1973 Planning
.,
.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMIIlISSION
APRIL 3, 197:5
I. Call to Order - 7:30 p.lll.
2. Roll Call
PlIEU.lC HEARINGS
3. Casa 73-8,1'" Varlanoe - 2912 Valle VIsta - Larry Sass.
4. Case 73-9 -Walvar of Plattin9 OrqlnlSnc:e - WlnplSrk Drive _ \
Joe PazeMek.
S. Case 1'3-10 - Speelel Use Permit - 3601 Wlnnetl<a - \l'n Ill'IllI
Skol'pak.
6. Ca.. 73-.t1 - Sjl$Qlal Use Permit - 7~OS - 42nd Ayenue North _
Dave Anderson. '" . .
7. Case 73-12 .. Varhu'ic:e .. 9420 36th Avenu& North.. Slgncraf'ters
"',,, ",,', ,:' ,<, ",' ,,'-',," ""',,' <' ,',' ,"')'" , \'" ",
8. . Ci1!se 73~13 .. Varlance/lilli'a Plan - 8004 - 42nd Avenu& North _
Dunt<tln Donuts'.
9.. Cas,e 73-14 - Site Plan Approval - 62no " Winnetka - al II Olson
10. Case 73-15 - Site PlenApproval -Sls,t " Hlllsboro - Cottle/Herman'
COMIIll11'EE REPORTS
11 . Repori' of Codes and Standards COIllIlllttee
12. Report of Land Use COIIlIlllttee ,
13. Report of liquor C9!llmlttee
.
14. Review of OQunel1 MInutes of .Mareh 26, 1973
IS. Approval of Plilnnlng Call1..Isslon MInutes (;)f February 20, .1973 .
16. AdditIonal Comments/Requests frOlll Clth:ens, COmmls$'loners,
aM Staff.
1.7. AnnOUl'lc:ements
;if;
18. AlfJourlllllen't
I
~--~~==-...- -""""""-~~-
^~ I
"
. ^.
-
l)
~
'Ql
:l
,-
I
I
, \
i
I \
I
I
!
~-
01"
q" ;t~ ('j f'JI"J/Ir J
1,~ f hAcKs.
4- ':;)
7 3- 'B
DATE: April 3, 1973
CASE: 73-8
APPI.1 CANT: Larry Bass
REQUEST: Variance In Sldeyard Se1"baek on Corner Lot
LOCATION : 2912 Valle VI sta
ST^" FINOINGS AND aMENTS:
I. The pG'tlttoner Is proposing 1"0 oonstruct an attached 24 X 22'7"
gapage that wou I <I extend to 1'1 I th I n 8 feet of the s I de street.
1'b& s\lI)Jee'l' lot Is a (l()rner lot which Is required to IllillntaIn
a 20 foo1" sei'baek froot the s I de s1"reet.
2. The lot Is presently deve.toped In accord with the zoning code.
It has a 42'4" X 26'7" house wl1'h a tuckunder garage. The
p.resen1' slllilll garage apparently Is to be converted Into a
recreationef 1"00III. Consequently, there are fle_sroorids on i<thlc:h
to Illilke a "hardShip" finding of fac1" since the 101" has an
eXisting home with an existing garage In full ~llanoe
with the zoning code. The only recollllllel1datlon, therefo,...
that can be Illilde Is that the variance be denied.
3. However, assullllng that the Planning C9!llmlsslon and the Counoll
are stili Interestad in seeking methods by whlc:h proper\'y oan
be upgraded, res I dents ean be encouraged to -relllill n I n the
COIllIllUnlty,and the tax base protected there Is also no practl.
oal difficulty tn eonsldeMng the variance and possibly
granting It as requested.
4. As Is noted on the attached site plan the lot Is rather large
and ,runs to a point at the Interseetlon. The existing house
I s set baok 41 feet - more than the standard 30 front yard
ntbac:k. The home 1"0 the eas1" Is also set baok In relation
to tile house In th I sease. ./ I," addiTion It Is screened
fl"Cllll a view to the west by a dense soreen of &vergreen trees.
Th&re 1'1111 be, therefore, lI1"tle, if any, affeet on or
disturbance to, the visual rights of the eastward property.
Tile other problelll Is 1'1101' of the sight <lls1'anCft around the
~r for drl vel'S of cars using the Interseeflon. As you
1'111 also note on the sl1"e plan a greater dls'l'ance Is pro-
vlded,even with the garage addltlon,than would have been If
the mlnillllm setbacks' had originally been provided.
