petitioner attempted to obtain a waiver of the platting ordinance in order to legally divide the property. Apparently a sale was mape several years ago, with Peter- son taking the area now proposed for SR lots and Saliterman the outlot area. Saliterman was then going to combine the outlot area with the exemption parcel at the NE corner to be used as a clinic site. The '74 petition was for a waiver of platting so the property could be divided and taxes split. That petition was denied based on a feeling that before a division was permitted the petitioner must show that the two sections could in fact be further subdivided into SR lots. Secondly, the petitioner did not want to beccme involved in trying to solve the problem with the two small parcels noted as "problem" parcels on the attached map. 2. There are two separate issues involved with this petition. First, is that of the preliminary plat --- is it technically correct. Second, is what approval of the plat will lead to in terms of further problems or soluHons to problems of the surrounding property. 3. The plat has a few minor problems. Their importance depends on the desire of the Council and Cannission to reject or accept the plat. There are minor items missing such as graphic scale, date of preparation, notation of zoning classification; acreage of lots; soil data, and state-- ment of proposed use of lots. For practic.al purposes all information needed to consider the preliminary plat, with one exception, is provided. The major missing element is the stonn sewer data. The City Engineer has reviewed the plat and subject to final grading plans, has laid out the stonn sewer needs so this item will be taken of. 4. There is an indication on the plat that the lots on 35th are in ''Ella Addition". While the area around the cuI-de. sac is to be the "2nd Addi- tion." In diSCUSSing this with the developer he indicated the intent was to sell the 35th lots at once and then use the monies for the cul-de- sac and utility construction. It is possible under our platting ordinance to plat in final fonn only a portion of the plat. If this is approved, then the City has the right to require bonding for improvements in the entire plat, limit building permits, and/or require other evidence of responsibility for developnent of the total plat. -2- PC Case 75-14 5. The second consideration as noted above is in regard to the planning pro- blems created or solved by acceptance of this plat. The imnediate concern is the two small parcels at 35th and Hillsboro. These were created by the extension of 35th Avenue several years ago. On every occasion,when develOp- ment proposals have been submitted, the City has requested that the peti- tioner pick up the two areas, so that taxes and special assessments could be paid and the area next to LDt 1 could be incorporated into the develop- ment. Nothing has ever been accomplished. The two areas are legally one for tax purposes since the City has never divided them. The area is now tax forfeit and wiUbe up for sale. There is a question of how fast. We have been told less than two months. The petitioner claims he talked to' the County who said late fall. The platting ordinance does require that all lot remnants left in an area be canbined when platting, so as not to rEmain as an unusable parcel. While the subject panel is not under the control of the petitioner, the philosophy involved applies. , , Another concern is the property to the East. As is shown on the map, these lots, are 262 feet deep. Generally, they are older hones going back to before Village incorporation. If the plat is approved as suhnitted, it will be impossible to divide the lots at a future date. The 262 feet of depth would permit splitting into two lots. The petitioner supposed- ly talked to the property owners and was told there was no interest in splitting or cooperation on a plat at this time. The point being that acceptance of the plat Closes off any future consideration as well. A third problem is that of the area of the outlot and exEmption. The two parcels are now both apparently owned by Saliterman. It is assmned that if the plat, is accepted t,hese two parcels will be combined and another attanpt made for a rezoning for a medical or conmercia1use. 'The property is now zoned SR and since the future is undecided, perhaps a requirement that at least a lot layout be submitted to assure that the dimensions are such that residential lots could be laid out would be in order. A fourth problem is the future of the cul-de-sac and the five lots sur- rounding it. If these are left out of the final plat, there is the possi- bility that the 5 lots on 35th could be sold for a quick cash profit and then the cul~de-sac area included in a rezOning request with the property to the North. 6. The 10ts on 35th, can be served by existing utilities. The other lots will ne~ utiUty extep.13ionl3 wl;:Li,qh can, be ~l:Lshe4 w:i.tll1ittJe prQl?l~. ~ 1 t..__________..____---.:....._ . t . ~. ,.~ . "___"C'_ ___..___ _.~ --_'=;=" . " .~, -~ \ . .. ....~: " ,...... '":"l'; ...~'~. , ---- 7s-lS-- . CITY OF CRYSTAL -,,---&e.~ ~ J : ~.;o' : .IILLAGE OF NEW HOPE ett-ff4 I -('''!!'''' ~S. ~5l ~(. C!lO C-,~7 V\)e/' <D CV C\J " h "'"' l~ LOT 34 ;, ~ ~ i , t .. '" .0" lD .:) CI) 1 . I !. I 1- l~ ,~ ,I~ :.i~ Q" .:::> <q' ",0) OC"'..-rt Jell4 ::'::<;4Re<i 5.1/2 SEC. 5 --C't-~; ,.p) llI"1),..... .,<:.1 '- .'O'~ ._._.~ \ "i" '. ........ h,,_ t'. \.'. - ..-l',Y ".,~--:."., '.':~.1':'';~-~ .". '~,.- .~~ ~r; ....41 '~'04 ~ li~::.;";~.":. ~ ~ ...... 00 U" 1.-.. ;~\C'-.... -;. ~ 1..... ~."':' I ""'::i: ~ ~ . ~ ~''':''~~-"""7"_ ~#--. :7. " ~ .~;$'':I. i.tl:;'" :a 2 . -.; -:;1,", ~ f'-- '~','~ '-=:, ~ :.t ~~~ (l ~ :..l.ji' _d_ -J"~ --~.-AVE_;-.----~ ..... .. ,~ ': - !U ,,-N 6. ____,5: ~: J'9. ";/Y"-V ~ o ~2 3 LU'. ---~- - 4<( ""-.:J S , 6 ~. ~ ~ .. o 7 . . 8 ---"2- 9 . ..- --',- 10<!' ---"0:- ,,0:: -'::>- '-1,2.~" .~ .. ~~'13 .::;, 1. n,,'t ~~-~ l~... . ......:::~~~.:.~-=-rr.H. IjJ.;~.. ::: 15 IC'Q --,--k"-. __"i .. "j" .0 c.4': ~ J.. 00 ,.-,' Ci'Qtt:. }'.... ~- ~~O ~ a' ": .......(I..fF- ....... -34 I. ... ~i2I ,. J:',4~ .~ ~- I "- '> ~ 3 "-.2 40, 1?~1~- ~- 5 .....: ;H6-'_Q. ~ '3~~~; 7 'liSL_ 8 ;~ 9 IH. L__ <{ z <{., :'i >- (f) Z Z w a.. 10 ..Jl5-?"'-_ II I~il!-_ ~ ... r- 12 ilU;Q- 130::, "i2(rt) 14 .~ .., 15 :35 eol, ~ Sr'-,;,/ j ~ . 1. ~:~l~I'~~~ ..~~ __ 1'.._..;,.~ -.:t r--- .:.. .!,,~_. ..,. 1> ,. ~.D.Q;' ;_' 16 ' ~ ~ ADO. .~ ........ ~ c." 13.1 11 0.....::- ::> ~5.,~~' 60'" ~,\:. ~_' {5' th-A'/E. N~'.i~'~ _"~'41)o.. .; ,-f~'~~ .... _~ ~ - - __'4 . J. <h ......~;;.h.:.. ':; ~~ . ~ I jjJ~ ;:! ,2 H <D C\J C\I '3 . jn'1L!.u~ , 4<- l~~ o <: PART OF LOT 32 ... N ... '" . _0 OJ CITY .::> OF CRYSTAL VIU:AGEV,lOfJEW HOPE .g (o?Q.,30 . . ~ .... 5c~. Dt'..t:l.[f{ .... );;-;;:-j1.1.<1 \ / -{;~. ':NJ.sJ,-ft.M::<ti;; - i'-': , . ....,~.,. -":-" .'. ''''- ~~ ....!~ ~.~ IN ~~, .'f._..;; '~- Ib!..:t..- -'~1t $''''. t .,. 1ir'f" , l~ ~,,1 ,'~ \:'- t!~ff)'''\'-~ ,;' 1", ~ t":"",,,,, 1 .- . - }oJ: :;J \~ ~5.' (;;1.0 5t:;; '~r ) -<~ :'1'32.11 , 10 ,~; .~ . 11).... .,,~~-- , 12~' n ~'Q:-' , 13......, 1;:l;I~ ~_~u . 14~' 16~ -, 1"'(;,,4 'JI"- , o' " . " 133,~ ... :-- 2 ;:-15.4'<; 3 3 :5.) i~ ....1 4 H..!.!T .. 5~' :3~ ,<r III'V . 1('~(''''''' 12 ,- . ,,~ 13 I~_. IZ , 14 lL- ... ~ j::: -15 ~lH ~ ;D ~~~t4'O"f:.. ~ . ~..~~ - 41- W"'-50 ~ ~O ~6 <C .., ~it7 o Ii 8.1 9..,.. --- 101- '""" - - n. -n ~ 12 i:i" t,.d;-';:'P. .!! o ~ < hi ...~ ~,~. 'd-: ... ~..,. t'?" \:("13~ . - ....; ! DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: ~: LOCATION: April I, 1975 75-15 Mark E. Lipps Waiver of Platting Ordinance 7202-4 Bass Lake Road \. STAFF FINDINGS AND <n.1MENl'S 1. The petitioner represents the owners of two of eight four-p1exes located behind the service station, North side of Bass Lake Road between Nevada and Pennsylvania. The problem involved is a long standing one. The buildings were originally constructed as "spec" buildings in 1964. They, like nnst apartment projects, were constructed on a conmon lot with pri- vate drives etc. After construction, over the years, the individual buildings have been sold on various types of contracts. Every so often a nnrtgage canpany or buyer will approach the City asking for permission to split out his building so he can get clear title, direct tax billing, payoff assessments or what have you. Once the problems were discussed he generally has left and is never heard from again. 2. Several months ago, the petitioner's attorney decided to straighten out the problem once and for all. He was going to get all parties together, layout a plat, set up an agreement whereby each building would have a specific parcel of land around it and 1/8 interest in roads, open space etc. Apparently the attempt has fallen through. The petitioner is now asking for a waiver so that he can obtain permission to split out only his two buildings, plus a 1/8 interest in the COllIOOn lands. The two buildings are 7202 and 7204 Bass Lake Road, the lower right hand portion of the project. 3. It is the strong reccmnendation of the City staff that this not be allowed. Our problems are many. Without a fonnal agreement, a fonna1 plat, and a predetermined agreement on values and assessments, we would not be able to provide any assurance that the total problem would be cleared up. 4. The only way the City could recomnend approval would be on the basis of a platting that invOlved the entire Parcel, showing each building and the land assigned to it. This plat together \vith a fonna1 agreement as to the conmon rights and responsibilities and division of special assess- ments involving all partieS wotilli solve the problem. Anything less will only create problems. I ~ " , i , ! I I Ii,! ' , ! ~u_-l--~~~~=u.~~---- u'__j___~__ 1 ;---.- ------- _~_:---- _--'-~--- I ' t- u_ ..----, .- ~-j---;--:-: ---+------ _;_--"_-+___i___"-----~~~--;--~ - =t=i .. j ---, , , , ' , '! l i --. -.' ..... ....Ii __n - : ; ; I I! " if ! i' I 1! : J ~ --I' .-----.1-- ---!'----- I~,---!, 1--,.-1---... " , . (l ! !:,:, ,1:::1 , i J ;! !! iI"" ! - _~~O i "H' l'~'~? i : ' . f- n~?~__ ---r---- ' j : I' !!. I I \ I j -~-l -, ': T~-il-;;~-! -~- -;-~- I--;-~;-- ---1 -----j!;A/,j-lJiJ-,,,:t:-C ' i I i - __ .__nn",: i ii, t: _~il ! -I--'-.J " i,: , I I '1' , , '. '.---~. ----j . , _ J~ , : !iiJ~_l_..:...__ I!' -:1--- ~~~~~ ?~~$sI U :~:--- ~~t~ _~_ q/. IC... /' ?, -I----'f 1----,--- -- -- ~ - ,I' : J ! i -1-1" il Ii i i i ~.' T i. /-3 /?:/1CiL6,;Z~.d/h : . i' ; V;'" '- i : -;-- ,--- j-'--6?ciL;ti/6'"-!' - ~?';#- i)457K'la ~A---'i~l f.:.- 7~+/~ -f-U{#rRS~~r~ ~~12~';~~-+-l T I , ---j , , -t- .......J- ! -t~.- , -j~~ , i ---t-- -- ! -L._ i ! ---+--- - ! ~j-- --- t , _~ ~ _~_... ,n i I -1---.. i --+----" , --'-r-- -..-- i I -r----- r ~ , i i , I -,-- . I , ! i ! I -'t~-:-- , -1-- ~ : ~ --- -f.J n, /I. '^ , 0{- , - '>-.. \ t: CT') x- ~ ' ;:" -~~--:---- ,.;"\ ", sfJ"J I ~, .-.K---- N N .{~.'> -~~-- t/~ -. '::t. ----- ------- ~ ' ~'.-'''->'''.'-. ~ >- ~ .~ '-' "" \..i~ ~ i~ ~~- .~ \1' .:=.- .- --- --- - -- - _..,-f-"'-_.- \ .. ~ - J/-f"! J___ __ _~~_r--..,~ . --- . , I I ./ / / f.(.. ,..> ;./ ,<> f ,.- ,/ // / , / , // ,c.--- /~ ..:,/ 7~-J~ .; / , t i / t I ;. , ~ ./ t < , 4t:,'W:~ " -1 . j ;...... .~' - ~~ ~.'" _""h _ ~".i.,-",~,"4'" r ) :t " ';-:_~.:".... "'-"j. 'y"..,-.... ~- - -~,... ~ ,- ~ -:~::~~":_i;'>_'~:""';';;':';"~ ,; : :.'.. ;~.::.:.';'.t;~.l~.L~~'''~:t. ,~~......._..,..~, ;l. ie, .. -.1 .,! .. ~I .. :L~i ~_.. :_"11 ',. .. 'j'! ~ 'Jfj ~ ijj '!- ~. S .i 't '11 ',. ~ i-I i'J. T~ ;.,~ I:J ""~ 1i ':~ '1 I ;- . I , :t t t . :: U\ .---.~~~ j-UL ~N tV\/'H,. --- \ ST AT tl ~_.~_. / , r ! \. i"~ '\ 1\ I I ! . I '. I , l; J \ \ '~ r ~\ /I <...: - '.. :;;': ,y:,,:;.~ f. .. -. !-+ .. " -----" .,',' _~:;..-~,;.,..r.:...: , 1,':';._. ~ , ~.._- i.;'.i .. !~l 2,.... ~~-' to / ',.... . ~-; 9/. '3 ~ \ / .<\, ,,: S ::;-"6' '5 ;~.~: ' .. . \,...;....:-...:-~;:::.-..;;:~.. .: 1 i I I I ~ .', :,- '. ~ " ;t . DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST : l.JXATION: April 1, 1975 75-16 New Hope State I3ank Variance in Sign Ordinance Winnetka Avenue - near North drive entrance to New Hope center Parking Lot. STAFF FINDINGS AND m1MEm'S: 1. The New Hope Bank is requesting permission to install a time and tempera- ture sign - free standing - 24 feet tall, 7 feet wide -- with New Hope State Bank on a 6 x 8 foot panel on the top and a smaller 20 inch c10ck.j temperature on the bottan. 2. TIle specific location is not finalized. It will be on Winnetka, at the North entrance to the Shopping Center. It will be near the North line of the Center property, either just in or just over the lot line, depend- ing on the Carmission' s action and the owners of the two properties. 3. In either location, the sign would not be legaL If on the undeveloped property, it would be an off-premise sign and, therefore, classed as a billboard which can go only in GB. The property is zoried RE. Since the City cannot grant a use variance, it would appear that the Northern lo- cation is out completely. If located on the South side of the property line -- shopping center. site -- First, individual businesses are not permitted to advertise in- dividually on ground signs as a general rule. Secondly, any new signs added in shopping center areas are to be in conformance with an overall sign plan. While discussions have been held with the Center management, no final decision has been made as to this problem. 4. Even if the sign is felt to be generally ok. it would be most difficult to find legal grounds for granting a variance without a total sign plan for the Center. ,.-/ : AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1975 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Case 75-12 (tabled from 4-1-75) Variance - Setback and Garage Size - 8457 North Meadow Lake Road - Richard Board, Petitioner. 4. Case 75-15 Revised (tabled from 4-1-75) Waiver of Platting Ordinance 7202-7216 Bass Lake Road - Lipps, Retterath, Brumm and Youngdahl, Petitioners. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 5. Presentation and Comment Session on Proposal for Exterior of.Valspar Corporation Building. 6. Discussion with tandidates for Commission. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 8. Report of Land Use Committee 9. Report of Design and Review Committee NEW BUSINESS 10. Approval of Commission Minutes of April 1,1975. 11. Additional Comments and Reports from Citizens. Commissioners, and Staff. 12. Adjournment. ~ - . Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1975 1. A regular meeting of the P~anning Commission was held on April 1, 1975 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, ,New Hope,Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL was taken: Present: Herman, London, Christensen, Allen, Cameron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 75-12 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AND GARAGE SIZE AT 8457 NORTH MEADOW LAKE, ROAD - RICHARD BOARD, PETITIONER. Chairman Ostlund announced that Mr. Richard Board had requested that his planning case be tabled until the second meeting in April. Dr. Cameron moved to table Planning Case 75~12 - Request for Variance in Setback and Garage Size until April 15, 1975. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Allen, Cameron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakoneu, Gustafson. Voting against: None Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 75-13 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT'TO PERMIT SEWING CLASSES AT POST HASTE CENTER - STRETCH AND SEW. PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Hansen was present in regard to this case. Mr. Hansen stated that Stretch and Sew was requesting a special use permit to conduct classes in the rear of their store. He added that Stretch and Sew was a franchise operation, headquartering in Eugene, Oregon, and that one of the requirements of obtain- ing the franchise was that they conduct sewing classes which taught the Stretch and Sew method of sewing on knit materials. They have two class rooms designed to accommodate 25-30 people each. . The classes are held on Mondays through Thursdays in three sessions: 9:15 - 11:15 a.m. 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. The majority of the classes meet one session a week for a period of 8 weeks. The store itself is open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 9:00 a.m~ to 5:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday. He further stated that at the present time they do not conduct classes on Friday and Saturday, but occasionally will have a demonstration of a particular sewing technique. The City Manager stated that as far as he knew, there were no problems relating to build- ing or fire codes which would prohibit the classes from being held. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Hansen about the parking problems that exist at the Post Haste Center. Mr. Hansen said that there have been a few problems during the winter because of the snow covering the lane striping', but that when there are an extra number of cars, he directs them to park on the other side of the building, and opens up the door to the mall to allow them to enter from the West side. Many of the women who attend the classes drive together~ In answer to a question from Mr. Ostlund, Mr. Hansen stated that they did meet fire codes and that there were two lighted exits from their store. Mr. Jensen stated that as a neighbor of the center, the residents in the area welcomed this type of business. In response to a question from Mr. Pakonen, Mr. Hansen stated that if problems did re- sult, the class scheduling was flexible, as far as maintaining the franchise. , Planning Commission Minutes - 2- April I, 1975 ~ Discussion between the Commissioners about the renewal aspects of the special use permit~ M~.. Christensen llloved to rec()mmen~ apPl"ova~ of Planning Case,15-13 - Request for a Special Use Permi tto Conduct- Sewing Classes, at - the PostHaste Center, subject to an,oual review. ~r. Pakonensecond. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen~ Allen, Cameron, Ostlund. Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. Voting against: None. Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 75-14. - APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - NECORNEROF 35TH AND HILLSBORO _ HEWITT PETERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Doug Peterson, acting as the agent for the buyer, was present to discuss this request. Mr. Peterson stated that they wished to plat the property on 35th and Hillsboro into 10 single family lots. Dr. Cameron stated that it was the Commiss;ion's responsibility to ascertain.whateffeGt this platting would have on the entire vacant area located at 35th and Hillsboro. Discussion about the differences between preliminary and final plats. The City Manager stated that a final plat had to have certain technical requirements and must include all changes required after review of the preliminary plat. It's approval was a routine matter by the Council if all technical items ~ere met. Mr. Peterson said that they were concerned only with the South half of the parcel. He added that the owner of the North half, Dr. Saliterman, had indicated no interest in further development at this time. Dr. Cameron expressed his concern over the development of the entire parcel. ~. Mr. Peterson stated they were planning to put the street entirely on their property with the exception of the North edge of the cul-de-sac circle. Discussion followed between Dr. Cameron and Mr. Peterson about the platting arrang~ment of the entire parcel, and the street placement. Mr. Peterson said that they had consi- dered other arrangements, but that this particular plat seemed to be the best alternative. He added that Elview single family homes, would_be constructed Construction was interested in buying the 10 lots and constructing on a custom-basis, on the five lots on 35th immediately. The street before the building permits were taken out on the North portion~ He said that they were operating on somewhat of a tight time schedule. They had hopes that the financial situation would improve and that all 10 lots could be built on this year. Delaying-approval until the tax forfeited parcel could be acquired would be a hardship. A lengthy discussion was held between the Commissioners and Mr. Peterson about the tax forfeited parcel on Hillsboro. Mr. Peterson pointed out that what looked like two par- cels was in reality only one and that it had to be sold as one lot. This parcel had been repossessed by the County in March for back taxes. The property should be. put up for bids sometime between the next two months and tall. In anSWer to a question from Dr. Cameron, Mr. Peterson stated that they would possibly bid on the property, but that sealed bids were...required and there was no guarantee tha.t he would be the high bidder. He i.elt that it would be a hardship to have to delay the proposed platting until such time that the lots were available. He also expressed :.his concern that should someone else obtain the lots, he and his client could be held up for an exhorbitant price because of the .lot location in relation to their property~ Concern was expressed about the possibility- of the lot remaining undeveloped and un cared for, contributing to a jungle like,appearance. Mr. Peterson restated his concern about the time delay i,nvolved in acqu1r1ng the, tax forfeit lot and what effect this would have on their plans to develop the proposed plat~ Further discussion about possible solutions to the problem~ 1 _ .,' " Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - April 1, 1975 Mr. Herman questioned whether or not Lot #1 on 35th could be excluded from the preli- minary plat, to allow more time to solve the problem. He added that in the event of an exhorbitant price being placed on the outlot, there was the possibility of appeal, although this would also add to the time involved. During a discussion about splitting the tax forfeit lot, the City Manager stated that the City would prefer that the lot not be split until the tax sale, since it could af- fect the amount of special assessments that CQuld be recovered. Further discussion about the entire parcel, the area owned by Dr. Saliterman. whether or not he would be willing to plat his property and the "excepted" lot, and the results if Dr. Saliterman were to sell only a portion of his parcel. Mr. Peterson stated that they ha~ every intention of trying to acquire the tax forfeit lot. Mr. Clayton Ruggles, 3527 Flag Avenue was present to comment on the request. His pro- perty adjoins the questioned parcel, and he felt that there was a serious drainage problem, and that he felt the City needed to provide some type of drainage. The City Manager pointed out that the City was aware of the drainage problem, but that the solution_might be handled under a special assessment procedure with the affected property owners sharing the costs of the storm sewer~ Mr. Allen Gessner, 9141 35th Avenue North, stated he had lived in the area for ten years and that they had been waiting for some one to put this type of development on the property. In his opinion, the small piece of property on the corner would always be a problem. He was in favor of the development. Further discussion between the Commissioners regarding total development, and the pro- blems with Lot 1 on 35th and Lot 1 in the cul-de-sac, and whether a two week delay would be sufficient to solve the existing problem. Mr. Herman questioned whether the petitioner should be expected to go -the expense of preparing new plans before the Council had reviewed the proposal. Mr. London questioned the legality of approving only a portion .of a proposed plat. Con~ census was that there was no problem when it was a preliminary plat request. Mr. Pakonen made a motion for approval. After second by Christensen, and discussion of Mr. London's concern, the motion was withdrawn and a new motion made. Mr. Pakonen made amotion to recommend to the Council that a revised preliminary plat, including Lots 2-5 on the cul-de-sac and Lots2-5 on 35th, in Ella1s 1st and 2nd Addition, be approved. Mr. Christensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Allen, Cameron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. Voting against: None Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 75-15 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE - .7202 and 7204 BASS LAKE ROAD - MARK LIPPS, PETITIONER. Mr. John H. Schoonover, an attorney associated with Mr. Marofsky, who is Mark Lipps attorney, was present to discuss this request. Mr. Schoonover stated that they were requesting a wavier of platting under Ordinance 4.581 which restricts the recording of deeds of property described by metes and bounds. His client's property is described in metes'and bounds. The overall parcel consists of 8 separate four-plexes. Mr. Lipps is the contract vendee of two of ,the properties. He wishes to get his interest out. He would be in violation of the ordinance and so they were requesting ,that the ordinance be waived. They were requesting the waiver on the grounds of hardship, because of the difficulties involved in a title search for a property split between at least three different owners. They were requesting a granting of the waiver so that Mr. Lipps would not be in viola- tion of Ordinance 4.581. In answer to a question from Dr. Cameron about the purchasin~ of separate buildings, Mr. Schoonover stated that the purchase price for all eight would be prohibitive. ".i,i Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 1, 1975 ~ Dis:cussion followed as, to the reasons for purchasing without a clear title in the past andothel; history of the complex in. regard to ownership, and that ,the ordinance had been violated with each sale. Mr. Schoonover stated tha.t the original purchase agre'ement described thebui'ldingssepa- rately, including 1/8 of the common area separate from the buildings. He added that it was his understanding that all of the owners had beencontacted,but there had been a problem of who was going to pay for what services if all of the lots were to be in- cluded and a clear title obtained. Mr. Mark Lipps, 5812 Bellham, Minnetonka stated that his attorney had attempted to get the other owners together but they were not interested at this time for one reason or another. He is moving along with a sale, in fact was supposed to have a closing this week, and they are anxious to have the problem resolved. Dr. Cameron expressed his doubts that the COmmission could grant the waiver for two of the buildings, leaving the remaining six,buildingstQgether. Mr. Schoonover re~stated that they were requesting the waiver in order to permit a trans- action to occur without; Mr. Lipps breaking the ordinance. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Schoonover, as to what would be required in order toreplat the property distinguishing the eight separate buildings and the ,sur- rounding property, and the lengthy and costly problem of title searches involving con- tracts for deed and at least three mortgages.. Dr. Cameron moved to recommend to the Council denial of Planning Case 75-15 for the rea- son that it would create long term problems for the City. Mr. Pakonen second. The City Manager stated that one of the problems they were going to face was to get a clear title to the entire property, because of tbe many changes that had taken place as far as ownership over the past twelve years. He further pointed out that the ordinance violation could be a problem, but the real problem for the petitioner was that the County would not accept the deed for recording if the City did not approve. ~ Mr. Tom Retterach, 3347 Upton Avenue North, stated that he and his partner owned four of the four-plexes. He added that the meeting had clarified somewhat for him what Mr. Lipp was trying to do and that he had no objections to platting the buildings separate- ly as long as the common area remained. Mr. Schoonover requested that the matter be tabled for two weeks rather than have the request go before the Council and receive a denial. Dr. ..Cameron and Mr. Pakonenwithdrew their motion. Dr. Cameron moved to table Planning Case 75-15 unti-l April 15th ,1975. My. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Allen, Cmneron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. Voting against: None. Motion pass'ed. Chairman Ostlund Guggestedthat the petitioners consult with Mr. Larson inr:egard to solving this problem. 7. PLANNING CASE 75-16 " REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. IN SIGN ORDINANCE - WINNETKA AVENUE NEAR NORTH ENTRANCE TO NEW HOPE CENTER - NEW HOPE STATE BANK, PETITIONER. Chairman Ostlund announced that the petitioner had withdrawn the request. COMMITTEE REPORTS ~ 8. There was 'no report from the Codes artdStandards Committee, although the Chairman reported that he ha~metwith the City-Manager to Clarify the issues of concern. 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. /' .... ~. Planning Commission Minutes -.5 - April 1, 1975. 10." There was !!Q report from the Design and Review Carom! ttee. NEW BUSINESS 11. Dr. Cameron moved that the Commission minutes of March 18, 1975 be approved. Mr. Allen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Allen , Cameron , Ostlund,Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. Voting against: None. Motion passed. 12. Mr. Larson reviewed the minutes of the Council minute of March 24th, 1975 for the bene- fit of the Commissioners. Mr. Gustafson requested that copies of the minutes of the March 10th, Council meeting be mailed to theCornmissioners. 13. Mr. Larson reported that the grant application had passed the County and was now being reviewed by the Metro Coullcil. Mr. Larson informed the Commissioners that there was going to be a meeting on the Bas- set Creek Storm Water Control Plans, at the City Hall on the 29th of April at 7:00 p.m. 14. Mr. Christensen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. London second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Christensen, Al~en, Cameron, Ostlund, Jensen, Pakonen. Gustafson. Voting against: None Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~_ ~~.L-k'<>> (/Jdyce Boeddeker Secretary I ~ t' , , I --1----' I -.1- o , _.i_______ ----- i --t--- 1 --L..c.-._ ___ i ----- ------- ! ; .",..,_._~-- ; -:'--!--------..--., " I _._---- i ------. i , -'_4.._____. ! I i -r---- - I ,I , o I i I I ! -;--- I ~+---'---- i I -ct~- , i= -+-~ l ~~ ill ~-- -",!It , ,-" I.;" ,ri'''l~ ('T;" : T I "~ ,. r I : .3 ;/..-770 : <e::- $O~ I ' -'=1=" I ,u~~_~~__L+. -L____-- -.--;----y, --, -t--:.. . - , u ' ----~-----j---~-+.----~---c--~- ~~v ~~ -H-c," ,- --- . I ":' '. i' . -~. -'- is' I'~'" {~, '"I ~~., ';;, l~ ~:,' ~41; ", ~""'F ,q' _.~J:~J~-.__~____ __, Ill' "'_ ~ l tJ: ~-~ ~ ~ , ~ - ~ - , ; ~ . t'''''-" ~ - I~ '\::\ ";--~-- , -~t--..~-~- -,- ---- ,-,-- ,~~ 1 'i"\: fll-', .~I-' -- .::..." '- ;;,-_~~--- -. I - __ _-:-~~ __ orfl---; : +-' ~ ~._- c:-c--;-- -- .-. - - ii,_, - -----; 1-:-..---- ,~ --.--------. _~ 1.~:'! ,'. i i i.., 1~W-~- t / ,~ -~ m_ i-- ____I ___:~:==~~ 1~~:~_=---=_ : -~ _____J_________ .___ I r~ , ...-- --- j I,.~ ~. 'K-~ I- -N N: '. :::. - ----I- ,'- ~'~'.;,,,.,.;- - ;... ~ -~ \, l.~ --:- ~ l~ ,. ~~._..~. .- '^'" ' i' ,-., i i .~ ',.' '-' - J/-f' I ,-- , - -, ,----,- H__ ! ! " ~,-4-____ ! _ -.1 _".1 I , I i ,:- J-:--==:=L--- -- - -t' ------- --l , ' i I ' l I '---.-;-- ---~-i_+--~ - ' I I I ' ---1.-~-;-t- --+ , . I ~ ~ ' .; : , I ~- :~-- ; I I' , n______ -----7--:'- - ; ! ; L-~ , -- . ---~---,~-.;---'- I I I ---, - . ; ; i , i 'L-.:"" I Ii, , , I , i 1"1 , :i ,I . ; i 1 ,'" I : I t+' jl.~.~t.lii :,' , t--- ~:-;~ .'; I" ',' '. I . i, i : 'i i ;--r--;-r-t-I'i ,; i , ; -jttJ,.j JfJjJ.,'rJ i I : 1____'_ -;---.. i : ! - -~---j -,--li 1<,; H- +1 ' i 1~~~: 1'---: __ ~-i+ 1-- ; I-;~}t~~~~ f~f~) tH'T~-~~~: ;! _,--1-.3, _j EA=# ;d//{<1Ai/,/ ;; j-,?~':" I I, ,i I tf!BLo..4($"~L&J1'.H 1~57~/atf~ ! ! I 7k+/h-; i t(ar~r~'s"':"1 f~~~1~1;~~-+-'T'1 I : !>o , -- ----"--i ! . ------,-- , , I ---- . DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: April 15, 1975 75-15 Revised Mark E. Lipps, Tom Retterath, David Brumm and Ronald Youn9dahl Waiver of Platting Ordinance 7202 - 7216 Bass Lake Road STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. Following the April 1,1975 Commission meeting, the several contract buyers of the 8 buildings on the multiple site be- hind the M and 0 service station on Bass Lake Road, joined together to file an amended petition asking for a waiver of the platting ordinance so as to divide out individual build- ing sites and 1/8 interest. in the common area for each. 2. This is some progress since at least all buildings are in- volved. They are, however, still asking for a waiver of the platting ordinance instead of platting the property. The formal platting is not the major issue, however, and the waiver can be acceptable if agreement can be reached on how to handle the common area maintenance. 3. With the waiver, each building will end up on a small lot with a 1/8 interest in the common area. We can then enforce building and fire code provisions against the individual . buildings and owners. With the waiver proposed, we at least have the opportunity to identify individual parcels and own- ers for these purposes. 4. Our real concern is in the enforcement of items such as driveway repair, weed control, snow removal, trash storage. If the waiver were granted without further control, any agreement on these issues would be a private thing between the eight building owners. These agreements could be changed at will, the responsibility for common areas changed etc. and the City and tenants of the buildings could be left with a real mess. 5. We have looked at several alternatives to handle this pro- blem -- none are really very good. It would appear that two policy decisions are needed. a) Should the City be a party to providing the maintenance type services noted. b) Is the City agreeable to conditioning the waiver to the submission of an acceptable agreement. While not exactly fitting this problem, an agreement could be required similar to that found in Homeowners Associations in town house developments. The agreement would be subject to City review with the cost to be charged against the owners. The agreement would speci- fy the responsibilities of the eight buildings in maintenance of the common areas and provide that if the work were not done - 2 - the City could do the work, charging the cost back against the association as a lien on all of the property. This appears to be about the best approach that can be got- ten under the law and the circumstances of this case. 6. The alternative is that the waiver would not be approved until the petitioners develop, on their own, a sol~tfon to the problem that was acceptable to the City. 7. While not of immediate concern, since taxes are apparently paid up on a current basis an.d a.ll special assessme.nts are paid, is the possibility of creating a situation whereby some of the property ~ou1d go tax forfeit without having the buildings tied in. The 1/8 ~ommon interest should pro- tect against this, but at the same time the tax responsibility should probably be included in the over-all agreement. . ~ ~ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Wed nesday May 2.1, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLI C HEAR 1 NGS 3. Case 75-21 (tabled from May 6, 1975) Special Use - Construction Approval - YMCA - 42nd and Quebec 4. Case 75-22 (tabled from i~ay 6, 1975) Construction Approval - St. Croix Ventures - 40th and Winnetka 5. Case 75-26 (tabled from May 6, 1975) Amendment to Code for Churches - City of New Hope. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 7. Report of Land Use Committee 8. Report of Design and Review Corilmittee NEW BUSINESS 9. Consideration of Appointment to Commission 10. Approval of Commission Minutes for May 6, 1975 I I. Review of Counci I Minutes of May 12, 1975 12. Additional Comments and Requests from Citizens, Commissions, and Staff 13. Adjournment .,~..,,- iY.; " , ~ Planning Commission Minutes May 6, 1975 . . 1. A regular meeting of the .Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, on Tuesday, May 6, 1975. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund at' 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL was taken: Present: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson Absent: Pakonen Chairman Ostlund requested that the record show that Commissioner Craigie had been sworn in by the City Clerk, Betty Pouliot, the afternoon of May 6th, in her office at the City Hall. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 75-17 - VARIANCE IN SIGN CODE - 2709 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WONG'S KITCHEN. PETITIONER. Mr.Benny Wong!was present in regard to this case. He stated that he did not understand why he WaS before the Commission, since he had just recently taken ovel' Wong's Kitchen and was Simply told to attend this meeting. Chairman Ostlund stated that Wong's Kitchen was requesting a variance in the sign or- dinance to allow them to have an oversized window sign. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allen, Mr. Wong stated that they wished the two signs for advertising purposes. Mr. Allen clarified for Mr. Wong's benefit, the fact that they did not originally have permission for two signs and that the lettering on the window sign was too large and this was the reason he was before the Commission. Mr. Allen suggested to the Chairman that in view of the fact that the Codes and Stan- dards Committee was presently reviewing the sign ordinance, in particular the portion of the ordinance that would apply to this planning case, that the planning case be tabled until the July 1st, meeting. The Chairman clarified for the petitioner that the request had been tabled until July 1st, and that until that time the sign could remain. Mr. Allen moved to table Planning Case 75-17 - Request for Sign Variance - at 2709 Winnetka Avenue ullti~ July 1st, 1975. Mr. Christensen second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, and Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 75-18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REAR YARD SET BACK AND GARAGE SIZE _ 8108 2Sth AVENUE NORTH - JOHN BREHER, PETITIONER. Mr. Breher, stated that he would like to add a 15 x 15 addition to the back of his garage which would require a six foot variance in the rear yard setback. This addi- tion to be used for storage and perhaps as a place to pursue his hobby of upholstering. He added that his construction business required him to store expensive equipment such as compressors and generators which needed to be locked up. At the present time he stored this equipment in his garage and thus his vehicles were left outside. He further stated that he had a severe water problem (water in February) and would like to re- landscape his back yard at the same time in an attempt to solve this problem. In answer toa question from Commissioner Cameron, Mr. Breher said that the actual sight line of the roof would be the same as it is now. There would be a one foot drop at the eave line but that the top of the roof would not be visible from the street. Discussion between Dr. Cameron and Mr. Breher about the extent of the water problem on the lot, whether or not the addition would create additional drainage problems for the neighbors and what the results of the landscaping would be as far as drainage into the neighboring property, as well as the reasons for the size of the addition. Mr. Breher stated that the structure should have no effect upon the drainage pattern, and that he hoped to divert the flow of water in his yard away from the foundation. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - .May 6, 1975 <" . Discussion followed about the need for Mr. Breherto apply for a home occupation per- mit, and whether or not the petitioner was conducting his business from his home. The City Manager stated that if Mr. Breher met the criteria for a home occupation there would be no problem, but that he did not feel that he did. ~ Further discussion as to whether the storage ofequ~pment constituted business from the home. conducting a Commissioner Cameron read a letter (Gopyattached to original minutes) that had been re- ceivedfrom Mr. George Johnson, expressing opposition to this variance. He further stated that any disagreement between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Breher must be settled between the two of them; and that the City and the Planning Commission would not become involved. Discussion between Commissioners and Mr. Breher about the drainage and water problems and the need for having the engineer's opinion about the proposed changes. Mr. Ostlund suggested that if a variance were granted that it be subject to engineering approval. In answer toa question from Dr. Cameroll, Mr. Dreher stated that he had lived in the home for four years and had no plans to move at this time. Mrs. Marjorie Helland, 8117 29th Avenue North, stated that she did not agree with Mr. Breher that all of the water came from the North, inasmuch as she also had water in her basement. She expressed concern over what was going to be the actual use of the addi- tion, the noise factor, and the danger of the addition being used for a machine shop. Mrs. judy Lundy; 8116 28th Avenue North, was concerned with the retaining wall, the type of material that might be used in the construction of this wall. She was also concerned about changing the drainage and feared that changes might prove detrimental to her property. Chairman Ostlund pointed out that the type of decorating an owner did in his own yard was his choice and not the concern of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Lundy added that originally she had been told that Mr. Breher wanted the addition as a shop but now says he wants it for storage. She was also concerned that his "hobby" of upholstery might be noisy. ~, Chairman Ostlund stated that the Planning Commission was not concerned with hobbies unless they did create a nuisance. Mr. Howard Helland, 8117 29th Avenue North, was concerned about the fact that Mr. Breher needed an addition to his double garage. He was afraid that if he stored his equipment there he would be working all night long on maintenance. Further discussion about the size of the equipment to be stored,the recourse that the neighbors would have if the Brehers did not live up to the terms of the variance and the advantages of having the proposed landscaping changes inspected by the engineer. Mrs. Hilma Franke. 8109 29th Avenue North, was concerned that allowing such a vari- ance of a home occupation would destroy the residential zoning of the area and devalue the property. Chairman Ostlund commented that there was no way that this area could become a cOmmer- cial area. Mrs. Jackie Sheppard, 2801 Aquila, was of the opinion that changing the drainage patterns would not eliminate the water. and was also concerned about the home occupation. She questioned whether Mr. Breher took an office deduction for the use of his home, on his taxes. Further discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Breher about the drainage swales, whether he did have a home occupation. what the next step should be, and whether it would be .advisable for the Codes and Standards Committee or the City Attorney to give an opinion on this. Chairman Ostlund questioned whether or not the neighbors would be satisfied if the variance were granted subject to restrtctions as to drainage approval and noise res- trictions. ~. Mr. Helland restated his feeling that the area should be strictly residential. Discussion between the Commissioners and the citizens about the recourse available to the citizens should the petitioner fail to live up to the conditions of the variance. , Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 6, 1975 Commissioner Cameron suggested tpat the planning case be tabled and that Mr. Breher should come back before the Commission with a request for a special use permit for a home occupation. Dr. Cameron moved to table Planning Case 75-18 - Request for Variance in Setback at 8108 28th Avenue North until the 1st meeting in June. Mr. Allen second. Chairman Ostlund suggested that Mr. Breher contact the City Manager and file for a spe- cial use permit. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, and Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 75-19 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 5550 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - WINCHELL'S DONUTS, PETITIONER. Mr. McPulty was present to discuss this case with the Commissioners. He was standing in for Mr. Evans who Was out of town. Mr. McNulty is the Director of Construction for Winchell's Donuts. The City Manager distributed site plans, dated 4/29, to the Commissioners. Mr. McNulty stated that they were proposing to construct a Winqhell's Donut Shop at the Southeast corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. They planned to remove the exist- ing building and cons~ruct an entirely new facility. For the benefit of the Commissioners and Mr. McNulty, Commissioner Herman reviewed the recommendations made by the Design and Review Committee. These included: 1. That the parking stalls in the front of the building blocking the. main entrance be changed and .that there be protection for the pedestrian provided i.e. wider sidewalks by the entrance doors both at the front and side. 2. That landscaping more appropriate to the Minnesota climate be used and that the three existing trees be retained. Mr. McNulty stated that he was under the impression that the landscaping had been cho- sen from the list provided by the City of New Hope. He further expressed the feeling that the trees, if allowed to remain, would interfere with deliveries. Discussion about deliveries, the size of the vehicles that would te involved and the parking facilities on the site. 3. The parking stalls and area to be blaCktopped. Mr. Herman ex- pressed his concern about the possibility of the entire area be- ing blacktopped. 4. Exterior of the building -- type of block had not been clarified. Mr. McNulty stated that the original block was of a type available only in Southern California and presented a brochure to Mr. Herman illustrating the substitute block they were proposing to use --_a type of rustic brick. 5. Retaining wall on the South side of the property. 6. The perimeter lights of the building. Design and Review had felt they were not suitable to the climate and that they should blend more closely with the building design. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. McNulty about the size, height, and intensity of the parking lot lights, the need for illumination at the driveway en- trances. the height that should be required,and desired for the privacy fence between the property and the private residence to the South and the building lights that were to be substituted. Mrs. Barbara Sukey, 5540 Winnetka Avenue North, expressed her concern over the close- ness of the privacy fence to her home. After discussion with -the Commissioners and Mr. McNulty, the decision was made to move the fence five feet within the Winchell property line and construct the fence of wood rather than block. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 6, 1975 > 5. ,Further discussio~ held about the lights in the :parking lot, with the suggestion be- ing made that there be one low light at each curb cut (one on Winnetka and one on Bass Lake Road). The suggested sign, which is a pylon type,was discussed. Chairman Ostlund pointed out that the ordinance would not allow two signs incorporated into one (such as the name and another message). ~ Mr. Herman expressed his concern over the direction of the lighting and the types of fixtures that were proposed for around the building fae,ia. He further stated that pe felt the lights should be direct~d in a Northerly direction. Mrs. Sukey requested permission to view the plans. Chairman Ostlund declared a five minute recess to allow this review. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Mrs. Sukey restated her concerns about the lighting, the parking, the ventilation and the hours of operation. Chairman Ostlund pointed out that the Planning Commi$sion could not control the hours of operation. Mrs. tielen Bauer, 5539 Winnetka, expressed her concern_ about the potential noise from additional cars and motocycles and the danger of the establishment becoming a hang-out for teens. Mr. Ostlund remarked that the petitioner was not asking for any variance and that in his opinion, was attempting to be a good neighbor. If such problems should arise, they would be police problems. Further discussion. Mr. Herman moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-19, subject to the following contingencies: 1. The Southerly fence as shown be relocated five feet due North and be con- ~ struct~E of WO_o.~l_ at a -E~~g!!.~__of 8 feet '::-- the design of which to be approved by the City staff and the portion of the property South of the fence to be sodded and maintained by Winchell's Donuts. 2. That sidewalks be provided at each of the three entrances and that the side- walks be 3 x 20 feet long. 3. That at least two of the three existing trees shown Eaa of the proposed build- ing be" retained in a contiguous planting bed or green area. 4. That two parking lot pole lights be provided --- one at each curb cut access to the property for the purpose of illuminating the curb cut and immediate parking surface adjacent thereto. Further, the applicant should be required to submit a lighting plan indicating the type of light fixtures and the directional throw or control. 5. That the pylon sign be altered as necessary to conform to the New Hope ordinance. 6. That all the plans, including floor plans, site plans, elevat,ions, etc. be -revised prior to submittal to the Council. Mr. Christensen second. After further discussion, Chairman Ostlund requested that the petitioner pr~sent the revisions to the staff by May 9,1975. Discussion between Mr. Herman and Mr. McNulty on the sidewalk requirements. Mr. Herman stating that his concern was the the sidewalk around the building be widened to provide pedestrian safety. Mr. Herman amended his motion to remove the three foot walk and extension and provide for a five foot sidewalk around the building. Mr. Christensen second. ~ Voting in favor of the amendment: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pak6nen Voting against: Absent: Amendment passed: Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 6, 1975 5. Mr. Sukey questioned the overall size of the bUilding and was informed it would be 1650 square feet and 35 feet from the property line. Voting in favor of the amended motion: Voting ag.ainst: Absent: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 75-20 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 6032 ALLAN CIRCLE - ALLAN GUNDERSHAUG, PETITIONER. Mr. Gundershaug stated that he wished to add a two bedroom addition on the Southwest corner of the house. He was requesting a variance because this addition would come to within 26 feet of the rear lot line. He added that the West wall of the structure would continue back for 20 feet. The exterior siding would be the same as the house and the roof line would be lower. He had discussed this proposal with 'the neighbors and no objections bad been expressed. Dr. Cameron moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-20 - Request for Variance Setback at 6032 Allan Circle. Mr. Alien second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 75-21 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 42 nd AND QUEBEC - NORTHWEST YMCA, PETITIONER. Mr. Dave Griswold, the architect for the Northwest YMCA and Mr. Douglas Herron, the Director were present. Mr. Herman pointed out that the Design and Review Committee had reviewed the plans and had no comments with respect to the building or the building design. He added that Design and Review had been concerned with the site development. The plans call for parking facilities for 200 cars -- in his opinion, "Y" facilities generally had inadequate parking. In addition Design and Review had not felt it would be a hardship for the "yn to extend the parking, inasmuch as there was adequate room for expansion. They had also been very concerned with the method of entering the site. Another major item of concern was the potential traffic congestion at 42nd and Quebec. Lengthy discussion followed about the ingress and egress from the site, the alterna- tives available to alleviate the traffic problem and whether or not the llyn had in- vestigated any of these alternatives. The extension of Quebec avenue was also con- sidered and whether it would be possible or practical to have a connecting road to Winnetka. Mr. Herman expressed his concern over the lack of a landscape plan. The architect stated that they were proposing to retain as much of the natural growth as possible with the entire South side to be left undeveloped. They do desire to screen the building from the Eas~ with a line of trees, with supplementary trees on the NW corner to compliment the existing growth. The basic plan would be primarily related to architectually setting off the building but mostly lawn. Dr. Cameron expressed his concern that the plans were exactly as submitted to the Design and Review Committee and that none of the changes had been made. Further discussion about the time table that the "yn was working under, how soon the proper decisions would be made and when the plans would be updated. Mrs. Mary Kangas, 4046 Oregon, expressed her concern over the parking lot lights and the hours that they would be illuminated. Discussion between the architect and the commissioners about the distance from the build- ing to the tracts (approximately 300 feet1, the elevation (915.5 at the tracks) and the . number of lighting fixtures planned for the parking lot (4-6). Planning Commission Minutes l - 6 - May 6, 1975 The concensus of the Commission appeared to be that final plans.as to parking, exten- sion of the building and landscaping were heeded before approval could be given. The question of access also needed to be clarified. - Dr. Cameron moved to table Planning Case 75-21 until the second meeting in May. Mr. Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen', Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron I Craigie, Jensen, Gust,afson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion to table passed. B. PLAlffiINGCASE75-22 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUcTION APPROVAL AT 40 TH AND WINNETKA - ST. CROIX. VEmURES. PETITIONER. Mr. Robert Dowden, one of the general partners, represented St. Croix Ventures. One of the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee had been'a landscape plan. Mr. Herman also indicated the need fora masterplan, especially if there were to be four buildings included in the development. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Dowden about ,a master plan, the entrance and exit on to Winnekta, whether Or not one or more curb cuts should be used, and the type of road the developers were proposing. Mr. Dowden expressed his disinterest in lining upxhe private road with 40th Avenue. The property has 350 feet of frontage on Winnetka Avenue. . Mr. Dowden stated that St~ Croix Ventures waS to meet with Hennepin County sometime during the current week to discuss the curb cuts on' Winnetka. Further discussion bet~een the Commissioners and the City Manager and Mr. Dowden as ~ to the maximum number of cars that could be expected to use the driveway per day. The City Manager stated that he was concerned with the alighment of 40th and the traffiq from Winnetka. Discussion about the overhead doors at the ground level on the front of the building. Mr. Dowden explained that the facility was designed to provide both docks and drive-in doors for their customers convenience. The City Manager stated that this type of construction met fire code and to his know- ledge occupancy would not be a problem. Mr. Crai-gieexpressed concern Wit-h the children walking to the "yn on Winnetka and the potential dangers of excessive curb cuts on Winnetka adding additional points of traf- fic conflict. In answer to a question from Mr. Larson, Mr. Dowden stated that he would be willing to meet with a professional traffic manabou~ the plan. He restated that he was to meet with Henu~pinCounty shortly. Mr. ,Herman made a motion tOtable Planning Case 75..;,22 for, two weeks until the meeting of May 21st. Mr. London second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 75-23 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE - NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CQMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Jim Shaw represented the Naegele Company with regard to this request. He stated ~ that the company was requesting anamerrdment to the ordinance that would allow the locating of outdobr, ,advertising signs in zones other thanGB. He added that they had received a request to locate a sign on #18 and 49th. COIl11Di$sioner Allen informed Mr. Shaw that the Codes and Standards Commit,tee was at the present;. time reviewing allas:pect-s' oI"the sign ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - May 6, 1975. 9. Discussion between Mr. Shaw and the Cbmmiss~oners about the value that billboard ad- vertising was to a community. Mr. Allen stated would be allowed tee meeting will that he would advise Mr. Shaw of to make a presentation to. them. be on June 34d. the committee meeting times and he The next Codes" and Standards Commit- Planning Case 75-23 was referred to the Codes and Standards Committee. 10. PLANNING CASE 75-24 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8101 DEL DRIVE - DONALD LAFFEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Laffey explained to the Commissioners that he was requesting permission to construct a garage that would line up with his existing driveway. He does not have a garage at this time. The garage is proposed to be constructed at the end of the existing drive. The present curb opening is 5 feet off the -rear property line and without the variance he would have an angled entrance. Dr~ Cameron moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-24 - request for setback variance 8101 Del Drive. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Allr.n, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen Gustafson. None Pakonen Motion passed. 11. PLANNING CASE 75-25 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AND REAR YARD SETBACK AT 2709 LAMPHERE DRIVE - RONALD AUDETTE. PETITIONER. Mr. Audette explained that he would like permission to construct a 528 square foot garage and a 176 'square foot screened porch on the North side of his home. He is unable to construct" a garage where his present driveway is l'o~ated. He stated that be was un- aware of any neighborhood opposition to thisrequest-. " The City Manager stated that a letter had been received at City Hall from his immediate neighbor~ Elmer Lamphere, expressing approval of this request. Mr. Herman moved approval of Planning Case 75~25 request for setback variance and gar- age size at 2709 Lamphere Drive. Mr. Christensen second. Discussion followed about Mr. Audette!s existing driveway. Concensus was that it would be permissible to leave it on the property. Voting in favor: Herman, "London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. 12. PLANNING CASE 75-26 - AMENDMENT TO CODE FOR CHURCHES -CITY OF NEW HOPE The City Manager explained that at the present time, the church at 36th and Winnetka, (Holy Nativity) was a completely illegal use, because of the zoning of the property. The church now wishes to expand and because they are a non-conforming use this is not possible. The City Manager then outlined the alternatives to $olving this problem. The church, however, prefers not to have the zoning changed in the event that at some future time they may decide to sell the property. Discussion followed. Chairman Ostlund tabled Case 75-26 to the second meeting in May, the 21st, and re- ferred the matter to the Codes and Standards Committee. OLD BUSINESS 13. PLA.NNING CASE 75-10 - RECONSIDERATION OF'PUD ON WISCONSIN AVENUE - HARLAN SCHMIDT PETITIONER, Mr. Harlan Schmidt and Mr. John Miller were present in regard" to this case. Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - May 6, 1975 < 13. Mr. Schmidt questioned whether or not it would be possible to obtain approval for .~ this project as a straight MRdevelopment and not a PUD which would reduce density. He presented a mock-up of the type of siding he proposed for the development and explained how the exteriors of the project would be decorated. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Miller and Mr. Schmidt as to the specific items the City Council had requested for review. A discussion held as to the possibility of submission of. tw'o plans - one lower density - on2 on present proposal. Commission appeared to feel one or the other -- they did Dot wish to pick between various plans. Chairman Ostlund tabled further discussion of this request, and referred it to the DesiRnand Review Committee. couurTXEE REPOaXS 14. Chairman Allen,of the Codes and Standards Committee, reported that a meeting had been held on May 6th, and that the Committee had begun to review the sign ordinance. He plans to have a meeting with Pastor Peterson and Councilman Plufka in relation to P1an~ing Case 75~26. There will be a meeting of the Committee on June STd, the time to be determined. 15. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 16. Design and Review had met on April 22nd, and reviewed three cases. NEW BUSINESS 17. The City Manager pointed out that because of the Board of Review which was scheduled for May 20th,at the City Hall, it would be impossible for the Planning Commission to meet that evening. Discussion followed and the meeting ,was rescheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday! May 2~. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he would be unable to attend ~he meeting of May 21, 1975. Chairman Qstlund noted he could have an excused absence. ~ 18. Mr. Allen moved that the Commission minutes of April 15, 1975 be approved. Dr. Cameron second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen; Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. Discussion followed between the Commissioners about the fact that at the Council meeting of April 28th, the City Council had given approval to the Northwest Baptist Church to retain the Montessori School sign untill977. . The Commissioners questioned the proce- dures, in that the church had been allowed to circumvent the Planning Commission. Dis- cussion as to the function of the Planning Commission, if their recommendations were to be ignored. General distress was expressed on the part of the Commissioners, and the feeling that they were perhaps wasting their time in some of these matters. Mr. Christensen made a motion that the Chairman of the Commission write a letter to the City Council expressing the sentiments of the Commissioners,and stating that they did not appreciate the fact that regardless of the time that they snent in re- viewing cases, the Council would ignore their recommendations and not refer ques- tionable cases back to them. Mr~ Jensen second. In.response to a question from Mr. Gustafson, Mr. Larson explained that the driveway problem of Mr. King had gone before the Council, rather than the Planning Commission, because the ordinance states that the Council directly controls.driveway matters and since there is no specific regulation on 2nd driveways this was the only way to pro- vide any control. Chairman Ostlund requested that the recor~ show that the Council Minutes of April 14th, and 28th were reviewed. ~, Planning Commission Minutes ~ 9 - May 6, 1975 20. The Chairman announced that effective June 4th, Dennis Ostlund would resign from the Commission. Dr. Cameron moved that Mr. Ostlund's resignation .be accepted. Mr. Craigie second". Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. A motion was made by Dr. Cameron to suspend the second meetings of June, July and August, subject to the call of the chair. Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. 21. Dr...Cameron moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ostlund second. Voting in favor: Herman, London, Allen, Christensen, Ostlund, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Gustafson. None Pakonen. Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ostlund at 12:10 p.m. until Wednesday. May 21. 1975. ~pectfu11Y SUbmit.ted' <-1......J~. oyce Boeddeker Secretary Council Minutes 1 - May 12, 1975 A. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City, on Monday, May 12, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Erickson. B. All persons present stood and gave the Pledge of Allegiance to the. Flag. C. Roll call was Present: Absent: taken as follows: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. Hokr. D. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Meyer to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1975 with the following correction: Page 11, Item 31, 1st paragraph, next to last sentence should read: "The total cost of the Project would be $9,960." instead of $9,940. Voting in favor: Voti ng aga i nst: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, ~reyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The first item of discussion was the possible location of St. Jacob's hall on the Civic Center Park site just off the southwest corner of the swimming pool parking lot. It was noted that the Heritage Commission had done a study as to possible suitable sites for the location of St. Jacob's Hall. Mr. Dan Gallagher, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, explained the work done and the cirteria used in evaluating sites. He said a report dated May 7, 1975 had been submitted to the Council showing the investigation of approximately 32 sites, 19 of which were City Park sites, 9 industrial sites and 4 sites that were either school, or private property. After establishing a set of 10 criteria, it was the finding of the Heritage Preservation Commission, that the most logical location for St. Jacob's Hall would be at Civic Center Park to the south of the fire station. Mr. Gallagher also stated that included with the report was an application that the Heritage Preservation Commission had submitted to the Bicentennial Commission Horizon Panel for funding. The Bicentennial Horizon Panel has in turn recommended to the Bicentennial State Commission that St. Jacob1s Hall project be funded with approximately $2,500. The final determination of this funding will be made on May 17, 1975. Mr. Gallagher said that the drawin9s they previously had before the Council were now before the State Bicentennial Commission and were not available for this meeting. Mr. Gallagher then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the sites and gave the ranking of the various parks as follows: 1. Civic Center 2. Northwood Park 3. Hidden Valley Park 4. Kuch-Perry Park 5. Elm Grove Park 5. New Hope Golf Course 7. Lions and Sunny Hollow 8. Fred Sims Park 9. Holiday Park 10. Begin Park 11. New Hope Athletic Field 12. Little Acre 13. Liberty and Dorothy Mary 14. Meadow Lake and Independence Circle Mr. Gallagher continued that the industrial sites were all found to be either completely inaccessible or out of the question economically. The site east of the #281 bus garage was found unacceptable since it proved to be swamp land. The property to the south of the bus garage is to be used as an access to the YMCA. Mr. Gallagher said that the property at the west end of Northwood Pond was being used for storage of the dredging materials also) is limited in its size and sewer is not readily available. The cemetery property at 42nd and Boone was neither for sale or lease. He again stated that the recommendation of the Commission was that St. Jacob's Hall be located on Civic Center Park. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka that the report from the Heritaqe ~vation Commission, dated May 7, 1975, relatinq to a site for St. Jacob's Hall be accepted and the Commission be commended for an excellent job. :,' " Council Minutes - 2 - May 12, 1975 Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. ----, Discussion was then opened to the floor. Dr. Christenson, from the Professional Building abutting Civic Center Park, spoke in opposition to the location of St. Jacob's Hall in the Civic Center Park. He did not feel locating the building here would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. The City Manager advised that Mr. Arend, owner of Twelve Oaks apartment building, had called today to voice his objection to the location of St. Jacob's on the Civic Center site. Uiscussion held as to mailing of the notices to the neighboring properties. Mrs. Jan Schutz, 4217 Zealand Avenue North,sa,id they had received their notice four days ago which did not allow time to organize the opposition. She spoke against locating St. Jacob's Hall at the Civic Center site. Mr. Roger Schutz, 4217 Zealand Avenue North, spoke in opposition to the proposed location. He said the neighborhood had beenun~er the impression that this was a "dead issue. II He also commented' that because of the short time from receipt of the notice to this meeting, the neighborhood did not have time to organize. He then asked whether the elevations, etc., would be the same as previously proposed. The need for the City Engineer to determine specific location, elevations, and other' technical data was discussed. Mr. Schutz inquired as to whether there was any chance that the building would not be located at the Civic Center site, noting that the last time this matter was before the Council, Mayor Erickson, Councilman Plufka and Councilman Meyer had been in favor. . Mayor ,Erickson commented that at that last meeting he had favored the Civic Center site, but he had also made a comment that as far as he was concerned, oersonally, the Civic Center site was,lIdead." Mayor Erickson said he would like to see St. Jacobls located at the Civic Center Park, but that he would stand by his earl ier comment. ' Mrs. Liz Frost, 3507 Zealand Avenue North, member of the Park and Recreation Commission, said she would really like to see St. Jacob's Hall moved from the swimming pool lot prior to open- ing of the pool. She felt the building was a hazard and some youngster is bound to get hurt. She said that she is not in favor of locating the building on Civic Center Park, but she had no better choice. /""" No further comments were heard. Motion by Councilman Plufka. second by Councilman Meyer that St. Jacob's buildinQ be located ~ Civic Center Park site, the exact location to be determined by a feasibility study to be undertaken '~nedlately by the consulting engineer. Voting in favor: Meyer, Plufka. Votingag'ainst: Erickson, Enck. Absent: Hokr. Motion lost for lack of majority. (Mayor Erickson commented that h~ still thought the Civic Center Park was a good spot for St. Jacob's Hall, but that the comment he made at the previous meeting regarding this matter still stood and for this reason he voted no.) Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Meyer that St. Jacob's Hall be located at the Northwood Park site, the site and lace to be determined b a feasiblllt stud to be undertaken immediately. y the consultinq enqineer. Discussion held with Councilman Enck speaking in opposition to saving St. Jacob's Hall because of current economic conditions and the continuing expenditures that would be necessary to Care for and foster the use of the building. He said he did not feel he could properly vote for that kind of continued expenditure. Councilman Plufka spoke on the need for preserving the structure for the historical and sentimental significance of the building. He-noted the various City organizations that were working on the project. ~ 'I' " " Council Minutes - 3 - May 12, 1975 Councilman Meyer spoke in favor of preserving St. Jacob's based on a reatter of priorities. He thought that money could certainly be found in the budget for the intial $10,000 cost and also for the lesser amounts needed afterwards. He noted that the ice arena had been con- structed under the same economic conditions. He commented on the interest that had been generated in the community on behalf of saving St. Jacob's Hall--conceptually and financially. He said that the site selection process had been carried on very carefully and objectively. If St. Jacob's is denied a site, we would be setting what the future of the City is going to be in that respect. He spoke in favor of the motion. Mayor Erickson said he could support the motion if there were some input from the neighbor~ hood, and that he was still committed to trying to save the hall. Councilman Enck noted that the ice arena construction had been approved by referendum. Discussion held as to whether the history of the City which is to be developed by the Heritage Commission, and would include St. Jacob's Hall, would not serve the purpose. Councilman Meyer disagreed with this concept, saying that St. Jacob's Hall was needed to serve as the focal point of the history of New Hope. Further discussion held. Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Meyer to amend the motion~rovidp. for a public hearinQ relative to 10cati!!!l~Ja,cob's Hall at the Ngrthwood Park site. this hearing to be at the Council meeting of May 27, 1975, and instructing staff to mail notices to the interested parties. Discussion held as to where, at Northwood Park, the building might'be located so that a determination could be made as to the persons who should be notified. Councilman Plufka said that he thought the City should have a feasibility study done prior to the public hear- ing so as to identify the site within Northwood Park. The urgency of moving the building from the swimming pool parking lot was again discussed with the consensus being that time did not permit conducting a feasibility study and that an approximate site could be used as the basis for the hearing. The tentative site was defined ,. as the west side of Boone Avenue to the north ,of the pond and on the knoll. Vote was then taken on the amendment. Voting in favor: Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. Voting against: None. Absent: Hokr. Motion carried. Vote was then taken on the motion as amended. Votlng in favor: Erickson, Meyer, Plufka. Voting against: Enck. Absent: Hokr, Motion carried. Further discussion held as to what the disposition of the building will'be if it is not accept- able at the North,rood site. It was noted that at this time, the City does not own the build- ing. At the next meeting, the owner could be told to remove the building from the City property. ' 2. PlanninQ Case No. 75-8, tabled from April 41, 1975, request for rezoninQ from LI to GB of the property at the southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue, was considered. The City Manager advised that the Attorney for the petitioner had called today and asked that the matter be tabled because the Planning Commission had not made a report back to the Council on convenience centers. The Council noted that there were many citizens present in regard to this Planning Case. Mr. Ernst, R.C.E. Corporation, ~as present and also asked that the Planning Case be tabled until such time as the report from the Planning Commission pertaining to convenience centers is available. Mr. Ernst said he had contacted a number of the .neighbors in the area that had previously petitioned against the rezoning. He said it appeared that the neighbors were misinformed as to what the proposed development is. He said at this time he instructed the architects to prepare a formal site plan and building elevations. As soon as this is complete, he would contact the neighbors and hold a meeting with them to show e.actly what it proposed. He said he would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with the neighbors before the Council takes action on the Planning Case. It was noted that the matter before the Council was rezoning, not the approval of a site plan, and that rezoning criteria must be met. The concensus of the Council was that the case should be discussed tonight. Council Minutes - 4 - May 12, 1975 Mr. Vernon ,Cassibo,B5l2 Bass Lake Road, objected to the location of a convenience center at this site on the basis that there were enough facilities available to the people. He also mentioned existing traffic problems on the Bass Lake Road and the need for additional patrolling. ~ Mr. Jerry Karls, 5924 Cavell Avenue North, spoke in opposition to locating a convenience center on the property in Question He sited traffic concerns. He said there was no need for a-conven1encecenter \'lith the other facilities available -in the Qe1er9.1 area. Also, con- venience center.s do oot_ provide competitive prices. . Mr. Keith Brown, 5939 Independence Avenue North, inquired as to who received notice from the City on matters such as this rezoning. Mrs. Barbara Brandt, 5BOl Decatur Avenue North, presented statements from people in the neighborhood who objected to the rezoning. She then read a statement on behalf of a neighborhood group setting forth their objections to the proposed rezoning. (Statement filed With Planning Case). Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Enck to accept the written objections presented by Mrs. Barbara Brandt on behalf of those persons not in attendance this evening. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. The City Manager advised that Mrs. Rose Atchley, 582B Gettysburg Circle, had called today to express the Atchley's opposition to the rezoning on the.basis that a shopping center would provide a hangout for children, children would have to cross the Ba". Lake Road, traffic problems and litter prOblems that would result. Discussion held as to permitted uses in zoning districts and criteria for rezoning. Councilman Plufka, Councilman Meyer and Counciman Eock spoke in opposition to the prbposed rezoning. Motion by Councilman Meyer, second by Councilman Plufka instructinq the City Attornev to prepare findings of fact for denial of the rezoninq requested under Plannlnq Case No. 1~-8. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson~ Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. The Mayor announced there would be a five minute recess. The meeting was called back to order by Mayor Erickson. 3. Planning Case No. 75-10, (tabled from April 14, 1975), PUD approval for the area at WisconsiB and Bass lake Road, Harlan Schmidt, petitioner, was considered at this time. The City Manager advised that the petitioner had been before the last Planning Commission meeting and-was in turn referred to the -Design-and ReviewComnittee lt/hit:h -will not meet until lit least May '.20, 19.75. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka that PlanninQ Case No. 75-10 be taliIed indefinitely. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 4. Planninq Case No. 75-15, (tabled from April 28, 1975), 'equest for Waiver of PlattinG Ord- inance, to permit division of the property at 7202-7216 ~ass Lake Road (apartment complex), Lipps and others, petitioners, was consid€red. The City Manager advised that the petitioners called today and asked that the matter be held over because they were encountering difficulty in getting all the petitioners together to get the agreement into final form and signed by all the petitioners. They asked that it be tabled for one month. .~ J " Council Minutes - 5 - May 12, 1975 Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka tablinQ Planninq Case No. 75-15 until ~etinQ of June 9, 1975. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 5. Planning Case ~ID. 75-19, approval of construction lans for Winchell's Donut sho at the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and the Bass lake Road, 0 d Pure 0; site, was considered. Mr. McNulty, construction manager for Winchell's Donuts, appeared before the Council to review the construction and site plans for the proposed Donut shop. The existing filling station building is to be demolished and the Donut shop constructed on the site. A picture of the Winchell's Donut shop building was presented. The exterior brick will be dark red antique. A color swatch on the dark red antique brick was presented to the Council. The abutting property owners were invited to come forward and view the plans and to discuss the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission. Discussion held regarding the trees on the site and the landscaping plans. Mr. Suckey, next door neighbor, indicated that they were not sure that they really wanted the trees. Mr. McNulty said they would not put the trees in if the neighbors did not want them, and if this were agreeable to the City. Mr. and Mrs. Suckey are to give this matter further consideration and let the Council know what their final determination is. Mr. John Bauer, 5539 Winnetka Avenue North, expressed concern with the lighting of the build- ing and the site. He did not want it to illuminate his property. Mr. McNulty said that the lights at the curb cuts would be four feet high. The light on the buildinq itself would be focused downward. It did not appear that the lighting would be a problem for the Bauers. ,. Mrs. John Bauer inquired into the hours of operation. It ,could be a 24 hour operation. depending on how the business goes. Mr. Richard Evans, Real Estate Administrator for Winchell's Donuts, said they would probably open the facility as a 24 hour store to start out. The hours are primarily dictated by the amount of business. Discussion held regarding location of other Winchell donut shops. Mr. Evans replied that the New Hope store and the one on Lake Street would be the first in this area. This is not a franchise operation. The headquarters are in Galifornia. The company has been in business since 1948. Winchell's is a division of Denny1s Inc. Mr. Evans noted that in other areas some of the donut shops have been located in residential areas. Upon questioning, Mr. Evans said a small number of their shops had closed down, but these were where they had been in business for over 25 years. As they get older, they tend to get less profitable and are possibly taking up a location that should be covered by a new store. He said 80% of the business was of the family type--buying by the dozen to take home. There are approximately 24 seats in the building. The Mayor said that the citizens were concerned that it might become a hangout for kids. Mr. Evans noted that this is bad for business; they try to attract the family business and do discourage and restrict kids hanging around as much as possible. Upon inquiry as to w"at provision Winchell's Donuts would make to keep the premises and the neighboring property free of.litter originating at the Donut shop, Mr. Evans replied that they have a daily procedure for pick-up. The grounds are picked-up every couple hours. Four refuse containers will be supplied outside the building. Mr. Evans said they also "~uld agree to pick up litter from the donut shop that they might see in the neighbors' yard. Mr. Evans continued that this was IIgaad public relationsll and they did agree to maintain the grounds and pick up the litter on a regular basis. Further discussion held regarding saving some of the existing trees. Mr. McNulty stated that they would be happy to replace the existing elms with a tree more suitable and sturdier for this area. Motion by Councilman Meyer, second by Councilman Enck to approve construction plans for ~llls Donut, vlinnetka' and Bass Lake Road, as requested under Planninq Case No. 75-19, subject to continqencies as outlined in the Planninq Commission minutes with the exception ofltem 3, wlth item 3 to be at the option of Winchell's to work around It. Discussion held. 'I , Council Minutes - 6 - May 12, 1975 Motion by Councilman End, second by Councilman Plufka to amend the motion to provide that '~e a trade-off for every'tree that they remllve. at least reasonabTy close to size. of anotherSDecies of tree. . ~. Vote was taken on Votlng in favor': Voting against: Absent: 'Motion carried. the amendment. Erlckson~ Enc~, None. Hokr. Meyer, Plufka. Vote wa$ then.taken on the motion as amended. Voting' in favor: Erickson, Enck,. Meyer ~ 'Plufka. Voting against: None. Ab$ent: Hokr. Motion carried. The CHy'Nanager inquired as to "hetherWinchell 's Donut would be able to secure clear title to the property. Mr. Evans replied that they would be getting clear title. He said they will proceed immediatelYI,ith the ,dra."ing .of the detailed plans for .approval .bystaff with ,bidding from three to four weeks away. 6. Planning Case No. 75-20, request for variance in r~ard setback.-t~~rmit a1l3c1dition to the home at 6032 Allan Circle, Lot 18, Block 7, 1\11an Hills Addition, "as considered by the Council. Mr. Gundershaug was present to review the proposal. The addition to the rear of the home is to be 20 x 20 feet and is to be used as two bedrooms. Mr. Gundershaug said the addition ,rould come to within 26 feet of the rear lot line and that he needed a nine foot variance. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka to approve variance in rear yard set- baCJ(to permit an addition to the home at 6032 Allan Circle, Lot 18, Block 7, Allan Hllls to come within 26 feet-ot'the rear lot-line as reauested under PlanninaCaseNo. 75-ZQ. .. Voting ,in .favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erick~on, Enck,Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. /"' 7. Planninq Case No.. 75-24, request for variance ill rear yard setback' to _p~Il!Iit the COT,-s_tr.uctio.n of a detac~~9-gar~g~-A1 8101 Del Drive, Lot 11, Block I, Vel Helgnts 1st Addition, to come within five feet of the rear property line. Garages of 528 feet or under are permitted to come within ten feet of the rear property line. Mr. Don Laffey, petitioner. was present to. discus; the request. requirement for the proposed garage be changed from ten feet to be built to line up with an existing drive"ay. Mr. Laffey was asked how he was going to handle the slope to the south of the garage since there was a five foot drainage easement on the rear 1at line. Mr. Laffey said that the slope to the south of the garaoe would remain the same, and that the slab would be dug into the slop and the shrubs would be the same. He said he would be able to maintain the slo,e. He asked that the setback five feet. The gara.e will Mr,. laffeY;!j](ls --advised that he cannot encroach onto the five faoteasement even with the g'aTageefrVes. Mo one appeared in regard to this matter. Moticn by Councilman Meyer, seccnd by Caunci1man Plufka qrantinq variance in setback for a ~ed Qarage to come within five feet of the rear lot line at 8101 Oel Drive, Lot 11. Block 1, Del Helqhts 1st Additian, as requested under Planninq Case No.. 75-24. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. 8. Planninq Case No.. 75-25, request for. variance inaaraae size and rear vard setback for the prcperty at;'~709,l::9ml?he,re Drive, Lot 4, Block 1, Lamphere's Terra Linda, was considered. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. ---', Mr. Ronald Audette, petitioner, appeared before the Council to discusS the request. He is proposing to build a detached garage with an attached screen porch. The garage is 528 square feet and the porch is 176 square feet, bringing the total to over 700 square feet. Mr. Audette stated that the structure would come within 25 feet of the rear lot line. Council Minutes 1 t - 7 - May 12, 1975 No one appeared in connection with this requested variance. ~ by Councilman Meyer, second by Councilman Enck to approve variance in Qarage size and rear yard setback for the pro~erty at 2709 lam~here Dr;ve~Lot 4, 'Block 1, Lamphere's Terra Linda, as requested under P anninq Case No. 5-25.. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 9. The City Manager advised that bids had been solicited for 30 new Nomex fire coats for the Fire department. Bids were as follows: C. F. Coyer and Assoc. Akins Fire Equipment Minnesota Fire Equipment Viking Fire Equipment Mid Central Fire & Safety $2,080.00 2,081.92 2,399.70 2,388.90 2,955.00 The City Manager recommended that the bid be awarded to C. F. Cgyer and Associates, lowest bidder. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Meyer awarding the bid for 30 Nomex fire ~to C. F. Coyer and Associates at'a cost of $2,080. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 10. Discussion held regarding serving the New Hope Ice Arena with sanitarr sewer and municipal .' water. The City Manager adVlsed that the construction budget had lnc uded $7,000 for tnTS . work, and recommended that the work be added as a change order to Project No. 297A" contractor, Jedlicki, at a cost of $6,100. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Meyer to approve ChanQe Order No. 1 to ~ement No. 297A rovidin for an additional 6 100 to install the sewer and water service for t e New Hope Ice Arena and authorizinG the Mavor and the Manaqer to siqn the same. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. F. PETITIONS AND REQUESTS Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 11. Ms. Frankie Francel, YMCA, appeared before the Council to request additional funding for the detached worker program for the year August, 1975 through August 1, 1976. She asked the Clty Counc,j to consider increasing New Hope funding from $4,000 to $5,000, since Crystal and the YMCA are both at $5,000. The City Manager advised that the $1,000 would be available from 1974 surplus and recommended that New Hope increase its share by this amount. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Enck, that the City of New Hope increase ~mmitment to the detached worker proQram for the 1975-j976 year fr~ $4,000 to $5,000. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. A request was received from BiQ Save Furniture~ Inc., 5520 County Road #18~ requesting permission to conduct a tent sale from July 22-28, 1975, s1ml1ar to the tent sale conducted last year. Motion by Councilman Meyer, second by Councilman Plufka 1rantinQ permission to BiQ Save ~ure, Inc. to conduct a tent sale from July 22-28, 975, a requested, subJect to staff requirements. 12. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. J i' Council Minutes - 8 - May 12, 1975 13. The City ~angger informed the CoUncil that t.l1e I1N&S was insisting that the City install a fen~e .,at the i.ce arena site in accordance with the agreement. The MN&S has offered to put the fence in for $4,060 with a provision for the City to pay over a two year period. A bid had been received from Crown Iron ~~rks Company to install the fencing at a cost of $4,764, with payment within 3D days. They would not consider a two year plan. Motion by Councilman Enck, secOnd by Councilman Meyer that MN&S be .authorized to install the ~q at the ice arena site at a cost of $4,060 for the work with repayment over a two year period, the payments to be made in 1976 and 1977. .---. Voting in favor: Voting agginst: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 14. A request ,ms received from Spray Tech, 4307 Quebec Avenue North, for permission to use a trailer as a temporary office. Discussion held as to how long this temporary use could be permitted. The City Manager said that the request had been to use the trailer for 12 to 18 months. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka Qranting permission to Spray Tech to use a house trailer as a temporary office subject to the fo11owinqrequ;rements: 1. Maintain a minimum of nine feet away from edge of roof overhang. 2. Two hour minimum, fire separation in window of existing building. 3. Minimum of one 5# ABC Fire Extinguisher 4. Product of Combustion Detectors tied into existing alarm system per NFPA #72-A. 5. Enclose around bottom of trailer with non-combustible material. 6. No windows or opening to side next to main building. 7. Trailer to be vacated' and removed by September 1; 1976. .--- Voting in favor: Voting against : Absent: Motion. carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 15. A request was received from the Northwest Branch of the Y~~A for the extension of Ouebec Avenue south of the Rockford Road to serve the orODosed YMCA facility. The YMCA included a request for the extension of municipal water. Motion by Councilman Plufka~ second by Councilman Enck acceptina the~etition for the extension ~erand extension of Ouebec Avenue and orderin feasibilit re orts for street extension and extension of municina water. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 16. A petition was received from the residents in the vicinity of 49th and Yukon requesting traffic signs in the area as follows: 1. Slow Children 2. A sign designating the Little Acre Park area 3. 20 mph speed limit sign 4. Stop sign at Yukon and Xylon Avenue North Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Plufka that the uSlow Children II sign and the ~esiqnatinq Little Acre Park be ordered, and items 3 and 4 be referred to the Traffic Commission. Discussion held Childrenu sign. vacation. as to whether the Traffic Cormnission should not also consider the llSlow It was decided that the uSlow Children" sign should go in now before summer Council Minutes - 9 - May 12, 1975 Vote was then taken on the question. VOtlng ln favor: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. Voting against: None. Absent: Hokr. Motion carried. G. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 17. Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING CLASSIFICATION LIST "NO. 648 C" OF NON CONSERVATION FORFEITED LAND. " The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilman Enck and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the following voted against the ,ame: None; absent: Hokr, whereupon the resolution was declared duly (assed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk-Treasurer. Page Extract Book). (Lot 1, Block 1, Holberg Helghts).. 18. Councilman Plufka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AMENDING JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY PERTAINING TO HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, TITLE I. OF PUBLIC LAH 93-383. " The motion for the adoption of the foregolng resolution was seconded by Coun~11man Meyer and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the folloWing voted against the same: None; absent: Hokr; whereupon the resolution was declared duly nassed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the Clty Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book). 19. Councilman Meyer introduced Ordinance No. 75-12 entitled "AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAl1E OF 38TH CIRCLE LOCATED IN HIPP'S HOPEWOOD HILLS REVISED TO BOONE CIRCLE" and moved its adoption. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilman Plufka and upon vote being taken thereon, the fOllowing voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: Hokr; whereupon the ordinance was declared dul assed and ado ted an" was signed by the Mayor and attested y t e lty erk- rea surer. Page Extract Book). 20.. Councilman Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST AND PENAL TIES ON DELIHOlJENT SPECIAL ASSESS- MENTS FOR THE YEARS 1972, 1973 AND 1974 AGAINST PLAT 62206, PARCELS 1128, 6325 AND 6655, N 6, TOWNSHIP R NGE 21 VILLAGE GREENS GOLF COURSE. The .motion for t e adoption o t e foregoing reso utian was seconded by Councilman Meyer and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the follow- ing voted against the same: None; absent: Hokr; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book). H. OFFICERS/COMMISSIONS AND CO~IMITTEES 21. The report on the Community Career Center Activities was held over for the next meeting. 22. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Meyer_ ratifyinq the election of Fire uepartment officers as follows: Assistant Fire Chief Cordell A. Bennett Day Captain Night Captain Day Lieutenant Night Lieutenant Harris N. Smith Donald A. Prall Stanley Schaefer Douglas C. Smith 23. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufka acceptinq, 41th rearets, the resign- atlOilof Dennis Ostlund, chairman of the Planninq COll111ission, extending sincere_ Uthanksll for hlS leadershlp'and asklng that he appear before the Council so we can express our appreciation personally. Eric,kson, Enck. Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. VotIng in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Plufka. Meyer. Hokr. Council Minutes - 10 - :1 ;,. " May 12, 1975 24. Discussion held regarding ap~oi~tments'totheP19nninqCommission.Thematter was referred to the Planninq Commission wlth -recommendations for appointments to come forward from them. 25. Consideration was given to appointments to the Liquor Commission. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Mayor Erickson that the followinq persons be named ~ liquor Comroissionwith terms as indicated: C. Gary Anderson Gerald Laurie Robert Sackariason Paul Strand 8116 39th Avenue North 3530 Yukon Avenue North 3425 Flag Avenue North 5740 Boone Place ~. December 31, 1976 December 31, 1976 December 31, 1976 December 31, 1975 Motion by Councilman Meyer, second by Mayor Erickson to amend the motion to include the .~tment of Marlene Williamson, 3501 Plaq Avenue North--term to exp,re December 31, 1975. Vote on the amendment was as follows: Vpj:ingin f~vor: ,Erickson, Meyer, Plufka. Voting against: Enck. Absent: Hokr. Mr.tion carried. Vote was then taken on the motion as amended: Voting_ in favor: Erickson, Enck,'Meyer, Plufka. Voting against: None. Absent: Hokr. Motion carried. with the Liquor Commission on June 9, It is anticipated that the Liquor The Council indicated that they would like to meet 1975 at 6:00 p.m.--preceding the Council meetin9. Commission will meet prior to this date. 26. The Commission minutes were reviewed by the Council. Councilman Meyer "noted that the Planning Commission had made note that they were disappointed in the way that the Council had handled the sign approval for the Northwest Baptist Church. He said he could not disagree with their comments and the proper action should have been to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation. 27. Councilman Meyer reported that the EDC as part of the transit studv is qoinq to be conductinq a survey. A questionnaire will be developed in conjunction with the MTC. After the question- naire has been deve.loped, they will be oresentinq it to the Councila and will be askinq for Council direction as to how to proceed and inquire whether funds would be available. 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 28. The report from staff concerning proposed Sidewalk Improvement No. 298 was reviewed. The revised figures for the sidewalk improvement were given as follows: 62nd Avenue, Gettysburg to Winnetka Zealand, 47th to .49th East Side 47th,Zeahnd to Boone Pedestrian Ramps (non State Aid) Pedestrian Ramps (State Aid) 36th Avenue, #18 to Winnetka - North side 42nd Avenue, Boone to Winnetka - South ~ide 49th, Flag to Boone/Quebec to Louisiana Estimate $ 70,640 21.890 21,,930 5,700 36,000 68,950 37,200 33,200 $295,510 Mr. JohnBauer~ 5539 Winnetka Avenue North, inquired as to the proposed assessments. The City Engineer reviewed the assessment rates as quoted at the public hearing on April 28, 1975. The City Engineer then stated that the proposed changes would result in the followinq changes in project funding: Total cost To be assessed City share From State Aid $295.510 79,000 41,160 175,350 ~ The Council decided that the sidewalk improvement should proceed as outlined above. Council Minutes - 11 - May 12, 1975 Mr. John Bauer then inquired as to whether the assessments for this project would coincide with the assessment along Winnetka Avenue. It was noted the sidewalk assessment along Winnetka Avenue.for residential property had been $.90 per front foot. Discussion held as to how sidewalks had been assessed over the years. Councilman Enck then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 298 AND PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS." The motion for the adoptlon of the foregoing resolutlon was seconded by Councllman Plufka and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the following voted against the same: None; absent: Hokr; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book). 29. Discussion held regarding enqineerinq contract for sewer infiltration study, The City Manager advised that the .letter had been sent to all the property owners telling them that any illegal storm water connections must be disconnected. A letter from Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.., dated May 9, 1975, outlining the work to be accomplished under the proposed study of the inflow and infiltration into the sewer system was reviewed by the Council. The "ost for the study was estimated to be from $8,000 to $10,000, including rental expense for the metering devices needed for the work. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Meyer tablinQ this matter until budget ~sion meetinqs for possible inclusion in the 1976 budget4 Motion and second withdrawn so that the matter could be debated. It was noted that New Hope was under court order to limit the infiltration and that numerous citizens had experienced sewer back-up problems. It was the concensus that the study should move ahead. The City Manager advised that a formal contract would be before the Council for consideration at its next meeting. Councilman Plufka asked that the estimated $8,000 to $10,000 charge be detailed. Discussion held regarding sewer rates and New Hope payments to Metro Sewer Board. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Meyer accepting the general idea of the ~stud as ra osed b Orr-Schelen-Ma eran & ASSOclates, Inc. sub"ect to rete; t af the arma contract. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 30. Discussion held regarding liquor store remodelino/exoansion. The possibility of expanding the municipal liquor operation to encompass another site, possibly at the north end of the City, was discussed. Need for a market research studv was discussed. A proposal from Razidlo Advertising to conduct a market research study in connection with the municipal liquor operation was reviewed. The cost to retain this. firm would be $7,7BO. Staff would not handle any of the study under the Razidlo proposal. Councilman Meyer stated that Mr. Razidlo had been heavily involved in the Edina project and they have run several marketing studies for other municipalities. Discussion held regarding the proposal submitted at the last meeting from Real Estate Research Corporation. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Enck to retain the Razidlo Advertising ~o conduct a liquor study at a cost not to exceed $7~/80~ pavabJefrom Liquor funds and that they be lnvlted to meet wlth the people lnvolved at the earl1est opportunlty. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 31. Discussion held regarding ice arena operation andpolicv reaardina time allocation for open skating versus rental time for schools, NHAA programs, and other community activities. The City Manager1s memo regarding this matter was reviewed4 'I d. Council Minutes - 12 - May 12, 1975 It was. the concensus of the Council that the first year the ice arena should be operated so as to maximize the profit. Motion by Councilman Meyer, second by Councilman Enck that the matter be referred to the Governmental Committee for the development of a policy statement for presentation to the Councl1. . ~ Voting in favor: VotiOg against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck~ Meyer, Plufka. NOM. Hokr. 32. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities' items were reviewed. The City Manager reminded the Council of the annual meeting of the association scheduled for May 22 at Ramada Inn. The report from, the nominating committee was noted as \\rere the summaries of tneMetropol itan Land Use Planning Bill and other key metro area bills. Discussion held as 'to the effectiveness of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. 33. Discussiun held regarding street striping program as outlined in the traffic study report. Motion by Mayor Erickson, second by Councilman Meyer orderinq plans and specifications for tlieT975 Street Striping Program and authorizing call for bids for same. (Bid opening tentatively scheduled for ~1ay 30, 1975, at 10:00 a.m.) Voting in favor: Votin9 against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Eock, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 34. Discussion held regarding establishing a meetino with Commission Chai~men to discuss the future of the various commissions. A meeting is to be set for June 2, 1975. 35." - Discussion- held regarding overrun on t'lorthwaod- pond dredqi-nq oroiect for the material excav- ation in the area north of the island. The original estimate for the work had been $12,000 plus sodding and other miscellaneous considerations. Mr. Glenn Cook. City Engineer. reported that a bill in the amount of $19,869.70 had b~en received from Schafer Contracting covering this work. The contractor was told to do the work on a force account basis. The work took 20 hours longer than had originally been anticipated. About 1200 extra yards of material had been removed. ~ The City Engineer said that the work I^laS done under a IItime and materialsll contract. Mr. Glenn Cook said he had originally estimated the work at $15,000. Upon questioning, Mr. Glenn Cook said that the contractor had not notified him when he went over the $12,000. Included in the $19,869.70 bill is about $2,000 which was not part of the original $12,000 estimate. ($2,000 was for soddin9). The City Engineer noted that the City had let the contract, including the 10,000 yards between Boone Avenue and 500 feet west of Boone Avenue. This- area was to be deepened-a. foot deeper than the rest of the area. and was coveted in Alternate No. 1. The City Engineer then asked for direction from the Council as to whether some of this work should be cut from the contract so that-the project finishes within or' close to budget, or whether the project is totlover- run. II Discussion held as to how this matter should be handled, and whether the additional dredgin~ of the north end of the lake should be cut back. The City En9ineer advised that Schafer Contracting has indicated that he will have difficulty getting the disposal area 9raded by the June 15 date at which time the easement on the Marvin Gordon property expires. The contractor says he can finish the project in 30 working days, but that he will need until September 15 to clean up the disposal area. The City Engineer said that the dredged material was to have been used for berms in the disposal area, but that with ice that was mixed in with the material, it could not be used for berming. This would have created storage area. Since this could not be done, it cost the City an additional $4,000. If the east end of the pond is dredged to full depth, there may not be storage available for the dredged material. The material would then have to be hauled away \thich would a1 so be costly. The City Engineer then requested permission to cut back on the dredging if we run out of disposal space and to go back to the contractor and attempt to negotiate the overrun on the excavation work at the north end of the island. ..~ Council Minutes "I' " , - 13 - May 12, 1975 th~ Citv Enoineer was instructed to take necessarv steps to cut back on the Northwood dredQinQ project so as to complete the work in line with oriQinal cost estimates. Discussion held relative to the fence problem at 9216 Notthwood Parkway. 36. The lift station plans for the Golden Vallev relief line were presented and reviewed. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Meyer approvino the plans for the sewer PUffiP;nq station as presented. Voting in favor: Voting agai.nst: Absent: Motion carried. J. NEW BUSINESS Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 37. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Meyer authorizinQ the issuance of business ~es as shown on attached list subject to the approval of the appropriate staff member. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. 3B. Motion by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Enck approving payment of City bills through check number 938 dated throuQh May 12, 1975 in the amount of $368,681.03 as shown on records on fIle in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, paufka. None. Hokr. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 39. The City Manager stated that no claims had been filed against the City since the last report. K. COMMENTS AND SUGGE>TIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT L. MISCELLANEOUS All comments were heard earlier in the meeting. 40. The City Engineer presented a written ~reliminarY report on proposed Storm Sewer Improvement No. 301 (Ella Addition) dated May 5, I 10. The written report confirms the oral report given at the meeting of April 28, 1975. The report was acknowledged and placed on file. 41. The Mayor informed the Council that the Suburban Nursino District would be holding a combined annual meeting and open house on Trursday, ~~y 15 at their new offices. 42. Mayor Erickson reported that he had received a letter from a group of citizens near 6058 Zealand expressing concern with the parking situation around Meadow Lake School. They are requesting llresident only" parking on 6~ Avenue North from Boone to Zealand. Motion by Councilman Enck, second by Councilman Plufkareferrina the reouest for oarkinq controls in the vicinity of 60~ Avenue North and Boone Avenue to the Traffic Commission and that a letter be sent to the cltlzens ex 1ainin that IlResident on1 11 arki"- is not en orcea e and that t e Cit is resent com;" UP with a corn rehe"sive lan that will not e rea Y untl t e 1rst meetlnq 10 une. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka. None. Hokr. 43. Mayor Erickson reported that he had a lot of calls urging this Council to take a stand on the ERA amendment. It was the concensus of the Council that it was inappropriate for the CounCIl to take a pOSition in regard to this matter. 44. Councilman r4eyer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND CONGRATULATING NEW HOPE JAYCEES. " The motion for the adoption of the fore- going resolution was seconded by Mayor Erickson and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow- ing voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Meyer, Plufka; and the following voted against Council Minutes - 14 - May 12, 1975 the. same: ~one;. .:absent: Hokr, whereupon - the -resol utionwas _ declared;~uly - passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk-Treasurer. (Page Extract Book). /-', 45. Discussion held regarding possibility of using a vehicle reqistration tax as an alternative to assessing cost of seal coat. Staff is to ;nvestiqate this possibility. M. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilman Enck~ second by Mayor Erickson and unanimously carried to adjourn the meetlng at n :00 p.m. until Nay 27, 1975 or until the can of the chair. Respectfully submitted, ~k Betty Poul iot City Clerk-Treasurer .~ .~ TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Items of May 21, 1975. Please note and remember that next week's meeting is~Wednesday not on Tuesday evening. Case 75-21 - The "yn has done some work on the problems discussed last week - what I do not know, but I am meeting with them on Monday to go over the revisions. Case 75-22 - Attached is a copy of a memo and some drawings in regard to the traffic problems on the 40th and Winnetka site. I did discuss the memo with one of the top notch traffic people who agrees with my earl ier comments. Whi Ie his comments are not for publ ic use, he did feel rather strongly that the creation of two intersections would create problems far and above those created by one open- ing. The County, in discussion last we~k, also told me that they preferred to limit to one access if at all possible." In reviewing the attached memo you wi II see that on Page 2, Mr. Anderson "that is normally desirable, in terms of traffic operations, to reduce to a minimum the number of driveway access points to reduce marginal friction." On page 3, Mr. Anderson out lined several reasons why the 40th avenue Ii ne up of one access i s"unneces- sary and even undesirable". First, he points out that there is sides of Winnetka. This 15 right. in heavy traffic nor are cars. It I ittle or no need for circulation of traffic between East and West Trucks are not going to attempt to drive straight across Winnetka is much easier to turn with traffic. Second~ as to Eastbound traffic on 40th driving into the site - this might happen once in a whi Ie, but al I of the traffic coming out of the 40th avenue - West of Boone - area~ is local traffic and wi I I be fami I iar with the situation. Also, the traffic would be obviously driving into an industrial area, which is not much of a choice when a major arterial (Winnetka) can be entered for access North and South. Third, "Signing is never completely effective ...." says Mr. Anderson. This is right, and a major problem,in my opinion would be trucks coming to the area, starting to pull into the llout'/r drive, after which they see that it is the wrong one. The alternatives are to either then back out "Into Win- netka tfaffic or to proceed the wrong way on the one way internal road system. Fourth, On page 4, Mr. Anderson points out that the proposed design is a departure from County policy, but not the standard used to develop the policy. This is not tel I ing the whole truth, in my opinion. Individual drives are to be designed in the safest manner, but a drive is an intersection and every traffic study or manual I have seen said accidents increase in direct ratio to the number of intersec- tions in a given sect-ion of road. In fact. most traffic engineers wi II tell you that a pretty good prediction can be made, given a set volume of traffic and then adding intersections, as to increases in accidents with each additional intersection. Attached are two draw'lngs marked A and 8. The petitioner has proposed to change his current plan so as to have the initial curb cut on the South of the property. Comments are made on the two drawings as to the potenti a I affect of the two dr i veway pr)posa Is. I n A, you can see the turni ng conf Ii cts that develop with three - 40th and two drives - intersections. Accidents in this type of situation develop, not from traffic on Winnetka, as much as from vehicles sitting on both sides waiting for an opening in the traffic. They watch North and South - then puJ lout... the same time the guy across the street does. Drawing B, shows two other problems. The vehicle that starts into the !Tout" driveway and then pulls back into traffic, but then cuts at an angle across traffic to beat oncoming traffic when he does get to the right access. Drawing C~ shows the petitionels attempt at having access at the 40th avenue point. This, of cQurse, would be a bad layout. However. a little work on design, with one curb cut could change the picture cons i derab I y. Aesthetics are important, but they can be handled, if the total site is considered when developing the road access plan. One final point is that having the South drive as proposed wi I I create a direct confl ict with at least two single fami Iy homes on the West side of Winnetka; the traffic,lights and turni,ng movements,are not really needed in terms of the use of those homes. A final, final point is that separate access is generally needed when there is a reaJ need to get traf- fic on and off a street. Overall traffic to the site in question is relatively light, at the same time, a wel I designed entrance wi II permit rapid.movement into the site and thus clear the public road. If th~re is some back-up on the site, with traffic waiting to get on to Winnetka, there is no problem with interferance on the public street. - 2 - "~ A final, final, final point is that if the alternative occurs and very heavy traffic occurs out of the site, the two drives would mean that no effective method, such as a stop I ight, would be avai lable to correct the problem. Signal ization can be used only when a direct and well-al igned intersection exists. Case 75-26 - Mr. Allen was to meet with the church people. Item 9 - With Mr. Ostlund's resignation, an opening exists. You have the two candidates from last month, Farmer and Frantz. Also attached is a new application from Mr. Gundershaug, who appeared be- fore you at the last meeting with a variance. The question is if you wish to hold additional interviews at this time --- recommend again one of the two hold overs --- whatever. JlA~oc~" City Manager May 16, 1975 , 'j! ....~.~J~___.... I -. _ _ _ __._ __.- i' ..' - - ______ ) I. ,./// ,.. _ .__ "..~. .," '_. t<I _ ___. . <l' ..,,- .~ '" ~.I.:; r".... ':.'f'....~.; ,:-::-.--4-'-, .l:U'" " - ~ Ii ._~ ." ,,: : I I . ,"",.t .., j \" __ . . . ....~ I ...r "', 1 I 1 -..;..t"T" . '. , -} I '\1 ..' _ _... I .' .1. I ' , I : .(..... ."'!'; ," 0 i I ., . , , , I : . I "',: ~r! ~ I ' , . I _ \' { ',.: i.J,I , . . ,:\. ,... f; I" \~~. 1''''I'.-<'~I''-.'I'. ,.~' .. .'" ._ ,.' I, \' ..\ ' I,~.:T!H .~.l~ \. i1 \1 ~ , .,.;> .."J......'.,~ ' i' ,~j \' " , I ; i ,-' .!. t' 1 I" ~ - . .... " :.,.' \ 1 ,.. .. --) \-.:\ ,," . ..... - ,,,,\ ~ . -. ", '. ( ..I '" \. .' ...... .. .~.. .." 1 .\ , "l;: "'. .,....1::,. I '" :, '. .."'.'> . ..".>- ' -~ \.~.:cl .~. \ ',..j__.=I ~l I j'" . -' ~-.-- ','" . j '. +.'. _.,,~-...2;1' . -: I I I _ ' ." \,., . I. t I. '. ..~~'. ,.>-.~ '-4'.-' .li.. j . i ~--= ,." ==r':;lr-~ ~~"r . ~.'.' __ ---i I I .-:-' ..-.--i. ~l ! . n,.)'-=-_ ~i ~ I : ~. i-- .-"" I~ I I -.,. -. j _.' . __ ._J 1 I .~ '1"" -' I I I ::.::.:-.-1 ,I I ,. ! ." . - -l 'I i .. .~:~...:..~\.... -1,-j. .' I I 1'1'. \ ' ~ ' ...,.t... -.}-r j I _~'-__ "_ ._,_.. 1 , .:..~ . .; ,.-" C:"'~ -." T 'I I __,'._..- ___~_ - ~-~~ . I I I I;;' ':'. ..1'_' I I .. -,... , .. '. ."--{ I I I '~+:- ?-i. il I : .....,.._...~_' Ii I I + _._ .' 1 ..I _.1 , ___' I 1 . t _. . .... I - ',_'_'_ ___', d I __ l__. .n.~ II ' _-'-_no I J __ 1 , ... _ . d _. - l' _. ... " I ___'..' {I I . -f -- . -. I I I ... ... ___ I I .n I ...' '--'1:1 j ~.._" ..-t I~ i " ..~.;) \..' :,' I _ r- '\ ~~ . '" '".. I 'II "~. /f" :e. I .\' I . ! ,,' I I , ..... I' ......1-.-- I 1 .,..;' .1 ". 0 __..I , r .. ~ I . I ,f'!'" : I' .' v \' , " , ., . . . o I ~.y . . t.'lt":.J{"_' . -? '-i: ,1. atlV' 'tj h ,",~.- 1. ~, ~ 11\' \ . '~~ . ~ ~ I > . ~ " I 1 l- -."".'"L'" . ~ ., , .. I .1 t::I ) ~ ~ l ~D r-,,: ) . I I. ." , , . , I I ..d I L I; , I Ii .; I i I , ~ .. '. 1 I , :~ . t " ,. -' , - , ,. \ -' , , ~ ~. I I' '1, - - - " , , , , '.' (~.:...';.,; r- " p ~!I I , I I >> r ~ ~ " r: I I - u ~ ! r. " I :1 . , 1 ~ " I' Ii , , , ;1 I: J: ,I ~ fi ! i, /". Itf-SLJ 9StJ? J '\ <;l-<7j-S t. f4 L \ I ~ ., ':\\ I , '. t ., t t' ~ " .. ~~, t ~ \ .~ t \' ~ ^ \ .~ ~' " ,. '.1.\ . ' " ~~ ... L ", ~ -t" ~~. 1 .. ,~ \'\ \}i 'J' ,-{~~ ~ t' I' ~ :tl .. .~ \ >...~ ., (" '} .,\ '.1 ;: {l \' 1. ..' .-. III , {. ~ ~\\ .~ I I I I I , ~ (l.. ,.... -f- ~ ... ~ ~ III <- .~ . :2. \:;: ... 1\ . .. ,~ .j\ ~: ~ " ". 1 ~\ I . t- or .... '<' -t ,~ I \. '0' . \\\ ~ , :i (i ! ~~ ~\ . ~ \ ..., .\ ~i \~\ .. (\ 1 III ~~i \. ,- .~~ , -~......'. ..' ,,, ^ .~ '!-J. .... ~i\ ;Jr I. '.\r. .v .c ~I: "';,'1 1 ;1'1 "\ ~ .. \ '-1' 'I' '-.1 t.... I '". . " . " 0'1, '.\ I '. '\ · . '\' \.t~ ... ' . .. t, ( 1.1 . i,.. :.. ~;. !:t' 'i 'Ii . ~", .\. ;',' .. . \. ., ""1 . ,: . I' I !,\ . il ....._ I t..,t~ h , ~ r! I, ".-,:1 z: 1,,-".. I ;:i;iJ ! ' \'1 " . , . ~ I'., ':\ >= '; I . ~\ ~ I .~ .~ .!I'. '.. lrC1.. [ ~ I .<--;~: }I ," -u I \ . 1'\ . ,.1 If't :1 U. -ill . .. .. II . \1 . , . .. . I. Il \ '. 'I · I I I \ .. I j, . I I -it. l' '11' I ,. . .' '! l ." '--' 4. I "'\' I i V. I ~. ,I ' ;._. -, . . '1 . .r I (. ,.r ,.. . I I . DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: May 6, 1975 75-21 Metropolitan Minneapolis YMCA Special Use Permit and Construction Approval 42nd Avenue at Quebec extended STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The long anticipated submission of the YMCA is now at hand. In order to proceed the "Y" needs to obtain a Special Use Permit and then approval of the specific development proposal. 2. The special use permit procedure was approved in 1974, under Case 74-55. The change to the code at that time added the following code provision: In the GI district only, private, non-profit social service organizations providing broad based family and individual activities of a health, athletic and social nature, providing the site to be used has direct access to a County highway and the conditions of 4.42 (3) are met. Section 4.42 (3) in turn provides: (A) Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. (B) The use will provide an economic return to the community commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. Since this provision was specifically adopted to permit thu "Y" to locate on the site, it is assumed that all con- ditions are met. 3. The site on which the development is proposed is some 428,115 square feet or just under 10 acres. The building is a 388 foot long building with several activity sections opening onto a central mall. The building has been designed to consider energy use and to provide an inter-directed orientation by use of the mall and layout. It was impossible to obtain a good reproduction of the site layout. The petitioner has included a photo of the. general area with the specific site development placed on it for use at the meeting; 4. A major concern is the access. In discussions over the last year it has been decided to extend Quebec Avenue as a public ~" ... - 2 - 4. street. This extension would then serve the "Y", the sheet metal shop to the East and the land locked parcel to the South of the sheet metal shop. The direct alignment would ~. also enable the intersect~on to be signalized at a later date if traff~c is such that it becomes necessary. The align- ment in turn presents some other problems. As can be seen from the attached s~te plan, the initial section of the street must come entirely from the "Y" property. This makes the access into the parking lot rather poor and the "Y" was to consider moving the entrance South and changing the layout of the lot somewhat. The "Y" was also to present a petition asking for the road and necessary water extension. This has not been done. 5. Parking is a questionable item. The site now provides for 194 parking spaces plus a bike rack area. The code does not specifically provide for parking ratios for this type of facility. Since every "Y" around seems to have inadequate parking the architect was requested to review the need. 6. The project meets the zoning code requirements for develop- ment. The property is zoned GI which has almost no require- ments so the restrictions are few. The architect has agreed to provide a detailed landscape plan, however. 7. Major staff and Design and Review concerns have centered on security for the site; access, parking and use. It was felt that fencing should be provided on 42nd to channel everyone .~ to the Quebec avenue access point. The concern is that people will be dropping kids off on 42nd Avenue, backing up traffic, or causing kids to run across the street if the traffic is Westbound. The other concerns are related ---- the adequate parking of both cars and bikes. The "Y" prefers to keep the front area completely open in order to provide a clear view of the building. They intend to use only a logo out on the street for signing, with the development to serve as the major focus. Outside of the general access concern, everything appears to be in pretty good order except for the need to petition for street and water and to furnish details on landscaping. /""'. , ~,." l'" i~' , "1~": ';f: I ""f:" .. ,," V. '! ~ """p,~ , ; -....:....+:it."~~i\~; .,J.....,. .\v/-;.", ...., 'k.,~,j'lI/..'1'! '''''';:;''..,.,,, 0 .' l .... !~"'!~~,f.~I"""I.''' ,,'" ,'1/; .,~.'...>.'f.,."".,-. .--.,.----,-,." .,'.,~~,2-j;~/ z.. I ."- . _ oIf:-':Pl":':,.-If - :r;":" i 'L DEL h:,~.I-'II.>"J '(.J2I'I"'~) 1",,1-.Y,~: ~ ..t..r1 ~~ ,;,;- ~ ;; ;.,; 0;. ,~ _ ~'" ""'12'\ -, - i r , .;V .~ ~'" .--' ~.;:; 2 " \0- 4: 0 -.', 'iLd '~~~;i.c.'~'~ ~ .;~1 t~~ - I " ".~.' .' '. ...., '" -; ~~-;-_. _ :tI~-^~ -,.": "..:,.1-',:/ t- vii.: 4-"" ...., _ ..:::,. _,:" ~ \,__'~i~I"~1<,./(.,b_. "---+,1,__'1_0 ,;'- -....t'- r-:~.- r-- '. ""~. ~'f. 0 " .; l'~~r:" rot ..~; _\'-' , . I"::.'.f -~_~ ::> :~'-rl:":" - 4" '" ~"I~'>-'_"'-' ,,1.\"1" . 't'.: ".., t1l X-d ... :'- ~ ". '1....(. . ", '" . r ", , 'I ,," I ex: ..\J... , ".:! ..; c'!::'.... "C" '0. -', I 46 TH <:l: A.VE t.I \, ,;' '" ""',.;" :II: ,. . .,> _ ""I ;- ~." ~ , :0~"~ \~\fi"~-~ ~ i55b:~;21~'.1~~~j~)~~._ ((" --;--'- z ~'~~I~l>.l~'f~'" O~/ I -..... f\; iIJ.)JI'..:I~i;" \) 'tj '15:1- it.... .t: i'~, 'F' l" I;,~. .../ . 4~ ~ AVE I i,," ~I ,e .~!.3 /; ~'I"~ ~.. ........... ;...' i~, 1'-.;'~, ....- !.... :.7 ~!.~ ~ ~ "i' ~'!I!'''' ~... " ~ ,::,: ~..... ~. ,;; . AVE. + ~.:.-' (-=: Ii ' Z """, ;,:. I~/j '~<:'"b - 4" If: , ;.: ~.;:jJ ) \..~~. 'V-~ ,\q i-, ....... .\n,",~/ , ~' ~ i \,~ \.'[ > , ,. ..j 'R~ ,,,,", 'JI i.~i,~_; '_1 .. } I ',,;;i ~rat ! r P' 340 NO 9 l' J~~ ~Y ~ ~_ (, - 75 ~ eASt:.. 7~ 2~ t 4:..7-' - ~": ~~w.:: ~r - .,;;r~l '~-_"tr- .",~.q ."r:..:---- :; ,.., ~I ~." , ..:: ... 1,:1 \,0 ;)',:I,"I.'~ .'"" .[, _ ... " " , ' , "J~l '-.., .~~ ---, HAVE - :3')-' ')l; I '. " ~." . r ; - .." ~39f z0i~/:\~,j!:,r'~'{~~~J.:"! \7i:~;1~ _. '173 . ".~.<:):,./.../ G'.."-'.'.. . fi~;r;~I+ii ,<~ I "-~"I/"'(.'-..j, ,_...-,.~: :139"" \. IN '.' /...~ t:"~'t/'J.~:: ~J} ,',' I>o'J,.'C;' '"'".J"" ., :i. 57 ~: ~ f";':> \~--::'.' -:,;.'.i:-..~~ ::lJ :J"'9 ::1._ "J."'-:':- ....:..:...4:..:' ~ .!<.72.L~!!J.. ~::.1:.:> ':I,;.l;?:,~ ~ ~'j,:~lwl,- :..:-.;...._. ".JdJ-:'::"'f-f~;9"") S7:~ ~_,c ':^': ,~"...~:1'V.S~>,,~~,<s/~ '<: ""'-{:.~I ','--., 'fl. ,1 'C' '6, /\. "e /....'''"; .. m_ ->i-~T~ jl,OE ,/'00. ("':.) l~,< .'i,,1 ~,~!'';'~~' I'" ." .~;i';""?O '."'J'\: \I. ;-/'~C~)I '.!:--l.;,-t~! -:I " \'-~I - t'., - '. y. .;;' "', '?' 0 ~ \~" \t;' ','.{ Y/-I ,ll)0' (~ '" ~;~ .~ '~'. Q: ~:.-s <"l':;' -'l\ S'>t;..},~(-c- ( _ _8/ 2 ~~~.'",'" 'c ' . \ " , 'd"i...t:.....f..roc~~l..,~JC{.f.. <;;.,;-~' ~,t.~.~ j ~ " 4 t,t' '{'''''(''(-\~ '-1 \.:.3_ ~,a Tti AVY,,:/... ,-'".>' ,~.\ -:.!/:Ji "v ..... '~l... ... ",,' to-;.t-, ~J" S'\<;>, ',,,,"" /.<X, :~ .... t/ Q .... r~ .... '(? v-\ ..,... \" N ~....."t N ,'" .';- \~ ., '" '" p..\J '" ~:tL.,.~ ()~~ .\ ::..-.:".!\/}\.~~ -, - "....,.. I '("~..... '~~;'~/J~~I~ " ~~,,~ ,IiI, I' J? 7f.1fi I ~ -. ~ t'k: 1) l€(IIni"i 1 /_;1' \.7B_~l ~ .~ r i~; ':::-=~ ~I r~1 <<. 4. , ,'0 H I i I I , .' I . f'- :';':D "~-C\ -I1U; , 421<0 AVE, N, i i W / AOM. !;::~~, /~. OF"FtGE i~, !ct ~"~ \ '.lr'II-f<~ I ;..J 1-' L-_. __ ....._...l. . _-I-J Zl- \ l>~ -p "- '-1 '~f ~ SCHOOL BUS 'Iltil Ci z I ; I:,;::; ~:-jl;~~j ~ I (I: L'::..:.- ' .. --... > - I 0 I '/' ", %31. '/1..''/1 I "" , Z '-'-'-'-'- , ,. . I I",." "ill1f,,-: ' 46 1/ r=;:-;-:- -/(./' 'f..i - . I .,,,.:.~~I:t:. '" (-171 I. ' I'/~," ~~ ... I I ,!:.Cj if.l'Cfu.~. ''itd.{ ~. ~i i . 1 '1-)"(.; "i ~ I .6 TH AVE..-- ~ ~ :;~Ci; ~: i OIlJJ #01' ~ .os"' ,:,.::....:.: i ~ "" . .. h-:ic C''"f';'';; - I < Z ..' 11~1"~;;' ':'"~::I" ~ ~ ~~. ;Z1':'Si~~, -<( - I :i'~'5C) 4~r" II ::I: C .tI~wO - . t I It L--L- _,-1._ I 1.i!l.L. r- __________. ;5 H A\ "; -_:~~ i,j i ! ~ t'---- ~r-- :~..:.: FRED ! I - 'I' ~~;"I, "~ :~~~II.~ ~ I .,; f./J,J ~ I' "-:=-.9 43RnAVE'R FL- -- =-= .... . f .__ y...~f--" :::.~ ~ <f~fL jl.:..Ji It j" _~t .-~'21 Z f11.-":.1.. /=::"';::1 I ; ~ - ..1"':','7 'f31f:,.. !......u:.', . I -11' ' ~- 'l- 'II:' '-, =-"'---',' T' ..f:l>c-, - ! . ~ , ....:.;..:- ~_:l.~~i____I~; ',f, "..., , r,., ,,' I.~\ J ' ,,,'" i .r'j', :.'1,1' :;;.r" 1'...,.... "~ '::,}.- !L .' r;;;: -- - _ .ROCKFORD fiP/z-c...!'L.'1"'$;' zl. 1/f.i'1JitJ(]i\1 ,.. I.;; ~ -- Lr'o~::!;n. '---.. --1.,.'S- "/1/7..,1--. _...;..;.1 ,>: _,}J ~ - ~.""; 'f"'.t0' ;' "" \;:' , ~ 'too 1/11 .; ''"' .< )t""""- /(!:. 'fh'!->;":;_~ 41 ST AVE N '"fur w' ""~"':.::--;-- IJ.J, -7. .-,....7- I '. > 1~5C:.!_;.!!2 ~ "!_~':,..l:?,I':Lj.-:~t::'_ loIJ:'L ~._ 11-"-::-.:' 4. "(,'~1.~:-,~' ....,..:'10.;3 ~C'5;:-'Y'.:.;~i ~ .' __~ " ,'\, ~ !;:'~ 1oy~i";~.- ~~'~~0:;n 1C::.T92~~..'~~ ~< -- f,,- ~ .~ r"-: 'fo'-i!'-{''i3 '~I,'1.z.!,:,{-';] "-;1'",:'/..0; ~j - ~ .-......., I~~:, z ;/:;1;1;, ,,;~~~~;;; ,~:~::;:' '-;j= z . --; '~"':'~ ~ ~:.,,:;,,; ~ ;~'i:.-(~..::.r w '.:":;~':; :;:'E~ .<,-' cr' ~'.'.i'~Ol, W ~;,;U'-j.;>!> "/':'{;1t;,'i;j, ~ (II 0 ",,'~ ..~ z .:._ ~. ..: ,- - {. .. _c._ ,~, ',." 1~.::'c7'" '{'.n''OCI1':;)''f,-' :, ,_-,.~,:.,-,- .. -+'~ -- " ,-...~.\'j 0 '" .,!.~t '_'.q~':/ 'f{..:f(L'" :'.'~..,~:.... c ,----:::- ;nlf 3)';:0 h',.Jt1 C U;. 3)..,,'.:: ~ 1_-< ;;Sio-3j7J J\j~'-.. 7 ~ 1; ~ J.}2f, ..'"-~tl- '" .~' . ~~,l~_. .:.-\(7.; "Vi .-?r!1? -:} ,1 "1--'. 3'h'E;j')~l ~~ ~.9 ;1'-"'/7 ,^/;.- . ", .-'-' 'Ll.'i"J - /""Ij~. .J. t"'._..'J.l j'I-I(,.')('/ \":, :J~ /",:0" ",)"'1= ' IJ'} J ~ ,..f'.l~::f:)" '" \ _ _J.1 39 1I'2 AV. ---,.~'<(:Ir,'71 cl (.'9CO ,___~- "d;.....~...r\~:,\..,...J co' -,. ---;; "J, .".\'[,/ a~G'.;~'" 'Od l87C "- l-- ~ L-Il . -:;"-.r1:..." T,b , __ ,'y" '. 7.T ;jfbl..i'I.~ ";"':~.,~C;-' ~ if~- - ~'j I__~.., ---l::':c;, ~,- ~ - _ t7. .J~:,.: 9':3,9,." tt .N )t'~b :--->- ..,,( .~~-+ 0 l~~~ :=j~ i~: '.-"d, LIONS d' J_:::~i--:- ~I- ~. t / PARK ~~:~~:i= ~II '~ 1 j6}~,~ - [llii\ 1(. ... 38TH AVE N -- "/"j'l .,~1,,'1, 111(,_ 31'''' z ;/.18'~~ 'I - 39 THA 3TH !17ct'.,; "e -, EBBJ'~- ;"'~ ,n'_"~-,-. '1')( - r "', .1 -/ . ~.,;" , ',', .. ) 3117 H;>fj/.}f. J8 TH . ..;; J/-":-OJ ~riai- -/-'$11 ~$ \. \ I 1, ,~ A '> ,Ji,.f(..l . .J;..:".' '" '" '" :> o , ;t:SeX' \ '! " -", ~ l-J/;b l>-~!i ~.. ('..~~ : i ~ ~ ...,-...... , 1-' ... \.1.: 1,.1. ell ,~ sr ~w J,.'/ ,'oJ- t p"1 \ , ~,.. ~e".::.J.,;"" 'n b.>e:cc.J...t j.:..M ,,,,Ab' /..X 'NeD BETHEL CEMETERY , - \ I \ , \ ! , \ ! , er - . f I . , I -4 . I , ~ I>- J ~ , '-- - r-- '--= , " DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: May 6, 1975 75-22 St. Croix Ventures Approval of Construction East side of Winnetka at 40th extended STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is the owner of a ten acre parcel fronting on Winnetka Avenue, lying between the gas storage area and Dura Process, extending back to the railroad. The "Y" pro- perty in Case 75~21 joins this property at its South edge. 2. The petitioner proposes to develop a private industrial park of about four buildings. The total development will probably include an office building on the Winnetka Avenue frontage, the building to be considered in this proposal, a second building like the one proposed further East and then a heavy industrial use at the East end near the tracks. 3. The property is divided between LI and GI zoning. The West 450 feet is LI - the remaining GI. The project proposed is in the GI district; consequently, there are few development restrictions. The proposed building is 112 x 240, that will be so divided that it can lease out up to six different sized areas using the 112 foot depth of the building and ranging in widths OI 30 or 50 feet. A small office is included for each section. The building is similar to the two on East Research Center Road just West of Boone. One or more sections could be rented by the wholesaler - manufacturers rep - distributive type opera- tion. 4. The major problem is the long range development of the entire site. At this point one access at 40th and Winnetka is to be provided. As the site develops, this road would be extended around the outside of the site and then exit on Win- netka agai~on the South edge of the property. From the staff level it is felt that one access point to line up with 40th should be sufficient for the site. The petitioner feels it would be to the advantage of the development to pro- vide the circle road with one-way traffic and separate entrance and exit. Of immediate concern is the layout of the parking for the pro- posed building. The parking is simply in a ring all around and adjacent to the building. Design and Review was concerned since there is a conflict between the parking, the access to the building and any moving traffic. - 2 - ~ 5. The major concern as noted, appears to be the total develop- ment. Design and Review asked for at least a preliminary overall site development plan in order to at least have a starting point for reviewing this and future development pro- posals. 6. Landscaping is also a concern. The petitioner has proposed to start a "Pyramidal Arborvitae" row on the North property line for screening for the "Y" property. A further request was made for a landscaping start along the driveway and park- ing areas. The petit'ioner agreed to review this request and to bring a plan to the Commission meeting. ~ ~ ,! T -"';',".,-_""c"<",,,,,,,,,,,,~~,,,,,,",,,,,';W"'';Y"1''""''~'~'~';''~~-''- _._----'_..__~_J..!-.-.;.......__~_. ,__;.._ J acl~ Anderson Associates Ifj\ '\ I TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ~""u ~ 165 Wildwood Ave. White Bear Lake Mmnesota 55110 , May 14, 1975 ~ Mr Robert E. Dowden Saint Croix Ventures 7145 Sandburg Road Minneapolis, Min~esota, 55427 ~ ~' / Subject: Geometric Design of Driveway Access for Proposed Development in New Hope on Winnetka Avenue near 40th Avenue , ""-'c}" Dea r ~lr D0I1den, IOc As per your request, we have developed geometries for the proposed driveways on Winnetka Ave. The design as shown on the accompanying plan sheet was developed to accommodate a C-50 design vehicle, which is a 50 foot semi-trailer combination designation. We have also evaluated the traffic operations aspects of various access config- urations as they relate to the street system, and we recommend this plan as the best solution as will be amplified in the following text. ASSUMPTIONS The only street access to the site is via Winnetka Avenue,County 156. The front third of the site is zoned light industrial, and the back two thirds of the site is zoned general industrial. In the first stage of development the light industrial portion will not generate substantial truck traffic and only one driveway (two-way) is needed. In the second stage, truck movements will dictate the design criteria for the access configuration, and one way driveways prove to be super- ior both from the standpoint of site circulation and traffic operations on Winnetka Avenue. The design vehicle as previously mentioned is a 50 foot long semi- trailer combination, the longest semi presently permitted by State law. Longer "double-bottom" combinations are permitted, however they do not . (612) 426-5717' --.-- ..~ "~,...~,-.........~ ,. "'-'.,~" . .~.....,~ol''''' '" ._...,.._~ I" " ,*.,.' ,.......-.--......._.....................~"'___~""'">l......---.._...._--..,.- - 2 - require as much maneuvering space as the 50 foot semi. .~ The on-site circulation pattern is one-way to facilitate proper orientation to proposed one-way angle docking. At the driveway access points, it was assumed that turning vehicles would occupy specific traffic lanes before and after making turns: 1. Northbound traffic on Winnetka, turning right into the site, would turn from the right hand lane. (trucks). 2. Southbound traffic on Winnetka,.turning left into the site, would turn from the left hand lane (trucks). 3. Traffic leaving the site to go north on Winnetka would wait for an appropriate gap and encroach on both northbound 1ane.s in completing their turn (trucks). 4. Traffic leaving the site turning left to go south on Winnetka would wait for an appropriate gap and encroach on both south- bound lanes in completing the turn (trucks). 5. Passenger cars would turn from and to the nearest lane. .~ DISCUSSION Alternate access locations were studiecl along. the entire frontage. At each study location traffic operations on Winnetka was considerecl to be of paramount importance. Also, the driveway relationship to 40th Avenue was evaluated, as was on site circulation and aesthetic considerations. ~t is recognized that it is normally desireab1e,in terrnsof traffic operations, to reduce to a minimum the number of driveway access points to reduce marginal friction. This is certainly true of two-way driveways. However, when one-way driveways are established there is no increase in interference with through traffic, and substantial benefits are obtained in terms of decision time, partic- ularly if the driveways are spaced well apart. ~ T , While it would be physically possible to locate the driveways in close proximity to each other, and located in the more conventional location opposite 40th Avenue, there are a number of reasons why this is unnecessary, and even undesireab1e in this in.stance: \ ~ 1. Unnecessary because there would be little or no need for ~AA~ ~ circulation of traffic between the residential land use on ~/~V:'7""' ~he west side of Winnetka and the proposed industrial use on the east side. In other words, there is no need for . ~!);. ~ providing a direct crossing movement. ~. Undesireab1e because if a direct crossing were permitted to 1.6~ 40th Avenue, traffic coming out of the site at the end of Lr' a shift would be tempted to proceed west on 40th Ave. Jj~ Residents in this area have already demonstrated concern ~ about excessive through traffic on 40th, as evidenced by 1AJ the installation of STOP signs on 40th at Wisconsin Ave, and the NO THRU TRAFFIC signs facing traffic leaving Winnetka. . ~ U~sireable because there would be a ~curring prOblem of J.J. ~ J(.l.~~tbound traffic on 40th inadvertantly driving i~ J.u... site on the presumption that the driveways are a part of ~ ~ (J 40th Avenue. Signing is never completely effective in these - s itua ti ons. 4. Undesireable because the resultant on site roadway config- uration would seriously diminish the prospects of landscaping the site in an attractive manner. The roadways would take up too much space, and require the removal of several mature trees. ~- .,~..;.......- .- ,,-....., .,.,...~---- .,~_.... .-... .....,;.~ '"'. ...-_...,..-.........-......._""'.-~_.....-..... ".,,- , " , --""""""'--'- : - 3 - ~ ArU-er ~ ~ ~~he separated one-way driveways would provide greater decision time for traffic entering Winnetka from the site and traffic entering Winnetka from 40th Avenue. The greater decision time is particularly needed by the trucks, which require significantly longer gaps to make safe entry into the traffic stream. Waiting drivers would be able to judge earlier whether a vehicle was going to proceed through on Winnetka, or turn into the site. On this basis traffic operations is improved for the entering traffic and safety is enhanced. . - 4 - Safety is also enhanced by the design of the right tUlf1ing movement into the site. The larger radii provided to accommodate the semi enables other traffic to exit from Winnetka with a minimum inter- ference 'with through traffic. -, RECOMMENDATION On the basis of our findings it is our professional opinion that the best configuration for access driveways to serve the uses proposed for this site is as illustrated on the plan sheet accomp- anying this transmittal. vie s'.!Qgest that the permit application submitted to Hennepin County i ne I ude a copy of thi s des i gn together with a copy of thi s t,ransmi ttal to backgrounrl the reasons for departure from their normal pol icy. We hasten to add thilt although' the prOposed design is a departure from their Dol icy , it is not - ~ a deperture from the standards which were us,ed in creating the policy, that being the driveway should be designed to accommodate ,the design vehicle in the safest and most expeditious manner. , - He would be happy to discuss our f'indings with the County or the City if you fi ndi t necessary to do so. Very truly yours, Ci"il' ~' ~ Ltj (j,A..JL~',,,,, i I, Jack 1-1. Anderson, P. E. - ......-7 'I r I :1 I 1. I . , i 1. ft I I ; i j : I f',tl 1 I I , 1 I I , I z's-~ ---\. r (j) . I. ~. I ) -, I' ; i I. , ~ . , .- ".-j ~ ! ~.... t '''';........ 1 I- ; "', I -', ! ''\, , TYPIC^L BUILDING SIZE E LOCATION fOR ILLUSTRATIVE rURPO~tS ONLY . i " ! '"", .. , . _"'<.z._"C:;' , ~ I I 1 , "\. ; " (1 j , " , '--.1 ....' I 1<: ~~~:;,:'!-: If'-. I ", ',~ I , ~l t,<. :~~ ~'~~~~~ ...."'~ "",Jr ./ "l, I -' I i ; , i \" ! -p. "~--"-;r'-- j I _ ' .Q R ," ',/~--::r,~---"r"'~ ~'""""~f.?-8 lS~ ,/>. ." ! 1 ! [,,-;__~____ ______._~_=~::-J.~__:.~__~-:__===_~.~~=____=~--.::___. ~~~t j ,.';'1 '$ (> t I I I i I I I i , I I '-'. ! :-",-,. .----..<> I ------ ,,/ o,',t,~. 1 ,I -'-!~~ .# --. - ,,);I -. '- ~~ ---.-.. e> L1G;HT 11-< Dll5TR 11 I ! ,>0 I I'M"": 1 :- ! ~ \.O-i I-su"t=, 1: [)fVfI.:OPMENT; ~Sl '~~ O~E D!WJri. ... 2,d S,A.'){t - TWO !1H1If1E~ .. 2~ rr~~?v c~ ,-r:t] ~ f) ~ ~~(At.F. ~ fit '!" ;rat C 50 0/;$161'1 "!r/ffCLI'! \-6 I .. 1 , I , I , . I .' I I . '. I I I I . ~ PROPOSf 0 DR IVE\~J;\ Y At to WINNETKA AVE. - CO, R 10, , JACK ANCUlIJON MlIOC:lATU llo:l WILDWOOP AVE. WMe Reo, Lau, lAinn. 55110 "'/t. - 5777 . , . I _/ r '; : I I I ~~ i I I I I It : I I . j i I 1 e- (j) " , , , 1 I . ~ \' "}q~ ~ ~ , J...-';"_ __ _ ___~ ___ L _- .(--Jr;J .~. 'r:~') -------;<::~~~~. @ t~~ f I .~,~_LA 'f::-~' @';r~-- ! ~~_!.,.' Z;~~( r-2-.----------------------- , . -~ \\ '.. - i-, 0 ,.- NORT~" ~ I DRIVE' \ I .( fUTURE) \. , r.'<~-~\:~~", """ "~J ~ ~ i I ~ . ".,..1 '", I ,>~..~ 1 ~ .~~ to 1:" ~ 01 0"01 ~ 'I I TYPICAL BUILDING SIZE ii LOCATION \ I I . I ,", : I I fOR! LLU'STp,AT!\f[ ;1 I, .~_ PtJf1D:)S~_S ONLY" - t! · t ';'''' \ t 1 t , . " ,',;"" i " ~~1 I ~ 1 - ' , i,' lit J""'"' I ;1/ I I ~:-'" ,j ". i \ <> ' , I I I : i' ~ !, ! ""'.; ~Ci{1!~ J I ( '" " " ". -",' 'I" lX':; ~'7 I I" " ' " "'....." 1:~,1 l !-~~ ~~-----~!. Ii:, F.>Y.."A';~~ . ir:'J" '<,._ I:~~~ I ~,_t'iJf f~' i I : 1. ..~-- -.. I ,I J: I I~ I I I : I I I I I I I I r<'- ....... " f".,;.. "\.~':,... I .' I l " j 2~. 4 ~ -1 LI,.HT INDUS' STAGE DrVnOPf-1EMT ~ I ~ sr"<:,;; - ONi'l: flll.!Y!'i. ....a.WAY ( /l"d 57!'::.:.. n-,.'-, on~~P!5 t, ,.~t~~~'t -', I 5('/lLE' I d.. !JO' e 50 !)~~.e;!"! V,,"'!I(Lfi 'I J PROPOSED DRfVE'.,JA Y . I " , I r'.' ,', 1__.._- ."e I ----------------------'------- ~ .. <: ". ,. C % i" ... . :s: I ~ I .... I . I I I I t , i I i i i ! ';~. i l I I , .1 I \ I I :2.1 I \ I i I I \ \. I @ €-. f)O ..-'? e o e '0 o -.=-- -- - - - - -' -....... - .... --- - ---... . - I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - -'I.... .. .. - - - -.. ----..... I ----- .1 '\).. (:______~~'_U'\ v"~.;:",...,, I E. 1. r-=. : ~ .- ;";. 'A~_:.:, ~,....':u.4....:...." I _ _ .. .:;..'i:;~,'f:_~i ".- . . ....;:~.~~-:"' "..---.----, . ,...-------, . .......... . 'J;~ "~~'g,,,~:-...., : ~'!,:!,;::;:, -.. . ...~..: . ~ ,- , .., . DATE; CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: May 6, 1975 75-26 City of New Hope Consideration of Zoning Text Amendment to Permit Churches in Industrial Zones. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. As most of the Commission is aware, the question of churches and their locations has caused many a conflict over the past ten years. The problem had its beginning in a general feel- ing by the City officials in the late 50's and early 60's that churches were good and therefore, should be encouraged to locate in the community. Consequently, they have been located in many areas, some of which would have permitted special use permits or outright use. Others located in com- plete violation of the zoning restrictions. Many of the problems with lack of special use permits have been cleared up over the years - a recent example is the House of Hope church last fall. 2. The zoning code permits churches as a permitted use only in the LB zone. They are also permitted as special uses in resi_ dent ial districts. There are now nine churches in town. These include: Church Location Beautiful Savior Lutheran St. Joseph's Catholic Holy Nativity Lutheran Holy Trinity Lutheran Mennonite Brethren House of Hope Lutheran Church of Christ Church of Epiphany NW Baptist Church 34thfIndepen. 36th/Boone 36th/Winnetka Gettysburg/42nd Boone/42nd 48th/Boone 50th/Boone 55th Boone Boone/Bass Lake Zoning Year Completed SR SR LI SR SR SR SR SR Rd.SR 1963 1970 1961 1965 1963 1964 1966 1961 1962 All of these, with the exception of Holy Nativity, could be made "legal" if they are not, under present zoning. The only three I am sure have special use permits are St. Joe's, House of Hope and the Baptist. The others have never come up for review. Consequently, with the exception of the Holy Nativity Church at 36th and Winnetka, none of the churches has much of a pro- blem from a zoning standpoint. 3. Holy Nativity has a bigger problem. They are an illegal non-conforming use. Under the code, they should never have been permitted to locate where they are and perhaps should ~- !! .- . '. 3. even be forced to close up now except for the fact the City let them in to start with. ,A . The church now wishBS to expand by adding a small garage for storage and a major addition to the parking lot. Even if they were a legal non-conforming use, they could not ex- pand. -', The choices in this matter are few. It is first assumed that the church is wanted in the community. It is an active church, deeply involved in community affairs. The ordinance cou1d,of course~simply be overlooked and the church told to go ahead. This would solve the immediate problem, but would set some very bad policy for other zoning decisions. A second alternative Would be to amend the code to permit churches as a permitted or special use in industrial zones. The problem here, of course, is that a code change would need to be such that it wo~ld apply generally through the district. The property could, o~ course, also be rezoned to SR or LB. Apparently, however, the church wishes to keep its LI zoning because they are not sure for the long run if they wish to stay at the present location and they want the industrial zoning to keep the resale value up. The simplest solution would be a rezoning to LB, since the present buildings apparently could be converted to offices, or medical clinic uses, which are permitted in the LB zone. This would enable the church to become legal and yet preserve 'the reuse of the buildings at a later date. ~ The second solution would be amendment to the code to provide for a special use in the LI district. The criteria could probably be drawn to provide only for a very few sites so as to not open up the entire vacant industrial area to churches. Also, a practical fact is that most industrial land is priced out of the range of a church. 4. The basic question is whether this specific church should be a concern, and since the City let them build originally, it apparently should be. Then how can the church be accommodated without a major problem being created for long term adminis- tration of the zoning code. ,~ '" / . AGENDA ',~ \, ( PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Case No. 75-[7 (Tabled from July I~ 1975) Variance in Sign Ordinance - Wong's Kitchen, Petitioner 4. Case No. 75-32 (Tabled from July I, /975) Rezoning SR to LB - 36th and Hi Ilsboro - Dr. Saliterman, Petitioner. 5. Case No. 75-34 CTab led from July I, 1975} Change in Variance Conditions- 7401 - 42nd, And rew Hanson, Petitioner. >~se No. 75-35 (Tabled from July I, 1975) Variance in Sign Ordinance S. R. Harris Company, Petitioner 5100 County Rd. #18, Case No. 75-37 (Tabled from July I. 1975) Rezoning SR to MR - County Road #18 a~d 40 1/2, Marvin Gordon, Petitioner 7. ~. 75-40-Variance - Side Yard - 3824 Gettysburg Avenue, Ralph Schmidtke, PeTitioner. 9, ;/.. 'vr: ~ Case No. 75-41-Variance in Fence Regulations - 4701 Independence, Jerald Jenser, P~titioner. Case No. 75-42-Variance in Garage Size -3957 Zealand Avenue, George Christen, Petitioner Case No. 75-43-Variance in Parking Restrictions - 7205 62nd Avenue North. Ronald Chapman, Petitioner. Case No. 75-44-Variance in Front Yard - 4808 Decator - Ronald Gieneart, Petitioner. COMMITTEE REPORTS 13. Repcrt of Codes and Standards Committee 14. Report of Land Use Committee 15. Report of Design and Review Committee NEW BUS I NESS 16. Interviews with Appl icants for Canmission,. 17. Review of Planning Proposals 18. Presentation of Deferred Assessment Proposal 19. Approval of Commission Minutes of July I, 1975. 20. Rev!ew of Council Minutes of July 14, and July 28th, 1975. 21. Additional Comments and Requests from Citizens, Commissions and Staff 22. Adjournment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1975 , 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was.held on July 1,1975 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL -WAS TAKEN Present: London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson Absent: Allen (excused), Herman. Mr. Herman arrived at 7:34 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Chairman Cameron noted that the first case before the Commission was a request for a variance in the sign code. He noted that the Codes and Standards had been studying the sign ordinance. Mr. Allen, the Chairman of that Committee, was unable to attend the meeting because of a family emergency and had re- quested that this case be tabled until the 1st meeting in August. Mr. Allen had also requested that the discussion of the sign ordinance be delay~d until the 1st meeting in August. . Mr. Christensen moved to table Planning Case 75-17 - Request for Variance ;n the Sign Ordinance at Wonq's Kitchen - until August 5. 1975. Mr. Craigie second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: London~ Christensen. Cameron. Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson None Allen. Herman Motion to table passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 75-18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 8108 28TH AVENUE NORTH - JOHN BREHER. PETITIONER. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Larson stated that he had written to Mr.Breher, but had received no reply from him in regard to this request. Mr. london moved to deny Planning Case 75-18 - Request for Variance for Rear Yard Setback and Gara~ size - at 8108 28th Avenue North. Mr. Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: london, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson None Allen, Herman Motion to deny passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 75-30 - REQUEST FOR REZONING - PUO - VARIANCE AT 45 AND 45~ AVENUE NORTH AT WINNETKA - WEST SUBURBAN BUILDERS, PETITIONERS. Mr. Jensen moved to table Planning Case 75-30 until later in the meeting to allow time for a represen- tative of West Suburban Builders to appear. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron. Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson None Allen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 75-26 - REQUEST FOR REZOIHNG LI TO LB - 36th ANO WINNETKA - HOLY NATIVITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PETITIONER. Dr. Cameran noted that this was the third time this request had been discussed before the Commission. He stated that the property had not been originally zoned to permit a church. However, the church had been allowed to build and was now requesting a rezoning to make it in conformance with the ordinance. The concensus of the Codes and Standards Committee and the staff was that rezoning the property to LB was the best solution to the problem. The area did appear to meet the definition for LB as to use and location. Mr. Herman moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-26 - Request for Rezoning LI to LB at 36th and Winnetka. Mr. Craigie second. Voting in favor: Voting' against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson None Allen Motion passed. PLANNING CO~1ISSION MINUTES - 2 . JULY 1, 1975 7. PLANNING CASE 75-32 - REZONING SR TO LB - 36th AND HILLSBOROUGH - DR. SALITERMAN, PETITIONER. ~, Chairman Cameron noted that Dr. Saliterman had requested that this planning request be held over until the first meeting in August (5th). Mr. Pakonen moved to table Planning Case 75-32 - Request for Rezoning SR to LB at 36th and Hillsborough until August 5th, 1975. Craigie second. Discussion followed between the Commissioners as to whether or not it would be appropriate to hear com- ments from citizens that might be present in regard to this case. The feeling was that inasmuch as the citizens had not been notified that the request would not be heard, they should be allowed to comment. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: None Herman. London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen. Pakonen, Gustafson A 11 en Motion denied. Chairman Cameron stated that Planning Case. 75-32 was now on the floor and invited comments from the citizens present. The City Manager pointed out that under the terms of the ordinance the petitioner will be charged another $25 and that this will be used to send out notices before the meeting of August 5th. He added that there had been a number of calls to his office expressing interest in this request. Mr. Ron Schell - 9121 36th Avenue North, stated that he had lived in the area for three years and that inasmuc-f1 as there are currently plans to develop the area behind him with single family homes. he felt that perhaps in the future the original zoning would fulfill its purpose. Mr. Pakonen moved to table Planning case 75-32 - .Request for Rezoning from SR to LB at 36th and Hills- borough. Mr. Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Voting against: ,Iibsent: Herman, ~ondon, ,Chri stensen, Cameron, era igi e, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson None Allen -. Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 75-33 - REQUEST FOR REZONING GI TO LB AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 7675 42nd AVENUE NORTH, RANDALL HERI1AN,PETITIONER. Mr. Randall Herman, 1120 North Hamline, St. Paul was present and stated that he was a Doctor of Veter- inaryMedicine. He was asking for the rezoning of the Hilltop Cabinet property on the basis that the area was changing and was largely LB now. He hopes to establish an animal hospital and felt that there was a need for this in New Hope. He added that if he were allowed to build in New Hope. he would follow the standards of the Pollution Control Agency and the Animal Hospital Board. The facility would be a full animal hospital. Mr. Herman presented an illustration and sample plan of the proposed faCility for the benefit of the Commissioners. The hospital will include three examining rooms, a surgery. a lab, separate \'1aitingrooms for dogs and for cats/birds, an x-ray room, general treatment rooms, an area for dental h~alth, storage facilities, and a separate isolation ward. It would have stainless steel cages with concrete runs. In response to qU,estions from Mr. Pakonen, Hr. Herman stated that there \'JQuld be adequate, parking areas, that he did not anticipate that there would be more than 4-5 cars at the c.l inic at anyone time, that he would provide sidewalks if they were required and landscape. as required. The City Manager noted that Mr. Herman could meet parking space as required by City Code. Mr. Herman further stated that he would anticipate the hours of operation to be 9-6 Monday through Fri- day, with perhaps evening hours once or twice a week and a half day on Saturday. He stated that there would be someone on call 24 hours a day but that, based on his present experience. he did not envision a large amount of traffic. He added that pet hospitals usually had a steady stream of cars, not many at one time. Initially, he expects to have two employees -- one for kennel help and one certified technician. In answer to a question from Mr. Pakonen, he stated that there would be no outside kennels or cages. He did not expect to Change the size of the existing building because there was adequate space (2700 square feet). He further stated that he did not intend to sell animals. He pointed out that occasionally veteri- ~ PLANNING CO~~ISSIQN , MINUTES - 3 - JULY 1, 1975 narians were given animals to dispose ofJ try to sell, or give away. The City Manager stated that he would be allowed-to sell an occasional animal but could not run a retail business. Discussion followed between the Commissioners about the possibility of referring this request to Design and Review, even though it is not new construction, the timing involved as far as purchasing the proper- ty, and whether or not a table at. this time would hinder the purchase. Mr. Herman noted that purchase of the property was contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Bill Hannemam, of General Brokerage Company at 6800 France Avenue, was representing the seller of the property. He stated that the sale was contingent upon the request being before the Council on the 14th of July, that it was a prime property, and that there weee other parties interested in the pro- perty, primarily of an industrial type. Further discussion between the Commissioners, about the possibility of granting the change in zoning and the special use permit contingent upon the approval of the Design and Review Committee. After more discussion, a meeting of the Design and Review Committee was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on July 10th, at the City Hall. Mr. Christensen questioned the soundproofing of the building. Mr. Randall Herman noted that he did not believe there would be a problem since no residential area is within four blocks and the exterior walls are 12 inch block. Mr. Harold Herman. father of the petitioner, requested that he be allowed to speak. He stated that they did have financing, that they were more than willing to follow City codes and standards, and that it was only in their best interests to provide a pleasing exterior to the building and proper landscaping. No one was present in the audience in regard to this case.. Mr. Pakonen moved to recommend approval of Planninq Case 75-33 - Request for Rezoninq from GI to LB and a Special Use Permit, ~ubject to the approval of the Design and Review Committee of the site plan and exterior work. before the petition~r appears before the Council. Mr. Gustafson second. Mr. Christensen amended the motion to provide that the special use approval was based on the fact that the clinic will have no outside structures for the keepinq of animals which have direct access or open- inqs to the open air or yard, and there would be no animals for sale and no nuisance characteristics. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor of the amendment: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson . Voting against: None Absent: Allen Amendment passed. Voting on the amended motion: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen Motion passed. Mr. Pakonen stated that he wished to make it clear for the record that the rezoning had been based on what has happened in the area and what appears to be the sequence of events. Mr. Herman re-stated that the Design and Review Committee would meet on Thursday, July 10th at the City Hall, and that the petitioner should bring a site plan and as much information as he could about his plans for the clinic to that meeting. 9. PLANNING CASE 75-34 - CHANGE IN VARIANCE CONDITION - 7401 42ND AVENUE NORTH, ANOREW HANSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Andrew Hanson, 4154 Quail. st?ted that he was part-cwlner of the building at 7401 42nd Avenue North. He stated that he had purchased the building approximately 2 1/2 years ago and that last year he had, without obtaining a permit, ripped out the green area which had proven difficult to maintain and replaced it with black top. This is turn provided him with more parking space. Mr Hanson further stated that after he was notified that he could not do this, he tore out the black top and replaced the green area. He feels that is more of an eye sore than a nice lOOking building at the present time, since it is difficult to maintain, is regularly driven over and in extremely wet .wea- ther cannot be maintained properly. . FtI\NNmG COHI,lISSION Mli;UTES - 4 - JULY 1, 1975 9. In answer to a question from Nr. Jensen, Mr. Hanson stated that he felt that the short time that the area had been blacktopped, it had been successful. Lengthy discussion between the Commissioners about the parking layout, the problems that exist with ~ entering and leaving the parking lot. whether or"not there was adequate room for parking as proposed to be strfped and I'/hether the angles currently used for parking were actually as drawn on the proposed strjping plan. Mr. Herman raised the question that the 29 foot strip might be too narrow for maneuvering and parking diagonally. In answer to a question from Mr. Gustafson, Mr. Hanson stated that the black toppped lot had worked well last year. and that the cars had always parked diagonally, even when the striping was the other way. He further stated that the overflow parking presently went on to Oregon Avenue. Mr. Randy Kyrola. of First Line Engine Service. stated that he wished to go on record as being in agree- ment. with Mr. Hanson. He said that last year he had been required to put in 18 feet of green area on his property. He felt that it did not look good now, even though they had tried to keep it green. He added that his excess parking went on to the street and some of the.cars parked across where All Star Sports was going to build. He added that he would like to see the green area on Oregon Avenue black- topped all the way to the street. Mr. Herman expressed his concern with the parking spaces, as proposed to be striped, being unworkable. Mr. Kyrola stated that they did work, and Mr. Hanson added they had worked for 2 1/2 years. Mr. Jim r'1anuel, Nr. Hanson1s partner stated that when the cars \'lere a little bit angled, it worked just beautifully. Further discussion about the necessity of the cars at the far end of the lot having to back all of the way out of the lot. Mr. Herman suggested that a professional be retained to look at the property and make recommendations on the parking layout. COrlcensus of the COll1missionei's was that rerlloval of thE: green area was not a pl~oblem, but"that the suggested parking layout was. Mr.. Pakonen moved to recommend that Planning Case 75~34 - Request for Change in Variance Condition - at 7401 42nd Avenue North, be tabled until the first meeting in August in order for a professional review of the lot layout. Mr. Craigie second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman. London..Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. Jensen A 11 en Motion passed. In response to a question from Mr. Hanson, the City Manager stated that the City would take no further action in regard to the violation of the original variance conditions until he had again appeared before the Commission. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. Chairman Cameron re-convened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. 10. PLAlmING CASE 75-35 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE - 5100 COUNTY ROAD # 18, S. R. HARRIS COMPANY, PETITIONER. There was no one in attendance to represent the petitioner in this request. Mr. London for the benefit of the Commissioners, described the existing signs. There are two small signs on the Southwest corner of the building. The sign on the South side of the building, ,in his opinion, caused no problem. The sign on the West side of the building was not in conformance because of the word- ing. A sign would be permitted indicating delivery area, but the sign in question said "Open to the Publfcll which was technically in.violation of the Code. Discussion followed between the Commissioners as to the sign that was in violation. whether a hardship was involved that would allow the variance, and how important the sign was to the operation of the com- ~ pany. Concern was expressed that granting of this variance would set a precedent for other business along #18 that would prove difficult in the future. In answer to questions about the existing pylon sign, the City Manager noted that that particular sign had been installed with the approval of the City. Further discussion about the fact that the signs in question had been installed without the petitioner applying for a sign permit. PLANNING CO~~lISSION , MINUTES - 5 " JULY 1, 1975 10. Mr. London moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-35 - Request for Variance of Sign Ordinance at 5100 County Road #18. Mr. Herman second. Mr. Gustafson requested that the motion include the requirement that if the variance were granted, a proper sign permit would be obtained by the company. Mr. Pakonen restated his concern that granting this variance would be setting a precedent that might prove dangerous in the future, inasmuch as a hardship had not been proved. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London. Cameron, Gustafson Jensen, Pakonen, Christensen, Craigie A 11 en Motion failed for lack of a majority. Further discussion. Mr. Craigie moved to table Planninq Case 75-35 - Request for Variance of Siqn Ordinance. at 5100 County Road #18 until the first meetin~ in Auqust to allow a representative of the Harris Company.to appear before the Commission. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman. London. Christensen. Cameron. Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen,. Gustafson A 11 en Motion passed. 11. PLANNING CASE 75-36 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF FRONT AND SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 3741 JORDAN AVENUE NORTH, JARELD THOMPSON, PETITIONER. Nr. Thompson was present and stated that he wished to construct a room on top of his existing 24lx 221 foot garage. He was requesting a variance of fivG et on the North side of the property and a variance of two feet on the front. to allow him to build the .';ddition to the edge of the overhang. In answer to a question from tk. Gustafson. he stated that he had been a resident of the al'ea for nine years. He stated that he needed the additional area to accommodate his two sons. both of whom are in wheel chairs. Further discussion about the proposed windows on the North, that would face a single family residence. Mr. Thompson plans to install blo 2011 x 36" sliding cqsementy.dndows. ~iscussion about the proposed roof line. the reason for Mr. Thompson needing to extend the addition to the edge of the overhang and whether windows would be a problem to the resident to the North. Mr. Thomp- son illustrated the proposed roof line for the Commissioners and noted that his immediate neighbors had been consulted about the proposed addition and had expressed no objections. Mr. Gustafson made a motion to approve Planning Case 75-36 - Request for Front and Sideyard Variance at 3741 Jordan Avenue North. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen. Gustafson. None Allen. Motion passed. Mr. Herman suggested that if Mr. Thompson had any sketches or plans available for this project. he would be wise to bring them to the Council meeting on the 14th July. 12. PLANNING CASE 75-37 - REQUEST FOR REZONING SR TO MR AT COUNTY #18 AND 40 1/2 - MARVIN GORDON, PETITIONER. Mr. Ted Abe. Attorney for Mr. Gordon. was present with Mr. Gordon to discuss this request. Mr. Abe stated that Mr. Gordon was requesting the rezoning of the two small parcels of SR property to enable him to more easily develop his entire property. The two SR parcels are presently landlocked by the adjoining MR property. Mr. Gordon would like to combine the parcels and develop them as a unit. Mr. Gordon stated that he intended to provide sufficient buffering area to preserve the integrity of the area. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Gordon as to whether he had any specific proposals in mind at the present time for this property. Mr. Gordon stated that he wished to settle the rezoning question before he presented an actual proposal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 6 - JULY 1, 1975 12. to the Commission. ~, Discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Abe about access, the fact that the property was close to #18, the possibility of delaying a decision on this rezoning until the City's Comprehensive Plan could be reviewed, the proposed density that Mr. Gordon intended for this property, and how the traffic could be controlled in the area. Further discussion about the need for rezoning to enable Mr. Gordon to seek financing, the proposed den- sity and the cost presently involved to Mr.. Gordon with the property, taxes, etc., when he was unable to make development plans. Mr. Abe stated, that in his oplnlon. the Commission would have the desired control of density when an actual proposal for the development came before them. Lengthy discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Gordon about the need for a development proposal or specific plan. The concensus of the Commissioners appeared to be that Mr. Gordon should present a specific proposal to the Commission before it acted on the rezoning. Chairman Cameron pointed out to Mr. Gordon that the Commission need to see a complete plan for the total piece of property. Mr. Herman stated, that in his opinion. there was a significant reason for a rezoning because of the nature of the intersection and the changes that had occurred in the area. Mr. Gordon stated his feeling that if he had the rezoning and then presented a plan for apartment/town- house development with not too high a density, he would stand a better chance of approval. He was re- lucta~t to go to the expense of developing a plan and then having it denied. Discussion about Mr. Gordon's previous plan, the possibility of a professional planner assisting him, and whether or not Mr. Gordon thought he could have a plan within 90 days to present to the Commission. Mr. Abe re-stated that Mr. Gordon felt that something must be done with the land and that he felt that if he could have the property rezoned he would be able to proceed from that point-. Chairman Cameron pointed out to Mr. Gordon. that in his opinion, if he came before the Commission with a reasonable plan, he would get the rezoning. However,there It/as no way he could get the rezoning with- out first presenting a plan involVing the total piece of property. !>1r. Oa 1 e Perkins, 9324 4012: Avenue North, questi oned the accessi bi 1 i ty of the area from the hi ghway. In his opinion, Gettysburg would be a poor access, particularly when traffic was backed up on #18. He added that if the property were to be rezoned a buffer should be provided to protect the single family homes. ""--"', Mr. London moved to table Planning Case 75-37 - Request for Rezoning from SR to MR at County Road #18 and 40 1/2 until the first meeting in August. Mr. Jensen second. Mr. Herman restated his feelings that the questions involving the property are much broader than just site development. He suggested that ,if Mr. Gordon did not have all of the questions answered when he re-appeared before theCowmission, he still might be unable to get a decision. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London. Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen ~lotion passed. Mr. Bruce Rose. 9316 40 1/2, asked whether'the Commission would make the decision on the rezoning with- out considering the neighbors. Chairman Cameron, noted that he felt that the Commission would make the decision on the rezoning only after considering the total impact on the area. He pointed out that the major portion of the property was zoned MR at the present time and that eventually something would have to go on that property. Short discussion between the Comnissioners and Mr. Rose. 13. r'lr. London moved to table discussion of the Flood Control Regulations until the end of the meeting in deference to the assembled ci tizens. t>-ir. Herman second. ~~ Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JULY 1, 1975 14. PLANNING CASE 75-39 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE - 42ND ANO GETTYSBURG NORTH - CRYSTAL EVANGELICAL CHURCH, PETITIONER. Pastor McDill of the church introduced Mr. Jim Hagman, Chairman of the Church and Chairman of the Build- ing Committee, Mr. Warren Pfifer, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, and their architectural represent- atives Mr. Drake and Mr. Sessing. He noted that Mr.Sessing would make the prese~tation. Mr. Sessing presented a site plan to the Commissioners and explained the basic plan. He stated that they were proposing a worship area that would serve approximately 900 people and would require 300 park- ing stalls. They planned to have the access off Gettysburg. They were proposing an approximately 50 foot buffer on the North that would be both landscaped and bermed. He pointed out that there was ade- quate room for expansion of both the building and the parking facilities. The existing residence would remain to be used for church purposes. Mr. Sessing also presented a proposed site plan that could be adapted to the North end of the parcel. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt that the Commission was concerned about the entire 25 acres even though the church was planning to purchase only the Southern 12 acres. Mr. Robert Dowden, St. Croix Ventures, stated that he was representing the owners of the Northern portion of the parcel and stated" that the present owners approved of the overall land usage proposed for the property. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, a representative of the church stated that the purchase of the property was contingent upon the obtaining of the special use permit. The City Manager noted that the property did not come under platting ordinance because both parcels are more than 5 acres and have at least 300 feet of frontage. They did not require' platting at ti1is time. Discussion held as to the potential traffic problems that could arise if both churches held services at the same time and whether or not the church was aware that it had been suggested that left turns be prohibited by installing a median on 42nd and Gettysburg. The City Manager stated that there was still a possibility of the County deciding to prohibit left hand turns on 42nd and Gettysburg, but that the situation was going to be studied further by the Traffic Commission to determine \'fhat the impact would be on the entire area if it were closed to left hand turns. He added that at the present time, the first choice seemed to be signalization. Discussion about the Northern half of the property, whether or not it would be proper for the Commission to require that this property be platted before the special use were granted, whether there was any legal basis on which to require this, and the pOSSibility of future traffic problems that could result. especially if the intersection were to be changed. In answer to a question from Mr. Pfifer. Trustee of the Church, the City Manager stated that the legal right of,the median rests with Hennepin County. The County has indicated that they Vill consider the City's concerns in making a decision on the median. Mr. Donald Lunzer, 4225 Decatur North, stated that in his opinion, a church on this property was the one thing that the neighbors in the surrounding area could live with. He added that he was for this special use permit 100%. Mr. Lloyd Wasnick, 9029 46th Avenue North, stated that he had been soliciting petitions for 6 years, trying to maintain the single family flavor of the area. He said that he felt that the traffic on Sun- day morning was something that the neighborhood could cope with. They were in favor of this develop- ment but questioned whether or not there were any guarantees that could be required that the ~orthern portion of the property would remain single family. The City Manager cautioned the Commission against granting a special use that was tied to a specific de- velopment of the Northern end of the property since there was the pOSSibility of alternative platting that would be just as effective. Mr. Ted Armstrong, 9333 45th Avenue North, wondered if the sale of the property could be made contin- gent upon the maintaining of single family development on the Northern portion of the property. Further discussion between the Commissioners about the legality of requesting platting or a committment from the owners as to intent for the' Northern parcel of land. Mr. Pakonen moved to recommend approval of Planning Case 75-39 - Request for Special Use for a Church in an SR area. sUJ,ject to the condition tbat prior to the petitioners appearance before the Council, the present mvners can display that the land could be platted in conformance with existinqordinances. Mr; Herman second. Mr. Dowden restated that, in his opinion, the present planners had already demonstrated that the Northern 13 acres could be successfully developed into single family residences. He added that the present PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - JULY 1, 1975 owners would be willing to demonstrate to Council that this 12-13 acres on the North can be developed to Code. further discussion between the Commissioners, the audience, and Mr. Dowden. ---\ Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, london, Christensen, Cameron, Craigi~, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None. Allen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 75-30 - REQUEST FOR REZONING - PUD - VARIANCE - AT 45TH AND I,INNETKA. This case was removed from the table. Mr. John Kinsell represented West SUDurban Builders. He stated that after his last appearance before the Commission, he had done considerable research into the history of the property. He had consulted the original owner, Mr. Glen Kuch, and had also checked with the traffic peop'le in St. Pa-ul regarding exist- ing and potential Winnetka Avenue traffic. He was again requesting the change in zoning because of the changes in the area as a result of the traf- fic increase. He stated that in 1974, the traffic passing the proposed lots had increased to 11,000 - 11,600 cars during a twenty four hour period, in contrast to the 2300 - 2900 cars that had passed in 1961. He added that in 1960 Winnetka was only 24 feet wide and that in 1975 it is nearly 50 feet wide. The lots have been vacant and unsold for "ten years and in his opinion would not sell as single family residence sites because of the heavy traffic and the apartments across the street. He added that,in his opinion, the double bungalows would create a buffer between the apartments and the single family resi- dences to the East. The eXisting houses are valued from $35,000 to $40,000 and he did not feel that anyone would build a house in that price range on that corner. He added that the builder had two options: either build a minimum type house or try to build a nice double bungalow. The builder hopes to build to sell, but if this is not possible he would rent them. The builder plans to spend from $55,000 to $60,00 for each double unit. The soil is rather poor and would require an excavation of at least eight feet. Discussion between the Commissioners as to the general appearance of the proposed double bungalows, the position of the dwellings on the lots, and whether or not a sufficient change had taken place in the area to warrant the rezoning. The poor soil, proposed exists from the property, and whether a- fence should be required as a buffer between the double bungalows and the single family residences. Mr. Herman recommended approval of Planninq Case 75-30 - Request for PUD - Rezoninq - Variance, at 45th and Wjnnetka~ Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Jensen, Gustafson Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen Allen Motion,j?assed. 13. Mr.Pakonen moved to take PlanninQ Case 75_3B - Request to Change Ordinance With Regard to Flood Control Requlations on Shinqle Creek off the table. Mr. Jensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London~ Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen Motion passed. The City Manager explained the reasons for the proposed amendment'to Ordinance 74-20. Federal law requires that we have a flood control ordinance. As of 8:00 a.m. July 2, 1975,residents of New Hope became eligible to purchase flood insurance. Recent State law requires that the City must have specific regulations. The proposed ordinance has been approved by the State Department of Natural Resources. It is now in effect fpr the Southern end of New Hope. The proposed amendment will simply impose the same restric- tions on the properties concerned at the North end of the City and will make it possible for the City to fully qualify under both the Federal and State laws on flood control. ~ Mr. Christensen recommended approval of Planning Case 75-38 . Amendment to Flood Control Ordinance 74.20. Mr. Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: ~lotion passed. Herman, London~ Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen . ~LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JULY 1, 1975 COMMITTEE REPORTS 15. Mr. London noted that the Codes and Standards Committee had met, but because the Chairman of the Com- mittee was unable to attend tonight's meeting, his report and the suggested revisions to the Sign Or- dinance would be held nver until the first meeting in August. 16. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 17. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. ~ meetinQ was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on July 10th, at the City Hall. NEW BUSINESS 18. Mr. Pakonen moved to approve the Commission minutes of June 3, 1975. Mr. Craigie second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Jensen, Pakonen, Gustafson. None Allen Mot; on pas sed. 19. The City Manager reviewed the Council minutes of June 9th, and June 23rd. Discussion between the Commissioners and the City Manager in regard to Planning Case 75-10. The City Manager requested-direction from the Commission as to how they wished to proceed in this matter. Following discussion, Mr. Herman suggested that the Commission recommend to the Council. that Harlan Schmidt have the manufacturer of the modular unit. of a representative manufacturer and the architect. present to the Commission or to the Design and Review Committee a concrete proposal for design chanqes. This proposal would be reviewed and if accepted. appropriate action would be taken. The manufacturer and architect were needed in order to provide specific 1l.yesH and lInoll answers to questions about possi- ble design Changes. Concensus of the Commission was that this action would be agreeable to the Corrmission. In response to question from the Commissioners. the City Manager stated that the specific request for rezoning of the Clemens' property was no longer in question. He added that the question now was, whether or not there was a place in New Hope for convenience cen- ters, independent and free standing. This is the question that Codes and Standards should be investi- gati ng. Discussion about the pOSSibility of Codes and Standards investigating the present City requirement that buildin9 permits must be obtained for repairs as a result of storm damage etc. Chairman Cameron stated that he had requested that Mr. Herman serve as temporary Vice Chairman of the Commission and that Mr. Pakonen would serve as the Chairman of the Land Use Committee. The City Manager noted that the Planning Grant was moving along toward approval. Mr. London moved to adjourn the meetinQ. Mr. Herman second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, London. Christensen. Cameron, Craigie, Jensen. Pakonent Gustafson. None. Allen Motion passed. The meetinQ was adjourned at 12:00 Midniqht. Respectfully submitted, 96-'ju.J ~.. J.c. 14 Joyce Boeddeker Secretary TO: Planning Commission FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Items This meeting should be of interest to you in a number of ways. First, there are several hold-over items,a couple with some con- cern attached. Case 75-17 and Standards mendation. Wong's sign apparently is a dead issue, but the Codes Committee is going to meet and develop a final recom- Case 75-32 The Saliterman rezoning is growing in interest and I understand an attorney wi I I be presenting some strong arguments for the rezoning. There is sti I I the question of the earlier law suit on this rezoning. The petitioner might wel I be questioned on where he stands on that item at this time. I would again emphasize that a major issue in this case is the City's total planning effort. Case 75-34 Attached is a copy of the professionally done parking lot layout for the Hanson building. The new plan looks pretty good. Case 75-35 One of the Harris Company representatives will at- tend to discuss the specific issues raised last meeting. Case 75-36 - The Gordon rezoning issue probably wil I not be back. I have heard nothing from him to date. Copies of the earl ier planning reports on these hold over items are attached for your use. Item 16 Attached are copies of the resumes of several people who have expressed an interest in serving on the Commission. They have been invited to attend this meeting for your review. Item 17 The planning grant has cleared all but the final letter of approval. I have been looking at planning firms and hopefully wi II have two or three proposals for your review and discussion. We should be ready to go within the next month. Attached is a copy of a proposa I for a deferred speci a I assess nt program for senior citizens. Mr. Craigie has done some ch on this and will be prepared" to discuss it with you. .....,;;, DATE: CASE: PErITIONER : REQUEST : I..OCATICN : May 6, 1975 75-17 Wong's Kitchen Variance 2709 Winnetka Avenue North STAFF FINDINGS AND <Xr.1MENTS: 1. Wong's Kitchen, the new restaurant in the Midland Center, recently opened. As part of their building remodeling plans they obtained a pennit for a sign on the canopy of the center.' This sign is in confonilance with the sign plan approval for the center. 2. After canp1etion of the other work, they had a window sign painted on the front glass. There are three problems with the sign. First, they did not have a permit. Second, the letters are too large. Window signs are limited to five inches in height and one inch in width. Third, with the canopy sign and window sign they have about 42 square feet of sign on the front wall. They are limited to just over 38 square feet. 3. The petitioner has put some money into the sign and elected to spend the additional $15.00 for a variance application to see if it could be approved. I don't think he has a major prob1an except for the investment of the original painting. "'- .._34-,IH ~ \' }l~!; .~ ~.~I.i. ~ ,~.j " ,,"" ~~,\. :2c C\ B(O"~, ';~ J ['1 H~F 3;of \.,~ r..... , ./..;: I. . , ;f ,: 1.-;.;."...., I;';t; .~,..-- , , I -,.. .\. ~ '\" I "f"I,' "- ~ ~ ';; \.~ .. ", 'PAHKWIl)' " ,",,/'" t t--. .j;.- rJ N '.\ " ,';' ~'\ .;-'!........' ....".. J ,,.0 Cli tI ~ ~"" V\~' ,,',I: " i,' ,'" , ,1. M ! l, ")' ''t ;:,.. '\ '\ _ I -. . - \.\ "'I. t E p,~";:"~' '".\' ,') '~,/,,\\ \' ';>.,\ 'j",,! B....:.~ ,,5L 't =lA,-' toll "( / ., . .. ~ . - '1 .) II \l · ~ ,",r " '( -(t.' . 'HI ~ ~ r"fc. ",,.~l 'r. 2': _" ..."~, '(' ..' /' : ~_'t..!. 11' j ~ ,1( ..'~ t\'..,;"- " "'J ~y ll~1 a ,Z ;'~"'C: c.....,i' ~'! .') '-~ p: .'(~'; .::...:.. '7-,~ J.~ '~. '. ',' ,(' H ~ -.'.. J,... '-, ~3.J..~ 'r 1 . '^'. "'L >1 " b I,\;]h l&J ~ ,.' ~ ..... '*'t.;] '.l.....~ " ~I :::l" '1' 1fFf:~.'O:i..\" :" ~ .,',' 'J' "~l -~ ?"rll Z I w~........ _ ...::.... "".\',~l ~ W ".' 1:> r Ir: 1[: I ~'J" s~ "'t/\ - 1 } . ~";> - ..r <( '__'': ~ ,~'. _' 3.'''1'''''- ."... ~<( - ~'/1cJ,. ~" .(~ .J......l-'rl 2' l~'1 ;tc< ;~(.I W.1 ~ --.:" .. J,&' j~'-\-."" r.: 1'''...._. ... ~ U ...,-.- :~^' '"; ~'J" /cn E r--- z ,1(ti 15 z :l;.....t. '>CC'! _J._.... \~c..l .:,fIC' '"" lu1 !~lt-;;'<:( L...-UJ 1<-1 W~~I'" _ l....-.I,~X... \ Lt.;~O"'::".~i' O~,~ 'J;'7>~~}lc:!. JJ;;"j.. ~ "' (~\',\J' to 1-/ I-_~'/",,; _ '~Cf,_~.= ~__ "'-.::1 ~ ~ ", cr Z ,. q _ /'., _, '" ; ... . ~O 1"E'1~.W~1::,'.1...:.. ------.:---i'!!Jl>:.!:(j-.'::lO; '-(;!'-.t~ .' :.. j .., l.... c... ~ __ '/"1..""""::-:" <{ ,,,\' ~ t ':--- ., .J ~ ';1.["- i. - W ~rJ.. ~/'ir 0 ~~:'7. ~/5\.-~~~....- ~ '-. J ~I "'-:IJ 'l~""\ i.~ '... \ ':...l.~I.: 0 -/ a: 'i 1 --"'\ -- \~. A 1. t .' t0l1' 1 .,,;,,"... Z ji~":r;.i5 '~~jl'i '" liHI'~,^ ',y." I ......., .')I~ ~. --' .~?;tlt.' m ..~ a:~', ....,/ _ \':~ t- ., '111 ~'! !7311';1' (/)~n':jjl"3' -::> ;!"/o . . .' '<"~~'9' ~ K' . 'I; -J -- . r - m. ~ ) 72 ... 7 \~ .....- 'lOC Q ,'l}.') 1\' ""'2~.J117d::1..~;~Io~'-:~~~ ..... -. ,_ \-o....~ ;; ... '\ 'f: ';<~r J";'~t-r,.,7;Af )'/- '-"':" - '(~ (r' {; ~l f! - '\ \ ' j/ 7c:; 'Z.' 1 ... , i , Q c, -t ..;,\} ~ ~'" - o. Jll!!". 1 >- li!iP!-. , . < 'C (. I" J7c. ..J r ~ ....... 'C ; I' .5, ",.1,_, !~<t"'. ,:/C} "'cl7DE '7"J.~,<:' '. ~\,J(hC>E PARKWAY ~~' )'. " " ~1' '< C - 1" "j C', c, ! ~ \ B ", IQ " -c. /"\.. . ~c :-L, '1/JO'I::;'~' _ .)"'5(. 'it's'7'-' :- 711J1 11.(1 }1{' a ) l '.:;l-I ; c. ~..... --- ~ ,3 '. ~ '" :"'(', r ~ "",-'.' c, ~'ej..c:..'. '''')''J';..!:.:!.9h 1/ ,,"!,.' ,L .'(,'1 3....'?: ''<. ~"1".... ' -~ ~ 1:::":'''-:4~-r.J/QJ''' ~ '\;(; ~J9~~E ro. "fA . ".j" ,~J." """.~n",-"-::"o~-3?-,,ro BOON I V "j., .,. H' --' t" - - -=; r-. 3 ~'2 .J ~.32' ., ., ~ "."' .'>'y.'t;O.... ...I';,'l~~Z~~7.s h.," l\\ .'", ~-~ nLl\ j~ I,.r",.l.:.- -1- r- -.. ~ .<;.J .",iP /" '3 t7:; .; ..J .~'~!.;l!.. ~ <t 'oflo .,'- ,...'......-,~ . 3~(" 3'/7 "Clf %tz 13"'b 0 ..,,\,''; "(:11 ~ '\r"/,,,.,. 0 . '. ....:!..- u;, ''':L.' -"-1 ' . Ii ; r~ , C<: .(,Cti."c9 ~-;-,\...' '';''''', "(cfj4C: :,.(t.;\ Iccl "'I.~'c~ ..' \ 0I1/-")'~ ~ ' c 1 '-;:-'-;:: r"..~,(. CI61 ;/,?'ii !';\\ I~\ :""/'< .~ "b'- .~ .j'fer ":11.(,1 _ <11/':;/ .,"r'-~~! "'t..~1 l.-i. ,r: .' ( . _, . y ',,", ~ . "". "'", '-""", ,<.< 0'-'......- '~'--'''6TH 'AVf=,".,,,.N",. .,.....__.. l~;~'i j '.= -:='~- .." ="~'.~~'~J;Ji~:' qO>50~'::~bO~i i,DI \ 'ST. JOSE:~:~ I .1 Q ~ $.4-e ;'~ ~ . .,.,,:-; ~ ~,,~;4 'V~ATHOLIC 1 II ~V ~ Gv_~,h;J __ J-~ ~ / I ~b'-<:.~ ....'7 ;5" _,1., I Il>' , ,,- "He, '- ./ CHURCH I, " .F' ~17 ~~7: '5'1~. / .1... ~ it ~l vl~ 'J \ . '~,';7 W ;5(c:!!1 ~ -Ufol I 1111 35T" ^v~. i/oi. 'gl:5"I~I:~'i''iDI ~. J I ;t; . ,. '" ., ._~ T ---:;-' I..... .~'U~~~., ',;:,';,'.. .5ec' ~~...." . .. 31~-' " 1f'1 j~.;.. 3HHr.;J( ~.-rlc ~.