5. As noted above there Is no legal hardship In terms of using
The lot, but there does not appear to be a practleal problelll
either in granting a variance. This ease poi nts out an old,
long standing, concern - that of a need to ei1"her amend the
code as 11" eoncerns varIances or else deolde that minl_
requlrelllen1"s are going 1"0 be Illillntalned unleu "hardShip"
can be found.
I <- ]:\\1
I I I .~,1~..' ,~I
I I c1" \!
I l Jb~1
I I "
:. !
I QJ I ,
! ~ I J
I "~
.
'"
f'
4.
\;
~.
_?
''i-
I ~
14 :;- I
I - I
I 1 '" I
!. '
I h
f~
, -
I ·
I
I
l
,\ 3-0
4.,:3 '
DATE: Apri I 3, 1973
CASE: 73-9
APPL I CANT : Joe Pazandak
REQUEST: Waiver of Platting Ordinanc:e
LOCAT ION: WI npark Dr I ve - North of Sir Vend Bu iI ding
STAFF IHNDlNGS AND C<>>fENTS:
I. There Is now a vacant lot of SOlIlEI 2.3 acres between the
developed lots on Wlnpark Drive. Sir Vend, Ine. Is on the
south developed lot and Computer Metals to the north. The
vaeant lot Is owned by Computer Metals who apparently have
decided tha1" they do not need It for future expensloo as
originally planned. Consequently, It Is for s'ale. At the
same time Sir Vend needs expansion area but not the entire
vacant lot. Sir Vend Is, therefore, proposing to purchase
the south 73.55 feet of the lot to C:C:lllblne to their pre5Elnt
200 foot wide lot.
A new lot of 1.8 acres, and 222.64 feet \II I de wou I d then be
created. It would be available for sale and development
as an Individual site.
2. The zoning In this area Is LJ whleh requires a mlnlmulll of
a one (I) aere lot 150 feet wide. As noted the proposed lot
would be 1.8 acre and over 200 feet In width. Therefore, the
propos'ed new 101" meets the mlnlmulll requlr_nts of the zoning
c:c:de. utilities are In plaee; the street Is Improved, and a
waiver of the platting ordlnanc:e to create the one new lot and
the parcel to be c:c:lllblned to the Sir Vend properties appears
to be In order. If approval is given It should be subject to
a formal combination of the Sir Vend properties wlthfn 30
days of 1"he Counc II aet Ion.
DATE: May 6, 1969
CASE: 73.10
APPLI CANT: WTlllalll Skorpak (Leasee - Car Haven Union 76)
REQUEST: Special Use PermiT
LOCATION : NW Cc:rner of Winnetka and 36th Avenue Intersection
STAFf fINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
I. The petl1"loner Is reques,ting a special use permit to permit the
overnight parking of delivery trucks on the service station site
that he operates at 360 I WI nnetka. An earlier request 72-19 was
denied on 6-12-72 by the Counell. Apparently there was sOlllll
I ndlcatlf>n thaT Pure 011 (owner of the station) oQjected.
2. There are two separate matters 1"0 be considered In thIs case (a)
the speelal us,e perml1" and (b) the license. The PlannIng CommissIon
Is concerned primarily with the permit. The property is now zoned
Ga. This district permits the use In question by speelal use
permit subject to:
(I) Not to exceed three trucks.
(n) Only on and as an accessory use to premises where the
primary use Is gasollne.sales.
(III} Meeting requirements of Section 8.166 which Is the
licensing code. These Include itelllS suoh as noted
below that have direct bearing on 1"he land use
consideration:
(a) Loc:atlon on major thoroughfare - direct ac:cess
to major street and no Interference wi th oorlllill
traffic to pumps.
(b) Storage area cannot oc:cupy requl red off street
parking area.
(d Type of history of cOlllplylnQ with general safety
codes of village.
(d) Visibility/compatibility wlth,adjacent de~lopment
(e) Not oc:cupying front or sldeyard setbacks or over
10% of site.
(f) Certain housekeeping ITelllS are also Included but
these are enforcement ItelllS.
3. It does appear tha1" all pertinent criteria can be met. Mr.
Skorpak, the petitioner, has soma problelllS In understanding
the requirements for detailing a site plan, etc. The siTe Is
abou1" 200 X 193 or 38,600 square feet. He Intends to use a
70 X 30 - 210 square foot section In the oorfhwes1" corner for
stc:rage of the three trucks that are, In fact already usIng the
site - up to 10% or 386 square feet can be, used.