~ .,;I)':-ij:-~';o~ \.,\.\\ ~ ~ . c )'1"1 F ~ \.\ <:./ ';,. '" ". , [7-1j75'" z - ... '" ,""7 :",;: j{" r-:-:: '.'-' .. , .2:.:t f. . I. ~ f~:~ :::: -'::':" J~ I ;'AVF' '.P' ,. ~ ~ '..'1S-~? .',0 '... """""~"'ti"!a~ yA.. -'-'- z ..'" ,.", ;,,,.~" ,1,1 ::--'.,:1 ," , _ a j III ~ ~ ',....'..(,,'C1 ~I"'P ~\~j~,/'" ..:,:' '.' MJS: Ii..,.. I' 1--'-'-,....,',1<;0.,'...'./ ,..../ !.? "II .,.,' 3'L,J It '34TH A~~:" '0'.' '. tr~:{jt J. I ~ " ..d' '.1' "'Ii ~~\'~'l1.':.: ~34":s;. ~ .. "t) .~31~"'~- ....~'-:i.?.::.'cn"""".;-~;- ," ,4L.::' l'l!". a: - -~' r:.... '" """'''1 Q/.'{'^ _ !'" ~ 0 ~3d ""~~:;:;, 'I, -- l' J .,.s)~l .,.?/ ~ : ~ ~ 31':~; :~:~ ~5':;~.~i:"~ .~;~~ B .~j i ::\;, -:-~'.;.r\3 RD AVE ~,.y~ T -.!.'r"")~' -}'/:T.~'j.", f r ! ! t I t I i I I ! I ~ I ~ , :2: V:'IC~" v~'-o.'\~~'( ';~:!~":8"'~~' ~./' 'l,l .\). I' -.,...1...-+:.., '( C) ~, ,-/ 'fe I, '" ,. yo (, ;'>y. t~\.l~ \(ll '( lO, "'~/\.' 1, ,'\""oEWOOO A. '< \i~"'/ ,J/.., ~lo.O'[ :,/ ,~... (,.-} ,,~ \U . 1 ., ! J ,.~:\'.\ '" ':\.....~ 11 ~\i) 'J;I ",/ ,.\, 4J., ,,'\/ ~ llh ,. , / \'1- '-'l \0 '-./ . ";:..' ,::!l-.~' '\ I"' ll~ 'Ir" .-- ICl~ 90h; ".,t (l.-\ , , .,. -;...- \ (..'., NORTHWOOD PARK . SONNESYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL <. 3 f./~' I '. HIDDEN VALLEY I PARK \1 \" .... ~-, \ :,\.\ ~1fC; :: .:t.. \.(,~" ",,"'/ \. " ,- Iv~ I~~ \,;\\.;,~.\ c:; . .\"1.) " ,"". , , . ',-v ",0)' ,,\c\t"~k --, .~'). ~61 'Os .~i-- ,-" ..--1'", ~ , ..'D ,II- '\ ., ~, 1,' ~"lCI o~'O ~ \~ ~'i! <o~ ;: ,. f OONE sse CIRCLE I 'U'" C ..::: t:., ~ ... '. '11 ' .J~ ~,~ ~ ,.'I~,.).' . ..1"'1 - "'" ,,\ ....-# ~." Ill:;' .t:\,- '~j \ ~ I ,'" 1'('- ~""" .... ..... "". 36 f---' :'lO'Ic)~ ..."OJ ~ ~ .: ~j f'~' ...- .' '~. ,,"'. . 1'\..... ~il6~ he :i'~?"j ACUIl4 :!I'1. ;5'11< .--f,.-- :i "Ct- 1 '/3 :-;-~~1" ,c:L4.. ,"-1.. : '::ii}L . .,-...;.:.. '/;1 . -- ...,.--.. ~.,;... jof 3 I : .<;-:'.. . "')/ :>-11.5 ~ "" .:.a! :.:' ':l~"? ?-'1: :,;;r.. '.' . '" J..... .'" ~ I. '"' 36;~, _/ fjJ8 ~ ).J~ ~~.. f/r~c1 c\' .;~t The property and proposal in this case is the same as was considered earl ier in Cases 71-4i and 72-30. Dr. L. M. Saliterman is request- ing a rezoning from the present SR to LB for the purpose of construc- tion of a medical clinic. The lot in question is the Outlot A, in the proposed Ella Addition plat approved in Case 75-14. It is 2.43 acres in size. Both earl ier considerations ended in recommen- dations for denial. The findings in the two earlier cases were sub- stantial Iy the same and included: July I, 1975 75-32 Dr. L. M. Sal iterman Rezoning SR to LB Southeast corner of Hi I Isboro ~ ~ DATE: CASE: PET IT lONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: a) That zoning classification of the subject premises for Single Family Residential use is sti I I correct; b) No substantial evidence was offered of any conditions espe- cial Iy affecting the subject premises but not generally affect- ing the surrounding neighborhood; that no special conditions of topography or location of the subject premises exist that would result in substantial hardship to the petitioner or owner if the present zoning classification is not changed; notwith- standing the development of County Road #18, (as originallY contemplated in the Comprehensive Zoning Plan); . c) That the cost of development of the subject premises for resi- dential use would not be prohibitive. d) That the petitioner has presented no substantive evidence of substantial hardship sufficient to justify the exercise of the rezon i ng pqwer; e) That the land to the West is zoned for Limited Business, the same use requested by the petitioner, and is vacant; and that other land properly zoned for petitioners proposed use is vacant in the City. f) That no evidence was offered to show a mistake in fact in the original Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, or of a substantial change in the area justifying rezoning of the subject premises; that in fact, the area has developed in substantial conformity to the original Comprehensive Plan, except that petitioner's premises (a total of about 12 acres) have been held at prices. which are said to be speculative. This would appear to be an attempt to force heavier commercial usage than originally planned; g) That petitioner apparently purchased his land in the specula- tive hope that he would be permitted to develop the premises in a manner contrary to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as further evidenced by the fact that he did not even apply for - 2 - I. g) a waiver of The plaTTing ordinance as TO a division of his parcel, as required by sTaTuTe and local ordinance, unTil long afTer he acquired The properTY; ~ h) ThaT The properTY residenTs of The area have sTaTed ThaT They purchased Their home relying upon The Comprehensive Zoning Plan, and have sTaTed Their strong preference ThaT The zoning and Traffic paTterns be unchanged; That The proper- TY has had iTs presenT zoning for approximaTely 14 years; 2. As nOTed in Case 75-26" The definiTions of LB sTates: Areas which are parTicularly exposed to residenTial neighborhoods and are Thus suitable only TO those businesses having relaTively litTle incompaTibi i iTY wiTh residenTial use. In addiTion, the 1960 Development Plan notes in regard to Limited Business ThaT: No single area has been indicated for office, business, clinics, and similar uses. These are ideal as transi- Tional uses beTween reTai I shopping faci lities and adja- cent residential neighborhoods. 3. Two major changes have Taken place since the earlier cases. First, the Sun Ray DX case was decided; second, a residential plat was approved for the SouTh half of the current open area on this site. ~ It is most important to review The court decision in the DX Case. On a spl it decision, New Hope's denial was upheld basically on the point that the CiTy,in nOT approving The rezoning for The service sTation,was attempTing TO mainTain and carry oUT The Master De- velopment Plan. The point being, 'that there wi I I be many aTTempTs in 'ro rezone as the I aST few spoTs in the City deve I op. be evaluaTed very carefully so as to not destroy the record on upholding its development plan. the future Each musT City's good In This case, The real question is why a rezoning. It has already been shown in the earlier cases that The TWO normal standards for justifying a rezoning do nOT exisT. There is adequate LB area in the communiTY, including The large parcel to the WesT of Hi Ilsborough. Other parcels exist at GeTtysburg and 42nd, Bass Lake Road ahd Winnetka and Bass Lake Road at Pennsylvania. 4. In addiTion to The specific consideraTions of The rezoning, The total concept of LB must be considered. If a rezoning is justified, is LB The righT zoning. ITem 2 above outlined the definition and The justification for LB. - 3 - The uses in the LB Zone include: Permitted Special Uses Agriculture Medical Off ice Publ ic Public Utility Apartments Churches Clubs and Lodges - non profit Mortuaries Off-street Parking Private Colleges Sma I I Animal Hospitals and CI i nics 5. It would appear that three separate considerations are involved in this case: a) Can a rezoning in and of itself be justified. b) if a rezoning is in order is LB the correct zoning. c) Given the residential plat to the immediate South and the current development - road, commercial center etc. existing, should LB be used to provide buffer for the new plat. .~ -.- n"'- ,- ", / -::.::\ J.-.,...-d-r..... ~ ,,'L'~ .:;~ _......,.; , I:: tA ~c . -::~~j ..' ,J:} ,":..;.-::s.:'~- ~ - . ~. . >~~-'~"~~ :'__~- ," _ Ii I f]0f~- ' L . '::~m" :i' i / :~ I ro::, -- -- i F~ll :'7~'. ~F{ L r- I .~, i~ ;' ,0-,6\.... .o-.'i'2- r-U~ U~ '? i' 6 ~ i f~~J ~ ~ I @ ~ 11--rEYjff~ ~ i ~ i--'~~il ~ ~i . 11 13~ ~~ "l1j <3 ~ ! ~:~:. I\v .....,.li ~ , i'::;.~- il'f7t {~I Q I I.::c- ! ~ ~ r-. . 1ll'1 Ht:c.''--illl "-::-::r I.tc:;n~ ~ I \g. wI 1- ..-:;;-.;-~il~ 3; : li~ I 1~-:::~1l ;' "",~', 1----- -.--;......,....... "\. I l~) -r:-- "- I ..-,', ,,.' : ' \ \ R ':~i;r.J :'1 I. "J l=~ f-~ , f--;- '- ;l. -;-~ it.,. ____..ft.. J .":.::::::;' li--.'~ f..!ril - ~k! " :i' 2:'~:n" , - ~ 9 1 rj'~ i';t~~' ' ~t! I '.' ~ >lX- If-- ~~;I . /,,[if~:;\ t ---!" /. ",' :2.'\--!t I -s: 1~... ,~>::') ?"=: J Ii :~2.-; ',~ -5>: "rr-.l'i }. -~ :~....; , ""- )7 ,: , : IT> -:.~ I. V ,',..... -.-"~ :>:.....,~~_:,' ..:=-~~..,. j: .,,; l,~:::L?-.:.:..!-,-,., ~ *'d" ~>. - "'-- :j.~t,:::::l~~i::::-';l.~;ZUlf ti ( t ._--,.l;lI\""" .. . I~ _~_ ~, -- ;_._...~..:......- --"..-....- P'f"i l'O~'~ :!j i J! "X Vi' "' -'" . I I ~~ ...... ~ _ '\i/~, I ;,~- ~ He? 9::;;1 >'~o c_;,~, t-e:::;r;r.:; aNY ~c; , ~"ul'r-l ";I/o!;;tj .~~...._- ::!H..-~V ~M,~i '""'Cj ~ n -1 - I I '-'-';;"'-d~>>.~ .l-~~f"";lH. J ~ , @ 'O-'61~ @ ~ - ,~.... 0; \ 1 PI \:iJ ,\ \. .cc, ~~ \ ~~ ..... ~~,--' @ 'Ii;- ~io " '" ~ ....., ' ., ",........ ! '.~: ...... '_ ".'-. i__:.1 ". """"0--'>/ ',,:, >,.,~ru.~ ,-;i;.',[ ~ ~, ....-'---""-i;.-.=d.i _'1"\.. ---;..:.... . "i.""":- "~ -.-, ~.' ! I 1,;, I ~'..~. b . ~. 6" ",a-'I"~ . I ~. P-,-en;. 1: tL ~ j iJ~T i \ \let' -n~ , IJ~~ ~ '~ \U .. oAt .~A ~ 30 ~ --~ ~ J .Jl . ~ !: - r DATE: CASE: PET I TI ONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: July I, 1975 75-34 Andrew Hanson Change in Conditions of Variance 7401 42nd Avenue North STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The property in question is a sma I I GB lot, developed in 1970, at the corner of Oregon and 42nd. Variances were granted at that time for setbacks, in order to move the building back against the tracks. The bui Iding is 46 x 26 on two floors - the 2250 square feet of floor area required 9 parking spaces then, and would require 12 under today's ordinance. As part of the vari- ance consideration, the developer was required to provide green area as is shown on the attached site plan. 2. The bui Iding now has a parking problem. The problem develops from a smal I bui [ding, but many tenants, so you end up with a car or two for every office space, plus the heavy traffic for the beauty shop. The request is that the present owner be permitted to take out the green area marked A and B on the site plan and rearrange the parking so as to provide more parking. In fact, the petitioner would I ike and has requested, permission to extend his parking right out to the curb 1 ine on Oregon Avenue. 3. There is a parking problem: the petitioner did change his parking last year, but was told to restore it to the site plan as attached since this was what his variance was granted on. Attached as Exhibit B is The layout as the petitioner would like to have his lot. Whi Ie the spacing does not meet present code, the lot was used in this manner for most of the last year and does work. DATE: CASE: PET IT lONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: July I, 1975 75-35 S. R. Harris, Inc. Variance from Sign Ordinance 5100 North County Road #18 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The Harris Binding Company opened for business last year. As part of their development proposal, they had a pylon sign approved. Shortly after opening, two smal I signs were instal led on the Southwest corners of the bui Iding. The signs read "Open to the Public". Some discussion was held at that time between Harris and the City inspectors. This was when the question of retai I sales as an accessory use was being considered for Industrial areas. That question was settled by the amendment to the code to permit accessory retai I sales. 2. The problem with the signs is very minor at this point, but a confl ict does exist In regard to the West side sign. Section 4.67, Subdivision II, provides that a side wall sign shal.l.bepermitted providing the total square footage does not exceed 9 square feet and the sign is used to designate delivery area. The wording -- Open to the Publ ic -- does not meet this criteria and,therefore, a variance is needed if the sign is to remain. 3. No permits were taken out for install ing these signs; therefore, if the variance is granted it should be subject to taking out the permits. li ~:J . " ~ ~ I- i i t j I , , , , I t i ! I I . , .:;: i . t I . f 1 t f I 1 1 1 I I 1 I J - -~ , i I I , I i i I i , I , , , I , i , I j ; ! I j I j , I --.,-, ......'- . - . t ", ,,'\ '" ~;""'''Izrl'. ;::'1 J ,~'-;fvt N., , i '..: ~ I. 'II" "". . ,..: i ~__ --1.' - --. - ---- : ~, . ~ .. 'f ~ I . . ~ --t_~_ '~!:.. -_ ~ ",-'0.:; jr.. 1.. i., ....(" "''r f ~ '/ '> 't'..;',- - '- :P..., ~ <t", "1/'" '(/ (t"... .., " --"'3"" >3/ cr ',::' n. . ..- l:;:, - ......;Joq '13 7~Ct.-"'-"' :",,_0,1 "y '1/ ',3' - t.. "1;r'I.,.-t, 'I ' ...-- 0 ! ! I I I - Ii .' IJ 9J ,:' zl II .1 11 -1 II' i / 'I/e') .'(;.'~+c=- .. l ,"'.b'Z- 1/" r- -f.. . n .h, ;..'1.- ';'1 irrY J-v ::-"'t+:..:I Z' ':~:_~t!. 0.,', ' ''/'.'/1 'I I" 1;;,--;:, ,"', ~f.'/h... t/~, 7it.t~t_l Yi~j ... fI- . j7/2) :1/,1'-- 'Ii ~,-- i- rl f\ ---ri- 'J /1_22 '3.::Jl t} \ ~l :.: ~'.t{S-'- 1 ..-~ ~:;f"~ ~~:~.,~~i~~~S~T,'gfg'!I?Lc'~ ~ _ Q:1_____:.1 I ,!--fts" 1-'::6. -- AVE 0 S. _ __~_ ,2 ~ Jr.'/f~> "fl_" III, ~'",I' :iO!;~ J/'l'C +~. l!l .' ;'"'\-".., ___ _ ~ c;- r-- ~ (;cr---- I_ e; -'.,..... t^l2 '{!.~~ c(r:c,-'I:;, ~{~~Il>,,,.mtO!.o. J.;;.::!,~~'i~ 1I_' : ~ \0 . I- ic . :,c75 'c- '. ~_ <l: -- -- - > '!~I!..2:.!..:. co, . \" _ r.t. 1-: l~!^..~' .- 7)..~ c: 'L..:...2f'" 1.'1 ...; I ~07' ."'~'t-~ <i -j ,~bJ]~ . '0 :.\37.j;,t; i"5i~'o.1itI9Iji-/a7(" ;;;,,;"--1'.0: -",,;; f:!C~ ~ ~j -'t t l.~' 0 , ~c "':b:'-C(.~-I~ ~./ :)'01'. -"1- ~2~ i VI,' _' 0-". '5/': "3 -~.~":, ,- - >- - -'I0711~~070 -- ~1'f q --:---1 1---'- ~ 'ell .{ti.\I<l: 'N..- 1iA: 11-q_~9 II j 2. ,'\~, .,,"1. .(t;., 'ttr"'.' __.._-It.. -.lO~515"fr"lj;1'" ~ . '3 ' '] ,~S",. ~,o Cl-L' ~'\";;''-IO' 1--:,.':':" Ic,~.~I\!< fU,~Z57 ~ 4'" C'j I 'J, Y Q cJ .....\ jJ "3(..c.'t!')t"c....'l"\..'t. -, C~t "/0'}7 It "'5 J 'j .)., ',;1 ')1,' <"t...z. -. '. '10 .- I ..,. 17 ""\.' '\ "I' ~"il' AYE ;1' .,/ ""YOS/: 'I Jc.....' ;.....yL~\...o\ L' C ,Jf.' -':':'1...... "; t f'-' 0\ i . NORTHWOOO "--'-.L.J!:L G ,~~~-it' I,;" I ~I i _'; .;i i~ '2 ~ .~' , ~ -PARK ,/ oil ' -l.> '-t. r <.e tc.. ~!." l! '-- ';0').' ~:O't "'<i :'0' " ! ~'i ','" ~ ~ ~ \\~~\~\B':1 \~' ~ ,:t~ I\.C ~f) ~-,,, ~iD~~" ~A \~ ,~ ~ ~ ;: ..~~:! _ ",,'<f "':-";:-- ""...... -.. ......, r-. '>I .,., :)' ,'J ~.., . "" C' (;, ~ \;..(.. -v "'" ~ ~ 0\ '> ~ ~ ,::-. . n."">- ~ "."". ' . _c~ ~ ~V N ~ Jr"1 NORTHWC u ARKWAy' 'c\ _......' \" ' '-Ie!) ~(v,. DoO '\" .,>. , ~. ~ 0; I ' .-- '\. \1 \T ..) - '\.-:,....- ~ ~~ \':: ~!~ ~ ~(, ,{") M l-::r'77, ;~ ~'" f~ ~.t ,~-. .... ~ ~1:"';l,;-;.....' q iJ't "", ~::o' .\ 01\_ I~ 1.:' 'u I\~ P : - ',' :~., l..f~ j: ....- \}: ~ "" "\ H J~""" _..~'\..~ \', ;1 C'" -'.' 0[;' ;,".. ,,,"~ '-'- ~~iE .'J ~ ~ ~ 'to> ~\f ,.1;. . ~'). ""/~'A_;'" .,"t O{'I'" Jj.",> ,~~ f.5~ 'C:l' -": ~ ,\P'f'\?I"-S ...\\ : :'-r"~ .J ot'). v:."l -.....r. ,-..t.' {) "?'"'\. "',-tS7 ~~/5, ,~I ',- \\ ',c' ," "'-~)"1 ~G'~".AO?c. l Ii '" ' 911-' v, \ ,y " A, ~ Lii. ~ ;~ "~~ '. ~tb1 .. ~,1';"? ...\Au t11, ....... -j'f ro ....'1 ~t- .... '5 ,-,'C 911 '!-IH' ~'\ -<1' ,'"" . ...\0 lj ,,1":1~ ':' -~ ~' '8,:'2:~' ,<_ 5' . {c_ -:;10" '10 ," J- ," ~~~ ~ .~ 0' E' t~;' z~ . '5 ',<- '.~ '( , J(' ~ ~ ~, ,,:! ~'V it ~ _~'. ~(, / 'ic '- 1"';7/.:<15, __ ic (.(.7. 3'Gf. 'J/!<I ,""C-" "" "? : ~ w- Jrl" _f~fl" .,1 ':f-- 56;. gDt~ B -,:)" " I--'-'- '-02' < ',' E,1. _ f';'d I z"";",,,,:, 1; ~i ;'O;.t ~ ""... .J '15/) )1 'l.101li- , ,w "1.. .~ w--:--- ........~ ,)I,i ,- - 1':tC'") > ~ "(7,~ -r,h .3817 l~'_"' j; :. ~7 ~ ~', 'lc'j '~~I:!1 .. .. ,0'( ----' . ' -'- ,'-c,. j -'. ~-" 'E J ~~ I "set "'-<.:::.:..:.3,:'CI UJ 't:D); J{.;~ -5-&/7" 6-'..( -~ 3 ,,:"'rr' c 'r.Od1 ,,,.;, " , ---.: ...... .J,.5 ;, C ~, ~ "'yr- _ ',-'{I Z L3!<1~5 u ;.", 31' 17,., .8, J$ . ,Ief!, d~1 . --'-'--"-' ;g._~~ i:5' -c",.p.{f \- 7 ".,<Y -Ie". l,~i I ;111 ~ ~.'_^0 .l/~70 'h~. "'7il'1;1:'c.~.C...~.!I/ . <el")~~ .--'-'-'-'- I~Z 1'>-,.", ~Et Iv"~ .," .' "11.,1'" Hl" w ..ii. l'i19" /'>1..',1 - ~. "~~,"'~-n ~,.,t 3'" . a.. -..:..!..!.. ,...:...:::: J,. > "36e '0') 'I....~:~ "~IU' : ,,'"1 "'.:.1\13' ~'lif,3/~IOI'.I'"P "--"-.:-~' 'i~f!.1" ~1~ .'" J! j ,,"r-c- 'lr ,7,'1 JI5~~. 1<7':"1 ,f" Ii n~' 1~J1i; ~ ]lic"",I~ J7i{'T""i,. -:--;,~.;/"\ '~. ;,,1. i1/1 .~) ~ . "':X/ 37J.. "', ~~I~IIS iZ1.8"" ~ . ,Yy ~ ~ II ,1~".l '\" '/,,' )-.:;-'21"" Ul ,/J /.. ~ ",,""I, L-t',;~ . ~", 0\'- ~ ,'J __ -' - h ~ , ,10 '~-,,\" -"" \'::1("~ \ "]-I-~ Clast 1S'-37 t &:r: )-;:) I-x z :z U ll:Z I- 4(, kJ'oJ >- ) w -' ~,< > 0;:)) <( :t: -' r:; ..: ~ 0:- I. Q C) () u. ~I- l>- I 4:1' ... I ,'0 l\ \l.; l-tf !i.(:, q.v.J /lOAD ROCKFORD 't".r ~ f,!~ , '15-37 NORTHWOOO PARK .<. ~Jl.' q 1J11- 1_ 1101'< 1 "f1E.:!J-1 '1(-ol~ ----." . , -'f.- , ,;01 ~ ,'''' j.l.~ ---.. 130tg.' no-,.1~ ~I '1~~~~ > <.J; 'Ui.. '11 ':Il.'i~ '!.~ '.-10 - -- --. -1~!eJ 1~1~ -"I g ..\ l~,,,, .~ J 'f ~ d ,10 I,"~ I....' Io'OJ HOJl) ..: ,~~ ,- :.", '- o"t~ <i--'lJ~1o?; "'/" BIi LLj,~~ . 0-- -....~1 , ,,,,~ ,~!:~ :E~O ~f,~ , :E;O) 9J<'~ ~ ' ."~k~~ GO'titF' m( CIRCLE " ~ j - .L__ _ DATE: CASE: PET IT lONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: July I, 1975 75-37 Marvin Gordon Rezone SR to MR As shown on attached map. STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is the current owner of parcels I - 2 - 3 on-the attached map. Parcel 3, 6.83 acres, is now zoned MR. The other 2 parcels, I and 2 having 2.17 acres, are currently zoned SR. As can be seen from the attached map they are surrounded by MR and have no access since they were cut off from County #18 when the new ramp was constructed. ( \ 2. There is a major pol icy di lemna involved with this request. Given the facts of surrounding MR, lack of access, the very major changes that have taken place since 1960 - change in road, rezon- Ings, etc. in the area, - a rezoning is justified. On the other hand, staff has worked on many different proposals over the years in an effort to have some development that would tie a package together - hopeful Iy,bringing in a lower density overal I by rezon- ing; but tieing the rezoning to a total development package that would balance out the development,spreading the density over the MR and SR at some compromise figure. 3. There really is not too much that can be said on this case. It is a straight rezoning request. The one factor that might help is to delay any considerations unti I the planning grant that has been applied for is decided. This type of delay might work, with- out any repercussions,based on the need and desire to look at the total open space use in relation to a total City-wide review of the development guide. i I -, , i I I 4. The above comments are, of course, based on a premise that there is some reason not to simply go ahead with MR development on this total area. " , f7!ea C7 . , 1; J.~, i-J/1 .:+ s:;." . /; -.. f "j -I1f- ... 5't;.2<( Gc'ffy S beN,! /v// Is.) !Curt. SS'"/)27 ,'- ~" .....> land Surveyar . Civil Engineer. /1i'C '" , 8901 lyndale Ave. Sa. Bloomington 20, Minn.,. TU 1-2661 CALVIN H. HEDLUND ", f. Surve1ftJr-seertificllte '"' " t. ; ~', ....",.;~..;.;,.,. ,. SURVEY FOR. MA.~VIN H. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. DESCRIBED AS. Lot 20, Block 2,NORTHWOOD TERRACE 2ND ADDITION, VIUAGE OF NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUN'TY, MINNESOTA reserving the utility easement as shown on the record plat thereof. ;t- ~') }>- . nq-t. V 0'" ~D ' /B. '<1/.' jf '. ~ '. .' 1~~ ~G()o_,\.- ,):<, . 't,Ot'. ?r.." ~y .y;.... JOB NO> N..ll.2 ;' , " " , / / / ""r ""I -,.-. .' '4- '- ~ -, .- -,-.'~ ~/ N i ~... .' .~ \1 '\. '"' jq /' /. v "" ~J;': / f .~;. j ":.'-0" ';;J" ~. ~.> of. . .'- '. 1""-- ""';:' _.~ f...J_.~~", .-~ ....._ "''''- if ;,,-~.. feE. ~:' .~ ~i . " .''7.~'t '. r."'I _;- . . ~t 'Q ,. ......,; . 2:. 3.... . t,' ;../ f ~::~~A~r~~f~~~ on smn. 30., 196L I surveyed .th..property described above iC,. and that the above plat is a. correct repre'sentl1tion of 8a.1<1 survey.. ~<< 1-~-1$-' " " ~~2diU.&rL_ t . c. A-SG 7':F!jo . Calvin H. Hedlund, Minn. Reg" No;. 5'9#.4 ff~k,_, "__:,,.{K;',.r.!,.,,J""~~:'~~'':'';''~;i~J.",.;..,>",,~c'';'.i<-~ic~;;,..: .~;Ll.,:"l&'":,~. .i;;.,~..,~" '~d. J '~\<h' .h<';-,.i':"',._>i."., ;;f;. 1 t)-- ~-- /. 10 .. /....1. DATE; CASE: PETITIONER: LOCATION: REQUEST: August 5, 1975 75-40 Ralph Schmidtke 3824 Gettysburg Variance in Sideyard Setback STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to enlarge his existing one car garage from 12 to 24 feet in width and at- tach a 12 x I I foot screened-in patio at the rear. The overhang of this addition would extend to within 3 inches of the side lot line. 2. Both questions of legal hardship and the practical application of development standards exist in this case. There, of course, is no legal hardship since the lot is now developed with a house and garage as required by code. The practical problem requires a visit to the site. The petitioner's house sits a few feet higher than the house to the North. The adjacent house has its garage side to the proposed addition. If the addi- tion were to be built the immediate problem is that of run-off of roof water -- how wi I I the roof be pitched -- what control of the limited space on the slope to the North wi II be provided? The site plan submitted does not show the distance to the adjacent house -- wi I I the space that is left be adequate for access to the rear of the lot for emergency. access and should the addition~ if built, include extra fire protection - sheetrock for example to assure some safety for the adjacent home in case of a car fire. ,.: - DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: LOCATION: REQUEST: August 5, 1975 75-41 Jerald Jensen 4701 Independence Variance in Fence Height STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 15 to 20 foot high wire fence on the property line of the lot. The lot is located facing Independence and backing uP. to County Road #18. The fence would be used for a base on which to grow "ivy". The ivy in turn would be used as a sound barrier for #18 traffic noise. 2. The fence ordinance permits fences not exceeding 6 feet in height in rear yards. Open fences of wire simi lar to haywire or chicken wire are also not permitted. It is my understanding that the spe- cific type of wire to be used has not been decided yet. The ordinance further permits fences up to 10 feet with a variance. 3. If the fence is to be constructen, variances wi I I be needed in at least the height and perhaps the material limitations. There are,of course, some very practical problems. What wi I I it actu- ally look like -- can it stand a wind - what happens in the winter when the ivy dies? Frankly, a sound barrier is an excel lent idea on #18, but both the petitioner ~nd the adjacent properties might be better off with some- thing a bit more permanent. ...... y' In \, V) r<) ) tJ _ ~ -$-7'> 0...fl.SC 7 s -'i 2.. .~ 37.S ~ .. ~"--"', -'7"A..# U . /fc//Z, "-_. /If .~--- " t I'V <l' . .. I : '" _ ...'~ " .' ~' t, > . 7..7.8 e. ",'-~. '-:':< ,-. .. . :- "I~ ;, ", '.~ ~' 1, ~ . . "~ j 'J ;? (,Y ~ ~ . ::so' ~ J; 5foll,/ G!'p#6~ 11.." ... .. , I f::;ccP(lSf'D , /6 I I Itr>D T i";' : ~9 "-:-;7- .?r ,~::J;.o.. !.j.- eT.::;J t/ t"'*--ZO' '> I AO + (1- ~ 3- hr ~;Ltfo It, " ';;/o}o () ~ l, "- 'It' <y PLAT.--:>P-LAN _APP~"' ~_D ./' ." ,/ ",' all" BY/tyJ{/ /1"(;:'/7/ "_ '/Fe;"" "". BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE DATE //?/'::Y'" / / ... . (;. 7. (.&7 DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: LOCATION: REQUEST: August 5, 1975 75-42 George Christen 3957 Zealand Avenue North Variance in Size of Garage STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 16 x 20 foot addition to his present 20 x 22 foot attached garage. This would result in a garage with a total size of 760 square feet - 60 over the 700 maximum permitted by the ordinance. 2. Adequate side and rear yard setbacks would be maintained, so the only question is the total size. According to the application the space is needed to store a boat, trailer, snowmobile and bikes. 3. Again, whi Ie there does not appear to be a legal hardship involved, there is no apparent practical problem with the expansion unless it would interfere with the adjacent lot and its use of the rear yard. To some degree, the garage addition wi I I separate the heavy use areas behind the two houses and this could be a good addition. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: LOCATION: REQUEST: August 5, 1975 75-43 Ronald Chapman 7205 62nd Avenue To Permit Overnight Parking of a Semi-Tractor and Trai ler STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner drives a semi-truck for a I iving. On occasron he has been parking it at his house on 62nd Avenue. The ac- tual time of parking varies but according to the petitioner 5 nights,(not in a row) would be the most the rig would be on the lot in one month. 2. The zoning ordinance prohibits parking of commercial type trucks of over 3/4 ton in residential areas. This parking was originally brought to the attention of the City by a complaint so there is some interest in the item. 3. Aga in, there is no I ega I hardsh i p i nvo I ved. In fact, the request could probably be considered a "use" variance which is proh i b i ted by State Law. I n any case, the truck park i ng was a long and~hard fight back in the middle 60's and now that it is pretty wel I under control it would appear somewhat unreasonable to open up the can again. On the other hand, there may be some very compelling personal reasons for the need to have limited parking. I 1 ! i i f , i . Lund Plolll1l"i l~1oi StrV,yt1/'f 501/5 TtSflnj 0",1 ld/wicipal - /30-1) cf[[6{[}i(j[//lL .. . - ll'jll~ering ENGII'-!EERING, INC. , f Surveyors isrs ./I/yhllrlJ ~'S tl' Afm,."mh) . r '. J.~__J.:I07~ SUn_d 4-.1J"" -:. EnJinccrs (l; er?t: liE il. cr;~.:t e "rr . '". $\:Jl'!::'{!:re.y foX" ..,.... ..{- ,..7'~.. ,'''1' 1"1,. /, ~Jr_I:t... ,. , 'f"' .-' l-. .//.';/8 t (,0. / ) b/ t,Vt.-tJ ~I . . , ,,:"'-, ..... ." ~'t-. \ '.;'~ K';:j'f\", .."\ ~ ~'.. .:u~." . , "1 110. ., . ./ l.~ ; " ' , . ,-- f'{ or, / ./ '.-' ~ {,.....;.~,,.,..:? V..-: ..,./..~.. .~ I' I ' ~. .- J I " - i't' . . - '"';..... -.., ~ ~. :. ~ . -- i \ .---. "'-- - , ,~ ?LA rJ ~~... -< ~,;, -.... "".. :-- --. ";:'t"'\ . . -\ C.., ~ ! ~ ~ 7":. ~~. : r:- r~'. (" :J 7 ......-"':b ......tr.....u.........: i............ 1-vlv.-\ \['1 ! .-.~,~ r '7 "_.'':'~ 'J . ''"'':IE "..'...-....~ ..........- -.". ,",,_" i....v. [;.\1 ~~ _.~/4:5-- . ,- 1301- ~~-. . . .. Lo T ::0', &JJ :J'f;' l ,2i.EEi~:'l< '-:.; _ ,t::I.Y./ //1/,; jk.L~~' Ailf.~.T/ON . VlL!.../l,; F. (il' r.ll-.' HOPE I here!") urJ;f:' !ll/JIIh,:, IS a in", crrd corred r~pr~s~nlafion oPa surveq ('Ih~ Ixxmd"ries .f'1b. ObDte hcftheJ!and,,4f1II .r lie IUIlfll',! ol.'olli";tlJ,np . tilmon. vC oIl.':siW~ QKrCoc.l/lrienlJ .If 11';,. {irm"r1Jl/ :Joid /000, As:...$lIrl'e!fd ':!f me /iuS. . < ! " - Ja~ .f' '!, ;, A.a 131..:l.' . . 'I' , SU8URBAN ENGINEERING. INC. S8/. In.9igeels .. [,- S'!f'Io/'I'''/ ." :.3 . i., '''Ii/' J... ..-" Ct. Ii-: _-, ,_/(-.; .- \,,',_"Ii~.. .:~. .. '{, -;:to - , ,r/;Al 1....(.. '.~--- ~ . DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: LOCATION: REQUEST: August 5, 1975 75-44 Ronald Gieneart 4808 Decatur Variance to Extend 10 feet Into the Front Yard STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the front of his home that would extend 10 feet into the front yard from the existing house. This would leave a 21 foot front yard instead of the required 30 feet. 2. Attached is a series of view of the proposed addition and the lot. There is little that can be said about this re- quest except to point out that again there is no apparent legal hardship involved since the lot is currently being used in accord with the required Development in a SR area. 3. From the practical view, the main concern would be the af- fect on the sight, I ight and etc. of the homes on either side. The street does curve in front of the house so the houses are now' not set in a row. Directly to the front of the house, because of the curve in the street, 27.8 feet of setback are to be provided -- it's only on the side that the problem of the 21 feet exists. {':> Oil Lund PIC/tlll":/ L,,/J Strrty"''f 50"5 TN/in'j Civ'/ fr Alwidpa/ ll/'1ultering cfLL6{[} {url/lL -' Enyinccrs ENGlI--JEERING, INC. , E is75 '11:';h~t}'j ~'S it AIm"",!",\> )1: A~'nnt:_<.:',z jIJmefUO..... ~ , Surveyors -.." .,.-(....::;trt- ~ ~... "1 "'r ., /J ccer:l.)...l.l.llL.~ZJ.....e Oll !3t:Jl!J'\:.1CY {or ~)[O-'.;F, (F/(~i...' :"'U,':C:::: l,u. / ) b/ tY'-'-"O \/ ~ .; ~ " I, ~, . ' I I "1 ~. ., . .'/ -. I.~ / \~ ,. "f..r",,' .-; k ,.;'. ..;.~/,.,,,,,, ~~..../,~. ~12 Of. "';"'--, :'i-:~' \ .....;" ;"'':jr, I" ..~\ ~.t""..' , -, .f ""'-:--'. .- . <. ::'1 ~..., <.. :-- '-- ~ ~. .... ~ . . - ... ..\...... -., .- - - !~ \ . '. .~ ?LA rJ , ... ,4,17 V.nri' ...... . ..^ 1:,\. r--,.-" r- .)>.: _ PL,T pl...r.i~ j- :~.-'i;O".-D A r" e h~a /V -. .. -::;......-' ......' ?"/" . ~ ~ ~\ ._' 1 ,.,,' ~- - -.?:.--z:..:7-,........., ~ ......... ~~(O).. '::' >'\ C-.~ f!~ ~~..~..:.-.. r....C":J-..~--,...,S") . v.i....u.~.~~: ;i.....:...~t:.vlva\ V'! ! .-.--;--;:: r-:: "":"/ r.'J",':JE .......:.... ............,.. _.'~ ,.".~~ i-.va 8,\-1 ~':' -.:.-.,p/4s"......... , / I/jOI- JJ~-. LOT PI}!./ /N,:; . V/LL./l.>;: (il- 1'. [ v.' HOPE; I fierl!by ur/('1 fho/lhl~ IS 0 In.., Of1d ~cf r~pr~sl'nfofion o( a slK'vey ('the bc<.'nd"l'ies {"he ob.", ~":d:'an,'!t111kl 4'Ji~ IDlI1/"''?, (oJ! bvild,il}>, tj,ereon. ,yx;'oIl r/sible {I1CJ"Ol1t1tm~llfs ,If ar.;lo {ran. or tJI1S4id land. As...slJrYeJ"d iyme /lu5 .- (, _&:1!1 f. ".. /.. A 0 ",r., . . .. ,..,,-. , ;0) " F:' /,oo? . . . ., ,t L .~. -, ~."t I. ,(,0, .:--,/_,):'.1';' I; :~lI3Et.'I< ":.1 ~ " I.' /" I ,'L./.......:: AiY}T!(;N I: ~I se~ , .. \. !._Yl/.:~ ,., t-(,' ., . . , SU8URBAN' ENGINEERING. INC. E.':f.[1.c<rs .. (;~ $'(.reJo"" '/:/ 0' J., ,. {.( I..,. I,. "';;1 I'" . . v.~.. . . ~.. 1 ~ I "" I ,r"'AJ ,....l... .~~-- ~ ..~"".... .:.". n.'.,' --, . ' ,_\~J1 ~,--"" ,-..-. -~--"-- . _ ~ _1 ; , .,--~~.... \ ,\ I . ,-- "L,'__':' ' ' ---~ - ;--.-- , : i I i '1 , ~_._. _._.-~--_.~.- i i , , I - j -. r- I I i ! i _--0'___'. , . j f i .-.; l --.~?.. , - i I ~~I ' ' i ", '\ I , I '--1 ! ! I .-~'-4'- ;.. !. I (~", .' ....( ~ _': r r'." '-."" ' . ........_ __'._ I _ i r .,,~., I Ej. "{?:< ,"'i 1J~..< ; . t"-/' I (' ----..J] , leV ,~. i i i ! , -0' '1' i i 0; ,-r~-:-~-,~-~-~-~-;-~-:-'I-:' "l ~ , I;' I ;--c- ~C ------- ~"-' .: I . , ' I, \. ,:: .:,.. i --:--'~"o'-I'-' I . . I I "'3 ~~ I . , 'i I I u) <t~ ! ; _ Wc:C 1--" 1- __ n"_'_' ::> ~ ~ : iJJ - ~i-' a \!J< I Jj b~ + go q. <tll) w ,~~ -4 ~::r ,-' --- !" .' [J -.....-.-. n\ \, \1 I I ! I ! I .........._...1 I i + I i I i I I '" .-'-._ __h L j _,___.1 ! i i I !' I , i , I i I I I ,1- I I I ._L 'l ---~ t -~. I I i I .i , ! ! i i _-.1.. f i , .---- -.-. i i I I I _. I --1 i .J i .... ~. . . ; i I I I ! I _____i . ,-- I ! I t-- ! i +,~, ,-- I ! i ! i .1.._ I' I I , i t , .. I ------+- I . f I i I I ~-l--. ! i I I . ,u ----,1 . I , I I ._ 0- j , ~ . . -.----,- . ~ _m.._~____i- \- ~~~~ ~.. i , , ! , '---'-:-~"-~- .-.-". I I. i ! i , I ~ ! , i L i , : /~ / /' .'- ~, . ~~ ",...--'-'/'~> ~ / - /'-c . '0 . / . a'\,) .//.. ~j' . .-.11> .w..:"'J / '/' ~ , .... /// /~ ,/ '""'...,.... ,/ .:!:J ~ ' ~4:' wo~,/J tJ / - r . / //i .d.. ,//.,L... / / Q .r' '".<' / ,r' .0: /../'/' .J .. ,r,' /. ,~ o . //,//.. / ~V/~. ./. ,/" ,-' '-, ../ ~ ,-"""",_..~ / .,.-. ~ f:::. ;;<::',>:. . ,~~'>~~ '~?,..;," ..,' I .....~~ .4;';':.' .....~: -. ........;:~ " ' ~ \' . aul ' . '. ~. pV1 "" :'..... ~. . ~a: . I'....~. _ ,01., '-, . . '. .ct: I . . ':3\11' f' . '-ll . . '. .2 0 ,.~ .,.~ "- - ~........, . .... ..... - - ~,"~''''' !.....~, , . -.... '... .""'... :', , I" ~'-'" 1'-......; -. .~ '. . ............. ...... ....... ...., " -....... .... "'--. .....,,~..... " ,. I , I ~ +:' ~i ~:i <t:o:t' "" ~d' ], llJ~ .... - <t - l.!Ju ;:) hill' \\;., '30; IS! ",cd \- ~O' o,si ~~ 3 2- d. tS :1 :>lJ " ,:> -r'Q' ;::-. "'..... ~ P \!J~ vJ' . <15~ ..J./= -10 :)0. !.I-ct: " " ~ I I , \ I L_.,* I I ! i ~ I , , -t -- "j-- i i . ~"-!- ., i i I i ! , -' _.._~-_...-..-~ I . I . . , -r . t--- , \ f I i ............- , I ., ,. .' , 1 , i ! I ! ( ,-"--"' ; j i , ; , ' .z--_.:......_- . . i ~~ -.--_.. !. -~-~ ~ I j I i li--"'-- '--1~ . i , -~-! ! ; , L i "f--'" , . ,--,- i I t-,,'! -i-~-.-.-' ! i . :-T ~ .. __,. .; 1 I . - , ! --_....:.:. , .. ., ; ! 'j ----... , . i I g -t Q '" <i: o W vl o c.. () ~ .> ~. 3 j.. , !:0r U\Q) , \^ t. .... co I . l '-___P O. ___J.__ , , .., "".,.-H':' i ! ~'3 00 0'\ 0::- (/}'.2 <:r: - -_.~- . ..- "... I f- . /. . i ..~ , i I , i i ~() <:~ -Uo ~~ '] 0~ uJ l-j-:t 5 . ,(.) n a~ - J'''' ~ q:dl J~ I T I i i I __I. , I 10' . - ", -- : ~-= 1,;",- .O! I :--- , .o<<:-..:...-==. CJ~- i ::-- ,_.~ . ~_-=:-- --1- .!. , I i I ___.1... , i i I i i ---,,,,-1-" .. ,\ I --' I -, ---..-- -+---.--~jl I I I -i I l i i -..1 ! ' _,-l i I -.- I .! ------'1' )1 . I , I - I I I __,"_ I." I , _ ____..__ ~.--i_---- .' 1 .j I "'7"- -:.-+, r i I i i I i . 'r---- ,----- 0-'- I . . ..T -. -:- ----'j- _ I ""-1 I I , r ,. -~ -- i I ! :-~-----v '81 l ., 00 ~Q .... <l i; (-' 'ql --j I I I ! . --j-- I .- ~ . '~'--+' ! I , . , :~;' . ~ -l-..----~ - : __ '~ _ ! --, l .' Ii I , ,--." I ..~ i I . ! -.-~-r- .-~--- / . .~:! _--r. ---- ___ ~ c::--' " .$, ~_ ___ 1\ ~~ I ~ - ~,- . I y.. ";;\.1 . .!' . ...,. I ~ -" I - ,r:~ I " 0- I '3h-?~ \ \JI..'iOr. \ _..J \::> .'::.-i '. CL -::z. < \,\f ~,; .......J . I \ \ \ .f..f", i . 1':' ~ . I" \ i\ i \ !: \ \.....:... .~ : .".1 ',~ i ="\ I ! , I I ! ----- if' . . fL" .. :\\ ,\ <-' . :'JO'... : r\l\~ .~ " t- . ..t. I i i I ! , ice. "'- .... " '... " " '. , ."" .....,,'.10 --. '~~.~~> "-. '- ..., ' ., .. , '. .... ,"-, ........., .... ' -. '- . " " " ", ...... , ~. . ~ '-',,'. ....., "- '-.."........ I'" ; "~,:::' :'~ ,J \" ''.', "'~ . ", .~. ''i :'.. \., " t',. --. "",./,..,':"." ','" i " ". '. " ,. "'. ':'1 :"", ~.. '~.~~: "it :' , '< ,."" . . ., -.. ' ~ ~ ,," ~ \' ... '.. . '-~""':;~ ';j.. .J) !'-' I. , , i _.-~-t.... . I I , i--......c...-. ! ! , i __i , ; i I L I ! ~ '~ ~" "'- ,. ........ "" I i ~._.. I .' ! .f; I...... .+:' '~. - ,'1.)0 2..0 . a: \ , i I , I '( 'i' I . a oJ '0'" . f I Ii' ", ", '. " ~" ~ .. '. ~, , ;. , " " " 0" -.", ;"'- , , . " . , " "'. , . ~ () - ./ {r\ I ~I III!:; .. ! , , I ! i j-.-....--..-..-........;. i i l I I . ' +_.. _ ,_" . L \ , 1 : 1 I , Ii '\ I'" ._.~._. ,f... I i i I , I \ I i I ,i' ~~.{,.l ." ,\ 1 \ \'1 H\' . -.J~~; . '; i .! c f....r\ .\1:'" \: '''''C... \\ ',' I \. . ,..\ V~...-..:. f ....-........ 1)<> t"i) : ! i i I , I ! ...---,.., "7f> . <~ , --. .1 --J..; -...0 ' Q, ~ ,'" \..1 I .-0 - ; '-1 : ! i I i i . r --- ~.u i , . i - i I f i , \ ' .;.1 r- -.- _.~._-~:--_.. ~.- I I i I \ i I \ : ! \ , \ I I I I ~ ,,, , , ,~ I ! ,. I' / -! . , '-'T';-'-~ :-- . i . / ' .'. ...t.-....-. i . I ..-.' ;,>rc .:-'" '::':-$'I" 'i I - __0" __-"- ; !_n ! --' i . . ~__ .._._....._._.._L"" I i " i -, -.--- <.- . . DEFERRED TAX FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON SENIOR CITIZENS HOMESTEADS The past legislative session provided the deferment of special assessments on the homes of senior citizens. The law left the basic decisions about this deferment up to the local units of government. As a member of the planning commission, I am proposing we review this opportunity and consider recommending such a deferment ordinance to the council. In this summary I will discuss the following topics: a general description of the deferment program, our city's options, Bloomington's program and the procedure we would follow to enact a deferment ordinance. General Description Persons living on retirement benefits seldom have the income they maintained while working. Often the retirement income is so significantly below the working income that the family must make enoumous changes in their life-styles. One of the most difficult changes is the loss of the homesteaded property. The purpose of this deferment program is to provide some relief from local taxes for present and future retired residents. Remember, these are tax levels they could afford as working members of society, but have difficulty meeting on retired benefits. The deferment is applicable to major capital improvements such as water and sewer and permanent streets~ It would not be applicable to service improvements. To qualify a person must be at least 65 years old and live in a homesteaded residence. Income limits and property value limits are left to the discretion of the local unit of government. The deferment is not automatic, and must be applied for. The cost of the assessment is carried by the city for the lifetime of the retired resident, until the homestead status is lost or the o~mership of the property changes hands. The amount of the deferred payment plus interest would be due at that time. City Options First, of course , the decision on whether to provide a deferment program at all is up to the city. This is a policy issue each of you will need to consider on your own. Assuming you agree with me that such a program is important. these are the options the city must deal with. . - 2 - The program is to apply to persons 65 or older for whom immediate payment would be a "hardship." It is up to the city to decide what a "hardship" case is. This would include income levels, assets and possibly the overall value of the homestead. Also, deferment may apply to the entire special assessment load on an individual property, or partial payments could be considered. The city is allowed to charg~ a percent of interest on the deferred assessment and that percentage must be determined. Finally, the method the city will use to carry the cost of the assessment. Tax laws provide that monies for services formerly paid for from special assessments can be added to the general revenue taxes without regard to the levy limitation. This was purposely added as a section to the levy limitation law. The effect of such a program in New Hope for the present and future would be almost unnoticeable. Bloomington The city of Bloomington has already put such a progr8~ in place. They determined a property's assessments were a hardship when the average annual principal and interest due on the assessment was in excess of 1.5 percent of his or her ar~ual income. According to ther statistics, an $8,000 annual income would probably have been the dividing line for a 10 year, $1,000 special assessment. Enactment Procedure The procedure to the adoption of such an ordinance in New Hope would require the following four steps: 1) adoption by approval of at least two thirds of the members of the city council 2) a complete description giving necessary information on the particular area or territory involved in the district 3) public hearings which must be held after timely pUblication of notices has been given as provided in the law 4) filing of copies of the ordinances adopted with the office of the county auditor and the register of deeds. . . 3 - Conclusion This is a progrm that would assist senior citizens,in rema~n~ng in their homesteads beyond retirement. Unfortunately, too few cities have considered their elderly population when planning for the future. For that reason many seniors have had to leave the cities they helped build. As there are only a handful of seniors residing present. this is more a program for the future. been noted as a city that plans for the future, continue that tradition by giving this proposal in New Hope at But New Hope has and I hope we serious consideration. At the August meeting I will be asking the planning commission to establish a special co~mittee to consider the principles of the program. Then, if they consider it appropriate, to draft an ordinance for the full cow~ission's consideration. I would ask further that the committee try to report at the first meeting in September. ~ .". AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER ~ 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PUBLI C HEAR I NGS 3. Case 75-17-(Tabled from October 7, 1975) Request for Variance in Sign Ordinance - Wong's Kitchen, Petitioner 4. Case 75-54-Variance in Sign Ordinance - 4511/4521 Winnetka Avenue - Wi I I iam McDonald, Petitioner 5. Case 75-55-Approval of Preliminary Plat - 28th and Boone Avenue - William Donahue, Petitioner. 6. Case 75-58-Special Use - Beauty Shop - 6101 West Broadway - Fred Carlson, Petitioner. 7. Case 75-59~Variance for Garage --- 3309 Xylon Avenue- DuWayne Halberg, Petitioner. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 9. Report of Land Use Committee 10. Report of Design and REview Committee ON-GOING BUSINESS I I. Report on Status of Planning Study NEW BUSINESS 12. Review of Council Minutes of October 14th, and 27th. 13. Approval of Commission Minutes of October 7th. 14. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff 15. Announcements 16. Adjournment .. , DATE: CASE: PETITIONER : ~: LCX::ATICN : May 6, 1975 75-17 Wong's Kitchen Variance 2709 Winnetka Avenue North STAFF FINDINGS AND CXl\lMENl'S: 1. Wong's Kitchen, the new restaurant in the Midland Center, recently opened. As part of their building remodeling plans they obtained a pennit for a sign on the canopy of the center. This sign is in confonnance with the sign plan approval for the center. 2. After completion of the other work, they had a window sign painted on the front glass. There are three problems with the sign. First, they did not have a pennit. Second, the letters are too large. Window signs are limited to five inches in height and one inch in width. Third, with the canopy sign and window sign they have about 42 square feet of sign on the front wall. They are limited to just over 38 square feet. 3. The petitioner has put some money into the sign and elected to spend the additional $15.00 for a variance application to see if it could be approved. I don't think he has a major problem except for the investment of the original painting. -"'''~.- ~ ~ " ~ ~. " ." '. "'.. -- - 7C.t"'~" -- /. -/I\S"9' \ 'OJ f \ . f '. ,', ; , ~ .... ! .,. I '" "'", .'V , , ,. .~. " ,} \~ ('.l " '\ i;'- .\ ',' .' .. ' -" ,1';'" \ ' ;\. i~tfg '. 'r ~tJl)) " I;;"i/i"'~ .' ;/ .~~I~ ., '11~lf\\\\' ~Y07..5")';'-' "". (.."'~7.,,) /1-T 7C;l.l~'~?7I,/'/T'~~'t l/....' ."'/~'<J1.I\ I / I '. -J. l I l, ". I.. XII .._,., 0." J i !' .fl ii 1..,11 : 'I " q ../' / 1,- :') '" , ~Ol ./ ~. : -:"\)0 ~~ .~ ~ ri ~'.I ~ '''. t-.. - .' , , :"J :'~ i i I I J: ~ -I i' , . i i -1~ J1 ~f~ fl':}~ ,ih I<>~ ~~'~tt t "" ,"" \$i -- ~ --'--1'i . -.:" . \i' i I .....4 ":;"/t ::/4r~It..' ~I . /2,0 ~\ [. .. ~_~C7--(~, 1~S . ,I ,'. t' "of .'\/ 1'~"'r.:..'.I'" '/ / / ,.1 -.' - -/ .LL<l/(. ,. . ". I 'J · "1"": - ~:~.~ ..j i~~~ ' c,- . . , . r .' 'W I , ,.....1 ~I " ".,'~ P/'apo.S'!!,;/ 8,,:((:/J;..7 "'\ .....1 .-----0-; . I ~ '.j T.-~ '. ..~#.'..' i J9C ..j'. ~- --..... ..__ :..._, ,._.. ,__.W' :__,___.~ ---. / \ ......9,j9.0"'" 1/:0 , "l" 1/2 I i , , i i .' 'L'/' ,'! / .' { 1.1 .: I ...I .f.,' -~_'_f---::_ , ~ ,\, '- ., ,;;~:' /..1 ';'./ .. \ .i/ 62 ')}> hi / ;1/ /VET /(A - i:', ~,l~ .j',..:,'. #.,.. ,. AVE .11 ;'q ';1 iI I i 1 I I , I t! ,; 'I \~, '1: .... -!'\:-. .~ ....' ... I ... 'I i ... j'... .-\ I '- ... i .- -"_.::. I I -, I i... -, c. '" ~\ '\ c. I ;t. ... I I~..... t I":' I I . '. () ,'. "' c. '--:-.' "0 .,(<;'. ,.',;:.. ~~~'.~..: "r ",. '.' "". AI i.' IY. I" " ... '~ ... t ,', , '--"~ ~ . "--, - .' ;:'. , <l.. ..i.- , ~ .-t', ~ . ^ DATE: CASE: PET I TI ONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: November 4, 1975 75-54 William W. McDonald Variance in Sign Ordinance 4511/4521 Winnetka Avenue STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner recently purchased the two apartment bui Idings at the Northwest corner of 45th and Winnetka. Part of his program is, accord- ing to him, an upgrading of the property. Part of the new look was to be new signs. Apartment complexes are permitted to have one (I) identification sign, not to exceed 25 square feet located near the entrance to the project and limited to project name, address, etc. and telephone number. The setback shal I be 1/2 the required district setback.. 2. The petitioner has instal led one identification sign at the North end of the project. He would I ike to instal I another simi lar sign on the opposite end, 45th and Winnetka; of the project. The signs are 12 feet long by 20 inches high with 8" letters. Made from rough cedar, the signs simply have "Winnetka Manor"on them. Since the sign(s) is set at an angle only one side is used for wording. Therefore, the two signs would not exceed the amount of space that could be used .if one double faced sign were used. The one new sign that was installed was done without a permit. .It was up when the inspector saw it and stopped further work. Under the ordinance when new signs go up the old nonconforming signs now on the site must come down. They can that has " " have a for rent sign. a real wording problem This is one of the ordinance sections so no one knows exactly what is permitted. The p~!nt being. that commission might be able to get an understanding on future for-rent signing in exchange for a variance to permit the two single faced signs. ,...,." ----\~~ --;-1 \ 0 t1' :;t) \~ ~:"j J .~--\ \. . /JtJc) 'I, /175 . \ ~k& r.Jrlc .<:r.d\J..l:'H.:" ""r.a . t '.0:'1 t'~'.P..' Ii"!:n.. J..irliP '-'~~' ;o",?".i:...':'it. i.lL ~ _it.ll'l.t. :':.1,..1. fp.e~ ~..c~i:. [r(')~ ":one . reef; t.n""nce ceflpct.o:," t,rl t_:l'~ ftl~r.ut..p.. ~tJ 3~cor,'!:1 .1 'B__'..)'?:." of dr:fl"r.t.tn;. t.u t.r.(! le: to '!e:::J b 3ec:nnd;~ .! a!:--.t..n,;:', 0: t.:' nort.~...f>.:;.t...rlv t,.<.> a J.Miat. . t.he:;...r~t.h...e<_,~ 1/'- 0:- :",r. ;:JUt.tH~;,&~'. ...:'4 "u~h :'rQ~ ,:" p ~;vrt."!.;.-...t. C-';::"..;r h t<> ;;Ci-:J..r::u-i.n.,~. 41.1 In:';p'c,,i.unl'J. \ . 21, '~..r,nt;;..in CU-Ul'lt.i. ":i.nnf!..~':.... .f I."h",.. .1'''_,Z''- ,'J~.r~".:-~.?'; CA5G _75=~~ _ '-'''-~'~J' . :1 ....~'A.'.. h"'~ .'~.., ",.<'" \ .\ \ \ -\ ~ '"- \ J \ " ---' tJ) ;.----\ ' 0 ; ~.; .....0 ,.... \~- r:-i ,-- ~ to' _ ...... :.:. \% \.. -. ::s ~ ~;~. :}: :(::. r;\ \ \ ~ . :::.~ ," ....,.. '--- --- """:-....~~"\ .::~...: .' ~ '" - , . I" ti... :,...0. T' . :.;, r'i. ~741 'N, Br-.I.ld",,"'v \!"'''J'''i'.'Ji~. Mlnn':-suf,! :,<j4:;1 r 9,,'.!'!1.1""'--l......~..., . .' _......,.- BOONE ,..'oil. TERRACE . \ NEWs~.!-~J;':'" - M'>l~. ~~"':::::':'ll~~"".:: _="~~--!!..~,t $.-:.1..,. ~o'$"~, , . .. -~. . - ..-... . ""',l; 1,,\" ~ . ~Ih\,'~.+ I Kf\ "''\i'\K ~ ' \ ".....-... .. .~.......... \ . ,\ "" -/~".64- - !. 'Jo . , ~I t" f ~ , ";,\ ~~ ~-if~ '~ / / /~/.- ql ,)/ tl ~I',,o I ;'/ ~, -- , ""1\ L.'" ..J i !,>f/: :~-r. . ~ . (~;.. +'1~~' \ \. .1 "!~ ;~/.~."..~O'l-,;~~ ~,;:':\. \ I .... ./ _ ."111 " "" 03 " ,/// //t f,..~, "% I~t.~,' ',\ \, Ilii; '( .~~ t~~; , ,-C ~~ ~ "" 1/ / L'-r 'Z'.ri \ ',~ i' ....,... \ 'Z '"" 1!,51 1 .~..;: - ii\ -r \\\.~. j:l ---5.,9'7-- I~~.\, \ \ \ ~. ..,.' \ \ li!".=11 \ \ ~> \ Z I t:J'- I ..".: i ,/. ':. ! ,:--- :---' ! '. i. : :, ~ I ~i \ ';:1\ \ ' ~'\: \ "\,\ I ',' \ ',,- \ \\\>-- '- ~ \ j \' ' ~ \.,1. -\'. \ '."", ~ ; \.' \':\'f' ,\ ".; ,'. \ .' i \\.'" <IJ9' t"\ \ \ .', ' \ \ '-,,; 533 9922 I ~ I,: , , -+-.l"'j j , j i~\ " \ '" "- " , , "-j ~.\ ~, , ; ~ ~, , , ~ 4- 6". " ,,:.."-., ,~ \~ .. 'so .i I~'.f ", " 9-I'J " . ...:~ $ ~\ --- -\S I '. " .~- - - \ ..1' ;:""'~J ,~ (BituminouS /;/1..,.10...," L . I 6-- ,.- "l 28~_ ~) r- ..., .\ , I ., )" S.urfoce ,-- ' . - . <:~.F'"'' 5ffr'" AVE. -- - .. . I.:'''. "r:.,,:' ~.~;:{ F~P\S1. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: November 4, 1975 75-55 Wi II i am Donahue Approval of Preliminary Plat East side of Boone, North of 28th Avenue STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to plat the now vacant property at the Northeast corner of 28th and Boone. This property has been of con- cern for years. The major development problem was that it was in two parts -- two triangle areas separated by the line you see on the at- tached map starting in the Southwest corner of the plat and running to the Northeast. The West side recently went tax. forfeit and was picked up by the petitioner who then was able to purchase the East side. He is now combining them and intends to plat 5 lots as shown on the at-. tached plan. . 2. The zoning code cal Is for reside~ial lots of at least 75 x 125 feet,with 9,500 square feet of area and an extra 15 feet of width on the corner lots. As you can see, Lots I, 2, 3, and 4, range from 87.9 to 76.7 feet wide at the bui Iding I ine. The corner lot is only 80.3' instead of the 90' required. Lots I - 4"are al I 9,600 square feet in area. Lot 5 on the corner is 10,144 square feet. They are al I 122.4 feet in depth. 3. The only apparent question is that of the width of the corner lot. The depth cannot be changed because the depth of the original parcel is set. AI I lots more than meet the 9,500 square foot area requirement. The corner lot is 88 feet wide at the East end. The petitioner.has laid out different homes on the lot and can build within setbacks. I t wou I d 4 lots. the land not appear to be to the advantage of the City to permit only Housing costs would be increased because of the need to recover costs from 4 instead of 5 units. A few feet could be obtained by cutting down the size of the other four lots but then they would be cut down to the minimum. 4. The street, sidewalk, water and sewer mains and services are all installed. Some of the services are a bit off center, but they can be used. Storm water drainage at the rear lot wi II need to be given some attention. There is a grading problem from adjacent property at the Northeast corner. The rear lot line wil I need to be shaped carefully to control surface water. Approval, if recommended, should be subject to the engineer's approval on the lot grading. r DATE: CASE: . PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: November 4, 1975 75-58 Fred Carlson Special Use for Home Beauty Shop 6101 West Broadway STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to purchase the existing house at 6101 West Broadway to use as his home. He would aiso like to construct and operate through his wife, a one operator beauty shop in the basement. The beauty shop is a permitted use under the special use section subject to Commission and Counci I review. The property is a corner lot, is pre- sently zoned SR and abuts a GB district - now closed service station on the North, West Broadway - major arterial street on the East and 61st Avenue to the South. 2. The petitioner in his application describes the proposed operation as: "The operation of owner-operated beauty salon of one station on the premises located at 6101 West Broadway, New Hope. Minnesota. Business entry wi I I be through existing entrance located through rear garage door having access down stairs located in double attached garage to basement salon. Approximately one-fifth of Southeast portion of basement wi II be renovated and approved by the State Board of Cosmetology, to carryon beauty practices. The addition of one thirty-gal Ion hot water heater wi I I be added to sup- port salon water requirements. Approximately five recessed lighting fixtures wi I I be instal led in salon cei ling. Reception counter and as- sociated cabinets and carpeting wi II also be instal led. A centrally located fire extinguisher of either soda acid or C02 wi I I. be provided depending on ordinance requirements. A Honeywel I air puri- fier system wi I I be instal led to maintain air quality for patrons; and hold suspended hair spray mist to a minimum throughout entire dwel ling. The above described changes wi I I not be completed unti I late Spring of 1976." 3. The special use permit is subject to review against the criteria of the zoning code as set forth below: "A business or business-characteristic usage in a residential (R) area which does not meet the 'home occupation' criteria as set forth in .Section 4.51 (3) (b) 1-5 may be granted a Special Use Permit,provided: (a) The Counci I shal I find that al I business related activity occur- ing on the premises shal I not cause any adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood. (b) The Council shal I find that any exterior changes necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or separated by' distance so as to be consistent with existing ad- jacent residential uses and compatible with the residential char- acter of the district. - 2 - ---- (c) The Council shal I find that any interior changes necessary to conduct the business comply with al I bui Iding, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing the use in a residential occupancy. (d) The Counci I shal I find that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single family residence and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. 3. Three questions of direct concern would be: (a) The 1976 date -- is this when the business would start or when al I the changes are proposed to be made. (b) What is going to be the parking control - access off Broadway - extra paving -- by appointment only, etc. (c) Is there any proposal for a sign -- none directly advertising the business is permitted unless a variance is obtained. The hours of operation may be a concern if any access on 61st is to be considered. - I )'-..,.. '.. '-..... ~ .5 'V~/lIAl";6c- Y t!r;t) TV &sr.A'10U~ a.s ~41 "7S 1 , I i i i ! I ! ! I I -I "I \.~I i i 'J ! ~\ - .-1'> 1\1' 10 I II; ;- - - - - -1 I .1, p.,.o p03eJ , I ~I : .----- .1 I d" d_\~'~' i . : \\'>!(- \1 ---;,.... .. 'I . I ! I ~;:-;,o'Y":_-}_ I '_~ I . I ,.::r h-?-- - I f J k-Bi:l T ' i, ",-u.z, I { , : I ! 1 ,,. ...,12'2)' 6A~ I I - I S' .s. r:J),(,< /l ~ . /ftC,U.:.::J.::. iri.,:,fcaT Pici pianl I :_ct 3 Block 2. @ ^ ,I. '""" '" 'i fi L '--.JIll(. M \ ~~ ' - :1 '3 '3 D-=, X 'j~,J hut;; No ,Drawn by ~ I Quality Homes, I? f0 Z c" IJt5 h.-v. ?Jdy Scale: 1" - 20' I , , i , \ i ---,}-~ -730' as' I '>~ ,'''-i "J ~~/7 ~. " f /5' 'WM..IL , ~:~ ~{ . ~ ~ f-11.<;4 ! ' ~ ~O' ~ ~ I I~l~, \ I , \ ~8.'Z.- 'S 30' ::'3./ }J()t.J 't-, t 'p~'" C-A~G.- 75-51 tJ '> ----.-"", -~ '~ " DATE: CASE: PETITIONERS: REQUEST: LOCATION: November 4, 1975 75-59 DuWayne Ha II berg Variance to Permit Oversized Garage - Side Yard Encroachment 3309 Xylon North STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner now has a 20'4" x 22' attached garage to which he would I ike to add another 22 feet of depth as shown on the attached site plan. As has been noted on many occasions before, garages are I imited to 700 square feet in size. The present garage with the addition would total 893 square feet. . 2. In addition to the size variance, it appears that a sideyard variance may be necessary. The attached site plan (copy of original plan for construction) shows a proper 5 foot sideyard. The drawing submitted for the new garage permit indicates that based on the location of the property iron only a 4 foot 4t inch sideyard wi I I be provided. The house apparently sets at a smal I angle to the lot and was only 4 feet 9 inches at the front of the present garage. There is no easement on the South lot I ine so no appareht problem is created by the sma I I encroachment. If the garage size Is approved the variance should probably be routine. 3. Again the question of hardship is involved. The Jot is now used, except for the smal I sideyard problem, in full accord with the code. The addi- tional garage size wi I I provide an advantage to the lot not common to all other parcels in the district. 4. Whi Ie the question of legal hardship is a problem there ~oes not appear to be any practical problem in the garage extension. Given the way the lots are now laid out, the extended garage could, in fact, assist in making a more usable yard because it wil I separate the patio areas of the subject house and the house to the South. 5. No statements were submitted as to the need for the extra space. The drawing does not show what access wi II be provided internally or to the backyard from the addition. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION. November I~, 1975 I . CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Case 75-60 - Variance in Setback for Accessory Bui Iding -. 4608 Ensign Avenue, Gaylord Rasmussen, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. Report of Land Use Committee 6. Report of Design and Review Committee CONTINUING BUSINESS 7. Report 6n Status of Planning Study NEW BUSINESS 8. Review of Counci I Minutes of November 10, 1975. 9. Approval of Commission Minutes of November 2, 1975. 10. Discussion of Meeting Date with Council. I I. Additional Comments! Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff 12. Announcements 13. Adjournment l\l.lIND~R ENGINEERING Co.,INc. : LAND SURVEYORS lND CONSULTING ENGINEERS . 6418 56lh AVENUE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS 28, MINN. - KE 7-3637 CIVIL AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING. LANO PLANNING SOILS TESTING fl ! ~ ~ :;),,;1.t; C/ ,..- '73S-a Jt ~ ....v Purr PL M~ - ~~~6. \ ' ~ .,.. "'""J: \,,'Y/ . --- ..,." " '\1 \~ ~s. \\r .~ :1--- \ 1 :~. j "\ ~ \. \~. " '" '/ 'tit. 'Y 'V' \ .<" \ \\ ~t: ../ '\<, ,.., ./ \ '. \. .x/ "'? '" ::l /" P ~A' \\ '\?" <'~'T" ~~ /' ~ -€- I ~\ J. -" . "" ... f'_ \';;",tf'.- .- V \.1'" f ':' \-..,. .. ,- -< , c. ' ( -(~' :T' 1 . '\ ~ ~. \.. ., \ \"..- . "'- , \01" ,- , 0.:; 9ilS "~' \ . . 1::"6.' "'.>\ :".\-.. 'L."\., ,\ "?\' ~~" " / -~." ~.~.. :\.:.".'.:...~ '\1.; .,. ./' ->-\,..... 'S.- .~'\ ,-.?- ___ 9/3 ~ /"",.. ~<(.. " .~ /" '\'"' ../ .....A ".," ,/ . v./ ./ -~-:. . \/C./ I I t ~v :'E. \l!'/Qtions ~ho'll'\ ,"~~ f't:j'9:;s.~d. . PU'.T_P' ,"\;'4 ~-':--.' '. D . '1 Lot 12. 'llock 7. !:<tliiay EU1SCY,((~V~~ .~ cr..J r f r..."' ;,:-:' ~:,\'.-.'". .-.-.......- ~1J 1[-/~-15' .. .._'~.~,'....: ;,..."...:c.Ji,....R Y c.AS6 7'5'--&.1 \ ;:..L;:;2~ CF j';;:FI t~C?E ;; I D/.TE }~k 7 _ w i' .~r November 18, 1975 CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: 75-60 Gaylord Rasmussen Side Yard Variance 4608 Ensign North STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner was in just after the deadl ine for notices for November 4, 1975 meeting. He wanted to construct a 16 x 10 storage shed 3" 8" from his Northwest side lot I ine. The ordi- nance requires a five foot setback. Because it was getting late in the bui Iding season I agreed to put him on this second meeting. He apparently had some discussion with the building inspector at . that time in regard to his chances of obta i n i ng the var i ance -- if therewqs any way he could start before the hearing etc. He was told 'he could not have. a permit unti I the variance was granted. He apparently already had the slab in place before checking on the setback and permit requirements. 2. In checking the site we find the petitioner has constructed the shed without the variance or a permit. The permit problem can be solved by a double fee for doing the work before the issuing of the permit. The variance question is another matter. 3. City pol icy now is to al low storage sheds of up to 120 square feet without permanent footage anywhere in the rear yard. The shed in question is on a slab and according to the description is, as noted, 160 square feet. 4. Apparently the petitioner has a specific reason for locating the shed as he has. Since the entire backyard is open it appears difficult to justify the encroachment into the sideyard. 5. The neighbor to the North - 4616 Ensign - has submitted a letter stating he has no objection to the location.. .-~.- - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1975 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the,City Hal 1,4401 Xylon AVenue No~th, New Hope,Minnesota on Tuesd~y, November 4, 1975. The meeting was cal led to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:32 p.m. 2. ROll CAll WAS TAKEN: Present: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson London (excused), Jensen (excused),AI len (excused), Gundershaug (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 75-17 - REOUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN OROINANCE AT WONG'S KITCHEN. 2709 WINNETKA NORTH. Inasmuch as the proposed changes In the sign ordinance had not been final ized and had been sent back to committee, Commissioner Gustafson moved to table Planninq Case 75-17 unti I the first meetinq in December. Camm! ss ioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, AI len, Jensen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 4. .PlANNING CASE 75-54 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 4511-4521 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, WilliAM MCDONALD. PETITIONER. Mr. McDona I d was present and stated that he had recent I y purchased the properHes at 4511-4521 Winnetka and was attempting to upgrade the general appearance. To this end, he had decided to instal I new iden- tification signs. Because of the length of the frontage, he had felt it would be to his advantage to place one sign at each end of the complex, positioned on an angle to provide the most visibi lityto cars driving on Winnetka Avenue. Mr. McDonald presented an i i lustration of the proposed signs for the benefit ot the Commissioners. Each sign would be approximately 20 square feet and the two signswer~ the reason he was requesting a variance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson Mr. McDonald stated that he had been attempting to keep the identification signs compatible with the landscaping and that the steel "for rent" signs were only temporary - to be put out and taken down as the bui ldings were occupied. Mr. McDonald further stated that he had positioned the "for rent" signs by the driveway to indicate that this was where the prospective tenants should enter to inquire about vacancies. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether Mr. McDonald had considered adding a "for rent" or "vacancy" sign to the identification signs that would be of the same material and design? Mr. McDonald indicated he had not considered this but would, if the Commission so desired. However, he stated he was not sure that this would be as effective as separate signs at a different location. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. McDonald stated that the signs that he been connected with the previous owners and the sign stating "rental office" had been ordered removed from the property. Lengthy discussion was held between the Commission~rs and Mr. McDonald about the need for two signs, the "for rent" signs and whether or not "they came under the ord i nance, whether a hardsh i p had been estab I i shed for the variance, the possibi I ities of a "for rent" addition to the proposed signs, the percentage of vacancies that might exist in the apartment complex at a given time, the aesthetics of the signs, and the possibi lity of a double faced sign and whether -this would come under the maximum size requirement. Commissioner Herman noted that, in his opinion, there was no justification for a variance in this instance. Commissioner Pakonen stated that he felt that the two signs would not be difficult for him to accept, if in turn the separa"te "for rent" signs could be eliminated. Commissioner Gustafson noted that,in his opInion, the t1airlt that Mr. McDonald was -attempting to create would be enhanced by "the addition of a IIfor rent" sign to "the identif.ication signs. Commissioners Christensen .and Craigie noted that they felt that the proposed signs were attractive, but that in "their opinion, a hardship had not been proved to justify granting a variance. Chairman Cameron questioned what alternatives Mr. McDonald would use if he-were denied his request for a variance. Mr. McDonald noted that he would probably go to a "Vll sign in the middle of the property or perhaps just retain the one sign at the South end of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1975 4. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Planninq Case 75-54 continqent upon the inclusion of a "far rent" or "vacancy" siqn of the same tVDe of material as the proposed siqn and that the "for rent" siqn be taken down as soon as vacancies are fil led. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Pakonen, Gustafson Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie London, AI len, Jensen, Gundershaug Motion defeated. Commissioner Craiqie then moved that the Commission recommend denial of Planninq Case 75-54. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie. Pakonen, Gustafson. London, Al len, Jensen, Gundershaug Motion passed. Chairman Cameron informed M~. McDonald that his petition would be heard by the City Counci! on November lOth, 1975. 5. PLANNING CASE 75-55 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL Of PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 28TH AND BOONE AVENUE NORTH. WilLIAM DONAHUE. PETITIONER. The City Manager distributed copies of the proposed plat to the Commissioners. Mr. Donahue stated that he presently owned the property in question and was proposing to divide the pro- perty into five single fami Iy lots. He added that the individual lots met the square footage require- ment with the exception of the corner lot on 28th. He noted that it was his understanding that the code usually required mOre footage for corner Jots, but that he only had a set amount ot land. In answer to a question from the Commissioners, Mr. Donahue stated that the reasons for his dividing the fJroperty into five i ots, rather than tour, was economi c. He fe I t that the ccisT of the homes wou i d have to be increased at least $2,000 if he were to bui ld only four. He is presently planning to construct homes in the $40,000 to $45,000 range. He did not feel that it would be feasible for him to construct four more expensive homes. He further added that he usually did not construct homes in a much higher range. Discussion held between the Commissioners and Mr. Donahue about alternative divisions of the property, whether or not a hardship existed, whether or not the City Engineer had been consulted about the drain- age,and the highe~ elevation at the East of the property. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval ofPlanninq Case 75-55. approval of prel iminarv plat. for five homes on the property at Boone Avenue and 28th Avenue North. with the stipulation that appropriate meetinqs be held with the City Enqineer and that drainaqe and qradinq be approved bv the City Enqineer. Commissioner Crajqie second. Commissioner Herman questioned whether the five homes would be identical. Mr. Donahue indicated that they would all be split entries but that they would d'iffer as to plan. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Donahue stated that he hoped to begin one home as soon as possible, perhaps before frost. Howeve~ he definitely planned to begin to develop now and not in the distant future. Mr. Blaine Shepherd. 2801 Aquila North, was present and asked to speak. He noted that he was concerned about the corner lot that abuts his property and the proposed detached garage on the smal fer lot. Atter discussion with Mr. Donahue, it was pointed out that Mr. Shephered1s lot was smaller than 'the proposed corner lot. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: . Herman, Christensen, Cameron. Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, AI len, Jensen, Gundershaug. Motion passed. "- 6. PLANNING CASE 75-58- REOUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HO\1E BEAUTY SHOP AT 6101 WEST BROADWAY, FRED CARLSON. PETITIONER. Mr. Carlson stated that he was planning to purch~se the property at his wife would like to operate a home beauty shop in the basement. jacent to a commercial property. 6101 West Broadway and that-he and He noted that the property was ad- . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .3 - NOVEMBER 4, 1975 6. Mr. Carlson noted that he planned to have customers enter the shop area from the rear of the garage. Approximately one-fifth of the Southeast portion of the basement wil I be uti I ized. They plan to add a 30 gal Ion hot water heater and five recessed lighting fixtures, plus CQuntersand carpeting. They also intend to instal I a fire extinguisher and an air purification system. He further added the salon would have to be also approved by the State Board of Cosmetology. The approximate date of completion would be sometime in the late Spring of 1976. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Carlson said that he did not feel there would be a need for a sign since his wife was already working as a beautician and her customers had indicated that they would fol low her when she opened her own shop. He added that he felt that because of the appoint- ments required in a beauty shop' there would be no traffic or parking problem. The approximate hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Wednesday through Saturday. There would be no additional employees as it is to be a one-station shop operated by Mrs. Carlson. Further discussion between Mr. Carlson and the Commissioners as to the entrance to the shop, the condi- tion of the existing fence which was in need of repair, the need for directional signs, and the parking facilities. It was also suggested that a turn-around might be desirable in connection with the drive- way to avoid the hazards of backing out on to West Broadway. Mr. Carlson indicated that he had considered blacktopping the area next to the garage. Discussion followed. The City Manager noted for clarification that Mr. Carlson could not -instal I a driveway, without permis- sion, out to 51st, but that he would be al lowed and encouraged to put in a turn-around on his lot on the West Broadway side. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Carlson noted that he intended to move from his house in Robbinsdale and I ive in the property if he did purchase the home. The sale is contingent upon his ob- taining the special use permit for the beauty shop. He added that he was unable to be more definite about a date for the completion of the shop and the beginning of the operation, other than late Spring of 1976. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there was an existing curb cut on 51st on to the property. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to aDprove Planninq Case 75-58, RequeST for a Soecial Use Permit, continqent upon parkinQ beina limited to the drlveway~ an on-site turn-around to be provided on the WesT Broadway side; no additional exterior chanQes for the business other than that which are required to pro- vide for a rear entrance to the beauty Shop; and that the business be operated by appointment only, with the petitioner responsible for quaranteeinq that the customers park in the driveway. Commissioner Pakonen second. Commissioner Craiqie moved to amend the motion to include thzt the Special Use Permit be subiect to an annual review~ Commissioner Herman second. Commissioner Pakonen moved to amend the motion to include that the driveway, includinQ the turn-around be blacktopped and kept clean durinG the winter. Amendment died for lack of a second. Commissioner Herman moved to amend the motion to include that al I improvements to the premises be in ac- cord with al I existinG ordinances. Commissioner Christensen second. Further discussion held about time tables for review of the special use, the granting of special use per- mits to potential rather than actual home owners, and whether a motion requiring compliance to code was necessary. Voting on Commissioner Henman's amendment. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, Allen, Jensen, Gundershaug Amendment passed. Voting on Commissioner Craigie's amendment: Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, Allen, Jensen, Gundershaug. Amendment passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , - 4 - NOVEMBER 4, 1975 6. Voting on the original motion as amended: Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman, Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, AI len, Jensen, Gundershaug Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 75-59 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDE SETBACK AND GARAGE SIZE at 3309 XYLON AVENUE, DUANE HALLBERG, PETITIONER. Mr. Hallberg stated that he was requesting a variance of 7t inches in the sideyard setback and a vari- ance of 195 feet in the total size requirement. In answer toa question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Hallberg noted that he had discussed the addi- tion with his immediate neighbor who had expressed no opposition to his plans. Following further discussion, Mr. HaJ Ib\3rg noted that the addition would have a gable roof simi lar to that on the house, that the peak would run East/West, and that he was considering either cedar siding or color-Iok. He noted that he needed the additional space for storage and desired a smal I workshop for his personal use. Discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Hallberg as to the siding choice. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Hallberg noted that if he did not receive the variance, he would probably shorten up the garage or construct the addition with a jog instead of a stra i ght line. In answer to a question from Commissioner Herman, Mr. Hallberg stated that the addition would have frost footings. Commissioner Herman expressed his concern over the choice of exterior finish, noting that he felt it im- portant 'that the gar-age and house ha',.'e the same type of fi n j sh. ]n response to a question trom Chairman Cameron, Mr. Hallberg noted that he had I ived in the house for nine years and had no plans to move. Answering a question from Commissioner Pakonen,Mr.Hal Iberg stated that he was a carpenter by profession, but that the shop would be used only for personal use and that he would not be doing cabinet work for sale. In response to a question from Commissioner Herman, Mr. Hallberg stated that there would be one door on the South of the garage, probably a sliding glass door on the North side, and an opening between the existing and the proposed addition. Commiss'ioner Gustafson moved to approve PlanninG Case 75-59. Request for Variance in Side Setback and GaraGe Size. subiect to the fact that the exterior finish be consistent with the exterior of the house. Commissioner Craiqie Second. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Herman; Christensen, Cameron, Craigie, Pakonen, Gustafson. None London, Al len, Jensen, Gundershaug. Mati on passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 8. Chairman Gustafson noted thaT the Codes and Standards Committee had met on Wednesday, October 29th, with Midwest Planning and Research. He added that the proposed changes in the sign ordinance had been re- viewed and that the committee had recommended further work by Midwest Planning. He added that he anti- cipated that the revised sign ordinance would be back before the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council within a month. Chairman Cameron commented that he had been confused with the copy of the proposed revision to the sign ordinance that he had received, as to what was new or changed. Cornmisioner Gustafson assured the Chairman that when the sign ordinance was in it's final form,.the re- visions would' b.a notedclaarly. Chairman Cameron wondered whether the past history'of variances, by type granted, in regard to signs had been reviewed. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the areas of concern had been studied in detail. Further discussion. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - NOVEMBER 4, 1975 9. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 10. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. ON-GOING BUSINESS I I, Mr. Steve Ryan, of Midwest Planning and Research, reported that the inventory portion of the study was almost ready to go into print and would sUbsequently be distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Ryan further noted that the revision of the sign ordinance was moving right along and there would be another meeting with the Codes and Standards Committee shortly and that hopeful Iy, the revised ordinance would then be forwarded to the Commission and the Council. NEW BUSINESS 12. The City Manager reviewed the Caunei] minutes of the 14th and 27th. Discussion held by the Planning Com- mission as to Case 75-49 (Variance for Roger Engle) and Case 75-51 (Construction Plans for the supper club). Lengthy discussion fol lowed between the Commissioners in an attempt to ascertain what the Counci I 's rea- sons were for ignoring the recommendations of the Commission in these two cases. In Case 75-49 the concensus seemed to be that the granting of this variance was almost hazardous~ in that the cars would be forced to extend in to the street from the driveway. In Case 75~51, considerable discussion was heJd relative to the shrub versus tree decision, with the feel ing being that the petitioner had in effect agreed to the Commission's recommendation and then had gone before the Counci I requesting a different solution. Commissioner Herman. in referring to the Counci Jls request that Design and Review take a final look at the landscaping plans for the supper club, noted that the Committee would not look at this project aeain. Commissioner Christensen expressed his distress that after the amount of time that the Design and Review Committee spent in discussion of various projects, in a attempt to resolve existing problems, the Coun- ci I, in effect, ignored the Committee's and subsequently the Planning Commission's recommendations. Chairman Cameron requested that the Citv Manaaerrelav to the Counci J the fact that the Desian and Review Committee did not wish to be the Council's scaoeqoat. Further discussion about the Commission's role and whether or not the hours they spend on the planning requests are worthwhile, and if their recommendations are to be continually ignored, there is indeed a need for a Commission. Chairman Cameron noted that the Planning Commission is only an advisory body and that the Counci I is an elected body with the final decision making power. Further discussion as to what the Commission wished to be conveyed to the Council. Commissioner Craigie expressed his concern over the reversal of the decision on the Engle varianee~ stating that, in his opinion, the Council had officially justified i I legal parking. Chairman Cameron commented that he had never been sure Commission and so were aware of their recommendations. of communication between the two groups was in order. that the Counci I read the minutes of the Planning He agreed with the Commissioners that some sort Commissioner Herman expressed his feel ing that jf the Counci I had some valid disagreement with the Com- mission's recommendations, it was their responsibility to communicate this to the Commission with their reasons for the reversed decisions. Further discussion held as to the Planning Commission's position and whether they were justified in expressing their disapproval to the Council when they disagreed with decisions~ or when the Counci I ignored theirrecommendation5. Commi 5S i oner Herman suggested three pess ib Ie acti-ons directed at improvi n9 commun i cations between the Commission and the Council: I. That the Chairman of the Commission write a letter to the Counci I expressing the-ir feel ings. 2. That the Commissioners make an appearance before the Council. 3. That the Commission request a joint meeting with the Counei I to share ideas and concerns with the Counci lin an attempt to find out what each is doing and why. Chairman Cameron requested that the record show that the Counci I minutes of October 14th and 27th had been reviewed. ..-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . - 6 - NOVEMBER 4, 1975 13. Chairman Cameron requested that the record show that the Commission minutes of October 7th. had been reviewed and accepted. 14. In response to questions from the Commissioners regarding the Sal iterman property, the City Manager noted that the attorney's were presently trying to work out an amendment to the special use ordinance that would permit the construction of the professional bui Iding on the property. Discussion followed: Commissioner Christensen requested that a formal letter be sent bv Chairman Cameron to the City Council outl ining the Commission's disagreement with their decision on the Engle case. In addition he felt that Commissioner Herman's recommendation for a joint meeting with the Counci I should be suggested to the Counci I. Commissioner Christensen raised the question that perhaps the members of the Commission could alternately attend Counei I meetings as representatives of the Planning Commission. Cha.irman Cameron noted that, in his opinion, the relationship of the Commission to the Counei I is on paper. The Commission hears the cases and recommends. Attending the Council meetings could possibly put the Commissioners in the position of arguing with either the petitioner or the Counci I, when the Commission's decision had already been made. He added that he felt it was important that they be legally separated. After further discussion, the concensus was that Chairman Cameron should write to the Counci t reqardinq these two cases and attempt to arranqe a meetinq with the Counci J. The meeting would be to discuss spe- cifics as to Counei 1 ICommission action rather than generalities. Commissioner Craigie raised the question of the advertising signs on various apartment complexes, in particular the Wingate Apartments. The City Manager noted that he had also seen the new Ugarage for rentll sign and would have the inspec- tor check on the matter. 15. The meeting was adjourned at 10: fa p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ -':;';uL~ /..v ~, 80yce Boeddeker Secretary -- . , AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1975. I. CALL TO ORDER - 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PUBLI C HEARl NGS 3. Case 75-17 (Tabled from November 4, 1975) Request for Variance in Sign Ordinance - Wong's Kitchen, Petitioner. 4. Case 75-48 Special Use - Gymnastic School - 5601 Boone Avenue - Wi I I iam Munsinger, Petitioner. 5. Case 75-61 Special Use - Beauty Shop - 4901 Zealand Avenue - Roy and Doris Freeberg, Petitioners. 6. Case 75-62 Waiver of Platting Ordinance With Lot Variances - 28th and Xylon - Earl Wi Ison, Petitioner. . 7. Case 75-63 Approval of Construction Plans Including Height Variance - 42nd and Gettysburg - Crystal Evangelical Free Church, Petitioner. CQ~MITTEE REPORTS 8. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 9. Report of Land Use Committee 10. Report of Design and Review Commatee ON-GOING BUSINESS I I. Report on Status of Planning Study NEW BUS I NESS 12. Review of Counci I Minutes of November 24, 1975. 13. Approval of Commission Minutes of November 18, 1975 14. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners and Staff 15. Announcements 16. Adjournment , DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 2, 1975 75-17 Wong's Kitchen Variance 2709 Winnetka North STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. Since it has been since last May, and since it now looks like the time to act" might be at hand, a quick review of the Wong problem is in order. Under the present ordinance the restaurant in the Midland Shopping Center has a canopy sign and a window sign. They were permitted 38 square feet -- the two signs to- gether were 42 square feet. In addition,the letters of the window sign are too big. They arela foot high and wide" enough to match the height. The present ordinance limits letters on window signs to 5 inches in height and one inch in width. The window sign is within the 25% coverage if it were considered separately. 2. The proposed sign ordinance permits up to 25% coverage and places a 9 inch height limitation on the individual letters -- no speci- f i c restriction ont-he" width. 3. The City recently won a court test of the right to regulate window signs. the one problem the court felt should be clari- fied was the width - since depending on the letter, a one inch restr let 1 on was not p ract i ca! in a I I cases. The neVi p-roposa! would eiiminate this concern. 4. In the immediate case of Wong's,since the petitioner clearly did not intend to do anything wrong, but simply did not, or could not as the case may be, realize what was involved, perhaps he could be given some time -- like a year -- to bring the window sign in to conformance as to letter size. The smaller letters would also bring the total square footage down to the permitted 38 square feet to al I signs on the front. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 2, 1975 75-48 William Munsinger Special Use for Gymnastic School Boone Partners Building - East Research Center Road and Boone. STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. Last fal I the Zoning Code was reviewed and then amendedto.permit a special use permit for certain schools in industrial areas. As everyone probably wil I remember, this was in response to a request for a gymnastic school. The code was amended and the ordinance has now cleared al I of the paper work and the specific permit for the Munsinger School can be considered. 2. The ordinance as adopted reads: a) School may operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. b) At least one and one-half (It) parking spaces for. every two (2) pupi Is at student capacity, must be provided on site, unless it can be demonstrated that a differing amount of park- ing is required. c) AI I special events (exhibitions, etc.) must be scheduled on night, weekend, or holiday times so as to el iminate conflict with dai Iy work traffic and parking demand. d) Compliance with City and State Life and Safety Codes. 3. A representative of the school wi I I be present to discuss the operation with you. As per their statements, the school now operates al I day .Iong with the majority of students coming from just before 4:00 p.m. and finishing up at about 9:00 p.m. The largest class is 10 students. No problems of any kind have developed from the parking. The individual very young children lessons may include the parents remaining, but these classes have only a few students. The older kids either car pool or have a drop off stystem. Special events are planned but they will be held away from the school at places such as major shop- ping centers. The school has been inspected and everything appears to be in order from the Life/Safety Code side. .~ ..--- DATE: CASE: PET IT lONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 2, 1975 75-61 Roy and Doris Freeberg Special Use Permit 4901 Zealand Avenue North STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to establish a one operator home beauty shop at 4901 Zealand to be operated by the wife. According to the petitioner there wi I I be no outside changes of any type in the home, nor wi I I there be any outside signs. It is proposed to operate three days and one evening -- Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday - a week. 2. The home is a corner lot abutting on 49th Avenue, designated as a major collector in the traffic plan, and facing Zealand Avenue. The house to the North is separated by a considerable distance. The houses to the South and East have "sides" facing the house and to the Southeast is the Cooper schoo I . . The entrance to the actual space to be used could be either 49th or Zealand given the layout of the house. This question should be clari- fied as should the question of the actual space to be used; the parking arrangement, the specific hours of operation and if the business is, it appears to be, one of appointment only. 3. The special use permit is subject to review against the criteria of the zoning code as set forth below: (al The Counci I shal I find that al I business related activity occuring on the premises shal I not cause any adverse changes to the resi- dential character of the neighborhood. (b) The Counci I shal I find that any exterior changes necessary to con- duct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and compatible with the residential character of the district. (c) The Counci I shal I find that any interior changes necessary to con- duct the business comply with al I building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing the use in a residential occupancy. (dl The Council shal I find that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single fami Iy residences and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. 'f--.._.__..~._oO______'___ , ! , , II ,i . " ~ ; ,. " ; H ~ . , I' i' ; , t ~ " h I' ! ~ Ii II II I II j I; i I - j- I I I I I. II t , I [ II t. ;,"i I ; . i , I j j 1 . I_ I r. , I s I t I j I =2' , ' i o ;:> <. - f I B'2...oq JI II " II I Ii II i/ /. I' I I i I- I/ ~ i I I I \ I , I I I I , ! ---------:-. .~---~.~.~-'--.._~---_.--:=::~q:;. 2. 8 .-~\ A IJ E. N. , , 133,0 __.. , .." "'- o - -1 r >< 1'7 -- , \ lJ\ o co ;;:: I ---/<; I ti' w' I" 1)8.0' I :; '1...1 (,.j --II. '1-' ".1 ': i " ; ..' , ." ',' -" ~..! ; r': i _ ',. i ----l, . ~ /-~./ ~ 5 va. ,/.- .- / /. "" 'I' o " / /_ .,' ~~. I flt.01l""5ED " .'" /. ' q!, ~ /-rw~ 5T'OA.."(//~,...1] '" -----,,' I! // // /" ," / ,-' ../ Ii // ,/ ,.'4€;' /' (" , ... "--- -.._--- , ," .._..._..._~~,~.. , . u' -~_., , I , r-: I vi M! ! [ , 17,6 ///7" , I~ I STa1?,V 1/ FRA.\-\€- _!(.,7'~' ~Cl):I.€ <3- ,.,.. . CO ~ :-p~; 1 r.l'l:.VE '- , ' 4 p.le.,re , fRorosED S\\"t:. YLf.l0\JS:. ~o\<- Wt=<:'::-T ':S)l) F'JORbt"l\.~ Bl.t:.'5 I , ... .~_...._- _..-......~-......_".._-_.- .... --"'-~-"~"" 1')..-'-.-7'J- C.A SI! 75'- b '2. o ~ DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 2, 1975 75-62 West Suburban Builders - Earl Wi Ison Waiver of Platting Ordinance/Variance in Lot Size Southeast corner of Xylon and 28th Avenue STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The petitioner is proposing to divide a presently platted lot into two lots with the intent of constructing two single fami Iy homes. The lot is at the corner of Xylon and 28th. The lot is one of those for which a special use permit was granted back in the early 60's for two-fami Iy homes. As you can see from a drive by, the lots to the East, on the South side of 28th are now developed with two-fami Iy structures. Going South on Xylon on the East side are a series of four-plexes. The four-plexes are in a LB zone. The two-fami Iy units were approved under an old provision, since removed, that permitted them by special use in a SR zone. They were approved originally to provide a transit between the shopping center and mul- tiple development to the South and the regular SR area to the North. 2. The present lot is 138 feet wide by 118+ feet deep or just over 16,284 square feet. SR lots are, by ordinance, to be at least 75t by 125'and 9,500 square feet. Corner lots are to be 15 feet wider. The two new lots are proposed to be 75'x I 18'on the corner and 63'x 118' for the other lot. 3. Attached is a copy of the proposed division with a house located on each lot. As you can see al I setbacks are met without a variance. The proposed spl it entry on the corner is set back 35 feet or 5 more than required. This, together with the standard 20 foot sideyard on a corner lot, should take care of any potential sight problems around the corner. 4. The question involved is really one of the use of smaller lots. The lot could already .be used for a two-family structure so there wi II not be any additional housing units added to the area. The use of the lot for two separate homes wi I I, of course, spread the cost of the lot against two units rather than one. A lower cost would be a factor in sale potential to off-set the placement of the single family homes between the two-fami Iy and four-plexes surrounding the proposed lots to the East and South. 5. The open area at the Southwest corner of the intersection is single fami Iy and wi I I probably be developed as such. 6. The specific question to be judged is the waiver of platting to per- mit the splitting of the one lot, into two undersized lots. c -; r -; -< I J' -t (11 1 r J>- l :.. t z: ~ l" ,. r (\ ['" flJ' \) ill Z - ~ ... ~ < " . . ~ 0 ? i''' " " po > " i r c ~ nr _ ..I tt ,,\II P S" .. J' f , t" .J' ~ vi . \,01 ..~., t ~ ;; 1fI'" ~ S if {I) s,.... Q " .~ & a t ~ ., .,. :t " " =-. ' : ~ . ti ",,.....,,r.. ~ c= C' '0 f ~. ;! ;! VI; !,........ - ~ ig R -.; I I u' '~a;-.-'" ,. ~ . DATE: CA~E: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 2, 1975 75-63 Crystal Evangel ical Free Church Approval of Construction Plans/Height Variance Northwest corner of Gettysburg and 42nd. STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. Last summer the petitioner received approval of a special use permit to permit construction of a church on a 12 acre site at the North side of 42nd between Gettysburg and County Road #18. They have now presented construction plans and are seeking approval in order to start construction. 2. The proposed bui Iding is two levels, set into the topography so that the West side is a walk-out. The lower walk-out area is the educational, fellowship hall, etc. The main, upper level is the major worship area with seating for 800 plus a choir loft for 60. The bui Iding has approximately 22,000 square feet per level. 3. Parking for churches under the ordinance is based on one space per three seats in the major assembly area. A minimum of 287 parking spaces are then required. Some 334 are provided in two separate lots as shown on the attached site plan. Whi Ie the pro- posed parking meets the ordinance requirements, some detailed discussion should be held on the actual needs of the church. Most of the Commissioners are fami I iar with the rather extensive pro- blems the church is currently having in Crystal in regard to parking. The North parking lot is set back 50 feet from the North property I ine and wi I I be some three feet below grade with the intent that this separation wi I I serve as an "adequate" protection for the future single fami Iy area to the North. Since the setback is over 30 feet, no specific screening is required. 4. A separate parking issue was also presented. The original site plan indicated exterior permanent parking for two buses. This has been removed from the revised site plan. A question should perhaps be raised as to where they are going. Since the property involved is not "platted" residential there is no specific restriction against having the buses, but they would need to be screened under the screening requirement. 5. The basic bui Iding construction is brick with some metal panels or stucco areas on parts of the upper levels. The church wi I I be 50 feet out of the ground at the upper level and 65 feet on the walk- out side. The normal height restriction in this zoning district is 35 feet. This requirement is waived in the case of churches providing the setback of the bui Iding is at least 75% of the height. The closest the church wil I come to any lot line is about 190 feet so the height is no problem. - 2 - "~ 6. One height problem may exist. The church was originally plan- ning a free sfanding spire 100 feet high. A church spire is a permitted encroachment into the height restriction. The ques- tion is one of if the spire would be a "spire" or a sign. A sign being defined as " ... display calculated to attract the attent i on of the pub I i c .. " The church at I ast word was sti I I debating if they were even to have the structure so the question may not even be pertinent come meeting time. 7. Landscaping was, at best, very skimpy in the original presenta- tion. A considerable additional amount has been added in light of the concern expressed by the Design and Review Committee and is probab I y adequate, pend i ng rev i ew by the ent i roe comm i ss i on of the revised plan. 8. Concern was also raised in regard to the parking lot layout. Some changes have been made, including completion of a drive around the entire bui Iding. Again, subject to review of those involved with the original criticism, the basic layout appears to be OK as now presented. -. , AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER - 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Case 75-56 - Construction Plan Approval - Bass lake Road - . Benson-Orth Petitioners. 4. Case 75-63 - Crystal Evangelical Free Church - (tabled from 12-2-75) - 42nd and Gettysburg 5. Case 75-64 - Remodeling Municipal Bar - 42nd and Nevada 6. Case 75-65 - Construction Plan Approval - 40th and Winnetka - St. Croix Ventures, Petitioners. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. Report of Codes and Standards Committee 8. Report of Land Use Committee 9. Report of Design and Review Committee ON-GOING BUSINESS 10. Report on Status of Planning Study. NEW BUSINESS 12. Review of Council Minutes of December 8, 1975. 13. Review of Commission Minutes of December 2, 1975 14. Additional Comments/Requests from Citizens, Commissioners/Staff 15. Announcements 16. Adjournment ~ '" . , ....~ . h'" "..... ~. D" ~. ~ ", . 0;- :'. :ii ..1'\: '" t, r (.loI .I';"'" !-~ ~~ ., ... r' .: : ~ ~ .' Ot' e r. "", ENS!GN A~ ~,~ i ;; .;t~ ":: ~ ~,,:; . G" ClIo ". - _ -.::~ - i.;,.-" 4. ~,:!. '.' N"rU · > '.;J'.:.", ~ ~ ~' ,:~- ~ h:;; "i~ :;. S' . '" D.,...",. . .~. . .. . .'oJ .,. - '-. ~-,~ :::0.. ..ol~' . -, ~ . :.,' ~ tf "0Pf;.CATJ.!f> AV .~ ' . <:-fl'., , .... ~ .Ii. .' - ~ Cj , --- - ~ '_ . ; ';~ ,";,.... r ~~~ rno .. ,.. ~.., _.....:;-.) :....1__ N u -'1" J; \.l.,; .. ~ '" 0 J> ;, ~~.;.: ""'r .'J 0' ! ,'- M~'-"...""~;-"- 5: ~:-.'.. "~(;J_'-I. ~~ ~t< ~'-'~A'~~ 'E;- ~~A\/. ~~zr~rn~ C / l,h, ~ 'J_.: , t'!::, ~;'''~'- " -, ':g'" O-l.<~_ _~~. f;>-.. :: ":: ~-."'f . . $.. '!: '. " .' .(",. n .. _ - r- _ rn , "'-- .: ,:.~~. y-.= -,..:. ~~:::o -"-a '~:' ..:r'~!"11"\ .-.... :':./o....-:::"-J' ~ ...~. '.:;. V/l1 ,;;'vO - '>-o-:o::O'W ~~..~J:: c .j.= .~-'~~."..I~ ~J . ~....~ "" .... ~I f :~:~:~~",f - ~-~ (1l / .riO-"..h'----.:;,:':!C.~i;,--':;-:,~"P :;:~,<!, ~ ~::. 7 ~ ~:;~:~:j~;j'::s,:.: ,~~i~;~~~~~I~ \~-'; <;:. I ._."B\...,CN~..... - ',.'''' '''. .0.\ ' . . . 53:.!!I:_:;~~-j",;,' -_'": / ~_~::;t?':':_E.~.<'~: :~:~~u' ..... .,~((i~c1 ;;:'11:; <j~r-r ~,';-' =<:" :,ij:;:'- '; 10"1 O~ .... ;.rc"j - fJ'?c);:" ~. -'''~ . "'V M ;", ''0 .""'!"I ..C;. - ~ , .....~ .E~ ....w L... j I ~ '.l\ ..- - ~ _ ,~.~_ ...J;/:; ~E .R"Cl..AKt '00 ".:~: ~ ~; , ~ -:J Pi<;_. _0 ._;. .-~ E . -~~_ (l'Jo!~~.c/:; .':' ~/- {1 Z _ ~ ;~i:;: "...,51 '''J../ "'fTi" N ~.~. &:c '" ;)~:~~~:::;, ~/t~ o ~~'! _lid i- ,.,~ N b 1":;4," , ~-:t'.C : r' .. '" "'_' (.01 ~ ""'- .... 10', I ~ .... ~ (;. f N:' 0 ~~.' I, t) - I ~"", "1 <.).... ; ,:.' : F:';' !... .,;~~;. '. '" ...... YUKON ....,.. ", AVE.l, ,. - .c,,, ., .' ~:'\' 01. ". .~, Q..... " D.~' \. _ \:~-~ N'~ '.,\ '.. ....'" . "', ~ ,../' ... .. ! , . I , - . . ! 1 i 1 ; i ~ ; j . ~ . . , , l' ~ L ;; ~ I- .;.\"......- ~ .~. '" )- " .. ~ "' ~ ;:r ... .. .. '" .,., i- ....., ...~ ~.. '~ , : I.. ....- ...- ~ ~ 1 l~ I in. . ? ~!? ~~(J --_.\ I , I , -'--~ ---f;!-:P-- -. ,.... ,....... -.... 4;. \ ~.~......... 'l:: p...... ~ -- -- -~--- .~ ~ ~ lJ , ---- , 1 IJ \- I ~l , ; I 1 4 i ~ '" ,Uj ~1 ,.."", ~ L~- I ~ '1 I ~ (,' '-'> . ...0 <Do ~ "q./ .. - ~. . ~ ..". <>(. '..'\ .. 0. -... -, ~ ~ "'\ ~. ~-----_.~-~. " ' :?;o . c.z. ~( '-. + ~~ ..,-4 " " <). ,.,..",Q} ~ Qo<<, j;.. -. ~.~ I ..,.;,\ , (-. 1/- I ,Ie:.' .~.;...... . .' ., ,,::..:....:~ ~ .- ,~,. l '_.'-J r . 1..... .', -,r/ll' J..'::',J;drivS.lC I~ frY., \"" ~ }t/.. -.' ~ J -.... C'~ .'"' h " ... \.. ., - I --,-- a::' ~- ,.,.. I....:;. h' _ l""~ >~ . ';'5'-- -. "..- ~: .~ ;~ ~ "'~ \~. - ' ; ;~ I"' -. ~~ t~ .~. I..... ;i 1 f~"'''''''' .___.....J .. _..; .s~c lei 10' ~ -'J 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ I , ., " ~ .>1'" I!'I ,30.2,$ - ~ ~ , -::- . .... ~ <10 ~ I~ ... ~ ~ ,<> \~ \~ I~ .1_ N " ..._'4,...: .. /?-lfo-75 . f.... , :; :;.~ ;,,;;... >: CASE- 75- Sfa ~-.>-\, ~~fS" .. " :I' ~ /4 '; ~~ I, >. " >. \~~ .cc.!1:l . ~ ~ . ~ .' N ~""- ~""I'] ~ rr ':". ~~-~~ _, .1 ~~ ~ ~ ali ~ . 0; , . ~~ ":h ~ ,.,,:.0: ~ '. .; I;'.: !~ -;. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 16, 1975 75-56 Benson-0rth Associates, Inc. Approval of Construction Plans South side of Bass Lake Road, West of Boone _ next lot West of old house at the corner. STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: J. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new printing shop for Post Publishing on a,site that wil I, when finally split up, have 100,877 square feet of land area. The petitioner wi I I be back at a later meeting to apply for a waiver of platting to create the lot in question out of the larger parcel as shown on the attached map. 2. The property is zoned Lf which requires a minimum one acre lot and at least 10,000 square feet of building. The proposed bui Iding is 15,854 square feet of g round area. The Lf d i str i ct a I so requ i res at least 35% green area - the lot is proposed to have 55% or 56,432 square feet of open area. 3. The bui Iding is to be constructed for Post Publishing now located in Crystal. Whi Ie printing is not a specific use I isted for the LI dis- trict there is at least one other printing business _ Nordic Press _ in the LI area. Manufacturing is defined as al J manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, treatment or assembly of products and materials. It would appear that putting a paper together and job printing would fal I within this category. 4. Several questions were raised at the Design and Review. They included: a) A request to extend the sidewalk shown at the Northeast corner of the bu i I ding out over the park i ng sta II marked "hand i capped". Th is would serve to create a better access to the main entrance to the bUilding. The handicapped stall would be moved South of the sidewalk. b) Consideration to moving the 5 foot planting area shown on the East side of the building to the Bass Lake Road side to provide additional landscaping there and replacing the Eastside planting strip with a wider sidewalk. c) Providing screening for the roof top mechanical equipment. d) Rearranging the trees and adding one tree on the Bass Lake Road side so as to provide two groupings of trees. 5. The bui Iding itself is to be constructed of break off, split face block. The building on the Bass Lake Road side wi I I be about 12 feet high with the appearance of a single story office building. A portion wi I I, how- ever, be two stories and the rear area wi II have 18 foot cei I ings in the press room. 6. Parking in the amount of 74 cars is provided. The petitioner should be questioned some more on the layout of the building to see if this is adequate under the code. -f- If .. } : <';.' . - - ,. .!; '~; .,., d, r I- " -I . -.' . .', , " .' . . i "" 1 .. .,. .. _ _."--.:-~~.................., ._ _....__10'.0..< ..,_-~,.,.".._' . , '. - 2 - 6. The top story which is definitely office is 9000 square feet. Office space needs one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area or 45 parking stal Is for this area. The bottom area including the high ceil ing press room and the associated services to it is the 15,854 square feet. Considering this as manufac- turing area this wi I I require 26 spaces. The total for the building is then 71 parking spaces. However, 9000 square feet of the bottom floor is for the typesetting, etc. activity. If this was office an additional 44 spaces would be required. The key probably is a statement as to the number of employees. If the total employee force is below the 74 there should be no problem even using the more I iberal definition of space use. 7. A question was raised on the access to Bass Lake Road. One curb cut is proposed. Traffic could turn either West, or go East on Bass Lake Road. Bass Lake Road is a four lane street and apparently there was some feel ing that traffic should not be permitted to cross the two lanes to go West. Frankly, I don't see the concern. The only practical way toeli- minate left turns would be extension of the median on Bass Lake Road. This could be done only at tremendous expense since the entire road would need to be changed and it's only two years old. Anyone wanting to go West would then be forced to go to Boone adding more traffic there or going past the intersection to turn around in someone's driveway in order to go back West. ") f (I . . II ! ~ R < ~ ~ j ~ i! '" r; . Re..J~sc.J . J.J'-7S""' 1'1..... C# C; ,~ '1 ")- 4"!t , :, .. ~ I . \ \ ~ ) l\ u ,. ~ C-A-S~ S " " , . / , , Z'" ~~) . " r :) . .. , ;. :/ "~ / Vt"~ ., ", ~ ;;~~. ' . \ r :. '~:".'." ~ ~ ......."': fo ; ~.. ~ r ,~- i: ~ , F. ~ '" ~ I , ~ , ~ I ! --~:~. ("t;.~) ~l~ 1;"'_ ). ~;"",) 0-......:..,(' ", ~ i! .. 't '" " .. V' . . ,~ ~(~ , ,. >() - "'J ' ~( - f'3) ~. t'\..._:;- ! ,-~ ~. '2'- IT ". ;:;) ",' ,.. .. ~ . " .\ , , ,J I I, I :. ~~%p . .~. -''''. " ':~~<i, ~ :.: ~~.~ . ..~~~" :~ ;,t \11.... ~_ ~J' .. ~. . '~ loot. ~ " . ' .. }..," ~.~ r~.~..' I'i ....~ r. t~ I> \ " " ~e ... .. ',0 "" .~ " .~ "c ~.. J. ~O ! r . .:~) . . ~() t, r.: -', . Jr. I ',\......... . . .. I t' ~ ) ~', t": "j > ~ o I P ......-\ 1", to j i(:}', .,.~. . ~l . ~ o , ,.--- .. " " ~(, ~ ' -,. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 16, 1975 75-63 Crystal Evangelical Free Church Approval of Construction Plans 42nd/Gettysburg STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. The Crystal Evangel ical Free Church has, as requested at the last Commission meeting, revised it's site plan and met again with the Design and Review Committee. 2. A copy of the revised site plan is attached. As you can see a considerable amount of change has taken place. In the Design and Review there were no objections raised to the re- vised plan and everyone felt that it provided a much better traffic flow situation and removed the "clutter" from the site layout. 3. The four specific questions raised earlier have been answered. a) the spire is not to be considered b) the buses are removed from consideration at this time c) the retaining waf is are to be rough board formed concrete d) the upper portion of the building is to be al I metal panels ; . ~ ~ . , ~ ; & . , 'f" .. - . ; , , ~ , - , i . ... ! ~ , I .~ . ; ~. ; ! ! ~ i .l. , , .. -..... ~. (----7 ~~ ~,----~ . " I ~ . - --- 8;ftr . B",'h\ r::l ':1,,- .~ f . r----. . t---..-.. I . r=".~'~' i I l-~'" \ L.-...... ..' "'--"'~ . , . . I . ' ..' .!\ ,,~,=.;.===.~ . I I - g l\l~ t fl\i' .. .,. o a I> . I ., ~ i \ .:;. . .\ . \ \ f .~ . I i \l' . ..-r I . . ! " " , I '" f' I \ \ I I , ,'\.! i ~ \ \ . , ----. 11 1 :1 t ~ i , 'j :1 ~ \ i . \ :( \% It 't.~ :'. J .~ ~ i\~' -) .. 'j .. ,. is .' .......1~-:-./pJ .:. ,.:' .. : . .' .r. . " . .. ;',' .' .' ,.-t-z..... it;. 1S-'" ,. .,. ..?....~.> .':::,,- !~.'..-'.......,,~'.:'>'~.: ..~~.:,~'.~)',',: ~ " '-..t.-: . " .-JiII, , it 11 :Ii i i ~ ",.... ~..... DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 16, 1975 Case 75-64 City of New Hope. Approval of Remodeiing Plans 42nd and Nevada STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. After these many years the City is to update the municipal bar on 42nd Avenue. The remodeling wil I include redoing the interior and cleaning up the outside. A long range plan for landscaping and im- provement of the parking lot is included. The landscaping, parking lot work wi II be done in stages as money, time and materials become ava i I ab Ie. 2. Exterior work on the building wil I include revamping the two en- trances, removing al I of the signs, removing the canopy and the storage shed on the East side. The exterior block wil I be patched as needed, the entrances wi I I be changed to provide a covered entrance and a band of cedar wil I be added around the top to provide a fascia around the bui Iding and over the entrances. The mechanical equipment wi I I be replaced and moved to the roof where it wi I I be screened by cedar fencing. A free-standing sign wi I I be added at the corner of 42nd and Nevada. 3. Inside, the wal Is, cei ling, floor, fixtures, electrical and mechani- cal are to be completely redone to meet correct code regulations and to prov i de a somewhat better appearance to hopefu II y, attract a larger customer group. Design and Review raised a question of pro- viding some space for hanging coats etc. This is not now being done, but wil I be reviewed prior to the meeting. Design and Review was also concerned with the entrances, apparently feeling that the 42nd entrance should be down-graded somewhat and the East side one emphasized since the parking is on the East. It is a fact that the side door wil I be more accessible to the vast majority of the parking. At the same time the building is now lo- cated on the lot as is, the front entrance area is extended to em- phasize the building on the 42nd Avenue exposure. The majority of people coming during the day wil I be parking along 42nd Avenue and using, as they do nowJthe 42nd door. During busy traffic times we do get a large number of people walking over from Sui Iy's and the Bowling AI ley and these wil I conti~Je to use the front. 4. As you can see from the attached site plan the long range plan is to clean up the lot, provide some landscaping and correct some of the access problem. It is intended to close up and redefine the 42nd access as we have discussed with the County. On Nevada Avenue one long curb opening now exists. Design and Review raised the question of Closing this up and providing some ~ 2 ~ 4. additional green area. This does look feasible. The intent is to remove all parking from directly in front of the bui Iding, replacing it with a 9 foot wide sidewalk and landscaping. On the East side it was suggested that the parking space in front of the entrance be el iminated and replaced with a walk to provide access without a need to go between parked cars. This wi I I be done. The proposed landscaping is all evergreen planting. It was sug- gested that some trees be mixed in. This is possible, if in fact it would be desirable. , . ~ ~ -11 I ').......#(, -75"- CAS~ 7~-fr.5 ........... , , , ,"--- I --'- ... ~._-- ". Nt A.JN&........(.,: .,,,-..;-: , - '". \ , ,." J" ) / 1 I ,.~ I I J /' I I I I " , /' ,,' ,,'; I. I ...' ". ....--..., I ;1 ,/."", I " ,'...."''',' " I '/" / I I /1 ," .. -" ,,' " I / 1 ;: /~, " / I I/I~/O:,'~// I " ./ '---' W' , ~' ,I 0 .,-,,, ,I "/Of / ,/ l I I I. I , ,. J I' I I ,,, .., I I I I I ." --.... .., I I I I ;' 1 I I ' I 1 I I I ,-.... I , I I I \ \.1 r"',.. : \ \!: :. I \ ~ G\.O \ I \, I l\& , , \ \' f \ I II I \ , \ 1"\ , , ..... I \ \ I 1 OJ I "........__1. ....' .__L__ I \ .... ,,/ I J ' \..". .....- (---- I 1- \,.. 'i' .... ,. I -1~.-~-""<:"==-_.r--"" I ~ tl" -~cV'I'" ~;I"....- I .. , ~! ' --------1-- -_L" -1:::,' ' -,l - r '-----~----- I ~l. ' I'~ ~_ _ t-- I · I.....' "::'I,I-'!,:"'F~' I" (- 'i "- ~ j i-.J!'" ;:'.'~~;; "~F':" f '. ~:I->: -.>('" _ . :~~i---S- .1 ;~t' .,/8 > t~" / ~Htt-, - ,',;1;' ~!~i1::l/ / ",/ I Ii' ," / '. , -._.:"./ ,/ "!T'/ : l' , - - ~;. / .. ~".' ":"i t I" 1t--;--~ _ f- ~J ./ /.~ ~ " ,~,' ___J ~,i ' ~ . ~ J_,_StVA....,.., Ii f---;' ,.....~..;~ ..., " -,:: .r ...,...Itt. _""" ,..--- r---< _.. - rf--. .:. _.', ~ II, ,! I " .~: ~, < - . " ~ q: ;, "-._i ._/-:'~ · (, - '!~~ .~; . :-.,' ,\ \ ~ ~ 4:- 'B i,allt \ , !-. ~.~ I ... ": - ~ ~ I ~~ = ,-___... "~~', ';: ---;.;'?l ~~ ~ I ~ , ':- ~__.. <.~' .;::c., ., .', ~,._:. . _,,_ ~'; / _-!-' ;, ~ ' i ~ c.,,,,-.--- .. ,.t,.' ~ '7 \,.' i I ~ I;,. 1nj:\~-F~).):i" "7T1-b,;;-lI:-~L-1 ~- -/--.-- ,~ '~'-'__~_ ;_,~~"__",,-,,,'r -.-< ill ~ i : _-__N'!'''''''''~'''.'''.-~' , !~h': - /~>::=~'--_:=-:- - --~ -- .Is..' ,. I'i" ,----==------~- .1 ,"1./-' ",' .,-,' -- . I,' ,'1, ".,/,/ -- .............. _,'" '. . " I ,,-.... .... ... ' ~' I.," .... " ___--' ..... I, /, I ,..---.... .., ' _----... ",'/ ~ '\ I ____--"'/ I,' . .......-... \ I ;;_____',/ /. I J,'. "", \ ,. j t ...- ----...... I' ~ 1<. '" ,\ '- ~ I ,.....--__"" .....'~.; \ '- 'i , "" ., I - I ' ., I , _----,,'" 'I ~ " ".__:__/ I ~l . ~'4\~, I' , /' I' It .,," ..atl_S \ 1 ;. Ii / /"", ," ~ I l ." ---, , ,~ 1 ;'\ " f:!---.... ...., \ I' " ~ ~ V' ,'il " " \ \ ,,,..... __J' ',' \ t..., ...'< .... ...- \' / .... .." . \ \ \ V~ : ~, --.' " ' .,.. lo""'" /""~,,..:-.--'. "- ~.~::~,.,::/DH L_<~) " : ~.-I-'-' W i;.t;re:t:-'if.q--..l:--__:: ( / \ , '-" I I I I I \ I \ \, , .\ o ii I I I , I ( : 1- \ . I , , , .r_/' J f , . , ~ I ~I ., I I I I I I , , I I , , , I , I , . ." . " '.,' I I , I , I I I I , , f' .-t: t.: . , " : . . , ! l I , , , I , -" ~ ~ " . p . I ;) I ~ , i 2- ~ I ,.. :.t 1 ; , II ~ ~ . , . ~~ I i 1 I I , ~ 9J ~ ~ ~ ~ t5 \() ~ ~ .' ... ..~.~ .e.rJo _ ~.l."'" ~". JW ......J,.:...,.,. ~ _._'V..,_...._.._. ~. . u ___._.... 1 9 ~ - '. ~ i .. . " ! ~ ~ l ~ ! i ( It TO! '2 ct It ~ to ~ '< ~ . . DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: December 16, 1975 75-65 St. Croix Ventures Approval of Construction Plans Winnetka and 40th Extended STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: I. Last May, under Case 75-22, St. Croix Ventures received appro- val of development plans for a 10 acre parcel on the East side of Winnetka Avenue at 40th. Included in that consideration was an overal I master plan and a first building. The first bui Iding has not been started to date because of problems this past summer with the money market. The petitioner has now indicated he is ready to go and in fact wants to start not only the first bui Iding but also the second one. 2. The discussion in May centered on the access to Winnetka Avenue, i nterna I traff i c c ircu I ati on on the pr i vate roads and I andscap i ng. After a great deal of discussion the access to Winnetka was adopted as requested by the City. Landscaping questions were resolved. Whi Ie the internal circulation was not provided in a manner that met complete approval it was approved. The final approval permitted parking to ring the building with the provision that concrete precast curb be instal led 6 feet from the bui Iding to provide a separation for a walkway along the bui Iding. 3. Attached is the site plan for the area showing the first building and the proposed second building. The second bui Iding is actually the same as the first, except that it is flipped over. The truck docks wi I I be in between the bui Idings. As was discussed with the first building, 47 parking spaces should be provided for each building. Only 42 are now shown. There is in the master plan provision for additional parking so more than adequate, from the code limit, parking is planned. 4. Landscaping was planned as part of the overal I layout and according to the petitioner is to be planted as originally indicated. 5. There appears to be little need to discuss the actual bui Iding since it is the same as accepted earl ier and fits into the master plan as was approved in May. . .