4. Assuming that all of the housekeeping iTellls wi' I be taken care
of In is'sulng a license, a lllaJor factor thai' must be considered
is if s'creenlng is required. The ordinance s1"ates that screening shall
be provided, except the manaqer ean waive It if abutting property
Is used for CO/lIIllerclal use and there wi II be 00 adverse affect
by the absence of screening. I will probably waive the screen-
Ing I f a pernit Is approved.
5. There Is, also a proVision that a performance bond shall be re-
quired to develop the s1"orage area unless' the prellllses are
already In oornpllance. The main Itelll needed is to mark off
the s1"alls - perhaps a Illlnimulll depos'it - like $100 should be
required to assure this will be done by early summer.
6. A site plan is not attached since It was not considered
necessary. Please make a point of driving by the station
SOlll8 even i ng. The trucks are now parking there and Illl.Ist either
get fomal approval or be removed.
7. Since there was concern expressed in the earlier case about
objections from the owner versus the operatclr's wishes" ete.,
note the Iicens,e Illl.Ist be Issued to the actual ~r.ator. The
'petitioner has Indicated he has approval of the owners, but
I n any case hi s le<i$e rIghts are hie; prob lelllS, I f the
application Itself IlIeets, the special use criteria.
DATE: Aprl I 3, 1973
CASE: 73-11
APf>Ll CANT: A. David Anderson
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Truck Storage
LOCATION: Behind Apco Sta'tlon, 7305 - 42nd Av~nue North
STAFF FINDiNGS AND COMMENTS:
I. Beginning In 1968 an argument has been carried on between the
Village, this appl kant who Is the owner of the Apco S'tatlon
on 42nd and varIous adjaoent property owners regarding over-
night parking of dairy dei Ivery trucks on the subject lot.
Orlqlnaliy the question was the truck parkIng Itself, then
what should be required If they were to park for paving,
screening, etc. The present ordinance Is really an outgrowth
of the problems aT ThIs s,tatlon. Mr. Anderson did apply
earl ier for a permit (Case 72-11 - May and April, 1972) but
was denied. The minutes are not clear as to why but the
applicant apparently did not appear aT The meeting.
2. Issuance of a special use permit Is, of eourse, subject to
the same criteria noted In Case 73-10. In this ease there
are aT least four major criterion tha't are not me't:
I. Adequate screening is not provided. A fence that
has been a consistent problem - too low to screen
and not maintained - was Installed but has never
provided the protection needed.
2. The storage area is IllCIre like 30% of the lot rather
than the 10% (the area thaT has been used which
dc:es not reSTrict you from CUTting down the area).
3. The STorage area has generaliy been used for storage
of all kinds of other junk.
4. Most Impor'tant Is 'thaT that the applicant simply has
never made any effort to cooperate on The prob lems
thaT have been created as a resu I T of us i ng the site
for overnight STorage. Part of the problem is That
Mr. Anderson has generally felt that he did not gaIn
Illl.lClh frOlll the parking, and the truck:drlvers who are
New Hope residents should carry the ball on getting
approval. During our last conversation he Indleated
that the application may be dropped unless the drivers
were wllilng to pay for the additional screening, etc.
'l'hat Illay be required as part of approval of a permit.
-2-
3. After the earlier permit application was denied, truc:ks
contInued to park on the IQt until they were IllCIved out
last IllCInth. This application Is an attempt to legalize
parking for at least three Qf the farmer trucks.
4. A site plan has nQt been attaehed, since It Is again
felt that the oniy way you can appreciate the current
situation Is to. visit the site.
5. While this writer and IllCIst of the village staff are
sOlllewhat obvlQusly prejudiced against the application, the
sl'te has Illany advantages that make It a gQQd place fQr this
'type of stQrage. To the WEIst Is another sta'tlon, to thEl
south apartments tha't are set. back across a driveway and
parking areas and which have their end wall to. the station,
a vaeant lot 'to the west and a Illiljor street In fron't. The
lot Is zaned SI3 which is the heaviest eOll1lllerolal' zone..
6. I f a perml tis to be granted 'It shou I d be subject to:
(a) adequate screening, (b) a speclfle listing af trucks
(not over three), (c) cleariy Illilrl<ad and aSs'lgned stalls
fQr the trucks, and (d) that no other storage wi i I be
permitted. These provisions should be s'upported by filing
a eash bond of at least several hundred dollars to. assure
that everything wli I be put In order by no't later than
June I, 1973.
DATE: AprIl 3, 1973
OA$l: 73-12
APPLICANT: Slgnerafters
LOCATION: 9420 - 36th Avenue North
REQUEST: Amendment 'to Approve SIgn Plan for Post Haste ShoppIng
Center
STAFF FINDINGS AND exMEHTS:
I. As part of the variance eflsellsslons tha't have been held
and approvals +hat have bMln gIven for the total sIgn
progl'illll a't the Post Has't. ShoppIng Center two sIgns were
approved for Old Piper Inn.
2. On 10-24-72 the two Signs approved Included a south faolng
sIgn 'to be a 30' X :5 1/2' sIgn anef a west felng one 'to be
15 X 2 1/2' 01" 105 square fee't and 37 1/2 squere feet
Sllrfac:e area.
3. They have now decided a ehange Is needed. Two sIgns have
been Instetled on a t.lllpOrory basIs. The one on 'the fron't
Is 3 X 29 or 87 squere feet. 1 tIs I ntendecl 'to stay. The
one now on 'the west Is Intended to be repl~ by a 26 Ineb
by 35 foot - 'total (If alJou't 58 square foot sIgn. The 'total
of the two proposed sIgns Is to be some 145 squere fM as
agaInst the orIgInal approval of SOllIe 143 squere...f..... The
IntentIon Is 'to get more exposure on the HIghway 1/8 sIde.
The orIgInal wording we. 'to be Old Pleer J~ TM Jl8lII ""'"
wI I I rNd Fl!lIllll~ Res~lIrant .-
DATE: April 3, 1973
CASE: 73-13
APPL I CANT : Norman Oyer
REQUEST: Variances' and Site Plan Approval for a DunkIn Oonut
LOCATION: 42nd Avenue, North side, midway between Winnetka and
Xylon
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
I. The petl'tloner has a contr"et to purchase the exIsting SIll,,11
lot on 42nd Avenue between the drIves to the New Hc:pe Shopping
Center and the K-Mart for use as " site for a proposed DunkIn
Oonut Res'taurant.
2. There are three basic problellls. In "ddltlon to the speclflcs
of the developmant, In us,lng this site. The lot In question
dId at one tlma have a hOllle on It and It was In separate
ownerShip. It Is stilI carried as a separate lot but appar-
, " ently In the ownershIp of the holding cOlllpany for K-Mart.
ConsIdered as a separate lot It Is only 148 by 82.S or Sollle
28% of "n acre Ins'tead of the three acre Illlnlmulll lot In an
RS dIstrIct. The prc:posed buildIng Is only 1700 square feet
as opposed i'o the 20,000 square feet required In "n R8 zone.
The setb"cks are of course a prc:blem because of the SIllilIl
lot.
3. As was noted durIng the discussion of the Burger KIng s,lte
In MIdland, the Intent of the ordinance Is to assure that a
reasonable size development Is created when a zoning to R8
Is given. In 'thIs case there Is a total shopping cOlllplex
being developed. The ordinance further prc:vldes 'that new
buildings can be added to a shopping center If shown that
they f It Into the total needs and iayoui' of the areI'. This
Is 'the key contrc:1 In this case.
4. A further consideration Is the use Itself. Considerable
discussion was held a few years ago on a restaurant versus
a drive-ln. Restaurants are pel"lllltted In R8. On the other
hand drIve-Ins are included as Automobile Uses that are per-
mitted only In GB districts. The prc:posed use 'Ie; def'inltely a
restaurant, but It Is also a drive-In auto-serving operation.
I personally feel It can be classed as a restauran't since It
does have 20 sea'ts. However, a major share of the bus I ness
is the auto drIve-up - pick up a dozen donuts and away you go.
ThIs point Is raised only since It provides a point of argumanT
if 'the basic decision Is That the faci IITy Is not wanted.
-2-
5. Speclflc variances that Illust be eonsldered Include:
Provided Ordinance
(a) lot size 1/4 plus acre 3 acres
(b) Building sl~e 1,700 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft.
(c) Rear Setback 22 feet 35 feet
6. There are eleven (II) good usable parking stalls. A
restaurant Is required to provide one parking space for
eaeh 3 s,eats - or 7 spaoes In this case. A drive-In Is
required to provide a IlllnlmlJlll of 15.
7. Aecess I s good - perhaps too good. The lot does have an
existIng curb eut to 42nd. The County needed to provide
thIs since It Is, a separate lot. There also will be open
access both west to the K-Mart lot and east to the New Hope
Cen'ter lot and 'the back will blend Into the drive between
the two developlllents. In order to ellllllnate the seperate
opening onto 42nd oniy 75 feet from the opening for the
New Hope Center, SOlllEl consIderation sholJld be given to
requiring access only from the parking lots of K-Mar't and
Red Owl. Opening the K-Mart side will result in a loss of
SOllle designated stells and would require a revl'llllP of the
traffic lanes In that area of the parking lot.
8. The existing elm tree Is to be kept and a grass yard pro-
vided on 42nd with planters on the east and west sides of
the building.
9. The 42nd Avenue side of the bui Idlng wi II be generally glass,
and the s I des g I ass and exposed aggregate. The rear Is
proposed to be painted blbck.
10. There wi II be a cedar trash enclosure on the northwest cornel'
of the building in COIIJunctlon with the planter and the
building wall. Signs are not cpmpletely specified yet, but
they will need to be cons,truc;ted In ac:cord with the ordlnanee.
They will Include a pylon and signs on the Illilnsard roof.
II. The basic question to be answered Is If this is fel't to be a
reasonable use In conjunction with the general commercial
developlllent - and then secondly, If the 'traffic problem Is
large enough to require elimination of the 42nd aecess.
DATE: Apr I I 3, 1973
CASE: 73-14
APPLICANT: WII I lam Olson
LOCATION: Souths Ide of 62nd between
REQUEST: ' Winnetka and SUlllpter
Approval of Site Plan
I. A long standing battle Is either to be ended or Joined
for good In this case. The lot In question was zoned
cOllllllerelal under the 1954 zoning code. The 1960 code
changed the lot and other eommerclal areas on 62nd to
Residential. Many attempts have been made over the
years to develop the subject lot commercially based on
the earlier code. The one application ended up In court
with a decision that the lot could be used as provided
for in the 1954 code.
2. Three years ago application was made for a convenience
center. A major argulllent then developed over which
screening requirelllents, parking, setbacks, etc: stand-
ards were to be followed. The application was final iy
dropped.
3. A new site p I an ha s now been subm I tted for a 7000 square
foot conven I ence center. I have had three Illeetl ngs
with the developer and I feel we have reached agreement
on a basic plan that Is abou't as good as will be obtained.
The present plans are for a 2000 square foot s'ectlon for
a da I ry store and 3000 Squa re foot Laundralllat. The other
2000 square foot area Is under consideration by several
different uses.'
4. The developer has agreed to meet present screening stand-
ards which will provide a' 15 foot green landscaped area
on the east and wes't sides with a screening fence on the
east, west, and south sides. The 1954 setback of at
I east 55 f.et from a II streets ha s been prov i ded. The
earlier ordinance did not require much parking. This
plan does provide 53 s'paces. The side stalls only have
40 feet of standing and maneuvering room, but I felt
it was more Important to get the green area and fenee
than the extra depth In the parking area.
- 2 -
>i,Y:^
5. Three d if ferent proposa I s nave been sl1bm I tted 0 n access
to the lot. The pres,ent plan is for two 22 foot drives
off 62nd. Originally l't was proposed to access off both
Winnetka and Sumpter. The Sumpter side would have faeed
directly into the front of an apartment building. The
Winnetka Avenue access would have been directed into the
backyards of the houses on Utah (one is screened). The
Brooklyn Park side of 62nd has the sideyards facing 62nd
of two residential units. One (east) has a garage insur-
ance office on 62nd. The other a drive, garage and slde-
yard. Consequently it would appear that they would be
I east affected.
6. I would note that the petitioner is in for site plan
approval. The building plans, etc. will be carried
through the regular perlllit Issuance procedure. The pe-
titioner has also been most will ing to cooperate and I
feel he will be open to reasonable suggestions as to the
type of screening fence, if anyone has some feelIngs on
that subject or changes in the parking, etc. Frankly
he wants to get a buiidlng and get out, but apparently
fee I s the 7000 square foot is the sma II est he can go.
Within that lilllitatlon he is apparen'tly will ing to co-
operate. He has agreed to Illeet present sign, refuse
storage and other perforlllance standards.
7. No notice of any kind has been given adjacent properties.
Most of the people of a few years standing In area are
aware of the legal problem with the property. Also the
last cour't go around seems to Indicate little Is to be
gained by additional "'egal" battles. Council of course
has the rIght to attelllpt additional delay if they so de-
Ire.
",}~ \::;, ! \.i
\j
<"1
.";
,
"
DATE: April 3, 1973
CASE: 73-15
APPL ICANT : Cottl e/Herlllan Arch I tects, I nc .
REQUEST: Approval of Site Plan
LOCATION: Northwest corner of 51st and Hillsboro Avenues North
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
i. The petitioner has presented a propGs~d slte;plan for approval
for a proposed new building for Harris Binding and Sllfflng,
Inc. on the old All-State Steel property at 51st and Highway
i8.
2. The property In ques,tlon Is zoned LI whleh has the speCial
perfol"lllance standards that apply. This site Is located on
what will be the new service drive along Highway 18.
., Ordinance
Item ReQulremeni's Provided
~slze 43,560 sq. ft. 69,68S sq. ft.
Building size iO,OOO sq. ft. 19,002 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front SO feet 50 from service drive
Side 20 feet (20 feeT frc:lll north lIne
(50 feet frOlll 51st
Rear 35 feet 200 feet
Lot ooverage 40% 22%
Green area 35$ 33%
Parking lot setback 20 feet 20i feet
Screening:
Parking lot in front of Depends on definition
buliding of front
Landscaping: Plans must be None sublllltted yet
submitted
Curb cuts Shall not be 24 foot driveway
more than 26 not i'llvlded
feet wide,
wl'th a 4 foot
divider and
at leaST 75
feet frc:lll
oorner.
3. The site pian Illeets the Illlnlmullls as established by the ordinance
except for the design of the driveway and the requirement for
a landscaping plan.
,
4.
5. I
%
,
Planning Commission - I - March 20, 1973
MI nutes
I. A regular meeting of'the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
March 20. 1973 in the Village Hal 1,4401 Xylon Avenue North at 7:30 p.m.
2. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ostlund.
3. Roli call was taken as follows:
Present: Cameron, Fulton, Garin, Meyer, Ohman, Ostlund and Sueker.
Absent: Barniskls, Herman and Oswald. (Commissioner Sarnlskis'
absence was excused. Commissioner Herman entered at
7:31 p.m. and Commissioner Oswald at 7:50 p.m.).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Continuation of Planninq Case No. 73-6 (Site Plan Approval) - Burger King -
Midland Shopping Center.
Informal discussion was held on this case.
Mr. Larson stated that Mr. Carey had presented a new proposal under which
the Burger King facility would be located on the present servIce station
site. Frolll a technical standpoint the proposal has three major problellls:
I) An RB lot is to be three acres in size; obviously this one Is not,
2) The building Is suppose to have 20,000 square teet and 3) There are
setback problems.
Commissioner Cameron asked it this was a regular size Burger King. Mr.
Carey replied that it was bigger.
Commissioner Meyer asked if it was bigger than the Burger King on Bass
Lake Road and Mr. Carey stated that it was.
Commissioner Sueker asked what would be the major point of access. Mr.
Carey stated they were cutting the lot curb cuts down from four to one
and would provide nine parking spaces on the lot. The other spaees
would be provided on the general parking lot. They did intend to keep
the one Wi nnetka Avenue curb cut.
Commissioner Cameron asked who owned this land. Mr. Carey rep lied that
Gulf Oil did now but Surger King was buying it.
Commissioner Sueker stated that he thought this was an excellent site.
Mr. Larson stated that the agreement for the joint parking, the cross
traffic easements, etc. were being prepared now. The attorney for the
shopping center had assured him that It was being worked on
Chairman Ostlund asked where the front of the building would be.
Mr. Carey replied that it would be on Winnetka, but that Burger King
may elect to reverse the building which would put the dining room on
the north side.
,
Planning CommissIon - 2 - March 20, 1973
Mi nutes
There are oniy two of these new buildings in town now, one in Anoka and
one on 26th and Hennepin.
Comllllssioner Sueker asked if refuse storage could be handled by a small
area lease arrangement to put the refuse containers, properly screened,
on the baek side of the building.
Mr. Carey said he was sure they could.
Sign square footage was mentioned. Commissioner Meyer stated that the
pylon sign could be 90 square feet and 25 feet high.
After a short discusSion, the Commission agreed to have the formal publiC
hearing the second meeting in April.
5. Discussion of Police Problems as they Relate to Planning Decisions.
Mr. Jack Morse was to be present. However, he was unab I e to meke I t at
the present time so the discussion of pOlice problems in planning was,
held over to a future date.
6. Report of Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Meyer stated that
new wording for Section 4.51 and Section 4.43 of the Village Code was
ready for consideration.
Discussion was held on the proposed new wording for Section 4.51 Home
Occupation. Mr. Meyer stated Item I should be changed from the printed
eopy to read: "No business, manufacturing, or personal services other
than that condueted by mall or telephone is conducted on the prellllses"
and then strl ke Item 2 comp lete I y.
Following general discussion on the intent of Section 4.51, Commls,sloner
Sueker moved, second by Cameron, to aec:ept the recOl11lllendatlons of the
Committee and establ ishing a publ ic hearing for the second Apri I meeting
on the amendment to the Code. Motion was carried on voice vote.
Discussion then held on the proposed special use permit provisions for
a home occupation.
COlI\Illlssioner Meyer explained the printed proposal noting that points 1-9
remain the same as presented earlier with four new points being added.
Point 10 provides that the Council shall find that traffic generated by
the business shall not cause any adverse changes to the residential
character of the neighborhood.
Point II Is that the Counci I shall find that the employment of persons
by the business shall not cause any adverse changes to the residential
character of the neighborhood.
0
Planning Commission - 3 - March 20, 1973
t-4i nutes
POint 12 provides that the Council shall find that other potentIal
nuisance and hazard faetors shall not cause any adverse ehanges tc: the
residential character of the neighborhood.
Point 13 provides that special use permits are subjeet to revOClatlon upon
vioiation of the provisions of the permit as granted or upon the person
IllCIving from the premises.
Discussion held on these points, and Point 9.
Point 9 was amended to include both Sections 4.60 and 4.70 elnce they
both relate to perforlllance standards.
Discussion was then held on the affect of the propos'ai on existing home
occupations. Mr. larson pointed out that the key would be how they were
esi'ab I i shed. Existing uses rf legal when established would then be a
iegai use or a legal nonconforllling use if they did not meet current
standards.
Following discussion by the members it was decided to add a five year
grandfather clause (Similar to sign ordinance).
Mr. Doug Tweedy, 3229 Gettysburg Cc:urt, asked for clarification of
point nUlllber 9 In regards to performance standards. Colllllliss,ioner Meyer
stated that the performance standards referred to nuisance charac:i'er-
istics.
Mr. Chuck Weigman then asked for clarification of point number 10.
Commissioner Meyer provided additional explanation.
COllllllis'sioner Cl3llleron IllCIved for adoption of the report with Cc>>nmissioner
Oswald seconding it. Motion carried on voice vote.
Further dis'cusslon was held on the proposal.
The added five year grandfather clause was again discussed.
Commissioner Cameron then IllCIved, $e(:ond by Sueker, for adoption of the
proposal as amended with a public hearing to be held the seeond Illeetlng
in Apri I.
Notices of the publiC hearing for the second meeting in April Shall be
sent to Mr. Chuck Hoffman, Mr. Doug Tweedy, ~lr. David Paulson, Mr. Bob
ThOlllpson, and Mrs. Eleanor Novak.
Commissioner Meyer reported the animal control ordinance is now under
consideration and wi II be reported on soon.
7. Land Use Report. Commissioner Fulton commented on the ArlllClry proposal.
He stated that the National Guard wanted to build five armories in
Suburban Hennepin County. General Cheeseman is in charge of this opera-
tion which Is to begin In five to ten years. 1iey want a 18,500 square
foot building on about a 5 acre site for a unit of 89 - 150 men.
.
~
, '
Planning Commission - 4 - March 20, 1973
Mi nutes
Financing was mentioned. The Federal Government and the local govern-
mental unit are both involved.
Commissioner Barnlskis had researched the question of if the land value
oould be credited to the local share -- it cannot. First they need a
land donation and then the oost of oonstruction is spilt about 2S% State
and Village and 75% Federal. The Federal Govemment will pay for only
the basic Illilitary facilities, 'this gets it up to about 30% locally.
If the average eost of an Armory is about half-a-mllllon dollars the
I oc:a I and village share is around $10 - II ,000 per year over 20-25
years. Bonds' are sold by the Minnesota State Armory Building Cclnmlsslon.
The stafu pleks up about $10,000 or $11,000. Therefore, the stafu
picks' up around $4,000 wIth around $7,000 left for the Village.
Chairman Ostlund asked if the Village has a lot of 5 aeres that this
could be built on. Mr. Larson replied that the Vi I I age did not.
Following the discussion it was decided to Invite the General to IllfIet
with the Land Use COIllIlliti'ee to dls,cus,s the proposal further.
8. liquor Collllllittee Report. Commissioner Ohmen, Chalrlllan of the Liquor
Study SubcOIllmlttee, gave a brief report on the meeting his Cclnmlttee
held prior to the COlllmlsslon meeting.
He stated the prob lem appears to be the obvi ous declIne I n revenues
wl'th the basic question of H the liquor operation Is to be oonsldered
an Income produce or as a control service. There are several alterna-
tives tc: CICInsider such as:
I). Getting out of the liquor business CICImpletely -- cannot
compefu.
2). Improve the present facilities, loeated at 42nd and Nevada
In an attempt to attract new business. En I arge the off
sale, open the lower level "beer garden" and relllCldel the
mein lounge.
3). Establish a combined on and off sale facility at the Village
Greens GoI f Course and close out the present off sale store
I n the New Hc:pe Shopp i ng Center.
4>' Convert to the new "Sp II t L I quor" operatIon.
The COIllIllitfue basically felt that the Village of New Hope should not go
into the spIlt liquor operation because of limited revenue pc:sslbllltles
and that It should proceed with plans for a new on sale - off sale
faell'ty to be Ioc:ated at the Village Greens GoI f Course. It would also
be necessary to proceed with plans to Improve the present facll itles
at 42nd and Nevada. No major Improvement other than exfurlor paintIng,
has been done on this facility since it was built in 1959.
Consideration should also be given to phasing out the off sale s'tore In
the New Hope Shopping Center, IllCIvlng the stock into the new facility
at the Golf Course and also Into the enlarged off sale store at 42nd
and Nevada.
h .
, *
Planning Commission - S - Mareh 20, 1973
Minutes
Dlsousslon then held on this proposal with several of the Commissioners
noting that money making as such was not as Important as providing a
"top" restaurant In the VII iage. This could only be dc:ne If a liquor
Ileense was presen't.
Chairman Ostiund stated that the Counell needed to provide additional
direction before the Committee eoold proceed. If they did no't want to
eonmlt 'the revenues frolll the prese.n't operations to illlprovement there
would be little need for a further diseusslon.
Following the dfseusslon It was deelded to Invite the Counelf to a Joint
meeting at the second Aprl I maetlng. the public hearings are to be set
for 7:00 p.lll. In order 'to provide tlma to meet with 'the Council after
the hearing.
9. Approval of Plannl.n9 Commission Minutes of March 6, 1973. The Planning
Commission minutes of March 6, 1973 were approved. Motion for approval
by COIllIlIlssloner Garin, second by Contmlssioner Oswald. Motion cerrled on
vol ce vote.
10. Review of Counell Minutes of Mitl"ch 12. 1973. The Council mi nutes of
March 12, 1973 were reviewed.
II. Accelltanc:e of Council Volleybal I Match. The Planning Commission has
accepted the Council's ehallenge to a volleyvalf match. Chai rman Ostlund
appointed CoInnllssloner Sueker to arrange for a place and time.
12. Additional Comments/ReQuests frolll Cltlzens~ Commissioners and S'taff.
Chairman Ostlund highlighted the Monthly Ac'tlvlty Report for February.
Councilman Enck Indicated In a note' to Chairman Ostlund that he would
like to speak to Commissioner Meyer in regards to the sign ordinance.
Mr. Enck s'tated that there were planning sellllnars available for the Com-
mission held at the North Hennepl n Sta'te Junior College. He stated that
'they were putting oogether one on zoning and that mambers of the Planning
Commission Illlght be Interested.
Chal rman Ostl und sa I d that he waul d Ii lee to request that wam i ng baekup
devices be Instal/ed on Village equipment, espeelally the park equlpmant.
13. Announc:emants. None.
14. Ad.loumment. The meeting was adJoumed at 9:00 p.lll. on mo'tlon by
CoInnllssloner Sueker, second by Commissioner Cameron, earrled on 1I01c:e vote.
Respeeful iy submitted,
~
/ ~.
\' . ~ CAd \ ~\,.Q.J,-",
...,& ^,~ '" "'" v...
Denise Schrader
Recording Secretary